The Romney campaign's actual response to if they support Lily Ledbetter:
"We'll get back to you on that."
They decided they did about an hour later.
To be honest, and fair, I'd rather a politician say, "Uh, hang on a sec, let me double check what that is" in response to things, rather than be held up by a metaphorical gun to give an answer ASAP.
I should have mentioned that they were holding a press availability on women's issues at the time. And equal pay has been in the news lately, what with Wisconsin.
Not to mention the President has been trumpeting that accomplishment for literally three years now.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Rolling Stone did an article on Obama's campaign strategies, and they predicted three campaign scenarios, and they all have Obama losing pretty much every state not located on the West coast and the Northeast.
Also, the maps had Obama losing PA, Ohio and Michigan IIRC.
Rolling Stone did an article on Obama's campaign strategies, and they predicted three campaign scenarios, and they all have Obama losing pretty much every state not located on the West coast and the Northeast.
The Romney campaign's actual response to if they support Lily Ledbetter:
"We'll get back to you on that."
They decided they did about an hour later.
To be honest, and fair, I'd rather a politician say, "Uh, hang on a sec, let me double check what that is" in response to things, rather than be held up by a metaphorical gun to give an answer ASAP.
I should have mentioned that they were holding a press availability on women's issues at the time. And equal pay has been in the news lately, what with Wisconsin.
Not to mention the President has been trumpeting that accomplishment for literally three years now.
Oh okay, then the answer was kinda dumb.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
Rolling Stone did an article on Obama's campaign strategies, and they predicted three campaign scenarios, and they all have Obama losing pretty much every state not located on the West coast and the Northeast.
No they didn't.
That was one of the electoral-mapmakers I was actually referring to. I had Rolling Stone specifically in mind.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Rolling Stone did an article on Obama's campaign strategies, and they predicted three campaign scenarios, and they all have Obama losing pretty much every state not located on the West coast and the Northeast.
No they didn't.
When you say "No they didn't," do you mean Rolling Stone did no such article, or do you mean the results are not as dbrock described?
Rolling Stone did an article on Obama's campaign strategies, and they predicted three campaign scenarios, and they all have Obama losing pretty much every state not located on the West coast and the Northeast.
No they didn't.
It's on page 37 of the current issue. And I was mistaken, it has Obama winning the northeast, the west coast, and Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and basically all typical blue states.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Rolling Stone did an article on Obama's campaign strategies, and they predicted three campaign scenarios, and they all have Obama losing pretty much every state not located on the West coast and the Northeast.
Also, the maps had Obama losing PA, Ohio and Michigan IIRC.
Anyone saying that is pretty, uh, what's the nice way of saying "incredibly stupid"?
The one weird anomaly about polling I've seen this year is that Ohio tends to have a bigger Obama advantage than Pennsylvania. I'm aware they fucking loathe Kasich, but it has continually surprised me.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Rolling Stone did an article on Obama's campaign strategies, and they predicted three campaign scenarios, and they all have Obama losing pretty much every state not located on the West coast and the Northeast.
Rolling Stone also predicted a landslide win for John Kerry.
Rolling Stone makes its money by selling magazines to people who are legitimately interested in what Katy Perry has to say about anything.
Yes, you know who is going to win against the guy who won the Presidency in a landslide in an election where nearly 130 million votes were cast? The 76 year old 4th place guy in the Republican primaries who could barely crack 10% in the primaries.
This, so very much this. Ron Paul is a niche candidate even inside the republican party. A guy who can't break 10% in a primary season where ideological purity towards conservative ideals was a must is a complete nobody.
I think even Ron Paul knew he was a nobody, he only ran to move the overton window a bit further to the right and get his ideas presented on a national stage. The most ideologically conservative part of the voting population rejected his views and candidacy, in general he would have been slaughtered. We are talking McGovern losing all 50 states slaughtered.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Rolling Stone did an article on Obama's campaign strategies, and they predicted three campaign scenarios, and they all have Obama losing pretty much every state not located on the West coast and the Northeast.
No they didn't.
It's on page 37 of the current issue. And I was mistaken, it has Obama winning the northeast, the west coast, and Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and basically all typical blue states.
Is this the article you're referring to?
They are "paths to victory." As in "this is the minimum Obama needs to win." And its not a projection from RS, its from Jim Messina, Obama's advisor, and its been out there for ~6 months.
Unless its something else I'm missing, in which case, link?
Yes, you know who is going to win against the guy who won the Presidency in a landslide in an election where nearly 130 million votes were cast? The 76 year old 4th place guy in the Republican primaries who could barely crack 10% in the primaries.
This, so very much this. Ron Paul is a niche candidate even inside the republican party. A guy who can't break 10% in a primary season where ideological purity towards conservative ideals was a must is a complete nobody.
I think even Ron Paul knew he was a nobody, he only ran to move the overton window a bit further to the right and get his ideas presented on a national stage. The most ideologically conservative part of the voting population rejected his views and candidacy, in general he would have been slaughtered. We are talking McGovern losing all 50 states slaughtered.
In fairness, Paul isn't moving the window rightward. He's moving it somewhere, but probably not rightward.
Downward?
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Is this going to be one of those logic gaps where not winning everything-ever means you lose, despite passing the goal post for victory?
Rolling Stone did an article on Obama's campaign strategies, and they predicted three campaign scenarios, and they all have Obama losing pretty much every state not located on the West coast and the Northeast.
No they didn't.
It's on page 37 of the current issue. And I was mistaken, it has Obama winning the northeast, the west coast, and Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and basically all typical blue states.
Is this the article you're referring to?
They are "paths to victory." As in "this is the minimum Obama needs to win." And its not a projection from RS, its from Jim Messina, Obama's advisor, and its been out there for ~6 months.
Unless its something else I'm missing, in which case, link?
It wasn't in that article. There were actual images of the electoral map, it was in the issue of the magazine it was published in. But it never detailed who made those predictions, all it said was "The Obama campaign has laid out these handful of scenarios," and it shows Obama's delegate count with him winning by only 6-10 delegates, but if they're actually from Jim Messina, I apologize.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Yes, you know who is going to win against the guy who won the Presidency in a landslide in an election where nearly 130 million votes were cast? The 76 year old 4th place guy in the Republican primaries who could barely crack 10% in the primaries.
This, so very much this. Ron Paul is a niche candidate even inside the republican party. A guy who can't break 10% in a primary season where ideological purity towards conservative ideals was a must is a complete nobody.
I think even Ron Paul knew he was a nobody, he only ran to move the overton window a bit further to the right and get his ideas presented on a national stage. The most ideologically conservative part of the voting population rejected his views and candidacy, in general he would have been slaughtered. We are talking McGovern losing all 50 states slaughtered.
In fairness, Paul isn't moving the window rightward. He's moving it somewhere, but probably not rightward.
Yes, you know who is going to win against the guy who won the Presidency in a landslide in an election where nearly 130 million votes were cast? The 76 year old 4th place guy in the Republican primaries who could barely crack 10% in the primaries.
This, so very much this. Ron Paul is a niche candidate even inside the republican party. A guy who can't break 10% in a primary season where ideological purity towards conservative ideals was a must is a complete nobody.
I think even Ron Paul knew he was a nobody, he only ran to move the overton window a bit further to the right and get his ideas presented on a national stage. The most ideologically conservative part of the voting population rejected his views and candidacy, in general he would have been slaughtered. We are talking McGovern losing all 50 states slaughtered.
In fairness, Paul isn't moving the window rightward. He's moving it somewhere, but probably not rightward.
Rolling Stone did an article on Obama's campaign strategies, and they predicted three campaign scenarios, and they all have Obama losing pretty much every state not located on the West coast and the Northeast.
No they didn't.
It's on page 37 of the current issue. And I was mistaken, it has Obama winning the northeast, the west coast, and Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and basically all typical blue states.
Is this the article you're referring to?
They are "paths to victory." As in "this is the minimum Obama needs to win." And its not a projection from RS, its from Jim Messina, Obama's advisor, and its been out there for ~6 months.
Unless its something else I'm missing, in which case, link?
It wasn't in that article. There were actual images of the electoral map, it was in the issue of the magazine it was published in. But it never detailed who made those predictions, all it said was "The Obama campaign has laid out these handful of scenarios," and it shows Obama's delegate count with him winning by only 6-10 delegates, but if they're actually from Jim Messina, I apologize.
It is that article, I have a subscription(for some reason that has never been clear to me... I don't pay for it, it just shows up). Print editions and digital editions are not identical, I confirmed by going to the website and checking "current edition." Its got Katniss looking pretty good in a white shirt on the front. Two of the "paths" are in the text
Looking at the polls, Obama is probably closer to 370 than 270. Obama is an incumbent President who won in a landslide vs a weak Republican opponent. He's the favorite and despite media spin has been for a while. Its not over by any stretch, he still needs to campaign and people need to work....but let's not lie to ourselves.
If the Republican battleground states include Virgina (as in - you actually have to campaign in, and spend money here) you have a shitty road ahead of you. You do not want to be spending time and money on states that prior to 2008 voted republican for 50 years. And the hilarious thing is Romney will still probably lose this state anyway, after all the women's rights issues sprung up up after McDonnell's legislation.
If the Republican battleground states include Virgina (as in - you actually have to campaign in, and spend money here) you have a shitty road ahead of you. You do not want to be spending time and money on states that prior to 2008 voted republican for 50 years. And the hilarious thing is Romney will still probably lose this state anyway, after all the women's rights issues sprung up up after McDonnell's legislation.
I'm not sure Virginia is even a battleground at the moment. Which, yes, means they're fucked.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The Romney campaign's actual response to if they support Lily Ledbetter:
"We'll get back to you on that."
They decided they did about an hour later.
To be honest, and fair, I'd rather a politician say, "Uh, hang on a sec, let me double check what that is" in response to things, rather than be held up by a metaphorical gun to give an answer ASAP.
I should have mentioned that they were holding a press availability on women's issues at the time. And equal pay has been in the news lately, what with Wisconsin.
Not to mention the President has been trumpeting that accomplishment for literally three years now.
Oh okay, then the answer was kinda dumb.
Well, it creates kind of a conundrum for Romney.
It's an incredibly popular piece of legislation, so he has to support it.
But it's also supported by Obama, so he has to oppose it.
You don't understand just how difficult it is to simultaneously occupy every possible position on the political spectrum.
Yes, you know who is going to win against the guy who won the Presidency in a landslide in an election where nearly 130 million votes were cast? The 76 year old 4th place guy in the Republican primaries who could barely crack 10% in the primaries.
This, so very much this. Ron Paul is a niche candidate even inside the republican party. A guy who can't break 10% in a primary season where ideological purity towards conservative ideals was a must is a complete nobody.
I think even Ron Paul knew he was a nobody, he only ran to move the overton window a bit further to the right and get his ideas presented on a national stage. The most ideologically conservative part of the voting population rejected his views and candidacy, in general he would have been slaughtered. We are talking McGovern losing all 50 states slaughtered.
In fairness, Paul isn't moving the window rightward. He's moving it somewhere, but probably not rightward.
Ron Paul COULD appeal to a bunch of people, but then the other half of his ideas make those people all hate him.
Liked by GOP-types; Hates gays and abortion, wants tax cuts for the rich, wants poor people to die on the street.
Hated by GOP-types; wants to end the war on drugs, wants to end regular ol' war, wants to stop domestic spying.
Liked by DEM-types; wants to end the war on drugs, wants to end regular ol' war, wants to stop domestic spying.
Hated by DEM-types; hates gays and abortion, wants tax cuts for the rich, wants poor people to die on the streets.
Ron Paul has, basically, no base and has no chance of gaining one without dropping half his shtick. Except for racists, I guess. Those guys love him.
The more you look at the numbers the big issue here seems to be not whether Obama can win, but how far left he can he be and still win. If he runs on a solid centrist 'America is great, nothing of particular note for anyone!' platform then he will obliterate Romney but not really have a mandate to do anything. I'm hoping we can see some real change this time, rather than just hope for change.
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
"Mandates" are for people who can run for another term. If Obama's elected again he can have free pot on state-run, solar-powered welfare trains. I'd rather see him get elected first, especially compared to the guy who's running against him.
edit- and yeah Congress is going to be the determining factor in approving anything.
Ron Paul basically has to make up his mind already and decide what he hates more: gays and abortion or the federal government.
He gets to have it both ways: Nowhere in his philosophy is it against the constitution for the states to outlaw gays and abortion. Its only against the constitution for the federal government to do it.
Most Paultards that tout his "socially liberal" stances forget that he is off the opinion that Segregation was perfectly legal.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The more you look at the numbers the big issue here seems to be not whether Obama can win, but how far left he can he be and still win. If he runs on a solid centrist 'America is great, nothing of particular note for anyone!' platform then he will obliterate Romney but not really have a mandate to do anything. I'm hoping we can see some real change this time, rather than just hope for change.
I would say if he gets a good percentage win on a sold centrist America is great message, it'll be a good change from what we've gotten lately, particularly if its coupled with the return of a sane Congress.
Every place that's tried to do an electoral map I've seen has all but ignored outright what the polls are saying and doing this instead:
A) Determine what states are the tipping-point states. Arbitrarily award states in such a fashion that those tipping-point states actually end up deciding things.
C) Sound the alarm about how Obama has to win those states or else he loses, ignoring all those pesky polls that might screw up the narrative by noting how far ahead he actually is in those states plus a number of others they gave to Romney just because.
Isn't this the driving force behind the modern iteration of American mass media? They're trying to drive up ratings by framing the current race as a do or die moment for democrats and republicans. Nowadays whenever I hear "Romney", it's almost impossible for me to not think of Kerry.
[rant]Somewhat related to the above (but not really pertaining to the thread so feel free and ignore), the current media infrastructure in this country is the most damning indictment against capitalism I have ever seen. We have the most prosperous network in the history of television news broadcasting acting like they're the outsiders and the only ones willing to speak truth to power. We know this isn't reality, but there are enough people who eat this "reporting" up like it's Gospel fact to rocket Fox News into its current position. Rational Consumer? Lol, what's that?[/rant]
Let's be frank here, Obamacare isn't going to survive the Supreme Court. And while that may not have much impact on the election since Obamacare is essentially based off Romneycare (which Republicans can still rebut using the state right vs federal government argument), the bottom line is that if Obamacare fails, a lot of Obama's domestic credentials get flushed down with it.
Let's be frank here, Obamacare isn't going to survive the Supreme Court. And while that may not have much impact on the election since Obamacare is essentially based off Romneycare (which Republicans can still rebut using the state right vs federal government argument), the bottom line is that if Obamacare fails, a lot of Obama's domestic credentials get flushed down with it.
And the health plan that Romney initially championed going down in the Supreme Court couldn't hurt Romney in any way? I suspect this could be spun both ways, if that's what they decide.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Let's be frank here, as we speak Obama is trying to initiate a government takeover of medicare (since Obamacare is based off of Romneycare). His ultimate goal is to turn the United States of America over to Russia, and the bottom line is that if Obama succeeds in this we'll be destroyed by muslims. FACT.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Posts
So...
It's really Obama's race to lose at this point.
I should have mentioned that they were holding a press availability on women's issues at the time. And equal pay has been in the news lately, what with Wisconsin.
Not to mention the President has been trumpeting that accomplishment for literally three years now.
Also, the maps had Obama losing PA, Ohio and Michigan IIRC.
No they didn't.
You don't
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Oh okay, then the answer was kinda dumb.
That was one of the electoral-mapmakers I was actually referring to. I had Rolling Stone specifically in mind.
When you say "No they didn't," do you mean Rolling Stone did no such article, or do you mean the results are not as dbrock described?
It's on page 37 of the current issue. And I was mistaken, it has Obama winning the northeast, the west coast, and Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and basically all typical blue states.
Anyone saying that is pretty, uh, what's the nice way of saying "incredibly stupid"?
I mean, Ohio's a special case I guess, but still.
The one weird anomaly about polling I've seen this year is that Ohio tends to have a bigger Obama advantage than Pennsylvania. I'm aware they fucking loathe Kasich, but it has continually surprised me.
Rolling Stone also predicted a landslide win for John Kerry.
Rolling Stone makes its money by selling magazines to people who are legitimately interested in what Katy Perry has to say about anything.
Also, I'd love to see those articles. Citation?
This, so very much this. Ron Paul is a niche candidate even inside the republican party. A guy who can't break 10% in a primary season where ideological purity towards conservative ideals was a must is a complete nobody.
I think even Ron Paul knew he was a nobody, he only ran to move the overton window a bit further to the right and get his ideas presented on a national stage. The most ideologically conservative part of the voting population rejected his views and candidacy, in general he would have been slaughtered. We are talking McGovern losing all 50 states slaughtered.
They are "paths to victory." As in "this is the minimum Obama needs to win." And its not a projection from RS, its from Jim Messina, Obama's advisor, and its been out there for ~6 months.
Unless its something else I'm missing, in which case, link?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
In fairness, Paul isn't moving the window rightward. He's moving it somewhere, but probably not rightward.
Downward?
It wasn't in that article. There were actual images of the electoral map, it was in the issue of the magazine it was published in. But it never detailed who made those predictions, all it said was "The Obama campaign has laid out these handful of scenarios," and it shows Obama's delegate count with him winning by only 6-10 delegates, but if they're actually from Jim Messina, I apologize.
Paulward.
Backward, I think.
Steam | Twitter
It is that article, I have a subscription(for some reason that has never been clear to me... I don't pay for it, it just shows up). Print editions and digital editions are not identical, I confirmed by going to the website and checking "current edition." Its got Katniss looking pretty good in a white shirt on the front. Two of the "paths" are in the text
Looking at the polls, Obama is probably closer to 370 than 270. Obama is an incumbent President who won in a landslide vs a weak Republican opponent. He's the favorite and despite media spin has been for a while. Its not over by any stretch, he still needs to campaign and people need to work....but let's not lie to ourselves.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I'm not sure Virginia is even a battleground at the moment. Which, yes, means they're fucked.
Well, it creates kind of a conundrum for Romney.
It's an incredibly popular piece of legislation, so he has to support it.
But it's also supported by Obama, so he has to oppose it.
You don't understand just how difficult it is to simultaneously occupy every possible position on the political spectrum.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Indeed.
Liked by GOP-types; Hates gays and abortion, wants tax cuts for the rich, wants poor people to die on the street.
Hated by GOP-types; wants to end the war on drugs, wants to end regular ol' war, wants to stop domestic spying.
Liked by DEM-types; wants to end the war on drugs, wants to end regular ol' war, wants to stop domestic spying.
Hated by DEM-types; hates gays and abortion, wants tax cuts for the rich, wants poor people to die on the streets.
Ron Paul has, basically, no base and has no chance of gaining one without dropping half his shtick. Except for racists, I guess. Those guys love him.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
edit- and yeah Congress is going to be the determining factor in approving anything.
He gets to have it both ways: Nowhere in his philosophy is it against the constitution for the states to outlaw gays and abortion. Its only against the constitution for the federal government to do it.
Most Paultards that tout his "socially liberal" stances forget that he is off the opinion that Segregation was perfectly legal.
I would say if he gets a good percentage win on a sold centrist America is great message, it'll be a good change from what we've gotten lately, particularly if its coupled with the return of a sane Congress.
Isn't this the driving force behind the modern iteration of American mass media? They're trying to drive up ratings by framing the current race as a do or die moment for democrats and republicans. Nowadays whenever I hear "Romney", it's almost impossible for me to not think of Kerry.
[rant]Somewhat related to the above (but not really pertaining to the thread so feel free and ignore), the current media infrastructure in this country is the most damning indictment against capitalism I have ever seen. We have the most prosperous network in the history of television news broadcasting acting like they're the outsiders and the only ones willing to speak truth to power. We know this isn't reality, but there are enough people who eat this "reporting" up like it's Gospel fact to rocket Fox News into its current position. Rational Consumer? Lol, what's that?[/rant]
And the health plan that Romney initially championed going down in the Supreme Court couldn't hurt Romney in any way? I suspect this could be spun both ways, if that's what they decide.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.