Thread: obama's 2012 campaign

^ Erm, where's he been the past two months since he said the private sector is creating jobs? People, Entertainment something or other...the WH press corpse (sic) is wondering WTF the man is hiding? Trying to cover up Biden's gaffes by sticking his head in the sand?

remember when the zany right-wingers were trying to claim that there was a serious rift between obama and clinton?

and you may have noticed that the romney campaign has been speaking positively the clinton years.

well, it looks like clinton is determined to set things straight:

It's called selling the recovery?
Like we need to hear from more experienced liers

“Worried that people won’t believe what their own experience tells them is not true, the Obama campaign deploys an experienced liar.”

Plus, if we're talking about confidence or ethics coming from the Obama Team, check this out:

Team Obama breaks precedent to try to spoil Romney’s convention.

“Bucking protocol, President Obama and the Democrats are planning a full-scale assault on Republicans next week during their convention.” Wait, “assault?” That sounds kinda violent. I thought the use of such language by politicians and their supporters was dangerously provocative. Of course, you can now assume that Obama operatives are presumptively to blame for any disturbances."

They're gonna get their collective asses kicked for sure!

^^Trying to run on Clinton's economy too. You'd think after 3 years he'd have something to say about himself. Where are those long winded speeches about "I" and "me"?

The Obamas' Ego Trip to Copenhagen
by George F. Will
Tuesday, October 6, 2009

In the 41 sentences of her remarks, Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns "I" or "me" 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences. Still, 70 times in 89 sentences conveyed the message that somehow their fascinating selves were what made, or should have made, Chicago's case compelling.

No wonder he likes to sing. He warms up with "memememememe!"

8 1/2 weeks away......Lot of "toss-up" states according to the polling. This analysis focuses on what we know: the economy.

Analysis of election factors points to Romney win, University of Colorado study says

August 22, 2012 • Social Sciences • Discovery & Innovation, Discoveries & Achievements, Research Collaborations


A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney.

Analysis of election factors points to Romney win, University of Colorado study says | University of Colorado Boulder

^ Interesting. In contrast, HuffPo's election dashboard is still predicting a 'fairly' comfortable win for Obama. Amidst a plethora of polls, pundits and pollsters, I tend to follow this one because it aggregates them all (including rasmussen), so it is a de facto average.
Obama vs. Romney Electoral Map

Their election dashboard has been showing a gradual deterioration of Obama's lead. From a situation where, roughly a month ago, Obama did not need to carry any 'toss-up' or swing state, now the Dem's need to win two of these to win the election. Of concern also is the fact that the centrist Obama administration has mainly only disappointed it's sizable Progressive base- so will they be motivated to get out and vote in numbers? We'll see.

I'm predicting a Democrat win, no change there, but they can hardly rest on their laurels. The problem with politically middle of the road voters everywhere is apathy- whomever you vote for, same old same old really, innit? In which case, I assume they think the GOP is lying about it's quite radical plans to dismantle government services.

^I've been watching the electoral map slowly slide away from him. Romney is not gaining much ground electoral-wise but Obama is slipping in states which were a lock. Oregon is no longer a lock though it still leans Obama.

The Democrats do not have enthusiasm on their side. Which is why they have resorted to the "felony" and "murderer" accusations.

Blacks will not come out in the same numbers. The youth will not come out in the same numbers. The 2008 election was a historical event. Many people turned out to be part of history. that isn't going to happen this time for the Democrats. Rrepublicans are the one's who see this election as a historical event. This is the deciding election whether we go the way of Europe or whether we remain the City on the Hill and a shining light in a world of encroaching darkness.

Originally Posted by attaboy

the City on the Hill

Sorry, but the USA lost that accolade in real terms quite some years ago, although in the popular imagination some years less ago. This 'City on the Hill' now exists mainly for it's rich, and to preserve their existing privilege- which makes it more of a Fortress than a City really. Your average living standards and social mobility have even been left behind by olde Europe, never mind Canada and Australia- where our "average Joe's" earn something like double yours, and still enjoy the 'American dream' of social mobility regardless of who their daddy was, or where they went to school.

Canada and Australia? They haven't suffered a housing-based recession have they? Wages in the USA are going to be suppressed for quite some time, especially for lower middle-class with no college degree.

Originally Posted by attaboy

They haven't suffered a housing-based recession have they?

Australia has weathered a considerable downturn in real estate actually, albeit not as severe as your own. Dunno about the loonies.
Much of your populace was so leveraged to the housing market that the hangover will indeed take a while to subside. Some of ours were over-leveraged too, but the job situation and larger disposable income of our Bruce's ameliorated that effect in the overall economy.

The middle class will be upside down in their homes for decades. So their personal wealth will stagnate while it parallels the value of their home.

Originally Posted by attaboy

^
Blacks will not come out in the same numbers. The youth will not come out in the same numbers. The 2008 election was a historical event. Many people turned out to be part of history. that isn't going to happen this time for the Democrats.

In 2004 there was a 60% voter turnout.

In 2008 there was a 61% voter turnout.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by attaboy

Which is why they have resorted to the "felony" and "murderer" accusations.

the simple fact is that the obama campaign and its surrogates haven't made those accusations.

Beg to differ, ray:

Obama spokesperson Stephanie Cutter refused to condemn Priorities USA Ad (August 9, 2012) that blames Mitt Romney for the death of a woman in Kansas City.
Cutter is the same person who called Mitt Rommey a felon in July.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...-killer-video/


Anything to get the public's focus off JOBS, the economy, the debt, the deficit, the welfare/food stamp roll...must be hard when folks are losing their homes, standing in job lines, feeding their kids KD, and living in SHAME

And how embarrassing to have to pull out Clinton coz you have no laurels to stand on. SICK

Originally Posted by Minnie Maugham

Beg to differ, ray:

you can beg to differ to you heart's content....but that won't change the facts.

the obama campaign and it's surrogates never called romney a murderer or a felon.

a campaign spokesperson did say that romney either lied to voters or committed a felony. this is not the same as calling someone a felon.

and btw, it's true.....romney did one of two things...he lied to voters or committed a felony. if he doesn't want to admit committing a felony, then he'll have to admit he lied to voters.

Originally Posted by Minnie Maugham

Anything to get the public's focus off JOBS, the economy, the debt, the deficit, the welfare/food stamp roll.

1. if republicans keep saying unbelievably stupid things that alienate half of the electorate, that's their problem.

2. republicans have controlled the house for two years, and campaigned on 'jobs, jobs, jobs". where are the jobs....and why have they passed so much legislation on abortion? for example, HR 3....the third bill passed by boehner's house, and co sponsored by paul ryan, introduced america to the term, "forcible rape".

Originally Posted by Minnie Maugham

must be hard when folks are losing their homes, standing in job lines, feeding their kids KD, and living in SHAME

would you like to go back to 2007/2008 and check your posts about people standing in job lines? i'll be happy to post some of your comments about the people losing their homes and feeding their kids. just say the word.

Originally Posted by Minnie Maugham

And how embarrassing to have to pull out Clinton coz you have no laurels to stand on. SICK

sick, eh?

errr...it's a tried and true method which both parties have used for a very long time......the only reason a political party wouldn't do it is if the former leaders have incredibly high unfavorable numbers---like GWB and cheney.

and btw, the obama administration has significant laurels to stand on--the list has been posted many, many times. just because you don't support these accomplishments doesn't mean that the majority of americans don't.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Minnie Maugham

Beg to differ, ray:

you can beg to differ to you heart's content....but that won't change the facts.

You conveniently deleted the name Stephanie Cutter and the links to her. You can google it by yourself and discover the real facts you missed. I ain't lying.

Originally Posted by Minnie Maugham

You conveniently deleted the name Stephanie Cutter and the links to her.

From your own link:

“Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony."
"Or," she said, "he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments,”

She didn't call Romney a felon, she said the lying on the SEC forms is a felony offence. Is that not true?

Originally Posted by sabang

^ Interesting. In contrast, HuffPo's election dashboard is still predicting a 'fairly' comfortable win for Obama.

The HuffPo. That says it all, sabang. Worse in many ways than a conservative strictly quoting Rassmusson.

Inquiring objective minds tend to put credence in trusted sources:

"When has an incumbent candidate ever won when he is tied with his challenger on election eve? The answer is never - at least in the age of polling that began in the 1930s," says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.

Going over the final polls, he writes in the latest issue of his Crystal Ball e-newsletter, the most impressive finding is that the Gallup poll, for the first time in its seven-decade history, has given its final prediction as a tie: 49 percent for Bush, 49 percent for John Kerry, 1 percent for Ralph Nader and 1 percent divided among the Libertarian, Constitution and other tickets."


A more 'trusted' source than the very left-leaning HuffPo

So, if Fox did a 'Poll of Polls', namely an aggregate of all Polling organisations no matter what their perceived bias, it would then be 'accurate' booner ? It is of course utterly irrelevant who publishes the 'election dashboard', because there is no cherry picking of sources- all accredited Polling organisations are included. I certainly find that easier than picking thru' an endless cascade of Pew, Rasmussen, Gallup, etc surveys individually.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by attaboy

^
Blacks will not come out in the same numbers. The youth will not come out in the same numbers. The 2008 election was a historical event. Many people turned out to be part of history. that isn't going to happen this time for the Democrats.

In 2004 there was a 60% voter turnout.

In 2008 there was a 61% voter turnout.

So what? People voted for Obama to be part of the history making process. That isn't going to happen this time around.

Originally Posted by sabang

So, if Fox did a 'Poll of Polls', namely an aggregate of all Polling organisations no matter what their perceived bias, it would then be 'accurate' booner ? It is of course utterly irrelevant who publishes the 'election dashboard', because there is no cherry picking of sources- all accredited Polling organisations are included. I certainly find that easier than picking thru' an endless cascade of Pew, Rasmussen, Gallup, etc surveys individually.

Fair enough but a poll generated by a left-wing bunch like the HuffPo is immediately suspect as say one done by FrontPage Magazine, eh?

"Forcible rape". The first time I heard that term was probably on a cop/crime television show.


This from a college public safety notice:

Public Safety: FBI Definitions of Crime Categories for Required Statistical Reporting


The definitions for murder, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, weapon law violations, drug abuse violations, and liquor law violations are excerpted from the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook. The definitions of forcible and nonforcible sex offenses are excerpted from the National Incident-Based Reporting System Edition of the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook.
Criminal Homicide

Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter – The willful (non-negligent) killing of one human being by another.

Negligent Manslaughter – The killing of another person through gross negligence.
Sex Offenses

Forcible – Any sexual act directed against another person, forcibly and/or against that person’s will; or not forcibly or against the person’s will where the victim is incapable of giving consent.

1. Forcible rape - The carnal knowledge of a person, forcibly and/or against that person’s will; or not forcibly or against the person’s will where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity (or because of his/her youth).

Non-Forcible – Unlawful, nonforcible sexual intercourse.

1. Incest–Nonforcible sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law.
2. Statutory Rape–Nonforcible sexual intercourse with a person who is under the statutory age of consent.

Ramapo College of New Jersey || Public Safety: FBI Definitions of Crime Categories for Required Statistical Reporting

Originally Posted by attaboy

Forcible rape - The carnal knowledge of a person, forcibly and/or against that person’s will; or not forcibly or against the person’s will where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity (or because of his/her youth).
Non-Forcible – Unlawful, nonforcible sexual intercourse. Incest–Nonforcible sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law. Statutory Rape–Nonforcible sexual intercourse with a person who is under the statutory age of consent.

One says it is forcible because a person is not capable of consent because of their youth...the other so-called non-forcible rape because the person is under the age of consent. Seems these two definitions are based on a distinction without a difference or are at least self-contradictory.

I noticed the same thing.

I think forcible rape the youth is of such a young age they are incapable of conceiving the concept of consent. They are talking about a child. While saturtory rape they are talking of teen who by virtue of law is under the age of consent while they may be understanding of consent.

(I dashed that off)