Obama said he'd close Gitmo and still hasn't. FAIL.
Mitt is clearly all about enriching Mitt.
Really, can't you guys find anyone better than these two?
Maybe you can send us some ......
Let me ask you, looking from the outside and having been here 4 years ago is it painfully obvious that if things like Gitmo(which was) and Fast & Furious were during the Republicans watch the Soulstrut masses would be screaming about it in multiple 10 pagers but since it's Obama, not a word(other than you)?
Does it look like hypocrisy from a neutral vantage point?
Obama said he'd close Gitmo and still hasn't. FAIL.
Mitt is clearly all about enriching Mitt.
Really, can't you guys find anyone better than these two?
Maybe you can send us some ......
Let me ask you, looking from the outside and having been here 4 years ago is it painfully obvious that if things like Gitmo(which was) and Fast & Furious were during the Republicans watch the Soulstrut masses would be screaming about it in multiple 10 pagers but since it's Obama, not a word(other than you)?
Does it look like hypocrisy from a neutral vantage point?
he tried to close Gitmo...but no state wanted to house the prisoners as they waited for trial, so he was shut down on this
Fast and furious was started in 2006...
Obama and the dems do have some things to answer for, but I will take them over a bigot who wants to see his country club wet dream come to fruition by privatizing every fucking thing in the US gov't.
Ok, I gotta go to work, someone has to pay those taxes so that corporate welfare can get paid out...
cue Patty Cakes typing in all capitals in a 12 yo girl's text-speak...go
Between Mitt's 47% comment and his remarks about the Palestinians not wanting peace, does anybody still think he has any chances?
Absolutely.....do you think being in NYC you have a good feel for how the rest of the country thinks?
... I'm not in NYC anymore, I'm basing my thoughts or assumptions on what I read on various international online news outlets so I have no real idea on how people anywhere in the US think. It does seem though that Mitt's already done pretty well in making himself look sort of disingenuous and clumsy and I would guess that Obama won't have much of a problem wiping the floor with him once the debates start.
Personally, I don't care much for either candidate but that's easy to say as a foreigner.
Does it look like hypocrisy from a neutral vantage point?
Isn't the issue more about intent? I may very well be wrong, but Obama wanted to close Gitmo and bring those to trial, no?. Congress de-funded the concept of using federal funds to move detainees to continental US where they might go on trial. If my recollection is correct, the only way to close Gitmo without being able to move these dudes to the US would be to let them go? The current alternative is have military tribunals and keep them on the island? Is there another way around for Obama to solve this issue?
So, couldn't you fairly argue that Obama does intend to close Gitmo, but cannot because of various degrees of bureaucratic issues, whereas GWB had no intent to close Gitmo at all? I am hardly a neatrual, but like Skel I do watch a lot of "soccer".
As for the 47% comment, as I am sure has been mentioned, this resembles all too much Obama's "cling to guns/religion" comment from 4 years ago. In the same manner, I react to the comments the same way. They are both crude, yet have some elements of truth in them. It???s hard for people to digest because in both examples they appear as elitist talking down on "us normal folk".
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Does it look like hypocrisy from a neutral vantage point?
Isn't the issue more about intent? I may very well be wrong, but Obama wanted to close Gitmo and bring those to trial, no?. Congress de-funded the concept of using federal funds to move detainees to continental US where they might go on trial. If my recollection is correct, the only way to close Gitmo without being able to move these dudes to the US would be to let them go? The current alternative is have military tribunals and keep them on the island? Is there another way around for Obama to solve this issue?
So, couldn't you fairly argue that Obama does intend to close Gitmo, but cannot because of various degrees of bureaucratic issues, whereas GWB had no intent to close Gitmo at all? I am hardly a neatrual, but like Skel I do watch a lot of "soccer".
As for the 47% comment, as I am sure has been mentioned, this resembles all too much Obama's "cling to guns/religion" comment from 4 years ago. In the same manner, I react to the comments the same way. They are both crude, yet have some elements of truth in them. It???s hard for people to digest because in both examples they appear as elitist talking down on "us normal folk".
Rich - Soulstrut skews liberal... there are plenty of message boards where people rant all day about Obama and would excuse the current Romney debacle ten ways 'till Sunday. Or GWB, or any Republcan.
Rich - Soulstrut skews liberal... there are plenty of message boards where people rant all day about Obama and would excuse the current Romney debacle ten ways 'till Sunday. Or GWB, or any Republcan.
It's not hypocrisy, it's tribalism.
Agreed 100%.....tribalism blinds the tribes....I was asking if people who are not MOT see it as hypocrisy...but your explanation is on point imo.
I think Rich makes some good points and I can't really see how anybody wouldn't look at Obama as a giant disappointment. Personally, I can't even listen to the guy speak anymore. They should make him return that peace nobel prize (that whole thing was a joke to begin with). I have a hard time understanding how anybody who voted for him doesn't feel like they didn't get what it said on the label. Maybe the only good thing to learn out of this is that your country really does need (at the very least) a third party.
All this said, I still think that Mitt would make a much worse pres than Obama but maybe sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. But then again how should anything ever get better.
Personally, I expected some things that in hindsight were naive, but on balance I did not expect all that much more than i would any American president, having lived through Clinton who did some good things and some awful ones, and moreover, was beholden to the same machine all politicians are. I've seen my share of crooked Democrats.
Ultimately, the things he did do, even when terribly compromised such as the ACA, are why I voted for him, and Romney's naked cynicism, his heartfelt (IMO) belief that most Americans should just proverbially eat cake, is why I could never vote for him.
I agree that we need a third party, but even they will be corrupted if we don't reform how money gets into and influences the political system in this country.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Frank said:
All this said, I still think that Mitt would make a much worse pres than Obama but maybe sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. But then again how should anything ever get better.
As a native of a country that chose a right-wing, vigorously pro-business government whose programme of public spending cuts has deepened the existing recession, over a loosely social-democratic centrist government with some major foreign policy and human rights errors to its name, let me assure you that you don't want to know how much worse it can get.
Let me ask you, looking from the outside and having been here 4 years ago is it painfully obvious that if things like Gitmo(which was) and Fast & Furious were during the Republicans watch the Soulstrut masses would be screaming about it in multiple 10 pagers but since it's Obama, not a word(other than you)?
Does it look like hypocrisy from a neutral vantage point?
I don't think you could get a liberal to give a damn about Fast & Furious unless you paid him big money to pretend he did, and that goes for the similar operation under Bush, too. That crap didn't originate on the presidential level under either Bush or Obama.
Obama said he'd close Gitmo and still hasn't. FAIL.
Mitt is clearly all about enriching Mitt.
Really, can't you guys find anyone better than these two?
Maybe you can send us some ......
Let me ask you, looking from the outside and having been here 4 years ago is it painfully obvious that if things like Gitmo(which was) and Fast & Furious were during the Republicans watch the Soulstrut masses would be screaming about it in multiple 10 pagers but since it's Obama, not a word(other than you)?
Does it look like hypocrisy from a neutral vantage point?
he tried to close Gitmo...but no state wanted to house the prisoners as they waited for trial, so he was shut down on this
Fast and furious was started in 2006...
Obama and the dems do have some things to answer for, but I will take them over a bigot who wants to see his country club wet dream come to fruition by privatizing every fucking thing in the US gov't.
Ok, I gotta go to work, someone has to pay those taxes so that corporate welfare can get paid out...
cue Patty Cakes typing in all capitals in a 12 yo girl's text-speak...go
Four years ago there was electricity in the air.....I heard it from all over the country and even down here in Texas. The majority of it was from young(er) people but lots of folks bought into the "Hope & Change". Like JP and others I didn't expect massive change and kinda laughed at those who thought Obama would role out some Liberal Utopia. Quite frankly I kinda expected exactly what we got.
This time around that electricity is no where to be found.....the young people I talk to who are not politically minded but voted for Obama now seem to be nonplussed. The excitement seems to have changed to apathy. I read an article this week about Black preachers telling their congregations not to vote!! The state of the world is in bad shape and those who thought having Obama as president would automatically make the rest of the world like us see that's not the case. I don't see the rallying and group support on the left that was there four years ago
On the other side of the coin there seems to be more excitement on the Republican side than there was in 2008. While the left wanted the world to think that the right LOVED Sarah Palin, most of them hated her (Yeah, yeah...there were some nuts on the far right who "liked" her). And people I spoke to voted for Obama over the prospect of Cain keeling over and the country being run by a Tina Fey character. While I don't think the right loves Romney or Ryan they are not turned off by them like they were with Palin.(You did notice Palin was nowhere to be seen at the RNC)
The right is rallying though, not so much for Romney but AGAINST Obama. Millions going to see films like Obama 2016...this is the Rights version of seeing a Michael Moore film and it's grossed $26 million. And the right rallies differently than the left...they do it quietly and more privately than the Left. I think that's why so many people were shocked by and didn't know how to deal with the Tea Party nonsense.
JP is right on target when he says that for every Liberal skewed "tribal" website there is an equal and opposite one. While some of you are coming here and saying "Mitt really put his foot in his mouth, how can he possibly win", the other 'tribe" is rallying behind anything and everything that means no more Obama.
And let's please agree with one thing.....45% or there abouts are going to vote for each candidate and the remaining 10% will make the difference. This is the same equation that we had in 2008. So if that same 10% who put Obama in office now vote him out it's not because they suddenly became racist in 2012.
Four years ago there was electricity in the air.....I heard it from all over the country and even down here in Texas. The majority of it was from young(er) people but lots of folks bought into the "Hope & Change". Like JP and others I didn't expect massive change and kinda laughed at those who thought Obama would role out some Liberal Utopia. Quite frankly I kinda expected exactly what we got.
This time around that electricity is no where to be found.....the young people I talk to who are not politically minded but voted for Obama now seem to be nonplussed. The excitement seems to have changed to apathy. I read an article this week about Black preachers telling their congregations not to vote!! The state of the world is in bad shape and those who thought having Obama as president would automatically make the rest of the world like us see that's not the case. I don't see the rallying and group support on the left that was there four years ago
On the other side of the coin there seems to be more excitement on the Republican side than there was in 2008. While the left wanted the world to think that the right LOVED Sarah Palin, most of them hated her (Yeah, yeah...there were some nuts on the far right who "liked" her). And people I spoke to voted for Obama over the prospect of Cain keeling over and the country being run by a Tina Fey character. While I don't think the right loves Romney or Ryan they are not turned off by them like they were with Palin.(You did notice Palin was nowhere to be seen at the RNC)
The right is rallying though, not so much for Romney but AGAINST Obama. Millions going to see films like Obama 2016...this is the Rights version of seeing a Michael Moore film and it's grossed $26 million. And the right rallies differently than the left...they do it quietly and more privately than the Left. I think that's why so many people were shocked by and didn't know how to deal with the Tea Party nonsense.
JP is right on target when he says that for every Liberal skewed "tribal" website there is an equal and opposite one. While some of you are coming here and saying "Mitt really put his foot in his mouth, how can he possibly win", the other 'tribe" is rallying behind anything and everything that means no more Obama.
And let's please agree with one thing.....45% or there abouts are going to vote for each candidate and the remaining 10% will make the difference. This is the same equation that we had in 2008. So if that same 10% who put Obama in office now vote him out it's not because they suddenly became racist in 2012.
Welp, while you all debate the merits of your candidate's and your own social/political stances (I am a social liberal/fiscal centrist, yep I am a democrat for capitalism) the final nail in Romney's bid for the presidency was almost hit home:
Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Vacated By State Supreme Court (huffpost)
Suppressing 750k to a Million voters through the Pennsylvania Voter ID Law made the republican potentially competitive in that state. We now are waiting for the lower-court to reconsider whether an injunction is warranted based on a strict criteria laid out by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. If the law fails to pass muster under these stricter terms Romney cannot win Pennsylvania. Why is this important? Without Florida Romney has very few paths to 270 electoral votes, Pennsylvania was part of a path to victory. Florida...
Here's where Romney ill timed leak of video where he dismisses nearly half the nation is important, this will probably hurt him in Florida. Home of a large retired population (retirees make nearly half of Romney's 47% because of the non-taxable status of social security). If you don't think the Obama campaign or various pro-Obama super pacs are not going to make hay on this issue I got a bridge in any city you like for sale.
This circle's back to Patrick's point of voter self interest and voting against the same... voters do it all the time.
For example: The canard that Obama's "cling to god and guns" was the same as Romney's "truth telling" is laughable. The former was making the case that democrats need to engage white, rural voters in Pennsylvania who are skeptical of the democratic message, where as the latter was a complete dismissal of nearly half the electorate. Yes, both were ill conceived but the messages were very different. White rural voters in Pennsylvania tend to vote Republican and have suffered economic hardship for 25 years. I don't see President Romney pushing to help them any time soon if I am to take him at his word. Yet, he will potentially still have their vote come election time (hence the messaging by Romney's campaign about "in god we trust" being removed from our currancy, a lie, or the NRA's histrionic conspiracy theories about Fast & Furious is a bid to turn Americans against guns a lead to stricter gun control, never ascribe malice to stupidity).
So, Florida. Sure Romney's words are going to bombard Florida in the form of campaign commercials but how many of those retirees are going to change their minds. Not all of them, probably not a lot of them (many will vote against their self interests) but enough will either sour on the candidate and not vote or switch candidates which is a disaster for Romney, the state is in a dead heat. And without Florida his chances to win are dim.
Side note, Republicans have lost voter suppression law fights in Ohio and Florida already.
As for the debates, they are not going to mean a thing. A recent study of 15 campaigns for President shows that convention means more to a candidate's success than the debates. There is plenty of folks that will say candidate X won the debate and then go and vote for candidate Y anyway. By the time the debates roll around there just are not that many swayable voters at that point.
Don't get me wrong, its not in the bag for Obama. All sorts of things can happen in 50 days. But to use poker terminology, Romney is "drawing dead" against Obama's strong hand and he has to hope that he hits that magic (and super low percentage) card on "the river". I think the "turn" just happened and did squat for Romney.
Welp, while you all debate the merits of your candidate's and your own social/political stances (I am a social liberal/fiscal centrist, yep I am a democrat for capitalism) the final nail in Romney's bid for the presidency was almost hit home:
Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Vacated By State Supreme Court (huffpost)
Suppressing 750k to a Million voters through the Pennsylvania Voter ID Law made the republican potentially competitive in that state. We now are waiting for the lower-court to reconsider whether an injunction is warranted based on a strict criteria laid out by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. If the law fails to pass muster under these stricter terms Romney cannot win Pennsylvania. Why is this important? Without Florida Romney has very few paths to 270 electoral votes, Pennsylvania was part of a path to victory. Florida...
Here's where Romney ill timed leak of video where he dismisses nearly half the nation is important, this will probably hurt him in Florida. Home of a large retired population (retirees make nearly half of Romney's 47% because of the non-taxable status of social security). If you don't think the Obama campaign or various pro-Obama super pacs are not going to make hay on this issue I got a bridge in any city you like for sale.
This circle's back to Patrick's point of voter self interest and voting against the same... voters do it all the time.
For example: The canard that Obama's "cling to god and guns" was the same as Romney's "truth telling" is laughable. The former was making the case that democrats need to engage white, rural voters in Pennsylvania who are skeptical of the democratic message, where as the latter was a complete dismissal of nearly half the electorate. Yes, both were ill conceived but the messages were very different. White rural voters in Pennsylvania tend to vote Republican and have suffered economic hardship for 25 years. I don't see President Romney pushing to help them any time soon if I am to take him at his word. Yet, he will potentially still have their vote come election time (hence the messaging by Romney's campaign about "in god we trust" being removed from our currancy, a lie, or the NRA's histrionic conspiracy theories about Fast & Furious is a bid to turn Americans against guns a lead to stricter gun control, never ascribe malice to stupidity).
So, Florida. Sure Romney's words are going to bombard Florida in the form of campaign commercials but how many of those retirees are going to change their minds. Not all of them, probably not a lot of them (many will vote against their self interests) but enough will either sour on the candidate and not vote or switch candidates which is a disaster for Romney, the state is in a dead heat. And without Florida his chances to win are dim.
Side note, Republicans have lost voter suppression law fights in Ohio and Florida already.
As for the debates, they are not going to mean a thing. A recent study of 15 campaigns for President shows that convention means more to a candidate's success than the debates. There is plenty of folks that will say candidate X won the debate and then go and vote for candidate Y anyway. By the time the debates roll around there just are not that many swayable voters at that point.
Don't get me wrong, its not in the bag for Obama. All sorts of things can happen in 50 days. But to use poker terminology, Romney is "drawing dead" against Obama's strong hand and he has to hope that he hits that magic (and super low percentage) card on "the river". I think the "turn" just happened and did squat for Romney.
There is some irony in the fact that you needed a picture ID to enter the DNC.
Rich - Obama 2016 will not gross half of what Fahrenheit 9/11 did. D'Souza is a total laughing stock. Calling Obama a Kenyan revolutionary? You can't be serious.
Something we haven't touched on much is that the Rep party and the Romney campaign are not winning the media war, despite a significant monetary advantage. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that creative advertising/graphic design/media types generally skew liberal. Hence the difference in conventions, for instance. And more savvy web content from the Obama folks.
I just read a survey that said a full third of TV watchers in a number of swing states DVR/Tivo their programs, skipping commercials. So those billions unleashed by Citizens United are just getting the FF button.
There is some irony in the fact that you needed a picture ID to enter the DNC.
Did the DNC check to see if they had enough activity on their bank statements as well? And if they didn't, they couldn't enter?
How is that ironic? Of course you have to keep tabs on people occupying the same building as people in office. Remember Gabby Giffords? This is the silliest argument when it comes to voter ID. It is akin to the specious argument of "why don't we ban knives also, you can kill a person with a knife" in the gun control argument.
There is some irony in the fact that you needed a picture ID to enter the DNC.
Did the DNC check to see if they had enough activity on their bank statements as well? And if they didn't, they couldn't enter?
How is that ironic? Of course you have to keep tabs on people occupying the same building as people in office. Remember Gabby Giffords? This is the silliest argument when it comes to voter ID. It is akin to the specious argument of "why don't we ban knives also, you can kill a person with a knife" in the gun control argument.
They had metal detectors there too.....people were complaining about having to take off all their campaign buttons to get through them.
Comments
Absolutely.....do you think being in NYC you have a good feel for how the rest of the country thinks?
Maybe you can send us some ......
Let me ask you, looking from the outside and having been here 4 years ago is it painfully obvious that if things like Gitmo(which was) and Fast & Furious were during the Republicans watch the Soulstrut masses would be screaming about it in multiple 10 pagers but since it's Obama, not a word(other than you)?
Does it look like hypocrisy from a neutral vantage point?
he tried to close Gitmo...but no state wanted to house the prisoners as they waited for trial, so he was shut down on this
Fast and furious was started in 2006...
Obama and the dems do have some things to answer for, but I will take them over a bigot who wants to see his country club wet dream come to fruition by privatizing every fucking thing in the US gov't.
Ok, I gotta go to work, someone has to pay those taxes so that corporate welfare can get paid out...
cue Patty Cakes typing in all capitals in a 12 yo girl's text-speak...go
... I'm not in NYC anymore, I'm basing my thoughts or assumptions on what I read on various international online news outlets so I have no real idea on how people anywhere in the US think. It does seem though that Mitt's already done pretty well in making himself look sort of disingenuous and clumsy and I would guess that Obama won't have much of a problem wiping the floor with him once the debates start.
Personally, I don't care much for either candidate but that's easy to say as a foreigner.
This is incorrect.....the specific operation known as "Fast & Furious" began in October of 2009.
Isn't the issue more about intent? I may very well be wrong, but Obama wanted to close Gitmo and bring those to trial, no?. Congress de-funded the concept of using federal funds to move detainees to continental US where they might go on trial. If my recollection is correct, the only way to close Gitmo without being able to move these dudes to the US would be to let them go? The current alternative is have military tribunals and keep them on the island? Is there another way around for Obama to solve this issue?
So, couldn't you fairly argue that Obama does intend to close Gitmo, but cannot because of various degrees of bureaucratic issues, whereas GWB had no intent to close Gitmo at all? I am hardly a neatrual, but like Skel I do watch a lot of "soccer".
As for the 47% comment, as I am sure has been mentioned, this resembles all too much Obama's "cling to guns/religion" comment from 4 years ago. In the same manner, I react to the comments the same way. They are both crude, yet have some elements of truth in them. It???s hard for people to digest because in both examples they appear as elitist talking down on "us normal folk".
We now return you to the scheduled edition of Politics Threads On Soul Strut.
Glenn Greenwald....take him or leave him...
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/
BTW...I totally agree with your last paragraph.
It's not hypocrisy, it's tribalism.
Agreed 100%.....tribalism blinds the tribes....I was asking if people who are not MOT see it as hypocrisy...but your explanation is on point imo.
All this said, I still think that Mitt would make a much worse pres than Obama but maybe sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. But then again how should anything ever get better.
Ultimately, the things he did do, even when terribly compromised such as the ACA, are why I voted for him, and Romney's naked cynicism, his heartfelt (IMO) belief that most Americans should just proverbially eat cake, is why I could never vote for him.
I agree that we need a third party, but even they will be corrupted if we don't reform how money gets into and influences the political system in this country.
As a native of a country that chose a right-wing, vigorously pro-business government whose programme of public spending cuts has deepened the existing recession, over a loosely social-democratic centrist government with some major foreign policy and human rights errors to its name, let me assure you that you don't want to know how much worse it can get.
This time around that electricity is no where to be found.....the young people I talk to who are not politically minded but voted for Obama now seem to be nonplussed. The excitement seems to have changed to apathy. I read an article this week about Black preachers telling their congregations not to vote!! The state of the world is in bad shape and those who thought having Obama as president would automatically make the rest of the world like us see that's not the case. I don't see the rallying and group support on the left that was there four years ago
On the other side of the coin there seems to be more excitement on the Republican side than there was in 2008. While the left wanted the world to think that the right LOVED Sarah Palin, most of them hated her (Yeah, yeah...there were some nuts on the far right who "liked" her). And people I spoke to voted for Obama over the prospect of Cain keeling over and the country being run by a Tina Fey character. While I don't think the right loves Romney or Ryan they are not turned off by them like they were with Palin.(You did notice Palin was nowhere to be seen at the RNC)
The right is rallying though, not so much for Romney but AGAINST Obama. Millions going to see films like Obama 2016...this is the Rights version of seeing a Michael Moore film and it's grossed $26 million. And the right rallies differently than the left...they do it quietly and more privately than the Left. I think that's why so many people were shocked by and didn't know how to deal with the Tea Party nonsense.
JP is right on target when he says that for every Liberal skewed "tribal" website there is an equal and opposite one. While some of you are coming here and saying "Mitt really put his foot in his mouth, how can he possibly win", the other 'tribe" is rallying behind anything and everything that means no more Obama.
And let's please agree with one thing.....45% or there abouts are going to vote for each candidate and the remaining 10% will make the difference. This is the same equation that we had in 2008. So if that same 10% who put Obama in office now vote him out it's not because they suddenly became racist in 2012.
This isn't really about that IMO.
Ask many old school republicans. Would Reagan get elected by the Republican party of today? The answer would be no...
The party has shifted big time IMO.
What color sheep am I??
b/w
Like Woody Allen, I would never belong to a club (tribe) that would accept someone like me as a member.
b/w
Elect me.
Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Vacated By State Supreme Court (huffpost)
Suppressing 750k to a Million voters through the Pennsylvania Voter ID Law made the republican potentially competitive in that state. We now are waiting for the lower-court to reconsider whether an injunction is warranted based on a strict criteria laid out by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. If the law fails to pass muster under these stricter terms Romney cannot win Pennsylvania. Why is this important? Without Florida Romney has very few paths to 270 electoral votes, Pennsylvania was part of a path to victory. Florida...
Here's where Romney ill timed leak of video where he dismisses nearly half the nation is important, this will probably hurt him in Florida. Home of a large retired population (retirees make nearly half of Romney's 47% because of the non-taxable status of social security). If you don't think the Obama campaign or various pro-Obama super pacs are not going to make hay on this issue I got a bridge in any city you like for sale.
This circle's back to Patrick's point of voter self interest and voting against the same... voters do it all the time.
For example: The canard that Obama's "cling to god and guns" was the same as Romney's "truth telling" is laughable. The former was making the case that democrats need to engage white, rural voters in Pennsylvania who are skeptical of the democratic message, where as the latter was a complete dismissal of nearly half the electorate. Yes, both were ill conceived but the messages were very different. White rural voters in Pennsylvania tend to vote Republican and have suffered economic hardship for 25 years. I don't see President Romney pushing to help them any time soon if I am to take him at his word. Yet, he will potentially still have their vote come election time (hence the messaging by Romney's campaign about "in god we trust" being removed from our currancy, a lie, or the NRA's histrionic conspiracy theories about Fast & Furious is a bid to turn Americans against guns a lead to stricter gun control, never ascribe malice to stupidity).
So, Florida. Sure Romney's words are going to bombard Florida in the form of campaign commercials but how many of those retirees are going to change their minds. Not all of them, probably not a lot of them (many will vote against their self interests) but enough will either sour on the candidate and not vote or switch candidates which is a disaster for Romney, the state is in a dead heat. And without Florida his chances to win are dim.
Side note, Republicans have lost voter suppression law fights in Ohio and Florida already.
As for the debates, they are not going to mean a thing. A recent study of 15 campaigns for President shows that convention means more to a candidate's success than the debates. There is plenty of folks that will say candidate X won the debate and then go and vote for candidate Y anyway. By the time the debates roll around there just are not that many swayable voters at that point.
Don't get me wrong, its not in the bag for Obama. All sorts of things can happen in 50 days. But to use poker terminology, Romney is "drawing dead" against Obama's strong hand and he has to hope that he hits that magic (and super low percentage) card on "the river". I think the "turn" just happened and did squat for Romney.
There is some irony in the fact that you needed a picture ID to enter the DNC.
Something we haven't touched on much is that the Rep party and the Romney campaign are not winning the media war, despite a significant monetary advantage. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that creative advertising/graphic design/media types generally skew liberal. Hence the difference in conventions, for instance. And more savvy web content from the Obama folks.
I just read a survey that said a full third of TV watchers in a number of swing states DVR/Tivo their programs, skipping commercials. So those billions unleashed by Citizens United are just getting the FF button.
Did the DNC check to see if they had enough activity on their bank statements as well? And if they didn't, they couldn't enter?
I just voted for President in our Water Buffalo Club. For legal reasons we can't call them The Grand Poobah???.
How is that ironic? Of course you have to keep tabs on people occupying the same building as people in office. Remember Gabby Giffords? This is the silliest argument when it comes to voter ID. It is akin to the specious argument of "why don't we ban knives also, you can kill a person with a knife" in the gun control argument.
They had metal detectors there too.....people were complaining about having to take off all their campaign buttons to get through them.