PDA

View Full Version : Obama More Likely to Lose Than Win



duane1969
01-17-2012, 10:55 AM
While 46 percent of likely voters predicted Obama will lose next year, 41 percent said he will win, a narrow margin just outside the pollís margin of error that reflects the publicís split opinion about the president. The remaining 13 percent were unsure.

When it comes to grading his first term, 51 percent of polled voters said Obama was either a failure (37 percent) or not very successful (14 percent), while 48 percent said he was either very successful (16 percent) or somewhat successful (32 percent).



http://thehill.com/polls/200183-the-hill-poll-obama-more-likely-to-lose-than-win-again-say-voters

pghin08
01-17-2012, 11:10 AM
1. It's a long way till November. Improving economic data will only serve to help him.

2. Congressional approval rating hits all time low. What happened to the Tea Party?

3. If Romney takes a great VP, that's about his only chance. Romney is going to be the nominee, like it or not. The conservative "family values" oriented voter hates the fact that he's Mormon (a large percentage say they wouldn't vote for him). I've said it a billion times, but if Romney chooses Marco Rubio as his VP, he'll actually have a chance to take down Mr. O. Rubio is a tea-party conservative, a popular guy in a swing state, and Latino. Latinos seem the most disenchanted with the Obama presidency, and Rubio could swing a LOT of those votes into the Romney camp.

duane1969
01-17-2012, 11:45 AM
I think it has become moreso about not voting Obama back in as opposed to wanting Romney in. A lot of people are just plain fed up with political leaders who say one thing and do another. Obama made a lot of big promises to get into office and a large chunk of them remain unfulfilled. People remember that stuff (or are reminded of it regularly by campaign ads).

I don't see conservative family values types voting for Obama over Romney because he is a Mormon. At the end of the day most of those people will vote party lines. The x-factor is the moderates who are "the flavor of the day" voters. About 1/3rd will always vote Dem, about 1/3rd will always vote GOP, it is the third 1/3rd that decides the vote.

And the Tea Party is dead. :sign0202:

pghin08
01-17-2012, 12:01 PM
I think it has become moreso about not voting Obama back in as opposed to wanting Romney in. A lot of people are just plain fed up with political leaders who say one thing and do another. Obama made a lot of big promises to get into office and a large chunk of them remain unfulfilled. People remember that stuff (or are reminded of it regularly by campaign ads).

I don't see conservative family values types voting for Obama over Romney because he is a Mormon. At the end of the day most of those people will vote party lines. The x-factor is the moderates who are "the flavor of the day" voters. About 1/3rd will always vote Dem, about 1/3rd will always vote GOP, it is the third 1/3rd that decides the vote.

And the Tea Party is dead. :sign0202:

I don't either, but I could see them staying home. I think this year's voter turnout will pale in comparison to 2008.

I agree with you on the Tea Party. I was running my mouth on here about how the Tea Party had no staying power for like the past year, or year and a half. Alas, SCF does not have a "tooting your horn" emoticon, so I'll just keep my mouth shut :winking0071:

duane1969
01-17-2012, 12:10 PM
I don't either, but I could see them staying home. I think this year's voter turnout will pale in comparison to 2008.

I agree with you on the Tea Party. I was running my mouth on here about how the Tea Party had no staying power for like the past year, or year and a half. Alas, SCF does not have a "tooting your horn" emoticon, so I'll just keep my mouth shut :winking0071:

You might be on to something concerning the voter turn-out. A special elelction held here in WV to replace outgoing Governor Manchin only resulted in a 25% turn-out.

I think you could claim this one as a "tooting your own horn" emoticon :) :horn:

AUTaxMan
01-17-2012, 01:16 PM
A Romney-Rubio ticket would be a Reaganesque landslide IMO.

pghin08
01-17-2012, 02:48 PM
A Romney-Rubio ticket would be a Reaganesque landslide IMO.

Nothing the Republicans could possibly put together would be a landslide.

AUTaxMan
01-17-2012, 02:50 PM
Nothing the Republicans could possibly put together would be a landslide.

Based on what? Certainly not polling numbers or Obama's record.

mrveggieman
01-17-2012, 02:56 PM
Based on what? Certainly not polling numbers or Obama's record.


Based on the fact that all the republicans are doing is spewing a bunch of the same old hot air and none of them have convienced anyone that they can do a better job than President Obama.

AUTaxMan
01-17-2012, 03:10 PM
Based on the fact that all the republicans are doing is spewing a bunch of the same old hot air and none of them have convienced anyone that they can do a better job than President Obama.

The polls disagree.

Star_Cards
01-17-2012, 03:27 PM
I don't see any side being a landslide and I don't think any ticket with romney would be a landslide in any election. Romney could win but a land slide is highly doubtful.

Star_Cards
01-17-2012, 03:33 PM
The polls disagree.

I think it's hard to have a Rep vs Dem poll when people don't even know the Rep who will be running officially. I just don't get romney. He lost the nomination against mcCain so he just doesn't seem like a really string candidate to me. Any strong republican could have made a valid push for the white house this year and any of the top ones just seemed to not have interest. The batch that came out were fringe candidates and retreads in my opinion. I thought they'd polish up their best options for this one and I just don't see it. The fact that gingrich has faired well in a few primaries just baffles me. I also thing that the fact that each primary has been so back and forth as far as rankings shows that no one candidate really shines above the rest. Although romney looks to be the nom.

pghin08
01-17-2012, 04:32 PM
The polls disagree.

Find me one poll that says Romney, or anyone, would beat Obama in a landslide. Everything I've seen has Obama beating everyone but Romney, and only has Romney leading by a small margin.

pwaldo
01-17-2012, 05:11 PM
Nothing the Republicans could possibly put together would be a landslide.

Almost everything that they could put together for 2012 will result in a landslide FOR Obama. If Obama loses in 2012 it will go down as one of the biggest upsets of all time. There is no reason why any Democrat President should lose in 2012. There is virtually nothing that the Republicans can do to get a victory. If they do win it will be a squeaker over the Democrats.

I'd almost be willing to bet my life that Republicans NEVER have a huge landslide victory ever again for President.

pghin08
01-17-2012, 05:18 PM
Almost everything that they could put together for 2012 will result in a landslide FOR Obama. If Obama loses in 2012 it will go down as one of the biggest upsets of all time. There is no reason why any Democrat President should lose in 2012. There is virtually nothing that the Republicans can do to get a victory. If they do win it will be a squeaker over the Democrats.

I'd almost be willing to bet my life that Republicans NEVER have a huge landslide victory ever again for President.

I actually agree with this. The Republicans are a mess. What's up with this bizarre war on Romney's wealth. Calling him a "vulture capitalist" and the likes. Since when did Republicans start having a problem with capitalism? Because how Romney made his money was pretty much pure capitalism.

Star_Cards
01-17-2012, 05:19 PM
I would't go that far. The dems have put up some real clunkers in the recent past.

pwaldo
01-17-2012, 06:28 PM
I actually agree with this. The Republicans are a mess. What's up with this bizarre war on Romney's wealth. Calling him a "vulture capitalist" and the likes. Since when did Republicans start having a problem with capitalism? Because how Romney made his money was pretty much pure capitalism.

Even with a perfect candidate (has there ever been a perfect Presidential candidate?) they would still struggle to even come close to Obama. Obama has made this thing "close" by being so awful. This should have been a very very very easy win for Democrats but because Obama is so bad there is a chance he could lose. Somebody like Hilliary would blow out the Republicans and it wouldn't even be close.

Republicans also have made the chance that they win basically ZERO down from about squat by attacking the one legit candidate they have in Romney (Paul is too old and is the only other valid competition). But because the religious right doesn't like Mormons they've kept this thing going by backing complete duds like Newt. If Romney was a Christian they would be all over him and this thing would be done. He's the only one (other than Paul) who can actually get on ballots in states, raise money, and appeal to anybody other than a select slim narrow group of people. You don't have to like Romney but it is very obvious that he is head and shoulders above everyone else in the field (why did Pawlenty drop out so early again?).

The only thing keeping the inevitable Romney vs. Obama showdown is dumb Mormon hating fools and the media who wants this to go on forever so they can get more ratings and debates. Just end this and try to recoup your .001% chance of beating Obama.

AUTaxMan
01-17-2012, 07:12 PM
Find me one poll that says Romney, or anyone, would beat Obama in a landslide. Everything I've seen has Obama beating everyone but Romney, and only has Romney leading by a small margin.

I didn't write that the polls say Romney or anyone would win in a landslide.

pghin08
01-17-2012, 07:42 PM
I didn't write that the polls say Romney or anyone would win in a landslide.

Then I'm thoroughly confused. You claimed that a Romney-Rubio ticket would result in a Reagan-esque landslide. I said it wouldn't, and you said that's not what polls or Obama's record would indicate.

AUTaxMan
01-18-2012, 12:35 PM
Then I'm thoroughly confused. You claimed that a Romney-Rubio ticket would result in a Reagan-esque landslide. I said it wouldn't, and you said that's not what polls or Obama's record would indicate.

Polling trends suggest to me that more and more people have decided to vote against Obama in the upcoming election. If the trend continues, I could definitely see a landslide in terms of the electoral college vote.

duane1969
01-18-2012, 12:46 PM
I actually agree with this. The Republicans are a mess. What's up with this bizarre war on Romney's wealth. Calling him a "vulture capitalist" and the likes. Since when did Republicans start having a problem with capitalism? Because how Romney made his money was pretty much pure capitalism.

I have become ant-Newt for this very reason. This whole "Romney tax records" thing was started by Newt and I see it as nothing more than a pathetic, desperate attempt to demonize Romney. Newt is essentially taking the position that if he can't win the GOP nomination then he is going to ensure that the GOP nominee can't win the general election. If there was ever any chance that I would vote for Newt, it is entirely gone. At this point, if it were Newt vs. Obama, I would vote Obama.

pghin08
01-18-2012, 12:49 PM
Polling trends suggest to me that more and more people have decided to vote against Obama in the upcoming election. If the trend continues, I could definitely see a landslide in terms of the electoral college vote.

We'll see, I suppose. I'm guessing there won't be anything close to a landslide. In fact, I don't really see a scenario where Obama loses at this point. But hey, we'll re-visit this thread in November and see!

pghin08
01-18-2012, 12:50 PM
I have become ant-Newt for this very reason. This whole "Romney tax records" thing was started by Newt and I see it as nothing more than a pathetic, desperate attempt to demonize Romney. Newt is essentially taking the position that if he can't win the GOP nomination then he is going to ensure that the GOP nominee can't win the general election. If there was ever any chance that I would vote for Newt, it is entirely gone. At this point, if it were Newt vs. Obama, I would vote Obama.


Newt Gingrich is a one man wrecking machine.

Star_Cards
01-18-2012, 01:07 PM
Newt being in this race so long and actually putting up decent numbers at times is one of the main reasons why I look so poorly at the GOP crop this election cycle.

*censored*
01-18-2012, 01:36 PM
All this poll measured is voters beliefs on likelihood to win. So someone could vote Obama but think he'll likely lose. Likewise, someone could vote for *insert GOP candidate here* and believe Obama will win.

It's extremely skewed to think this poll indicates anything aside from peoples' thoughts on what will happen. It doesn't indicate in any way what will likely happen.

duwal
01-18-2012, 02:11 PM
I actually agree with this. The Republicans are a mess. What's up with this bizarre war on Romney's wealth. Calling him a "vulture capitalist" and the likes. Since when did Republicans start having a problem with capitalism? Because how Romney made his money was pretty much pure capitalism.


I agree with this. I'm a Republican that didn't vote for Obama the first time around but it looks more and more than I will switch my vote to him this time around. There is no prospective candidate on my side who to me even looks like he might do a better job than Obama would

pghin08
01-18-2012, 02:26 PM
I agree with this. I'm a Republican that didn't vote for Obama the first time around but it looks more and more than I will switch my vote to him this time around. There is no prospective candidate on my side who to me even looks like he might do a better job than Obama would

Pretty much ever since Obama was elected, they've been a train wreck. Prior to the 2010 midterms, the Tea Party was going to take over the world, now they are pretty much dead to rights. Now we've gone through four "top dogs" who were set to take down Obama just in the last half year. The Republicans need to get their act together, figure out what they ACTUALLY believe, and unify. Otherwise, this trend will just repeat in the forthcoming elections (beyond 2012, even).

mrveggieman
01-18-2012, 02:39 PM
I agree with this. I'm a Republican that didn't vote for Obama the first time around but it looks more and more than I will switch my vote to him this time around. There is no prospective candidate on my side who to me even looks like he might do a better job than Obama would


I like your way of thinking. :winking0071:

pwaldo
01-18-2012, 03:35 PM
Newt being in this race so long and actually putting up decent numbers at times is one of the main reasons why I look so poorly at the GOP crop this election cycle.

Newt is 100% a media creation. He hasn't put up squat for numbers. He didn't finish in the top 3 in either state so far. He got beat by Huntsman and Paul. People the media blast all the time for being guys that can't win....yet they beat Newt easily. If Newt finished where Ron Paul did and Ron Paul was putting up the numbers Newt is then the media wouldn't even be talking about him.

It's hilarious that the media said Ron Paul was nothing and that he couldn't get any votes because he just has a very small rapid amount of supporters. Yet he is beating Newt badly so far in everything. He has more money, more organization, more votes, etc.

At this put Newt is just a big fat baby who is trying his hardest to take down Romney and the media is 100% behind him because they want a weaker candidate for Obama. Kinda pitiful that Obama needs the media's help and almost a billion dollars in campaign money to beat this weak field. Hilliary must be fuming.

pghin08
01-18-2012, 03:37 PM
Newt is 100% a media creation. He hasn't put up squat for numbers. He didn't finish in the top 3 in either state so far. He got beat by Huntsman and Paul. People the media blast all the time for being guys that can't win....yet they beat Newt easily. If Newt finished where Ron Paul did and Ron Paul was putting up the numbers Newt is then the media wouldn't even be talking about him.

It's hilarious that the media said Ron Paul was nothing and that he couldn't get any votes because he just has a very small rapid amount of supporters. Yet he is beating Newt badly so far in everything. He has more money, more organization, more votes, etc.

At this put Newt is just a big fat baby who is trying his hardest to take down Romney and the media is 100% behind him because they want a weaker candidate for Obama. Kinda pitiful that Obama needs the media's help and almost a billion dollars in campaign money to beat this weak field. Hilliary must be fuming.

I want Obama to dump Biden and pick her up as a Veep in the worst kind of way.

mrveggieman
01-18-2012, 04:36 PM
I want Obama to dump Biden and pick her up as a Veep in the worst kind of way.


I can't agree with you on that one. I don't do Hillary. If Obama picks her it's a deal breaker. I wont vote this year.

pghin08
01-18-2012, 04:38 PM
I can't agree with you on that one. I don't do Hillary. If Obama picks her it's a deal breaker. I wont vote this year.

1. He won't do it. If he rocks the boat, it'll be skewed by the Republicans as a sign of weakness.

2. Why not Hillary? I think she's great.

mrveggieman
01-18-2012, 04:39 PM
1. He won't do it. If he rocks the boat, it'll be skewed by the Republicans as a sign of weakness.

2. Why not Hillary? I think she's great.


I get a bad vibe from here. She reminds me of a republican pretending to be a democrat.

AUTaxMan
01-18-2012, 05:02 PM
Pretty much ever since Obama was elected, they've been a train wreck. Prior to the 2010 midterms, the Tea Party was going to take over the world, now they are pretty much dead to rights. Now we've gone through four "top dogs" who were set to take down Obama just in the last half year. The Republicans need to get their act together, figure out what they ACTUALLY believe, and unify. Otherwise, this trend will just repeat in the forthcoming elections (beyond 2012, even).

The whole point of the primary process is to find the one who the republicans generally think is the best man for the job. I don't understand what you expect them to do or why you think they don't know what they believe. The same thing happened with the Dems last election cycle. The dems had 5 names on the ticket in Iowa (Obama 38%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 29%, Richardson 2%, and Biden 1%), and 5 in NH (Obama 36%, Clinton 39%, Edwards 17%, Richardson 5%, and Kucinich 1%). By the time Nevada rolled around (same day as South Carolina), the Dems were essentially down to 3 viable candidates, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. The Dems did not have a nominee in 2008 until June, the day of the last primaries.

To say that because a nominee has not been chosen at this early date is a sign of political weakness or disarray is completely baseless.

MadMan1978
01-18-2012, 05:43 PM
what was the margin or error on this poll Duane?

AUTaxMan
01-18-2012, 06:39 PM
what was the margin or error on this poll Duane?

With a sample size of 1,000, MOE ought to be around +/- 3%. Also, it looks like the parties are fairly represented.

pghin08
01-18-2012, 08:08 PM
The whole point of the primary process is to find the one who the republicans generally think is the best man for the job. I don't understand what you expect them to do or why you think they don't know what they believe. The same thing happened with the Dems last election cycle. The dems had 5 names on the ticket in Iowa (Obama 38%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 29%, Richardson 2%, and Biden 1%), and 5 in NH (Obama 36%, Clinton 39%, Edwards 17%, Richardson 5%, and Kucinich 1%). By the time Nevada rolled around (same day as South Carolina), the Dems were essentially down to 3 viable candidates, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. The Dems did not have a nominee in 2008 until June, the day of the last primaries.

To say that because a nominee has not been chosen at this early date is a sign of political weakness or disarray is completely baseless.


You are missing my point. I'm not talking about the Republicans picking a nominee, I'm saying the WHOLE PARTY is in disarray. This ridiculous race is only a small portion of the problem, the Republicans aren't at war with the Democrats, they're at war with each other. There hasn't been infighting quite like this since the Democrats in 1968. The nomination process is just bringing this to light. Who are the Republicans? Are they tea party? Are they Reagan conservatives? Are they Romney moderates?

AUTaxMan
01-18-2012, 11:03 PM
You are missing my point. I'm not talking about the Republicans picking a nominee, I'm saying the WHOLE PARTY is in disarray. This ridiculous race is only a small portion of the problem, the Republicans aren't at war with the Democrats, they're at war with each other. There hasn't been infighting quite like this since the Democrats in 1968. The nomination process is just bringing this to light. Who are the Republicans? Are they tea party? Are they Reagan conservatives? Are they Romney moderates?

Why do they have to be a single voice that moves in lock step on every issue like the democrats do? What is wrong with there being social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, et. al all under the same umbrella?

By the way, they are ALL unified on the most important point right now, which is defeating Obama and his train-wreck of an administration in the election.

duane1969
01-19-2012, 12:02 AM
what was the margin or error on this poll Duane?


With a sample size of 1,000, MOE ought to be around +/- 3%. Also, it looks like the parties are fairly represented.

Yup, it was +/-3

There was a 5% gap between those who think he wont be reelected (46%) and those who do (41%).

pghin08
01-19-2012, 09:59 AM
Why do they have to be a single voice that moves in lock step on every issue like the democrats do? What is wrong with there being social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, et. al all under the same umbrella?

By the way, they are ALL unified on the most important point right now, which is defeating Obama and his train-wreck of an administration in the election.

How are you looking at the Republican party right now and saying everything is okay? I understand having different types of conservatives, that's fine, they've ALWAYS been that way. But take Bush Jr. for example. He had a message that crossed all conservative borders, that's why he got elected twice. The central message of the Republican party now is "Obama Sucks". Beyond that, there is no coherent message. The Republican party is having a crisis of leadership. There is NOBODY home there, not in Congress, not running for the President, nobody. Weren't the Tea Partiers supposed to bulldoze into Congress and start taking it back? The general public surely doesn't have a favorable view of them, seeing as that the approval ratings for Congress are the lowest EVER.

I don't mean to be combative. I just don't understand. I have lots of Republican friends and family members, and all they talk about is how bad things are for the party. And I agree with them. Heck, we've seen people in this thread that are actually turning to Obama, things are so bad. You and I really seem to see the party differently. I feel like your watching somebody light candles on a birthday cake, and I'm watching somebody set a house on fire.

So I guess my big question is, what do you see in the Republican party/nominees/what have you in 2012 that makes you feel good?

Star_Cards
01-19-2012, 10:20 AM
I get a bad vibe from here. She reminds me of a republican pretending to be a democrat.

I don't like Hillary either. Too much shadiness from her husbands governorship and presidency. I think there's a lot of questionable dealing that they've had over the years. I'm also not a fan of families having continued power like that in this country. Kennedys, Clintons, Bush's... Why in the heck should their families be US political royalty???

Star_Cards
01-19-2012, 10:25 AM
The whole point of the primary process is to find the one who the republicans generally think is the best man for the job. I don't understand what you expect them to do or why you think they don't know what they believe. The same thing happened with the Dems last election cycle. The dems had 5 names on the ticket in Iowa (Obama 38%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 29%, Richardson 2%, and Biden 1%), and 5 in NH (Obama 36%, Clinton 39%, Edwards 17%, Richardson 5%, and Kucinich 1%). By the time Nevada rolled around (same day as South Carolina), the Dems were essentially down to 3 viable candidates, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. The Dems did not have a nominee in 2008 until June, the day of the last primaries.

To say that because a nominee has not been chosen at this early date is a sign of political weakness or disarray is completely baseless.

I agree. They need to shorten the primary schedule, but why should any party have a candidate well before any of the states even have their primary? I actually think they should totally redo the primary process. It's a joke really and caters to the candidate that has the most money, allowing them to stay in the process the longest. It's so drawn out and expensive so the guys with less money have trouble. Besides, in todays era of instant information, do candidate really need to stomp around a state to let the people know what they stand for? In theory I think they could have all of the primaries within a 4-5 month span and that way every state has a say. Why should Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have the majority of say if a candidate has a shot? Most state primaries are pointless as the race is typically already decided before they have them. Seems a bit stupid if you ask me.

AUTaxMan
01-19-2012, 12:48 PM
How are you looking at the Republican party right now and saying everything is okay? I understand having different types of conservatives, that's fine, they've ALWAYS been that way. But take Bush Jr. for example. He had a message that crossed all conservative borders, that's why he got elected twice. The central message of the Republican party now is "Obama Sucks". Beyond that, there is no coherent message. The Republican party is having a crisis of leadership. There is NOBODY home there, not in Congress, not running for the President, nobody. Weren't the Tea Partiers supposed to bulldoze into Congress and start taking it back? The general public surely doesn't have a favorable view of them, seeing as that the approval ratings for Congress are the lowest EVER.

I don't mean to be combative. I just don't understand. I have lots of Republican friends and family members, and all they talk about is how bad things are for the party. And I agree with them. Heck, we've seen people in this thread that are actually turning to Obama, things are so bad. You and I really seem to see the party differently. I feel like your watching somebody light candles on a birthday cake, and I'm watching somebody set a house on fire.

So I guess my big question is, what do you see in the Republican party/nominees/what have you in 2012 that makes you feel good?

I understand that you aren't being combative. I assume that you have paid at least a little attention to the republican race. If that is the case, I don't understand how you can't see one central theme- fiscal conservatism. All three of the remaining candidates stand for fiscal conservatism, which is the primary issue facing our country right now. The election is not about the party. The election is about the fact that most people in the country feel that we are heading down the path to financial ruin and that there is a choice between Obama, who clearly does not care about our financial crisis, and the three remaining candidates, all of whom will do what they can to rein in the spending. Congress has a low approval rating because of the deadlock and the media portraying the reps as obstructionists. The dems are trying to spend us into oblivion, and the republicans are doing what they can to prevent it-thus the deadlock.

I don't understand how you cannot appreciate the financial crisis this country is in and that our president wants to keep borrowing/printing money at a record-setting pace. To me and pretty much all conservatives that I know (most of whom, by the way, could not care less about parties but instead are focused on issues), the election is mostly about a choice between (a) fiscal conservatism, spending less, taxing less, and getting this country's books back in order, or (b) spending exponentially more without considering the fiscal consequences. Of course, there are other important issues as well, but spending is the #1 issue, and all conservatives are in line on that one.

Do you see it differently?

AUTaxMan
01-19-2012, 12:49 PM
I agree. They need to shorten the primary schedule, but why should any party have a candidate well before any of the states even have their primary? I actually think they should totally redo the primary process. It's a joke really and caters to the candidate that has the most money, allowing them to stay in the process the longest. It's so drawn out and expensive so the guys with less money have trouble. Besides, in todays era of instant information, do candidate really need to stomp around a state to let the people know what they stand for? In theory I think they could have all of the primaries within a 4-5 month span and that way every state has a say. Why should Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have the majority of say if a candidate has a shot? Most state primaries are pointless as the race is typically already decided before they have them. Seems a bit stupid if you ask me.

It's certainly not fair to about 95% of party voters (and the candidates) that their say in who the nominee is doesn't REALLY matter since it was decided in IA, NH, and SC.

habsheaven
01-19-2012, 12:54 PM
I understand that you aren't being combative. I assume that you have paid at least a little attention to the republican race. If that is the case, I don't understand how you can't see one central theme- fiscal conservatism. All three of the remaining candidates stand for fiscal conservatism, which is the primary issue facing our country right now. The election is not about the party. The election is about the fact that most people in the country feel that we are heading down the path to financial ruin and that there is a choice between Obama, who clearly does not care about our financial crisis, and the three remaining candidates, all of whom will do what they can to rein in the spending. Congress has a low approval rating because of the deadlock and the media portraying the reps as obstructionists. The dems are trying to spend us into oblivion, and the republicans are doing what they can to prevent it-thus the deadlock.

I don't understand how you cannot appreciate the financial crisis this country is in and that our president wants to keep borrowing/printing money at a record-setting pace. To me and pretty much all conservatives that I know (most of whom, by the way, could not care less about parties but instead are focused on issues), the election is mostly about a choice between (a) fiscal conservatism, spending less, taxing less, and getting this country's books back in order, or (b) spending exponentially more without considering the fiscal consequences. Of course, there are other important issues as well, but spending is the #1 issue, and all conservatives are in line on that one.

Do you see it differently?

I would hope he sees the bolded part of your statement differently.

AUTaxMan
01-19-2012, 12:56 PM
I would hope he sees the bolded part of your statement differently.

I assume that he does, but I would like to know the reasons why.

pghin08
01-19-2012, 04:28 PM
I understand that you aren't being combative. I assume that you have paid at least a little attention to the republican race. If that is the case, I don't understand how you can't see one central theme- fiscal conservatism. All three of the remaining candidates stand for fiscal conservatism, which is the primary issue facing our country right now. The election is not about the party. The election is about the fact that most people in the country feel that we are heading down the path to financial ruin and that there is a choice between Obama, who clearly does not care about our financial crisis, and the three remaining candidates, all of whom will do what they can to rein in the spending. Congress has a low approval rating because of the deadlock and the media portraying the reps as obstructionists. The dems are trying to spend us into oblivion, and the republicans are doing what they can to prevent it-thus the deadlock.

I don't understand how you cannot appreciate the financial crisis this country is in and that our president wants to keep borrowing/printing money at a record-setting pace. To me and pretty much all conservatives that I know (most of whom, by the way, could not care less about parties but instead are focused on issues), the election is mostly about a choice between (a) fiscal conservatism, spending less, taxing less, and getting this country's books back in order, or (b) spending exponentially more without considering the fiscal consequences. Of course, there are other important issues as well, but spending is the #1 issue, and all conservatives are in line on that one.

Do you see it differently?

First, I'm not really talking about my own personal feeling on Obama and his handling of the economy. It's irrelevant to my argument.

Secondly, you're right on some level. All Republican candidates want to corral spending (If they get elected to office, I still don't think this will happen, but that's beside the point, I guess). However, Republicans as a whole, have NO idea how they want to do this. Should we do a flat tax? Should we cut taxes? How can we address our financial problems without hitting Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security (props to both Paul Ryan and the Simpson/Bowles commission for at least TRYING to talk about this).

The only thing that the Republicans seem to be in lock-step on (aside from Ron Paul) is that we won't cut the defense budget.

I see it kind of like this. It's as if there is a hurricane coming. We all see it, no doubt. People are asking the Republicans, "What should we do?". And 1/4 of Republicans say we should hunker down, board up the windows and stay. Another 1/4 say we should head West, and another 1/4 say we should go East. Then there's 1/4 that says we should all go outside, yell at the sky and hope that it changes direction. Everyone can see the problem that lies ahead, but nobody knows how to plan for it. Say what you want about it, Obama at least has a plan. Which is apparently to spend our way out of recession. I'll leave that up to the economists, which 50% say he's wrong and 50% say he's right.