Obama wins in November. 7 reasons why Romney will lose.
 

That was quite an article to say the very least!

And to think that came from the Washington Times which is a very conservative paper is amazing.

Very interesting read.

if Obama was able to overcome all he did to win, what was listed in the article for Romney will not be a deterrent.

I love the out dated concept of the rich are out of touch. Repeating again what problem s did the Kennedy's have? How about John Kerry? Nancy Pelosi?
Or any of the other multi millionaires in Washington, DC.

How about Bloomberg in NYC....a multi billionaire.....now just how does he stay in touch....relate.....common touch or what ever other stretch and reach BS?

Articles like this one are written to appease the faithful!!

btk

BTK did not seem to realize this was an article written in the Washington Times - a very conservative paper.

If a very conservative paper is saying this stuff about their candidate, the only thing I have to say is :MOJE_whot::MOJE_whot:

It may be a "very conservative paper", but this is an Obama- and Leftist-loving writer.

This is where I quit reading because of the leftist bigotry, stereotyping and lying:

"Translation: no pesky regulations. You know the ones: the government says you can’t sell tainted food, it requires safety on the work site, or it tell banks they can’t bamboozle their customers."

Nobody, right nor left wants no regulation against tainted food. This is bigotry and absurdity pinned on the entire half of the voting population. Disgusting.

And P.S......

That kind of hateful, bigoted labeling is also why you get no converts to your side of the fence.

Our grass is greener than your grass.....na na na na na na. :icon_wink:

His main problem to overcome is sites like this one that say:

Well if we can't have Mary Magdalen Bachman we will take Romney.

Well if we can't have freak boy Red Neck Perry we will take Romney.

Well if we can't have I KNOW MORE THAN GOD Santorum we will take Romney.

Ya ll dogged Romney for months while I defended him and now that the three idiots above have been eliminated by the intelligent Republicans, you now have to find a way to get support of right wing Radicals on the Romney team. I told you for months, now you can live it.

:popcorn:

About the writer of the article....

"Catherine Poe has been a Liberal for as long as she can remember. Last year, Catherine was named one of the top Progressives in Maryland along with Senator Barbara Mikulski and Congresswoman Donna Edwards. She has been a guest of President Obama in the Rose Garden."

Catherine Poe | Washington Times Communities

From the DEMOCRATS FOR AMERICA website..

"Regular contributor Catherine Poe says the Trayvon Martin case was a perfect storm of race, media and political paranoia."

Martin case just happened to be the one referred to on the home page

Does mean she is wrong but these kind of things have got to be put into perspective based on who writes them.

I feel she would be slanted toward Obama, but lets take what she says and improve on those areas just to make sure Romney wins. We must stop presenting the average Republican as Radical with respect to religion and stop with Poor means Lazy or they deserve what they get attitude and most important, leave womens health to women and their doctors.

The campaign has not even reached the point past where in 2008 Obama and Clinton were calling each other names...who can take the call at 3AM, and about a week or so together Bill Clinton was seething because the Obama campaign called him a racist.

Keep it all in perspective.....the debates will make this election and not the name calling..

Lou,
That was an excellent post of yours. Too bad that the wubers on this forum do not go along with you. If they and the rest of their ilk did think like you, the Republicans would have a good chance of winning in November.

Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, the damage to women's health issues has been done by the far-right republican legislatures across the country, and there's no way they are going to walk back those radical new laws they have passed. That's one reason why he's losing with women by 18%. Some other big reasons are the no vote by republicans on "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009" and the no vote on the "Violence Against Women Act". No candidate can unring those bells.

Attached is a link to an article discussing how the media "frames" political issues. It is lengthy and a bit boring but what is happening right now is both campaigns are attempting to FRAME the campaign. Obama's over reaction to the one year anniversary was meant to try an take away the past strength of the Republicans on national defense.

Both will do this for some time, until after the conventions probably....articles such as the one you were referring to is part of that attempt and it happens on BOTH SIDES. Writers who lean left are asked to right, and if you notice the writer who gave you pause, was voicing very subjective things...nothing of substance. BOTH SIDES want to begin to paint a picture in everyones mind.

Still in the end, the debates where both will be obliged to discuss ISSUES and PAST TRACK HISTORY will be the overwhelming move.

Of course there are folks who will vote either Dem or Rep if the devil himself were on the ballot and various other groups who do the same thing.

Notice the polls and how dynamic they are now and will be for a bit....then finally they will settle down and paint a true picture of what might be happening.

People, MOST as I said, want to hear themselves what these guys actually believe in and what they might do.

"How the Media Frames Political Issues" by Scott London


PS...I need to add and I said this in 2008 as well. I normally would say that I listen to those who tell you what they will do if elected and not to any negative advertising. I have worked hard and long for the Democratic party in the past....I have voted both democratic and republican over the years for President. In 2008, I realized after doing as much due diligence as possible that I needed to oppose Obama no matter who is running against him. That gives me pause and actually bothers me inside but I feel that strongly on him and there is no room on this man (AND I stress nothing personal...just what he stands for).
I add this PS because I want you to understand that normally, negative conversations just flat turn me off as I would prefer a give and take on an issue and decide from that. I find in my heart that is impossible in 2008 and this campaign. That hurts me a lot...it really and truely does.

In addition, Mitt Romney has promised to defund Planned Parenthood and supports a personhood amendment which would essentially ban all birth control. He also supported the Blunt-Rubio amendment which would give all employers control over what healthcare a woman can receive.

The difference between 2008 and 2012 is democrats did not run an "Archie Bunker" type campaign alienating whole segments of the population: women, hispanics, African-Americans, gays and lesbians, seniors, and the poor.

Be real careful what you wish for, it just might come true. This country can't take another four years of the current crop of criminals holed up in Foggy Bottom, we need to change the lot of them.

Could you explain what you have against the State Department? Or perhaps it's Hilary Clinton?

Let's see...we have on here abolishing the Dept of Ed....maybe the State Department.....and...oh darn...what's the third one?......ooops :icon_wink:

Such a foolish tread that you have to mine for gold in other threads in order to bring some interest to this one.

Posting things out of the context is not honest, but it's who you people are.

Responding to a childish personal attack by emulating the author is not the same as the gratuitous foolishness that is par for the course for childish posters who have run out of cogent responses to matters beyond their intellect.

It makes me feel good though, that even when I haven't posted on a thread that I am never far from your mind. It must be aggravating for you.

That's a rather verbose, esoteric post......I don't understand it. :(

Grrrrrrrr. :(

Of course you don't.

President Obama launches his reelection campaign today at Ohio State University where the stadium is packed to the rafters. Then it's on to Virginia where he leads Mitt Romney by seven points in all the latest polls. Where is Romney today?

What is he giving away or providing for entertainment like he did when he did the same thing before? Plus we all know some teams that pack stadiums don't win because they packed a stadium and many don't win.

It is also recognized it takes more than filling a stadium to win a re-election.

Obama's campaign strategy is to not mass market like he did smoking the folks nation wide because he has a disadvantage going for him this time....his track record since then. As a result the Obama team is targeting (this was a bad phrase when used by other candidates...remember?) swing states with individualized propaganda for each particular state....and abandoning the theme of hope and change (now I wonder why that would be).

The new theme: Forward is safe enough. one inch or a mile qualifies. Today VS yesterday qualifies. Now if we could get some definitive initiatives to measure him with, but that is not what politicians do.

He will not be able to talk his way through this time as he did in 2007 and his team has stated that.

btk

He's going to have a hard time with the spinning this time around. There's no boogie man to blame for the woes. The numbers will be hard to hide and explain away, although his huge national media machine will give a valiant try.

Anaemic jobs data hit Obama launch - FT.com

People Not In Labor Force Soar By 522,000, Labor Force Participation Rate Lowest Since 1981 | ZeroHedge

Fourteen thousand showed up in Ohio and eight thousand showed up in VA. Trying to find the photo of Mitt Romney's event in the 83,000 seat stadium in Detroit when 1200 people showed up.

Before Barack Obama rallies tomorrow, see how Mitt Romney set the bar.


http://yfrog.com/obcyrkpj

[QUOTE=Guest;488667]What is he giving away or providing for entertainment like he did when he did the same thing before? Plus we all know some teams that pack stadiums don't win because they packed a stadium and many don't win.

The new theme: Forward is safe enough. one inch or a mile qualifies. Today VS yesterday qualifies. Now if we could get some definitive initiatives to measure him with, but that is not what politicians do.
/QUOTE]

First: Obama opened his campaign today in Ohio, at Ohio State University, and it appears he opened to a "half full arena".......not "packed" by a long shot.

Obama Launches Campaign in Empty Arena

Second: In sticking to his Marxist roots, the President new campaign slogan, "Forward" is eerily reminiscent of communist propaganda campaigns of the past. As his seemingly Leninist clone poster from 2008. If this was not his intent, it's very unfortunate.

http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/a...wardcommie.jpg

http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/a...man-poster.jpg

Obama

Barack Obama‘s New Slogan Is Eerily Familiar to Communists’ ‘Forward for Stalin!’ Campaign | Video | TheBlaze.com

I have no comment on your communism poster except "Pitiful Attempt".

The Lenin poster is interesting. I am wondering what group that was advertising. The writing on it says "Peace" in several languages. The Obama poster was advertising Senator Obama in a rally in Germany in 2008. What does either have to do with anything current? Once again, "Very Pitiful Attempt".

I would suggest you enroll at the Lifelong Learning College and see if you can find a very basic political science course so your attempts will be at least a bit more credible.

Richie, you are capable of so much better than this. I am disappointed in your attempts to call this administration communist, socialist, facist, or whatever your Fox News non-political terms of the day are.

Packed to the rafters? The Twitter shots show a half-empty stadium.

You can deny what is in front of your face all you want because of a blind love that even you probably can't explain.

I see where he's come from; I've read about who's he's studied under and where his influences were born.

He's no mystery.

References to a news network??................it's really getting laughable. You've evidently run out of reason.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-Retrospective

Capacity of Schottenstein Center is 18,300. There were 4,300 empty seats . FAUX News said it was "half empty". I guess to FAUX and all their Con sheeple, 4,300 is 50% of 18,300. No wonder they have trouble counting ballots.

VA Commonwealth was a sell-out.

By the way. According to RCP 4/15 - 5/1.

OHIO, Obama 46.0, Willlard 41.8
VA, Obama 47.5, Willlard 44.3

is this what was referred to earlier as a stadium packed to the rafters:

Obama Launches Campaign in Empty Arena

What reality looks like after partisan hype.

btk

What college stadiums does the Romney campaign have booked over the next few weeks? Just a guess that 70% full is better than 1200 attendees in an 83,000 seat stadium. Keep those photos coming Mitt.

wasn't looking for a point counterpoint, just measuring end result VS expectation.

I did say partisan...I did not limit my comments to R or D.

There is so much more to life than playing the partisan one up game.

However the response was not unexpected!

btk