Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Last time I posted on this thread, several people insulted me, and I responded with a couple of insults. I shouldn't have done that. I am being insulted again now, just for pointing out that Romney is going to win Ohio, but I will not respond to insults with insults this time.

Anyway, Ohio elected a Republican governor. Obviously, that was a state-wide vote, and this will be a statewide vote.

Ohio's economy is doing well relative to other Midwest states. Unemplyment is significantly lower there than in nearby states, such as Illinois, that have Democratic governors who have raised taxes and hurt their states economies. You could argue that it is in Obama's favor that Ohio's economy is doing relatively well, but Ohioans may see that they are doing better with a Republican governor than others are doing with a Democratic governor.

The polls are very close, but undecided voters tend to go against the incumbent president.

Republicans seem to be more enthusiastic than Democrats. I expect that Republican turnout will be better than Democratic turnout.

Early voting is not going nearly as well for Obama as it did four years ago. Based on the polls, on election day Romney is likely to more than make up for Obama's slim lead in early voting. This is based on election day voting last time, the greater enthusiam for Romney versus McCain, and the greater enthusiasm for Romney versus Obama.

Finally, Romney has been talking about working with Democrats, pointing out that he worked with Democrats as governor, while Obama isn't even talking about working with Republicans. Many people want politicians to set aside partisanship and do what is best for the country.

And, as we saw in the last debate, Obama's plan is simply to attack Romney, which turns off a lot of independents. I think people in Ohio are really getting fed up with all of the personal attacks. They want someone who is going to work with the other side to get something done rather than insulting and denigrating their opponent. Obama's game plan is to convince people not to vote for Romney rather than trying to convince people that they should for him. That plan is a poor plan and won't work.

It has been commented before that you equate your opinion with fact and then stubbornly dig in until people grow tired of you repeating yourself.  Everything you listed here is highly contentious and you don't come remotely close to actually demonstrating what you are saying.

For instance you say that Ohio must be Romney friendly because it has a republican governor.  This is very flimsy evidence because not all statewide elections are equal.  Consider West Virginia for example which has a democratic governor, two democratic senators and has democrats in control of both chambers of the house legislature.  Does that mean it is supporting Obama?  Pull the other one...

I will not respond to your other points because it takes time to make a fact checked, reasonable post about a topic.  It takes far more time then it takes to list 10 or so plausible sounding arguments without the need to stop and think if they make sense.  If you were to emulate this behavior of checking what you post to see if it adds up and substantiating any contentious points, people might be a bit more receptive towards talking to you.

[Zrk2]

I don't imagine this thread is going to see much less activity from now through Tuesday, so I'd appreciate it if people would be extra cautious with their tone.

Yessir, Mr. Toad, sir. My apologies.

[scriver]

Since his reasoning in the past has boiled down to "because I said so", I for one am not particularly interested in another 6-page stretch of him trolling everyone willing to keep responding.

My reasoning in the past has boiled down to "because I said so?" I provided thoughtful arguments while others just insulted me.

I'm sorry, but no, you did not. You stated an opinion which you couldn't back up with an unbiased source, and then refused to even acknowledge people's counterarguments. Simply reiterating a point while refusing to discuss it is not thoughtful. It is the opposite.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

And, as we saw in the last debate, Obama's plan is simply to attack Romney, which turns off a lot of independents. I think people in Ohio are really getting fed up with all of the personal attacks. They want someone who is going to work with the other side to get something done rather than insulting and denigrating their opponent. Obama's game plan is to convince people not to vote for Romney rather than trying to convince people that they should for him. That plan is a poor plan and won't work.

And, pray tell, what is Romney's plan you happen to know of [while we all do not]?

Oh, and you have all those attack ads against Obama to disprove if you're trying to say Romney hasn't focused on one thing, attacking the president.

[Osmosis Jones]

A nice little article on election statistics, and the complete arse-backwards understanding most pundits have of it.

Given some of the actual analysis I've seen here by you peeps (Like RedKing... damn man, you a stats major or something?), most of you probably won't get anything new, but it's still an interesting read.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Announcer: In this corner, wearing the blue trunks, the Donkey, Bronco Bama!
*crowd cheers (AZ! AZ! AZ!)*
Announcer: And in that corner, wearing the Red Spandex, the Cat, Mittens!
(background crowd cheering) Little Girl: Mommie, why isn't Mittens an elephant?
Mother: He discovered soft and furry does better and had a felinoplasty.
Announcer: Llllets get ready to Rummmbleeee!
*More crowd cheering (3 more days! 4 more years! 3 more days! 4 more years! Free tibet!)*

[Bohandas]

And, as we saw in the last debate, Obama's plan is simply to attack Romney, which turns off a lot of independents.

In the president's defense, there is almost nothing good that can be said about Mitt Romney. Not truthfully at any rate. Romney's own commercials have convinced me that he is unconcerned about anything other than money and incapable of experiencing any emotions other than envy and greed. The man never stops talking about money. The only "positive" thing that can be said about him is that his sick obsession with wealth seems to distract him somewhat from the hatred that fills most other members of his party.

Obama's game plan is to convince people not to vote for Romney rather than trying to convince people that they should for him. That plan is a poor plan and won't work.

That plan is the best plan. The Democrats and the Republicans are both TERRIBLE political parties and almost everybody knows it. The elections are just down to choosing the lesser of two evils. It would be absurd for either candidate, or any candidate who has run since I have been alive for that matter, to try to convince people that they are actually qualified to run the country . The only real question is "is the other guy worse?".

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Convincing people not to vote for Romney is the best plan. The only thing Romney really has going for him is the "Not-Obama" factor.

[Zangi]

Convincing people not to vote for Obama is the best plan. The only thing Obama really has going for him is the "Poor People" factor.

Word Games can be fun.

[kaijyuu]

"Poor people factor" > "Not-The-Other-Guy factor".

[Darvi]

Fast death factor > any of these.

[Karnewarrior]

That6's not to say someone qualified never runs. The Clitons gave us a surplus economically, after all, and everyone looks back fondly on the nineties. Too bad presidents are formally restricted to two terms now (thanks congress!).

[SealyStar]

That6's not to say someone qualified never runs. The Clitons gave us a surplus economically, after all, and everyone looks back fondly on the nineties. Too bad presidents are formally restricted to two terms now (thanks congress!).

It's funny that the Republicans passed that amendment after the Democrats found the perfect wonder-president in FDR.

Then the Republicans found their messiah in Reagan, and must have been really mad when they realized he could only have two terms.

And Clinton was so-so. He did some good things, but ideologically represented the constant-compromise modern wimpy version of the Democrats that took hold, rather than the Carterian vision.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

And Clinton was so-so. He did some good things, but ideologically represented the constant-compromise modern wimpy version of the Democrats that took hold, rather than the Carterian vision.

I don't think you experienced both administrations. There's a reason why one is recognized as a winner and one is recognized as a loser, politically. Compromise actually gets things done, you see.

[SealyStar]

And Clinton was so-so. He did some good things, but ideologically represented the constant-compromise modern wimpy version of the Democrats that took hold, rather than the Carterian vision.

I don't think you experienced both administrations. There's a reason why one is recognized as a winner and one is recognized as a loser, politically. Compromise actually gets things done, you see.

You're correct, I agree.
Clinton accomplished a lot, but basically had to compromise with the Republicans on every issue.
Carter did almost nothing, but was willing to take a stand, and now afterwards he's even more vocal.

The big hope a lot of liberals have for Obama now is that he'll take a stand and get something good done... and if he needs to abuse executive orders to do that, I'm all for it.