IIRC Raees, the final margin of victory for Obama was significantly smaller than 15%. What Obama had last time, that he lacks this time, was a basis on which to judge his effectiveness as a leader. That's what did Carter in during the 1980 campaign as well. An ineffective incumbent being challenged is not quite the same thing as there not being an incumbent in the race at all. Obama was successful in campaigning against Bush 4 years ago even though Bush wasn't on the ballot - the same won't be true this fall. This fall the vote is going to be a referendum on Obama and his leadership, not on Bush and his.
Martin Ent Inc wrote: Odds is odds, gotta go with the maker, not the wannabe's.
Apparently the wannabes don't wannabe wrong, so their money is on Obama.
:thumbsup:
I wonder if they've figured out that a "wannabe" "job-creator" who knows more about killing jobs while creating wealth for his buddies doesn't qualify?
Romney is like that shiny new penny that you wanted when you were a kid......after a while the shine is gone and you see it for just what it is.....one of many and not worth much. I think there are a lot of people that wanted a real choice, and they tried hard to make Romney into someone he wasn't....but the shine is wearing off and he is looking pretty dull. Romney doesn't offer what the Tea Party wants....he doesn't offer what the establishment GOP wants, and his appeal to independents started to wane when he moved to the far right during the primary debates (as uncomfortable as he seems to be out there). He surely won't appeal to those democrats that may be disenchanted with Obama.....It's just so damn hard for people to get excited about him.....not unlike Gore was for the democrats. Unless his VP choice somehow gets the right riled up and excited again.......I believe Romney will slip off into the shadows and be just one more also ran.
PS, I have to agree with Rush on this one: anyone who tries to predict the outcome of a presidential election five months out is nuts. There are too many variables and too many things can happen in the interim.
Raees wrote: PS, I have to agree with Rush on this one: anyone who tries to predict the outcome of a presidential election five months out is nuts. There are too many variables and too many things can happen in the interim.
But don't you love it when BOTH sides crow about the polls when their candidate is ahead that day--and grumble that "it's too early to be relevant" when they're behind? And no matter whose poll shows which candidate ahead, the other side takes the position that it's a biased poll.. Some things just "are what they are..."
archer wrote: Romney is like that shiny new penny that you wanted when you were a kid......after a while the shine is gone and you see it for just what it is.....one of many and not worth much. I think there are a lot of people that wanted a real choice, and they tried hard to make Romney into someone he wasn't....but the shine is wearing off and he is looking pretty dull. Romney doesn't offer what the Tea Party wants....he doesn't offer what the establishment GOP wants, and his appeal to independents started to wane when he moved to the far right during the primary debates (as uncomfortable as he seems to be out there). He surely won't appeal to those democrats that may be disenchanted with Obama.....It's just so damn hard for people to get excited about him.....not unlike Gore was for the democrats. Unless his VP choice somehow gets the right riled up and excited again.......I believe Romney will slip off into the shadows and be just one more also ran.
Wasn't Obama that "shiny object" before the 08 election? After all, he didn't run on experience or real world accomplishments, he ran on promises... promises of transparency, closing Gitmo, fixing the economy, etc. Don't you think Pres. Obama's shine has worn off a bit after 4 years?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Some things just "are what they are..."
