28
   

Tonight's Presidential Candidate Debate...

 
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
MMarciano
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2012 05:23 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



Voting for Obama in this election is a terrorist attack against the US


You're as dumb as a box of horse ****!
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2012 05:28 pm
@MMarciano,


Laughing LOL, you must be the offspring of an Obama voter.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2012 05:34 pm
@Rockhead,
Quote:
I think that is how the taliban got started...


Simple: The talibang is just a bunch of guys like Bork Obunga who had less luck convincing anybody that they were natural born US citizens.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2012 05:37 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
When they work so hard to suppress votes,...


You left out an adjective, fool: should read:

When they work so hard to suppress ILLEGAL votes...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2012 05:39 pm
@gungasnake,
There are no "illegal" votes when people show up to vote. Who's the "fool" here? You still haven't heard about all the states that tried to pass government issued picture ID's to vote?

It's obvious, the courts are much smarter than you!
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2012 05:43 pm
How Women Actually Vote...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/330797/romney-safer-choice-women-michael-barone

Quote:

An interesting story from last winter: An e-mail friend, a staunch Republican who lives in an affluent suburb far from Washington, was watching one of the Republican debates with his wife, a staunch Democrat.

He was surprised by her response to Mitt Romney. “He’s a grown-up. He’s someone who is reliable,” he told me she said. “People will feel safe if he is in charge.”

I’ve been thinking about that e-mail in the wake of the first presidential debate on October 3 and the vice-presidential debate last week. (This is written on deadline before the October 16 Long Island debate.)

There’s obviously been a surge toward Romney. He was trailing in just about every national poll conducted before October 3. He has been leading in most of those conducted since.

His national lead was matched as swing-state polls came in. In the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls, he’s ahead or even in states with 248 electoral votes. He’s ahead, even, or within two points in states with 301 electoral votes, 31 more than the 270-vote majority.

Fascinatingly, it appears that he’s made greater gains among women than among men. The USA Today/Gallup poll has him running even with Barack Obama among women, 48 to 48 percent. Pew Research Center’s post-debate poll has women at 47 to 47.

That’s a huge difference from 2008, when the exit poll showed Barack Obama leading John McCain among women by 56 to 43 percent. Men favored Obama by only one point.

Advertisement

All the evidence suggests that the first debate made the difference. “In every poll we’ve seen a major surge in favorability for Romney,” Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told USA Today’s Susan Page.
“Women went into the debate actively disliking Romney,” she went on, “and they came out thinking he might understand their lives and might be able to get something done for them.”

That sounds a lot like what my e-mail friend’s wife said last winter.

Obama campaign strategists are pooh-poohing the notion that Romney could be making gains with women.

“Why, he’s against ‘access to contraception,’” they thunder. That was something we heard a lot about at the Democratic National Convention.

But it’s code language. “Access to contraception” turns out not to mean access to contraception. No one anywhere in the country is proposing to ban contraceptives. The Supreme Court ruled in 1965 — 47 years ago! — that states can’t do that.

The code language refers to the Obamacare requirement that employers’ health insurance pay for contraception. So “access” means you won’t have to pay the $9 a month that contraceptives cost at Walmart.

Big deal. That’s about the price of two pumpkin lattes at Starbucks.

Maybe it’s just possible that women voters are more concerned about an economy where 23 million people are out of work or have quit looking.

Or about a president who the day after the murder of a U.S. ambassador flew off to a Las Vegas fundraiser and for two weeks kept blaming that murder on a spontaneous response to a video, contrary to what his State Department knew on day one.

Joe Biden tried to appeal to women by predicting that a Supreme Court with more Republican appointees might overturn Roe v. Wade and make abortion illegal.

One is reminded that Biden was near the bottom of his class at Syracuse Law School. A Roe reversal, which is highly unlikely no matter who is confirmed to the high court, would simply return the issue to the states. Abortion wouldn’t be banned anywhere except, maybe, in Utah, Louisiana, and Guam.

Once upon a time, abortion was a defining issue for many voters. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, partisan preferences on both sides were linked to strong religious and moral beliefs. Voters didn’t switch parties much.

In the last half a dozen years, voters have responded more to events, emerging issues, and leaders’ strengths and weaknesses. Many switched parties to vote for Obama. Some, many of them women, are switching now to vote for Romney.

Women tend to be more risk-averse than men, and the gender gap grew when Reagan Republicans were depicted as scaling back welfare-state protections.

The debates may have shifted the perception of risk. The downcast Obama and the cackling Biden may have sounded dangerously risky. Many women may have felt, as my e-mail friend’s wife said last winter, that they would feel safe if Romney were in charge.

Readers who watched Tuesday’s debate can judge whether that still holds.

0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2012 05:48 pm


I wish one of the undecided voters had asked Obama
how he has distinguished himself from Jimmy Carter.
gungasnake
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2012 07:00 pm
@H2O MAN,
This thing with the libtards being unable to figure out women sort of reminds me of the scene in Thunderball in which Bond describes one of the fatcat's skeet guns as a "women's gun".....

"You must be some sort of an expert on firearms" says the fatcat and Bond replies something like

Quote:
Not really, but I AM a sort of an expert on women...


Think any of the tards here could profit from watching Connery/Bond films??
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2012 07:04 pm
Quote:
He was surprised by her response to Mitt Romney. “He’s a grown-up. He’s someone who is reliable,” he told me she said. “People will feel safe if he is in charge.”


That's the feeling people had about Ike.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 11:49 am


It's becoming clear that Obama will not get
any bounce after 'winning' the 2nd debate.

Romney's numbers continue to surge.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 12:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Romney 47.1 Obama 47.0

Improving slightly for Obama. We will see after monday if it changes back, it just seems to change from day over the smallest things.

DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 01:30 pm
@revelette,
This post from Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog might give some insight on that: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/oct-15-distracted-by-polling-noise/

Basically, he discusses that there's a difference between national and state polls.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 03:54 pm
@DrewDad,
I'm just wondering how many votes those numbers really represent? I'm sure even small percentages represent thousands, but how many thousands?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 04:42 pm
If you wish to take solace in the crumbling rat hole Campaign Obama found before Debate #2 to try and blunt the onslaught they expected re Benghazi (you know, the one absolutely no one brought up before the debate) and you contend Obama identified the attack as an act of terrorists on 9/12, then even you have to ask, why the hell did he wait two weeks before so identifying it again, all the while saying "we don't know," and strongly suggesting, if not stating, that it was part of a spontaneous reaction to the anti-Islam video?

Why did he have Jay Carney take that line for so long?

Why did he send Ambassador Rice to 5 Sunday shows to very explicitly say it was a spontaneous reaction to the video.

Now we have the release today of State Department cables that show the Embassy and the Ambassador himself had been pleading for additional security for months before 9/11, and warning of "discriminate" attacks by Islamist extremists,and specifically not spontaneous mob violence.

And President Obama had the disgraceful nerve during the second debate to sternly declare that no one care more for the safety of American diplomats than him.

I will grant that he, almost assuredly, didn't personally reject the requests for
additional security, but how many diplomatic postings could have been more dangerous in the last 12 months than Libya? Surely Obama had to know that, and if he really cared so much for the safety his Diplomatic Corps, how hard would have been to affirmatively inquire of the security in the half dozen or dozen most dangerous places in the world? Would the State Department have failed to tell him of the requests for beefed up security in Libya? Hard to imagine they would have.

The reality is that for the benefit of his Pacific Pivot foreign policy strategy, and, most importantly, for his re-election campaign, the narrative had to be:

We got binLaden and al-Qaida is on the run (the latter having been conspicuously removed from his stump speeches the day after Debate 2), that "Leading From Behind" in Libya was plenty smart since the nation was stable and we didn't need extra-ordinary security measures to protect our people.

The reality, as we know now, is that the two former Seals who died in Benghazi, were NOT part of the consulate security staff, and attempted to come to the rescue of their overwhelmed fellow Americans and, tragically paid the ultimate price for their heroism. The Admin has either promoted or allowed the notion that they were part of the security staff to cover up it's own failing.

As a result, the narrative includes the notion that the two Seals failed in their charge, when the reality is that they voluntarily and bravely entered a fray that they had to know probably would lead to their deaths.

This act of self-less bravery is completely lost in the country's perception of the incident because of the outrageous and disgraceful efforts of this Admin to protect the president's re-election bid through deliberate obfuscation and outright lying.

Obviously, I have never been a fan of President Obama and his Admin., but even I wouldn't have predicted he could be this callous, this despicable.

It's stunning.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 04:50 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
How many threads are you going to post your bullshit on?

Considering how big a Bush supporter you were/are, it takes a lot of balls for you to denounce 'obfuscation/lying.' You don't actually give a **** about that at all, do you? You protected it for years.

Cycloptichorn
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 05:06 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo = The Amazing Kreskin

He knows what you are thinking!
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 05:08 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,

Cyclo is melting down right before
our eyes and it's pretty damn funny
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 05:10 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cyclo = The Amazing Kreskin

He knows what you are thinking!


It's not that amazing.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 05:31 pm
@H2O MAN,
Indeed.

He is experiencing a Republican Victory induced fugue state.

Elsewhere he's gibbering about "fee-fees"
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/06/2021 at 03:58:29