It seems all the GOP hand-wringing of the last nine days has been for naught. Last week (and into this one), many on the right were all spooked by the media narrative, that, as Jay Cost put it, “even though Obama’s bounce was modest by historical standards, and he still could not pull above 50 percent nationwide or in the key swing states, the mainstream media dutifully declared not only that Obama was winning, but that the Romney campaign was in utter disarray.”
One wonders if we’ll be seeing reports next week suggesting Obama’s campaign is in disarray if the Democrat’s poll numbers continue to drift downward as they have these past few days, with the latest Gallup tracking poll showing the president, who recently enjoyed a 7-poing lead over Romney, now barely clinging to a one-point advantage
No way to know if O would have deflated that quickly under normal circumstances or if hisinexcusable negligence in failing to provide security for the Benghazi consulate blunted his momentum, but that’s where we are right now.
Conventional wisdom to the contrary, this contest is far from over. And these poll numbers look even worse for the president when you consider, as does Breitbart’s Mike Flynn that “Gallup is still using a Registered Voter screen, which has a well-established bias towards Democrats of 2-5 points.” And interestingly, while the Gallup tracking poll had Obama at 50 for several days, the president never broke that barrier, suggesting that may well be his peak.
This is now a margin-of-error race. Should Romney be able to win two-thirds of the currently undecided voters (an easily realizable goal), he could well win this. He just needs focus on telling voters what he plans to do when elected and keep challenging the president to release his plan.
New Narrative?
How about the mother jones video shows Romney is a devisive elitist, promoting class warfare? Totally bringing republicans into the fringe.
Either one is fine with me. As long as there is no discussion of jobs its a good day for Obama.
Mike, that’s not what the video shows.
But, at least you do acknowledge that the president wants to keep the conversation away from jobs. Heck, we started talking about his economic record, that might depress his numbers even further, especially now that Romney is trying to make lemonade from lemons
Yup.
By making it clear that those who work and pay taxes are better than those who mooch off welfare.
By making it clear that he stands for those who work and pay taxes, while Obama stands for those who mooch off welfare.
This is where your brainwashing comes in, mike. You and your fellow Obama Party members are incensed that Romney would dare say that those who work and pay taxes are better than those who mooch — because you, your Obama, and your Obama Party believe the exact opposite.
That’s the difference, mike. Romney is promoting “class warfare” and “elitism” based on work and productivity — two things that are good for society.
Barack Obama is promoting class warfare and elitism based on skin color, minority status, and contempt for work and productivity. THAT’S the difference.
Agree on the jobs ~only a lair would not.
But I think that is exactly what the video shows. So does David Brooks and Scott Brown.
So lets talk more about Romney the divider. If we keep talkiing about what Romney believes and says, Dems Win! If we talk about jobs Dems could lose ~ but the fact this election is even close shows how weak Romney is.
mike, just because David Brooks says a video shows something doesn’t mean it does. By the Brooks standard, a well-creased pants leg would indicate a sharp and capable leader.
Romney is not a divider, far from it.
But, you do have a point, well, you do offer a nice synopsis of the Obama campaign, trying to talk about Romney as their sole strategy to victory. If this election were about the incumbent he would lose.
And I would argue, given the media’s past week of attacks on Romney coupled the the tens of millions the Obama campaign and its allies have spent trashing the Massachusetts Republican, the fact that this election is even close shows how weak Obama is.
So, lower case mike and his ilk think it’s a good thing to have 47% of the population leeching off the other 52% and believe that this arrangement is sustainable in the long term.
I don’t agree.
Most people can easily differentiate between what the media is trying to get them to think and what the facts tell them. They may think other people are too stupid to get the distinction, but they get it themselves.
The MSM has a very low opinion of the intellect of most Americans. We’ll find out in November if the self-appointed opinion shapers are right. I’ll bet they’re going to be surprised, bitterly humiliated and throwing temper-tantrums the day after the election.
“So, lower case mike and his ilk think it’s a good thing to have 47% of the population leeching off the other 52”
Leeches? Why are you calling the majority of the Jewish population (who consistently vote the big “D”) leeches?
Why are you calling hard working teachers leeches?
Why are you calling firefighters leeches?
Why are you call my Grandmother who votes the big D a leech?
Why are you calling my neighbor who works from home with an Obama bumper sticker a leech?
See? This is the problem with your narrative. It doesn’t hold up to greater scrutiny. And only acts to divide and insult anyone who votes with a moderate tilt. Its the typical elitist attitude that folks who hang out in golden halls or conservative utopian blogs espouse and does not reflect the current situation of America.
Just because you feel that its good governance to have a social safety net does not mean you are a “leech”
Let’s see, Mike, what do you and your fellow Obama supporters call Republicans?
Vampires.
Racists.
Sons of b*tches.
And believe me, I haven’t even finished.
And the list keeps going, mike:
Felons.
Murderers.
Murderers.
And there’s even more, mike:
Nazis.
Nazis.
Nazis.
And there’s even more:
Whores.
Whores.
C*nts and twats.
And let’s show a fine example of what your Obama Party and your fellow Obama supporters, including your grandmother, your neighbor, “hard-working teachers” and “firefighters” who support and endorse the Barack Obama Party, say about Dan himself:
And we can also show how your Barack Obama endorses and supports those who wish death on Republicans.
So frankly put, mike, your attempt to play offended is utter bullsh*t. Once people see how Obama supporters like you, your grandmother, the “majority of the Jewish population”, “hard-working teachers”, “firefighters”, and your neighbor actually behave, your screaming about how mean everyone else is looks like the childish tantrum that it is, meant to shame and force others into compliance for behavior that you and your fellow Obama supporters endorse, embrace, and practice.
You have a blatant and obvious double standard, mike. And now you’re being forced to eat it.
Sentimental appeals to emotion can’t change hard mathematics, however strongly progressive leftists might “feel” that they should.
A society can only support so many unproductive, non-contributing people. Whining about, “Oh but it’s my grandma,” doesn’t change that the system is unsustainable and will completely collapse absent major changes.
Who will take care of mike’s grandmother when the system collapses. Apparently, not him.
And, no, economically illiterate mike, society can’t support millions of teachers and firefighters who are compensated at rates far above those of the citizens they serve and who can retire young on fat, taxpayer-procided pensions and live at leisure for decades where those employed in the private sector cannot even afford to retire.
Much less can society support the armies of regulators, bureaucrats, diversity coordinators, community outreach directors, policy administrators, self esteem workshop coordinators, regulatory compliance analysts, and other overcompensated leeches the progressive state insists that we employ.
‘Who will take care of mike’s grandmother when the system collapses. Apparently, not him.”
I never said “what about my G-Ma” I said “Stop calling her, my neighbor, the majority of Jewish Americans, teachers and firefighters leeches”
I will when they stop leeching and we have a Government we can afford.
Meanwhile, mike, here’s three great examples of what your fellow Obama Party members and supporters are doing — and you, your grandmother, the “majority of the Jewish population”, “hard-working teachers”, “firefighters”, and your neighbor support, endorse, and want to perpetuate.
Guess what, mike?
They support this, they ARE leeches.
They support this, they ARE leeches.
They support this, they ARE leeches.
You simply do not comprehend or get this. You and they are so brainwashed that you honestly believe that other people work for you to confiscate it. You and they are leeches.
Why? They call Republicans much worse, over and over and over again.
What about the Chicago Teachers Union. They are on strike because a 16% raise on top of their average $76K per year (actually nine-months) salary wasn’t enough, and furthermore, they refuse to have their pay linked to, you know, actually doing their job effectively.
Note: Only 15 percent of Chicago 4th graders and just 19 percent of 8th graders can read proficiently.
But to call those noble professionals “leeches” is offensive to progressive leftists.
And of course, we can’t forget about this:
And mike, his grandmother, his neighbor, the “majority of the Jewish population”, “hard-working teachers”, and “firefighters” support this, endorse it, and see nothing wrong with it whatsoever.
Leeches.
Note, also, how lower case mike studiously avoids any discussion about the fiscal sustainability of his progressive welfare state… or lack thereof. A true Obama acolyte, he deflects debate over substance with appeals to emotion and faux outrage.
Mainly because, V the K, mike has already been smoked out on that one.
Math is hard. Especially for liberals.
I guess berating conservatives for being dumb and “anti-science” is much easier than doing actual math.
“Note, also, how lower case mike studiously avoids any discussion about the fiscal sustainability of his progressive welfare state”
That wasn’t the point of your post. Romney said that 47% of the population wasn’t voting for him so there is no point in even trying to communicate with him.
Then you took that and called the 47% leeches.
Which I suppose you are rightfully backing away from – thanks
I would say that the welfare state IS sustainable if we get our tax code to where it was under Reagan, cut our military and cut some of the welfare benefits.
Its not that complicated, and I think 90% of Americans would agree that tax increases + across the board spending cuts are the key to getting us there.
Its not just entitlements that need to be cut, but also huge military cuts and a strong Government Run Program that cuts health care costs (tort reform & Vouchers is not going to do it)
What is not sustainable is what Romney is offering. Tax cuts paid for by “closing loopholes” with no specifics on spending cuts, and keeping the “good parts” of Obama’s Health Care Plan but throwing the bad out
# 24
NDT – Normally I wouldn’t respond to you because I find your posts to be too hyperbolistic for my taste, but in this case I would love it if you could solve this mystery for me. Your link sends me to a thread on GP where you respond to a “mike” but there is no “mike” who posted on the thread. Did you post to the wrong thread on that one? Or is there something I am not seeing.
Very odd. Wouldn’t you agree?
Nope.
You ran away from it the first two times it was posted, so it’s no surprise you can’t answer it this time either.
Next up:
Evidently “hyperbolistic” means “full of facts, links, and references that I can’t refute, so I’ll just run away”.
Speaking of facts, let’s point out the rules under which mike is operating here.
That really is mike’s whole point. Mike and the Obama Party don’t have a plan, nor do they intend to have one. Instead, they scream, cry, and attack those who DO have a plan, who DID put things down on paper, and who DID make a commitment while spinning lie after lie after lie about how they will “cut spending”, just as they promised previously and didn’t.
Meanwhile, mike, if you have enough money to buy liquor-stocked private airliners, throw lavish Hollywood parties, and provide subsidized apartments in New York City to insider-trading multimillionaires, you have more than enough in taxes. What you DON’T have is the will to stop wasting it on your cronies.
And to continue, Reagan’s key and critical mistake was to treat the Obama Party as something other than leeches and accept an immediate tax increase in exchange for a promised spending cut. Instead, the Obama Party jacked spending massively and then screamed that he wanted people homeless when he protested.
And hence Republicans have learned a lesson. The Obama Party never, NEVER will cut spending. NEVER. They will ALWAYS demand a tax increase, because they and their base simply do not pay them.
As ILC so brilliantly puts it, the Obama Party offers poison as food, poison as antidote. They, you included, are leeches who can think of nothing more than sucking more blood out of the host. They will not and cannot stop, because their base, the 47%, is dependent on and demands giveaways.
“One wonders if we’ll be seeing reports next week suggesting Obama’s campaign is in disarray if the Democrat’s poll numbers continue to drift downward as they have these past few days, with the latest Gallup tracking poll showing the president, who recently enjoyed a 7-poing lead over Romney, now barely clinging to a one-point advantage”
“Polling Data“
Food for thought for brainless mike:
1) Here’s the situation on the other side of the pond (Europe) double checked on 4 different western EU countries. NO TEACHER makes the equivalent of 76k $, NO WAY, NOBODY. That is the salary of a senior Engineer in the private sector or a manager.
How do you explain that even in socialist Europe public school teacher do not make that much?
2) Romney didn’t underline that 47% do not pay income taxes (although it is likely true), he simply said 47% will never vote for him because they vote for the empty chair for a plethora of reasons (including racism, classism, elitism, stupidity, self hatred, christianophobia, etc).
It is evident that all the braindeads in hollywood ‘vote’ for obama, although we are lucky that their drugged self and their will to stay in bed till late eventually will make them forget to drag their asses to actually vote, and they do pay income taxes (after they have moved their biggest chunk to fiscal paradises oversea naturally).
Romney speech was so subtle that simpletons like you do not understand it. 47% are star strucks like bieber teenagers fans wetting their pants. And you are a proud member. Do you bite your handkerchief when you see your idol on TV?
NDT
I do not check this site as regularly as you. Apparently once I left you hitting refresh waiting for my fantastic response. Sorry to leave you hanging.
But in my response to my question, you again linked to a post where I was not active at all so…I am not sure what I am supposed to do with that.
But anyway. Its my fault for having engaged you as any fair reading of your many many many many posts show you are firmly on the hyperbolistic side of the blog-o-sphere and I don’t have the energy to keep up. Everyone is guilty of straying to hyperbole from time-to-time but you are just too much for me.
Have a great day.
“brainless mike”
Susan – why this?
What does that do to any conversation? All that would lead is for me to come up with some snarky name for you (if I was more clever I would give you an example here)
Its the same as calling people who think a safety net is good governance “leeches”
Its the same as telling a group of Donors that you have no plans to even try to work with Dems because of some lie. (the lie is all Dependent on gov which is obviously not true)
So, lower case mike wants tax rates at 70% (the pre-Reagan top rate) which will be great for our global competitiveness, especially when they apply to corporate income and capital gains. He wants to further gut the military, because the USA has neither threats nor global interests. And he wanted the Government to take over health care because that will make it better and less expensive …. Like everything else the Government does. (Sarcasm)
And, yes, Democrats are parasites. Did you watch the DNC convention? Did they present any reason to vote Democrats except “We will give you free stuff.”
Only if Americans have become a nation of idiots, which I’m not convinced is the case yet. Seriously, Romney should have been campaigning on this message.
I meant to quote this:
If they are capable of producing their own income, but get their income (or a significant part of it) from the government, they are leeches. I don’t care if they’re Jewish, teachers, firefighters, grandmothers, or your neighbors, they are leeches.
Leeches has the sting of truth to it, which is why the left is going nuts.
mike shifted the argument and focused on whether somebody, anybody, whoever is calling his sainted grandmama a leech. Also Jews. etc.
Typical liberal game. Shift, ignore, name-call. Oh, of course, the “leech” opprobrium started in the comments, but mike jumped on it like “slut” on Sandra Fluke.
You see, the liberals get to free wheel in the debasement game and they are simultaneously experts at miscasting it in return and playing the “I’ve been raped” victim card for all it is worth. (Understand, the liberal is also redefining “rape” in doing so.)
But in the midst of mike’s wailings about degradation and loss of honor he said this:
First, he concedes that the US is a welfare state.
Second, he believes this welfare state IS sustainable.
Third, the tax code needs to shift to some unidentified point of where it was when Reagan was President for two terms.
Fourth, the military has to be “cut” by unspecified amounts. (See: seven, below)
Fifth, cut “some” welfare benefits.
Sixth, 90% of Americans would agree to tax increases and across the board government spending cuts to get “there”. [the sustainable welfare state]
Seventh, entitlement cuts must be coupled with “huge” military cuts.
Eighth, a “strong” Government Run Program (must be in place) to cut health care costs.
None of this is coupled with any numbers or calculations or evidence that adopting the eight steps will lead to a sustainable welfare state. It is all shoveling smoke and moonbattery and focusing on shiny objects while raving and rhapsodizing.
Thanks, mike. But your “plan” is too big for a fortune cookie and too ambiguous for a recipe. Even a recipe for boiling water.
You spout the Obama doxology perfectly, but like the Obamessiah, you cover yourself with obfuscated, turbid babble.
You also dismiss anything and everything Romney out of hand. Nothing Romney says will work. Is that because the American welfare state is not actually sustainable?
If you have a “thinking cap” to put on, please do so before you send your fingers walking across your keyboard.
Leeches:
The left has learned something from the Muslim jihadists. Take nuclear offense at small infractions and go ballistically unhinged.
They learned the utility of having a mob base that can be stirred up and set loose on command.
Alinsky correctly understood that the “settled” classes are slow to riot and rather quick to settle disputes, even against their better judgment. Buy them off and make them go away.
So, the liberals (Democrats), trot out the Occupiers, the strikers, the ghetto disaffected, the nihilists, the ungratified and the belly-achers and they shake-down American taxpayers.
They are hard up against it, now. They have run out of other people’s money in this country and other countries are reluctant to buy our bonds to finance welfare. So now we are buying our own bonds with money we do not have and which Bernanke is creating out of thin air in the traditions of Zimbabwe and post WWI Germany and much of current day Europe.
Come the collapse of financial systems across the world, what will the “average” American living in the city scape do to separate himself from the takers who will be out in force competing for food and shelter?
Heliotrope, and the really asinine part is that lower case mike repeatedly attacks Mitt Romney for not being specific enough, then can only offer up his own vague scheme for fixing things.
He’s an ass.
“He’s an ass”
Nice.
Lets keep.it civil if you can please.
Heliotrope
1 – A social safety nets is good governance and nothing to be ashamed of.
2 It has to be because the alternative is not a society but instead a bunch of individuals in it only for themselves. This is unsustainable as a country.
3 Yes when Reagan was Prez taxes where higher.
4-7 yes. you are right i dont have time or.energy to lay out this plan. Thus I am speaking in generalities. The same as most people on the internet. But I am not running for office.
8 Yes even Romney agrees with me on this point. See his comments on Israel’s socialized medicare plan
Leeches – My point is simply to characterize 47% of the population as leeches simply because they think a social safely net is good governance is highly insulting and elitist.
#26 mike
But if taxes are increased, it will not go to lowering the deficit but to increased spending. The giant goliath of the federal govt has an insatiable and unsustainable desire for money..
The latest RCP average of Obama approval is nearing 50%. And that is after bad jobs numbers, turmoil and death in the Middle East. It proves to me that Americans are so discouraged by what is going on that they just don’t care and are completely apathetic.
Whoa!!! mike, there is a universe of difference between “social safety nets” and the “welfare state.”
Buzzzzzz! Wrong, mike. The alternative to the welfare state is not the extreme opposite. Churches, foundations, charities, local governments are actually very good at the “safety net” tasks. Ever heard of food banks or volunteers after a storm or blood donors or the Salvation Army or thrift stores or Habitat for Humanity or on and on and on and on?
Yeah, but so was the deficit; After Reagan left, as he predicted, federal revenues continued climbing. By 1993, they reached $1.154 trillion. Had federal spending been held at 1989 levels for four years, the government would have run an $11 billion surplus in 1992. But federal spending grew $266 billion, and the government ran a $255.1 billion deficit.
You still do not identify the “Reagan” tax rate you like as pre or post Laffler. When Reagan was inaugurated, taxes were REALLY high.
Actually, you are parroting talking points and you have little apparent understanding of what you are selling.
Romney agrees with you and you don’t know what you are saying? Cool!!!
Suffice it to say, your ability to offer context to your bloviations is not convincing. If you quote Romeny agreeing with you and aspects of the socialized medical plan in Israel that Romney is hot for, that would make a huge, huge difference. Otherwise, it is all babble.
Fluke you. You shifted the topic and screamed like Sinclair Lewis” character Babbitt:
I think you have a point, davinci. Mittens is not presenting a compelling alternative to Obamunism and Ryan might as well be on milk cartons for all we have seen of him since convention. The Republicans seem determined to let this eminently winnable election drizzle down their pants legs.
I did not call the zerobama voters or leftists leeches. Normally I use worse terms. Even leeches have a dignity after all.
OK, mike, you want civil: you, your grandmother, and all Obama supporters are wh*res, c*nts, twats, racists, felons, Nazis, murderers, vampires, and worse, just like you’ve called Republicans.
What you want is to namecall with impunity and shut other people up. Like Heliotrope so elegantly put it, Fluke you.
And heliotrope, to this:
What we conservatives forget, heliotrope, is that mike and his ilk do not contribute to, do not support, and do not believe in such things.
Mike’s words betray him. In the absence of government, liberals leave people to die. They dump people on the street. As they state and state flatly, in the absence of government, they will leave the elderly and children to die.They have none, zero, zip, nada willingness to take care of others themselves. It’s all government.
mike’s grandmother votes Obama for a simple reason; she knows mike and his parents will leave her to die and will not care for her, so she needs Obama to pay her bills.
Oh no! I wouldn’t want to hurt those delicate people’s feelings. Because, you know, their feelings are much more important than the money I earned from working (this issue is not exclusively American, obviously).
Incivil > passive agressive
Exactly.
Not that it would make much of a difference anyway, because it would still be either an appeal to authority, a red herring, a non sequitur, or some other fallacy (or some combination of those and or others). Besides, Romney is a statist, so I’m not sure how that could be convincing (the only relevent piece of information that I can think of is that Romney’s plan (whatever it is) is better than Obama’s (whatever it is)).
“Conventional wisdom to the contrary, this contest is far from over. And these poll numbers look even worse for the president when you consider, as does Breitbart’s Mike Flynn that “Gallup is still using a Registered Voter screen, which has a well-established bias towards Democrats of 2-5 points.” And interestingly, while the Gallup tracking poll had Obama at 50 for several days, the president never broke that barrier, suggesting that may well be his peak”
“Obama Ahead with Stronger Support, Better Image and Lead on Most Issues
Democrats Narrow Engagement Gap
At this stage in the campaign, Barack Obama is in a strong position compared with past victorious presidential candidates. With an eight-point lead over Mitt Romney among likely voters, Obama holds a bigger September lead than the last three candidates who went on to win in November, including Obama four years ago. In elections since 1988, only Bill Clinton, in 1992 and 1996, entered the fall with a larger advantage.”
“Besides, Romney is a statist.”
Exactly. Both major parties now nominate statists as a matter of course.
@Lori,
I try to be optimistic (who, me?). To steal from Beck, we need to slide the “Overton Window” back. Get a smaller statist in, define that as normal. THen a smaller statist, then a smaller one etc etc.
The two issues are 1) Fewer and fewer people (and Levi) are willing to do what it takes to shrink government and keep us on track. 2) We’re running out of time (if we’ve already not passed that point).
Livewire, I think that may be the strategy necessary at this point. In a conversation the other day with a conservative Republican friend, who begged me to vote for Romney instead of Gary Johnson, I promised that my mind is still open. But I gave her one warning:
If I, and other libertarians, vote for Romney, and he does win, for the next 4 to 8 years we will be the biggest pains in the butt the statist Right has ever seen. They have no idea how much we intend to rearrange the furniture.
I will not vote for 4 to 8 more years of Bush. I never voted for Bush, nor am I sorry I didn’t.
Statists in the GOP are afraid of libertarians. This explains why they’re so thuggish about trying to keep us out of the decision-making process. But if we vote for Romney, we will move in alongside them and take co-ownership.
For liberty and small government, that will be good news. For statists, it will be a bitch.
Oh, I think if the Establishment Repbs don’t listen to the Conservative/Tea Party people in their establishment (and Romney wins, of course) the 2016 Republican convention will fit in my back yard.