Online Now 3065

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

On this Board 172
Record: 3425 (1/27/2013)

Online now 3021
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

Romney +7 over Obama

  • Heathens '87 said...

    Yes and no. If President Obama was not such a weak candidate and so stunningly vulnerable on the economy, this would be Dole/Kerry/Mondale territory without a realistic chance at winning. Right now, all Romney has to do is not be Obama and be a realistic alternative to have a chance. But taken as a candidate himself, he's not seen as consistent, trustworthy or relateable. What's truly surprising is that the GOP could not put forward a stronger candidate given that we've known for quite a while that Obama would be a weak incumbent. The challenge for the Obama campaign is to not simply rely on the reality that Romney is not a strong alternative as even if Romney is a blank slate, the etch-a-sketch, Obama is still going to struggle to win that referendum on his first term. Romney has one big strength....he's not Obama. Beyond that, in reality, there's not much there.......

    True that the incumbent always has a big advantage. Voters don't want to change course unless is seems necessary. In this case Obama has certainly made many feel that is very necessary. Under most situations any challenger is going to be seen as weak. You need an unusually strong challenger to make people feel like he would win against a reasonably strong incumbent.

    In this case, Romney is a typical candidate who might actually have more appeal to moderates and those who think the economy needs someone competent leading it. That could be enough against Obama who has done almost everything wrong. I agree this is a referendum on Obama..It always is with an incumbent. But, Romney is competent and smart which puts him in as about a strong a position as most challengers could be.

    I also agree that Obama so far seems to have under estimated Romney. They think they can pull the typical white wash and get people to hate him. That play is so old that people no longer fall for it...and Romney not biting. He will focus on the issues and that is what Obama doesn't want.

    Tell me who would be a stronger GOP candidate? Jebb Bush? Sure but he knows that he better for him to wait for 2016 or 2020 when he will run against a non incumbent and the memory of his brother has faded some. Who else? Daniels? Perhaps, but his wife said no. You aren't going to win with a typical religious conservative candidate...unless he is extremely charismatic like Reagan. And, the Ron Paul's of the world will not appeal to independents ..for now. So who?

    In today's media environment . You either have to be completely vetted and a squeeky clean life (like romney) or an unknown with almost no history record like Obama was..to get through the process. Most of the best people are no longer going to put themselves through the process of dragging skeletons out the closet.

    This post has been edited 4 times, most recently by lars on 5/11/2012 at 10:13 PM

    lars ●

  • lars said...

    True that the incumbent always has a big advantage. Voters don't want to change course unless is seems necessary. In this case Obama has certainly made many feel that is very necessary. Under most situations any challenger is going to be seen as weak. You need an unusually strong challenger to make people feel like he would win against a reasonably strong incumbent.

    In this case, Romney is a typical candidate who might actually have more appeal to moderates and those who think the economy needs someone competent leading it. That could be enough against Obama who has done almost everything wrong. I agree this is a referendum on Obama..It always is with an incumbent. But, Romney is competent and smart which puts him in as about a strong a position as most challengers could be.

    I also agree that Obama so far seems to have under estimated Romney. They think they can pull the typical white wash and get people to hate him. That play is so old that people no longer fall for it...and Romney not biting. He will focus on the issues and that is what Obama doesn't want.

    Tell me who would be a stronger GOP candidate? Jebb Bush? Sure but he knows that he better for him to wait for 2016 or 2020 when he will run against a non incumbent and the memory of his brother has faded some. Who else? Daniels? Perhaps, but his wife said no. You aren't going to win with a typical religious conservative candidate...unless he is extremely charismatic like Reagan. And, the Ron Paul's of the world will not appeal to independents ..for now. So who?

    In today's media environment . You either have to be completely vetted and a squeeky clean life (like romney) or an unknown with almost no history record like Obama was..to get through the process. Most of the best people are no longer going to put themselves through the process of dragging skeletons out the closet.

    Your psychotic hatred of Obama has turned you into a Romney worshipper. You've gone over the edge, lars, and it's more evident with every post you make.

    I'd like you to explain this hatred for Obama and your fawning adoration of Romney. Please tell me how President Obama has made your life worse and how Mitt Romney will make your life better.

    Pervis Muldoon ●

  • I think all of us, Democrat, Republican, whatever, are all better off if Romney is a viable candidate. The more competitive the race is, the more debate we will have. That is good for all of us.

    The RCMB...is one of the most awful, alarming, inappropriate, disgusting, and offensive msg boards in the history of the internet.

    Jud Owns Digger ●

  • lars said...

    The point the dems miss is the trending in the polls. Ever since it became clear that Romney is the nominee he has been gaining steam in the polls. First he pulled even after being 9 points down and now he is pulling ahead by 7 points. So long as people think the economy is the number 1 issue then this trend should continue.

    The thing I found amazing was today's daily poll on NRO online. I've been an outspoken supporter of Romney since 2008. I've seen all the petty bullshit thrown his way about him not being a true conservative.

    Well...hello...the question today was:

    Are you more enthusiastic about Romney today than three months ago?

    Boom.

    86% say yes.

    That has to be a number sending shivers down David Axelrod's spine...

    kaiserpete ●

  • kaiserpete said...

    The thing I found amazing was today's daily poll on NRO online. I've been an outspoken supporter of Romney since 2008. I've seen all the petty bullshit thrown his way about him not being a true conservative.

    Well...hello...the question today was:

    Are you more enthusiastic about Romney today than three months ago?

    Boom.

    86% say yes.

    That has to be a number sending shivers down David Axelrod's spine...

    Does it bother you at all that Romney has no principles? It's not just the 180-degree position changes, or even taking credit for saving the auto industry when he was against saving it in the first place, but he couldn't even stand up to social conservatives who didn't like his choice of a foreign policy spokesman because the guy is gay.

    Romney doesn't seem to have an ounce of courage, so how do you expect him to make the tough decisions a president has to make? Given your hypersensitivity to the foreign threats America faces, I don't see how you wouldn't be frightened at the thought of a Romney presidency.

    Pervis Muldoon ●

  • Pervis Muldoon said...

    Does it bother you at all that Romney has no principles? It's not just the 180-degree position changes, or even taking credit for saving the auto industry when he was against saving it in the first place, but he couldn't even stand up to social conservatives who didn't like his choice of a foreign policy spokesman because the guy is gay.

    Romney doesn't seem to have an ounce of courage, so how do you expect him to make the tough decisions a president has to make? Given your hypersensitivity to the foreign threats America faces, I don't see how you wouldn't be frightened at the thought of a Romney presidency.

    Hilarious.

    Has Romney changed positions over the years? Yes.

    At the end of the day, he's a Mormon church leader and a successful businessman.

    How anyone in their right mind could think the man is anything but conservative is utterly laughable...

    kaiserpete ●

  • kaiserpete said...

    Hilarious.

    Has Romney changed positions over the years? Yes.

    At the end of the day, he's a Mormon church leader and a successful businessman.

    How anyone in their right mind could think the man is anything but conservative is utterly laughable...

    There's nothing hilarious about it; it should raise a red flag when you're picking a Commander-in-Chief. You may not realize this, but not every Mormon church leader and successful businessman is capable of defeating our enemies. At the end of the day, Romney will sacrifice his hand-picked foreign policy guy if the gay-haters raise a stink. If he can't stand up to a few evangelical preachers, how's he going to stand up to America's threats?

    Since you've been a big Romney fan for so long, can you tell me when he's taken an unpopular position because it was the right thing to do? I haven't seen that in him at all. And I think, no matter what your political beliefs, we'd all agree that the politically expedient position isn't always right.

    Pervis Muldoon ●

  • Pervis Muldoon said...

    There's nothing hilarious about it; it should raise a red flag when you're picking a Commander-in-Chief. You may not realize this, but not every Mormon church leader and successful businessman is capable of defeating our enemies. At the end of the day, Romney will sacrifice his hand-picked foreign policy guy if the gay-haters raise a stink. If he can't stand up to a few evangelical preachers, how's he going to stand up to America's threats?

    Since you've been a big Romney fan for so long, can you tell me when he's taken an unpopular position because it was the right thing to do? I haven't seen that in him at all. And I think, no matter what your political beliefs, we'd all agree that the politically expedient position isn't always right.

    If we're talking about defeating our enemies, then I'll take any person drawn at random from the Toledo area phone book over Obama.

    Other than killing UBL...what has Obama accomplished in foreign policy?

    kaiserpete ●

  • The interesting aspect for the GOP was the constant rise of the "not Romney" candidate. The campaign apparatus and money involved made that a tough road for any challenger and I continue to wonder why someone like Pawlenty hung it up so early. Reasonable alternatives were afraid of the machine Romney built and he certainly used it well to keep challengers at bay.

    To the coming election, there are 40% who won't vote for Obama, just as there are 40% who won't vote for Romney. Elections are won in the middle. Both candidates are wounded and both have issues with their bases. Two incumbents in modern political history lost - Bush and Carter. Both were taken down by economic issues and both were taken down by optimistic challengers.

    Just as Obama shouldn't be over-confident, Romney has to be more than a blank slate alternative. We'll see who is able to define themselves as that basic aspect of campaigning will be the difference. Obama needs to convince enough Americans that the recovery is just beginning and changing horses mid-stream is an error, while Romney has to get people to believe that Obama is the roadblock and that he will side with the people. Both are tough sells.....

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." --Gandhi

    Heathens 87

  • Pervis Muldoon said...

    Does it bother you at all that Romney has no principles? It's not just the 180-degree position changes,

    It bothers you when people change their positions 180 degrees? Like vowing to close Gitmo and ending military tribunals? Like vowing to eliminate the Bush tax cuts.... Like promising to end earmarks and reduce the deficit? You must be bothered a lot these days Prevert.

    Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. - Frank Leahy.-- If you're going to be stupid, be smart about it. - Mike Milbury

    Bullwrinkle

  • Not to mention Obama also changing his position on gay marriage. For - Against - For. He announced this latest change to get more contributions from Gays in his base. Not surprisingly this worked. Fund raising is up.

    Why is Obama such a coward on the issue? If he thinks it is the right thing to do why not push for it at the federal level? States rights issue? What a whimp!

    Συν ται η επι ται! Syn tai e epi tai! Ή ταν ή επί τας! E tan i epi tas!

    CVSpartan

  • Pervis Muldoon said...

    Please tell me how President Obama has made your life worse

    Are we now playing slow pitch softball around here, Prevert? lol

    RQA

  • Bullwrinkle said...

    It bothers you when people change their positions 180 degrees?

    I'm not sure why changing your mind on something is considered a bad thing. We should want politicians who "evolve" in the sense that they gather information, look at changing circumstances, reflect on their beliefs, and are willing to change. When it is viewed as being driven by political expediency, that's a different issue. It's also one thing to promise things during a campaign only to get into office and realize there are many different levels to decisions that are not so easily undone. The whole flip-flopper thing ignores a truth for me, which is that I want people in office who are willing to change their minds. We used to consider open-mindedness a virtue.......

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." --Gandhi

    Heathens 87

  • Heathens '87 said...

    The interesting aspect for the GOP was the constant rise of the "not Romney" candidate. The campaign apparatus and money involved made that a tough road for any challenger and I continue to wonder why someone like Pawlenty hung it up so early. Reasonable alternatives were afraid of the machine Romney built and he certainly used it well to keep challengers at bay.

    To the coming election, there are 40% who won't vote for Obama, just as there are 40% who won't vote for Romney. Elections are won in the middle. Both candidates are wounded and both have issues with their bases. Two incumbents in modern political history lost - Bush and Carter. Both were taken down by economic issues and both were taken down by optimistic challengers.

    Just as Obama shouldn't be over-confident, Romney has to be more than a blank slate alternative. We'll see who is able to define themselves as that basic aspect of campaigning will be the difference. Obama needs to convince enough Americans that the recovery is just beginning and changing horses mid-stream is an error, while Romney has to get people to believe that Obama is the roadblock and that he will side with the people. Both are tough sells.....

    It won't be a tough sell to say Obama is the road block. He has been terrible at leading consensus. Most people already see him as a failed leader.

    lars ●

  • lars said...

    It won't be a tough sell to say Obama is the road block. He has been terrible at leading consensus. Most people already see him as a failed leader.

    Well, that's a position someone already on the right would take. But the truth is that poll after poll shows that the American people, by and large, like President Obama. He's seen as honest, trustworthy, strong, etc. In just about every one of those categories, he's viewed far more favorably than Governor Romney. The issue for Obama (and the opportunity for Romney) remains centered around economic issues.

    Where I think the Obama campaign will go is in painting a stunningly unpopular Congress as the issue, just as I think they'll use the line of a conservative and activist Supreme Court once a few rulings come down this summer. Obama needs the economy to continue to improve. If it doesn't, or continues to be seen as sluggish, the Romney campaign needs to do more than point a finger at Obama, but outline clear distinctions in terms of an economic approach that benefits all Americans.

    Like I said, the Obama and Romney campaign aren't worried about converting those clearly in the camp of another to defect. It's about those willing to be persuaded...the 20% or so in the middle of the political spectrum. In that sense, both campaigns have tough sells as Obama has not had an effective first-term when it comes to the economy, and Governor Romney emerges from the primary season as someone who'll side with those who own companies and not those who work there. It could be a very ugly campaign......

    This post was edited by Heathens 87 on 5/12/2012 at 9:49 AM

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." --Gandhi

    Heathens 87

  • Heathens '87 said...

    Well, that's a position someone already on the right would take. But the truth is that poll after poll shows that the American people, by and large, like President Obama. He's seen as honest, trustworthy, strong, etc. In just about every one of those categories, he's viewed far more favorably than Governor Romney. The issue for Obama (and the opportunity for Romney) remains centered around economic issues.

    Where I think the Obama campaign will go is in painting a stunningly unpopular Congress as the issue, just as I think they'll use the line of a conservative and activist Supreme Court once a few rulings come down this summer. Obama needs the economy to continue to improve. If it doesn't, or continues to be seen as sluggish, the Romney campaign needs to do more than point a finger at Obama, but outline clear distinctions in terms of an economic approach that benefits all Americans.

    Like I said, the Obama and Romney campaign aren't worried about converting those clearly in the camp of another to defect. It's about those willing to be persuaded...the 20% or so in the middle of the political spectrum. In that sense, both campaigns have tough sells as Obama has not had an effective first-term when it comes to the economy, and Governor Romney emerges from the primary season as someone who'll side with those who own companies and not those who work there. It could be a very ugly campaign......

    Regarding the unpopular Congress - it is unpopular for differing reasons. All Romney needs to do is blame the do nothing Democrat controlled Senate to neutralize that line of attack.

    This post was edited by CVSpartan on 5/12/2012 at 10:00 AM

    Συν ται η επι ται! Syn tai e epi tai! Ή ταν ή επί τας! E tan i epi tas!

    CVSpartan

  • CVSpartan said...

    Regarding the unpopular Congress - it is unpopular for differing reasons. All Romney needs to do is blame the do nothing Democrat controlled Senate to neutralize that line of attack.

    Another "GOP Conservative" who never read about Harry Truman's 1948 campaign

    This post was edited by GRR Spartan on 5/12/2012 at 10:07 AM

    GRR Spartan

  • Heathens '87 said.... It's also one thing to promise things during a campaign only to get into office and realize there are many different levels to decisions that are not so easily undone.

    When a politician campaigns and asks people for their vote and promises a certain thing if elected, he/she should be held accountable for following through on it. Now we agree that to promise something with no intention of carrying it out is flat out lying - many politicians like Obama are guilty of that. However it is equally bad to promise something with the intent of carrying that out, only to find out that what you promised was an impossibility. This isn't lying, it's a combination of stupidity and inexperience...again traits exhibited by the Obama bunch constantly.

    I'm not willing to give him or any other politician including Romney a pass and just claim they are "evolving" every time they backtrack on a promise given in exchange for votes.

    Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. - Frank Leahy.-- If you're going to be stupid, be smart about it. - Mike Milbury

    Bullwrinkle

  • Bullwrinkle said...

    When a politician campaigns and asks people for their vote and promises a certain thing if elected, he/she should be held accountable for following through on it.

    By accountable, I take it you mean the two main processes - recall and re-election. I've no issue with the use of either and it's ultimately up to the electorate to judge motivations and accountability. We do get the system and politicians we deserve........

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." --Gandhi

    Heathens 87

  • kaiserpete said...

    If we're talking about defeating our enemies, then I'll take any person drawn at random from the Toledo area phone book over Obama.

    Other than killing UBL...what has Obama accomplished in foreign policy?

    Lars isn't the only one on this board with a touch of the crazy. If killing bin Laden and keeping America safe isn't good enough for you, here are a few of President Obama's other foreign policy accomplishments:

    Ending the Iraq War and winding down the war in Afghanistan, signing a new START treaty with Russia that restores mutual inspections (which Romney opposed but will probably take credit for), his intervention in Libya, improved relations with our European and Asian allies (while some conservatives prefer to piss off our allies, enhancing our credibility with our friends is the right way to go), helping South Sudan gain independence, etc.

    The thing about foreign policy that you apparently don't understand is that every nation has powerful factions with their own interests, which makes worldwide diplomacy and intervention extremely complicated. Romney's experience in taking over companies and firing people isn't relevant. He's a novice and he hasn't shown the leadership qualities necessary to succeed. But the fact that you just equated Mitt Romney with any random person in the Toledo phone book tells me that you know he doesn't have much to offer.

    This post was edited by Pervis Muldoon on 5/12/2012 at 10:43 AM

    Pervis Muldoon ●

  • RQA said...

    Are we now playing slow pitch softball around here, Prevert? lol

    Are you Ballwrinkle's backup singer?

    Pervis Muldoon ●

  • Pervis Muldoon said...

    Lars isn't the only one on this board with a touch of the crazy. If killing bin Laden and keeping America safe isn't good enough for you, here are a few of President Obama's other foreign policy accomplishments:

    Ending the Iraq War and winding down the war in Afghanistan, signing a new START treaty with Russia that restores mutual inspections (which Romney opposed but will probably take credit for), his intervention in Libya, improved relations with our European and Asian allies (while some conservatives prefer to piss off our allies, enhancing our credibility with our friends is the right way to go), helping South Sudan gain independence, etc.

    The thing about foreign policy that you apparently don't understand is that every nation has powerful factions with their own interests, which makes worldwide diplomacy and intervention extremely complicated. Romney's experience in taking over companies and firing people isn't relevant. He's a novice and he hasn't shown the leadership qualities necessary to succeed. But the fact that you just equated Mitt Romney with any random person in the Toledo phone book tells me that you know he doesn't have much to offer.

    You meant winding down our involvement in Afghanistan, the war will continue with the Taliban. Get your facts straight Prevert. Oh...and calling Libya an "accomplishment" even though it was the exact type of action Obama campaigned against with his emphasis on "diplomacy" and winning "hearts and minds", never mind the fact you have no clue as to what type of government will emerge in Libya and whether it will be as benign to our interests as Quaddafi was. Pervert the chickenhawk - suddenly bombing is good, overthrowing leaders is great (if they have oil) while allowing the Sryian opposition to be slaughtered. Yup there's some real achievements there.

    Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. - Frank Leahy.-- If you're going to be stupid, be smart about it. - Mike Milbury

    Bullwrinkle

  • GRR Spartan said...

    Another "GOP Conservative" who never read about Harry Truman's 1948 campaign

    You voted for Truman, what was he like?

    Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. - Frank Leahy.-- If you're going to be stupid, be smart about it. - Mike Milbury

    Bullwrinkle

  • RQA said...

    Are we now playing slow pitch softball around here, Prevert? lol

    You're gonna really upset the little fellow, he thought that was his best fastball.roflmao

    Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. - Frank Leahy.-- If you're going to be stupid, be smart about it. - Mike Milbury

    Bullwrinkle

  • Bullwrinkle said...

    You meant winding down our involvement in Afghanistan, the war will continue with the Taliban. Get your facts straight Prevert. Oh...and calling Libya an "accomplishment" even though it was the exact type of action Obama campaigned against with his emphasis on "diplomacy" and winning "hearts and minds", never mind the fact you have no clue as to what type of government will emerge in Libya and whether it will be as benign to our interests as Quaddafi was. Pervert the chickenhawk - suddenly bombing is good, overthrowing leaders is great (if they have oil) while allowing the Sryian opposition to be slaughtered. Yup there's some real achievements there.

    What you really mean to say is...

    attachment

    Pervis Muldoon ●

Michigan State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports