If Barack were to win Missouri and Mc Caskill were to win also that would be something:
PeterBeinart RT @postpolitics: McCaskill leads Akin in Missouri Senate race, new poll shows Akin trails McCaskill, new poll shows - The Washington Post
Rasmussen
8/22/12; 500 likely voters, 4.4% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
Rasmussen release
Missouri
2012 President
47% Obama (D), 46% Romney (R) (chart)
Obama Job Approval
48% approve, 49% disapprove (chart)
Some interesting angles over the last few days, none of which are what Romney would want to hear.
Majority Of Swing State Voters Oppose Medicare Changes, But Florida Seniors Still Love Ryan - International Business TimesA majority of residents in three key battleground states oppose making changes to Medicare, and the Romney-Ryan proposal to reshape the federal entitlement program by giving beneficiaries fixed vouchers with which to purchase coverage remains deeply unpopular with likely voters, according to a new poll.
The Romney campaign would not have wanted to go into a convention on the back of media coverage focusing on non-economic issues such as abortion, rape, Akin, etc. Tactically the needed it to be economy, economy, economy. The fact that the convention has now been delayed thanks to the weather also is inconvenient. All the networks will have built their schedules around coverage from Monday. Delaying it means a lot of filling up time with the proverbial 'talking heads', and that is likely to see the Akin issue talked about over and over. He really would have preferred to kill off the Akin issue well before the convention, not to have it the pre-convention talking point.Sunday morning's talk show circuit featured a particularly matronly streak, with abortion, birth and Mother Nature dominating most of the punditry's attention. The talk shows rolled into the day amid the continuing fallout over U.S. Rep. Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" comment and Mitt Romney's allusion to his "birth certificate" in a campaign speech.
It also won't help if his running mate's big idea, medicare change, is deeply unpopular among the very voters in marginal states he needs to win votes from if he is to become president. It is yet another example of Romney losing control of the agenda and finding his economic focus sidelined by other issues. He would be wanting to build bridges with those voters, not find himself having change their mind about an issue which isn't even his number 1 talking point.
The Obama campaign's new advert cleverly hypes up the expectation as to what Romney may achieve in his convention in a way that makes it almost impossible to fulfill - meaning that even a good convention measured against the suggested aim for it would look ineffectual.
Looking at Romney's adverts, they are surprisingly poor so far. They don't seem to connect emotionally and are in some cases a bit too nerdy - focusing on minutae of policy which may interest policy wonks like me but which don't seem to have the emotional strength needed. They use Beltway terminology for schemes and seem to presume knowledge that most people who aren't policy wonks wouldn't have. Given the resources available I have been surprised at how poor all the ads he has approved are. Obama's seem stylistically to use structures, images and messages that reflect the format voters are used to in other walks of life meaning that they can connect with them.
Romney also uses claims in ads that are sitting ducks for exposure as being misleading. Take the one below which talks about Obama not recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. One twenty second google search by a voter would expose that as seriously misleading. In practice NO US president ever recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In fact hardly any state on the planet recognises Jerusalem, simply because Israel occupied East Jerusalem in defiance of international law and insists all of Jerusalem, including the bit illegally occupied, is its capital. That's why no president, GOP or Democrat, recognises Jerusalem. (It is why Ireland, Britain, all the EU, and 97% of the planet doesn't either.)
If you are going to tell an untruth in your political advert, at least make it an untruth that is difficult to disprove, not one that can be disproved in twenty seconds on the internet.
http://www.youtube.com/user/mittromney
PS: If you are going to put your adverts on the internet, Mitt, at least put them in a format that allows them to be embedded in pages of political websites.
Last edited by TommyO'Brien; 26th August 2012 at 09:59 PM.
Notice the Sunday Times today had an article on the generosity of Mitt Romney to people who had fallen on hard times.Originally Posted by TommyO'Brien
Some interesting angles over the last few days, none of which are what Romney would want to hear.
Majority Of Swing State Voters Oppose Medicare Changes, But Florida Seniors Still Love Ryan - International Business Times
The Romney campaign would not have wanted to go into a convention on the back of media coverage focusing on non-economic issues such as abortion, rape, Akin, etc. Tactically the needed it to be economy, economy, economy. The fact that the convention has now been delayed thanks to the weather also is inconvenient. All the networks will have built their schedules around coverage from Monday. Delaying it means a lot of filling up time with the proverbial 'talking heads', and that is likely to see the Akin issue talked about over and over. He really would have preferred to kill off the Akin issue well before the convention, not to have it the pre-convention talking point.
It also won't help if his running mate's big idea, medicare change, is deeply unpopular among the very voters in marginal states he needs to win votes from if he is to become president. It is yet another example of Romney losing control of the agenda and finding his economic focus sidelined by other issues. He would be wanting to build bridges with those voters, not find himself having change their mind about an issue which isn't even his number 1 talking point.
The Obama campaign's new advert cleverly hypes up the expectation as to what Romney may achieve in his convention in a way that makes it almost impossible to fulfill - meaning that even a good convention measured against the suggested aim for it would look ineffectual.
Looking at Romney's adverts, they are surprisingly poor so far. They don't seem to connect emotionally and are in some cases a bit too nerdy - focusing on minutae of policy which may interest policy wonks like me but which don't seem to have the emotional strength needed. They use Beltway terminology for schemes and seem to presume knowledge that most people who aren't policy wonks wouldn't have. Given the resources available I have been surprised at how poor all the ads he has approved are. Obama's seem stylistically to use structures, images and messages that reflect the format voters are used to in other walks of life meaning that they can connect with them.
Romney also uses claims in ads that are sitting ducks for exposure as being misleading. Take the one below which talks about Obama not recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. One twenty second google search by a voter would expose that as seriously misleading. In practice NO US president ever recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In fact hardly any state on the planet recognises Jerusalem, simply because Israel occupied East Jerusalem in defiance of international law and insists all of Jerusalem, including the bit illegally occupied, is its capital. That's why no president, GOP or Democrat, recognises Jerusalem. (It is why Ireland, Britain, all the EU, and 97% of the planet doesn't either.)
If you are going to tell an untruth in your political advert, at least make it an untruth that is difficult to disprove, not one that can be disproved in twenty seconds on the internet.
http://www.youtube.com/user/mittromney
PS: If you are going to put your adverts on the internet, Mitt, at least put them in a format that allows them to be embedded in pages of political websites.
Very compassionate. But wait ... compassionate??? .... Compassionate Conservative!!! Wasn't that George W. Bush's sthick?
"My polices my be swinging to the poor, but basically I am a nice guy you could have a beer with."
Very original, Mitt.
Mitt 7/5 Barack 2/5 the odds haven't rocked in weeks-looks like Barack.
Also in the article:
"One recent Florida poll found that 53 percent of seniors had a favorable view of Ryan, despite his controversial budget proposals, while 54 percent of seniors recently told the Republican-leaning Rasmussen polling firm that changes to Medicare under Obama's health care law "scare them," compared to only 34 percent who said the same about the Ryan plan."
It's not just an up or down verdict on Republican's medicare reform - the medicare reforms ($716 billion cuts) linked to Obamacare are also unpopular.
More on Romney's selection of Ryan in a recent CNN poll
Favourability (Favourable, Unfavourable)
Obama 52, 47
Biden 46, 47
Romney 50, 46
Ryan 45, 39
Obama and Romney are essentially tied as are Biden and Ryan, but Biden is significantly more 'unliked' than Ryan.
Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan for vice president
Excellent 27%, Pretty Good 24%, Only Fair 22%, Poor 23%, No Opinion 4%.
Is Paul Ryan qualified to be President if it becomes necessary?
Qualified 52%, Unqualified 43%, No Opinion 5%.
Does Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan reflects favorably or unfavorably on Romney's ability to make important presidential decisions?
Favourably 57%, Unfavourably 39%.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/im...8/24/rel8a.pdf
The dire predictions made about Ryan's negative impact on Romney are failing to materialise and most voters clearly see the selection as a net positive that reflects well on Romney
Wishful thinking. The issue has been talked to death already. The notion that the politics programs on Monday will spend a significant period of time waffling about Akin is wrong.
As I've written above, it's Obamacare medicare reforms v Romney-Ryan medicare reforms. Not a one-sided issue as you write of.
How important is Medicare to voters?
"Economic issues are the most important to voters, with the top two issues being the economy and jobs (37%) and government spending and the federal deficit (17%). While Medicare is certainly in the news recently, only 7% of voters say this is the most important issue, including only 13% of seniors."
Most see need for Medicare reform:
"Voters clearly believe that something has to be done with Medicare, as a majority say the program needs major (46%) or modest (21%) changes. The perceived need for major changes to Medicare is driven by younger voters, with 55% of those under 55 saying major changes are needed. However, a plurality (45%) of near retirees (those 55-64) say major changes are needed, along with one third (33%) of seniors."
And the Ryan plan?
"Half (49%) of voters have seen, read, or heard something about Paul Ryan’s economic budget plan. Among those who are aware of it, a majority (52%) favor the plan, while 42% oppose it. Support for the plan is at majority level among Independents (55%) and seniors (54%)."
What about Obamacare and Medicare?
Voters are also pessimistic about the impact of President Obama’s healthcare law on Medicare. A plurality (46%) say the law will make Medicare worse, while only 34% say it will make Medicare better. At least a plurality of seniors (49%), women (45%), households with children (50%), and Independents (51%) say Obama’s healthcare law
will make Medicare worse.
Uh oh! Seniors, women and Independent voters give the thumbs down to Obama's medicare reforms.
http://thepublicnotice.org/wp-conten...lease-copy.pdf
Gee, I guess most of the 20-30 million viewers who will watch Romney accept the nomination on Thursday will have their opinions clouded by this ad which most will surely have seen by then
Wrong. I'm not saying I've seen all of Romney's ads (you imply that you have which I regard as BS), but the ones I have seen have been sharp and to the point. A research group found that the following ad moved 6% of 'pure independents' in Romney's favour:
Hilarious spin! Romney ad claims Obama doesn't recognise Jersualem as being the capital of Israel which is TRUE is declared a lie because previous presidents didn't recognise Israel. What's to say Romney won't break the mold if he becomes President and recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (unlikely, but a possibility). The ad is true. You've made yourself look foolish trying to spin it as being false.Romney also uses claims in ads that are sitting ducks for exposure as being misleading. Take the one below which talks about Obama not recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. One twenty second google search by a voter would expose that as seriously misleading. In practice NO US president ever recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In fact hardly any state on the planet recognises Jerusalem, simply because Israel occupied East Jerusalem in defiance of international law and insists all of Jerusalem, including the bit illegally occupied, is its capital. That's why no president, GOP or Democrat, recognises Jerusalem. (It is why Ireland, Britain, all the EU, and 97% of the planet doesn't either.)
If you are going to tell an untruth in your political advert, at least make it an untruth that is difficult to disprove, not one that can be disproved in twenty seconds on the internet.
A more recent poll had Romney +7 in Missouri.
Has the Economist endorsed anyone yet in this race? (I don't get the magazine anymore) It will be interesting to see what they do this time as this magazine hasn't endorsed an incumbent in over 30 years, always either preferring the challenger or not endorsing anyone.
Washingon Post poll today has Romney ahead by 1 at 47.
Some closing of the race on RealClearPolitics. RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama
Surprise, though, to see Rasmussen has the President +2 over Romney.
I was under the impression that the plutocrats liked Obamacare since they make money when the government tells everyone to buy their products. At the very least, it's accurate to say the plutocrats will always make money no matter what the government does, but it maybe be better not to subsidise them in the process.
Kleiman's analysis is in interesting insight into how some of Obama's supporters like to imagine him, but he can't resist pulling out the race card right at the end. In fact he's absolutely shameless about it and it colours (no pun intended) his entire commentary.
Last edited by Tim Johnston; 27th August 2012 at 07:43 PM.
174Likes
