Jimmy Carter was NOT beating Ronald Reagan in the fall of 1980.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2012 3:41 AM GMT
    http://themonkeycage.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/trialheats1980.png

    I know many of my fellow conservatives are using the whole "Jimmy Carter was winning right until the final debate" talking point as some sort of hope for Romney to pull this off; however, it is not based in reality. According to this chart, Carter was only ahead in a poll or two once he lost his ground in the summer of 1980.

    And to compare Romney to Reagan is ludicrous. Reagan was the type of man you wish was your grandfather. Romney, on the other hand, is the type of person you just have to put up with and hope you never cross paths again once your interaction with him is over.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Sep 25, 2012 3:50 AM GMT
    Mitt Romney is the least likable presidential candidate in history. It seems like every week the man digs himself into a hole and makes President Obama's job that much easier in defeating his opponent.

    If you look at electoral votes and how they are likely to go, he doesn't stand a chance of getting 270. Compare this to President Obama who is likely to duplicate his electoral votes that he had in 2008, and this is without Sarah Palin botching it up for McCain.

    Anyone who thinks Romney can turn things around is not paying attention to what is going outside their little bubble.

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Sep 25, 2012 8:03 PM GMT
    If you are beating that Romney is gonna pull it out at the debates ? icon_rolleyes.gif

    You got more problems than having a Dick for a candidate

    Have you SEEN this man in the debates???
    He sucks
    ... just as much as he'd suck at being President

    So republicans ? ... do me a favor and get real
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2012 8:22 PM GMT
    If the GOPers want to look back to past elections to predict what the rest of this election will look like - the actual facts of the historical record are extremely grim for Mittens.

    http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/09/obamas-lead-starting-look-insurmountable?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

    If Mitt were able to pull off a miraculous comeback - it would be unprecedented.

    And the fact that Mittens is the worst and most unlikable presidential candidate in modern political history - makes his chances even slimmer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2012 9:05 PM GMT
    I think this election will be like 1996.

    Romney = Bob Dole 2.0

    lol

    I think Bob Dole was a notorious flip flopper as well

    Dole's Flip-flops Hurt Credibility
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2012 9:31 PM GMT
    Jaxe saidI think this election will be like 1996.

    Romney = Bob Dole 2.0

    lol

    I think Bob Dole was a notorious flip flopper as well

    Dole's Flip-flops Hurt Credibility




    Let's have a look at presidential candidates who were flip-floppity:

    Bob Dole - Lost in 1996

    Al Gore - Lost in 2000

    John Kerry - Lost in 2004

    John McCain - Lost in 2008

    Mitt Romney - Losing in 2012

    Given the fact that Romney is the worst most blatant flip-flopper of them all - its no surprise that America is rejecting him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2012 10:12 PM GMT
    Oh and Obama is so pretty, such a failure.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2012 1:19 AM GMT
    I remember that race fairly well - Carter was not way out ahead until the final debate - it was basically even all fall - the undecideds went heavily for RR after the debate prompting the landslide. Interesting fact: one of the few states Carter won was West Virginia! Think of that one!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2012 1:41 AM GMT
    People often want to remember the polls different than what they were. Like thinking the polls were predicting in the days before that Scott Walker would be recalled. The polls did not say that. Or saying that the polls said the gay marriage ban would not pass in North Carolina. The polls never said that. National polls may have been saying that there has been a shift in support of marriage equality, but it was not the case in North Carolina, a state in the south and a vote that drew a considerably less cross section of the population than if it had been up for a vote in November.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Sep 27, 2012 3:18 AM GMT
    I think this election will not follow any particular patterns of the past. So many factors involved that are unique to this election. A Romney stumble in the debates will probably assure an Obama victory. However, if Romney hits a home run on any, or all, of the debates it could be anyone's game to win. Regardless of who wins The White House, I still think Election night will be chock full of surprises. The debates will prove critical, that's for sure.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2012 3:48 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI think this election will not follow any particular patterns of the past. So many factors involved that are unique to this election. A Romney stumble in the debates will probably assure an Obama victory. However, if Romney hits a home run on any, or all, of the debates it could be anyone's game to win. Regardless of who wins The White House, I still think Election night will be chock full of surprises. The debates will prove critical, that's for sure.

    That's a good point; actually. This cycle could be a trend-setter for future elections.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Sep 27, 2012 2:34 PM GMT
    libertpaulian saidThis cycle could be a trend-setter for future elections.


    Exactly.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Sep 27, 2012 3:29 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    Actually, there are several analyses published in the past week that suggest that debates have never had the slightest impact on elections. One of the reasons is that they tend to be watched by people who've already made up their minds.



    I'm sure that is true. However, THIS election may hold a different dynamic in terms of how the debates figure in to the ultimate outcome. A Romney stumble could mean an Obama landslide, while a Romney home-run could tighten things up a bit and make it more interesting. I do not believe the outcome right now is necessarily a foregone conclusion, however that is just an opinion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2012 3:29 PM GMT
    IF ONLY MITT CAN DELIVER THIS PERFORMANCE IN THE DEBATES:

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Sep 27, 2012 3:44 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    CuriousJockAZ saidI do not believe the outcome right now is necessarily a foregone conclusion, however that is just an opinion.

    The trendlines suggest that the race is not tightening, but widening. The best evidence is to look at the Senate scorecard. The GOP as recently as this summer expected to take the Senate; now according to polls they won't and may even lose ground.


    We'll have to see how accurate or inaccurate these polls prove to be. As I said earlier, I do think this election, regardless of the outcome, will hold many surprises.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2012 8:23 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    CuriousJockAZ saidI think this election will not follow any particular patterns of the past. So many factors involved that are unique to this election. A Romney stumble in the debates will probably assure an Obama victory. However, if Romney hits a home run on any, or all, of the debates it could be anyone's game to win. Regardless of who wins The White House, I still think Election night will be chock full of surprises. The debates will prove critical, that's for sure.

    Actually, there are several analyses published in the past week that suggest that debates have never had the slightest impact on elections. One of the reasons is that they tend to be watched by people who've already made up their minds.




    Yup.

    That's especially true in elections like this one - where there's a clear front runner.
    When there's little doubt about who's going to win - the result is that fewer people watch the debates - and the ones who do are people who've already committed to a candidate.
    So the debates end up having no impact at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 1:04 AM GMT
    It's easy: The candidate with the most charisma always wins, at least in the age of television.

    Obama vs. Romney
    Obama vs. McCain
    Bush II vs. Kerry
    Bush II vs. Gore
    Clinton vs. Dole
    Clinton vs. Bush I
    Bush I vs. Dukakis
    Reagan vs. Mondale
    Reagan vs. Carter

    And so on





  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 1:07 AM GMT
    tru_blu_auzzie saidOh and Obama is so pretty, such a failure.


    Thanks, Australian.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 5:44 PM GMT
    jockfever: Carter led in the polls most of the time.

    His lead in the polls narrowed, but a Gallup Poll close to the election had Carter ahead by 45 percent to 42 percent. Reagan won big.

    The polls never err in favor of a Republican, which speaks volumes.

    The polls consistently overestimate support for Democrats.

    The Obama vs. Romney polls are some of the most biased polls many observers have ever seen.

    My prediction remains that Romney will win big.

    Since Obama turns whatever he touches to crap, it's fitting that he'll turn this election to crap for the Democrats.




  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Sep 28, 2012 6:04 PM GMT
    creature saidMitt Romney is the least likable presidential candidate in history. It seems like every week the man digs himself into a hole and makes President Obama's job that much easier in defeating his opponent.

    If you look at electoral votes and how they are likely to go, he doesn't stand a chance of getting 270. Compare this to President Obama who is likely to duplicate his electoral votes that he had in 2008, and this is without Sarah Palin botching it up for McCain.

    Anyone who thinks Romney can turn things around is not paying attention to what is going outside their little bubble.




    I view the Romney-Ryan team as the most unlikeable, undesireable, repellent, slimey political team since Nixon-Agnew of 1968.



    icon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 11:52 PM GMT
    jprichva: What's ludicrous is the notion that Reagan was a genial old man. He was not. He was an actor, and the geniality was all for show. Ask his kids.You didn't live through those years, so I sort of understand that you've bought the crap about him. But that you would repeat it without investigation amazes me.Reagan was one of the worst presidents in American history. But more to the point, he was a deeply lousy human being.

    kung_fu-from_dark_angel.png

    Master Po: Ah, Grasshopper, see how the intolerant dark side of human nature hurls turds. His false beliefs must die

    If a man sees a turd-hurler and does nothing, how can he still call himself a man?

    He who is right-minded uses facts, evidence, logic, science, and reason.

    Choose carefully, Grasshopper.

    Young Caine: Yes, Master. Reagan was one of the greatest presidents of modern times, and I will vote for Romney.

    Master Po: You have chosen correctly, Young Man.