Romney a Lock - You Can Put it On the Board YESSSS!!

They'll use their 'I Voted' buttons to buy lottery tickets and fortified wine!

 

If Romney loses Ohio, he has no chance...

 

Presidential elections which feature an incumbent are partly a referendum of that incumbent. But, it cuts both ways. Romney is not that credible of a candidate. He's pushing the same failed policies as Bush 43....

.....after all the hemming and hawing the GOP did in 08 about Obama's lack of qualifications, they are set to nominate a candidate with a grand total of four years of elective office...the last of which was more than five years ago. Obama had more than a decade of experience, worked in Washington (that shouldn't be considered a negative as the White House is located in Washington) and was currently in politics at the time of his election.

Touting Romney's (or anyone's) private sector experience for the most president is one of the most overrated talking points. This job isn't private sector, so it is quite different. Nobody demands the head of GM work in the DOT beforehand.

And let's not forget, the worst presidents since WWI have all had significant private sector experience: Harding, Hoover, GW Bush.

 

Election day is a day off for NYC employees. Is that the case for most federal, state, municipal workers?

It's a pretty big advantage when your base doesn't have to work, and get to the polls. They also have time to work phone banks and drive folks to the polls.

 

We're four years removed from Bush. Romney never worked for Bush, or in a Republican administration.

McCain basically had to run on Bush's record. Romney doesn't. Romney gets to run against Obama's record, and Obama now has to run on his record, not against Bush's -- though he'll apparently still try.

McCain ran a poor campaign. He was a crank. He fucked up when the economic crisis hit. His long shot VP pick didn't work out. He was/is old, and maybe a little crazy. His last, and only, management job was running a squadron years earlier.

Plus, the base didn't like or trust him, and never embraced him.

And, he was vastly outspent.

Romney will be a much better candidate. He's also much better on paper, and better on TV (better looking). He's not a crank. He's optomistic, and has management experience.

He'll be able to compete financially.

Sure, the base doesn't love him, or even trust him. But, they will embrace him. They didn't embrace McCain, and look how that turned out.

The base wants to beat Obama -- badly. They'll embrace Romney, if that's what it takes. No one is going to sit this one out -- especially in the swing states, most of which won't care about his religion.

 

Someone did a sad-but-hilarious piece recently. You can't find a Romney staffer or advisor who is on the record saying invading Iraq was a mistake.

70 percent of the American people think so, but no one in Romney's camp.

 

Find a Democrat willing to say we would be better off if Saddam were still in power.

Hasn't been asked lately, but every time it was, they refused to say it.

So, they don't support the action, but they support he result? Perfect.

Let's get both sides on the record.

 

Logic is not your strong suit.

 

No war means Saddam is still in power. Might mean the Arab Spring never happens.

So, if you think the Iraq Was was a "mistake", please tell me if you think we'd be better off with Saddam still in power.

 

It is on Halo 4 release day, however, which ... well, it doesn't much matter to the Romney core, put it that way.

 

Yes.

I prefer Saddam in power to the cost of the war in human life and capital.

 

Based on your logic, you should be advocating the invasion of Burma.

Why do you hate the people of Burma, YF? Why is the freedom of Iraq's people more important than the freedom of Burma's?