The new and improved, fight-free Romney vs. Obama thread!

He wants to end the Bush tax cuts on people earning o ern250,000 a year, which means its DOA in the House,est they anger Lord Norquist.

 

Some of House Democrats would like to see cut off point raised to 1 mil.

 

Wanted to jump in here and say that despite the polls showing this as a dead-heat, the only things that matter ahead of this election are 1.) Who Romney chooses as his VP. If he picks someone who can energize his base and sway some of the independents who aren't too keen on how the past four years have played out, he can build some momentum and put Obama on his heels and 2.) The debates. Romney is going to have to bring it when he's face-to-face with Obama or he's going to get slaughtered in November. Right now, this race is essentially Obama vs. Anyone but Obama. If Romney stands a chance in hell of winning, it's going to have to come courtesy of people voting FOR him and not simply AGAINST Obama.

That being said, I can't imagine Obama doesn't have this wrapped up by 9 p.m. on election night.

 

"The base" already hates Obama with the blinding fire of a billion O-class blue stars.

Who is Romney going to name as VP who is going to get them even more fired up to get rid of the M.N. than they are already?

 

Problem there is anyone he picks to energize the base will turn off independents. The base has gone round the bend. Batshit crazy tends to turn off indies.

 

If "The Base" was as influential as everybody likes to make it seem, Romney wouldn't be the nominee. I hate when they call it "The Base" when the reality is that they're "The Fringe"

I know a lot of the people here think every republican falls into the "batshit crazy" category, but Romney's not going to pick Rand Paul, he's not going to pick Bachmann or Santorum.

None of the names being mentioned for the VP slot are considered "extreme" as far as republicans are concerned...

Rubio can appeal t

 

I hate the stupid polls that only reflect the race in terms of one-on-one popular vote. And I mean that no matter who it says is leading.

As we found out in 2000, it really doesn't matter who's more popular overall or who even gets the most votes. Last I checked, we use the electoral college.

What matters is how Obama is doing in each state. Romney could win 65 percent of the Deep South and it won't mean shit if he can't make any headway in the Great Lakes states, Florida and Colorado.

 

The problem with your premise is that those "batshit" Republicans gave Romney one hell of a fight in a primary process that should have been a walkover for him.

They're more representative of Republicans than moderate Republicans are comfortable to admit. Some aren't comfortable with it at all, see comments by Judge Posner this week.

 

It taxes (HA!) the imagination to envision Romney finding anyone who could, by his/her effect on "the base," reduce Romney's chances. Hell, he could pick Starman or Uncle.Ruckus and I don't think it'd cost him enough of "the base" to matter. He may not/likely won't win, but I don't see his V.P. choice mattering much.

 

I only bring up the VP selection as it has been shown to lead to an uptick in previous election years when there's been an incumbent running for a second term.

Kerry got a bump when he announced Edwards, McCain got a bump (initially) when he announced Palin.

From here until that announcement, I can't see much changing in the day-to-day numbers but the VP announcement, in my opinion, is the next substantial event, followed by the debates, followed by the election.

 

But they're plenty extreme, one way or another, as far as the country as a whole -- and particularly young independent voters -- are concerned. Paul Ryan is conservatives' next great hope, and his budget proposals are very extreme. So whether it's that or immigration or the general Tea Party rhetoric, these are not middle-of-the-road people.

 

If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.