Here’s my rebuttal to Awsi.Very lengthy post. Sorry in advance.
The misconception is believing that being an incumbent makes you the favorite. 70 percent of those who have served as president since 1825 (26 of 37) failed to win two consecutive terms. To say people aren’t tired of this administration is merely speculation on your part, and only among undecided voters is there any doubt regarding which side has the answers.I sampled the thread quickly and noted the misconception that the race should be a slam dunk for Romney. That falls in line with the false overconfidence from Democrats in 2004. Obama is in the most favorable situational spot in American politics -- an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term. Extreme benefit of a doubt from the electorate. They aren't tired of the party or convinced the other side has all the answers. I think it's 9 for 10 over the past century+, the only defeat Carter in 1980.
If Obama were saddled with Carter's high 30s, low 40s approval rating and overseas hostage turmoil, Romney would indeed cruise. But with Obama at high 40s it's a tight race. The incumbent tends to mirror his approval rating on election day. That's the number to keep an eye on, along with national polls. The averaging of national polls these days has become so reliable it wipes out all the old desperate crutches, like claims of slanted polls. Also, don't fall for the conventional wisdom garbage that state polls are all that matters. The national margin dictates each state, which fall in line with their typical relationship to the national indications. It's called partisan index. If either man leads the national poll averaging by 1.5 to 2 or greater on election eve, he's the winner.Again, polls are merely speculative, but you are wise to be skeptical concerning the data. The mainstream media is doing its best to make Obama look favorable by skewing the numbers.I'm not convinced this race tilts to Obama as much as the current polls assert. Early this year, during the GOP primaries, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com broke down every potential matchup and concluded that Romney had an 83% likelihood of victory if he were the nominee and the economy didn't improve by November. Same with sports, I always like to remember foundational evidence as opposed to infatuation with the latest news or results. There had to be a reason for that 83%. Silver now ignores it, defaulting strictly to current polls and the applied 75% theoretical advantage to Obama. I sense the truth is much lower than that 75%.
If anything, the polls being close favors Romney since independent voters will often vote for the challenger.
If we are going to look at other statistics, 50% of likely voters trust Romney more than the 43% that trust Obama.Has the economy improved? The public apparently believes it has. The right track/wrong track number jumped to 42/48 recently. Not good but notably higher than previous trends. For reference purposes, that number was in the 13/87 range in the months leading to the election in 2008. Quite precious of Romney to claim Americans can't say they are better off.
Furthermore, just because there is a sense of perceived optimism according to these “polls”, it doesn’t factually mean we are better off. Case in point, look at the link to the article by the LA Times crunching the actual numbers and the impact of the recession (wealth plunged 40%).
This section does not feature harsh themes so much as it makes overarching generalizations concerning the makeup of the Conservative Party from a liberal perspective. It further enumerates progressive talking points by taking some very real issues of contention and dismisses them. Plus a conspiracy issue like “birthers” should not be given equal weight to that of bloated government that continues to come up with new “taxes” like Obamacare.The following section will feature harsh themes and won't be popular but I'll post it anyway: The GOP is running a campaign more likely to succeed in midterms than a presidential cycle. Young females don't show up in midterms. Women are roughly 50.5% of the electorate in midterms compared to 53% in presidential years. Married women still participate in midterms but single women stay home. Consequently, the SAM voters that the conservative message is targeted to -- and delivered by -- don't have nearly the same pull in presidential years. SAMs are Simplistic Angry Males. That's the GOP base, beyond senior citizens or the wealthy. Young and predominantly white males grow up believing Republicans are the daddy party and Democrats the mommy party. They'll swallow every line, like the poster who announced that Romney will create 12 million new jobs and personally hand out a voucher to heaven. Or maybe that's Paul Ryan. Sorry. The SAM belief system is currently fixated on -- but not limited to -- birtherism, Obama as a Muslim, voter fraud, socialism, fear, exclusion, more fear, guns, more guns to justify the fear, coddling corporations regardless of their screw tendencies, and taxes as the one word to default to as substitute for paying attention. For decades it's been ridiculous that Democrats sat back and allowed it to happen, for the SAM messaging of the moment to take hold. Only Bill Clinton frustrates Republicans and dismantles their argument piece by piece. During the early stages of his speech a few weeks ago I impatiently urged him to, "Get to the math. Get to the math." Naturally he delivered it in even more devastating fashion than I projected but it's like the early minutes of a college game with 40 point favoritism. You know where the deck is stacked but until the touchdowns start to pour in there a bit of apprehension that the side relying on cheap parlor tricks may not be fully exposed.
As for your moniker, you might as well take it one step further and insert “white” to make it SAWM. If you are going to denigrate a group, you might as well be specific. You reveal your prejudice in your presumption that minorities will always favor the Democrats in the subsequent paragraphs.
Concerning Bill Clinton, he addressed everything through a series of omissions, half-truths or by unverifiable statements (like in commercials when they say 9 out of 10 agree that…). He didn’t earn the name Slick Willy for nothing. Click the below link if you want examples.
There are always going to be uneducated voters on both sides. I talked with a girl that said she hated Republicans. When I asked why, she couldn’t give me a reason other than she was raised a Democrat. I have dealt with those that said Bush was killing everyone in Iraq for oil money, and he was the reason that gas prices were rising. Laughable now that I am still paying 4 bucks at the pump.I wouldn't have gone this far until two weeks ago. My elderly dad was hospitalized for a week. He was stuck sharing the same room with a prototype SAM. Absolutely maddening. The genius SAM put himself there by abusing alcohol and drugs while tailgating. We were watching the convention on our side of the curtain while the SAM ranted against Obama as a Muslim who hates America and will force the country into socialism if re-elected. His girlfriend is an Obama supporter who kept asking for evidence. His response, in an animated voice: "How do I know? Because I know." Unbelievable. Every time I think MSNBC or Bill Maher are going too far with their tones, I run into SAMs in Las Vegas sportsbooks, or sample their posts on certain message boards. College football boards are a SAM staple right now, given the SEC dominance of late.
It is fairly obvious that you are not a fan of the GOP, and likely do not listen too much talk radio today.I'm reminded of children's literature, and a potential slogan: "SAM I Am." Heck, they probably wouldn't balk at it. Once again I'll default to situational impact. I grew up in opposition to the GOP but not unimpressed by their leaders or spokesmen. Short burst big picture ideas. Somewhere along the line it changed. William Buckley and George Will gave way to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I came to realize that the over the top conservative mouth pieces had grown up during the '70s and particularly the '80s, when all you had to do was mock Democrats as liberal and twist the candidate into anything you wanted. That was guaranteed to work when the math was on your side: Reagan ran with whites as 90% of the electorate in '80, and '89% in '84. Now it's down to 74% and steadily sliding. That's why I always get a kick out of calls for another Reagan. He wouldn't enjoy nearly the same advantages today. It's like me pretending as a Canes fan that it's 1980 again, with the Orange Bowl still intact and rocking, with Bernie Kosar and Vinny Testaverde and all the other greats nearly ready to assemble on campus. Limbaugh and all the others awaited their turn as most influential, with no comprehension that the electorate had already begun to shift the other way, dramatically altering the margin for error.
Yes, if people are not satisfied with the status quo, they will general trying something new. This can be both good and bad depending upon what’s behind door number 2.I'm hardly saying Romney can't win. He absolutely can win. With unemployment numbers like we have, and below average growth rate, an incumbent is undeniably vulnerable. Romney already won a race against a poor situational backdrop in 2002. The economy had dropped from Clinton highs. 9/11 caused unease. Voters were determined to lash out against somebody and in state after state the holding party took it on the chin in gubernatorial races if an incumbent wasn't there to state his/her case. It was a ridiculous percentage over the span of a few years, something like 21 of 23 states changing hands if it was an open race. That's how you got so many weird gubernatorial takeovers in 2002, like Republicans in Maryland and Hawaii, with Democrats in Oklahoma, Kansas, Wyoming, Tennessee, Arizona, Montana. But in Maryland the trend should have pointed to Shannon O'Brien, the Democrat. Massachusetts was already run by a Republican, prior to Romney. When Romney defeated O'Brien against the trend -- and by several points -- I took notice and worried about his national prospects. I view the guy as a creep but obviously that's not unanimously shared.
As for your portrayal of Mitt, you can call him uncharismatic, but what makes him a creep? I usually reserve that term for the Sandusky’s of the world.
So reading between the lines, the GOP is the party of the Caucasians and the Dems cater to minorities. You would have us believe that voter fraud is only in issue because the GOP makes it one, because they fear that voting base will eventually be outnumbered and need to keep the minorities from the voting booth. I see it as organizations like Acorn which highly favor liberal candidates created the need for stricter practices. If we can ID for things like booze or cigarettes, I don’t think it’s much to ask to provide ID for something as important as voting.If Romney prevails it will be narrowly. That's what I was getting at. Republicans have forfeited most of their huge natural advantage -- 33% self-described conservatives nationwide to 21% liberals -- by alienating a huge chunk of the electorate and somehow ignoring the shifting math, the demographic trends working against them. Florida is a convenient example. In 2004 George Bush won Florida when 72.6% of the registered voters were white. That dropped to 69.1% in 2008, and is down to 67.5% this year. That's what Romney is dealing with. Cubans may be pro-Republican but any time that percentage of whites drops it's bad new for the GOP. That's why they desperately invented voter fraud as a means to massage the electorate at the other end, as a counter to demographic shifts.
I view it differently. I see Romney having to make tough choices, many of which will be unpopular with a percentage of the population that relies on pension/entitlement/etc. programs. Unions and the media will crucify him and every decision he makes if elected, and he’ll likely be one and done even if gets the economy back on track.Granted, if Romney wins this time in he'll enjoy the same situational advantage in 2016 that I mentioned long ago in the opening paragraph -- incumbent/party one term in power. It's extremely, extremely unlikely that trend would be overcome two cycles in a row. For one thing, Romney and his party would receive credit for the economic uptick, which is inevitable. That's why this race is essentially a 2-for-1 for Romney. He'll be our president until January 2021 if successful in 6 weeks. Supreme Court nominations and everything else.
“Demographics “equal more Latino Democrats, or is it transplanted Progressives in regards to Arizona? Yes, Obama has done a great job at making this country more divided than ever. He has every “demographic” broken down to be pandered to.And 2016 is the only logical prospect for a lopsided GOP victory. If Romney fails this time, the Republicans will face an open race four years from now, with the demographics further moving away from them, putting states like Arizona in play.