Major reason why Gingrinch should not be president

[knapplc]

95% chance that Romney is the nominee.

At which point he'll have a candidacy roughly equivalent to the maiden voyage of the Titanic.

 

[carlfense]

95% chance that Romney is the nominee.

At which point he'll have a candidacy roughly equivalent to the maiden voyage of the Titanic.

Probably. If the economic recovery stumbles his chances improve.

 

[Comish]

95% chance that Romney is the nominee.

At which point he'll have a candidacy roughly equivalent to the maiden voyage of the Titanic.

Probably. If the economic recovery stumbles his chances improve.

Recovery.........??

 

[carlfense]

95% chance that Romney is the nominee.

At which point he'll have a candidacy roughly equivalent to the maiden voyage of the Titanic.

Probably. If the economic recovery stumbles his chances improve.

Recovery.........??

What would you prefer to call it?

 

[Comish]

95% chance that Romney is the nominee.

At which point he'll have a candidacy roughly equivalent to the maiden voyage of the Titanic.

Probably. If the economic recovery stumbles his chances improve.

Recovery.........??

What would you prefer to call it?

I don't really have an adjective, but if it's sluggish and muddled I certainly wouldn't call it a recovery.

And, for what it's worth on this thread, unless there is some really big September surprise, I don't think it matters who the Pub is because it's always about the incumbents record and this year will be no different.

It will be very difficult for B.O. to defend his economic record.

 

[carlfense]

I don't really have an adjective, but if it's sluggish and muddled I certainly wouldn't call it a recovery.

And, for what it's worth on this thread, unless there is some really big September surprise, I don't think it matters who the Pub is because it's always about the incumbents record and this year will be no different.

It will be very difficult for B.O. to defend his economic record.

Interesting take. I think the steady drop in unemployment and large increases in private-sector jobs tell a different story.

Would your opinion change if you knew that we've had 22 straight months of job gains and that over 3.2 million new private-sector jobs have been created over the first 3 years of Pres. Obama's first term? (Particularly interesting when compared to a few of his notable predecessors.)

It will be even more difficult for any GOP candidate to defend their economic record. Particularly true with Romney.

 

[Sub-Husker]

Remember when it was "a certainty" that [pick you ABM] would get be the GOP nominee? That seems like so long ago now.

Mitt is an 'Anyone But (yesterday's) Mitt', the way he flip flops.

 

[knapplc]

And, for what it's worth on this thread, unless there is some really big September surprise, I don't think it matters who the Pub is because it's always about the incumbents record and this year will be no different.

It will be very difficult for B.O. to defend his economic record.

2004 disagrees with this premise.

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

I don't really have an adjective, but if it's sluggish and muddled I certainly wouldn't call it a recovery.

And, for what it's worth on this thread, unless there is some really big September surprise, I don't think it matters who the Pub is because it's always about the incumbents record and this year will be no different.

It will be very difficult for B.O. to defend his economic record.

Interesting take. I think the steady drop in unemployment and large increases in private-sector jobs tell a different story.

Would your opinion change if you knew that we've had 22 straight months of job gains and that over 3.2 million new private-sector jobs have been created over the first 3 years of Pres. Obama's first term? (Particularly interesting when compared to a few of his notable predecessors.)

It will be even more difficult for any GOP candidate to defend their economic record. Particularly true with Romney.

This is just one example how you are skewing your stats. 22 straight months of job gains but not net gains. You are not talking about the number of jobs lost each month because of his economic policies. eyeswear2allthatsholy

http://www.politico....0911/62547.html

 

[carlfense]

I don't really have an adjective, but if it's sluggish and muddled I certainly wouldn't call it a recovery.

And, for what it's worth on this thread, unless there is some really big September surprise, I don't think it matters who the Pub is because it's always about the incumbents record and this year will be no different.

It will be very difficult for B.O. to defend his economic record.

Interesting take. I think the steady drop in unemployment and large increases in private-sector jobs tell a different story.

Would your opinion change if you knew that we've had 22 straight months of job gains and that over 3.2 million new private-sector jobs have been created over the first 3 years of Pres. Obama's first term? (Particularly interesting when compared to a few of his notable predecessors.)

It will be even more difficult for any GOP candidate to defend their economic record. Particularly true with Romney.

This is just one example how you are skewing your stats. 22 straight months of job gains but not net gains. You are not talking about the number of jobs lost each month because of his economic policies. eyeswear2allthatsholy

http://www.politico....0911/62547.html

What? Your link says no net gains in one month only. No offense, but you are making an extremely weak argument.

Not to mention that you are not addressing the poing about private jobs. Of COURSE there are public sector job losses . . . the GOP is doing it's best to reduce the number of government employees. Now you are apparently trying to have it both ways by arguing that we desperately need to fire these people to save the country . . . but we should blame Obama for the loss of these public sector jobs.

My stats aren't skewed. You just don't want to hear anything that conflicts with your dearly held belief that Obama is a failure.

 

[Comish]

And, for what it's worth on this thread, unless there is some really big September surprise, I don't think it matters who the Pub is because it's always about the incumbents record and this year will be no different.

It will be very difficult for B.O. to defend his economic record.

2004 disagrees with this premise.

I still stand by the general premise..............an occassional abberation does not invalidate the premise

 

[Comish]

I don't really have an adjective, but if it's sluggish and muddled I certainly wouldn't call it a recovery.

And, for what it's worth on this thread, unless there is some really big September surprise, I don't think it matters who the Pub is because it's always about the incumbents record and this year will be no different.

It will be very difficult for B.O. to defend his economic record.

Interesting take. I think the steady drop in unemployment and large increases in private-sector jobs tell a different story.

Would your opinion change if you knew that we've had 22 straight months of job gains and that over 3.2 million new private-sector jobs have been created over the first 3 years of Pres. Obama's first term? (Particularly interesting when compared to a few of his notable predecessors.)

It will be even more difficult for any GOP candidate to defend their economic record. Particularly true with Romney.

Classic case of two views of the stats reading entirely differing results.

The majority of jobs have been Federal/gov't/state increases.........i.e. exploding the public union sector..........i.e. Obama supporters.........

As for Romney, again I disagree. Chosing a proven capitalist with a known record (even as mainstream media demagouge it), I suspect in November most folks will opt for concrete business experience and relegate a community organizer to a one-termer. It will be good sport to argue this over the next 10 months, but go ahead and bookmark me today..............I predict B.O. will be out and it may not even be close. If I'm wrong, I'm sure I will hear about it and will own up to it. But can't see it happening (again, unless there is some major "October Surprise" unleashed as has been the pattern of the media/dem collaboration) in order to "save" the world from the evil wascally wepuplicans...............

 

[knapplc]

And, for what it's worth on this thread, unless there is some really big September surprise, I don't think it matters who the Pub is because it's always about the incumbents record and this year will be no different.

It will be very difficult for B.O. to defend his economic record.

2004 disagrees with this premise.

I still stand by the general premise..............an occassional abberation does not invalidate the premise

No, but neither does a trend indicate what will happen. The premise is what the premise is. Reality is something entirely different.

There is no way a plurality will elect Mitt Romney, and he's the most-electable candidate the Republicans have. Romney will be shredded by Obama in debates. He has a worse record on jobs, he is extremely vulnerable - via his own words - on healthcare, and he's easily painted as a wealth elite out of touch with mainstream America.

 

[Comish]

And, for what it's worth on this thread, unless there is some really big September surprise, I don't think it matters who the Pub is because it's always about the incumbents record and this year will be no different.

It will be very difficult for B.O. to defend his economic record.

2004 disagrees with this premise.

I still stand by the general premise..............an occassional abberation does not invalidate the premise

No, but neither does a trend indicate what will happen. The premise is what the premise is. Reality is something entirely different.

There is no way a plurality will elect Mitt Romney, and he's the most-electable candidate the Republicans have. Romney will be shredded by Obama in debates. He has a worse record on jobs, he is extremely vulnerable - via his own words - on healthcare, and he's easily painted as a wealth elite out of touch with mainstream America.

Yes he will be painted that way............remains to be seen whether the public buys it. I totally disagree on the debates. Romney is not great on his feet, but BO will not have his electronic crutch (Mr. Teleprompter).

As I said to Carlfense. I predict BO cannot defend his record and I don't see the public fallilng for his disingenousness again. But, we will see and the next 10 months will be fun to debate.

 

[knapplc]

Yes he will be painted that way............remains to be seen whether the public buys it. I totally disagree on the debates. Romney is not great on his feet, but BO will not have his electronic crutch (Mr. Teleprompter).

As I said to Carlfense. I predict BO cannot defend his record and I don't see the public fallilng for his disingenousness again. But, we will see and the next 10 months will be fun to debate.

Ummm.... Obama didn't have a teleprompter in 2008 and demolished McCain, who has decades of experience in debates.

Further, have you actually watched the Republican debates? Romney is no smooth talker. Obama will eat him alive.