Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vegas Oddsmaker: Why Obama Will Lose in a Landslide
Townhall.com ^ | May 30, 2012 | Wayne Allyn Root

Posted on 07/08/2012 6:06:48 AM PDT by pistolpackinpapa

Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most accurate records of predicting political races.

Neither Obama nor Romney are my horses in the race. I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster. My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I don’t believe it’s possible to turnaround America.

But as an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Years Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that the Presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until election day. But that on election day Romney would win by a landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980.

Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding Romney victory. 32 years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most pollsters give Obama the edge?

First, most pollsters are missing one ingredient- common sense. Here is my gut instinct. Not one American who voted for McCain 4 years ago will switch to Obama. Not one in all the land. But many millions of people who voted for an unknown Obama 4 years ago are angry, disillusioned, turned off, or scared about the future. Voters know Obama now- and that is a bad harbinger.

Now to an analysis of the voting blocks that matter in U.S. politics:

*Black voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. His endorsement of gay marriage has alienated many black church-going Christians. He may get 88% of their vote instead of the 96% he got in 2008. This is not good news for Obama.

*Hispanic voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. If Romney picks Rubio as his VP running-mate the GOP may pick up an extra 10% to 15% of Hispanic voters (plus lock down Florida). This is not good news for Obama.

*Jewish voters. Obama has been weak in his support of Israel. Many Jewish voters and big donors are angry and disappointed. I predict Obama's Jewish support drops from 78% in 2008 to the low 60’s. This is not good news for Obama.

*Youth voters. Obama’s biggest and most enthusiastic believers from 4 years ago have graduated into a job market from hell. Young people are disillusioned, frightened, and broke- a bad combination. The enthusiasm is long gone. Turnout will be much lower among young voters, as will actual voting percentages. This not good news for Obama.

*Catholic voters. Obama won a majority of Catholics in 2008. That won’t happen again. Out of desperation to please women, Obama went to war with the Catholic Church over contraception. Now he is being sued by the Catholic Church. Majority lost. This is not good news for Obama.

*Small Business owners. Because I ran for Vice President last time around, and I'm a small businessman myself, I know literally thousands of small business owners. At least 40% of them in my circle of friends, fans and supporters voted for Obama 4 years ago to “give someone different a chance.” I warned them that he would pursue a war on capitalism and demonize anyone who owned a business...that he’d support unions over the private sector in a big way...that he'd overwhelm the economy with spending and debt. My friends didn’t listen. Four years later, I can't find one person in my circle of small business owner friends voting for Obama. Not one. This is not good news for Obama.

*Blue collar working class whites. Do I need to say a thing? White working class voters are about as happy with Obama as Boston Red Sox fans feel about the New York Yankees. This is not good news for Obama.

*Suburban moms. The issue isn’t contraception…it’s having a job to pay for contraception. Obama’s economy frightens these moms. They are worried about putting food on the table. They fear for their children’s future. This is not good news for Obama.

*Military Veterans. McCain won this group by 10 points. Romney is winning by 24 points. The more our military vets got to see of Obama, the more they disliked him. This is not good news for Obama.

Add it up. Is there one major group where Obama has gained since 2008? Will anyone in America wake up on election day saying “I didn’t vote for Obama 4 years ago. But he’s done such a fantastic job, I can’t wait to vote for him today.” Does anyone feel that a vote for Obama makes their job more secure?

Forget the polls. My gut instincts as a Vegas oddsmaker and common sense small businessman tell me this will be a historic landslide and a world-class repudiation of Obama’s radical and risky socialist agenda. It's Reagan-Carter all over again.

But I’ll give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: landslide
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-104 next last
To: The Duke

Let us not forget the ODDS MAKERS also said OBAMACARE would
taken down!!!! HA!!!!!


51 posted on 07/08/2012 7:46:24 AM PDT by Kit cat (OBummer must go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: The Duke

Let us not forget the ODDS MAKERS also said OBAMACARE would
taken down!!!! HA!!!!!


52 posted on 07/08/2012 7:46:45 AM PDT by Kit cat (OBummer must go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: pistolpackinpapa
I am significantly less optimistic.

Obama will:

1. win almost all the black vote

2. Win 75% of all other minorities

3. Add that to the fact that he probably will win a vast majority of those on government entitlements, which is a rapidly growing constituency.

4. Conservative support will be tepid.

To me this is a forumula for victory for the punk POTUS (God help us)

53 posted on 07/08/2012 7:51:46 AM PDT by catfish1957 (My dream for hope and change is to see the punk POTUS in prison for treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pistolpackinpapa
Root says he is voting for Johnson and in my Opinion is an idiotic vote that could go to Romney. Obama folks probably would probably like a lot more voters to cast ballots like Root. I do not trust Obama not to pull some kind of last minute takeover by military force. Plus I have very little faith in the current American voter to make decisions for the good of America.
54 posted on 07/08/2012 7:52:48 AM PDT by OKIEDOC (I would rather be hung with a few brave conservatives than live a lifetime with cowardly liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MachIV

Portman won by 71% in Ohio so he would probably help Romney in that state at least.


55 posted on 07/08/2012 7:52:57 AM PDT by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: catfish1957

and I forgot No. 5. Dim fraud will run rampant in swing states. Bank on it!!!!


56 posted on 07/08/2012 7:53:24 AM PDT by catfish1957 (My dream for hope and change is to see the punk POTUS in prison for treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

to be eligible to be president of the united states, you have to be a natural born american citizen. which is born in the usa of two legal citizens of the usa, or one legal citizen of the usa, or born of two legal citizens of the usa in a usa military post.


57 posted on 07/08/2012 7:56:32 AM PDT by Emerson Bosworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: LOC1
Caution, never under estimate a rat backed into a corner. There will be an October surprise, that may hurt.

I agree. Years of election-watching have also taught me than any predictions before Labor Day are usually a waste of time. This will be the most corrupt, fraudulent election ever. Complacency and a false sense of victory are our enemies.

58 posted on 07/08/2012 8:01:40 AM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: chuckee

Bush was not on the ballot in 2008. Your sister is an idiot.


59 posted on 07/08/2012 8:03:13 AM PDT by Jumpmaster (Defund the Left!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MachIV

Portman is a “moderate” also known around here as a RINO. If Romney does choose Portman it will give Gov. Kasich the opportunity to appoint a real conservative to that Senate seat.


60 posted on 07/08/2012 8:04:04 AM PDT by Wiser now (Socialism does not eliminate poverty, it guarantees it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Elle Bee

“but Obama’s going to ‘wag the dog’ with something in September or October and you know that Holder is never going to touch the ACORN crowd

“Marxists don’t relinquish power in a well behaved manner and as always the will of the people be damned”
___________________________________________________________________________

Well said. Either there will not be an election or it will be hopelessly corrupt, yet unchallenged. I will even bet, however, with the current crop of eunuchs in DC, that all Obama would have to do after he lost the election is to simply announce - with no explanation - that he was not stepping down, and tell Holder to “Make it so.”


61 posted on 07/08/2012 8:07:55 AM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: atc23; KansasGirl

“can’t think of a single October surprise scenario that would help Obama”

Announcing Michelle’s expecting would lock up the election. (More of an ‘August Surprise’)

She could always kill the baby- before the election even if polling indicated that would be a winning move.


62 posted on 07/08/2012 8:08:20 AM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6; SeminoleCounty

Rubio’s parents were not naturalized until after he was born; thus, he was born to two Cuban citizen parents.

What to speak of the fact that he holds poisonous RINO/pro-illegal globalist viewpoints.

FEH!


63 posted on 07/08/2012 8:26:05 AM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jumpmaster

“Bush was not on the ballot in 2008. Your sister is an idiot.”

She was aware of that. The point of the anecdote is that like many “Bush is an idiot” folks she voted for the Dem candidate and against the Republican candidate as a reaction to 8 years of Bush. Was it stupid? Yes. Did it happen enough times nationally to put the incompetent currently in office in charge? Absolutely. Will it happen again to drive him from office in November? Hope so. I think that is what the author is intimating.


64 posted on 07/08/2012 8:27:22 AM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: chuckee

This will go back to 2004. Kerry won Rat states, Bush won Republican states. It is now back to Ohio. Difference is Romney has a better chance of picking off Obama states than Obama has of picking off Romney states.

Will it be enough?


65 posted on 07/08/2012 8:30:21 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (ABO 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: MachIV

Nobody knew who Dan Quayle was either. Most VP’s are John Does. Nobody votes for the bottom of the presidential ticket anyway. The VP needs to be qualified to be President and his main duty is to inquire daily as to the health of the President. Its probably going to be Rob Portman a senator from Ohio and as far as I know he’s qualified to be President.


66 posted on 07/08/2012 8:39:04 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet

I have dreamed that same dream.


67 posted on 07/08/2012 8:45:29 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: pistolpackinpapa

This was posted back when it first came


68 posted on 07/08/2012 8:49:09 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

“This will go back to 2004. Kerry won Rat states, Bush won Republican states. It is now back to Ohio. Difference is Romney has a better chance of picking off Obama states than Obama has of picking off Romney states.Will it be enough?”

The way I see it is there are 4 possible outcomes.Romney in a landslide. Romney in a close election. Obama in a landslide. Obama in a close election.

The only outcome I think we can currently rule out is the Obama in a landslide scenario because I agree that the marginally red states that voted for him last time will not be voting for him this time.We may very well have the reverse with Romney picking up the marginally blue states like Iowa and Wisconsin resulting in a landslide with a Republican Senate ushered in or the 2004 scenario you described fighting over a few battleground states and a divided Congress. I think it gets down to the white vote. Obama won last time with the highest percentage of white voters (around 4%)than any Dem candidate since Johnson.Right now he is polling in the high thirties among white voters, the lowest in 60 years. Only problem is they are lesser share of the population this time around than in 2008.


69 posted on 07/08/2012 8:50:29 AM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: chuckee

Correction (around 4%) should be (around 44%)


70 posted on 07/08/2012 8:53:38 AM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Emerson Bosworth

“to be eligible to be president of the united states, you have to be a natural born american citizen. which is born in the usa of two legal citizens of the usa, or one legal citizen of the usa, or born of two legal citizens of the usa in a usa military post.”

Complete nonsense and has been shown to be so in court. “Natural born” folks have about the same level of rationality as Paulbots.


71 posted on 07/08/2012 8:54:31 AM PDT by Bayan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: pistolpackinpapa

pistolpackinpapa....like your name...lol lol lol


72 posted on 07/08/2012 9:17:50 AM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; ASA Vet

The issue of Natural Born Citizen was brought against the white guy, John McCain, long before Barrack was nominated to the DNC as a Presidential Candidate.

In fact, in order to place McCain on the ballot, the United States Senate went so far as to craft the Senate Resolution 511 proclaiming John McCain a Natural Born Citizen.

There is a cloud over Barrack's birth, to be sure.  But the fact that still remains is his birth was of a divided nationality British and American.  One is wholly one thing or another but not completely two things at the same time.

I've leveraged some work on this from

Obama’s ineligibility: Were Americans set up by the press and then scammed by the Congress?

On February 28, 2008, about the time Barack Obama began to overtake Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Presidential primary, the New York Times published an article questioning McCain’s eligibility to be President according to the natural born citizen clause of Article II, Section I of the Constitution.

Needless to say, the Times story was immediately followed by numerous other news items questioning McCain’s eligibility.

After publication of the New York Times article in February, at least three lawsuits were filed challenging McCain’s eligibility e.g. California and New Hampshire.

Strangely enough, on February 29, 2008, the day after the Times article appeared, Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign announced he would co-sponsor legislation already introduced on February 28, 2008 by his political ally Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to ensure that John McCain could become president, even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. (Washington Post)

Obama said:

“Senator McCain has earned the right to be his party’s nominee, and no loophole should prevent him from competing in this campaign.”

SR 511 was introduced April 10, 2008 by Senator McCaskill and co-sponsored by Senators Leahy (D-VT), Obama (D-IL), Coburn (R-OK), Clinton (D-NY) and Webb (D-VA) and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

It was reported out of committee without amendment by Senator Leahy on April 24, 2008.

On April 30, 2008, the non-binding (no force of law) SR 511 was passed by unanimous consent (no recorded vote) stating:

As reported by the New York Times on April 18, 2008:

“Many who have studied the issue say it can only be definitively resolved by a Constitutional amendment.”

“Obviously, we are not going to get the Constitution amended in the next two or three months,” said Ms. McCaskill, who was driven to clear up any ambiguity after learning of the potential problem. “We are just trying to send the strongest signal we can as quickly and simply as we can.”

So, in April 2008, it appears that a political deal was struck between the Democrats and Republicans that would provide cover for both McCain and Obama on the issue of eligibility. That would also explain the continuing conspiracy of silence by our political elite.

Senate Resolution 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

 Now, let us take this simple and explore its hidden meaning.

 Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

They apparently have read the Constitution and have zeroed in on one clause that no law or legislative body has the right to amend.

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

 The term ‘natural born citizen’ is not defined, however other rulings by the Supreme Court, Congress, and other writings from such as John Bingham, do define what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. For sake of space I will only quote the following.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

 So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they claimed to have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

 So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

 It sounds nice, but means nothing? Some fluff but again means nothing.

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

 Whom are they referring to, that was born ‘outside’ the United States and who deemed them eligible?

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

So the Senate gave by law, what nature failed to do. Would that not be a ‘naturalized’ citizenship?

So the Senate deemed that two (2) American or US Citizen parents was an essential to the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ that was not defined in the Constitution. So how did they deem that the issue was being born outside the jurisdiction of the United States if they had no definition or requirements of what ‘constituted’ a ‘natural born citizen?’ It seems like they know the definition, but are hoping the American public doesn’t. There is but one defintion that a ‘natural born citizen’ has to have citizen parents and being born in country and that is Vattel’s Law of Nations.

As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.

“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”

The reason I make this point is that for the chance that John Mccain would have actually won the 2008 Presidential election. The issue of his eligibility not only would have been brought up, but would have stated congressional hearings, the likes of Watergate all over again. The Congress would have in no time instituted articles of impeachment and the motion would have been approved. Then the Senate would have their chance to remove John McCain, however since they already have voted with their ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, regardless how the vote went. A non-binding, non-lawful resolution that trumps the United States Constitution could be waved in front of the American public, and John McCain, could go back in the corner, stick his thumb in his pie, and exclaim “Oh, what a good boy am I.”

Senate Resolution 511, was an attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution, and amend the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause of which there has NEVER been an amendment or change too.

More then just a non-binding resolution, SR511 defined John McCain’s eligibility based on  being born of US Parents [NOTE the plural] but outside the country. Therefore the only alternative based on THEIR wording is ‘born in country’. They did not change the requirement of two (2) US parents.

Where is there a definition as to a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ based on parents [again plural] and born in country? Vattel’s Law of Nations.

Why if John McCain was held to these requirements, was Barack Obama not held of being born of US Parents [plural] and in the United States. 

Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution?


73 posted on 07/08/2012 9:19:18 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live thnrough it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pistolpackinpapa

I think despite what people say, this won’t be a razor clise election.

Obama won 53-46-1. I think the margin will be within a point of that rangw.
Just my gut talking. Or possibly that burrito I had for breakfast


74 posted on 07/08/2012 9:21:17 AM PDT by Ted Grant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walkingfeather

No.

In order to serve as VP you must be eligible to be president.

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.


75 posted on 07/08/2012 9:25:55 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live thnrough it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

Rubio is a Native Citizen.


76 posted on 07/08/2012 9:27:36 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live thnrough it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


All contributions are for the Current Quarter Expenses.


Every time a Freeper or Lurker signs up to be a New Monthly Donor

A generous Freeper donates $10!!

Please sign up now!

77 posted on 07/08/2012 9:31:16 AM PDT by RedMDer (https://support.woundedwarriorproject.org/default.aspx?tsid=93destr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: C210N

I`m always entertained by these comparisons to 1980. The America of that era would`ve laughed off the idea of electing a hardcore marxist. As a matter of fact, Gus Hall and Angela Davis were roughly the same ideology as today`s democrat party, and they garnered all of 1% support.

The America of today is rife with a self-interested entitlement mentality. The level of understanding of things political is far less, because voters are driven far more reflexively by ideology and not issue awareness. As a result, the candidate who promises the most “free stuff” has the inside track.

Add to all that an intensely liberal “media” providing free airtime for the dems, and we have an America that bears very little resemblance to the one that elected Reagan. The best hope for defeating 0bama (at best, a close election.. there`ll be no landslide defeat of him) is an unforeseen, cataclysmic development that turns public opinion against him.

Amazingly, the drumbeat of negative economic news, the 0bamacare ruling, F&F, the national security leaks, the homo marriage issue haven`t touched 0bama. Prompted by “media” propaganda, Americans still blame Bush for the ongoing recession.

I wish I could share the optimism.


78 posted on 07/08/2012 9:38:45 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... yet voting doesn't???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Walkingfeather

I don’t know the answer to that question. Is not the VP positioned to take over for the POTUS in the event the latter cannot fulfill his or her duties?


79 posted on 07/08/2012 9:42:24 AM PDT by astounded (Barack Obama is a clear and present danger to the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: islander-11
Not only an excellent analysis, by but Mr. Root (whom I voted for)expresses my sentiments perfectly;
“Neither Obama nor Romney are my horses in the race. I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster. My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I don’t believe it’s possible to turnaround America.”
80 posted on 07/08/2012 9:44:37 AM PDT by Tupelo (TeaPartier ..... but no longer a Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pistolpackinpapa

I read this piece when it first came out. The points are even stronger today — after the Roberts Obamacare Supreme Court debacle.


81 posted on 07/08/2012 9:48:39 AM PDT by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pistolpackinpapa

Wayne Allan Root forgot about the dead and fraudulent votes. They still back Obama 100% or greater.


82 posted on 07/08/2012 9:50:22 AM PDT by OrangeHoof (Our economy won't heal until one particular black man is unemployed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LOC1

“Caution, never under estimate a rat backed into a corner. There will be an October surprise, that may hurt.”

A border crackdown, perhaps. Regardless, I think BO will lose, even with the traditional October surprise. I just don’t think we’ll see very much change in policy in the Pustule on the Potomac.


83 posted on 07/08/2012 9:59:49 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans. Don't read their lips. Watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

As far as I know there is no ‘law’ for the POTUSA as there is no ‘law’ for eligibility of congresspersons. The requirements are set/buried in the Constitution which is above any law, even those adopted to carry out the Constitution. It is the Constitution which delineates a difference for eligibility between offices. It requires in the one instance ‘natural born citizen’ for POTUSA and only ‘citizen’ for congresspersons. For ‘natural born’ many people as myself firmly believe that ‘natural born’ is bedded in the documented discussions and acceptance of the Founders which included Vattel’s reasoning for citizenship of both parents. Many people do not accept the Founders’ documented intent because the Founders were not explicit as to words in the Constitution. These persons would then have to accept that Obama is eligible baring any question of birth location that parentage is of no concern as to eligibility for POTUSA.


84 posted on 07/08/2012 10:00:38 AM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: catfish1957

“I am significantly less optimistic.

Obama will:

1. win almost all the black vote

2. Win 75% of all other minorities

3. Add that to the fact that he probably will win a vast majority of those on government entitlements, which is a rapidly growing constituency.

4. Conservative support will be tepid.

To me this is a forumula for victory for the punk POTUS (God help us)”

******************

1. Yes, but their turnout will be down.
2. Mmm. 66%.
3. Yes. Definitely.
4. Of course. This is not compromise it is capitulation.

Still, I think the Massachusetts Moderate will win, though what could have been a landslide to restore liberty will be a squeaker for a reset to 2007.


85 posted on 07/08/2012 10:08:15 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans. Don't read their lips. Watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

“Nobody votes for the bottom of the presidential ticket anyway.”

Usually, anyway. 2008 was a bit of an anomaly.


86 posted on 07/08/2012 10:17:55 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans. Don't read their lips. Watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
It would almost be better for the Democrats to keep the sorry nest that they've built for themselves.
Yeah - look at how badly things turned out the last time Republicans took over a ghastly unemployment, fuel supply, military/foreign policy, and inflation quagmire. Twelve years later, Republicans lost the WH again!
</sarcasm>
We here still move in twilight. But we have one beacon to guide us that Ronald Reagan never had. We have his example.- Margaret Thatcher

87 posted on 07/08/2012 11:13:27 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: pistolpackinpapa

We We We

You say “We” a lot.

Who is “We”?

Because as far as I can tell, We have already lost the white house regardless of whether Obama or Romney win.

Oh, when I say “We” I mean Conservatives.

Who do you mean when you say “We”?


88 posted on 07/08/2012 11:23:41 AM PDT by Nik Naym (It's not my fault... I have compulsive smartass disorder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Duke

You and I realize that the next 4 years are going to be an extremely rough row. Romney realizes it too. That is why he has said that the actions he will have to take will likely result in him being a one term president. Rubio realizes that too.

As much as I like Rubio, I don’t believe accepting the VP slot would be a great career move for him. Besides I think he wants to earn the presidency on his own, and he has time.

Since I believe that anyone can beat Obama, it won’t matter who the VP choice is. This is a 100% anti-Obama election. Let’s face it, this is not an election conservatives are going to get excited about. We will just go to the polls and do our duty. No October surprise will save him. Nor will there be enough illegals and dead voters to elect him.

I’m pretty sure Obama knows his goose is cooked. That’s why he ignores our laws and will be a dictator for the time he has left.


89 posted on 07/08/2012 11:36:41 AM PDT by A'elian' nation (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred. Jacques Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl
"I can't think of a single October surprise scenario that would help Obama."

Oh, c'mon now, think real hard...think....I...R....

90 posted on 07/08/2012 12:02:57 PM PDT by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: diogenes ghost

I don’t see how that would help either. After fouling up Afghanistan as badly as he has, now he drags us into another war while he simultaneously drastically cuts funding and support for the military?

Nope, Iran’s a loser for him, too.


91 posted on 07/08/2012 12:06:28 PM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Nik Naym

Wow! Didn’t realize how many times I used “we”. But, when I say “we” I mean those of us who want the Kenyan, Marxist, Muslim out of the White House.


92 posted on 07/08/2012 12:43:02 PM PDT by pistolpackinpapa (Why is it that you never see any Obama bumper stickers on cars going to work in the mornings?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

Definitely. I had friends in Chicago who voted Republican their entire life. When they died, they started voting Democrat.


93 posted on 07/08/2012 12:44:17 PM PDT by pistolpackinpapa (Why is it that you never see any Obama bumper stickers on cars going to work in the mornings?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Ted Grant

And, who does your “gut” tell you will be the winner?


94 posted on 07/08/2012 12:46:13 PM PDT by pistolpackinpapa (Why is it that you never see any Obama bumper stickers on cars going to work in the mornings?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: The Duke

Ref. your Post #47: One of my sons has said the exact, same thing.


95 posted on 07/08/2012 12:54:23 PM PDT by pistolpackinpapa (Why is it that you never see any Obama bumper stickers on cars going to work in the mornings?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater
"Nope, Iran's a loser for him, too."

Wrong.

ALL presidents get a popularity/support bump after military action against a perceived threat.

It may not be a great bump, but supposedly little, if any, is needed.

96 posted on 07/08/2012 12:59:00 PM PDT by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: skeama

Dang skeama; I sure hope you are right.


97 posted on 07/08/2012 1:01:36 PM PDT by pistolpackinpapa (Why is it that you never see any Obama bumper stickers on cars going to work in the mornings?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Thanks.


98 posted on 07/08/2012 1:04:14 PM PDT by pistolpackinpapa (Why is it that you never see any Obama bumper stickers on cars going to work in the mornings?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Emerson Bosworth
to be eligible to be president of the united states, you have to be a natural born american citizen. which is born in the usa of two legal citizens of the usa, or one legal citizen of the usa, or born of two legal citizens of the usa in a usa military post.

Care to cite the statute where this fantasy is located?

99 posted on 07/08/2012 1:20:40 PM PDT by PJ-Comix (No more hand cast... Just an unbendable pinkie now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: pistolpackinpapa
They are getting Hillary ready to run.

Political Animals

100 posted on 07/08/2012 1:29:45 PM PDT by bmwcyle (Corollary - Electing the same person over and over and expecting a different outcome is insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson