Free Republic

“The people that lost us this election were the libertarian and third party voters...”

Mathematically false. There weren’t enough third-party votes to make a difference in any state. Also half the Libertarian and almost all of the Green Party vote comes from would-be Democratic voters.

“... needs to claim split mandate”

Actually, Republican Senate leader McConnell already did this. I was shocked when he delivered a decent little speech saying that Obama didn’t have a mandate. McConnell specifically mentioned that the people elected a Republican House.

Am definitely considering early retirement. That’s because of the left-wing legislation over the past 30 years which takes away my career future anyway, and takes away my incentive to work. Under the new rules I can be legally discriminated against because of my race and gender; I can be sued and lose my job for off-hand comments which make someone “uncomfortable”; and any money I do make can be stolen by the government in order to “spread it around”.

We really just need to be able to refuse to pay taxes. We can call it “freedom fighting” and “civil disobedience” like the supporters of illegal aliens do. Are there jury trials for income tax evasion? If so, jury nullification would work.

Link to Boehner’s speech:

http://www.speaker.gov/speech/full-text-speaker-boehner-calls-bipartisan-action-avert-fiscal-cliff

The polls often disagree with each other so much, that we must doubt them. It is common for two polls to come out on the same day, for the same candidates, and yet disagree by 5% or 8% or even more! Using the polls' own margin of error, it is impossible for both those polls to be accurate. This happens for the close states in the presidential race, as well as for governor and senate races.

And yet the national presidential polls from those same pollsters have almost all merged to a tie.

50% Obama; 47% Romney with two parties only

47% Obama; 44% Romney; 5% Libertarian; 1% Green when all parties are included

“Seaside Heights and nearby towns are under martial law.”

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=8870293

The president is ahead 50% to 41% among voters not affiliated with either major political party.

Perhaps Rasmussen meant to say that Romney has the independent lead. That would match these:

Romney lead among independents in NPR national poll: 51-39 Romney lead among independents in CBS/New York Times national poll: 51-39 Romney lead among independents in Pew national poll: 48-40 Romney lead among independents in Fox News national poll: 46-39

Forced to respond, the Obama campaign has put more than $1.5 million into an ad campaign here and is planning even more. Democrats are saying that the race is much closer than they would have guessed just a week ago.

Why would the Democrats spend money unless they were really afraid of losing?

Obama is actually doing worse than expected in early voting. He is behind 2008 and what was expected this year.

Romney 47% - Obama 46%.

Two out of three. The final thing we need is to pull ahead in the election-deciding states like Ohio and Wisconsin. Having an overall lead or a combined-swing-state lead is not enough to get the needed electoral votes.

But eventually it will be like gravity, with the key-state or overall polls moving to match the other. The two can’t be out of sync forever.

"There are no Americans in Baghdad. Never"

"We have always been at war with EastAsia"

Also, considering that debates are mostly lies and spin, with no way to verify the truth, it is impossible to have a serious discussion.

Candidate #1: You ordered an attack on Smallville

Candidate #2: There is no such place. 2+2=5

Moderator: There is no such place, and we have never attacked anyone.

Why bother trying? The undecideds will make up their minds based on facial expressions, tone of voice, sweating, etc.

Romney DID try getting in the mud with Obama and trading attack for attack -- in the second debate. It accomplished nothing besides driving Romney's negatives up.

We are electing a president, not a spin doctor. If people really want a spin debate then let Axelrod debate one of Romney's political advisors.

” ... Putin has restarted the cold war in a high flying manner.”

True. But since Obama is a communist, he supports Putin.

The ending of this article may be the most important part. It sounds like Obama may switch to a positive approach instead of continuous attack:

Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh said Obama will stress "peace and prosperity" in Boca Raton Monday night, and will give voters a reason to send him into a second term. "I think starting tonight, you're going to hear exactly that from President Obama," she said.

“... will need one of the following to win; OH, PA, IA, WI, MI, or NM.”

A fresh Rasmussen poll has Iowa tied. Was +2 Obama a couple of weeks ago.

Theory 5: It is mostly about the elections, especially tomorrow's foreign policy debate. Obama Administration hopes people will just skim the story, then come to the false conclusion that there has been a peace breakthrough, which won't be announced until after the election. Obama can pretend, falsely, that sanctions on Iran are starting to work.

This is not new. It has been on the web for at least 10 days, since the 11th.

IBD is included in Real Clear Politics averages, which is why I posted here.

If Romney really had a 7 point lead, then he would be blowing out Obama in all the state polls. The actual 2008 election had a 7 point spread, and Obama won 365 - 173 electoral votes.

This is definitely good news for Romney, but if this poll is true, then every recent nationwide and state poll is way, way off.

I post this just to show it is a wildly fluctuating, unreliable poll. The differences between the two candidates over the past 3 days are:

Obama +0.5% 10/19/12 Obama +1.7% 10/20/12 Obama +5.7% 10/21/12

Those are huge jumps, especially considering that 6 daily polls are averaged

If Romney really wanted to win, he’d take the gloves off by playing Obama’s 2007 Katrina video 24 hours a day, and challenge Obama about it in the debates:

“In a video obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama tells an audience of black ministers, including the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that the U.S. government shortchanged Hurricane Katrina victims because of racism.”

I am in the same situation. Am considering early retirement partially since I don’t want to be a slave working to support a bunch of non-workers on welfare. Also if the government is going to (try) to take my savings anyway, I might as well spend it myself instead.

Perhaps this is the solution everyone wants: let the left-wing people keep working, since they want earnings to be confiscated and “spread around”, while those of us on the right can retire and live off the left-wingers.

Quotes from article:

“Mansfield called Obama’s boyhood a “religious swirl. He was exposed to Catholicism, Islam, and strains of Hinduism and Buddhism while growing up in Indonesia during the 1960s.

“In our household, the Bible, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology,” Obama said in Mansfield’s book. “On Easter or Christmas Day, my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites.”

...

In a 2006 speech before a Sojourners meeting, Obama talked about his approach to the Bible:

“Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?”

...

For some, Obama’s actions in the Oval Office seem to contradict Christianity...

The Bible talks about the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. Obama invoked Jesus when he came out in support of same-sex marriage. “The thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule,” Obama told ABC News during his announcement.

Jesus talked about helping the poor. But he never said anything about creating a massive health care law that taxed the rich to help the poor, some Christians argue.

Poll co-sponsor NBC has a few more details:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/21/14593294-nbcwsj-poll-presidential-contest-now-tied

Talks about talking about talks

“... nearly 4 in 10 live in the mid- or South Atlantic.”

Islanders? Fish-men from Atlantis?

“What is your source?”

http://twitchy.com/2012/10/14/dana-perino-has-feeling-about-a-new-secret-tape-guessing-games-begin/

On the other hand, Bush press secretary Dana Perino says that Republicans have additional October Surprise Obama tapes too.

Obama is a loser like Jimmy Carter, but Romney is not even close to the greatness of Ronald Reagan.

This is totally correct. When the Democrats got nasty, starting with Biden at the second debate, it showed they had given up on independents and were only interested in solidifying their voter base.

Also, if McCain had won, there would have been no Tea Party.

Republicans would still be as left-wing socialist as they were during the 2008 election, when none of them saw anything wrong with RomneyCare, McCain’s Cap & Trade, etc.

Let's say it was November 1996 again. Republican Presidential candidate Bob Dole is running 10 points behind Democratic President Bill Clinton. Clinton is a smooth talking president with a fantastic (stock market bubble) economy. In other words, Dole doesn't have a snowball's chance of winning.

In that case is voting Republican for Bob Dole a "wasted vote"? Would you have voted for Clinton because not voting for a winning candidate is a "wasted vote"?

Moving back to the real 2012 world, that is exactly why I, as a libertarian, am voting against both Obama and Romney by voting for Gary Johnson. I don't let other people (polls) tell me how to vote. I don't follow the herd. I vote for the candidate I agree with, and if I lose, I lose.

As far as the tactical voting thing goes, the lesser of two evils, Republicans have been doing that since their last conservative presidential candidate, Reagan 30 years ago, and things have just gotten worse. Voting for the lesser of two evils gave us candidate McCain and President Obama.

On the other hand, ex-Bush press secretary Dana Perino said that the Republicans have another “October surprise” Obama tape.

Obama won’t let the debate be about his record. He will attack Romney, like he does on all issues, and shift the debate to being about Romney.

The Democrats will try to scare off the “security moms” and draft-age youth by painting Romney as a crazed war monger who will light up the whole Middle East.

(Romney should prevent this, but in the second debate he too often played Obama’s game because he lost his temper.)

“That projected [Romney]image is one of safety and security”

Yes. That is why Romney must not sound like a war monger neo-con in the third debate. No McCain-like “bomb bomb bomb Iran”. No hint of a crusade to conquer the Middle East for Jesus.

Romney’s VMI speech was a Wilsonian disaster. He needs to focus on the defense of the United States, not spreading democracy over the globe.

Romney lost the election by getting in the gutter with Obama in the second debate. Obama set the trap with his vicious opening statement and Romney fell into it.

America wants a leader, not a spin doctor. That’s why nearly as many people tuned into the second debate as the first. Unfortunately America will be stuck with a gangsta Marxist instead.

51% Obama - 47% Romney without Libertarian Gary Johnson

48% Obama - 47% Romney - 3% Libertarian Gary Johnson

The latest (10/10/12) Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Pennsylvania Voters shows the president with 51% of the vote to Romney’s 46%. One percent (1%) likes another candidate, and another one percent (1%) remains undecided

The words in bold at the end are the most hopeful I've seen. Instead of just waiting for the voters to fire Obama, Romney will attack and explain what he will do.

“I’m in Ohio and I see/hear Obama ads regularly and seldom run across a Mitt ad.”

Republican columnist Mona Charen says the same thing in Virginia:

“I live in Virginia, the swingiest of swing states. I expected that by now we’d be deluged with ads from both sides. But I’ve seen just two Romney ads.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/328853/romney-campaign-ads-mona-charen

“52% want Obamacare repealed, but they still want Obama anyway”

That’s partially Romney’s fault, for running a “repeal and replace” campaign. Would Romney’s replacement be 99% like ObamaCare? 1% like OC? No one knows.

” ... we need something with more power. It needs to break through the confusing dynamic of the race ...”

It is very possible. Romney has so far been running as nothing, a blank slate, so if he takes a stand on anything, and says what he would do as president, then he has the very real possibility of “turning the race upside down” as one aide predicts.

The old/current Mitt Romney would begin the debate by praising President Obama for a few minutes, then asking Obama and moderators for permission to disagree with Obama a little. If Wednesday we see a new Mitt Romney who is any different and better from that, the polls could change.

No one wants some unknown guy to have his finger on the nuclear button. It’s not just the MSM. There are even articles from Romney’s left-wing Republican supporters, neocon columnists, that they are scared of Romney because they don’t understand him. That’s bad news, but it is also potential good news because Romney could change that really quickly if he really wants to and is man enough.

“As said many times, they are either completely wimping out, or holding back for a strong push in the last month. “

According to Chris Christie, who is a debate coach for Romney, Romney is going to cut loose and “turn things upside down” during Wednesday’s debate.

Some of the left-wing Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents; some were approved by Republican Senates. The only way to avoid Communism is to develop a real second party.

"Tell me where he's wrong."

History proves it wrong. Republicans have been making the exact same arguments each election since the last time they nominated a conservative for president, Ronald Reagan in 1984. "Hold your nose and vote for the RINO as the lesser of two evils".

During those nearly 30 years, the country kept moving to the left, no matter which party was in the White House. George Bush 43's bipartisan administration moved the football (country) as many yards towards the left end-zone as Obama's. We have moved backwards to the point where the entire Reagan Revolution has been rolled back and forgotted. The whole political environment (media, schools, politicians) is back where it was in the 1970's before Reagan; it is that deeply left-wing. We are actually worse off because no one even talks about Communism any more, or fears it.

The Republicans have become the religious wing of the Democratic Party. This election in the long run is irrelevant because the country will continue moving to the left as long as we have a one-party system.

Yes, the media have been biased for decades. Why don't the Republicans do something about it? Why should we continue to give the Republican Party when they won't fight back with it? The Democrats fight all-out war 365 days a year; we are doomed to Marxism and eternal Democratic control until we have a Republican Party which fights back equally hard.