Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Democrat States Moving to Romney

  1. #1

    Democrat States Moving to Romney

    States that traditionally have been considered Democrat strongholds are now moving toward Mitt Romney, Bay Buchanan, a senior adviser to Romney, tells Newsmax.

    “When we came into this general election, it was assumed that the battleground states would be the same ones that they were in the past,” says Buchanan, who was treasurer of the U.S. under President Reagan. “Well what’s happened is a lot of the Democratic states are now looking like Mitt Romney could win them. They are now swing states.”

    That means that Democrats have to focus on an additional five states: New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan, Buchanan says. As it is, Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee have about $25 million more cash on hand than the Democrats.

    Based on polls the campaign considers reliable, “Romney is running very, very strong in some traditionally swing states,” Buchanan says. “We feel very good about Indiana now. I don’t think it’s even a swing state. In North Carolina, the numbers show us up as high as five or six percentage points. Florida looks very, very good. It is still within the margin of error, but it’s certainly very strong for us.”

    While Virginia looks tougher, “We’re in play,” Buchanan says. “That’s clearly going to go down to the wire. But we’re looking strong in Wisconsin. We got some two dozen offices in Wisconsin. We’re all over the state running very strong grass roots. It’s going to be up on TV, and so we’re going to force the Democrats to use some of their money if they want to hold on to Wisconsin. There are a lot of other states that we’re going to be playing in where four months ago most analysts would have said Republicans don’t have any chance.”

    http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Demo...8/06/id/447659

    The Obama campaign has taken a huge risk by burning through hundreds of million of dollars in the early stages of the presidential campaign, opening offices in swing states, registering voters and getting to know local communities, but the expenditures have left the campaign dangerously low on cash heading into the final three months of the campaign. The analysis of the Obama expenditures by the New York Times shows that the campaign has spent $400 million from the beginning of 2011 to June 30, 2012.

    http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/08/...ding-to-panic/

    Barky is in trouble.

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,564
    That's great news. People are finally starting to see just how truly ****ing awful Dumbama is.

  3. #3
    These next few weeks are key. Generally in presidential election years there is a convention bounce. A large portion of the undecided/independent electorate hasn't really paid much attention to the race thus far. There are also many voters that wait for the debates to make their decision. At the moment Obama is a known commodity. Romney is not. As the polls stand the national electorate is basically an even split. Romney trails in the electoral race as it stands. A 5 point convention bounce is possible and that will shift the electoral map quite a bit. This is just heating up.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    These next few weeks are key. Generally in presidential election years there is a convention bounce. A large portion of the undecided/independent electorate hasn't really paid much attention to the race thus far. There are also many voters that wait for the debates to make their decision. At the moment Obama is a known commodity. Romney is not. As the polls stand the national electorate is basically an even split. Romney trails in the electoral race as it stands. A 5 point convention bounce is possible and that will shift the electoral map quite a bit. This is just heating up.
    It's my observation that Republicans, be it Dole or McCain or someone who wins, all get convention bounces because the public gets long, direct looks at the GOP without the media filtering it negatively.

    McCain got the bounce, briefly making his losing campaign a horserace. I know it's revisionist to say that the Palin pick was a disaster, but as it stands picking her is the only thing that threw a scare into the Democrats - and it was McCain's own wack-a$s behavior as a response to a financial panic that cratered his chances. You know, Obama had some string of "luck" from 2007 thru Election Day. He's not seemed to have much since.

    And don't forget, Obama outspent McCain 3 or 4 to 1. It's shaping up that Obama could be outspent this time around - he's certainly not keeping pace fundraising - and I read he's already blown his wad on heavy attack ads for middling returns.

    The Democrats really don't get that bounce from their convention. I don't even think they get the ratings. And as it turns out their choice in venue was not a good one.

    Pass the popcorn.
    Last edited by sackdance; 08-07-2012 at 02:34 PM.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,959
    It will be decided by a few hundred thousand votes in a handful of states.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by sackdance View Post
    It's my observation that Republicans, be it Dole or McCain or someone who wins, all get convention bounces because the public gets long, direct looks at the GOP without the media filtering it negatively.

    McCain got the bounce, briefly making his losing campaign a horserace. I know it's revisionist to say that the Palin pick was a disaster, but as it stands picking her is the only thing that threw a scare into the Democrats - and it was McCain's own wack-a$s behavior as a response to a financial panic that cratered his chances. You know, Obama had some string of "luck" from 2007 thru Election Day. He's not seemed to have much since.

    And don't forget, Obama outspent McCain 3 or 4 to 1. It's shaping up that Obama could be outspent this time around - he's certainly not keeping pace fundraising - and I read he's already blown his wad on heavy attack ads for middling returns.

    The Democrats really don't get that bounce from their convention. I don't even think they get the ratings. And as it turns out their choice in venue was not a good one.

    Pass the popcorn.
    Your initial point is spot on. It may sound partisan but reality is that the media is doing everyhing in their power to help Obama deamonize Romney. Remember that he was Governor of one of the most liberal states in the union yet if you watch the media coverage the guy is a right wing extremist. Once the public gets a real first look at Romney they will see a different picture. It holds true for the entire Republican party and message. By contrast the public already knows what Obama is about. He has given speech after speech after State of the Union address. All sound similar, talk about "fairness" as an excuse to raise taxes and kill more jobs. More nonesense about green energy jobs that never actually happens.

    McCain was a poor candidate with a poor message for 2007. He actually said at one point that economic issues are not his forte. He was a foreign policy guy. When the economy tanked he was doomed. Palin was not a good choice for VP IMO but I don't think she hurt him that bad.

    I am still hoping that Romney goes bold with the VP choice and brings on a Rubio or Ryan. That move alone is worth a few points bounce in the polls as well.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Palin was not a good choice for VP IMO but I don't think she hurt him that bad.
    Picking Palin was only thing he did that really moved the needle. And his own reaction to a financial crisis was what did him in. NOT picking Sarah Palin. Again, this is revisionist crap.

    I will conceded that Palin's arc of viability would put her into a "never again" territory, but net-net she was the best thing to happen to his campaign, bad interviews and all. I believe conventional polling from RNC to Election Day '08 would back my assertions.

    And face it, McCain was never going to win that race. It didn't take any master campaigning on Obama's behalf to beat McCain, think again about $1.3billion vs. $400 million and the enthusiasm gap that came with it.

    But I do credit Obama's master campaigning undoing Hillary Clinton, though. That was a feat for the ages.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by sackdance View Post
    Picking Palin was only thing he did that really moved the needle. And his own reaction to a financial crisis was what did him in. NOT picking Sarah Palin. Again, this is revisionist crap.

    I will conceded that Palin's arc of viability would put her into a "never again" territory, but net-net she was the best thing to happen to his campaign, bad interviews and all. I believe conventional polling from RNC to Election Day '08 would back my assertions.

    And face it, McCain was never going to win that race. It didn't take any master campaigning on Obama's behalf to beat McCain, think again about $1.3billion vs. $400 million and the enthusiasm gap that came with it.

    But I do credit Obama's master campaigning undoing Hillary Clinton, though. That was a feat for the ages.
    I meant bad choice in terms of her perceived preparedness for the job. He got a bounce in the polls initially when he chose her and it did fire up an unmotivated base as well. I think she turned some independents off but on the whole she probably added some votes to his total. His weakness on the economy and lack of charisma in a down did him in a down year for the gop did him in.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    I meant bad choice in terms of her perceived preparedness for the job. He got a bounce in the polls initially when he chose her and it did fire up an unmotivated base as well. I think she turned some independents off but on the whole she probably added some votes to his total. His weakness on the economy and lack of charisma in a down did him in a down year for the gop did him in.
    And Bush fatigue. I personally felt like he was kryptonite. And that the country was negative cauldron.

    I remember well the anti-war activists of 2007, carrying on in Union Square weeping tears of anger about dead US servicemen. Wondering aloud and with signage to the heartfelt beat of rainbow circles how much war this country could take before we burst at the seams.

    Something changed in 2008. While casualties in Iraq/Afghanistan and actions elsewhere certainly didn't subside, all those anti-war protesters sure disappeared - from 10s of thousands in organized marches to zero, as in zero marches and zero protesters.

    Maybe they all got drafted or perhaps they're locked up in Guantanamo.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us