President Obama's jigsaw puzzle strategy is winning him support of women,youth,immigrants and hispanics,black voters,union workers etc. Romney's strategy is based on how bad a president Obama has been and pandering to the republican base which is controlled by the tea party and the extreme right wing of the party as well as betting the slow recovery and recent bad numbers on the economy will continue through election day,giving him an advantage with independent voters.Whose strategy do you think will win out in the end?
If this were true, there would be no possibility Romney would be the candidate.
LOL! Really? Romney spent his entire candidacy for the nomination pandering to the right-wing base. He won because he had the most money, though.
of course there is, it is easily explained because of the field of candidates he faced, the fact that he's been running for six years. the money advantage he had and how far to the right he has been moving to become viable even in this etreme right wing faze of the republican party, so much so that now he has no chance of pivoting to the center as candidates usually do after the primaries are over.
How can you tell, Romney has contradicted his position on issues so much I do not know how anyone would know where he stands.
That's true right this second he is to the right of mussolini, because it is where he needs to be to be acceptable to the base of the party like i said controlled by the tea party and the right wing nut talking heads after the election he will be whatever the flavor of the month is whether he wins or loses he has no principles or ideological reference like for example rick santorum or gingrich or paul whom i don't agree with but you do know where they stand.
The governance of a Romney administration would not differ very much from another Obama administration. You may see them as vastly different, I view them both as marionettes of their global masters. Unable to act on their own without guidance from their controllers, and both are controlled by the same entities.
I frankly disagree with that way of thinking ,i think that encourages inaction and enriches real crooks like Larouche to whom the million or so Larouchies send about fifty dollars a month each
You might disagree, that does not make it false. Politics in the U.S. needs to rise above a left/right paradigm. Enabling the possibility of third party candidates to have a viable opportunity to get elected would benefit us all. The more voices in the discussion, the more the average voter can educate themselves.
The Republicans refused to give Gary Johnson a chance to be heard, I hope that some will at least listen to what the man has to say before November. He may not be electable but just perhaps he can bring the discussion to ideas that neither the left or the right would debate without his voice.
I think a third party candidate would be a positive thing, the problem is that there is no third party, also a third party could prosper , grow and even in time win an election , unfortunately what we have had in the past is individuals who launch a candidacy that has no chance of winning, it doesn't survive after the election and it gives nothing for the supporters to build on, and it just ends up favoring either one of the two major party candidates.
Gary Johnson 2012
He may not win, he may also help Obama get reelected, but if allowed in to the debate, he will address issues that neither of the main candidates wish to discuss.
It depends when you check on the Census whether how many people belong to different age group (young adult - 18- 30, 31 to 45 - middle aged, near elderly 46-60 and elderly 60 plus and above). You can get data by sex, by ethnicity and then we can also check on past election behavior.
The largest number of population belong to the young adult and middle ages. You can check that out and compare with population by state by whether it is a red, blue or a swing state and project it, using the past behavior electoral behavior. Then we can project. This is just assumption.
We can check how many go out and vote in the past and get the average, even percentages will do! Then we can compare. I Hope I have time next week then I can have time to compute, but it is boring.
A table showing population by age, by sex, by ethnicity and voting pattern in the diff. states in the past is useful!
In the end Obama will win!
And this is a challenge for the Obama campaign because the young voters don't vote as much as other groups , he has the overwhelming majority of this vote , now he has to make sure they go out and vote, same thing for the hispanic voters.
It looks like it was enough to win him reelection and at bigger numbers than the previous election
I really don't know who is going to win. Each time I flip a coin I get a different response!
You know though, I hear things are nice in Sweden...
Right now, it's too close to call. One of Rasmussen's daily polls had Romney over Obama by three points (47-44) with a four-point margin of error. To me, that says "too close to call".
Obama's talking points has been that raising taxes is the solution to our national debt, but throughout our history, that strategy has failed time and again. Kennedy, Reagan and Bush all had success with lowering taxes. Then again, Vietnam, Democrat Congress and War on Terrorism wiped away any chance of seeing a surplus. Additionally, Obama frequently blames the last administration and Congress for his failure to follow through on his promises. I think 42 months is plenty of time to affect change. So, blaming Bush is just asinine to me. And as far as I have seen the House has passed bills left and right. It is the Senate that is doing nothing to get the House's bills to the President's desk. So, it is really a "do nothing" Senate, not Congress, but Obama spreads the blame to Republican-held House, when it solely falls on Democrat-held Senate.
As for Romney, I believe he can bring real change and get America back on the road to prosperity. I don't think he can get us all the way, even he has two terms, but I do feel he can reverse this course towards a socialist America, which scares me to no end. I just don't see how there is liberty when everyone is a ward of a nanny-state.
In the end, I will not vote for what will benefit ME the most. I plan to vote for who I feel will benefit ALL Americans the most, which really anyone but Obama. Then again, I am preparing myself for the disappointment if he is re-elected.
And in the same way I prepare to be disappointed if Romney wins the difference is I believe we are blessed to live in one of the best countries in the history of the world and presidents pass some worse some better but this great country always moves on . What is really puzzling to me is how the republican right wing nut talking head establishment has been able to brainwash so many people into a state of fear about our future and how we are becoming a socialist/communist country, that is such baseless nonsense as is people running to gun shops because they're coming for our guns, those are myths, urban legends with no substantiation whatsoever.The safety net has been in place since the great depression and has been one of the pillars in making america great in every aspect.
Our current POTUS has admitted, in so many words in his rhetoric, speeches and other comments, that he is a socialist. "Redistribution of wealth" is a very socialist philosophy.
Also, with our debt to China, what is to stop them from saying, "Pay up, in full, now or we declare war." It is very possible, and if we are in a socialist-minded environment, it could happen with very little resistance. We then are no longer Americans, but American-Chinese. No thank you. I plan to fight that until my last breath.
9/11 happened because we didn't think it could. To think that a Chinese invasion couldn't happen is being naive. I want to be prepared and ready with a plan of action.
In the end, Obama has done nothing to fix this economy. Whatever attempts he made didn't work or made things worse, in my opinion. He even promised to NOT run again if the unemployment rate was still above 8%. It is, and he's still running. Two broken promises to add to all the others.
Honestly, I don't like either one of them, Obama or Romney. I didn't vote for them, but come November, I will vote for the strongest candidate against Obama, but he is not the strongest candidate for American values.
President Obama is not a socialist and he has never proclaimed to be, he is a liberal and a moderate at that, redistribution of wealth is not a socialist idea as a matter of fact it is what defeated socialism as a viable political option in this country and around the world , when socialism was spreading like wildfire around the world in the beginning of the twentieth century the liberal political actors realized they would be overtaken if they didn't implement some kind of economical fairness in the distribution of wealth. And I'm referring to the dogmatic socialist ideology which also had to evolve in order to not disappear and become obsolete.
And it's irrelevant. The so-called ideology of "redistribution of wealth" is nothing more than a fraud on the public.
It's a statement issued by pathetic politicians to win or gain sympathy from citizens because citizens will gullible to believe government has their best interests in sight.
The "redistribution of wealth" is a scam because it uses a supposed "trickle down effect" to those of lower status. And it doesn't happen, but citizens don't realize it.
The increase in poverty and homeless should be telling people it doesn't work. But, with distortion and misinformation coming from more than just Government, such as media outlets, then it poses a problem for people to truly recognize the problems of the country.
the main component of redistribution of wealth is the progressive tax system which is not new it's been around for a while now.
And did I say it was something new? Nope. Nowhere did I say that. Please don't put words into my mouth or insinuate I said something when in fact I didn't.
I did say it's a scam/fraud on people and doesn't work. Plain and simple.
So in your opinion it's better to have a regressive tax system like a flat tax or an added value tax .
I don't see a need or a logical reason for government to tax the people who are citizens.
I have no problem with government using a progressive tax system, but it should only apply to the Corporations living/breathing/operating on U.S. soil. And those outside who want to have access to America's Economy.
The State can implement it's own taxes on business within it's own borders. The Federal Government can tax business for whatever reasons, such as importing and exporting.
The government politicians shouldn't be paid for their services. They are public servants. They are already self made millionaires who really don't need the money and all the money which all campaigns receive should go into a general fund for government operations.
The Economy is the second most important aspect of America. The CITIZENS are the most important part of America. Business should learn it's place. People should learn their place. Peace would be nice outcome should both know their place.
I frankly don't see how a government could function without having any income or enough income to operate,how is the safety net going to be funded? by charity?And the politicians not getting paid would ensure two things first that only the wealthy could afford to be in government and second that corruption would be how they earn their money.
Really? And what exactly do you consider a functional government?
Do you mean a government that operates on a strict budget, but with a petty cash opportunity of use of trillions of dollars? It might work, but other factors make it look absurd. If there was a surplus of money, then okay.
Do you mean that government requires heavy amounts of money to operate? Really? Why is that? Because they are doing things which the government shouldn't be doing? Hmmm....maybe the government should not stick it's nose in places where it doesn't belong and then they would spend less.
You really want to go there? Okay, let's go there. Why would a safety net needed if there's a surplus?
Really? Isn't that what you have now? And they are highly paid to do their job.
So, you cannot be serious.
tell me how a person who is not rich would be in government without pay.only the rich would be in government. are you... serious?
Hey Mio cid,
You already have millionaires as politicians.
You will NEVER ONE YOUR LIFE ever see a poor person in office.
Do try to remember, this is the FEDERAL Government we are talking about. Not State government.
Representatives and Senators are supposedly hold a position within their State. They would receive compensation for such a position, however, it doesn't have to be what these people are being paid now.
Please separate your thoughts on this matter. The Federal Government is the problem, it has and holds no solutions because it's NOT it's job to come up with any solutions.
The Federal Government is supposedly designed and implemented to ensure Domestic and Foreign threat protection. Any other job you think these people should have is illusion.
90% of any issues should be handled at State Level and the Federal Government stays out of.
What you are proposing is sort of a balcanization of america with a meaningless federal government kind of fifty separate countries who just have a mutual defense agreement and one common militay force ,I come from south america and because in south america there was always ten separate quarreling states is why they have been poorer throughout their history as opposed to the USA.
there are all kinds of people in government if they wouldn't get paid ONLY the rich would be in politics and government sort of like feudal lords ruling the populace. on this issue alone your proposal is not realistic.
that is not accurate at all there are and there has always been in politics and government people coming from all walks of life of all different economic status.
If we add Obama's jigsaw puzzle strategy to the Clintons' political shrewdness It's going to be almost impossible for a republican to take the White House.
by William R. Wilson7 years ago
So Michelle Bachmann is an elected Republican. She lied on Anderson Cooper's news program. And then the right wing noise machine picked up the lie and repeated it - simply because it made Obama look...
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
harbinger of bad things to come? Do you believe that the economy will become worse as a result of President Obama's reelection? If you are a Democrat, do YOU regret voting for President Obama?
by Holle Abee5 years ago
I've always said that I didn't think Mitt would win in SC, and now Newt is ahead in the state in several polls. The GOP has gone so far to the right that they don't want a moderate. It just boggles my mind that any...
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
they saw President Barack Obama as the president of promise and reformation? During President Obama's administration, unemployment and national debt is the HIGHEST it has been. More and more civil...
by Onusonus5 years ago
Reasons to vote for Obama,he fulfilled his promise to close gitmo, He was one of the best students who ever set foot at Columbia university, and graduated with a grade point average of....... Oh wait, that information...
by LiamBean5 years ago
Now that President Obama has won a second term I can breathe a bit better. But I've got to say I'm deeply disturbed by the rampant voter disenfranchisement that continues even as I write this.Pennsylvania, Ohio, and...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.