Romney is down 32 points in Massachusetts!

1. 64

   Ralph Deedsposted 11 years ago

   Just heard on TV that Romney's down 32 points in Massachusetts. That oughta tell ya something! Like his claim to being able to work across the aisle with Democrats is another load of b.s.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It would be nice if the rest of the country could learn from Massachusetts mistakes. But with Romney pouring millions and millions into resurrecting or should I say recreating his public and professional  record and almost daily shifting positions on just about every issue, people still seem to be swayed by the witch doctor and his snake oil cures.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Even newspapers and most recently Michael Bloomberg commented that they can't endorse Romney because they simply don't know who he is or what he stands for.
         
         Here I see people who defend Romney's policies as very different from Bush.
         They say "Go read his website." Welll, the website seems to be out of date. The things it says are not the things Romney is saying.
         
         If you are a "severe conservative" I guess your only choice is Romney. That's assuming the Nordquist et al party bosses will, in fact, dictate what he signs (truly, I've seen Nordquist say that very thing).
         
         If you are an avowed Obama hater -- Romney is your choice by default.
         
         But, if you are an American who sees the presidency as broader than 1 issue (whichever issue you pick), you have to look at the whole package.
         Women's reproductive rights
         Pay equity
         Health care
         Equality for all citizens
         Education
         Foreign policy
         Environment
         Climate change
         Immigration
         Veterans
         Job creation
         Rebuild America's infrastructure
         Reducing the deficit
         Taxes (does anyone REALLY vote ONLY on taxess??)
         
         The sum of the parts does not add up and the whole is downright scary.

         replyreport
2. 0

   Nell Hoxsieposted 11 years ago

   Many of us in Massachusetts are truly upset that he's disowned his policies here. That and his choice of running mate. We are a very liberal state. I can't imagine many of us wanting Paul Ryan within a heartbeat of the presidency.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Nell Hoxsieposted 11 years ago

   What many people don't know is that when Romney proposed a healthcare plan, he proposed a watered down Republican plan that would have left many poor people uninsured. Kennedy and the Democrats forced him to accept much more. He really cared more about taking the healthcare benefits responsibility away from companies than he did about giving people good insurance. He just can say now that he wanted to help companies more than he did people. But he did.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      AMFredenburgposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      He also called people without insurance "freeloaders" and claimed that they went to the emergency room for health care and then didn't pay the bills. His motive for his health care bill was not compassion, but a way to deal with the "freeloaders" that would cost less money than the system then in place. The man's level of cynicism is astonishing.

      replyreport
4. 92

   cam8510posted 11 years ago

   Massachusetts has long been a Democrat stronghold.  Romney admits that he had a state legislature that was predominantly Democrat when he was Governor.  It is no surprise to me that he isn't carrying his home state.  This is not an issue to me.  The same has happened to Democrat candidates in the past.  Of course then it was Republicans trying to make hay with the issue.

   replyreport
   1. 47

      wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It may not be an issue for you, but you can be sure it is an issue for Romney.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         cam8510posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I sincerely doubt he is spending much money in Massachusetts.  He knows he won't win there.

         replyreport
         1. 47

            wavegirl22posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            that was not the point.
            
            Not a great day for Romney.

            replyreport
            1. 92

               cam8510posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Clearly.  And he will definitely have a few not so great days before the election.  Every state he has to concede before the election is one more step away from a big, new house.

               replyreport
   2. 72

      AMFredenburgposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Could you at least say "Democratic," rather than "Democrat"? It's not really respectful of the people you seem to want to reach to assume they can't speak grammatically.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         cam8510posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         No, I spoke correctly.  democratic - definition of democratic by the Free Online Dictionary ...
         www.thefreedictionary.com/democratic
         dem·o·crat·ic (d m -kr t k). adj. 1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union.
         
         Democrat | Define Democrat at Dictionary.com
         dictionary.reference.com/browse/democrat
         a person who believes in the political or social equality of all people. 3. (initial capital letter) Politics. a. a member of the Democratic party. b. a member of the ...

         replyreport
         1. 92

            cam8510posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            ok, a fine line.  the people are democrats and the party is democratic.  I've heard some pretty educated people use democrat as I did.  Please soften the attitude.  I did not pick a fight with anyone.

            replyreport
            1. 92

               cam8510posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I am reminded again why I avoid the forums most of the time.

               replyreport
      2. 92

         cam8510posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         And by the way, you seem to assume that I am Republican.

         replyreport
5. 92

   cam8510posted 11 years ago

   This is not a case of a State not supporting a "bad" Governor who is running for the presidency.  It is a matter of a liberal State opting for a liberal presidential candidate rather than supporting their former Governor.  What is the issue?  I don't get it.

   replyreport
6. 0

   Nell Hoxsieposted 11 years ago

   I never understood why Romney wanted to be governor of such a liberal state. Utah would have been a much better match.

   replyreport
7. 61

   American Viewposted 11 years ago

   The tangled web we weave as we continue to deceive. Just checked:
   
   "Massachusetts remains about as blue as a state can be, with President Obama nearly 20 points ahead of Mitt Romney here.
   
   A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Massachusetts Voters shows the president with 59% support to Romney’s 40%. Just one percent (1%) are still undecided" .
   
   http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … _president

   replyreport
   1. 92

      cam8510posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting, 19%, not 32%.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Nell Hoxsieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Perhaps it was a different poll? 20 or 32. He still probably won't carry the state. Warren vs. Brown is really the race to watch. Those polls are always changing.

         replyreport
         1. 92

            cam8510posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            No, I wouldn't think he would win it.  Is the other a senate or Governor race?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Nell Hoxsieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Senate. It's being watched nationwide because it could decide which party has control.

               replyreport
               1. 92

                  cam8510posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  ooops, missed that one.  It is amazing that we are back to being so close to either side having control.  This seems to swing widely and often.

                  replyreport
8. 59

   movingoutposted 11 years ago

   It's hard to forget a Governor who had a "Private Elevator" for his use to avoid questions from interviewers! Only Governor in that state to rope off an elevator.  Hard to forget he ran the state like a "Boss", where it was his way or the highway. He was the ultimate being and all knowing in his mind!

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Pamela Kinnaird Wposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I am amazed at how much people do not like Romney.  It seems to go beyond politics.  And there are certainly a lot of untruths being told -- statements with no facts behind them.  As for the private elevator, I don't know if it's true or not.  Maybe he felt he needed less time with interviewers and more time to get work done.  Are you aware he did not take a salary as Governor of Massachussetts?

      replyreport
      1. 72

         rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I love that people make the analogy that Romney was a true public servant because he took no salary as govenor. That is meaningless as most if not all want these jobs to serve have their own agendas. I don't know what Romney has gotten from his governorship other than a stepping stone to the white house but I can assure you with the blatant lies and untruths he has spoken in the process he has not proven any integrity as a candidate and likewise as a commander in chief. Romney doesn't need a paltry $200,000 or $300,000 dollar salary that the white house post can provide but the power for him to direct the country is what he craves and it is only too obvious he is willing to sell his soul for it. His using the tired old trickle down GOP message may play again to those who buy his snake oil but there is nothing Romney has but a bunch of unfounded mysterious trust me lies.

         replyreport
      2. 77

         Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         The private elevator was less to keep reporters away (although that Romney trait continues -- 11 times during his Ohio storm relief event he was asked about his views on FEMA. He ignored every one), but to separate him from the rest of the legislature.
         
         Here's a bit of history on how well Romney worked with Dems. The line "He variously ignored, insulted or opposed them..." is quite telling.
         I've heard it said that he came in and acted like he was still at Bain.
         It doesn't fly in government. We saw the same error by Ahnold The Governator here in CA...
         
         Romney's Bipartisan Claims Challenged
         Mitt Romney regularly claims a track record of bipartisanship as Massachusetts governor by running a state dominated by the political opposition.
         
         New York Times: "But on closer examination, the record as governor he alluded to looks considerably less burnished than Mr. Romney suggested. Bipartisanship was in short supply; Statehouse Democrats complained he variously ignored, insulted or opposed them, with intermittent charm offensives. He vetoed scores of legislative initiatives and excised budget line items a remarkable 844 times, according to the nonpartisan research group Factcheck.org. Lawmakers reciprocated by quickly overriding the vast bulk of them."

         replyreport
9. 77

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   Looking back over a few polls, the spread between Obama and Romney in Massachusetts seems to be closer to what Rasmussen found (+/- 20). The Suffolk University poll does seem to be a bit of an outlier.
   However, Rasmussen's results for other states seem consistently to favor Romney.
   So perhaps sites taht take the AVERAGE of the poll results are the best.
   Then again, maybe none of the polls is right.
   
   
   Massachusetts
   
   Suffolk/7News
   
   Obama 63, Romney 31
   
   Obama +32
   
   Massachusetts
   
   Boston Globe
   
   Obama 56, Romney 39
   
   Obama +17
   
   Massachusetts
   
   WBUR/MassINC
   
   Obama 56, Romney 36
   
   Obama +20
   
   __________________________________________
   Examples of how Rasmussen results tend to be different from other polls:
   
   Colorado
   
   CNN/Opinion Research
   
   Obama 50, Romney 48
   
   Obama +2
   
   
   
   Colorado
   
   Rasmussen Reports
   
   Obama 47, Romney 50
   
   Romney +3
   
   
   
   Iowa
   
   Rasmussen Reports
   
   Obama 48, Romney 49
   
   Romney +1
   
   
   
   Iowa
   
   NBC/WSJ/Marist
   
   Obama 50, Romney 44
   
   Obama +6
   
   
   Wisconsin
   
   Rasmussen Reports
   
   Obama 49, Romney 49
   
   Tie
   
   
   Wisconsin
   
   WPR/St. Norbert
   
   Obama 51, Romney 42
   
   Obama +9

   replyreport
   1. 59

      logic,commonsenseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I believe you will find that historically, Rasmussen has been correct more times than other polls.  Personally I don't have much trust in any of them.  They all have an agenda and therefore little credibility with me.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         We agree on that, logic,commonsense.
         In the 24-hour news cycle, polls are merely another beast-feeder.
         Multiple polls are needed to check and balance each other.
         Media love controversy!
         It all just serves to keep the myth of this "neck and neck" horserace alive so that the candidates and superPACS continue to spend millions and millions of dollars on advertising with them.
         Just imagine what good all that obscene money spent buying AIR could do for ____________________ (name your favorite worthwhile cause).

         replyreport
         1. 64

            Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I think I saw somewhere that Rasmussen tends to lean Republican.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               That's a kind and neutral way of putting it, Ralph.
               Rasmussen is the polling equivalent of Fox News.

               replyreport
               1. 92

                  cam8510posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  All polling agencies have to report the numbers of Republicans and Democrats (and independants) that were included in the poll.  Many of the polls we hear everyday are reported to have polled democrats three or four to one Republican.  I'm not sure I understand why this is, but I have noticed it when some news agencies report the polls.  So Rasmussen reports polls that were weighted toward Republicans.  ABC reports Democrat weighted polls.  I don't see how this can be seen as an attempt to produce deceptive polling when everyone has to report the participants.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     So you are basically admitting that Fox News is deceptive.
                     

                     replyreport
                     1. 92

                        cam8510posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Why would I defend Fox News?  They are no more or less deceptive than the other polling agencies if this practice is considered deceptive.  It seems to be an accepted thing since they have to report the ratio of democrat to republican.

                        replyreport
                        1. 77

                           Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Agreed.
                           All polling organizations include their sample size and composition, the survey mechanism (which can really influence the answers they get), and the margin of error.
                           Oftentimes news reports will state, "a new poll by left-leaning pollsters XYZ...."
                           Here's an interesting look at which pollsters lean which direction:
                           
                           [url]http://votamatic.org/another-look-at-survey-bias/[url]

                           replyreport