• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

HuffPost Article: Dem Brand declines 31% since 2008 under Obama

DeacLaw05 said:
he total income of the bottom 20 percent more than doubled, rising from $181 billion to $476 billion.
Click to expand...

What is the difference?

20111029_WOC689.gif
 
Faithful, there you go again using real stats rather than political mishmosh.
 
WFFaithful said:
revisionist history
Click to expand...

revisionist means you change history to suit your purposes. historical fact is that the Dems controlled the House, the Senate and the White House for two years and Obama passed his stimulus, crow-barred through reconciliation Obamacare, and passed his financial reforms. another historical fact is none of those worked as promised. That's not revisionist, it's plain historical fact.
 
ncsportsnut1 said:
revisionist means you change history to suit your purposes. historical fact is that the Dems controlled the House, the Senate and the White House for two years and Obama passed his stimulus, crow-barred through reconciliation Obamacare, and passed his financial reforms. another historical fact is none of those worked as promised. That's not revisionist, it's plain historical fact.
Click to expand...

You assume that the Dems are in lock step like the Pubs.

How can you say ACA has not worked as promised when it hasn't been fully implemented?
 
People thinking for themselves....NOOOO!!!!!:willynilly:
 
RJKarl said:
Guys, remember the GOP , ncsports and others don't believe in science or math. It's only about math in this election:

1. No poll has Obama getting less than 94% of the black vote
2. No poll has Obama getting less than 35% win with Hispanics
3. Obama has an average lead of 10% among women

Do the math.
Click to expand...

1. Polls consistently show very low voter enthusiasm among black voters, and even if Obama retains 93% of that voting block, it will be a much smaller block.

2. Same with Hispanics. Polls consistently show dropoff of voter registration among Hispanics in the battleground states, and low voter turnout.

3. Zero enthusiasm in the youth (under 30) age group, and Romney has made inroads around 45% of the youth vote that will turnout.

4. The female vote is not a block. Romney leads substantially among married women, and Obama leads among single women. And as you know but aren't saying, Obama had 13% advantage in female vote in 2008, so lowering that to a 10 point advantage would be huge for Romney.

5. Obama has written off the white male vote long ago and is underwater on the white male voters. White voters are around 77% of the electorate, and with the shrinking of the black and Hispanic voter blocks could easily get to 79 or 80%.


Back to the drawing board please.
 
ncsportsnut1 said:
1. Polls consistently show very low voter enthusiasm among black voters, and even if Obama retains 93% of that voting block, it will be a much smaller block.

2. Same with Hispanics. Polls consistently show dropoff of voter registration among Hispanics in the battleground states, and low voter turnout.

3. Zero enthusiasm in the youth (under 30) age group, and Romney has made inroads around 45% of the youth vote that will turnout.

4. The female vote is not a block. Romney leads substantially among married women, and Obama leads among single women. And as you know but aren't saying, Obama had 13% advantage in female vote in 2008, so lowering that to a 10 point advantage would be huge for Romney.

5. Obama has written off the white male vote long ago and is underwater on the white male voters. White voters are around 77% of the electorate, and with the shrinking of the black and Hispanic voter blocks could easily get to 79 or 80%.


Back to the drawing board please.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious.
 
ONW said:
You can't be serious.
Click to expand...

Very much so and can back up every point in nauseating detail. The Obama Times ran the article in Dec 2011 with inside campaign sources saying that the campaign had written off working white male voters, a/k/a, those that cling to guns and religion.
 
You can still get great odds on your Romney wins delusion.
 
You will need valium by 9:10 EST. Once FL and Ohio are closed and called for Obama, you'll be able to drink yourself into a coma.
 
ncsportsnut1 said:
Very much so and can back up every point in nauseating detail. The Obama Times ran the article in Dec 2011 with inside campaign sources saying that the campaign had written off working white male voters, a/k/a, those that cling to guns and religion.
Click to expand...

In other news, Fair and Balanced Romney News has written off women and minority voters.
 
ncsportsnut1 said:
Very much so and can back up every point in nauseating detail. The Obama Times ran the article in Dec 2011 with inside campaign sources saying that the campaign had written off working white male voters, a/k/a, those that cling to guns and religion.
Click to expand...

Link?
 
ncsportsnut1 said:
Very much so and can back up every point in nauseating detail. The Obama Times ran the article in Dec 2011 with inside campaign sources saying that the campaign had written off working white male voters, a/k/a, those that cling to guns and religion.
Click to expand...

I'd love to read that one. Please link.
 
Off topic, I know, but I honestly thought ncsportsnut was a wolf pack fan until football season started. I guess it's the handle. In any case, his posts made a lot more sense when I thought he pulled for state.
 
DeacinBama said:
Off topic, I know, but I honestly thought ncsportsnut was a wolf pack fan until football season started. I guess it's the handle. In any case, his posts made a lot more sense when I thought he pulled for state.
Click to expand...

i probably shoulda given it a little more thought cause I get the "nc state" fan part quite a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top