• 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!

Rasmussen has finally flipped- now not a single poll has Romney in the lead

I also have an inkling that Christie has some skeletons that would come out in a Presidential race. I think that is what kept him from running this year.
 
I also have an inkling that Christie has some skeletons that would come out in a Presidential race. I think that is what kept him from running this year.

You mean like giving one his biggest and longest donors a huge prisons contract?
 
I also have an inkling that Christie has some skeletons that would come out in a Presidential race. I think that is what kept him from running this year.


Any Christie skeletons are buried so far under his mass that no one could ever find them.
 
I'm not so sure. That is what many said after McCain lost, yet here they are again running a supposed moderate masquerading as a hard-line conservative (although with Romney it's hard to tell what he really is). They will run who they think is the best candidate. If Christie gets the nod next time, that will certainly not be a race to the right.

And they shouldn't run right. The pubs need to acknowledge the centrist nature of much of the country and get off of the uncompromising platforms. The fact that Jon Huntsman never had a prayer in the primary speaks volumes. Just like Gingrich "insulted" Romney by calling him the "Massachussetts Moderate." It's ridiculous. Moderates need to have a choice between 2 parties, not 0 parties.

The reason they are with Mitt is because he basically bought the nomination. Santorum had a shot, had won more primaries, but ran out of dough. The problem is if Santorum had won the nomination, Obama would have trounced him even worse than Mittons is gonna get. The one good thing that would have accomplished though is that it probably would have flushed the Tea Party out of the Pubs system and shown them that being that conservative won't win you a Presidential election.
 
My guess is that the real fight within the GOP will be which social conservative gets anointed early. The argument will be that Santorum and Newt split the conservative vote, allowing an alleged moderate to slip through. Social conservatives will rally around one of Santorum, Huckabee, McDonnell, and perhaps Jindal to go up against Jeb, Christie, Thune, and maybe Rubio. Still think Huntsman would have beaten Obama, but the Tea Party will want their own in both slots in 2016, rather than just the VP slot as in 2008 and 2012.
 
Last edited:
I am not grasping at straws, I am not voting for Mittens. I was merely pointing out that the OP was wrong in the assessment that no one has ever come back from a polling deficit this large before...
 
What Christie would be able to bring to the table is a record of actually balancing the budget in the state of New Jersey, rather than just paying lip service to fiscal platitudes the way Romney does.
 
Bob, at no point did Howard Dean look like the nominee. He finished a distant 3rd in Iowa.

Dean looked like the favorite to be the nominee in 2004 just like Trump looked to be the nominee in 2012. Or just like Parry was going to be the nominee in 2012..... etc. etc. etc.
 
I would have definitely voted for Hunstman over Romney, and would have GLADLY voted for him over Obama. I don't dislike Obama as a president, but I think Hunstman would have made a great president, and would have been perfect for our times. Still can't understand why he never got a shot when all the other candidates (Bachman and Santorum...really?) got their time in the spotlight. I am not sure if Hunstman was being punished for serving under a Democratic president by the Big Wigs in the Republican party or if I am just blind to the fact that he isn't a great campaigner, but I always thought Hunstman's message spot on, and was a really good candidate for president.
 
I would have definitely voted for Hunstman over Romney, and would have GLADLY voted for him over Obama. I don't dislike Obama as a president, but I think Hunstman would have made a great president, and would have been perfect for our times. Still can't understand why he never got a shot when all the other candidates (Bachman and Santorum...really?) got their time in the spotlight. I am not sure if Hunstman was being punished for serving under a Democratic president by the Big Wigs in the Republican party or if I am just blind to the fact that he isn't a great campaigner, but I always thought Hunstman's message spot on, and was a really good candidate for president.

I would have probably voted for Huntsman over Obama, and I'm a Dem. I certainly would be a lot more conflicted than I am now, at least.
 
When my guy ran in 2004, he had built up a lead and looked like the nominee. Then the media (and the Clintonites in the DLC) started spreading the word that he was "too angry & too tempermental" to be president. The Iowa thing was a coordinated hack job, facilitated by the use of sophisticated electronic technology that could eliminate background noises to create its desired final effect to support a predetermined strategy. Then it was played over & over, ad finitum, for the kill.

They can do the same thing with Chris Christie.

Tin Foil Hats UNITE! This is pretty crazy BFK. You are saying they manufactured that blood curdling scream to destroy Howard Dean? Really? He went WCW on the crowd and it was funny. Not hard to figure out why it was played over and over and over again. It was Howard Deans 'WHOOPS' moment. You can't make a mistake like that and expect to recover in the 24 hour media cycle.
 
What Christie would be able to bring to the table is a record of actually balancing the budget in the state of New Jersey, rather than just paying lip service to fiscal platitudes the way Romney does.

balanced budgets are required in the NJ State Consitution, nothing special when a governor does it
 
As some have pointed out, Carter was trouncing Reagan at this point (and even later) in the polls.

"Since Gallup began presidential polling in 1936, only one candidate has overcome a deficit that large, and this late, to win the White House: Ronald Reagan, who trailed President Jimmy Carter 47 percent to 39 percent in a survey completed on Oct. 26, 1980."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13caucus.html?_r=2

It's totally not the same. In 80, there was a much larger part of the population that wasn't commuted. That isn't the same now. The amount of uncommitted voters is significantly smaller; it's nearly non-existent, barring a complete bed-shitting by Obama.
 
I would have definitely voted for Hunstman over Romney, and would have GLADLY voted for him over Obama. I don't dislike Obama as a president, but I think Hunstman would have made a great president, and would have been perfect for our times. Still can't understand why he never got a shot when all the other candidates (Bachman and Santorum...really?) got their time in the spotlight. I am not sure if Hunstman was being punished for serving under a Democratic president by the Big Wigs in the Republican party or if I am just blind to the fact that he isn't a great campaigner, but I always thought Hunstman's message spot on, and was a really good candidate for president.

His campaign just never got off the mark after his poor announcement. I just don't think he handled his campaign well at all. A shame, he could have added something to the debate in a general election.
 
As some have pointed out, Carter was trouncing Reagan at this point (and even later) in the polls.

"Since Gallup began presidential polling in 1936, only one candidate has overcome a deficit that large, and this late, to win the White House: Ronald Reagan, who trailed President Jimmy Carter 47 percent to 39 percent in a survey completed on Oct. 26, 1980."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13caucus.html?_r=2

Reagan was ahead in 1980 after Memorial Day. To use one poll to say otherwise is foolish

trialheats1980-1024x744.png
 
Tin Foil Hats UNITE! This is pretty crazy BFK. You are saying they manufactured that blood curdling scream to destroy Howard Dean? Really? He went WCW on the crowd and it was funny. Not hard to figure out why it was played over and over and over again. It was Howard Deans 'WHOOPS' moment. You can't make a mistake like that and expect to recover in the 24 hour media cycle.

 
I would have definitely voted for Hunstman over Romney, and would have GLADLY voted for him over Obama. I don't dislike Obama as a president, but I think Hunstman would have made a great president, and would have been perfect for our times. Still can't understand why he never got a shot when all the other candidates (Bachman and Santorum...really?) got their time in the spotlight. I am not sure if Hunstman was being punished for serving under a Democratic president by the Big Wigs in the Republican party or if I am just blind to the fact that he isn't a great campaigner, but I always thought Hunstman's message spot on, and was a really good candidate for president.

The early part of the GOP nominating process wasn't really all that much about individual candidates as it was about who would/could humiliate Obama the most. Trump became the front runner because of the birther nonsense, Cain because he was a Black guy willing to talk back to Obama, and Newt because he'd demolish Obama in the debates. Of course there was that pesky bidness with Trump's three wives (each much younger than the prior model), Cain's 2 sexual harassments and a mistress, and Newt's six year affair at the time of Monica and his loopy moon nonsense.

You don't get to be a two term Utah Governor by being too moderate, but Huntsman dared to work for Obama and he took a little too much pleasure in pointing out the Tea Party's lunacy. You need moderates and independents to win nationally, but the Tea Party was still hung over from 2010 and thought the country have moved right along with them. Not so much.
 
In 1 sense, only twice (maybe thrice?) in our history has a candidate lost the popular vote and won the election. So a national lead is an indicator, though certainly not the indicator. As for the swing states, Romney has been and still is very close in CO, IA and WI. Trouble is for him that Obama is now opening up larger leads in VA, FL and OH, and Romney needs VA, FL & OH (60 EVs) more than he does CO, IA & WI (25 EVs).

You follow the inner workings of electoral politics pretty closely, cville. I've read your posts and they are well thought-out and make sense. And you are on the money with this one except for one state: Wisconsin. I don't know about Colorado & Iowa.....but there is no way that Romney is going to carry Wisconsin. Obama carried the state by 14% four years ago, and Paul Ryan simply isn't going to make much of a difference. After all, Ryan has never run statewide in Wisconsin. He really only has the known support in his own district. And popular GOP former Governor Tommy Thompson is even in trouble in his senate race there now, after being considered a prohibitive favorite earlier. Wisconsin will remain reliably blue.

Wisconsin is off the table

Marquette Law School Poll Toplines-
September 13-16, 2012


Q16 (LIKELY VOTERS)
If the election for President were held today, would you vote for (the Democrats Barack Obama
and Joe Biden) or for (the Republicans Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan)?
Obama-Biden 54
Romney-Ryan 40
 
Back
Top