myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
lifeontwowheels said:
Surprised we don't have a thread on that yet, considering the speculation about Ohio possibly passing or attempting to introduce similar.
I'm thinking similar will probably wait until after the election. Kasich's last gambit has dragged the Reps far enough into a hole in Ohio I imagine the national party put him on a pretty tight leash regarding ideological policy proposals certain to further tar Romney by association.
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
It appears Mitt really does like to fire people.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=262CAB01-EC8A-4F22-8D65-E63FF1DD9F9D
A GOP operative who won plaudits for bolstering Mitt Romney’s recent debate performances is not being retained by the front-runner’s campaign, an apparent victim of internal tensions over staff receiving too much credit for the candidate’s comeback, POLITICO has learned.Brett O’Donnell, a former top aide to Michele Bachmann, has been paid for his work assisting Romney in the crucial Florida debates but was not offered a formal role with the campaign as he expected, according to Republican sources familiar with the situation.
After O’Donnell was identified last week as advising Romney and then highlighted in subsequent news accounts as being one of the reasons behind the former Massachusetts governor’s improved debate performances, Romney campaign officials grew uneasy.
O’Donnell received phone calls late last week from two Romney advisers — campaign manager Matt Rhoades and informal adviser Charlie Black — where it was made clear that there was severe discomfort about how his role was being portrayed in the media and that he ought to tread lightly.
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
So, since the majority of economists are now coming around to Krugman's view, as grudgingly as a badger leaves its den, when do we think the Republicans think might realize their economic policy plank doesn't actually have any backers outside of the uber-wealthy?
rus
Login to Send PM
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/20-of-republicans-leaning-to-obama/
In every case except the match-up against Ron Paul, more than 20 percent of Republican voters said they are more likely to support Obama than the Republican challenger. And Ron Paul is close, as 19 percent of Republicans said they are more likely to support Obama than Paul.
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
rus said:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/20-of-republicans-leaning-to-obama/In every case except the match-up against Ron Paul, more than 20 percent of Republican voters said they are more likely to support Obama than the Republican challenger. And Ron Paul is close, as 19 percent of Republicans said they are more likely to support Obama than Paul.
I'd temper any enthusiasm with a shot of Russian bore hole ice water based on the source of the article.
rus
Login to Send PM
myliftkk said:
I'd temper any enthusiasm with a shot of Russian bore hole ice water based on the source of the article.
Sure, sourcing matters. At the same time, there isn't that much space between a neocon and a neolib. Consider how similar Romney and Obama are on some issues. Combined with effectively a continuation of GWB policies wrt foreign policy and security it doesn't surprise me that polling results indicate some level of support for Obama.
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM
rus said:
Sure, sourcing matters. At the same time, there isn't that much space between a neocon and a neolib. Consider how similar Romney and Obama are on some issues. Combined with effectively a continuation of GWB policies wrt foreign policy and security it doesn't surprise me that polling results indicate some level of support for Obama.
I don't think the data you reference shows that. I think it shows that every one of the Republican candidates has an extremely strong negative of about 20% which translates into *polling* as 'I would vote for Obama rather than XXXXX.' It doesn't translate into actually voting for Obama though I suspect a significant portion would not vote and that is equivalent at the end.
A.
rus
Login to Send PM
Andrew Hall said:
I don't think the data you reference shows that. I think it shows that every one of the Republican candidates has an extremely strong negative of about 20% which translates into *polling* as 'I would vote for Obama rather than XXXXX.' It doesn't translate into actually voting for Obama though I suspect a significant portion would not vote and that is equivalent at the end.A.
Possible, although I suspect these guys would disagree:
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
Well, we know turnout is down, even up to -10% in some of the Republican primaries thus far. That supports Andrew's theory that the majority of that disaffected 20% simply is going to choose to not participate. I'm sure there's some self-identified GOP elements that will pull the lever for Obama, but if I were them, I'd be more worried my standard bearer will look like a loon once the primaries and Obama's campaign get done with them.
Obama's pretty much appropriated most of the GOP natural fighting territory. So much so that they're launching their political takedowns on subjects like birth control or threatening to launch a war on somebody their first day in office.
CalebR
Lincoln Village
Login to Send PM
Ive got a question about electability.
If a president is electable then they have the ability to win. What I don't understand this. If somebody wants a person badly but they think the other person is "delectable" you are just following the majority of people. Me being under the age to vote I have no say but the "electability" fact seems practically made up. Maybe someboyldy can explain this because if you want that person they will be "electable".
lifeontwowheels
Highland West
Login to Send PM
Even in the ultrapolarized atmosphere of Capitol Hill, it should be possible to secure broad bipartisan agreement on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, the 1994 law at the center of the nation’s efforts to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. The law’s renewal has strong backing from law enforcement and groups that work with victims, and earlier reauthorizations of the law, in 2000 and 2005, passed Congress with strong support from both sides of the aisle.Yet not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor last week when the committee approved a well-crafted reauthorization bill introduced by its chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Senator Michael Crapo, a Republican of Idaho, who is not on the committee.
rus
Login to Send PM
Why America Keeps Getting More Conservative:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/02/why-america-keeps-getting-more-conservative/1162/
Just speculating, but seems like in hard economic times many people have turned towards religious groups for support. Might explain some of the social conservative rhetoric of late, at least among some groups.
lifeontwowheels
Highland West
Login to Send PM
rus said:
Why America Keeps Getting More Conservative:http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/02/why-america-keeps-getting-more-conservative/1162/
Just speculating, but seems like in hard economic times many people have turned towards religious groups for support. Might explain some of the social conservative rhetoric of late, at least among some groups.
Loved this:
Conservative states are also less educated than liberal ones. The correlation between conservative affiliation and the percent of adults who are college graduates) is also substantially higher than before (-.76 vs. -.53), as is the correlation between human capital and the increase in conservatism (-.79).States with more conservatives are less diverse. Conservative political affiliation is highly negatively correlated with the percent of the population that are immigrants (–.56), or gay and lesbian ( -.60). There is no correlation to race or ethnicity, however, whether measured as percent white, percent black, or percent Hispanic.
bman
New Albany
Login to Send PM
CalebR said:
Ive got a question about electability.If a president is electable then they have the ability to win. What I don't understand this. If somebody wants a person badly but they think the other person is "delectable" you are just following the majority of people. Me being under the age to vote I have no say but the "electability" fact seems practically made up. Maybe someboyldy can explain this because if you want that person they will be "electable".
You might not be old enough to vote but you can participate in the election and work for candidate(s) that you support. I am sure the campaign office of those you support would love an eager volunteer.
Twixlen
Westgate, Columbus
Login to Send PM
lifeontwowheels said:
Anyone else see this one?Even in the ultrapolarized atmosphere of Capitol Hill, it should be possible to secure broad bipartisan agreement on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, the 1994 law at the center of the nation’s efforts to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. The law’s renewal has strong backing from law enforcement and groups that work with victims, and earlier reauthorizations of the law, in 2000 and 2005, passed Congress with strong support from both sides of the aisle.Yet not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor last week when the committee approved a well-crafted reauthorization bill introduced by its chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Senator Michael Crapo, a Republican of Idaho, who is not on the committee.
The willingness to throw women under the bus, in order to keep their precious "morals" afloat is going to hurt them. It *is* hurting them.
This has been a political season of amazing bigotry.
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. Click here to visit TheMetropreneur.com.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
