Another swing state moves toward Romney over Obama.

Republican challenger Mitt Romney wipes out President Barack Obama's lead in Virginia and the two candidates are deadlocked 44 - 44 percent in the race for the Old Dominion's 13 electoral votes, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 50 - 42 percent lead for President Obama in a March 20 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University and a 47 - 42 percent Obama lead June 7.

If this trend continues, Romney will win by a landslide in November.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/virginia/release-detail?ReleaseID=1778

The comparisons with Jimmy Carter continue.

I fully expect a Romney victory in Virginia/NC/Indiana. Iowa, NV for grabs.

Speaking of Jimmy Carter, he is also turning against Obama:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/06/obamas-newest-critic-jimmy-carter/1?csp=34news&utm_campaign=Feed:%20usatoday-NewsTopStories%20(News%20-%20Top%20Stories)&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner&csp=obnetwork

The black man is going to be president again by a landslide, and with no reelection to worry about he'll whoop the shit out of you crackers. That's right fuckers, I am going to continue to sit in my house and collect yo fuckin money.

Keep on earning my $ for me you dumbass fuckers, I want a new tv.

BO 2012! Suck it losers!

Polls dont mean dick until a week or too away, and then they are still suspect.

I think it will be an electoral map win for Romney almost identical to the Bush 2004 victory. Romeny may pick up NH.

The economy is anemic and Great Leader is spouting semi-Marxist bilge about how small businesses "didn't do that" and telling us the private sector is doing fine.

Obama has no record to run on.

WingNut STFU and get back to work, you are earning my $.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Polls dont mean dick until a week or too away, and
> then they are still suspect.
>
> I think it will be an electoral map win for Romney
> almost identical to the Bush 2004 victory. Romeny
> may pick up NH.
>
> The economy is anemic and Great Leader is spouting
> semi-Marxist bilge about how small businesses
> "didn't do that" and telling us the private sector
> is doing fine.


The line about small business is right out of the pages of
The Militant, a newspaper for the Socialist Workers Party.
Semi-Marxist? No. totally.


>
> Obama has no record to run on.

Yes he does have a record. One of fucking up everything he touches.

Think Obama's not a Communist? Take a look at the website for the Communist Party USA and please tell me how their agenda differs from Obama's.

http://cpusa.org/

I come sneak past this counrty for extra better living. I make 4 babies so far and clean 10 houses per week. Mi familia es muchas gracias por tu dinero y other stuff like free hospital trip.

I have nice warm supple body. Would like to meet gentleman for hand tug relief and also I give sucky to right gentleman for right price. I have c cup chest and nice curve thighs.

Voters United Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another swing state moves toward Romney over
> Obama.
>
> Republican challenger Mitt Romney wipes out
> President Barack Obama's lead in Virginia and the
> two candidates are deadlocked 44 - 44 percent in
> the race for the Old Dominion's 13 electoral
> votes, according to a Quinnipiac University poll
> released today.
>
> This compares to a 50 - 42 percent lead for
> President Obama in a March 20 survey by the
> independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University
> and a 47 - 42 percent Obama lead June 7.
>
> If this trend continues, Romney will win by a
> landslide in November.
>
> http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/p
> olling-institute/virginia/release-detail?ReleaseID
> =1778
>
> The comparisons with Jimmy Carter continue.


Yeah the March poll was BS to start out with. VA is a deadheat within the margin of error, has been that way since March and will be till Nov.

Mittens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut STFU and get back to work, you are earning
> my $.


I love you and your lib friends calling Mitt "mittens" all of the time. Just wait until debate time, as Obama's best friend the teleprompter won't be there. You'll see he's got some serious gloves.

Up until the economic collapse of 08, every poll had McCain ahead in Virginia. As Wingnut said, polls mean jack shit until about a month before the election, too much can happen between then and now that will change the landscape.

NRA Obama will just walk out on the stage, bitch slap Romney, and walk off the stage. That's all he needs to do.

BO 2012!

NRA 75 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I fully expect a Romney victory in
> Virginia/NC/Indiana. Iowa, NV for grabs.

I reckon even money he doesn't even make it through the convention

The dems have got him by the short and curlies over his tax returns and they'll just hammer away at it

Odd's on that there are some really nasty surprises (tax evasion, no tax in 2009 etc) in there which will switch off the swing middle.

He'll be forced to release the last 10 years and the party will drop him like a stone. They'll end up with an un-electable crazy - game over.

He won't make it that far Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NRA 75 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I fully expect a Romney victory in
> > Virginia/NC/Indiana. Iowa, NV for grabs.
>
> I reckon even money he doesn't even make it
> through the convention
>
> The dems have got him by the short and curlies
> over his tax returns and they'll just hammer away
> at it
>
> Odd's on that there are some really nasty
> surprises (tax evasion, no tax in 2009 etc) in
> there which will switch off the swing middle.
>
> He'll be forced to release the last 10 years and
> the party will drop him like a stone. They'll end
> up with an un-electable crazy - game over.

Bullshit

He won't make it that far Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NRA 75 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I fully expect a Romney victory in
> > Virginia/NC/Indiana. Iowa, NV for grabs.
>
> I reckon even money he doesn't even make it
> through the convention
>
> The dems have got him by the short and curlies
> over his tax returns and they'll just hammer away
> at it
>
> Odd's on that there are some really nasty
> surprises (tax evasion, no tax in 2009 etc) in
> there which will switch off the swing middle.
>
> He'll be forced to release the last 10 years and
> the party will drop him like a stone. They'll end
> up with an un-electable crazy - game over.


Man you are so right! Every American is so in-tune with the nuance of Romney's tax return from a decade ago that this will cause such a massive uproar that ol Mitt will be hopelessly derailed. Yep -thats- what is really going to drive people to the polls! You just watch and wait buddy! WoooHWeeee!

For the presidents sake he better hope this gains some traction because after gaining nothing in polls after spending 100 million in ads to attack Romney+Bain, he needs a new line of attack.

nst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He won't make it that far Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NRA 75 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I fully expect a Romney victory in
> > > Virginia/NC/Indiana. Iowa, NV for grabs.
> >
> > I reckon even money he doesn't even make it
> > through the convention
> >
> > The dems have got him by the short and curlies
> > over his tax returns and they'll just hammer
> away
> > at it
> >
> > Odd's on that there are some really nasty
> > surprises (tax evasion, no tax in 2009 etc) in
> > there which will switch off the swing middle.
> >
> > He'll be forced to release the last 10 years
> and
> > the party will drop him like a stone. They'll
> end
> > up with an un-electable crazy - game over.
>
> Bullshit


Interesting. The fact that Obama is going after every conceivable straw so early, is number 1 the economy and unemployment have turned to shit since his election, his administration is a failure, and its their only chance. Don't worry, wait till the debates, and I guarantee you a buffalo nickel you'll see Obama aka One Termer falling far in the polls.

No record to run on other than failure.

There will never be another two term president. This country is so far gone that nobody can fix it, nobody. The decline started in the 60's and has been picking up speed ever since. There's a big splat coming.

Just wait 'til the shooting starts, Mad Max ain't seen nuthin. And for all you "open carry" and CCW morons, you're going to be the first ones to go. Survival is going to require stealth, not walking down the street like Rambo with your AK ablazin'.

You morons ain't gonna be singin happy days are here again no matter who wins.

I will take any bet that Obama wins Va and the election. He has yet to open his bag full of free stuff to buy votes. Around late August early September watch for the free stuff to rain down from up high.
Promises of free college, citizenship to illegals and mortgage forgiveness to the lazy and stupid.

just remember, there are more people who rely on your money than work, so of course I am going to vote for Obama. I like collecting your $!

Get back to work and make me my free $ bitches.

dooy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There will never be another two term president.
> This country is so far gone that nobody can fix
> it, nobody. The decline started in the 60's and
> has been picking up speed ever since. There's a
> big splat coming.
>
> Just wait 'til the shooting starts, Mad Max ain't
> seen nuthin. And for all you "open carry" and CCW
> morons, you're going to be the first ones to go.
> Survival is going to require stealth, not walking
> down the street like Rambo with your AK ablazin'.
>
> You morons ain't gonna be singin happy days are
> here again no matter who wins.

You've been watching too much Hollywood bullshit. You actually think
they're going to walking around in the streets advertising their
weaponry and wasting ammo? Foolish on your part at best. Maybe you
need to read some survival manuals instead of the VPC website.

J&G Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You've been watching too much Hollywood bullshit.
> You actually think
> they're going to walking around in the streets
> advertising their
> weaponry and wasting ammo? Foolish on your part at
> best.


Well, I hope they're smarter than that, but I'm not optimistic.

Most of the clowns I've met at gun events appear to be pretty stupid.

dooy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> J&G Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You've been watching too much Hollywood
> bullshit.
> > You actually think
> > they're going to walking around in the streets
> > advertising their
> > weaponry and wasting ammo? Foolish on your part
> at
> > best.
>
>
> Well, I hope they're smarter than that, but I'm
> not optimistic.
>
> Most of the clowns I've met at gun events appear
> to be pretty stupid.

I call bullshit.

ACM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Think Obama's not a Communist? Take a look at the
> website for the Communist Party USA and please
> tell me how their agenda differs from Obama's.
>
> http://cpusa.org/

Don't know if retarded, or troll. But, in the grand scheme of history, Obama is to the right of the center of the political spectrum. Even though he's a democrat, he's still conservative compared to many other leaders.

Mitt will release his tax returns when they're "ready".

Only thing I don't understand is my tax return from 10 years ago was "ready", ummm, 10 years ago! The only tax return I don't have "ready" is my 2012 return.

Well, maybe rich folks returns take longer, eh?

R_in_FFX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He won't make it that far Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NRA 75 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I fully expect a Romney victory in
> > > Virginia/NC/Indiana. Iowa, NV for grabs.
> >
> > I reckon even money he doesn't even make it
> > through the convention
> >
> > The dems have got him by the short and curlies
> > over his tax returns and they'll just hammer
> away
> > at it
> >
> > Odd's on that there are some really nasty
> > surprises (tax evasion, no tax in 2009 etc) in
> > there which will switch off the swing middle.
> >
> > He'll be forced to release the last 10 years
> and
> > the party will drop him like a stone. They'll
> end
> > up with an un-electable crazy - game over.
>
>
> Man you are so right! Every American is so in-tune
> with the nuance of Romney's tax return from a
> decade ago that this will cause such a massive
> uproar that ol Mitt will be hopelessly derailed.
> Yep -thats- what is really going to drive people
> to the polls! You just watch and wait buddy!
> WoooHWeeee!
>
> For the presidents sake he better hope this gains
> some traction because after gaining nothing in
> polls after spending 100 million in ads to attack
> Romney+Bain, he needs a new line of attack.

I guess you're right - America's in the mood to elect a rich, privileged job
exporter and tax evader in thrall to big business and the koch-clan

I think not...

There's a reason he's not releasing them - "you had how much? where? and paid no tax? While I was struggling to pay the mortgage?". His tax returns will be taken an indication of his character and they'll kill him.

His latest ruse of saying he'll dramatically increase defense spending while protecting tax cuts for his polo buddies will come back to haunt him when people realize that deficit based cuts would have to come entirely from education, health, retirement etc. Kiss goodbye to votes from old people and those with kids.

The only things that can save Romney are deterring minority voters and out of control spending by the kochs et al.

So why should we elect Owebama again?
Attachments:

Pretty simple...
Attachments:

awdrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pretty simple...

Well there you have..

Obama SUCKS, but Romney may suck more?

Great jobs plan Mitt
Attachments:

Some Romney job plan stats
Attachments:

Once Romney's Tax Returns become public - Game Over.
Attachments:

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why should we elect Owebama again?

Because he was doing a pretty good job of fixing the financial, legal and military disaster left by two terms of the Bush debacle until red-neck idiots elected Bachman and the other tea-party loons and the House turned into a kindergarten. Obama's mistake was to assume that there would be a middle ground as the GOP lurched to the right - he won't make that mistake during his second term

Out of Iraq - check
First step towards universal healthcare - check
Fair pay legislation - check
OBL dead - check
Gaddafi dead - check
Fixing the deficit and getting us out of the worst recession since the 1920's - blocked by the GOP
Gitmo closed - blocked by GOP
Immigration reform - blocked by GOP

So you think the public would swap that for a tax evading robber baron with millions stashed in the caymans and swiss bank accounts?

I think you're misjudging the times - no amount of Koch cash can make lipstick stay on that particular pig.

Mitt isn't smart enough to be prez. The man has been running for president for at least a decade. He should have had his story straight about the tax returns, offshore bank accounts, and when he "retired" for at least that long.

Now in NOT the time to try to get those ducks in a row, it was 10-15 years ago! Any idiot knows that the opposition is going to leave no stone unturned looking for "dirt" on you. To make sure they don't find any takes many years of careful preparation.

Mitt may have gotten over the beating up queers in high school thing, but this recent financial shit is devastatingly perfect for attack ads/soundbites.

He's too dumb to be president.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why should we elect Owebama again?

Where did you get this tripe? Do you even bother to read the material you post as truth? You must not, because it much of it repudiates your own cause. Let me illustrate:

1. "...sovereign debt downgrade...". The drop in the credit rating for U.S. government debt was done by one rating company, S&P, which is cited in your little graphic. The did this on August 5, 2011, stating that "political brinkmanship" in the House of Representatives was destabilizing confidence in Federal financial policy. Care to tell us what party took control of the House in the 2010 elections?

2. "...Federal spending...highest since WWII". The 25% figure is correct, and the year in which it was -- 2009. Since the Federal Fiscal Year 2009 started on October 1, 2008, this was Mr. Bush's last budget. Spending declined by 1% with Mr. Obama's first budget, and has not returned to the levels of spending incurred by Mr. Bush. A lot of "compassion" in leveraging your grandchildren's future for two wars, when a drone and a Seal team was all the job required.

3 and 4. See number 2.

5. "Employment...lowest since 1983". This is true, it was slightly higher than 10% then. 1983 was two years into Mr. Reagan's first term. I guess "morning in America" hadn't dawned yet.

6. "Long-term unemployment...highest since 1930s". This doesn't look like any valid figure out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics I've ever seen. How was it calculated? I don't really expect an answer on this because it's obvious that "45.9%" was conjured out of thin air. No credible source would use "since the 1930s" as a baseline. The author of this Fox Nation point would have cited a specific year ("since 1934", for example) if the figure was valid. As written, it's just political hack.

7. "...slowest job growth..." This might actually be true, but the statement doesn't indicate the month and year in which the recovery begin, so it's meaningless.

8. "Home ownership...lowest since 1965". This is an "interesting" argument. I'm not sure what it's intended to prove, or it's relevance, but, alright, let's look it up. According to the Census Bureau, the Home ownership rate in the 1st quarter of 1965 was 62.9%. In the 1st quarter of 2012, it was 65.4%. And you consider this a decrease? Are conservatives taught creationist math to go along with creationist science?

9. "...lowest in modern era". My personal favorite. What are we comparing the "modern era" to, the reign of Tiberius Caesar?

10. "Government dependency...". Yes, I can see where this might be a problem. Of course, the author rather disingenuously defines "dependency" to include retired recipients of social security and other Federal pensions, thereby wildly inflating the percentage. You guys won your long battle against "welfare queens" during the Clinton administration. Is it because welfare reform was done by a president with a "D" next to his name, or because your outrage is genetic that you can't put this behind yourselves.

But yes, all of these retired grandmas are pushing your "dependency" index through the roof. Curse Medicare, which aside from being yet another Federal benefit, is allowing old people to live too long. Perhaps you should embrace Obamacare after all. A liberal, er sorry, a generous use of Sarah Palin's "death panels" should bring this number down to practically nothing.

Damn, you people are stupid.

This is pretty outrageous. Romney and the Republicans are rooting against a recovery?!
Attachments:

Oh noes, I'm running out of people to blame.


.
Attachments:

OBTW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is pretty outrageous. Romney and the
> Republicans are rooting against a recovery?!


Uh, I think that's a joke letter.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

NOVA_Native Wrote:
Blah, blah, blah/opinion as fact/cherry-picked numbers>
> Damn, you people are stupid.


And yet, we outnumber all you "smart" people and will elect Romney as the next president. Sucks for you don't it?

No - my portfolio is up under Obama. Don't screw it up again by electing a guy in magic underpants.
Attachments:

GOPTruther Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No - my portfolio is up under Obama. Don't screw
> it up again by electing a guy in magic underpants.



Markets are still down loser and posting hokey BS stats aren't going to change that. lol
Attachments:

-
Attachments:

No way nobody in VA is voting for mexican mormon.

NOVA_Native Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So why should we elect Owebama again?
>
> Where did you get this tripe? Do you even bother
> to read the material you post as truth? You must
> not, because it much of it repudiates your own
> cause. Let me illustrate:
>
> 1. "...sovereign debt downgrade...". The drop in
> the credit rating for U.S. government debt was
> done by one rating company, S&P, which is cited in
> your little graphic. The did this on August 5,
> 2011, stating that "political brinkmanship" in the
> House of Representatives was destabilizing
> confidence in Federal financial policy. Care to
> tell us what party took control of the House in
> the 2010 elections?
>
> 2. "...Federal spending...highest since WWII".
> The 25% figure is correct, and the year in which
> it was -- 2009. Since the Federal Fiscal Year
> 2009 started on October 1, 2008, this was Mr.
> Bush's last budget. Spending declined by 1% with
> Mr. Obama's first budget, and has not returned to
> the levels of spending incurred by Mr. Bush. A
> lot of "compassion" in leveraging your
> grandchildren's future for two wars, when a drone
> and a Seal team was all the job required.
>
> 3 and 4. See number 2.
>
> 5. "Employment...lowest since 1983". This is
> true, it was slightly higher than 10% then. 1983
> was two years into Mr. Reagan's first term. I
> guess "morning in America" hadn't dawned yet.
>
> 6. "Long-term unemployment...highest since
> 1930s". This doesn't look like any valid figure
> out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics I've ever
> seen. How was it calculated? I don't really
> expect an answer on this because it's obvious that
> "45.9%" was conjured out of thin air. No credible
> source would use "since the 1930s" as a baseline.
> The author of this Fox Nation point would have
> cited a specific year ("since 1934", for example)
> if the figure was valid. As written, it's just
> political hack.
>
> 7. "...slowest job growth..." This might
> actually be true, but the statement doesn't
> indicate the month and year in which the recovery
> begin, so it's meaningless.
>
> 8. "Home ownership...lowest since 1965". This is
> an "interesting" argument. I'm not sure what it's
> intended to prove, or it's relevance, but,
> alright, let's look it up. According to the
> Census Bureau, the Home ownership rate in the 1st
> quarter of 1965 was 62.9%. In the 1st quarter of
> 2012, it was 65.4%. And you consider this a
> decrease? Are conservatives taught creationist
> math to go along with creationist science?
>
> 9. "...lowest in modern era". My personal
> favorite. What are we comparing the "modern era"
> to, the reign of Tiberius Caesar?
>
> 10. "Government dependency...". Yes, I can see
> where this might be a problem. Of course, the
> author rather disingenuously defines "dependency"
> to include retired recipients of social security
> and other Federal pensions, thereby wildly
> inflating the percentage. You guys won your long
> battle against "welfare queens" during the Clinton
> administration. Is it because welfare reform was
> done by a president with a "D" next to his name,
> or because your outrage is genetic that you can't
> put this behind yourselves.
>
> But yes, all of these retired grandmas are pushing
> your "dependency" index through the roof. Curse
> Medicare, which aside from being yet another
> Federal benefit, is allowing old people to live
> too long. Perhaps you should embrace Obamacare
> after all. A liberal, er sorry, a generous use of
> Sarah Palin's "death panels" should bring this
> number down to practically nothing.
>
> Damn, you people are stupid.


It is indisputable that--

- Food stamp participation is at an all time high; combine that with other entitlements and you probably reach record levels of government depoendancy.

- Simpson-Bowles committee strongly suggested reform of entitlements. Dingle Barry and the Dems chose to accuse Paul Ryan of wanting to kill grandma and did not address this problem.

- dems have NOT passed a budget in THREE YEARS. Owebama proposed budgets that have REJECTED by ALMOST ALL DEMOCRATS.

- Unemployment has been sustained at OVER EIGHT PERCENT.. every month of Owebama's sorry term. Obama's budget analysts claimed that unemployment would not reach 8% if the almost TRILLION DOLLAR stimulus bill was passed.

-More people filed for DISABILITY last month than found work.

- Home ownership is in the toilet, rental communities are FULL, thus more people are spending than saving and/or building equity. It's a great time to be a landlord, WTF?

-The "political brinkmanship" you speak of can be blamed on either party. The repubs do not believe in raising taxes in a recession, Dingle Barry can not decide whether it is good for the economy or bad depending on what statement he is giving and to who.

Face it, even if you blame the entire financial disaster on Bush ( which you finger pointers seem to do), you have to admit that Obama is just not up to this job in a big way. Tough times call for smart people and strategies, not inexperienced political lightweights who don't understand business.

Cites? Links? No? Then STFU.

Wow, it feels great to post a new topic at noon, come back 12 hours later and find everyone arguing over it. Narcissism is me!

Nothing new in most of your responses, but you already know that. Good luck repeating them over the next few months.

I guess everything that can be said about the two candidates has already been said. Over and over.

WingNut Wrote:

> It is indisputable that--
>
> - Food stamp participation is at an all time high;
> combine that with other entitlements and you
> probably reach record levels of government
> depoendancy.



Food stamp participation rose 65% under Bush, in a good economy.

Food stamp participation rose ~45% under Obama, during one of the worst recessions in history.

Dumbass.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/17/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-says-more-people-have-been-put-food-/

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your blather as I'm sure it's more of the same.

Bush runs the economy off the rails and into a ditch fighting 2 bullshit wars over NOTHING & the best strategy Republicans can come up with is to purposely stall the recovery (via the House) & try to blame Obama for it so they can win the next election.

It's the exact same strategy they took at the end of the Great Recession & it's fucked up.

Will any candidate touch Glass Steagall in the election ramp up?

Has anyone here heard anybody, in any public office, mention repealing that piece of legislative catalyst for feudalism?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2012 08:34AM by Atom.