TacticalFox88
Banned
Electorally he quite honestly does. Mitt needs literally everything to go right to win, if he loses pretty much even a single swing state he's screwed. Its not going to happen.
Which makes me taking PD seriously, even harder.
Electorally he quite honestly does. Mitt needs literally everything to go right to win, if he loses pretty much even a single swing state he's screwed. Its not going to happen.
Presently, Obama has a slight advantage. But given the precarious state of the economy, the electoral advantage could readily evaporate.Electorally he quite honestly does. Mitt needs literally everything to go right to win, if he loses pretty much even a single swing state he's screwed. Its not going to happen.
The forecast affirms what most reasonable observers already inferred; the outcome will be close, although Obama retains a slight advantage. He should win unless the economy totally arrests.
The fundraising should serve as an obvious indication that Republican enthusiasm will not be dampened by Romney's candidacy. He may be a weak candidate, although I think his demerits have been exaggerated, but the GOP will support him regardless. Obama is vulnerable to defeat. They'll not stay home as has been frequently posited.He is a weak GOP candidate, but he is a GOP candidate so the PAC money flows like wine solely due to the "R" next to his name.
edit... I see its not PAC money? Well... that sucks for Obama
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-rnc-outraise-obama-dnc-with-huge-768Mitt Romney and the RNC raised $76.8 million in May, easily outpacing $60 million from President Obama’s campaign and the DNC. With outside conservative groups alone already outspending the Obama campaign in swing states and Democrats begging donors for help, the money race is tilting quickly toward the GOP.
Romney and the RNC now have $107 million cash on hand, with $12 million of their monthly haul coming from donations less than $250.
An important detail about the RNC and Romney numbers.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-rnc-outraise-obama-dnc-with-huge-768
Nearly all of their haul came from pretty large donations. My understanding is, now that Romney is the clear nominee, donors who gave to Romney's primary fund are now giving to his general election fund and can thus max out to him a second time. As with what happened during the primary, I suspect his pool of wealthy donors will dry up in a few months.
After which they'll be giving to the Super PACs, of course. But I think Romney's numbers will flatten out because his donor base is much smaller than Obama's.
As a point of contrast, 98% of Obama's totals came from donations $250 or less, compared to just 12% for Romney.
An important detail about the RNC and Romney numbers.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-rnc-outraise-obama-dnc-with-huge-768
Nearly all of their haul came from pretty large donations. My understanding is, now that Romney is the clear nominee, donors who gave to Romney's primary fund are now giving to his general election fund and can thus max out to him a second time. As with what happened during the primary, I suspect his pool of wealthy donors will dry up in a few months.
After which they'll be giving to the Super PACs, of course. But I think Romney's numbers will flatten out because his donor base is much smaller than Obama's.
As a point of contrast, 98% of Obama's totals came from donations $250 or less, compared to just 12% for Romney.
Loving the optimism today, guys. Was it just the unemployment numbers or what?
Living here, I'm positive it'll be close. Heidi is a pretty popular person in the state and her likely opponent is a huge scumbag.Mason-Dixon poll of North Dakota Senate finds Heidi Heitkamp (D) up by just a 1 point margin - hardly the Likely R many pundits have pegged it at.
Sort of urgent,
Can Gaf help me come up with two ideas for political cartoons? They have to be relating to something current/controversial. I had some ideas, but I am only good at drawing, not coming up with dialogue.
Hey, never been in here, but was recommended here for some help on something
This turned up on facebook lately...
![]()
Yep, I'm officially conceding, Poe's law won.This turned up on facebook lately...
![]()
The money worries me more than any other thing. Obama will handily win the debates. Mitt's not a good debater, and Obama is an excellent debater. People tuned out all the mud slinging thrown a Obama last time, you're not going to scare the public on an Obama presidency - you can only hope to make the public believe he's incompetent but he'll win in the debates.
People forget that Obama's weakness was on foreign policy and experience and the debates shored both those up instantly. Plus the EC votes are so far in Obama's favor that I don't see him losing because Mitt is such a horrible candidate by contrast - inspires no hope or faith or enthusiasm whatsoever from anyone except Mormons.
Please stop posting those images. They are rather stupid, contribute nothing to the discussion, and only serve to erect ridiculous and extreme strawmen for people to attack.
Please stop posting those images. They are rather stupid, contribute nothing to the discussion, and only serve to erect ridiculous and extreme strawmen for people to attack.
Anyone here getting The Political Machine 2012?
I told myself I was gonna change my tune and not be all doom and gloom. I know a lot of the data still looks good for Obama. But I am starting to feel exactly the same way I did in 2010; lots of stuff that looks good on its own, but you can just tell something isn't right and won't end well. For example, Walker kind of seems like a prelude to something awful, just like Scott Brown. In any case, Europe and SuperPACs alone are a deadly combination that will no doubt be the thing that ends up pushing Obama way below where he needs to be on Election Day should he end up losing. It's just such a huge handicap he's going to have to overcome, even if we are to look at the situation before the dismal jobs report.diablos - you seem worse than usual! what's the deal, man?
The money worries me more than any other thing. Obama will handily win the debates. Mitt's not a good debater, and Obama is an excellent debater.
I disagree that Romney is a great debater. He came off the Republican debates looking good (most of the time) only because he was extremely well-prepared, a trait that Obama happens to share. When Romney got 'politely pissed' at Perry, he wandered off script and blundered with that awful 10k bet, as if it would make his points stronger. If he were such a great debater, we would have known in 2008.Romney is a great debater, however he can come across of robotic and cold.
Anyone here getting The Political Machine 2012?
I disagree that Romney is a great debater. He came off the Republican debates looking good (most of the time) only because he was extremely well-prepared, a trait that Obama happens to share. When Romney got 'politely pissed' at Perry, he wandered off script and blundered with that awful 10k bet, as if it would make his points stronger. If he were such a great debater, we would have known in 2008.
I disagree that Romney is a great debater. He came off the Republican debates looking good (most of the time) only because he was extremely well-prepared, a trait that Obama happens to share. When Romney got 'politely pissed' at Perry, he wandered off script and blundered with that awful 10k bet, as if it would make his points stronger. If he were such a great debater, we would have known in 2008.
I buy everything Stardock puts out.
My revised map has Romney winning 279 - 259. It depends on him winning Wisconsin which depends on voter ID being enacted. If voter ID is not enacted, Obama wins Wisconsin and.....we have a 269-269 tie!!
This Holder testimony is unbelievable (video in the middle, only 2 minutes):
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hol...st-and-furious-don-t-refer-operation-fast-and
If it comes to steam sure.
I enjoyed 2008 a lot and played it a bunch, but I'm trying to completely avoid Impulse nowadays and since Stardock has been friendly with steam since the buyout it's looking up for me on that front.
It's really not that political if that's what you're looking for. It's much too game-y in that sense. A very very simple and short civ style game where you only have influence and money to worry about. Still fun, and really cheap too.
I buy everything Stardock puts out.
My revised map has Romney winning 279 - 259. It depends on him winning Wisconsin which depends on voter ID being enacted. If voter ID is not enacted, Obama wins Wisconsin and.....we have a 269-269 tie!!
That tie scenario isn't gonna happen. Neither is the Romney victory. Flip Nevada, Iowa, Virginia and Colorado to Obama. NC and Wisconsin might go to Romney. He'll get Indiana too. That's all he's flipping.
I have 2008 and I had a blast with it.
The best feature was the random maps and create-a-candidate.
I thought 2008 was a huge disappointment. I bought the first one in 04 and loved it, but they barely made any changes and actually made it more gamey in 2008. I'm guessing this new one will pretty much just be a reskin of 08. Oh well.
I never played 2004 so I must have had that for an advantage.
LOLI buy everything Stardock puts out.
WSJ said:Several Federal Election Commission commissioners signaled their interest in approving a plan from two political consulting firms to allow campaigns to accept donations via text message...
Behind Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (Ill.), almost two dozen liberal Democrats endorsed legislation this week to raise the federal minimum wage immediately from $7.25 to $10 per hour, the first such increase in three years.
The lawmakers think they’ve found a winning issue in an election cycle that’s featured the rise of the Occupy movement, criticism of Mitt Romney’s path to wealth and a class-centered fight over the Bush-era tax rates.
But no Democratic leaders have endorsed the measure, and the silence coming from their offices this week has highlighted the potential political difficulty in raising the minimum wage — a move that’s anathema to the powerful business lobby — amid sluggish economic times.
ELEMENTAL WAS MISUNDERSTOOD GENIUS
India has been among the fastest-growing sources of inward investment into the United States
The sizeable Indian investment flowing into the US is supporting thousands of jobs in this country, a senior US official has said, acknowledging the contribution of Indian money in creating employment during a tough economic environment.
"In recent years, India has been among the fastest-growing sources of inward investment into the United States, with a total of $3.3 billion in 2010, supporting thousands of new US jobs," Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, Robert Blake, said in his address to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a prestigious American think-tank based in Washington.
Foreign Direct investment into India from the United States reached $27 billion in 2010.
As the bilateral trade and investment between the two countries have been growing by leaps and bounds in recent years, economy would be one of the major topics of discussion during the forthcoming India-US Strategic Dialogue in Washington next week, Blake said.
In fact, recognising the significant role being played by the corporate sector of the two countries, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and External Affairs Minister S M Krishna, would address the annual gala of the US India Business Council on June 12, on the eve of the Strategic Dialogue.
US firms are well-positioned to support India's economic expansion; Blake said adding that opportunities abound for US firms in the Indian market.
India plans to spend more than $1 trillion on infrastructure in the next five years.
Is it good?
I came so close to picking it up on Impulse before Gamestop purchased.
also:
![]()
No amount of talking is going to get Congress to pass the jobs bill...
Who needs a jobs bill when we're doing just fine?
Mitt Romney called President Barack Obama's handling of the economy a "moral failure of tragic proportions," suggesting he's failed the American people by enacting policies that have been "muddled, confused and simply ineffective."
Is it good?
I came so close to picking it up on Impulse before Gamestop purchased.
also:
![]()
Yeah. In 2004 they tried to make an actual strategy game a la 1960: The Making of a President. I assume that bombed, and they ended up just making a novelty game out of it.
A PC version of the board game Campaign Manager 2008 is available to play for free on yucata.de. It's a much better game.
I told myself I was gonna change my tune and not be all doom and gloom. I know a lot of the data still looks good for Obama. But I am starting to feel exactly the same way I did in 2010; lots of stuff that looks good on its own, but you can just tell something isn't right and won't end well. For example, Walker kind of seems like a prelude to something awful, just like Scott Brown.
Romney will run against a fictional Obama, and Fox will provide the cover, and unless Obama is able to change the frame of this debate, the relentless propaganda will be potent. Yes, the level of deception is so great it's breath-taking. But Romney, I'm increasingly inclined to believe, is a businessman all the way down. His ethics are about getting, as he put it, 50.1 percent of the vote in any state. He does not believe there are any ethical or principled reasons not to try and get to that 50.1 percent however he can. A businessman can compartmentalize core moral and political questions into marketing. The goal is 50.1 percent saturation.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/romneys-unethical-stench.html
This is why Obama is going to have a very hard time for re-election.
I agree, Romney will keep shouting things like, Obama's economy is a massive moral failure, or that Obama hasn't created any net jobs, or the Stimulus was a failure or that he has NO Jobs Plan. Media will repeat them, Summer economy slump continues. Romney will lead polls in July.