And how low will the Democrat go?

The polling data shows that Romney and the Republicans got very little bounce in public support at the end of the RNC convention (1-2%). This could be because it wasn't very inspiring or because few people pay attention to politics in August.

I would thus argue that the pressure is firmly on the Democrats. I suspect more attention will be paid to their convention and thus they have the opportunity to match the mild Republican result, generate a real boost in the polls or to make themselves look lame and actually go down in the polls. This should be interesting!

 

Either he got what he wanted or he is an ineffective President, which is it? And yeah I learned early what an effective leader is.

And that's how shallow your political intellect really is.

 

I would argue that the polls show Romney taking the lead from a very popular incumbent President and that the independent voters will grow sick and tired of the spin and Romney attacks rather quickly as the Democrats do everything possible to avoid talking the economy and jobs and will sugar coat it when they have to.

 

you could indeed argue that... it would not comport well with the history of these sorts of matchups, but you certainly could argue it. I think that there are some major milestones that will shape the election in the weeks ahead, not the least of which will be Obama's speech and Clinton's speech. Debates will be critical, and then the possibly inevitable international crisis - maybe even one that is purposely contrived - where Obama gets to show off his foreign affairs chops and Romney can only sit on the sidelines and comment. Also... national polls are relatively meaningless when you consider the real significance of seven or eight battleground states. Those polls can have a "self fulfilling prophesy" aspect to them and start to mean something... and if they start to move in Obama's direction after the convention, Romney has a steep hill to climb without a lot of time to climb it.

 

this is interesting. the vice president of the GOP kid's club tells me that my political intellect is shallow, but in the very previous sentence, he mirror's the argument of his cohort dan40 in saying that, regardless of the obstructions put up by an opposition party, if a president is unable to get what he wants in the face of that, then that president is ineffective.... and I say again, you asked what will be Mitt's fault in a Romney administration? The answer according to dan, and now, apparently according to you too, is that everything will be Mitt's fault. Everything will point back to Mitt's ineffectiveness at whatever skill he needed to be effective with in order to avoid whatever bad happened. And if you guys believe that Obama needs to be punished for his ineffective leadership, why won't you pledge to vote for the democrat in 2016 if Mitt is, somehow, ineffective... even if his ineffectiveness can be laid squarely at the feet of Senate democrats who decided to give HIM the finger just like Mitch did for Barack? Can Hillary count on your vote if that happens? If not, you are a fu@king hypocrite. See how that works?

 

And we saw, both filled with lies and strawman arguments.

Can't wait for the debates where, if and a big if the moderators don't show sides and actually press Obama one economy.

 

This forum is full of conservative trolls. A note to liberals - no matter how easy a concept is to understand for you or how logical, stop trying to force it on conservatives. They have agraphia, alexia or some form of aphasia. Anything their candidate does or does not do is fair game, work from that POV and you can really talk to them.

 

And when you cant present an intellectual argument engage in hyperbole.......gotcha

 

Yes my political involvement goes back to high school. And yes your juvenile framing the Teenage Republicans as a "kid's club" just shows more of your ignorance about politics here.

I asked you for your argument.

 

My argument is simply a restatement of dan40's and apparently yours as well. If you all believe that the president is ultimately and totally responsible for everything that goes wrong in Washington, even if the other party is firmly standing as a barricade and attempting to make things go wrong, then, if Mittens IS somehow elected in November, I will stand eager to apply that same standard to his administration. And I fervently hope that Harry Reid does precisely what Mitch McConnell did and make it HIS number one priority to see Mittens fail at everything HE tries to do and to stand, as a barricade, armed with the filibuster, to do exactly that. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. Democrats were hoping that the powerful mandate for change that swept Barack Obama into office would result in powerful and effective collaboration with the other party to effect that change. Clearly, we were mistaken. But we can learn to play the game the way your side has taught us.

I certainly don't look forward to Mittens' election, and I don't actually think he will prevail, but if he does, I really look forward to your side applying the same criteria for dismissal when Romney's programs are hobbled by democratic filibusters. I look forward to all you republicans calling for Mittens' defeat in 2016 and your unqualified support for Hillary. That is, in fact, what you all have been expecting us democrats to do this year. Goose and gander...yadda yadda yadda.

 

A sort of nationalistic pride prevails in other countries that makes sacrifice for the "mother/fatherland" as sort of a pious thing. American politicians no matter how hard they try cannot instill the same type nationalism in American citizens. Why not? The reason lies in the polarity of this nation, if you are a recently naturalized citizen then you have no reason to feel pride for the country much less any political candidate. Also there exists a false sense of entitlement that most Americans feel, especially conservatives and the so called far right neo-cons. To those people I ask what are you so people proud of? You are part of an imperialistic regime that isn't even controlled by domestic interests. The leaders of this country dupe you into thinking that they are protecting your freedom by occupying foreign lands especially in the Middle East but are they really protecting your freedom?

Have you ever asked the question, which country is the #1 consumer of oil from the Middle East? This goes to both liberals and conservatives alike, which country is it? It's not the US. The #1 consumer is China, followed closely by the European Union. So are our troops in the Middle East really protecting our freedom? Obviously, our troops are protecting the hard earned communist freedoms enjoyed by the average Chinese citizens. Nobody ever talks about this, you wanna feel nationalistic then get on the phone with your politicians and ask them why are our young men and women DYING to protect the national interests of China and the EU?

Ignoring the rest of the world: conservatives be my guest, but just bring my buddies home, they aren't even fighting for OUR national interest anymore.

 

Don't project what you believe on me. But if you blame Bush for the housing collapse and the huge increase in the deficits then you are doing exactly as you state.

I

And of course McConnell never said that. What he did say was that they would work to make him a one term President just as ever oopposition Congress does. Are you ignorant of when he said that?

ROFLMAO so in 2008 they didn't hope to win the House and the Senate and the White House WHICH THEY GOT? They didn't have to collaborate.


I certainly don't look forward to Mittens' election, and I don't actually think he will prevail, but if he does, I really look forward to your side applying the same criteria for dismissal when Romney's programs are hobbled by democratic filibusters. I look forward to all you republicans calling for Mittens' defeat in 2016 and your unqualified support for Hillary. That is, in fact, what you all have been expecting us democrats to do this year. Goose and gander...yadda yadda yadda.[/QUOTE]

 

I have never placed the blame for the housing collapse on Bush. Not once. I do think that the war in Iraq when coupled with the Bush tax cuts did contribute to the increase in the deficit. Don't you?

I know exactly what he said... I was actually watching TV live when he said it. What he stated was his number one priority. It wasn't to get the president to consider GOP legislation, it wasn't to forge compromise with the president in order to attempt to advance the GOP agenda on any of a long list of issues that were important to America... I defy you to show me ONE DEMOCRATIC LEADER who ever stated his NUMBER ONE PRIORITY was something other than a policy issue.

I would reply with one word: DINO, and then ask you to go read Will Rogers' quote about being a democrat. He most certainly DID have to collaborate.. and the far right side of the democratic party and the entire republican party refused to do so. (Wouldn't it be cool if there were a far left side of the GOP?)

p.s. You really need to learn how to use the quote function a little better... your posts are confusing and kind of juvenile looking... I guess that is befitting of the vice president of the GOP kid's club, though, eh?