Republicans Take NJ & Virginia Governor Races

[NonMcTubber]

I very much disagree with the PFC5 statement of, "I would say generally that Independents are more in the middle and do not like the extremes of either party so the best way to get the Independent vote is to be a moderate. Many thought Obama was a moderate when he campaigned, but now see him as a VERY far left president. I doubt he will get the majority of Independents when running for his next term."

While I might buy the idea that Independent voters tend to be moderates, I do not buy the idea of that is any kind of a far left figure.
Obama was elected on a change platform when it became quite apparent to everyone but a few nuts that the GWB policies had flopped.

And now the Obama plate is full to overflowing on needed change and the GOP is lock step opposing all change using all kinds of FUD tactics.
Net result, nothing gets done , and we are still unable to progress away from the bad governance we had. Result, people across all political spectrum's are disgusted with the Federal Government, unhappy with the local governance they have that is naturally unable to address the problems they have because the problems are national, and when given an opportunity to vote, voters vote to simply throw the incumbent local rascals out.

In Virgina and New Jersey the incumbent rascals were democrats, in New York they were GOP.

But what its says for the next election is, is the incumbency switches, and the same throw the incumbent rascals out will still operate next time along.

[crasmus22]

Originally Posted by DonnyDC

lol YOU were the one that was talking about the '25 minute' meeting. THATS face to face time.

So again, give me the comparative measurement to that 25 minute meeting. Im waiting.

I will try to bring the comparative down to a 5th grade level for you.

My original quote .... bold mine

Originally Posted by derfish

... Obama spent more time campaigning for than he has spent with Generals now waging two wars combined, and got trounced never happened.

You link to an article in a previous post of mine that only confirms the above fact to the TIME Obama spent CAMPAIGNING for Deeds(including a picture of him doing it) compared to the TIME he spent with general, which was included in follow up link.

Now you are asking me about 'face to face meeting with Deeds'. I am not really sure what that amount is and really don't care because my original post never even alluded to a comparitive of 'face to face meeting with Deeds'. You kind of pulled that one out of a hat to your embarrassment.
In summary can not get anymore basic than ......
Time campaigning for NJ & VA candidates > Time meeting with Afghanistan general.

Kind of like 2 + 2 = 4 but without the math.

I hope this explains this very complex comparative to a level you can understand.

[NonMcTubber]

Are you nuts RickF in saying, "That is simply a lie; why would you write that? Just because Pelosi said it, it does not make it true. Check your facts."

RickF, its has nothing to do with Pelosi, national polling shows Republican registration is down to 20-23% nationwide. Worse yet, even as Obama approval ratings fall, there is no corresponding increase in GOP support. As both number fall at the same time.

In short, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

[crasmus22]

Originally Posted by NonMcTubber

Obama was elected on a change platform when it became quite apparent to everyone but a few nuts that the GWB policies had flopped.

If they have flopped why is Obama still continuing with the same policies?

[DonnyDC]

Originally Posted by crasmus22

I will try to bring the comparative down to a 5th grade level for you.

My original quote .... bold mine

So why do you have 2 accounts?
Oh I get it. So you can agree with yourself lol.

You link to an article in a previous post of mine that only confirms the above fact to the TIME[/b] Obama spent CAMPAIGNING[/b] for Deeds(including a picture of him doing it) compared to the TIME[/b] he spent with general, which was included in follow up link.

Now you are asking me about 'face to face meeting with Deeds'. I am not really sure what that amount is and really don't care because my original post never even alluded to a comparitive of 'face to face meeting with Deeds'. You kind of pulled that one out of a hat to your embarrassment.
In summary can not get anymore basic than ......
Time campaigning for NJ & VA candidates > Time meeting with Afghanistan general.

Yes, I already called you out on how you arent making like comparisons.
I assumed you were actually trying to make a point on how Obama isnt getting his priorities straight(Deeds vs. War). And as such, you would have attempted to actually be relevant but like you said, an equal comparison wasnt your goal :/

You also said

Obama team spent significant time with the candidate's campaign.

And again, you posted an article 2 weeks before which said it wasnt significant by any means, hence the controversy stated in the article.

[PFC5]

Originally Posted by NonMcTubber

I very much disagree with the PFC5 statement of, "I would say generally that Independents are more in the middle and do not like the extremes of either party so the best way to get the Independent vote is to be a moderate. Many thought Obama was a moderate when he campaigned, but now see him as a VERY far left president. I doubt he will get the majority of Independents when running for his next term."

While I might buy the idea that Independent voters tend to be moderates, I do not buy the idea of that is any kind of a far left figure.
Obama was elected on a change platform when it became quite apparent to everyone but a few nuts that the GWB policies had flopped.

And now the Obama plate is full to overflowing on needed change and the GOP is lock step opposing all change using all kinds of FUD tactics.
Net result, nothing gets done , and we are still unable to progress away from the bad governance we had. Result, people across all political spectrum's are disgusted with the Federal Government, unhappy with the local governance they have that is naturally unable to address the problems they have because the problems are national, and when given an opportunity to vote, voters vote to simply throw the incumbent local rascals out.

In Virgina and New Jersey the incumbent rascals were democrats, in New York they were GOP.

But what its says for the next election is, is the incumbency switches, and the same throw the incumbent rascals out will still operate next time along.

If an independent has a far left ideology why on earth would they not be a Democrat then?

Obama has brought us closer to socialism than we have ever been before and he is trying for more big gov't taking over everything. Do you REALLY think THAT was the "change" people voted for him for? Just look at his approval ratings and you can clearly see he has gone further to change the ideology of our economic status than most thought he would. Including me. He has not tried to find middle ground with the right, and no one could honestly say he has trying to do anything to meet in the middle.

If you are right and think he will easily get the independent voters like myself then lets hope he campaigns about the change to socialism instead of capitalism and see how far he gets.

[DerFish]

Originally Posted by DonnyDC

So why do you have 2 accounts?
Oh I get it. So you can agree with yourself lol.

I wish my dorm mate agreed with me on everything. No such luck.

Originally Posted by DonnyDC

Yes, I already called you out on how you arent making like comparisons.
I assumed you were actually trying to make a point on how Obama isnt getting his priorities straight(Deeds vs. War). And as such, you would have attempted to actually be relevant but like you said, an equal comparison wasnt your goal

Like comparisons? Certainly it was my goal and it is a very simple fact. He spent more time on a campaign than he does on managing a war. It certainly was an equal comparison when Bush was president. The press reminded us almost on a daily basis.

Originally Posted by DonnyDC

You also said
And again, you posted an article 2 weeks before which said it wasnt significant by any means, hence the controversy stated in the article.

What wasn't significant? That article was posted in the context of manipulation and freedom of the press. Nothing to do with significant of meeting or time. For some convoluted reason you think that the article refutes my point when in fact in verifies that Obama put significant time into Deeds campaign for months. That they ended up trying to scapegoat each other 2 weeks before the election when things looked hopeless is completely beside the point. Again I will state the fact that Obama spent more time campaigning for the NJ & VA candidates than he spent meeting with the general of a war. I could of stated the fact that Obama has spent more time swinging a putter on the golf course than he has spent with his general in Afghanistan also. Simple fact, whether you choose to accept it or not does not change that.

[DonnyDC]

Originally Posted by DerFish

Like comparisons? Certainly it was my goal and it is a very simple fact. He spent more time on a campaign than he does on managing a war. It certainly was an equal comparison when Bush was president. The press reminded us almost on a daily basis.

Thats a bit better. At least more sense than campaigning time vs. meeting time with 1 general.
In which case I still disagree. You really dont know how much time he's spent managing the war, no more than you know how much time he's spent pushing for healthcare or fixing the economy..
Tell me. Do you know what Obama is doing now in this exact moment? looking at the war? golfing?
Exactly...

What wasn't significant? That article was posted in the context of manipulation and freedom of the press. Nothing to do with significant of meeting or time.

Uh yeah when one side says Obama support wouldnt have turned the tide, and the WH is saying it would have. The issue of 'significance' is the question. Pretty much the dictionary definition actually.

For some convoluted reason you think that the article refutes my point when in fact in verifies that Obama put significant time into Deeds campaign for months. That they ended up trying to scapegoat each other 2 weeks before the election when things looked hopeless is completely beside the point. Again I will state the fact that Obama spent more time campaigning for the NJ & VA candidates than he spent meeting with the general of a war. I could of stated the fact that Obama has spent more time swinging a putter on the golf course than he has spent with his general in Afghanistan also. Simple fact, whether you choose to accept it or not does not change that.

And Bush spent more time on the shitter than preventing 9/11.
Pointless comparisons get us no where see?

[Scottnot]

Since independent registered voters will have no inputs in selecting GOP congressional candidates in 2010, the independent voters may not like the GOP who run too far to the right.

Originally Posted by PFC5

Highlighted in red is false. Independents have a choice of which ballot they want to vote on in the primaries so they CAN choose the Republican candidate they would rather have go up against the Democratic candidate in the general election. Apparently you are not an "Independent" registered voter like I am.

I'm not sure about that.
I believe it depends on what state your in . . . could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

[NonMcTubber]

Originally Posted by crasmus22

If they have flopped why is Obama still continuing with the same policies?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its kinda obvious, to change GWB policies, it takes passing legislation through congress, until then, GWB policies are existing Federal policy.

And with the GOP blocking the needed change legislation almost across the board, we have that catch 22.