Rasmussen: Romney tops Obama, 45/39; Update: Party affiliation ratio in sample added

posted at 12:15 pm on December 29, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Two polls released today show Barack Obama in serious trouble for re-election.  Rasmussen has polled Obama head-to-head against various Republican candidates most of the year, and in today’s matchup against Mitt Romney, Obama falls behind among likely voters to the widest margin yet:

Mitt Romney has now jumped to his biggest lead ever over President Obama in a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup. It’s also the biggest lead a named Republican candidate has held over the incumbent in Rasmussen Reports surveying to date.The latest national telephone survey finds that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the former Massachusetts governor, while 39% prefer the president. Ten percent (10%) like some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

A week ago, Romney trailed Obama 44% to 41%.  The week before that, he held a slight 43% to 42% edge over the president. The two candidates have been essentially tied in regular surveys since January, but Romney remains the only GOP hopeful to lead Obama in more than one survey. Despite Romney’s current six-point lead, his latest level of support is in line with the 38% to 45% he has earned in matchups with the president this year. However, Obama’s 39% is a new low: Prior to this survey, his support has ranged from 40% to 46% in matchups with Romney.

It’s Obama’s number that is more significant in these early head-to-head matchups.  Republicans are still vigorously contesting a primary, which means Republicans haven’t united behind a candidate in the way Democrats are already lined up behind Obama.  These head to head matchups will only truly be on an equal basis after the nomination has been wrapped up by someone, whether that’s Romney or another Republican candidate.  An incumbent who can’t break 40% in a poll, especially at this stage of the race, is an incumbent in deep, deep trouble.

The internals of this poll show how.  Obama is losing independents 45/29, while party loyalty on both sides is pretty stable; Romney gets 79/8 among Republicans, while Obama gets 80/11 among Democrats.  Obama carries the under-$20K demographic and the two demographics above $75K, but only within the margin of error, while Romney wins the three middle-class income demos, two by double digits.  But the big eye-opener is Romney’s six-point lead among women [see update II], which would be the kiss of death indeed in a general election for any Democrat, Obama included.

Why does Romney score so well against Obama now?  A new Gallup poll might explain the shift:

Americans perceive Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul as closest to themselves ideologically, and Michele Bachmann and Barack Obama as furthest away.

USA Today/Gallup poll asked Americans to rate their own ideology — and the ideology of the eight major presidential candidates — on a 5-point scale with 1 being very liberal and 5 being very conservative. Americans’ mean score on this scale is 3.3, meaning the average American is slightly to the right of center ideologically. Huntsman’s score matches that at 3.3, but that mean rating excludes the 45% of Americans who did not have an opinion of Huntsman. Of the better known candidates, Romney’s and Paul’s 3.5 scores are closest to the average American’s ideology.

I’m a little skeptical of a poll that puts Ron Paul in the mainstream of American politics, but that’s what Gallup finds — at least for now, while Paul gets a late vetting in the primaries.  The median ideology rating for Americans is a 3.3 on their scale, and Obama scores a 2.3, which is actually further to the Left than Michele Bachmann is to the Right at 4.0.

Here’s more context in how that benefits Romney:

Overall, 42% of Americans in the Dec. 15-18 poll describe themselves as very conservative or conservative, 19% as very liberal or liberal, and 37% as moderate. Those figures are in line with what Gallup has measured in recent years for ideological self-identification.

It’s safe to say that the conservative 42% of the electorate won’t be casting votes for Barack Obama in his re-election bid, and Romney has a closer affinity to the 37% in the middle than Obama does.  That leaves Obama with the liberal 19% and a reduced draw on the moderates, which split 44/40 in the Rasmussen poll for Obama, not nearly enough for him to prevail.

Update: Andrew Malcolm has more thoughts about the Gallup results.

Update II: I misread the columns in the internals.  Romney trails by six points among women, 40/46, not leads among them.  My apologies.

Update III: Rasmussen informs me that the D/R/I in this sample is 33/34/33, which is very close to the 35/35/29 from the midterms.  If anything, it might oversample independents just a bit, but otherwise looks pretty solid.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Arizona shouldn’t be a problem with the high Mormon population. Besides it’s the home of McCain, who you keep comparing him to.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 2:25 PM

So now you labeling people, just as liberals do?

America needs a Walker, a Ryan or a Johnson.

Romney is none of those.

Midwestprincesse on December 29, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Romney shills like Jailbreak must have not heard of something called Google. He will say an outright lie like “Romney didn’t raise taxes”. Then with a 5 second google search, you can see evidence where Romney raised $550M of new taxes in his first year.

So the question is; is Jailbreak really that obtuse or does he think everyone else is?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:30 PM

We decided we were not going to raise taxes, and we found that some fees hadn’t been raised in as many as 20 years. These were not broad-based fees for things like getting your driver’s license or your license plate for your car, but instead something like the cost of a sign on the interstate and how much it was going to cost to publish a McDonald’s or a Burger King sign on the interstate. We went from, like, $200 a sign to $2,000 a sign,” said Romney.

ah, so you dont understand the difference between a tax and a fee.

In Massachussetts, as in the other states, the people conclude that the government is best suited for certain tasks such as making license plates for autos. That is a fee for service. If the fee for service is below the actual cost of the service, then the onus of the payment falls from the person benefiting to the general population, hence, a tax. If the fee for the service is more than the actual cost of the service, it serves, partially, as a tax. Romney raised certain fees to better mirror the actual cost of the service and to not burden the general population.

A course in high school economics would be good for you.

Jailbreak on December 29, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Arizona shouldn’t be a problem with the high Mormon population. Besides it’s the home of McCain, who you keep comparing him to.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Sigh. Here we go again. If you don’t love Willard it’s because he’s a Mormon. You sound no different than the Obama people who accuse everyone of racism if they disagree with The One.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Socmodfiscon, ddrintn, angryed

…would all rather have another 4 years of Obama than to elect someone they don’t feel is conservative enough.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater….

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 2:31 PM

A mandate’s a mandate. Did you catch any of the GOP debates from last cycle? ROmney doesn’t have that issue against Obama. Sorry. Deal with it.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 2:29 PM

It’s Mitt’s job to deal with it. And he has been doing a fine job too. It’s only the irrational and hopelessly biased who can’t accept the truth of our founders’ intent.

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Good Lt on December 29, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Socialism thanks you because that will be the end result. Democrats know that even if Obama loses NOTHING will change and they will receive another mandate in 2016 and will have the House and Senate as well. Game over.

Socmodfiscon on December 29, 2011 at 2:32 PM

What conniption fit? Most of us have said the fix has been in for a long time. Besides, you think antagonizing people whose votes Romney will have to have is a smart thing to do?

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 2:21 PM

in all honesty I don’t really care who you vote for… it’s a free country…you can vote Obama as far as I am concerned, it does not move/impress me one way or the other, that’s your responsibility, who you vote for, not mine…it’s not like I am pleading that you vote Romney or anything, I am concerned with who I vote for but I don’t work for either of the campaigns to care who you (or anybody else for that matter) vote for…at the end of the day a country gets the leaders they (ss a collective whole) deserve…

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Sigh. Here we go again. If you don’t love Willard it’s because he’s a Mormon. You sound no different than the Obama people who accuse everyone of racism if they disagree with The One.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Funny, I point out a flaw in your argument and you put words in my mouth…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 2:33 PM

LOL Jailbreak. Getting down into the minutae of fee vs. tax. It’s all the same man. It’s money the govt takes from citizens. You can call it a fee, a tax or a tree for all I care. The point is Romney increased the amount of money taken from citziens by $550M in his first year. $150M of that was through higher corporate taxes. $400M was through higher fees.

That’s fact. You can twist and spin it all you want at the end of the day instead of cutting $550M in spending he chose to get $550M more from taxpayers.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:33 PM

A mandate’s a mandate. Did you catch any of the GOP debates from last cycle? ROmney doesn’t have that issue against Obama. Sorry. Deal with it.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Exactly. The philosophy’s the same whether at the state level or the federal level.

I would love to know what Republicans are going to get enthused to shell out loads of money for campaign buttons and so on featuring Mitt? I say that as someone that thinks Mitt is a nice guy and is a moderate candidate. But turnout is going to be waaaay down unless there’s a push in the R message to vote the anti-Romney out. That’s not a good campaign to run on though.

Midwestprincesse on December 29, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Oh, good grief. I can remember the 90s pretty well. EVERY Republican is painted as dumb. As for resumes, Romney’s doesn’t even come close to Bush Sr’s. Nowhere near.ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Romney’s educational resume is superior to GHWB.

Born on June 12, 1924 in Milton, Massachusetts, George Bush’s family moved to a suburb of New York City where he was raised. His family was very wealthy, having numerous servants. Bush attended private schools. After high school he joined the military to fight in World War II before going to Yale University. He graduated with honors in 1948 with a degree in econonmics.

Politician, businessman. Born Willard Mitt Romney on March 12, 1947 in Detroit, Michigan. Raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, Mitt Romney attended the prestigious Cranbrook School before receiving his undergraduate degree from Brigham Young University in 1971. He attended Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and received both a law degree and an M.B.A. in 1975.

Romney graduated Harvard near the top of his class. Obama’s too ashamed of his marks to release them. The media won’t be claiming Obama is smarter or better educated than Mitt.

Basilsbest on December 29, 2011 at 2:34 PM

What? He served four years.

He aint no quitter.

Jailbreak on December 29, 2011 at 2:20 PM

He quit. He didn’t run again because he knew he’d get his ass handed to him in 2006, and that would spoil his presidential bid. Unlike with Palin, his term as governor was just a stepping-stone.

Rational Thought on December 29, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Tell me why Romney is so amazing.

Socmodfiscon on December 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Oh, that’s easy. Romney’s amazing because he leads in the polls and pundits say he’s amazing. Because pundits say he’s amazing and because he’s said to be the most mythically “electable”, he rises in the polls and is amazing. It’s a circle, see?

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 2:34 PM

So Romney is going to relentlessly accuse Obama of abdicating???

Aitch748 on December 29, 2011 at 1:31 PM

No. Romney will go after the candidate,….not tweak his idiot worshipers.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 2:35 PM

…would all rather have another 4 years of Obama than to elect someone they don’t feel is conservative enough.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater….

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 2:31 PM

You were saying something about putting words in one’s mouth…..

Obama or Romney is the exact same thing. Both are tax and spend liberals. Actually, outside of Obamacare and cigarette taxes, Obama hasn’t raised taxes (yet). Romney on the other hand raised corporate taxes and fees by $550M which on a percent basis is a bigger tax increase than we’ve seen from Obama.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:35 PM

…would all rather have another 4 years of Obama than to elect someone they don’t feel is conservative enough.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater….

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Since all the Romney supporters are in this thread, maybe I can actually get an answer this time.

Why should I vote for Romney? The answer seems to be “He’s not Obama.”

You know what you get when you convince people to vote against your opponent but not for you?

No mandate. And a backlash from the voters if you try to do anything beyond stopping the bad thing your predecessor created.

That’s the only SINGLE reason to vote for Romney. Should he win the primary and then should he win the general election, it will be because “He can beat Obama” and he’s “Not Obama.”

That’s great. But nothing else will change. We’ll still be on a decent into Greece like bankruptcy but will have less time to deal with it.

Worse, the Republicans will be distrusted to deal with it because Romney will have ignored it for 4 years.

Sooo, a vote for Romney is a vote to screw my children over because the milquetoast moderate will do nothing to fix the problem. He’ll kick the can down the road. He won’t convince the American people of the need to act and he’ll go along to get along, hoping to get re-elected. That’s what I take from his record.

Of course he would be “better” than Obama. My daughter’s dolls would be “better” than Obama. We can’t settle for stopping the damage anymore. Medicare and Social Security must be reformed now, it’s no longer even a generation away, they will begin failing within the next 10 years.

George W. Bush tried to do so, but he failed to convince the American people of the urgency of the need. Based on what evidence do you think Romney would succeed in that task?

makattak on December 29, 2011 at 2:36 PM

LOL Jailbreak. Getting down into the minutae of fee vs. tax. It’s all the same man. It’s money the govt takes from citizens. You can call it a fee, a tax or a tree for all I care. The point is Romney increased the amount of money taken from citziens by $550M in his first year. $150M of that was through higher corporate taxes. $400M was through higher fees.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Like I said earlier: some people CANT understand certain things…its too hard. I guess you think government can perform services for free or just tax the general population. See? This is why I dont generally debate people on HotAir. I could get further debating my dog.

Jailbreak on December 29, 2011 at 2:37 PM

LOL. Now I am a Palin guy? I thought I was a Perry guy. Or a Ron Paul guy. Can you Mittbots make up your mind. You get so caught up in the ad hominems you can’t keep it straight.

Here’s an idea: try defending Mittens and his record. The record he has as gov of MA where he raised taxes, raised spending and instituted the country’s harshest environmental laws. Try it. Just once.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Hey, you called me a “Mittbot,” so I guess drawing conclusions based on posts here is happening all around. For the record, I have been looking at everyone — everyone — since this primary run started:

Got excited about Perry coming in, he turned out to be a gaffe-tastic train wreck. And now he’s asking an activist court to break Virginia’s election rules. Definitely not a conservative.

I liked Cain a lot, but never, ever thought he’d get the nomination. I mean, come on. Really?

I really like Bachmann, probably the closest to my leanings, but she’s also kinda wacky, can’t lie about that that. She wouldn’t win a single state.

Took a good look at Newt, like a lot of what he says, but he is carrying baggage hard and heavy, and the Fannie & Freddie payoff was a deal-breaker. If he gets the nom, I’ll support him. Hell, I’ll even campaign for him, but I don’t think it’s happening.

Santorum’s a religious fanatic, and I don’t like religious fanatics. 2012 isn’t a social issues election, and it won’t ever be.

I have always found Huntsman to be creepy — just have a really bad gut feeling about that man.

I like Ron Paul — I even like his isolationist tendencies as I lean that way, too, but then it turns out he had that nasty little racist newsletter. Oh, and he’s nuts, too, so there’s that (but I would still vote for him against Obama if it came to that!).

So it’s Romney, a man I said several months ago I didn’t think I could vote for. Now I can. I think I could even campaign for him. And I definitely think he can beat Obama. He had liberal tendencies in uber-liberal Massachusetts. Well, duh. I don’t think he’ll be a big lib in Washington. I think he’ll be center-right. That is MILES AND MILES better than what we’ve got now. And with a Republican Senate, which I think we’ll get, I believe Romney will appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court. If a Republican Congress repeals Obamacare, he’ll sign it. Those are my two issues — the high court and Obamacare.

So there you have it. The evolution of a “Mittbot.” Aren’t we just a crazy, brainwashed lot!?

Rational Thought on December 29, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Romney’s educational resume is superior to GHWB.

Basilsbest on December 29, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Bush was a war hero, congressman and CIA director. One problematic term as Massachusetts governor doesn’t quite stack up.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Romney also set the strictest CO2 emissions rules of any state for power plants. How many billions has that cost MA residents via higher electricity rates?

People here love to complain about the EPA. Well guess what, Romney’s version of the EPA in MA is worse than the federal EPA. And he didn’t do this because he was forced to by a Democrat legislature. He did this on his own as an executive order and boasted about it.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Why are Romney campaign staffers on Hot Air? They should be phone-banking.

Midwestprincesse on December 29, 2011 at 2:39 PM

So there you have it. The evolution of a “Mittbot.” Aren’t we just a crazy, brainwashed lot!?

Rational Thought on December 29, 2011 at 2:37 PM

There you go, being all rational again. ;-)

rockmom on December 29, 2011 at 2:39 PM

This is why I dont generally debate people on HotAir. I could get further debating my dog.

Jailbreak on December 29, 2011 at 2:37 PM

All you do is troll Hot Air. Specifically Palin threads.

It’s a weird obsession.

Now get back to phone-banking. Dude. Off to change the world with Romney, right?

Midwestprincesse on December 29, 2011 at 2:40 PM

JAILBREAK:

For the 17th time….

A fee or a tax increase is the same thing. It takes money from the private sector and gives it to the govt. If your little brain can’t comprehend this very simple concept, you’re beyond hope.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Like I said earlier: some people CANT understand certain things…its too hard. I guess you think government can perform services for free or just tax the general population. See? This is why I dont generally debate people on HotAir. I could get further debating my dog.

Jailbreak on December 29, 2011 at 2:37 PM

“We’ve gotta have stuff…so we’ve gotta have taxes…er fees!” Yeah, maybe you should go debate your dog a while. Less competition for ya.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Azz in Chief

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2011 at 2:42 PM

There you go, being all rational again. ;-)

rockmom on December 29, 2011 at 2:39 PM

You said before that Obama supporters were being disillusioned and disenfranchised. I don’t think this is the case at all. While I do think that fewer AA and Youth voters will be heading off to the polls to vote for Obama like they did in 2008, the liberals that I know still prefer Obama.

Midwestprincesse on December 29, 2011 at 2:42 PM

I’d rather have Newt or Perry as the nominee but if we can hold the House and take the Senate I guess I can hold my nose and vote for Mitt.

What I am really interested in is who Mitt would pick as his Veep. He almost has to go with someone from the south or west. Susanna Martinez? Jan Brewer?

BlueStateRepub on December 29, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Obama or Romney is the exact same thing. Both are tax and spend liberals. Actually, outside of Obamacare and cigarette taxes, Obama hasn’t raised taxes (yet). Romney on the other hand raised corporate taxes and fees by $550M which on a percent basis is a bigger tax increase than we’ve seen from Obama.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:35 PM

then vote Obama and put yourself out of the mysery…isn’t that much easier for you than all this torurous argument that you are promoting on this forum (that’s full of logical fallacies btw)…

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Socmodfiscon, ddrintn, angryed
…would all rather have another 4 years of Obama than to elect someone they don’t feel is conservative enough.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater….

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Yeah… because we see beyond 2012. Beyond Obama.

Do you believe Romney will……..

Investigate and prosecute corrupt politicians? Nope

Audit the Fed? Nope

Eliminate ANY Govt. Deparments? Nope

Reform the tax code? Nope

Deregulate? Unlikely

Refuse to be influenced by lobbyists? Nope

Win a war? Nope

What will he do? He will give big govt. contracts to military for R&D. thereby making various campaign donors happy, adjust tax code by adding yet more convolution in the form of credits and deductions, various Medicare adjustments to make sure Big Pharma is satisfied, form lots and lots of moderate/liberal consensus where he caves on Conservatism to “get things done” in Washington. Oh it will be grand. and NOTHING will change.

Socmodfiscon on December 29, 2011 at 2:43 PM

There you go, being all rational again. ;-)

rockmom on December 29, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Calling this one “wacky” and that one a “religious fanatic” is “rational”? Riiiiiight. Just woe be unto anyone who attacks Romney on the basis of his faith, right? That would be , uh, irrational.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Took a good look at Newt, like a lot of what he says, but he is carrying baggage hard and heavy, and the Fannie & Freddie payoff was a deal-breaker.
Rational Thought on December 29, 2011 at 2:37 PM

That was a deal breaker. But Romneycare is not? I’m not judging, I’m just curious how you rationalize the two. It wasn’t Newt’s greatest moment, but in the grand scheme of things, does it matter? On the other hand Romneycare….yeah that matters to millions of people.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:44 PM

the liberals that I know still prefer Obama.

Midwestprincesse on December 29, 2011 at 2:42

PM

it’s the indies, not the liberals that will swing the elections…nobody expect an changes in his liberal base’ covictions, indeed maybe not so mnay will turn out to vote for hi, which in itself is a good thing…the indies are the crucial vote…

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Socmodfiscon, ddrintn, angryed
…would all rather have another 4 years of Obama than to elect someone they don’t feel is conservative enough.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater….

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 2:31 PM

We’re tired of having to hold our noses to vote for someone who’s going to take us over the cliff at 40 mph instead of 140 mph.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Hypocrites unite – 1%ers you are being had, you morons.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM

then vote Obama and put yourself out of the mysery…isn’t that much easier for you than all this torurous argument that you are promoting on this forum (that’s full of logical fallacies btw)…

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 2:43 PM

- Romneycare / Obamacare
- Romney raised taxes / Obama raised taxes
- Romney instituted the most stringent CO2 emission levels of any state / Obama has beefed up the EPA to do the same

But it’s a logical fallacy to conclude that Romney and Obama are one and the same.

OK, if you say so.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:47 PM

For the 17th time….

A fee or a tax increase is the same thing.
angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Some people are beyond being educated.

A fee is not a tax and a tax is not a fee.

But you have no ability to learn that, apparently.

Gunlock Bill on December 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Romney shills like Jailbreak must have not heard of something called Google. He will say an outright lie like “Romney didn’t raise taxes”. Then with a 5 second google search, you can see evidence where Romney raised $550M of new taxes in his first year.

So the question is; is Jailbreak really that obtuse or does he think everyone else is?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:30 PM

I’ve heard people claim that the total tax burden in MA went up under Romney. This falsely implies that Romney raised taxes. In truth, Romney repeatedly proposed tax cuts, which were shot down by the Democratic MA legislature, starting as soon as he began to turn around the economy, prompting the liberal Boston Globe to complain after Romney’s first year in office, “The first signs of life appear in the Massachusetts economy and the governor calls for a $225 million tax cut.” Some communities in MA chose to raise property taxes at the local level which Romney had no control over.

Some critics claim that Romney’s cuts in state spending forced local communities to raise their taxes, but the fact is they were under no obligation to raise taxes. Romney also closed loopholes in existing tax law, allowing the state to collect taxes from those who had been using schemes to reduce income reported on state tax returns (8).

Some critics falsely assert that Romney raised capital gains tax rates. In truth, the tax increase was enacted before Romney was elected governor but took effect during Romney’s term after having been tied up in court for several years(9). Critics are unable to point to any tax increases from Romney, and Romney fought for tax cuts and did get some tax cuts enacted.

Want the truth about Romney and the lies that people spread about him, go to whyromney.com…

SauerKraut537 on December 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM

The media won’t be claiming Obama is smarter or better educated than Mitt.

If you think the MSM won’t claim Obama is still The Smartest Man Alive (no matter who the GOP candidate is) just because “college transcripts”, actual “accomplishments”, and other such verifiable criteria suggest otherwise, you haven’t been paying attention for the last forty years or so.

MSM Rule # 1: All conservatives and libertarians are to be portrayed as evil or stupid.

MidniteRambler on December 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM

You said before that Obama supporters were being disillusioned and disenfranchised. I don’t think this is the case at all. While I do think that fewer AA and Youth voters will be heading off to the polls to vote for Obama like they did in 2008, the liberals that I know still prefer Obama.

Midwestprincesse on December 29, 2011 at 2:42 PM

I never said they wouldn’t vote for him, but they do NOT think he has governed as the progressive they had hoped for. Believe me, if a Dennis Kucinich had run against Obama in the primaries, he would be getting significant support in the polls. The only thing they are really happy about is the repeal of DADT.

rockmom on December 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM

A majority of Americans, 57%, perceive Obama to be liberal, with 23% describing his views as moderate and 15% as conservative.

Lol. 38% are idiots?

peski on December 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Why are Romney campaign staffers on Hot Air? They should be phone-banking.

Midwestprincesse on December 29, 2011 at 2:39 PM

They think they will gain support from conservatives by calling them stupid. But remember, this is the campaign run by the smartest Republican EVAH! He went to Harvard don’t you know?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM

it’s the indies, not the liberals that will swing the elections…nobody expect an changes in his liberal base’ covictions, indeed maybe not so mnay will turn out to vote for hi, which in itself is a good thing…the indies are the crucial vote…

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM

The indies that I know loathe Romney.

Midwestprincesse on December 29, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Midwestprincesse on December 29, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Please stand over the crying bucket. Your tears are especially sweet today!

On with the facts…….

Romney 45% Obama 39%

St Palin the Victimized…out
Rick “Duh, what’s today?” Perry…out
Cain…out
Paul…out
Bachmann…out
Gutierrez Rojas Huntsman…out
Gingrich…probably out

Santorum…looking good

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Look at the bright side Not-Romney-oids.

It won’t be long until you will be left with the last Not-Romney standing. That will be B. H. Obama.

(You would have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment if you would have started with Obama.)

Gunlock Bill on December 29, 2011 at 2:50 PM

MSM Rule # 1: All conservatives and libertarians are to be portrayed as evil or stupid.

MidniteRambler on December 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM

And it’s exactly what the Romney campaign is doing as well as evidenced by the Romney shills here on hotair. No wonder the MSM loves Romney.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:50 PM

That was a deal breaker. But Romneycare is not? I’m not judging, I’m just curious how you rationalize the two. It wasn’t Newt’s greatest moment, but in the grand scheme of things, does it matter? On the other hand Romneycare….yeah that matters to millions of people.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Well, as I understand Romneycare, the mandate went in to avoid a statewide, all-in, government-run program. I’m not happy that Romney has this around his neck, not happy at all, but he has said — repeatedly — that if Congress repeals Obamacare, he’ll sign it. That is CRITICAL before 2014 when that law really kicks in. No way Obama will sign that, so anyone who wants Obamacare repealed has got to hope Romney gets elected. If Obama wins, Obamacare is the law of the land forever, and every election thereafter will be about who plans to give out more money for healthcare (just like in Britain). Newt’s sleazy payoff from Fannie & Freddie was corruption, in my book; Romneycare was bad policy, but perhaps in lieu of even worse policy in the most liberal state in the union.

Rational Thought on December 29, 2011 at 2:51 PM

- Romneycare / Obamacare
- Romney raised taxes / Obama raised taxes
- Romney instituted the most stringent CO2 emission levels of any state / Obama has beefed up the EPA to do the same

But it’s a logical fallacy to conclude that Romney and Obama are one and the same.

OK, if you say so.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Neither Romney nor Obama raised taxes.

rockmom on December 29, 2011 at 2:52 PM

I never said they wouldn’t vote for him, but they do NOT think he has governed as the progressive they had hoped for. Believe me, if a Dennis Kucinich had run against Obama in the primaries, he would be getting significant support in the polls. The only thing they are really happy about is the repeal of DADT.

rockmom on December 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM

I’m not trying to get into a political fight of sorts, but I just think your opinion is wrong. I mean that as no offense. I live in WI. They only candidate that I could see the Left getting behind would be a Feingold. Kucinich would be considered a joke, even by the liberals in my state.

And actually, I do think the progressives are solidly behind Obama and his decisions thus far. Would they want more? Sure. Enough to get them to not campaign for him? No. The Left is always, ALWAYS better coordinated than the Right.

Midwestprincesse on December 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM

SauerKraut537 on December 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Simple yes or no answer: Did the govt take in $550M more in taxes/fees after Romney’s first budget. YES

Simple yes/no answer: Was the corporate tax rate increased after Romney’s first budget? YES

Simple yes/no answer: Was the personal income tax rate cut during Romney’s time in office? NO

You can spin all you want. The fact is no taxes were cut under Romney, but $550M of additional revenue was taken by Romney through a combination of new fees, increased existing fees and higher corporate taxes.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Some people are beyond being educated.

A fee is not a tax and a tax is not a fee.

But you have no ability to learn that, apparently.

Gunlock Bill on December 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM

And some of these right-wing loons can’t see that a tax is not an “investment”. –Democrats

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Azz in Chief

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2011 at 2:42 PM

hahaha….isn’t he precious?

He spends millions trying to stop Arizona from policing their state and then creates another Brown Shirt brigade to rat out the populace. I guess this is part of his civilian defense force he touted when he was candidate Obama.

Bwahahahaha…..take the professionals out of the mix and then add in a bunch of amateurs. If only Carter had thought of that, then HE would be the forth best POTUS…..EVAH……and Obama would drop to fifth best.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Neither Romney nor Obama raised taxes.

rockmom on December 29, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Obamacare alone has about 30 new taxes. Most don’t kick in until 2014, some have already kicked in like the 10% tax on medical devices.

Romney raised MA corporate taxes by closing so-called loopholes on banks who held real estate. That brought in $100M to $150M a year,

There are other examples of both raising taxes.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:56 PM

If you think the MSM won’t claim Obama is still The Smartest Man Alive (no matter who the GOP candidate is) just because “college transcripts”, actual “accomplishments”, and other such verifiable criteria suggest otherwise, you haven’t been paying attention for the last forty years or so.

MSM Rule # 1: All conservatives and libertarians are to be portrayed as evil or stupid.

MidniteRambler on December 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Nah, they know better than to try that with Romney OR Gingrich. It’s going to be all about their money, the multiple homes, etc. If it’s Gingrich, they will trot out Bubba to say that Newt is just taking credit for all the wonderful things he did as President.

At least “he/she’s dumb” isn’t going to be heard this year.

rockmom on December 29, 2011 at 2:56 PM

They think they will gain support from conservatives by calling them stupid. But remember, this is the campaign run by the smartest Republican EVAH! He went to Harvard don’t you know?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM

The people that I truly feel sorry for will be blogs. I mean, think of the web traffic during the 2012 season. It will be so dullsville. Who legitimately will watch the debates between Romney and Obama? Snoozeville.

Midwestprincesse on December 29, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Calling this one “wacky” and that one a “religious fanatic” is “rational”? Riiiiiight. Just woe be unto anyone who attacks Romney on the basis of his faith, right? That would be , uh, irrational.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Oh, I think the Mormon faith is pretty wacky, too. I’ve read quite a bit about it and, um, yeah, it’s hard to fathom people buying into all of that, but Romney isn’t arguing that his policies will all derive from his faith. Santorum is. Big difference there, at least for me. And, yes, I think it’s pretty rational to suggest Bachmann is kinda wacky (gardasil causes mental retardation in teenage girls? Come on, that’s just wacky).

Rational Thought on December 29, 2011 at 2:58 PM

And some of these right-wing loons can’t see that a tax is not an “investment”. –Democrats

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 2:55 PM

When you pay to register your car, it’s not a tax. It’s a fee. So when car registration goes from $100 to $300 (as it did in MA), don’t you dare call it a $200 tax increase. No, no, no. It’s merely a new $200 convenience charge levied by the govt. And if you don’t understand that you’re a neanderthal Tea Party right wing extremist. And you’re stoopid too and you smell funny.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:58 PM

I’ll gladly take Romney if it gets rid of Obama.

V7_Sport on December 29, 2011 at 2:58 PM

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:50 PM

I’ll be the first to say that I am not part of the Romney Campaign. I’m just some guy at work who has nothing to do and is sitting around sucking up a paycheck.

I like Romney because I believe he is a Business Efficiency Expert. I think the government needs someone to gut the fat and get rid of the useless bastards, perhaps like me, that are just sucking up a paycheck while sitting around and not producing a damn thing.

Obama sure isn’t going to cut out the waste. As far as I can tell he is the poster boy for government waste.

I would rather have Gordon Gekko leading the country and gutting the government than Obama.

However, as I have said many times before, I’ll vote for the nominee no matter who it is.

If all the nominee does is kill Obamacare, I’ll consider that person successful as President.

(keeping my standards realistic)

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 2:58 PM

He almost has to go with someone from the south or west. Susanna Martinez? Jan Brewer?

BlueStateRepub on December 29, 2011 at 2:42 PM

I think Bill Owens. Very popular former two term governor of the very important state of Colorado.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 2:58 PM

I will vote for whoever the anti-odoodoo candidate is, PERIOD. In the past we could could afford protest non votes, not with chavez jr in office. I love my country too much to see it destroyed from within by O and his band of marxists. Romney may not be our dream candidate, but he is not obama. Neither is Paul, Huntsman, Gigrich, or any of the others. With conservatives in congress, we can bring any of them towards us. Let the hate begin, but I can take it. Hope you protest non voters see the logic. Unfortunately not a perfect world.

msupertas on December 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Nothing but sophistry from mr angreyed…

They are not simple yes or no answers… Especially on something such as this.

The fact is that the tax raises that happened under his Governership weren’t brought about by his actions. The tax raising was done prior to him coming into office and was stuck in courts until he took over as Governor. It just went live while he was in office, but he proposed multiple tax cuts throughout his tenure as Governor.

Any tax raising that went on was due to the legislature WRITING the laws, not Romney.

Do you know how many vetos he wielded while in office? I bet not.

SauerKraut537 on December 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM

I’ve heard people claim that the total tax burden in MA went up under Romney. This falsely implies that Romney raised taxes. In truth, Romney repeatedly proposed tax cuts, which were shot down by the Democratic MA legislature, starting as soon as he began to turn around the economy,

SauerKraut537 on December 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Oh, this is infantile. HE began to turn around the economy; all the bad stuff is the fault of that legislature. Not even Reagan gets that kind of a break.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM

But it’s a logical fallacy to conclude that Romney and Obama are one and the same.

OK, if you say so.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:47 PM

- Romneycare / Obamacare

been debunked countless times on this forum, 2 completely different things…

Romney raised taxes / Obama raised taxes

Romney didn’t raise taxes, it’s just that you are incapable of seeinf the difference between taxes and fees, even when some people on this forum alone took the patience to explain it to you…

Romney instituted the most stringent CO2 emission levels of any state / Obama has beefed up the EPA to do the same

drp that already you conveniently leave out the several market-friendly compliance options he included in the said regulations and that were designed to help keep the costs down.

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 3:00 PM

The fact is that the tax raises that happened under his Governership weren’t brought about by his actions.
SauerKraut537 on December 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM

LOL.

This is the funniest defense of Romney yet. He raised taxes but he didn’t do it by his own actions. The magical tax raising fairy showed up one day and signed into law the new taxes.

So taxes did go up? But Jailbreak says taxes didn’t go up. And so does rockmom.

It’s all so confusing trying to keep up with the Mittbot spin.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Obama will beat Romney.

Good night America. It was good to know her, as she once was.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2011 at 1:08 PM

The implication here is that there is some stronger candidate to run against Obama, but people like you never argue for whom that person would be. This is because you can’t present a better case for your guy/girl because your opinion is based on emotion and not reason.

Either you live in fantasyland and think that any “true conservative” is automatically a stronger candidate than another, or you’d rather lose an election with your ideological clone and bitch and moan about Obama for another 4 years. Forgive me for not signing on to your electoral suicide mission just so you can feel better about yourself.

The Count on December 29, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Do the Romney supporters not understand that they will need thousands, if not millions of people that will do phone banking? I think Romney supporters just think that “Oh, all we need are these people that will go to the polls to vote”….uhhhh no.

Midwestprincesse on December 29, 2011 at 3:02 PM

I think Bill Owens. Very popular former two term governor of the very important state of Colorado.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 2:58 PM

do you think name recognition will count in his VP choice?

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Oh, I think the Mormon faith is pretty wacky, too. I’ve read quite a bit about it and, um, yeah, it’s hard to fathom people buying into all of that, but Romney isn’t arguing that his policies will all derive from his faith. Santorum is. Big difference there, at least for me.

Rational Thought on December 29, 2011 at 2:58 PM

So where exactly has Romney specifically disavowed religious influences on his decision-making?

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Romney didn’t raise taxes, it’s just that you are incapable of seeinf the difference between taxes and fees, even when some people on this forum alone took the patience to explain it to you…

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 3:00 PM

You’re right. When car registration goes from $100 to $300 it’s not a tax increase. It’s a $200 new government convenience fee. It’ silly to call it a tax increase. It just so happens that everyone in the state who drives – which is pretty much 99% of the population – has to pay an extra $200 a year to the govt. But a tax increase? Pfffft. No way man.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:04 PM

^ And where has Santorum said that ALL of his decisions stem from his faith? Would that include his endorsement of Arlen Specter then?

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater….

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 2:31 PM

They are much like Lenin during WWI. He wanted Russia to lose the war so the country would burn to the ground for his own vision. He didn’t care about those who would suffer because of his selfish evil plan. He actually believed that a win for the country would be a bad thing.

Those idiots you referred to certainly have expressed the former beliefs. I am waiting for them to express the latter just so I can make the Lenin comparison to their faces.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 3:05 PM

If people think Luap Nor really means what he says or that he isn’t a nut, they haven’t a clue about him!

Hard Right on December 29, 2011 at 3:06 PM

You’re right. When car registration goes from $100 to $300 it’s not a tax increase. It’s a $200 new government convenience fee. It’ silly to call it a tax increase. It just so happens that everyone in the state who drives – which is pretty much 99% of the population – has to pay an extra $200 a year to the govt. But a tax increase? Pfffft. No way man.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:04 PM

You give Obama a pass on the Cigarette tax, but you claim Romney raised taxes by increasing a fee…

Telling…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 3:06 PM

*sigh*

As usual, we’re our own worst enemy.
Instead of even considering getting behind a presumptive primary nominee we continue the bashing.

Ahh, such is life; and the end result will be more of agent Zero and his assault on our conservative, capitalistic mentality.

And we’ll deserve it for our stubbornness.

Hey, I’d love a Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio, alas even they have their faults.
If Romney wins the nomination we need to unite the party.
Hang together or we will surely all hang separately.

litebeam1 on December 29, 2011 at 3:07 PM

So the question is; is Jailbreak really that obtuse or does he think everyone else is?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:30 PM

You… know he’s not obtuse!
We…. all know he’s an azz!

KOOLAID2 on December 29, 2011 at 3:08 PM

It’s pathetic how the Mittbot brigade is now debating fee vs. tax. This is the great conservative hope? The guy who raised $500M of govt revenue through fees instead of through taxes? That’s the new definition of fiscal conservatism. I raised revenue, but I raised it as a fee not as a tax. Vote for me because my opponent will raise your taxes, while I will only raise your fees (that you have to pay every year).

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Who legitimately will watch the debates between Romney and Obama? Snoozeville.

Midwestprincesse on December 29, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Oh, I will. Watching Romney trying to wiggle out of RomneyCare will be like watching a contortionist in the circus.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 3:08 PM

And I’ll keep asking this until it gets answered:

Social security and medicare will go bankrupt within 10 years. The longer we wait to deal with that, the harder the solution will be to enact.

What in Romney’s record indicates he would even attempt to draw attention to this and convince the American people that reform must happen?

Because if he won’t, we just lost 4 years that could have been used to deal with the problem.

Woo, he’ll repeal Obamacare. That slows our descent into insolvency, not stops it.

makattak on December 29, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Obama will beat Romney.

Good night America. It was good to know her, as she once was.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2011 at 1:08 PM

The implication here is that there is some other stronger candidate to run against Obama, but people like you never argue for whom that person would be. This is all because you can’t present a better case for your guy/girl because your opinion is based on emotion and not reason.

Either you live in fantasyland and think that any “true conservative” is automatically a stronger candidate than a RINO, or you’d rather lose an election with your ideological clone and complain about Obama for another 4 years.

The Count on December 29, 2011 at 3:09 PM

You give Obama a pass on the Cigarette tax, but you claim Romney raised taxes by increasing a fee…

Telling…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Actually, outside of Obamacare and cigarette taxes, Obama hasn’t raised taxes (yet).
angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:35 PM

How did I give him a pass?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:10 PM

On the other hand Romneycare….yeah that matters to millions of people.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Masscare had no discernible effect on the US economy. Freddie on the other hand is responsible for the collapse of our economy.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 3:11 PM

They are much like Lenin during WWI.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 3:05 PM

And you’re like Kerensky, who ended up plopping from country to country as a nobody.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 3:11 PM

I have a hard time believing any poll that shows Obama close to anyone. First of all, the Democrats, who are upset with him, aren’t going to tell someone they won’t vote for Obama, they’ll be considered traitors, so they just won’t show up. I’ll bet you can’t believe any polls right now so the headline, after the election, is going to be “Democrats Shocked by Election Loss Landslide”

bflat879 on December 29, 2011 at 3:12 PM

They are much like Lenin during WWI.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 3:05 PM

And you’re like Kerensky, who ended up plopping from country to country as a nobody.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 3:11 PM

HA HA. Perfect.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Actually, outside of Obamacare and cigarette taxes, Obama hasn’t raised taxes (yet).
angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:35 PM

How did I give him a pass?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:10 PM

That’s exactly giving him a pass. “Outside than raising cigarette taxes”; implying that it didn’t count at all since it was only on cigarettes. Guess you aren’t a smoker or you’d be all up in arms over it.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 3:12 PM

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Do you ever take a break? Besides attacking Romney all day, every day, are you ever going to reveal whom you think we should coalesce around instead of Romney? Or are you working for the DNC?

The Count on December 29, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Your an angryed little troll, that’s fine. That’s your right to free speech in action. Go ahead, and cheerlead some more for Obama… it’s ok.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 3:14 PM

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:47 PM

It will be okay. After the stage two “anger” comes stage three “bargaining” to deal with your grief. Those will be some choice days for you.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 3:14 PM

That’s exactly giving him a pass. “Outside than raising cigarette taxes”; implying that it didn’t count at all since it was only on cigarettes. Guess you aren’t a smoker or you’d be all up in arms over it.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 3:12 PM

That’s not at all what I meant. I meant he raised taxes twice. Cigarettes and Obamacare. Aside from those two instances he hasn’t raised other taxes (that I am aware of). That’s it.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Why are Romney campaign staffers on Hot Air? They should be phone-banking.

Midwestprincesse on December 29, 2011 at 2:39 PM

I have the up most respect for Midwestprincesse for this statement.

apocalypse on December 29, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Woo, he’ll repeal Obamacare. That slows our descent into insolvency, not stops it.

makattak on December 29, 2011 at 3:08 PM

It’s an important step that must be taken. If Angryed and his ilk get his way, we’ll never be rid of Obamacare.

It might be a babystep, but it’s a step in the right direction.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Your an angryed little troll, that’s fine. That’s your right to free speech in action. Go ahead, and cheerlead some more for Obama… it’s ok.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 3:14 PM

LOL. I want a conservative candidate. And that means I am a cheerleader for Obama. OK, if that’s how you see it, I can’t really argue with that logic.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:18 PM

They are much like Lenin during WWI. He wanted Russia to lose the war so the country would burn to the ground for his own vision. He didn’t care about those who would suffer because of his selfish evil plan. He actually believed that a win for the country would be a bad thing.

Those idiots you referred to certainly have expressed the former beliefs. I am waiting for them to express the latter just so I can make the Lenin comparison to their faces.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 3:05 PM

And I’ll keep asking this until it gets answered:

Social security and medicare will go bankrupt within 10 years. The longer we wait to deal with that, the harder the solution will be to enact.

What in Romney’s record indicates he would even attempt to draw attention to this and convince the American people that reform must happen?

Because if he won’t, we just lost 4 years that could have been used to deal with the problem.

Woo, he’ll repeal Obamacare. That slows our descent into insolvency, not stops it.

makattak on December 29, 2011 at 3:08 PM

makattak on December 29, 2011 at 3:19 PM

It’s an important step that must be taken. If Angryed and his ilk get his way, we’ll never be rid of Obamacare.

It might be a babystep, but it’s a step in the right direction.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 3:17 PM

My ilk? Which ilk is that? The Obama supporter or the rabid right winger? According to you I’m in both camps.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:19 PM

The Count on December 29, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Reason is indignant.

May RINOism be upon you and yours. You deserve it, fully.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2011 at 3:20 PM

The indies that I know loathe Romney.

Midwestprincesse on December 29, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Bwahahahahaha!!!

Your associates who criticize St Palin the Victimized for wearing too much red clothing are not indies.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 3:20 PM

csdeven will be shedding tears of blood in a year. Pity him guys. Kerry was leading Bush in 2003. Mitt is like Kerry only less accomplished and less charismatic. Hard to do.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 3:22 PM

LOL. I want a conservative candidate. And that means I am a cheerleader for Obama. OK, if that’s how you see it, I can’t really argue with that logic.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:18 PM

I have yet to see you do anything but whine about Mitt. I have yet to see you provide any alternatives but “I’m voting for Obama”.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 3:22 PM

What I’ve learned today from Mittbots:

1. A governor who raises $550M of revenue through fees hasn’t increased taxes since a tax and a fee are different. Even if the fees are for things that 99% of the adult population does like drive a car.

2. Romney increased taxes (even though he didn’t). But he did it because those meanie Democrats held a gun to his head and forced him to sign the new taxes (which are actually fees which don’t actually count as taxes) into law.

3. The guy who created Romneycare is the only Republican who will repeal Obamacare.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5