Mitt Romney stacked audience at Univision forum with Republican activists after campaign couldn't find student supporters at University of Miami,

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1165534#bmb=1

When a plutocrat loses the rich preppy private school kids, he's toast.

I would agree with this. He is up a few points, and only a few points which is amazing considering how inept Romney's campaign has been so far. If they can pull their **** together a comeback is plausible. This country wants to change leadership, but they don't do things like that blindly. Romney has to convince them he can do better.

It does?

I like that you've moved from "Mitt will win lock it up" to "You guys should be up more because our guy is terrible".

What? When have I said anything other than that this is a close election and people should not be spiking any footballs.

And just because YOU don't want to change leadership doesn't mean the majority of this country doesn't. A better candidate would have trounced Obama this year. Shame on the Republicans for not delivering one.

It would have had to be a better candidate with more popular policies.


With a better candidate and the same old policies, it would be closer but no slam dunk.

Only one poll matters afaict

It hasn't been released yet

When are the debates?

jeez, antneye what do you don't understand? Romney sucks because he's a Republican. The Republican model is not where this country is headed. Live your lives in the 50's as long as you want, but the rest of us are moving forward.

I am hitting the BS buzzer on you on this one. This country is pretty much 50/50. Every time the Dems have a good election the libs get all "It's over for the right" and then they get their asses handed to them like they did in 2010. Each party sucks pretty much equally and neither is going to dominate for a sustained period of time.

Get over yourself. It would be funny to see a Romney comeback just to watch folks like you have a total meltdown.

OTOH never before has the republican party been so nutty

I'm not so sure about that. The religious right used to have much more influence. These days its the fiscal extremists who are in charge but I don't think are nearly as bad as the social extremists.


I'm a Republican but I have never been a fan of the religious right...probably because I am social liberal. I could give a rats ass what you do in the privacy of your own home.

There's a pattern, tho


Republicans do really well in low turnout elections like 2010 because they're really good at turning out their base.

Democrats do really well in high turnout elections like 2008 because more people agree with them.

There is nothing presidential about Christie.

I'm sorry, but I don't think the country is 50/50. Not when women and Latinos and Blacks have been subjugated like they have been been by the Republican party. Get over myself? because the 2010 elections were overrun by tea-partiers who were hell-bent on advocating for a Sarah Palin run? Yeah, lololol. As I've stated on here, I'd be completely happy for a non-partisan ticket, but that's not gonna happen anytime in my lifetime I imagine.

lol gobbomom, let's not pretend you'd be happy for a nonpartisan ticket when Boxer is too far right for you.

The Great Toe Sucker (Dick Morris) Says Romney Will Win

http://www.dickmorris.com/why-the-po...e-romney-vote/

One-time Clinton advisor (and former toe sucker of a Washington D.C. prostitute) now serving as a Fox News Channel commentator, insists that all the polls are wrong and Mitt Romney's support is much stronger than generally believed. Citing the last campaign (in 1980) where an incumbent Democratic President (Jimmy Carter) lost to a Republican challenger (Ronald Reagan), Morris insists that undecided voters will break heavily at the last minute and vote for the challenger - in this case Mitt Romney. Morris tries to make a compelling case that all the polls are wrong because they are not giving "proper weighting" to the 2004 and 2008 election results - something he claims Rasmussen is doing and therefore why he believes Rasmussun's numbers are more accurate.

I hate to tell the great toe sucker the obvious, but Ronald Reagan wasn't prone to serious foot-in-mouth disease - and Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan.

Dick Morris is employed?

How, why?

Well, the social extremists still have plenty of power see: santorum bachmann perry, but not only that the fiscal extremists mostly don't have a coherent message.

But beyond both of those, there is just the culture of us vs. them wrt the democrats, primarying any moderate members (and replacing them with wackjobs, I might add), and prioritizing party over anything else, and generally behaving like whiny petulant children.

I don't get this, does nonpartisan mean its somehow in between the democrats and republicans to you?

I remember when I was younger. I didn't really understand polling, the electoral college, or how huge a difference a couple percentage points was in terms of absolute numbers.

I'm older now. I realize how far behind Romney is, and I understand that at this stage Romney needs something like to an earth shattering change in the race to win. That's not to say I'm counting chickens, just pointing out that he is much more of a dog than you seem to want to believe.

Dick Morris is the Constanza of political predictions.

How can you support the Republican party but not care about the social issues?

Are the fiscal extremists really in charge, or is it that the only viable line of attack? The entire and only line of attack from the GOP is the unemployment rate - which they created. "Fiscal Republican" is a joke. How fiscally happy were you in January of 2009? Please.

The GOP is totally unsupportable at this point, both fiscally and socially. I'm sick of hearing about the people who only care about their money and pretend they are liberal with social issues. How can you be liberal on social issues when SO MUCH is determined socially by fiscal policies? Guess what? Tax structure can disproportiantely hurt specific minority groups. That, in itself, is a social issue.

When Bush ran up the goddamn debt the GOP didn't care, did they? Now Obama ran up the debt to fix the crap you guys left and all of a sudden it's "OMG LOOK AT THE DEBT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Note : none of this is directed towards you, it's simply a rant to all the people who like to play both sides. So maybe only some of it applies to you, but I wasn't directing it to you specifically.


I think I would like an option as a democrat to at least consider. The GOP candidates are so horrifying they make me afraid not to vote. I either turn off the TV in disgust after watching the candidates or get off my couch and listen very intently to how stupid the GOP candidates really are.

I distinctly remember the first time I heard Sarah Palin speak in an interview I was laying down on my couch with my wife. As I listened to her I get up and said "Oh my God she has no idea what she's talking about". I was actually alarmed. I remember the next few months making a mental checklist in my head of everyone who tried to defend her so that I never talk about anything remotely important with those people again. She was so insanely stupid that it made me change my relationships with people who didn't think she was stupid. In other words, if you don't think Sarah Palin is a moron, then I think that person was a moron.

One of my best friends was firmly voting for McCain until the Palin pick, and then he said he could not, in good conscience, vote for McCain afterwards.

The GOP has some serious serious issues going on. Romney is beyond toast, let the change within the Republican party begin. It's about damn time.

Michael Tomasky: Don't Blame Mitt for the GOP's Problems

Here's an interesting thought-provoking read.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-problems.html

yeah he's done,thank god.

It's what I've been saying all along. Mitt isn't the problem, the GOP is the damn problem. Mitt is simply a product of the GOP and it's ridiculous stances.

I don't know how this could be more obvious than looking at the lineup of the last Republican primary. Right off the bat there were 3 people who could possibly be anywhere close to considered : Huntsman, Romney, and Paul. Cain, Perry (even though it took a little while), Gingrich, Santorum and Bachman were so outside any consideration it was laughable they were even put on stage. I don't even have to go through the reasons why, almost everyone on this forum is smart enough to know this group were completely and totally embarrassing candidates for the office of President of the United States. I would gladly vote for multiple people who participate in this forum over any in that group.

Of the 3, there was only one who could get past the primary. Huntsman was auto-out and Paul was practically censored. That left Romney. It was no mistake that quite a long time before it was decided the term "The eventual candidate" kept popping up. There was no primary. We knew all along who the candidate was.

This is a problem of the party. To be the candidate, you MUST be conservative enough to get past the primary. So that means you must steer hard right to win the primaries, then go hard left towards somewhere close to the middle to win the general. This goes to show how nutbag crazy the GOP really is.