@golfnut31316..you don't care...I bet you would care if a negative organization endorsed a candidate..It matters.
Politics, do you actually have a grasp of what's really going on in this country? Where are your words and thoughts, you are cutting and pasting small things with no new ideas and stale tactics like this man!
@Funkentelecky...Yes, I have a grasp of whats really going on in the country..that's why I read more than the coastal courier..If I didn't post facts and sources..you would have a problem with that..People parish for a lack of knowledge..I don't rely on one station, newspaper, blogs to keep me informed..I watch Fox, MSNBC, CNN and headline news..
What's the point? Your basic blog post reports:
"But Magleby says the endorsement will not change many votes in Utah, where he predicts an Election Day tally of at least 70 percent for Romney.
"It could be the largest margin in any state," Magleby says."
So the paper endorses Obama, but Romney wins Utah by a huge landslide.
Politics, I watch all those networks too, so now I don’t understand even more why you didn’t respond my posts in your blog on 9/26/12 @23:57, 9/27/12 @00:12, and 9/27/12 @00:22 here.
The 40 Republicans did the right thing here based on the facts, period.
No Politics I wouldn't. I don't give diddly who endorses what. To ME, it does not matter. I will not vote for anyone just because someone or an organization endorses them.
As far as a negative goes, that, just like politics is a matter of opinion.
I didn't respond to your posts because I was ill after the first debate...I didn't have the energy to go back and fourth reading the negative blog...I take this serious.......Were back on top and I'm feeling better than ever...If things don't go well Monday...
"You're" NOT back on top - unless "you" includes ROMNEY. He's now ahead in the polls; ahead in the likeability factor; and ahead in the electoral college. I predict he will expand that lead after Monday night's debate moderated by Grandpa Bob Schieffer.
...and sorry to hear you were under the weather. Hope you are a lot better - and perhaps I misunderstood your comment about being back on top. If you meant you personally after your illness - GREAT. If you meant Obama, see my comment above.
No matter - have a great weekend and continue to get well.
We now have a real race for the office of President.
I think, just maybe, just maybe we will have a new President in a few short weeks.
I sure as heck hope not TOT. The economic track record of conservative Republicans got us into this mess. I for one do not wish to return to their fiscal policies. And I especially do not care to embrace their stance on social issues.
Yes, it is going to be close. Should BHO pull it out, the republican party will start a purgeing of their party that will boil down to "true believers" or as they are sometimes called: Tea Partiers. It will be even harder for Republicans to gain the middle ground again.
Jimmy: Don't assume that Romney's "fiscal policies" will be the same as Dubya's "fiscal policies." That's one erroneous assumption that has been part of the Dem talking points forever running up to this election.
History has shown that these parties are very, very resilient. They have been declared "lost," "dead," "without soul," etc., a number of times - BOTH OF THEM - after they were defeated in presidential elections. I remember this was particularly the case in 1972, 1984, and - believe it or not - in 2004. The talking heads - especially the lefties - were all lamenting: "Where do we go from here? Oh, woe is us..."
As we all saw - where they went was to Bill Clinton in 1992 and Barack Obama in 2008. They waited awhile for each during successive GOP administrations, but eventually they came back.
This will be the case for whichever party loses in this election. There will be some fine-tuning; some soul-searching; and then they'll reload. I do think that the GOP is much better prepared to do this with their stable of "stars" which includes people like Marco Rubio. But if Obama loses I'm sure the Dems will find somebody.
But I do disagree about the "middle ground." I don't think the Democrats have represented that for quite awhile. That's why there have only been three Dem presidents since 1968, and Bill Clinton has been the only Democrat to serve more than one term since FDR. And he was given a big boost both in election and reelection by Ross Perot, who without a doubt stripped votes away from the GOP candidates in 1992 and 1996.
This country has had and continues to have a "middle-right" political center, and the only reason Democrats have been elected since Johnson was that a huge majority of the country was sick of the Republicans. In this election, the country gets to show whether it is sick of a Democrat in the White House.
I think it will.