Neil puts the 2012 election into a generational perspective. If you are looking for Neil to pick a winner, read no further. He’s an academic at heart and never tells you what he thinks will happen. But, he supplies plenty of data for you to make up your mind. Based on his breakdown of voters by generation it seems that the Millenials will decide this election. They are still strongly in Obama’s camp, but their enthusiasm for Obama has waned. If they don’t vote in significant numbers or if Romney can split the young white vote, the election would go to Romney. The old farts are strongly in Romney’s corner. GenX is split down the middle. The yuuts will decide this election.

Pundits have long been predicting that the presidential election will be much closer and much meaner in 2012 than it was in 2008.  Closer it now is.  According to the RCP Poll Average, the race is now a virtual tie: Incumbent Obama now leads by a mere 1.8 percent over Romney, whereas challenger Obama led McCain by 7.6 percent exactly four years ago.  It will certainly revolve around a very different array of issues—much less argument about the war on terror and GOP performance, and a lot more about the stagnating economy and Democratic performance.

In one respect, however, the next election will be a replay of the last: There will be a historically large divide in the preferences of younger voters (under 30) versus older voters (65+).  In 2008, this divide (21 percentage points) was wider than in any election since the advent of age-bracketed voting data in the 1960s.  The second-biggest divide (16 percentage points) was back in 1972, when nearly half of all young voters voted for McGovern while older voters went overwhelmingly for Nixon.


I’ve been tracking generational leanings in the polls pretty carefully.  The Pew Research Center has issued several reports (most notably, The Generation Gap and the 2012 Election) exploring this divide, and Time followed up with its own cover story (“The New Generation Gap”).  More recently, Mike and Morley, Forbes, The New York Times, and many others have also weighed in.

Bottom line: Every generation is today a bit more favorable toward Obama than they were in 2010 and a good deal less favorable than in 2008.  The partisan gap between the Democrat-leaning young and the Republican-leaning old, however, remains as strong as ever—at around 20 percent.

Back in 2008, the big story was how and why today’s rising Millennial Generation voted by a large and decisive margin for the Democrats.  This fall, the media focus may shift.  The big story could be how and why today’s angry, aging Silent Generation put the Republicans over the top.  The relevant parallel here is 1972, when Nixon was able to split the young Boomer vote with McGovern—and then crush McGovern with all voters over age 30.  (Nixon’s popular margin in 1972, 23.2 percent of the electorate, is the fourth largest in U.S. history.)  Romney, of course, cannot hope for Nixon’s margin.  But the basic logic still stands.  Romney doesn’t have to win the youth vote; he just has to contain youth losses enough so that his huge advantage among older voters puts him ahead.

The 2012 election will hinge on the collective choices of five generations of voters, each with a different collective life story shaped by its own location in history.  Let’s take a look at how each of these stories is likely to determine the outcome.  (Throughout, I will borrow shamelessly from Pew’s wonderful cohort-tracking research and graphics.)

Because this piece turned out to be pretty long, I’m going to break it into two posts.  This post will look at the generations themselves.  The next will look beyond generations to the election outcome.

At the very elder edge of the electorate is the G.I. GENERATION, born between 1901-24. (Sample leaders: John Kennedy, LBJ, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Sr.) With its youngest members now age 87 and older, the G.I.s today comprise just 2 percent of likely voters.  Except during the late 1960s and 1970s, this “greatest generation” has always heavily favored the Democrats, having come of age as huge supporters of the “big government” presidency of FDR.  Indeed, in every election from 1994 to 2004, the peers of Jimmy Stewart were more likely than younger Americans to vote Democratic. [See the “Roosevelt” chart on this page from the Pew study.] Even in 2008, according to Gallup, Obama ran almost even with McCain among these overwhelmingly white 80+ voters—better than he did with any other age bracket over 40. Apparently, generation trumps age when it comes to racial bias. Prediction for G.I.s in 2012: slight edge (3 percent) to the Democrats.

Now let’s turn to the “young old.” Dominating the ranks of retirees is the SILENT GENERATION (born 1925-42, today age 69 to 86), comprising 13 percent of likely voters. (Sample leaders: Robert & Ted Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Gary Hart, John McCain.) Coming of age during the Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy presidencies, when Americans generally were voting Republican, the young, conformist Silent leaned more Republican than the rest. While the Silent produced nearly all of the most famous civil-rights leaders and “good government” reformers of the post-war era, they have never favored a strong executive (no Silent has ever been elected President) and have tended to return to their GOP roots as they have grown older.  In seven of the last nine elections, they have voted more heavily than other Americans for Republicans. [See the “Truman” and “Eisenhower” charts on this page.]

Since 2008, the Silent’s pro-GOP tendency has widened considerably, along with their unhappiness with the direction of the country. Polls show the Silent are upset not just because they are “angry” at government (they are twice as likely as Millennials to say this), but also because they are “uncomfortable” with positions they associate with younger Obama Democrats on issues such as immigration, marriage, homosexuality, religion, and the Internet. The Silent are the least-immigrant generation (per capita) in American history, and they grew up at a time when the rules of life were clear and simple. Today they are disoriented by the bewildering diversity of today’s younger generations, and they can’t figure out what the new rules are.

Most Silent recognize that are doing well economically compared to younger Americans. But they worry that America is losing its sense of exceptional “greatness” and gaining an addiction to endless public debt—faults they attribute more to Democrats than to Republicans. Many fear the nation is headed back toward the Hard Times they witnessed in their childhood. According to recent Gallup surveys, the Silent favor Romney by 14 percentage points. Prediction for the Silent in 2012: large margin (15 percent) to the Republicans.

Occupying midlife and already surging past age 65 is the BOOM GENERATION (born 1943-60, today age 51 to 68), today comprising 31 percent of likely voters. (Sample leaders: Bill & Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Al Gore, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Condoleeza Rice.) Boomers came of age during the social and cultural upheavals that rocked America during the late ‘60s and ‘70s—giving them a fixation on vision and values that defines them even to this day as a generation of individualists and culture warriors (left versus right, “blue” versus “red”). As they grow older, Boomers increasingly call themselves “conservative,” but not necessarily Republican.

First-wave Boomers (today in their 60s) have more years of education than younger Boomers, have done better economically, vote more reliably, gravitate to humanist or mainstream churches, and vote more for Democrats. Last-wave Boomers (today in their 50s) experienced a rapid fall in SAT scores and college attendance, lag far behind first-wavers economically, vote less often, veer toward atheism or “born-again” evangelicalism, and vote more for Republicans. In recent elections, first-wave Boomers have tilted to the Democrats; their younger brothers and sisters have favored the GOP. [See the “Kennedy/Johnson,” “Nixon,” and “Ford/Carter” charts on this page.] In recent months, Gallup shows Boomers favoring Romney by about 5 percentage points. Prediction for the Boomers in 2012: medium edge (5 percent) to the Republicans, with red-leaning last-wavers slightly overpowering blue-leaning first-wavers.

Today’s emerging leaders and the parents of most school-age kids belong to GENERATION X (born 1961-81, today age 30 to 50). Gen Xers now comprise 35 percent of likely voters, a slightly larger share than Boomers.  Gen X’s share should be much larger, but their tendency to vote less often than older generations dilutes the impact of their raw numbers. (Sample leaders: Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Kirsten Gillibrand, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal.) The left-alone children of the Consciousness Revolution who later came of age during an era that stressed free agency, personal ownership, and survivalism, Gen Xers have mixed feelings about the two parties. Xers like the social and cultural liberalism of Democrats (whatever “works for me” is perfect), but they also like the economic conservatism of the GOP (hey, don’t even think about picking my pocket!).

Like Boomers, they show a strong political trend from oldest to youngest, but it’s in the opposite direction.  First-wave Xers, born in the early 1960s, first voted during the early Reagan years and have thereafter leaned heavily to the GOP. (Just over 70 percent of today’s state governors and members of Congress born from 1961 to 1965 are Republican—the biggest partisan tilt of any five-year cohort group.) Late-wave Xers came of age with Clinton and now lean more toward the Democratic Party. [See the “Reagan/Bush” and “Clinton” charts on this page.] According to recent Gallup polls, Generation X favors Obama by 1 percentage point. Prediction for Gen Xers in 2012: dead even, with GOP-leaning first-wavers exactly neutralizing Democratic-leaning last-wavers.

Finally comes the youngest generation of voters, the adult members of the MILLENNIAL GENERATION (born 1982-93, today age 18 to 29), comprising 18 percent of likely voters. (As yet, they have no national political leaders.) Twenty years ago, they were the special and fussed-over “Friends of Barney.” Today, they’re telling older Americans to share their toys and put a smile on their face. For Millennials, the team comes first: They are more likely than older voters to favor strong communities, urge consensus solutions, trust “big government,” and shrug at paranoia over privacy. With their trademark confidence, Millennials embrace many of the social trends (related to race, ethnicity, religion, homosexuality, and the Internet) that older voters find threatening. Millennials are the least likely to believe such trends undermine patriotism or family cohesion. They are the most likely to be optimistic about America’s long-term future.

This outlook puts Millennials decisively in the Democratic camp, with roughly two-thirds of them (66 to 32 percent) voting for Obama over McCain in 2008 and (according to Gallup) a smaller yet still impressive margin of three-fifths of them favoring Obama over Romney today. [See the “Bush/Obama” chart on this page.] The big question is whether the waning enthusiasm Millennials now show in re-electing Obama—combined with the extra fervor Silent and Boomers show in defeating him—will allow the GOP to prevail.  Nonwhite Millennials are as overwhelmingly pro-Obama in 2012 as they were in 2008 (roughly a 60 percentage point margin).  Yet Democrats should worry about the recent Pew finding that, among white Millennials, the 10 percentage point margin for Obama in 2008 has been fading away and nearly disappearing over the past year.  If young whites split anywhere close to 50-50 in 2012 (remember, non-Latino whites still comprise 60 percent of this generation), then it hardly matters what young minorities do: The GOP will possess an almost insuperable advantage. Prediction for Millennials in 2012: very large margin (20 percent) to the Democrats, led by a 4-to-1 advantage among young minorities.

It’s always great to have the young on your side. After all, youth represent the future. In the decades to come, if the Millennials stay their political course, they would confer a huge advantage to the Democratic Party. But in the next election, they are still outnumbered by two larger generations of voters (Gen X and Boom), and they may well be outworked by a more energized generation of seniors (the Silent). The young can sometimes lose elections, and lose them badly. It happened in 1972, when the Boomer youth who voted for McGovern were overwhelmed by all the midlife and senior voters (the G.I. and Lost Generations) who favored Nixon.

Two years later, of course, Nixon resigned. The age gap closed almost entirely by the next election and pretty much stayed closed all the way until 2008. As if to close the circle, many of the Millennials who now favor Obama are children of the same young “peacenik” Democrats who once voted for McGovern. That’s what makes elections so fascinating—their power to surprise and to reveal, both who are today and who we will become tomorrow.

If you do all the arithmetic with the voter shares and margin predictions cited above, you will find that my overall prediction is for a dead-even tie between Obama and Romney.  Meaning: The 2012 winner is going to have to put together a generational scorecard that is, in some combination, better than the figures I have revealed.

How likely is it that Obama or Romney will put together that scorecard?  I look at that in the next post.


This happens often.  After I write about generational drivers or changes in the social mood, readers will contact me and ask: OK, so much for the drivers and the theory, Neil—what do you think will actually happen?

So let me try to pre-empt those readers.  In my last post, I talked about how and why different generations lean toward or against the 2012 presidential candidates.  In this post, I’ll talk about the connection between generations and some of the more conventional ways pundits currently handicap the election.  I won’t exactly say who I think will win, but I will discuss some of the indicators I am following closely.

Futures Markets.  Everyone knows that Republicans believe in futures markets (and in weird options and derivatives based thereon, like CDFs) more than anyone else.  So here’s the bad news they have to swallow: Futures markets are now predicting Obama to beat Romney by roughly 16 percentage points.  (This is not the predicted voter margin in the election; it is the probability margin by which of most investors think Obama will sneak by in at least a razor-thin victory.)  That’s 57-40 percent on Intrade or 58-42 on Iowa Futures.  Obama has been leading in these markets since last fall.  Bless those markets.  Because of the “law of one price” (look this one up under “arbitrage”), all of these futures market prices have to match, worldwide.  Even brainy liberals (see Infotopia by Cass Sunstein, ) give very high praise to futures markets.

I agree that futures markets have a great track record and need to be taken seriously.  Why do they lean more pro-Obama than the weekly polls?  Maybe they sense that the sentiment for Romney is merely the way Americans vent their anger (always at the incumbent when talking to pollsters) before settling down and voting for the incumbent after all.  Or maybe they sense that the strong preference of the rising generation for a cool and pragmatic Gen Xer as POTUS really does represent where the nation is heading—and that most voters will wake to that fact come November 6.  Young Pompey once declared (to aging Sulla) that “more people worship the rising than the setting sun.”  Maybe the markets agree.

Then again, markets no less than polls can be greatly mistaken this far away from the election.  At the very least, I think that buying a Romney contract on Intrade at $4.00 and waiting to sell it once it hits $4.50 is an extremely safe trade—since sooner or later Romney is bound to have a surge carrying him at least this far.  Even John McCain in 2008 surged in early September to 0.47 in the futures markets.  It is also possible that the markets could gradually drift to a sizable Romney advantage between now and mid-October, and that after Romney wins everyone will congratulate the markets for being so prescient.

The Economy.  According to the Pew Research Center, Romney leads Obama in his handling of one big issue, the economy, no matter how you phrase the question.  And the economy—for example, the creation of jobs and the revival of wage growth—is now far more important to voters than any other issue (environment, gay marriage, immigration, foreign policy, what have you) by a very large margin.  This is a big advantage for Romney.  The unemployment rate is now 8.2 percent; looking at current indicators, it may not decline at all between now and November.  No President since FDR has won an election with an unemployment rate over 7.2 percent.  (That was the rate in November of 1984, when Reagan won re-election; and unlike Obama, Reagan brought the rate down from the date of his first election.)  See The New York TimesFiveThirtyEight column for a detailed update on the link between the economy and election outcomes.

The economy is as good an argument for Romney as the futures markets are for Obama.  Still, it has potential weaknesses.  Voters have yet to buy into Romney’s economic program—or even to understand it—in any big way.  Is Romney going to cut deficits faster than Obama?  Who knows?  However he runs deficits, Romney says he wants to do it more through tax cuts than spending increases.  Is John Q. Public OK with this?  Also, keep in mind the “no President since FDR” proviso.  If the public comes to equate George W. Bush with Hoover—and Obama with FDR—well then all bets are off.  FDR won as an incumbent in 1936 with an unemployment rate of 16.9% and in 1940 with a rate of 14.6%.

I agree that if the economy worsens in the next couple of months, or if we simply learn more about how bad the economy now is (at least one eminent forecasting group thinks we’re already in a recession, it just hasn’t been called yet), the news will certainly give a further boost to Romney.  But the link between each generation’s pocketbook and vote is seldom simple or direct.  The Silent Generation has done the best economically in recent years and will never bear much of the burden of large deficits, yet the Silent are the most anti-Obama.  For the Millennials, it’s the other way around.  Liberals often complain that red-zone Americans would switch parties if they only understood their own economic self-interest.  Conservatives say the same today about Americans under age 30.  The problem is, most people don’t respond to piecemeal economic incentives.  They either do, or do not, buy into a whole vision.

Likeability.  How much do you like the candidate?  How much would you like to have a beer with him?  These are the sorts of warm-and-fuzzy questions that many political analysts believe turn the tide in an election.  In most of the critical elections I can remember, GOP candidates have had the likeability advantage: Reagan over Carter; Bush Sr. over Dukakis; Bush Jr. over Kerry.  But this election, it’s tipping the other way: The Democratic candidate in 2012 is currently much more likeable than the GOP candidate.  It hardly matters what you ask—which candidate is more “friendly,” “connecting,” “honest,” “good,” “trying,” or “engaged,”—Obama comes out ahead, typically by double digits.  Likeability could be a huge plus in an era of great anxiety when many voters will want to go with their “gut.  It certainly worked for FDR.

Speaking of whom, there actually was a time when the least likeable candidate was, routinely, the Republican.  And that was the 1930s and 1940s.  Herbert Hoover and Alf Landon were less likable than FDR, and Tom Dewey was less likeable than just about anyone, including FDR and Harry Truman.  So Democrats, yes, can be likeable.  Are we reverting to the last Fourth Turning in party likeability?  Or is there a simpler explanation?  Perhaps Mitt Romney, whom nearly everyone who knows him would call him very “likeable,” has simply not yet had the chance to get his charm on in prime time.  We’ll see.

Intangibles & Wildcards.  I give most of the intangibles at this point to Romney.  He is the challenger, and it is an old maxim (though some disagree) that challengers do better late in the campaign.  A much larger share of his supporters say they are “enthusiastic” about this election—no doubt reflecting the higher relative energy of older voters this time around.  He also remains relatively unknown, which means that millions of Americans will be taking a close look at him for the first time in the ten weeks between the GOP convention and the election.  Since much of what is known about Romney thus far is negative (thanks to the attacks from his primary opponents and to the Obama campaign’s efforts to “predefine” him), it is likely that his strengths—for example, his intelligence, wit, and dedication to his family and the community—will get plenty of play.  Romney may surprise voters during the debates by coming across smarter and warmer than most voters are expecting.

Another possible plus for Romney is the “reverse coattails effect.”  Since the GOP are odds-on favorites to retain a majority in the House and gain a majority in the Senate, Romney could be pulled along by state and local candidates.  That assumes of course that most voters prefer to vote a straight ticket and have a single-party government.  It’s often said that Americans are happy with divided government, but according to one recent study a large (and possibly rising) majority say no, they really do want one party in charge.

Any intangibles for Obama?  Confidence, maybe.  Though Obama supporters are less enthusiastic, they are more likely to say they want to cast a positive vote for their candidate (as opposed to voting against the other guy) and are a lot more confident than Romney supporters that their candidate will win.  Obama must hope that confidence doesn’t morph into complacency and that his supporters are still ready to sprint.  Many pundits also say that Obama has an advantage in the electoral college by leading in the bigger states.  That could make a difference, but only if the popular vote is extremely close.

As for wildcards—meaning sudden big surprises—these usually break for the incumbent Commander in Chief, unless voters associate them with mistakes made by the incumbent.  An attack on Iran (by Israel and/or the United States, though the most likely date now mentioned in the media is October, after the election), would likely break favorably for Obama.  Seismic financial news (like a crash triggered by an impending breakup of the Euro) may not break as well, since it may persuade many voters that the world needs better global economic leadership.

Obama and Romney.  Let me conclude with a few thoughts on the two candidates themselves—and how they are, or are not, representative of their generation.

As readers of our books and this blog know, I consider Obama (born, 1961) to be a first-cohort member of Generation X (born 1961-81).  The Gen-X dates we’ve explained and defended at length elsewhere (too many books to hyperlink!).  But what about Obama?  Does he fit the basic Xer picture?  I’ve always thought so: Son of a new-age mom; child of a broken family; growing up disoriented amid incessant travel, change, and social experimentation; coming of age agoraphobic, feeling (as he puts it) “like an outsider”; and ultimately constructing his own persona (like Gatsby), a quality I see in many successful Xers.  What’s more, Obama knows he’s not a Boomer: In his books (Dreams from My Father, The Audacity of Hope), he repeatedly mentions how he feels he came along “after” the Boomers and wants to put an end to much that Boomers have done wrong (culture wars, ideological polarization, and so on).  Back in 2008, Obama often referred to this as a contrast between an earlier “Moses” generation and his own “Joshua” generation.

Obviously, opinions differ about who Obama “really” is.  I think he is at heart a canny survivor, a masterful tactician, a pragmatist who doesn’t let emotions cloud his judgment.  He knows when to play rope-a-dope (always let the GOP make the first budget move, then counter), or when to rouse his base by inveighing against Wall Street tycoons (even while hiring them to staff his Treasury), or when to ignore his own base and make a shrewd cost-benefit call (War on Terror by Predators, anyone?).  On the Boomer cusp, Obama is certainly capable of crusading oratory—which adds to his versatility.  Many of the most memorable crisis-era leaders in American history have been, like Obama, Nomad-Prophet hybrids: FDR, Abraham Lincoln, Sam Adams.  Yet clearly Obama would need a very different and far more effective second term—and another opportunity handed to him by history—to enter these ranks.

As for Mitt Romney (born 1947), no one doubts he is a Boomer.  He’s led a committed religious life; he’s always won accolades as a driven achiever; he’s made tons of money as a blue-chip yuppie; he believes in Values and Culture and Principles; and he tends to see America’s future in heavily moralistic terms (for example, in his recent book, No Apology: Believe in America, he juxtaposes his father’s “Greatest Generation” against his own “Worst Generation”—a dark figure of speech that Obama would never use).  Will his religion be a problem?  There is lots more talk about Mormonism as a Christian heresy among older than among younger Americans, that’s for certain.  Many Millennials are impressed by the strong community ethic of Romney’s LDS Church.

One mystery about Romney, though, is the impression he gives to many of his fellow Boomers that he never shared their passionate coming-of-age experience, never broke from Mom and Dad, and never drank from the same deep well of authenticity and inner fire.  We used to call this the “Dan Quayle problem.”  Boomers have never been drawn to someone who seems to paint by the numbers.  In the GOP primaries, when running against Gingrich and Santorum, Romney consistently did worse among Boomers than among other generations.

Yet in the general election, this weakness may rebound to his advantage.  In the GOP primary, Mitt Romney consistently did better with young voters than any of the other candidates (with the occasional exception of Ron Paul).  Millennials may actually like Romney’s cool and precise 7-point memo responses.  (Romney, far more than McCain, will be able to debate Obama this fall on his own Ivy-League level.)  Silent voters, similarly, may also prefer the buttoned-down Romney over the totally unplugged Boomer radical.

Yet at some point, for all of his advantages on paper, Romney will have to show some flame, some focus, and some real killer instinct.  He will have to get ahead, stay ahead, and systematically thwart his opponent’s comebacks.  In a national election, Romney has not yet demonstrated he has that endurance and resolve.  Obama has.

62 thoughts on “2012 ELECTION – NEIL HOWE STYLE”

  1. Nice …but Information Overload.

    How many ways can you segment the pie?? Jeezus. It gets ridicules!!

    Boomers who are white.
    White boomers who are Catholics.
    White boomer Catholics who are white-collar workers.
    White boomer white-collar Catholics who live in a Blue state.
    White boomer white-collar Catholics in a Blue State who are overeducated.
    White boomer overeducated white-collar Catholics in a Blue State with a teeny tiny penis.

    Oops! Didn’t I just describe Administrator? lol

    Here’s the deal. It is said about ONE BILLION DOLLARS will be spent in these elections. That, people, is a lot of bullshit.

    The election will be determined by which people believes in the most bullshit, and is able to get their friends to believe the same bullshit, and then which of these bullshit believers actually believes their own bullshit thinking and actually goes out and votes. . That’s why it’s a tight race.

    1. I swear to God that I get two to three pieces of Mitt Romney literature per day in the mail. What a waste. It never gets opened and goes right into the garbage, where it belongs.

  2. ” Xers like the social and cultural liberalism of Democrats (whatever “works for me” is perfect), but they also like the economic conservatism of the GOP (hey, don’t even think about picking my pocket!).”

    In other words, they are LIBERTARIAN and should vote for Gary Johnson, now that Ron Paul is out of the race.

  3. I won’t beat around the bush….

    People need to read up on current Electoral College rules.

    Your vote will likely not matter for that reason alone.

    The Constitution never intended for it to. The Founders realized that most people were in need of a helmet and a bib, not the ability to directly elect the president.

    That being said, Barack Hussein Obama will win.

    Mitt is extremely likely to say something so moronic, so retarded, that even the window-licking masses who would cast a vote for either of these gutless draft-dodgers will be repulsed.

    I stake my reputation as a mild-mannered, soft-spoken feminist on it.

  4. The Constitution never intended for it to. The Founders realized that most people were in need of a helmet and a bib, not the ability to directly elect the president. -CR

    Yes, it was pretty much a coup as Casey suggests. Yet this follows the same basic instincts of neo-cons and the lies.


  5. Colma – actually, anonymous was correct. My recent research indicated that the Framers didn’t want a full on democracy, and hence they had state reps elect senators, they had the electoral college instead of a direct vote, etc. The Senate was moved to direct election when they began to see problems with state legislators electing senators.

  6. Which is what I was saying.

    State legislatures once held the prime sway…. A layer of protection from the peril of direct democracy.

    Long gone, but the winner-take-all the electoral votes is a state decision, if I’m not mistaken. Very subject to jerrymandering, really.

  7. The reason the fix was in for mitt? What is the difference? Who cares who wins. O nuty boy care is mittcare. Mitt restricts gun ownership, see one is the other. They are one with each other and the bankers are one with them as is the bernack. They are all one. The owners of you and I.

  8. My ridiculously liberal (fiscal only) father-in-law got drunk and went on a rant today about how great Obama is and that the only reason he can’t fix the country is because of the republicans in congress.


    He hasn’t kept up with politics in about 20 years, I’m not sure I’ll be able to live in the same house with this guy come election time lol

  9. I agree, Hollow Man.

    I really don’t see one piece of legislation, one EO, one directive to the secretaries that Obama made that Romney wouldn’t have as well.

    Douche Bag or a Turd Sandwich. Same ol’ same ol’.

    So it goes.

  10. As I said here before, last time I voted forever more was writing in Ron Paul’s name for prez.


    Mitt was at bilderberger

    Therefore he has/will be (s)elected

    That is all you need to know

  11. The writer you know nothing about Obama. He is the son of a communist facist propagandist. You believe the bullshit like this book “Dreams of my father Audicity and hope”. It is a CIA propagandist lie. Grow up and get into reality instead of the banker corporate propagandist machine. Watch “dreams of my real father” Joel Gilbert to see who the President really it. If you want to do real analysis there you go. Get it at info wars.com

  12. What is it going to take for the nitwits in this country to see what a disaster Obama is?

    Lets see – Muslim. Refusal to identify muslim terrorist acts (“workplace violence”). Socialist. Born in Kenya. Hid all school records. Attended school as foreign student. Forced to resign from bar to avoid disbarment for false application. Support for ACORN voter fraud. Support for Occcupy Wall Street communist activities. Trying to prevent states from asking for voter ID to allow vote fraud. Amnesty for illegal aliens. Hiding incriminating documents subpoenaed by Congress on Fast and Furious. Trying to destroy Capitalism through excessive regulations. Blocking job creation and forcing jobs overseas. Blocking energy development. Destroying coal industry. Obamacare, the sneak approach to full socialized medicine. Trying to spend the country into bankruptcy. Trying to sneak in gun control through the UN Arms Treaty. Multiple unconstitutional executive orders. Selecting which laws to enforce or ignore. Law enforcement based on race of victim or perpetrator. Disregard of the Constitution. Disregard of Congress. Multiple impeachable acts. Countless lies.

    If this person, along with Democrats in the Senate, is re-elected, it will be the end of America!

  13. Lets make one thing clear. Ron Paul is not on the race and Gary Johnson is not on the ballot. Ron Paul has won a plurality and is going to be on the ballot with Romney at the RNC this month. Lets vote for Ron Paul.

  14. The gop will not change. Romney will not change. When people get into that ballot box, they have to answer one question-What can I expect from the candidates?? And they will quickly summarize that the last 2 gop presidents were a complete Flop and the last 2 Democratic Presidents have vision and did have consideration for PEOPLE. All factors will weigh in and President Obama will be re-elected.

  15. Oh Jim the poster:

    Grab the knee. It’s jerking like a palsy victim on meth.

    Cry me a river. Nothing will change that isn’t already in the cards. You’re an ignoramous and a thick-browed neandertal.

    OWS AND TEA PARTY protested a prez visit to my town….. how about yours?

    Suck it, ya kook.

  16. Obama almost certainly will be re-elected; but anyone who thinks he is “for the people” just refuses to look at reality. How many bankers have been jailed by his administration? He golfs with Jamie Dimon. His wife wears $6500 jackets to attend the Olympics. He is an elitist parasite just like the rest of them. His policies have basically been GWB on steroids – they are both now tied for the worst presidents we ever had.

    Our electoral process is nothing more than a choice between tweedle-dee & tweedle-dum. Nobody even gets a shot at the big chair unless they have agreed to the rules from TPTB. Any thought to the contrary is just not based in any kind of reality.

    The American experiment is OVER people. Wake up and admit it, and quit this “red”/”blue” farce. The is only one party in this country; the incumbent party.

  17. Another thing the founders believed was that the Sovereign King reigned in things like elections, despite fraud, pane-licking voters or whatnot. That God would choose the next leader of a country as he foresaw his plan working out. So, it really doesn’t matter at this level. We are headed for a World governemnt.

  18. Why did Administrator get 15 thumbs down for saying he throws away Mitt Romney literature??

    What kind of place is this, anyway? A Romney love village? Maybe I need to go elsewhere.

    Shame on you, all.

    1. FBD

      Looks like a bunch of Romney douchebags roaming the interwebs. If they show themselves I’ll kick them in the balls and they’ll go scampering away from TBP like the mangy curs they are.

  19. FBD, Admin:

    Colma Rising, standing by.

    I’m in one of those “Thubs-down that, cocksuckers!” Moods.

    Simple fucking question: Name one thing that Mitt wouldn’t have signed or ordered as well.

    Sound of crickets.

  20. As a person that has lived through some of the USA’s best times, I would have to say that the present is beyond shadow of a doubt the second bleakest time in U.S. history – barring the early Depression years (1929-1932). In addition to having two terrible presidential candidates, neither of which is capable and both of which are controlled by an elitist minority (proof borne out in the majority of Obama Presidential appointments and Romney financial backing), one of them (Obama) should have already been impeached. He has violated the constitution on countless occasions, e.g., NDAA, efforts for gun control, internet control, and his lies during his 2008 campaigning that he “will bring the troops home” and his vow to defend the constitution – that he has done his best to destroy.

    Neither is trustworthy as a candidate, as Romney shows more allegiance to Israel than his own Voting Public. Moreover, aside from the terrible Presidential candidates, the Congress’ effectiveness and its integrity is the worst of all time (due to the preponderance of PAC Funds that have undermined the democratic process to the point of virtual destruction). A corrupt Congress is precisely the reason that Obama has not been impeached – even though Sheriff Arpaio’s Team showed conclusively Obama to be a willful perpetrator of fraud (birth certifcate) and forgery. Given that, Obama should be charged with felony forgery and fraud and impeached. Ron Paul should rightly be running against Romney for President – not Obama.

  21. I think that Obama is a real threat to the survival of our Constitution, our democratic government, our sovereignty, our high standard of living, and our world leadership. Everybody has an opinion, but it is probably based on false or incomplete information. Our media controls all that you see and think. We used to think that the Soviets used to control their people with propaganda, but we are the ones that are being controled like sheep. Our rights are gradually being taken away systematically, and we are just becoming lazy and appathetic. Apparently, nobody still has yet read those thousands of pages in that supposed Healthcare Law that was passed by a bunch of self-serving, careless morons that we call our Congressional Representatives. Search for information about the salient points in that mess. Congress is the other more important area where we should also clean house. Why is it that more people don’t understand the wisdom of Ron Paul and write him off as a crackpot. We need a real wake up call. This country can’t keep printing money and spending twice the amount that is coming into the Treasury. Talk about “chickens coming home to roost”; you will all be sorry in the future when you finally realize the way we have allowed our self-serving career politicians to screw us all out of our retirements and our childrens future, while they have given themselves everything they want. Stop drinking the koolaid and wise up before it truly is too late. Concerned

  22. The iron indicator of election outcomes for incumbent presidents for many decades has been whether average household incomes are rising or falling. Lately they have been falling sharply, so Obama should be charcoaled toast.

    But the political trend today is towards left-wing populism, and Obama is playing that card hard. It’s laughable, but Obama is advertising himself like crazy as the defender of the middle class against Mitt Romney and his billionaire friends. Romney will have a very hard time overcoming that perception.

    And I think many of Ron Paul’s young supporters, knowing that there is no real choice and that they are screwed by the status quo, and knowing how the Romney campaign and RNC mistreated the Ron Paul delegates, will stay home in droves, with a few writing in Ron Paul or protest voting for Gary Johnson.

    Overall, I expect Obama to win a bitter campaign, with low turnout, and a very sour aftertaste for almost everyone. And SHTF by next spring.

  23. This whole piece is a wonderful example of “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bullshit”.
    The simple facts are the whole election devolves to which side of the same coin will end up showing.
    The readership would be better served if the author would ask the question ~why~ the vote turns out the way it does instead of a superficial discussion of voting blocks based on age.
    If one is going to have a discussion on age based voting blocks a fundamental question needs to be addressed with respect to the 18 to 25 year old voter. That question being why are we allowing a demographic group to vote who do not, as a group, posses the requisite mental capacity to make rational and informed judgment on matters that affect every member of society?
    There are multiple peer-reviewed studies that document the development of the human brain. These studies have concluded that the human brain is not fully formed until about age 25. The point of full maturity occurring slightly earlier in the female and slightly later in the male. The last portions of the brain to mature are those dealing with risk assessment and long term judgment.
    Insurance companies and car rental agencies have known these facts for decades as demonstrated by actuarial tables and accident rates.
    Bottom line – why do we allow people who can’t rent a car and won’t be put in positions requiring judgment in private business to make critical decisions with respect to the public governance?

  24. Romney needs to ask the question that Reagan asked in 1980….”Are you better off than you were four years ago?” There are some talented, hard-working, maybe somewhat lucky people than can say “yes.” I think there are so many unemployed, underemployed, all of us small business people operating in a very tepid economy, and just plain folks tired of trying to swim upstream…..there’s a whole bunch of people that will answer “no way in hell” to this question.

    Do I think we can put the blame for this slow recovery at Obama’s feet? Not totally. But, he did spend his first two years concentrating on a still unpopular health care law rather than trying to jump start the economy. The trillion dollar stimulus seemed to be just thrown out there willy-nilly (i.e. Solyndra) with no real plan to funnel these dollars to areas of the economy most likely to increase the job numbers.

    The fact that Obama’s resume did not even deserve consideration of the job of president was overcome by the fact that he would be the first black president (in itself I think a good thing) and the fact that he is a brilliant candidate. Unfortunately for him, he now has to run on his own track record, which may this time overcome his talents as a candidate. As the Clinton team said in his election…”it’s the economy, stupid!” How much worse is the current economy than the one that brought down George Bush the First? Fairly or unfairly, Obama has to own this. I think either Obama has to really shine extremely bright as a campaigner, which he is capable of, or Romney, who is actually a very bright and well-spoken candidate, and now very tested, has to show himself to be a terrible candidate for Obama to win.

    Obama has outspent Romney 4 to 1 so far. Yet, the race is very close according to the polls. When Romney opens his purse strings, especially in the swing states, after the conventions, my hope is that we will see him pull ahead. Especially if he does well in the debates. I think he will do well in the debates because he has had plenty of practice in a debate forum in the primaries, and he did well. Romeny has the resume….success in both the private and public sectors. We need someone who has the background and capabilities to lead this country to better times. And we need it now.

  25. Analysis and predictions are indicators of behavior but if they were exact, the stock market would be full of millionaires.

    Unfortunately most voters cast their ballot based on mostly emotion and what their friends tell them. Few seem to take the time to delve into the facts and vette the candidates.

    Net. The team that works the hardest to get the word out and influence people will likely win. If it were based on facts, there’s no way Obama would win. Why? A GDP of 1.8%; 8.2% unemployment; wanting to tax and spend…raise the debt ceiling ever higher…largest debt in history…in aggregate; no approved budget in 3.5 years; class warfare rhetoric just about every time he opens his mouth (now that’s constructive); 68 plus czar appointments…and climbing (unelected and illegally empowered); etc.

    You would have to be a dullard to vote for policies that yield these kinds of outcomes…regardless of education, generation, party, wealth, race, etc. Dump the political correctness and look at the economic facts. Dump your party baggage and make your own decisions.

    BTW, there is a reason why the older generation call themselves conservatives vs. Republican (or democrat for that matter) and the younger generation progressives vs. Democrat. The divide is more philosophical then platform based. Both parties seem more interested in staying in office (getting re-elected for life) then making sound decisions that are in the best interest of the country. The facts are there, you just need to look for them…from more than one source.

    I don’t think our founders intended for lifers to be in office. Think about it. They obviously didn’t want a king so George W. wanted and got only two terms. Hence they didn’t want monarchs either. Term limit congress and let new ideas flow in…

    Time for a change…definitive change.

  26. While younger voters may identify with the younger candidate, they have also been suffering from his policies in a very grim environment with few bright prospects for rapid improvements. Voting in favor of one’s pocketbook will not become unfashionable anytime soon.

  27. Typical neocons. All they can do is press the red button but none of them have the brains to take the red pill.

  28. Administrator says:

    I swear to God that I get two to three pieces of Mitt Romney literature per day in the mail. What a waste. It never gets opened and goes right into the garbage, where it belongs.

    dont put it in the garbage, cut it all up to fit in the postage paid envelope, add a few thousand staples, plus whatever other junk mail you got that day, and mail it back to them.

    i enjoy the hell out of it.

  29. my first post of the night wouldnt post in 3 tries, kept telling me im posting too fast.. then this one puts a different user name on. i guess i scared sss, and he called in a fellow drone.

    edit to add – this was also posted too quickly……..

  30. Here’s the question the world wants to know. How many dicks would Romney suck in order to become president? A second question is what percentage of them would be jewish? Pretty high in my estimation.

  31. Colma asked: “Name one thing that Mitt wouldn’t have signed or ordered as well.”

    1. Amnesty for illegal aliens via executive order. Might have pushed for some kind of compromise via law, with involvement of congress and the people, but not law making via executive order.
    2. Effectively closing down coal mining through administrative process.
    3. Drop voter fraud charges against those for whom case already made.
    4. Block offshore drilling.
    5. Block requirements for ID to vote.

    In short, I see no reason to believe that, like Obama, he would have totally ignored the Constitution and law and used executive privilege, executive orders, and administrative processes to circumvent obvious intent of law, congress, and the people.

    1. BH

      Plus good old Mitt wouldn’t have been a pussy and not invaded Iran yet. Right?

      I’m sure good old Mitt would have thrown a few hundred bankers in prison for committing the largest heist in world history. Right?

      Any douchebag who thinks Mitt Romney is going to be any better than Obama is brain dead. Keep believing there is a difference between the parties. It’s exactly what your owners want you to think.

  32. Hate to break it to you, BH, but your list is specious garbage at best, outright misleading imagination at worst. Knee-jerk partisan hackery, ignorant of recent history.

    1. Amnesty for illegal aliens via executive order. Might have pushed for some kind of compromise via law, with involvement of congress and the people, but not law making via executive order.

    (An act of congress as opposed to an EO…. Wow. I feel better now. As if, like Oromney care, congress would listen to the overwhelming opposition from their constituents in attempting to pass that bill…. remember McCain’s baby under Bush…. Ends and means, grasping at straws. Don’t think for a minute that both parties don’t have a strong interest in the illegal immigration racket)

    2. Effectively closing down coal mining through administrative process.

    (Hasn’t been closed down, but new ventures have been halted and are questionable. Back to your congressional question above…. you infer that the administrative regulations imposed by congress will be done away with via a ballsy EO by Mitt? Maybe, maybe not. I strongly doubt it.)

    3. Drop voter fraud charges against those for whom case already made.

    (Bullshit. If you’re referring to the BP case, you have to ask: Will Mitt touch a race issue with a ten mile pole? FUCK NO. He is a centrist and a vote-seeker. The LAST thing he’d do is make any move that would be perceived as pushing racial tensions. You can bank on that.)

    4. Block offshore drilling.

    (Depending on which you speak of. After the BP mess, yes, he would have done so for a time. Recall the Bush terms as well…. )

    5. Block requirements for ID to vote.

    (Maybe, maybe not. This issue came up a hundred times if not twenty throughout G. W’s term. I think you have more faith in a Federal Executive’s powers to do so than facts to make inductive statements from.)

    The list is truly weak.

  33. Just admit it.

    You’re voting for a handsome white baby boomer with an ‘R’ conveniently stamped next to his name.

  34. Which brings it full circle to Obi-Wan-Neil-Howe-Bi’s article….

    And the fact that the Founders knew well that instead of thinking critically that the common person was more suited for the bib and helmet rather than the ballot. Hence a Republic, not a Direct Democracy.

    Actual picture of what passes for informed, critical-thinking voters:


  35. The article unnecessarily complicates a question that will boil down to a single issue – the health of the economy, and whom voters believe can improve it. No one with any knowledge of our current fiscal position would deny that the situation is dire. In spite of our chief executive’s insistence that things are improving economically, the current $16 trillion debt load is more than the entire annual productive output of our nation, a huge number we call Gross Domestic Product.. A debt level exceeding our GDP has only occurred once before in our history, that as a result of the costs associated with World War II. Neither party has shown significant interest in cutting spending in any meaningful way, choosing rather to focus on the revenue side of the equation and the question of who pays.
    Obama actually inherited a perfect economic scenario from a political perspective, as being elected in the midst of the greatest fiscal crisis since the Great Depression meant he could hardly make things worse. He also enjoyed (for 2 years) the control of both houses of Congress, enabling him and his party to take credit for any improvement, while easily blaming any lack of economic progress on their predecessors. The landslide Congressional victory for the GOP in the 2010 elections actually may work in Obama’s favor in 2012, as it postponed many voters’ perceived deallines on economic progress, by enabling Democrats to blame lack of progress on “obstructionist” policies of the GOP, a campaign strategy they have whole-heartedly adopted. Still, the “Hope and Change” Obama campaigned on hasn’t produced any change that has given undecided voters new hope of economic recovery.
    Romney, on the other hand, has been unable thus far, to leverage his superior experience as an executive and in business management, because the Democrats have been successful in portraying him as privileged elite, with little connection to or understanding of the working class, (and even less of the non-working class.) He’ll have great difficulty in changing this voter viewpoint, as long as the economy doesn’t completely collapse on Obama’s watch prior to the election. He needs to do very well in the debates, and must prove particularly adept at forcing Obama to run on his economic record, which is fiscally irresponsible at best, and catastrophic at worst.
    In the end, it will come down to who is more successful in convincing independent swing voters of the validity of their side of the age-old arguments for societal economic success. Will more folks be better off financially with Obama’s Robin Hood approach of taking from the rich to give to the poor? Or, can Romney convince folks that the trickle down economics that Reagan used to successfully extract us from another dire economic situation produce more jobs and financial improvement? The election hinges on these questions?

  36. Neither Obama nor Romney can repair the economy. Only the creative individual without the interference of government and the large protected corporation will be able to turn things around.

    We are everyday swamped with word fog about who will be the best president for the country and to get us back on economic prosperity. Unfortunately it is all BS.

    What has to happen and what is happening is government has to shrink and the large corporations with their monopoly consumerism stranglehold on the people has to collapse. Small business at the local and regional level has to return.

    There is a shortage of currency in many communities due to government and corporations extracting it and using it for other reasons than to support the community.

    When the corporate outlets close down due to lack of business because the people are broke then the people will have to devise other means to meet their needs. But before this happens local government has to collapse to the point that the code enforcers are no longer the problem smothering small enterprise. This is already starting to happen in many California cities.

    It seems that our economic experts have lost perspective of how wealth is distributed in a balanced economic environment where small local business in retail, manufacturing, and services circulate currency in the community that creates more jobs and services.

    What has happened is giant corporations with their outlets in retail and services have pushed out the small local businesses and taken most of the business for themselves. This has created a situation where most of the money leaves the community and goes to the corporate offices and out of the country. Then from afar off the corporate giants set policy to employ people at minimum wage in dead end jobs with little or no hope of advancement on merit. The corporate overlords look at workers as liability that costs money and are constantly finding means to eliminate their jobs at the expense of customer service.

    At the same time these corporate giants with their outlets all over the community collect sales taxes for the government providing another means to suck the people dry of currency. Cities, counties, and state government is all in on the act. Working hand in hand with their giant monopoly corporations governments collect taxes on all types of goods and services that are added on to utility bills, cellphone bills, internet bills, cable TV bills, and on and on.

    Can one see why the economy is going bust? One one see why Obama and Romney can see this and are blowing smoke up all our asses?

    The people have no choice in these two above for economic relief and job creation. They are part of the problem and have no viable solutions other than more government jobs that suck the vitality out of the economic even further. Except that Romney along with the republicans will call for more austerity on the people as a way to cut government expenses while putting more funding into the military to support the american empire.

    What we are talking about in this election of 2012 is not electing a president; but rather electing an emperor for the empire, that will rule by executive orders. We have seen this trend with Bush and Obama is continuing this. We no longer have a republic. We have an empire that is crumbling.

    With Ron Paul or someone like him we have a change to regain the republic. But the people have to want it. Wealth comes from the people that work and create; not from the corporations. The large corporations only seek the largest profit possible for their absent stakeholders at the expense of the communities they are sucking the money out of. (This is what Romney is all about.) Obama seems to be about public employee unions and supporting them. The only problem with this is unions are closed shops with limited membership. In many cases one has to know someone or are a relative to get in. Most of the people do not or cannot get into a union. These public unions live much better than the average taxpayer in the community that is forced to support them. With these unions and all the corruption in the leadership at the top of government; government has become to expensive for the people to support.

    Long live the republic

  37. Being able to walk and chew gum at the same time are not Mitt’s strengths. He’s a stumbler and with the crew behind the curtain that picks the winner, he doesn’t project strength or self confidence.
    Face the truth folks, since the day’s of the Gipper (Ray Gun) it’s been a beauty contest at best. America has been held in a state of perpetual Paranoia and War . Divide and conquer tactics with only 1 rallying point – Fighting an invisible enemy and keeping the unwise masses living in fear and ready to kill off anything that moves! It’s Classic Straussian thinking!
    Zionism and Neo-Conservatism write foreign policy and it’s geared to both Military and Economic US Strength.
    For God & Country went out the Window with Carter. As with Baby Bush, the election will be decided in advance to the “Talking Head” that projects America as the Compassionate Champion of Liberty and Justice for all. It’s the easiest “sell” to the unwise masses doing their supposed Civic Duty.
    This whole thing is about Profits and Survival. Free choice? Yeah right!

  38. Interestingly, the CIA (according to its World Fact Book Publication) lists the US unemployment rate as 17.6%. However all the political polls (and speculators) gravitate towards the 8.6-7% number. Is there a reason that the numbers are different, or is the CIA being more blunt because it does not have as much at stake in the outcome of an election as the pollsters and related enterprises do, such as the candidates themselves? I am a young conservative (19 years old) and ever since I realized how different statistical numbers can be depending on source and criteria I have always tried to get as much information from as many places and make my decisions based upon what seems to be the underlying agreements (or disagreements) between them. SInce political Unemployment rates count only those taking unemployment benefits (I wonder how many of peers actually realize this) does the CIA count ALL unemployed persons? I would love to know how the CIA calculates the unemployment number for its World Fact Book publications and compare it to the current game-political rates which essentially count well-fare recipients? Any insight would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

  39. FireHazard

    The CIA probably uses the U6 rate, which includes unemployed people who have stopped looking for work, and not the bullshit U3 rate made up during the Clinton administration and used by the BLS ever since to make unemployment stats look better than they really are.

    Admin can probably add to this. He knows this shit cold.

  40. You know what? Fuck all the generations. Know why? Because most people are complete idiots. Their generational location in history may influence how they display their stupidity, but honestly maybe there really is a need for the population to be reduced by 90% as TPTB are currently devising. No doubt that the stupid and unfit breed at many times the rate of the Übermensch. There is devolution going on, and the more I think about it, the more convinced I become that we are in desperate need of a Turning that will not only wipe away the old social and political order, but the majority of humanity as well.

  41. SAH

    Harsh judgement, “we are in desperate need of a Turning that will not only wipe away the old social and political order, but the majority of humanity as well.”

    Don’t think I want to be around if that happens. Be careful what you wish for.

  42. If Obozo wins in November, this country is fucked. If Romney wins, it is still fucked but a little slower. Perhaps it’s because Romney will crank out old Enigma CD’s whilst he dirt roads our ass whereas Obama been playing Slipknot.

  43. the thing that makes me nervous is that the republicans do nothing about the obvious fact that obama is not a natural born american so does that mean that they are all in it together?

  44. Disecting the voter demographics is great fodder for the news and pollsers, however for all of us who live very different lives, polls mean nothing. Obama has been honest about offering change, just we did not believe how radical it would be, and we now see how a perable presentation can sway weak minds. The only question to ask yourself when voting, Am I really looking a the facts and seeing the truth or am I seeing what I want to see. Don’t let your beer googles see something that you wll hate and regret when the booze wears off. America needs everyone to vote as Americans, Clint Eastwood did have a point that was correct. Did you ever get canned for screwing your job up or not doing it? At 13 yrs old or 50 yrs. old no work no pay. Got it…….

  45. We do need another candidate like Rubio, age wise he is good, but not to vote out ignorance of the candidate – Americans need to fess up to the real issues, not for an image, a good face or wonderful and well liked personality even though it really does count for votes. Lets vote like an American only find a middle ground that we can live with since it will be a super difficult time for all of us AMERICANS pulling together. We need to try something besides popularity. We need to see integrity along with some deep trust in a new President, he is out there and we need to find him and support him in these very difficult times that may lie ahead. But most of us do not know what we are up against when we vote for BIG GOVERNMENT!! Some of the FREE RIDES may have to come to an end no matter who the next President is because the middle class only has so much money. There is always a limit and when its gone its gone.

  46. The real issue is there are 23,000,000 American people out of work. Other than government jobs which do nothing to make American more competitive in the world, on Obama’s watch only 300,000 net new private sector jobs have been created since his innaugeration. If he and his administration knew what they were doing they would have done it already – and they have not. They have failed and appear clueless. His speeches are the same this year as 2008. Enough about hope – performance would have been better.

    At the same time, during Obama’s watch the national debt -17 trillion – has risen more than the cumulative debt of all prior presidents.

    The Fed has just voted another round of stimulus – which will print billions of dollars more. All commodities will again rise in price. Remember – the inflation rate may be low on paper – they have removed food and energy from the measurement.

    We are on our way to becoming Spain and Greece. With the majority of people that are working or otherwise receive a government dole – supported by fewer and fewer private sector, tax paying workers every year.

    If Obama knew how to fix it he would have – as I am sure he remembered there is an election this Fall.

    Whether you like Romney or not, want to have a beer with him or not, or are concerned about him being a Mormon or more conservative on some matters than you might be. Bottom line is – he is the only one with the experience at turning around business, a State (Massachuesetts) and he is a fiscal conservative and much more a pragmatic and social liberal that he is branded.

    All the other matters – immigration, Gay marriage, health care, etc are meaningless if we become Greece. And with Obamacare, while no one knows the true cost of insuring 30,000,000 more people, the non-dreamers feel that alone could bankrupt the country if the economy and jobs situation remains static or moving in a very narrow band.

    A rising economic tide lifts all ships, and conversely if small and large business continues to have no faith in the democratic leaders, and hedge their bets – the economy will tread water, improve slightly or potentially worsen significantly. And the poor and minorities and the middle and lower middle class will find their standard of living suffering even more significantly. We are now worse off than we were in 2003. And potetially could drop back to 1987 without real (not artificial) dramtic economic improvement and cost control.

    I don’t really warm up to Romney – but I think he is head and shoulders over the other guy who has accomplished nothing material to improve the econmoy and jobs – while making the national debt the worst in our history as a nation and where our countries financial rating has been downgraded twice.

    Just remember we need to vote for the team who has experience rebuilding business – and defacto the economy. Not enthused amatuers who have accomplished next to nothing in 4 years.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.