Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

3) Angry white guys may conclude that 4 more years of Obama would provide a better opportunity for a "true conservative" to win in 2016 then 4 years of Romney;

I'm a white woman who is sick of liberal tripe and the direction the country is headed: economically and socially. I KNOW that 4 more years of Obama puts a conservative in office in 2016 that will make liberals' heads spin. I'm all for that (and I used to call myself an independent before the cluster that is the Obama administration).

You're the troll who likes to impersonate disaffected liberals. Try again.

Uh, no. You clearly have no idea how to read whatever coded numbers you're getting over there. I would never impersonate anyone as pathetic as a liberal.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, Jeff, I just interpret this as Romney wanting to tell everyone what they want to hear. I don't think he is actually serious about a one-term presidency.

Why are you sorry? I also interpret this as Romney wanting to tell everyone what they want to hear. He thinks they want to hear that he would be a one term president. The question is why he thinks they want to hear that. I made one suggestion. What is yours? Obviously "serious" and Romney don't belong in the same sentence

Anonymous wrote:The most laughable thing of all the laughable things Romney has said is the notion that his positions are based on principle and what is popular "doesn't come into it".

He started off as Zelig and I think by now he's Mr. Cellophane.

Romney's principles are about as constant as the tide. If he's firmly behind something, wait twelve hours and check again.

Who cares. This is minutia.

All I care about is who will turn this country around economically in the next 4 years, and I have my answer.

I am actually a social liberal. But this country is on the highway to hell financially, so I gotta go with Romney/Ryan this election.

The most laughable thing of all the laughable things Romney has said is the notion that his positions are based on principle and what is popular "doesn't come into it".

He started off as Zelig and I think by now he's Mr. Cellophane.

Sorry, Jeff, I just interpret this as Romney wanting to tell everyone what they want to hear. I don't think he is actually serious about a one-term presidency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether we're talking about Romney or Obama, you get FOUR years. If you're lucky, you MAY get 8.

I'm tired of Obama and his supporters crying that he couldn't possibly fix Bush's errors in only 4. You run for that position, you know you get 4 years. If you think you can only make a difference with 8, don't run.

And he RAN for that position; he didn't INHERIT it. I'm tired of that too. He wanted that job. Romeny says he wants that job now. I wouldn't want to hear bellyaching from him or anyone else who elects to run for the job of POTUS.

but, but, but, Bush screwed it up in his first three years. In his fourth year, you turned around and voting to give him an additional four years to take the country to a near depression. heck, it took fdr 11years to bring us out of the great depression, yet you think a person who has been obstructed since before he took the oath of office should bring the country from the brink of depression, out of a recession in four.

1. Reagan blamed Carter in his 3rd State of the Union Address. I don't think Republicans would say "don't run".
2. There is no guarantee that economic problems are solvable in a 4 year time frame. Economics does not have to bow to our impatience.

Anonymous wrote:Whether we're talking about Romney or Obama, you get FOUR years. If you're lucky, you MAY get 8.

I'm tired of Obama and his supporters crying that he couldn't possibly fix Bush's errors in only 4. You run for that position, you know you get 4 years. If you think you can only make a difference with 8, don't run.

And he RAN for that position; he didn't INHERIT it. I'm tired of that too. He wanted that job. Romeny says he wants that job now. I wouldn't want to hear bellyaching from him or anyone else who elects to run for the job of POTUS.

but, but, but, Bush screwed it up in his first three years. In his fourth year, you turned around and voting to give him an additional four years to take the country to a near depression. heck, it took fdr 11years to bring us out of the great depression, yet you think a person who has been obstructed since before he took the oath of office should bring the country from the brink of depression, out of a recession in four.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

3) Angry white guys may conclude that 4 more years of Obama would provide a better opportunity for a "true conservative" to win in 2016 then 4 years of Romney;

I'm a white woman who is sick of liberal tripe and the direction the country is headed: economically and socially. I KNOW that 4 more years of Obama puts a conservative in office in 2016 that will make liberals' heads spin. I'm all for that (and I used to call myself an independent before the cluster that is the Obama administration).

You're the troll who likes to impersonate disaffected liberals. Try again.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

3) Angry white guys may conclude that 4 more years of Obama would provide a better opportunity for a "true conservative" to win in 2016 then 4 years of Romney;

I'm a white woman who is sick of liberal tripe and the direction the country is headed: economically and socially. I KNOW that 4 more years of Obama puts a conservative in office in 2016 that will make liberals' heads spin. I'm all for that (and I used to call myself an independent before the cluster that is the Obama administration).

So, will you vote for Obama in order to get a better conservative in 2016?

jsteele wrote:

3) Angry white guys may conclude that 4 more years of Obama would provide a better opportunity for a "true conservative" to win in 2016 then 4 years of Romney;

I'm a white woman who is sick of liberal tripe and the direction the country is headed: economically and socially. I KNOW that 4 more years of Obama puts a conservative in office in 2016 that will make liberals' heads spin. I'm all for that (and I used to call myself an independent before the cluster that is the Obama administration).

Whether we're talking about Romney or Obama, you get FOUR years. If you're lucky, you MAY get 8.

I'm tired of Obama and his supporters crying that he couldn't possibly fix Bush's errors in only 4. You run for that position, you know you get 4 years. If you think you can only make a difference with 8, don't run.

And he RAN for that position; he didn't INHERIT it. I'm tired of that too. He wanted that job. Romeny says he wants that job now. I wouldn't want to hear bellyaching from him or anyone else who elects to run for the job of POTUS.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure who these "angry white guys" are that you refer to, but I doubt any conservative who wants someone even more conservative than Romney would ever even consider for a moment voting for Obama, just like no liberal on planet earth would consider voting for Romney.

I do agree that there is some group of swing voters out there for grabs, but from my just talking to locals around here it seems to be mostly white female voters who voted Republican in the past but then went Obama in 2008. And from what I'm hearing, they will still vote for Obama again.

The issue with the base is not that they would vote for Obama. It is that they would not be sufficiently motivated to get out to the polls. Any number of things can come up that keeps a person from making it to the polls. But if 5% of your core constituency doesn't bother voting because they are not quite as enthusiastic/ willing to stand in the rain or drag the kids to the polling station, then you take a real hit on election day.

I'm not sure who these "angry white guys" are that you refer to, but I doubt any conservative who wants someone even more conservative than Romney would ever even consider for a moment voting for Obama, just like no liberal on planet earth would consider voting for Romney.

I do agree that there is some group of swing voters out there for grabs, but from my just talking to locals around here it seems to be mostly white female voters who voted Republican in the past but then went Obama in 2008. And from what I'm hearing, they will still vote for Obama again.

Yesterday on Meet the Press, this conversation took place:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48959273/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/#.UE5z2qTyYz5

GREGORY: You know you could be a very unpopular president if you make tough choices that you say you'll make. If it came to it, if the only way to achieve a deal on the debt, on this fiscal cliff, was to endanger yourself politically to the point that you were a one term president, would you be satisfied with that?

MR. ROMNEY: David, I could not care less about my political prospects. I want to become president of the United States to get this country on the right track again. America is at a critical crossroads. We have to strengthen the foundation of our economy, of our values, of our principles so we have a military that's so strong we can defend freedom for ourselves and for others. We've got to put Americans back to work. And politics, and-- and whether I am highly favored, not highly favored, just doesn't enter into the equation.

GREGORY: Would you be-- would you be satisfied with one term if you could get a deal on averting a fiscal cliff?

MR. ROMNEY: Let me tell you, if I can get this country on track again I'd be satisfied with anything.

Here is how I interpret this:

1) Romney realizes that -- as Senator Graham recently put it -- there aren't enough "angry white guys" to get him elected. Therefore, he needs to move to the center;

2) Moving to the center will cost him "angry white guy" support;

3) Angry white guys may conclude that 4 more years of Obama would provide a better opportunity for a "true conservative" to win in 2016 then 4 years of Romney;

4) Romney is now responding to that idea by suggesting that he would only be around for 4 years.

My conclusion is that Romney is trying to put a bug in the ears of angry white guys suggesting that they can vote for him and still have the chance to vote for a "true conservative" in 2016. But, something tells me that angry white guys are not stupid enough to fall for this.