http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...es_upper_midwest_coming_into_play_115176.html Lost amid the daily uproar over embattled Senate candidate Todd Akin's refusal to drop his Missouri bid is a growing effort by the GOP to spotlight a tightening presidential race in the Upper Midwest. The Republican National Committee has pounced on new polling data in Michigan and Wisconsin that show President Obama losing ground to Mitt Romney after the latter announced Paul Ryan as his running mate. And in what may -- or may not -- have been a coincidence, Vice President Joe Biden made a pair of campaign stops in Minnesota on Tuesday and will make several more in Michigan today. ... Still, American Conservative Union Executive Director Gregg Keller scoffed: “I think the fact that Joe Biden has been dispatched to Minnesota, which was the only state to go against Reagan in 1984, tells you everything you need to know about where the Obama campaign really thinks this campaign is right now.” Most Republicans wouldn’t suggest that Minnesota is winnable for Romney this fall, but Biden’s visit there this week meant a day not spent in, say, Ohio or other much tighter battlegrounds. What may be more significant are Biden’s stops Wednesday in Michigan, where the race is tightening even more. There is the potential for a spillover effect throughout the region if one state becomes more competitive, and Republicans are eager to exploit that possibility. Republican National Committee spokesman Tim Miller blasted a pair of memos to the press on Tuesday, and asserted at the top of one that Obama now has “Upper Midwest Problems” due to a pair of polls showing Romney ahead narrowly in Michigan and Wisconsin. In the Wolverine State, the RCP polling average shows Obama leading, 48.4 percent to 43 percent -- a sizable advantage but one that has declined slightly. Perhaps more significant is Obama’s diminished lead in Wisconsin, Paul Ryan’s home state. According to the RCP average, the president is now ahead by just 48.8 percent to 46.2 percent.
So they are encouraged that Romney will get trounced a bit less severely? I guess that's the "glass is 43% full" view.
...why do you think the GOP is trying to destroy Ron Paul's campaign and keep him from being on the ticket and getting his due speech at the RNC anyway?!
RCP averages the most recent polls together. THE most recent poll has Romney ahead. There's a trend; since picking Ryan, Romney's had a bump in these states. Strategically, this is forcing the Obama campaign to spend resources in those states that it normally wouldn't have.
I have an honest question for the lefties in here How, after his first 4 years, can any of you want another 4 years of President Obama? I am not looking for smart ass answers, but serious answers on what he has done for you to want another 4 years of him?
I posted this in another thread, in response to a similar question, about a month ago: Sure, I'll play along. Saved the economy, saved GM, got healthcare reform passed, got bin Laden, got us out of Iraq, winding down Afghanistan, DADT/gay marriage... he's been pretty successful at stuff I think is important. barfo
Considering the only other choice we're given is the worst fate ever to run it's not something that requires much deliberation, but Obama has pretty much done most of what he promised and attempted to do the rest despite little to no cooperation from either party. Here's the biggest reason to reject the pair of lying hypocrites the GOP has fielded: WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.” Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true. But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s. Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has. Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics: • In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget. • In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. • In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion. • In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August. • Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook. Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%. There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear. http://articles.marketwatch.com/201...2270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor
Rising at the slowest pace is a bullshit measure. He grew spending all at once by 20% and govt. spending has remained at that 20% higher figure for his only term. To boot, he's proposed increased spending UN his budget proposals, only to see both houses of congress vote them down unanimously. As a % of GDP, govt. spending is at near historically high levels, and he's trying to sucker people into paying more taxes to cover even more spending. Not to mention ObamaCare, which is one of the biggest spending in history of the planet.
