Getty Images
It's probably a lazy habit, which I admit to falling into at times, but it's common to try to find historical parallels for a presidential election. If you're a Democrat, you're hoping 2012 is like 1996 or 1984 -- an incumbent president bounces back after a rough midterm cycle to easily win a second term. If you're a Republican, you're looking at 1992 or 1980 -- an incumbent president, facing widespread public discontent, gets replaced after one term.
But there's a strong case to be made that 2012 looks quite a bit like 2004 -- an incumbent president with a tepid approval rating, facing an electorate open to change and a motivated opposition, takes on a wealthy Massachusetts challenger his party settled on, somewhat grudgingly, after an awkward primary process.
And with that in mind, just for kicks, take a moment to consider some of the polling that came out around eight years ago at this time.
In late September, shortly before the first debate, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found George W. Bush leading John Kerry by eight points. A week later, shortly after their initial debate, the same pollster found the president's lead had quickly evaporated and the two were tied.
And a week after that, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted exactly eight years ago today and tomorrow, showed Kerry inching past the incumbent president, taking a narrow lead among likely voters, 49% to 48%.
To be sure, it was just one pollster of many, but it was a major national survey showing a nine-point swing to the challenger over the course of about two weeks.
It wasn't long, of course, before the poll swung back, and Bush went on to win a narrow victory. But I covered that race pretty closely, and I don't remember Republicans looking for the nearest window to jump out of eight years ago this week, which only helps reinforce my larger suspicion that the left and right tend to deal with discouraging news in different ways.
To clarify, this is not to say (or predict) that President Obama will bounce back because Bush did. Time will tell. But it does suggest Democrats tearing their hair out -- and Republicans loosening the champagne cork -- may be overreacting.
It's deeply unsatisfying for those who want to know -- and want to know now -- who's going to win the election, but the calendar doesn't care what we want.
It's possible Romney changed the fundamental nature of the race with his debate performance last week, and will carry that momentum into an election victory.
And it's possible Romney's bump will soon fade, the president will be more impressive in the upcoming debates, and Obama will retake the lead, just as Bush did eight years ago.
And it's possible the two will go back and forth, trading leads, as unforeseen events pop up.
The larger point -- and I do have one (hat tip) -- is that there's too much time left on the clock. As partisans who overreacted to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted exactly eight years ago can tell you, feeling elated or dejected by today's results is probably a mistake.
Leave a Comment:
The unprecedented element here is racism. Obama faces the added burden of being a Black president (portrayed as radical muslim kenyan terrorist socialist) with fragile support from fickle independents.
I don't think that there's historical precedent on how Americans disappointed in their Black presidents will rally back to him over the small span of time before the election.
Maybe our prayers will help. Maybe David Corn has an October surprise he's holding back to add evidence to Romney's questionable character and allegiance to his puppetmasters.
There is enough evidence in that "secret tape" to dog Romney from now until Nov. 6. For example, advising a protege' to sell his corporation before he has to pay pensions. Democrats are being too nice about this election, or they are just not paying attention because they have to work too hard. Like, three jobs just to make up for the one they lost, and then still coming up short. No braces for little Johnny this year or the next..Sorry Johnny, you are going to have to get a newspaper delivery job. Oh yeah, that doesn't happen anymore either.
The fact that people don't acknowledge this is the thing that really infuriates me.
IF, Romney is sworn in on 1-20-2013, he will be inheriting an economy that is MUCH better that it was on 1-20-2009.
And the President that presided over that improvement, doesn't deserve to be reelected???
Has that EVER happened before?
Not to downplay the racism angle - I agree it's very real - but we also have unprecedented levels of dishonesty and tacit acceptance of it by mainstream media who have a fiscal stake in the race staying close (thanks in part to the treasure trove created by Citizens United).
Sure, we've had dishonesty in elections before, but this year is something else.
ah Now Obama lost the debate because of racism, reason number 2,768.....
"Racism" was how Obama was elected in the first place - as stated by Ferarro, no other person with the same credentials would have been nominated, let alone elected president. Now, we have seen what happens when you put an Affirmative Action president in charge.
Racism? How can you be a doctor? That is the most ignorant short sided comment I have read in a while.
Obama's failures have absolutely nothing to do with the color of his skin. They are caused by his lack of leadership and inexperience. How ironic that comment about racism by being a racist!!!!
Poor things, I thought even Prez Zeros lapdog MSNBC had to realize what a loser they had backed
OMG! I couldn't figure out where these comments were coming from and then I realized Drudge actually linked Madcow!!! Hilarious. Racism, fascist rich people laughing at the the sweat if the middle class. The sad fact is the Prez showed his real personal style at the first debate, he thought he could walk through it. But what you don't realize yet is that Mitt didn't just win the debate, he destroyed Obama's entire campaign strategy. That is all Obama has to run on - its called "his record".
The next debates will be even worse because this election people are tuned in to the issues. There is no distracting people with birth control pills or gay marriage this year, its jobs, housing, deficit, lower income and a totally failed foreign policy.
how does it feel to have the media NOT walking behind you to make sure no one picks on you anymore. Tough right? That's how we on the right have felt for the last 4 years. Thank goodness the long nightmare is over!
see ya at the finish line
You are right, racism is going to play a big part in this election. There is no way racist blacks would ever vote for a successful, personable white guy who could actually do something to help them and the economy. Not when they have a "brother" in the house.
Obama didn't lose the debate because of racism. He lost it because too many people are stupid enough to believe the onslaught of lies pouring from Romney's mouth, and Obama didn't call him out on all those lies. Too many people don't bother to pay enough attention to the campaigns, don't bother to do any fact checking themselves (or just don't know how to), or don't try to think for themselves - they either do what their parents and grandparents did and/or blindly believe Fox news because that's what happens to be on where they work or spend other time.
KJ, onslaught of lies? That's a large accusation for not providing any facts. Why is it that you're so eager to embrace this talking point, but yet so timid in laying out facts to back up this claim? This rhetoric is a display of exacerbation on behalf of frustrated democrats. If Mitt Romney were truly a liar, MSNBC and Obama campaign ads would be filling the airwaves with opposing soundbites and proof of his lies. Instead, we're being subjected to the most braod, abstract and redundant stump speeches in American political history. The american people have not seen any proof of the accusations made by democrats.
I'm neither elated or dejected by the polls of the last few days. I am however, mad as hell that the "news" isn't really doing their jobs of "informing the citizenry" of the real issues, the candidates lies and by not being more forceful when questioning the "Man of Steel and Wanderboy"! I'm angry that the polls are even this close - because that says that too many people aren't paying attention at all!
I get the racism, but this whole "the polls are close", shouldn't even happen; how do you compare a "diamond" with a "cracked, 2-bit piece of zirconium"?
Nosfaratu and his vampire son?
I tend to disagree with Steve on this. It's okay to feel frustrated by President Obama's debate performance. He had a job to do that night, and he didn't do it. But it's done, he clearly realizes that he made a mistake, he learned his lesson, and as Steve suggests, we just have to get back to work. We can still win, and it will only happen if we do our part.
In fact, right now is a good time to chip in a couple of bucks to the cause. No amount is too small. It adds up quickly: http://www.barackobama.com
first time i've ever donated to a campaign was today. $15 from a first time (and only time donor) won't do much, but i'm hoping that there are others like me who combined might make as much noise as the Koch bros/Rove...
Tzararan,
There is a story of a mighty knight riding along the road and he came upon a sparrow lying on his back with his feet straight up in the air. "What are you doing?" the knight asked. "I heard the sky is going to fall," the sparrow replied. "And do you think that a little sparrow like you can stop the sky from falling?" the knight laughed. "One does what one can," the sparrow replied.
Every little bit helps!
Great points! Keep the faith and get out the vote. Obama/Biden 2012
delirious
There are 2 presidential debates and the VP debate. If Obama can decisively win those debates and Biden wins his debate, then Obama will come up in the polls. I would not bet the farm that Romney is going to continue to stay up in the polls. Also, he is bound to make another gaffe or another videotape may surface. There will be another unemployment report before the election. And Obama can put out a lot of ads in the swing states covering the major groups of supporters: women, Latinos, middle class workers, the auto industry workers and students. I would expect to see a lot of negative ads by both parties blitz the swing states. The variables are too many to see a trend.
But Obama should be able to deliver a major ass kicking of epic proportions in the foreign policy debate. He has the upper hand and Romney lacks any substantial knowledge about foreign policy. This means Romney has to rely on his debate prep and scripts for the debate. And that is where Romney could fall down. His general statements about foreign policy are mainly buzz words and not anything that indicates a plan.
wait, wait, OBAMA will be able to kick ass in the foreign policy debate? even as the Middle East burns? even as he deliberately lied to cover up the real reason for the assassination of his Libya Ambassador?Even as Iran is within months of a nuclear weapon that can destroy Israel and hit the east Cost of this country? Even as reports all indicate that Al Quida and the Taliban are going strong after Obama bragged at the convention that he had decimated them? and even as this so called Arab Spring has turned into a Muslim Brotherhood stomp on Western Civilization? Oh, I get it you were just joking, got it....
All the bridges must be closed...lots of trolls out tonight.
Apologies for feeding the trolls. (Jatazus)
It is comments like this that wake me up to the facts that ignorance and racism continue to exist.
I thought that all adults had open minds and valued critical thinking. Instead I continue to see people that shout lies and hate at the top of their lungs. And worse they do it all in the name of God and supposedly country.
I do not expect everybody to think as I do. But I expect open and truthfull discussion. I know it is easier to repeat the crap that the media has feed you. But then ask yourself, what have you become?
Thank you to those on this blog that speak with respect and honesty.
And those that choose not to think and respect others. Why do you choose to spread such hate?
Captvic, Your comment is nothing but an ad hominem. You act like you want truthful and respectful comments, but you do nothing but attack the previous poster. Exactly whaty about Jatazus' comments did you disagree with and why? Even Libya was saying the Benghazi slayings were a concerted terrorist attack, while Obama was still talking about a Youtube video trailer and condemning people who "slander Islam". The "Arab Spring" has definitely turned into a very bad for America event, with the Islamic brotherhood or Al Qaeda taking over a big swath of the middle east. So what exactly was he saying that was so closed minded and lacking in critical thinking? Also, how did your response refute him or reflect open-mindedness and critical thinking?
I did not attack him, I attacked his post because he does not have any facts to back up his post.
He called Obama a liar, based on what. Where is his proof that Iran has rockets that can hit the east coast? The people in the middle east had elections and selected their leaders. How is it our business who their leaders are?
From what I could see, the White House did not come out immediately and say it was a terrorist attack. They were waiting for the facts, as POTUS your words mean a lot. Look at how Romney had to back track on his words that night because they were shooting from the hip. Perfect example of why you do not jump to conclusions with out facts.
It is closed minded to think that every nation has to be exactly like us. I will assume you mean Musslim Brotherhood because they are the ones that have come to power in Egypt after the Arab Spring. Obama has been cautious in dealing with Egypt. Where are the facts that show Al Qaeda is growing?
He posted no sources so I was not going to try to refute where he gets his information. I know this guy was just trolling. I was using his post because I was expressing my disappointment in critical thought and how it effects us. I am disappointed in these trolls because they blindly listen without looking for the truth. I do not agree with everything Obama does. And I do not believe everything that the Corporate Owned Media publishes. ( COM Not my term, sorry I cannot remember which poster used it.) And if this person had information that I could evaluate, I may have looked at it. But he was just posting to spread what he/she believes and does not try to provide me with information to help me understand his point of view. I also believe that this is how some of our elections are being run and I find it very frustrating. I will listen to well reasoned argument and sometimes change my mind. But I am sick of people shouting lies at the top of their lungs and thinking because they are yelling, that it is the truth.
All this meta-ness... worrying about the worrying... fussing about the fussing... Gah.
Just go frigging vote, and bring the whole family with you.
Perhaps you're right, but the day after he "lost the debate" to Kerry, I don't recall George W. Bush going out on the campaign trail 14 hours later and demonstrating the what-for needed to have "won" the night before. If Obama had done in front of 60 million people what he clearly demonstrated the next morning to a crowd of a few thousand that he could have done, we wouldn't be having this discussion with everyone crossing their fingers, toes and eyes as they whistle past the graveyard.
That is one thing that I would never be able to accept and that would be Romney and Ryan in the White House. When all they do is constantly lie and the actual things they would do would be for the rich only as everybody else would have to suffer and pay the price for their power craving, corruption, greed, being hypocrites, arrogance, and deceiving. If you think people dislike these corrupt Republicans, extremists of hatred, and extreme rich people now, wait until they get into the White House, if they succeed. This would be a total nightmare, when you know they are going to pull that austerity crap like in Europe. And you see what that is that can be too easily happen here in America. All because of these people who only think about themselves and nobody else as they stuff their pockets with cash.
If you can't accept, Mexico is due south
We need better trolls.
Jatazus will think he is living in Mexico if Mitt the twit gets elected.
You cannot accept it? So what will you do if it happens? Honestly curious.
Deb, your argument is broad and subjective, and loaded with emotionally-charged statements. But if you want to talk about the facts, and the fiscal corruption that occurs behind closed doors in Washington, we can look at the Stimulus package passed by the democrats early in President Obama's term of office. hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to private businesses and investments supported by Obama's largest campaign contributors. Clean energy, which campaigned for and backed the president, has received over a billion dollars from the president's stimulus, and a very large portion of it has been squandered. The subsidy per kilowatt hour received by the oil industry is approximately 70 cents/kilowatt hour. For clean energy (inlcuding wind and solar), it is $764/kilowatt hour. That is over 1000 times more taxpayer resources then oil companies receive. If you want to talk about corruption, and fraudulently wasting taxpayer money, let's be fair and discuss the democrats' folleys.
And just out of curiosity, what is wrong with austerity measures? I understand no one likes tigthening the belt on any kind of budget, but it's a choice of that or the inevitable downfall of our economy. If you honestly think we as a nation can survive without austerity measures then you truly don't understand how the economy works, or the immeasurable danger that our current deficit poses. We're one bad day on the market away from another complete fiscal meltdown, and there are many factors making that bad day more and more likely. The sooner we implement austerity measures, the greater our chances of puling through the current crisis. That issue alone could convince me to vote for Mitt Romney. You can blame Bush for the 6 trillion dollars accrued under Obama, but the simple fact is that as president, Barack Obama has presided over more than 4.7 trillion dollars in budget deficits, meaning that 4.7 trillion dollars became his direct responsibility when he failed to do anything about it, as he promised he would during his first campaign.
What else would you do, except civil protest for the crap they pulled on this election to rig it. Nothing has been fair about this election, when Republicans actively look to remove people's rights even to the point of voting.
Remember, they shredded a lot of democratic registrations.
Keep Calm and Carry On, GObama 2012.
I'm not tearing my hair out. I sent some more money to Obama and various downticket Dems. I manned phone banks and put out signs. I share a lot of stuff on FB, including quite a few pieces from MSNBC and Maddow. There are states where the Dems need help right now, states where poll watchers need to be trained, states where information about, say, voter-ID laws needs to be disseminated. Some old folks will need rides to the polling places. There is work to be done. If you care, you can help.
You do Donni, you would look rather silly bald. Keep sending that money though, maybe Obama can pay for debate lessons
Obama's debate lessons won't carry the soul cost of Romney's incessant lying, Jatazus.
No one worries about Mitt, do they? He pays the church his tithes to buy a spot in heaven, then squanders his soul on the campaign trail while his followers just laugh and egg him on. "Come on, Mitt, give those libs hell"
The biggest life saving favor any of us could do is see that Romney's lies don't get him what he wants. Or are the people who will vote for Mitt in themselves proof there really is no god?
Coffee, it takes a big man to put his faith and daily life in the public eye, but it takes a bigger man to sit behind his computer and mock and judge that man's relationship to his God.
It seems that since the debate there has been this growing consensus among democrats that Mitt Romney is a liar. While I hear that line many many times, and I've seen it throughout this message board, I'm yet to see any validating proof of these lies. What specifically did he lie about? Spare me the talking points, humor me with the facts. What did he lie about and where is your proof?
On the contrary, President Obama's lies are in his very words. Look at the long line of promises he made during his previous campaign, and look at his unwillingness to deliver on those promises. The deficit reduction comment, the promise for government transparency, the lack of accepting responsibility. These are all things President Obama has lacked since he campaigned as being morally superior and above the mud of Washington. Your hero has fallen in the mud with the rest, but now refuses to admit his hands are dirty.
So, there is a large margin of error in most polls. That means, by definition, that repeat polls can be expected to vary. Now, I wonder about women, however. PEW says that women no longer favor Obama. Are women's memories that short?? How has the species continued to survive if this is the case?
Women survive because they are smart...They recognize that finding a job and providing for their families are far superior to getting their birth control pills paid for. This whole women's issue has been a pure figment of the Obama campaigns imagination, and a deceitful imagination at that.
Did you seriously think that Sara Puke was going to play a role in this campaign? You must have a very low opinion of women ,and if you are one, you are probably not one who would need birth control in the first place, yuk
Pat Robertson speaks for God, Ann Coulter speaks for blacks, you speak for women.
Perhaps it would show a greater intelligence on your part, if you shut up and listened, while they speak for themselves. No one needs you to interpret.
Jatz, if women can't get birth control, there won't be enough jobs they can work to care for all those resulting kids. Also, you're a pig.
Cowgirl, your comment exudes ignorance. No one is saying women can't get birth control, the debate is that taxpayers don't want to pay for the fellacious activity that occurs behind closed doors. This promise Obama makes to pay for birth control is an indication of the audacity of the neo-democratic party: A right to tax payer-funded safe sex. If you want to have sex, buy your own rubbers or pills. Or keep your legs closed. But don't blame republicans for your unwanted pregnancies because of your lack of self control.
I respect women a great deal. Their role in 21st century business and politics is truly inspiring, especially considering the hardships and adversity the gender has endured. But the voicing of ignorant, poorly thought out opinions such as your own only harms your gender.
Birth control pills from Planned Parenthood is $15 a month. Let's use that figure since I have been told that the $9 Wal Mart figure is not accurate. Is $15 a month really too much for someone to be expected to pay for birth control?
Besides, if you aren't in an exclusive relationship, birth control should be condoms, and I have yet to meet the man that is not willing to pay for the condom to get laid.
Southerner01, my wife and I have insurance but have been buying birth control at Walmart for years because it is indeed $9 which is even less expensive than using our insurance.
Southerner, my wife and I have insurance but have been buying birth control at Walmart for $9 for years now because it is less expensive than the insurance subsidized birth control.
Rachel
Thank you for your blog. Have to admit that this election is all so ever stressful. its disheartening to read about what is transpiring in Ohio. Total disbelieve that it is legal, when the ulterior motive is so clear to everyone.
was it legal last week? lol
No. The obvious analogy here is 1980 where you had a failed presidency up against an individual who was dismissed as "just an actor". Then you had a debate that turned the polls upside down (Reagan was losing up to that point) & Reagan, as we all know won in a landslide.
History seldom repeats, but often rhymes.
how ironic -- Obama channeling Bush.
And perhaps if Romney is elected he can pay it forward and blame Obama
I usually tape your show and watch it the next day while I'm working. I was very disappointed that you continually said that Romney won the debate. Then you say how Romney is ahead in the polls since the debate. I believe it's because of you guys, the media. How can you say that a man who lied his way through the debate was a winner? I raised my child to believe that cheaters never win. Then you guy go on television and call a cheater a winner!!! Very disappointed. It seems to me that the President didn't lose but was shocked at the continuing lies Romney was telling in the debate. I also think that he thought you would have his back the next day by telling the public what a liar Romney was but instead you anointed him a winner!!! Shame on you and the media, Rachel!!!
I am curious, did you watch the same debate everyone else did, or was it Hugo Chavez vs his opponent? weird....and let me get this straight, you are blaming the media for not backing OBAMA? Are you serious? cmon, is this Candid Camera? it's a joke right?
It's not the job of the media to BACK a candidate, it's their job to provide objective, factual information. Which, for once in a blue moon, MSNBC actually did. Comparing their demeanor on stage, their ability to defend their beliefs, and their knowledge of the topics covered, Mitt Romney clearly outperformed President Obama. Obama appeared uncomfortable, weak, and unable to stand next to Romney, in that he consistently looked at the floor and actually made side comments to himself while Mitt Romney spoke, much as Al Gore did in 2000.
By the way, what exactly did Mitt Romney lie about? Spare me the talking points, humor me with the facts.
My wife, who is completely apolitical, said Romney won the debate hands down. That's when I knew it was a blowout. Even Chris Matthews couldn't find a win for Obama in that performance. Every single focus group of undecided voters ALL said Obama lost by a huge margin. It's one thing to be loyal to your candidate. It is another entirely to deny reality.
Racism?
Sure there may be some out there but the data shows whatever there is has been more than offset by winds blowing the other way. Obama got more white voters in 2008 than any democrat in years. He INCREASED the percentage of whites voting for a democrat. If that is evidence of racism, I am not sure that some of you know the meaning of the word.
poor Steve, you will say anything to deny that your hero is on the way out. I seriously wouldn't even compare him to the Bush debates in 2004. Those numbers were no where near as lopsided and was largely based on partisan polls. This time, Obama sucked so bad, we have even had bi partisan support from you lefty whack jobs, albeit the excuses are coming in excuse the pun "fast and furious"...I believe that the country was in such a state of shock witnessing FINALLY that Obama is an empty suit, and at the same time realized Romney is not some despicable fool. Not to mention that when you come right down to it, John Kerry makes Mitt Romney appear like a jovial good natured guy
I can't believe what a bunch of out of touch, moronic posts I am reading here. Its racism? Then how was Obama ever elected in the first place. The media is not telling the truth? The media has been protecting Obama for 5 plus years. Is the economy better than in 2008? Perhaps, but it depends on who you ask. Unemployment is the same but the average middle class houshold income has dropped almost $ 4,000.00. I have seen our President wage a war on manufacturing, on coal, on energy independence, and on anything that remotely resembles capitalism. If he can't get Congress to pass his vision then he just does it by executlive order.
Could it be that AMericans are frustrated by the lack of jobs, the lack of growth, the lack of honsety in a president that can't even call the murder of our diplomats as a terrorist act? By your very measure every campaign promise Obama made in 2008 is now a "lie", yet you continue to foulishly follow this incompetent and shallow president right over the financial cliff. Oh thats right I forgot its all racism. Laughable
Steve, you better take a close look at those 2004 polls, the favorable and the unfavorable, and the swing state discrepancies among other differences. ON August 26, 2004, the RCP poll averages showed Bush jumping back in the lead after being behind a point or two. He never relinquished it again. Today, Obama in the RCP averages is LOSING by 0.7
Quit whining b!tches. We've got work to do.
you go TDUB, at least you aren't conceding, your peers seems to whine and quit like babies. Obama will get close again, but any more articles about him winning reelection easily are gone forever. :) Those authors like this guy above are clowns now
The only clowns are those who have to "believe" that Romney is a better choice, since he's offered no proof of same. You are the same 47% as anyone here, but for some reason, you feel Mitt's words don't apply to you. That is really being a clown.
Hey Coffee, are we getting spammed by stupid tonight?
Coffee, I can honestly say that as a member of the 47%, I agree with the positions put forth by Mitt Romney. I pay income tax, yes, but the illegitimacy and complexity of our current tax code actually kicked back more money then I paid in, for, as far as I could figure, no good reason. I'm currently going to school to better myself, to get a better paying job, which will place me in a higher tax bracket. I dont WANT to pay more taxes necessarily, but I want to be in a position and a career where I DO pay more taxes, because that implies a higher level of success in my career. And let us not forget, he was speaking on the grounds of campaign strategy, in that, it makes more sense for him to focus resources on the 53% that do pay taxes, as his message of fiscal self-responsibility rings louder with those individuals. It's no different than President Obama disregarding the evangelical vote, because he's smart enough to understand that it would be a waste of resources to pursue that group. But context doesn't seem to matter here, Democrats just like to think that they have an incriminating video of Mitt Romney.
The "evidence" that your side keeps using to claim Romney isn't going to be better is his "lack of detail" regarding his future budgets. Allow me to point out that Obama has yet to actually pass a budget, and the ones he has proposed have been shot down with ZERO votes in favor in the Democrat controlled senate. The "most transparent president ever, who will put all deliberations on CSpan and put all bills online 5 days before the vote has done neither and is the least transparent president ever. Even Nixon has nothing on him.
Two words: YOU WISH !
Benen is straining to find similiarities to 2004 and Kerry. The wealthy Massachusetts thing is the only thing Romney and Kerry have in common. Kerry's wealth came from marriage and Romney is a self-made success. The economy was much better in 2004 under Bush than it is now under Obama. Benen is really grasping with this one.
Romney is a self-made success? Born rich. Bicycled around France for 2 years. Gutted a bunch of companies so they closed down. Knowingly and approvingly sent jobs to sweat shops in other countries. The self he has made is shallow, greedy, empty, and without conscience.
thanks cowgirl, I agree. Bush broke the texas rangers, lost his share of an oil company and then there was the cocaine and alcohol thing; oh yeah that's right he found jesus; what will mitt find, some fool named smith from ny state. His ability to do any good for this country or desire to see outside of his narrow minded but focused handlers is nul. What is it that folks really think that Romney can do with the same old bu@!$%#???
Cowgirl, you attempt to lay out facts then discredit your own argument with unbased, subjective emotional attacks. Mitt Romney pursued two master-level degrees, raised 5 children, and started his own business. He was born into a rich family, yes, but the fact that you think that automatically discredits his self-made success is biased to say the least. While at Bain Capital, he turned several businesses around (ever heard of Burger King?). Yes he liquidated businesses, but let's not forget that they were failing businesses. He liquidated them while their tangible assets were still worth something, and in doing so he was able to provide a pension to the employees, rather than letting the previous management run those businesses into the ground and leaving the employees out in the cold. In capitalism a lot of businesses fail, and the flaw in your argument is that you're trying to blame that on Mitt Romney.