RNC

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
I don't think Clint was a disaster.

He brought some life to the crowd and in the end he is still Clint Eastwood who just plain "cool" in the minds of millions across several generations. Even in this speech where it was kind of weird, he is still one cool dude.
 
I used to like him in his Sugarfoot TV Western show. I can still sing the theme song. Then around 1971 he started playing a policeman who angrily kills young anti-Vietnam radicals and snarls with a curled lip when he burns them up with a missile. Nothing to dislike there.
 
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 44% of the vote. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

As expected, Romney is enjoying a modest bounce from the past week's Republican National Convention. He trailed the president by two when the convention began and is up by three today. See daily tracking history. He also has gained ground in the swing state tracking results updated daily for subscribers at 10:00 a.m. Eastern.

It will take a few more days to fully measure the bounce. This update is based on nightly interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, roughly two-thirds of the interviews were conducted before Romney’s speech to the convention Thursday night. Next week is Obama’s convention which should produce its own bounce.
 
Outside of Clintons huge bump, have the conventions made much of a difference in the last 20+ years?

hm, 20 years ago WAS Clintons bump, so 32 years?
 
Denny Crane said:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 44% of the vote. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

As expected, Romney is enjoying a modest bounce from the past week's Republican National Convention. He trailed the president by two when the convention began and is up by three today. See daily tracking history. He also has gained ground in the swing state tracking results updated daily for subscribers at 10:00 a.m. Eastern.
Click to expand...

fiverthirtyeight.com said:
The Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. received mediocre television ratings — and the polling data so far suggests that it may produce only a modest bounce in the polls for Mitt Romney.

The most favorable number for Mr. Romney is from the Rasmussen Reports tracking poll.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, Denny, on once again cherry-picking the best number for Romney.

barfo
 
^^^ That's the only poll I could find so far.
 
Paul Ryan's Lie-A-Day strategy has struck again. In a nationally telecast radio interview, the #1 Republican Numbers Wonk ("We haven't run the numbers yet" on the budget he advocates) lied that he used to run marathons in the plural (he has run one in his life) and told a giant whopper about the time, cutting it by over an hour. He was caught only after dodging Runners World magazine's questions, since he knew he was lying.

http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/08/31/paul-ryan-says-hes-run-sub-300-marathon/
 
As a former numbers wonk myself, I have to admit that this guy is up to holding Cheney's VP job of lying us into wars.
 
jlprk said:
Paul Ryan's Lie-A-Day strategy has struck again. In a nationally telecast radio interview, the #1 Republican Numbers Wonk ("We haven't run the numbers yet" on the budget he advocates) lied that he used to run marathons in the plural (he has run one in his life) and told a giant whopper about the time, cutting it by over an hour. He was caught only after dodging Runners World magazine's questions, since he knew he was lying.

http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/08/31/paul-ryan-says-hes-run-sub-300-marathon/
Click to expand...

I think him "lying" about the marathon is really not worth getting upset about, or even bringing up. It's a papag type move.

ooh no, he lied about a marathon! the guy obviously can't be trusted.
 
Denny Crane said:
Typical is 5%.
Click to expand...

I meant how many times have the guy who was "ahead" before conventions lost after the conventions. I'd guess not very frequently.
 
julius said:
I think him "lying" about the marathon is really not worth getting upset about, or even bringing up. It's a papag type move.

ooh no, he lied about a marathon! the guy obviously can't be trusted.
Click to expand...

His whole claim to fame is his budget which would kill milions of Americans. He's the Republican with the green eyeshades, the Big Bookkeeper. If he lies about numbers, that cuts to the essence of his fraudulent talent.

This is important.
 
julius said:
I think him "lying" about the marathon is really not worth getting upset about, or even bringing up. It's a papag type move.

ooh no, he lied about a marathon! the guy obviously can't be trusted.
Click to expand...

Well, it is a pretty blatant lie, if an unimportant one. I kind of doubt the passage of time transforms 4 hours, 1 minute into two hour and fifty-something. If he'd said 3 hours, 1 minute, I could believe he just got mixed up.

A spokesman confirmed late Friday that the Republican vice presidential candidate has run one marathon. That was the 1990 Grandma’s Marathon in Duluth, Minnesota, where Ryan, then 20, is listed as having finished in 4 hours, 1 minute, and 25 seconds.

Ryan had said in a radio interview last week that his personal best was "Under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something."
Click to expand...

barfo
 
And don't EVER compare me to PapaG again. Even PapaG isn't LOW enough to call me a PapaG.
 
jlprk said:
And don't EVER compare me to PapaG again. Even PapaG isn't LOW enough to call me a PapaG.
Click to expand...

I will continually compare you to him until you put another one of my quotes in your signature file, you tomato can!
 
yeah, but what does he gain from lying about it?

I've said things about my past (or an event) that I was CONVINCED I was correct about but it turned out I wasn't. Does that mean I'm a habitual liar or a bad person or a bad VP candidate (well, in that case I would be a bad one)?

No, it just means that 20 some years ago, he ran a marathon and probably didn't want to admit he was over 4 hours and picked a time that sounded reasonable. But not expecting someone to correct him, he picked a time that sounded good.

If he was a better liar, which you need to be to be president, he would've picked like 3:15, that sounds plausible.
 
A small portion of the many comments at the bottom of the Runners World article that I cited.
------------------
really dumb and shady. I just looked up all my half times and sure enough, I have them recorded by the second. I too may not have been able to recall them in an interview, but I WOULD NEVER HAVE LIED ABOUT THE TIME. why didn't he just simply say, 'I have run one marathon but I can't remember the time b/c it was 20 years ago."???

Running a sub-3 marathon is admired by many. If Ryan had indeed run a sub-3, RW would have certainly requested an interview and ALL runners would have read the article (regardless of party affiliation). Sarah Palin is not a politician I respect, but as a RUNNER, I'm impressed with her perseverance. The same WOULD have applied to Ryan. I can assure you that anyone that has run a marathon, can recall their PRs from 5k - Marathon to within seconds. Ryan's inaccurate statement suggests 1 of 2 things...he either has poor memory or he lacks character. Neither are qualities I'm looking for in a candidate.

There is a saying that you can learn how someone does business by playing golf with them. Would you do business with someone that lies or cheats on the course. I wouldn't.

So what if his marathon time is exaggerated? Well, if it's part of a pattern of playing loose with the facts, then that becomes an issue of character for the one considered the intellectual center of the Republican Party.

I know politicians are dishonest. I expect them to lie, embellish, and conceal the truth to their benefit. And I accept that. But lying about your PR... that is the lowest and most disgraceful act known to mankind equaled only to cheating at golf. Even if he single handedly creates ten million jobs, reverses global warming, and provides free healthcare to every living human being, he will always be "the guy who fudged his marathon PR".

FUN GAME FOR MARATHON RUNNERS!
WHAT'S YOUR "PAUL RYAN MARATHON TIME?
"Paul ran a 4:01, but said he ran "2:50 something".
Now you try it! Take your PR (mine's a 3:45). Knock off 1 hour and 10 minutes, and you'll have your PAUL RYAN MARATHON TIME!!
Mine is 2:35! WHOA!!!!! AWESOME!!!
What about the rest of you? What's your Paul Ryan Marathon time???

There is a difference between fudging a little, political posturing, puffing, etc and just plain lying. Many of us "round down, " embellish a little (I plead guilty!), and even aggrandize a bit....BUT, this is bad. He said marathons, as in plural, and then cut the time by over an hour on his ONLY marathon. I believe it is a symptom of a pathological problem. This is bad stuff, and dangerous politically. Of course, my wife thinks I am overreacting to this.....if you can't be honest about sports, what can you be honest about?

A sub 3 hour marathon is quite impressive. Oh, and I placed third in the Olympics back in 2004......or was it third place in my age division at my local 10k?

I honestly can say that I know no runner who would make such a bold misstatement of a racing time. Its kind of creepy actually.

Any runner knows the difference betwwen a 4 hr marathon and a sub-three. It would be like you remembering a 21 minute 5k as a 15 minute 5k.
 
The only thing worse than running from your problems is running too slowly from your problems.
 
jlprk said:
The only thing worse than running from your problems is running too slowly from your problems.
Click to expand...

as long as you're faster than the truth, you're ok.
 
Ouch!

A new Gallup poll shows that 38% of national adults rated Mitt Romney’s convention speech as either excellent or good -- that's the lowest percentage since Gallup began tracking this question in 1996.

The other past convention speeches:
58% said Barack Obama’s ’08 speech was excellent or good
52% said the same of John Kerry’s ’04 speech
52% for Bob Dole’s ’96 speech
51% for Al Gore’s ’00 speech
51% for George W. Bush’s ’00 speech
49% for Bush’s ’04 speech
47% for John McCain’s 08 speech

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...romneys-convention-speech-gets-low-marks?lite
 
Obama was way outside the 5-point range because everyone was so sick of the worst president since at least the 19th century.

Republicans now say, "Where is your hope and change for reversing the destruction we wrought upon the U.S.? Obama failed to do so. Therefore, it logically follows that you should put us back into office."
 
The survey notes that Romney joins 1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry as the only recent presidential nominees who did not benefit from a post-convention bump.

(and Kerry was running against W).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MickZagger
Politics Trump going after unions
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
stampedehero
stampedehero
magnifier661
Politics GOP candidates excludes RNC in negotiations with networks
Replies
2
Views
436
jlprk
jlprk
Minstrel
Funny Targeted CPAC ad on Grindr
Replies
21
Views
3K
riverman
riverman
SlyPokerDog
Politics Michael Cohen resigns from RNC committee post, take a shot at Trump out the door
Replies
6
Views
230
riverman
riverman
Further
Guns at the RNC convention?
2 3
Replies
60
Views
5K
MARIS61
MARIS61

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top