As someone who has spent time in Israel, yes, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.  Asserting otherwise is fantasy-land, and isn't based on any sort of actual facts.

Whether it's right that it is the case is another matter, but arguing about it is really just another piece of this retardedly elaborate Kabuki dance going on between the Israeli government and Palestinian Authority.

Current Govs/Senators?  Jan Brewer

Ooh yeah.

Also (and to a lesser degree), Scott Walker by then.

Yeah, Brewer would be bad.  Not on paper, but once she opens her mouth.

I don't know what it is about Arizona but they're starting to say even crazier/stupider sht than Texans say.

Romney.  I think he's just not-lame enough to squeak out a victory over the Scumbag Prez^TM.  Obama is too loose-cannon to win the comfort vote, IMO.

Rick Scott
Rick Santorum
Rick Perry

You get the idea.

Remember back in 2008 when John McCain and the other Republicans accused Obama of being chosen by pundits and party elders, not the voters?

I actually don't.  I thought Hillary was the establishment pick and Obama was riding a youth wave.

Don't much know what to think about delegate math.  Whatever, I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

He would have been the nominee.  This is fact.  Never forget.

No, but he'd be on the short list for VP.

Senator or Representative is the right pick, but they're a little short on rock stars with Romney synergy.

Governors are the fall-back.  Christie could pull it off as a #2 / pit bull.  Daniels as a "key initiatives" guy (translation: budget).

Here's four, in today's order.

Portman
Christie
Ryan
Daniels

Will not be Bob McDonnell in 100,000,000 years, unless Romney wants to lose women by 20 points.

Romney has no coherent foreign policy that I am aware of.  That is why he is falling back on platitudes.

I'm not even going there , J.J.

You are to the point of complaining about home ownership.  I'm not sure if even the former Viscount Stansgate would agree with that!

I complain about home ownership, too.  As a libertarian, I feel the government has done far too much to ensure that people who do not have assets and have limited income are indebted on a major purchase like a house.

This thread is deeply embarrassing on so many levels.

Embarassing+1

Can I say both?

That much is pretty obvious - so yes, you can, Captain Obvious.  :-)

FYI, Santorum is outpolling Romney among women.

Obama understands that the key to a strong economy is a prosperous middle class (though Republicans are always going to obstruct on that objective); Romney, on the other hand, is totally and utterly in thrall to the failed supply-side fantasies of the past 30 years that will only further 'burden' the US with debt, more debt and even more debt, just as it did during the 'Eighties' and 'Noughties'

Obama has failed the middle class.  He doesn't understand that the engine for prosperity is business.  He sees only government as the provider of prosperity. 

All the 'Crash of 2008' tells me is that there is a need for more proactive government to 1) regulate the excesses of the market and 2) create a more fair society and if President Obama has a vision for government its that of it facilitating 'gradle-to-grave' opportunity

You'd be hard pushed selling me supply-side given that 1) the US economy, during the presidency of George W Bush, yielded the fewest number of jobs this side of Herbert Hoover and 2) US median incomes declined. Hardly surprising the US economy hit the crappers to the extent that it did given the extent to which a nation's wealth became increasingly concentrated in the 1%

Obama is just as much of a supply-sider as the worst Republicans.  He just believes in permanent government charity for the "lessers".

I generally vote Republican but I'm quite sick of their apologism for tax cutting for the rich.  I much prefer the people who are focused on reducing spending and structural cost.

Just for us foreigners, can someone explain what Mitt Romney meant in his speech after winning the latest primaries when he said something like 'America will not apologize abroad' as its sounds a bit like 'we're going to do what we like and tough luck if you don't like it'. Not exactly what you might call diplomatic!

You are interpreting it correctly.  American politics will never include global consensus as an aspect of its stated foreign policy.

EDIT: Just to be clear, the same is true of both Republican and Democratic politicians.  International consensus = subverting American foreign policy.  For what it's worth, as a practical matter, most nations around the world, including in Europe, do the same thing, they're just less vocal/confrontational about it.

Obama understands that the key to a strong economy is a prosperous middle class (though Republicans are always going to obstruct on that objective); Romney, on the other hand, is totally and utterly in thrall to the failed supply-side fantasies of the past 30 years that will only further 'burden' the US with debt, more debt and even more debt, just as it did during the 'Eighties' and 'Noughties'

Obama has failed the middle class.  He doesn't understand that the engine for prosperity is business.  He sees only government as the provider of prosperity. 

I agree with this - I think Obama's backstory is considerably less mainstream than even Romney's high-flying wealth.  The community organizer / law professor thing isn't nearly as meat and potatoes as being Joe Lunchbox's boss.

I think of my father (high school educated machinist) and I can much more easily seem him having an adult beverage with Romney than with Obama.

I'll say here, now:

It won't be McDonnell or Rubio.  Rubio is Palin and McDonnell is the vagina guy.

Pretty tastesless joke. The guy is a mass murderer.

Of course the guy is a mass murderer.  That's the entire joke.

Obama.  By all accounts, it should be Romney.  But it isn't.

I actually think Tom Coburn would be a rather brilliant pick as well.  I think Ron Paul could tolerate endorsing a ticket with Coburn on it.

Obama is the problem.  Make it Beebe/Biden and we'll talk.

It simply doesn't matter if you BELIEVE the swing states will be competetive in November, a CURRENT electoral map should be based on CURRENT polls and UPDATED accordingly.

Force them to change.  You can do it, man.

An electoral projection based on current polling is, at this point, meaningless.  IMO, it would be pro-Obama propaganda.  Incumbent vs. primary polls always favor the incumbent until the primary is settled, and then traditional polling patterns resolve.  Then you'll start to see the real/meaningful movement.

GOP VP nomination
Rubio 32.0
Christie 9.6
McDonnell 8.5
Martinez 6.8
Ryan 6.1
Portman 4.3
Daniels 3.9
Thune 3.6
Santorum 3.5
Jindal 2.6

Rubio, Christie, Ryan, Portman, Santorum all way too high (even if Rubio is frontrunner).  McDonnell, Martinez seem too low.

You really think Martinez has a better than 7% chance of being chosen?

Yes but also I'm not that familiar with her so I'm just assuming she carries herself better than Palin.  Romney will pick his running mate probably just over 2 months before Election Day.  Who knows how the next 4+ months go but it seems to me there's a better than even chance that Romney will, like McCain 2008, realize he's likely headed for a loss without a game change, and similarly roll the dice with a nakedly political pick.  And I think her chances, like McDonnell's, are dragged down by unrealistically high prices for alternatives.  No way will Romney pick Ryan.  Christie also seems very inflated, no pun intended.  Santorum, only if you consider a 3.5 chance (or slightly more) chance of a brokered convention.  0% Romney runs with him otherwise.

Martinez would carry herself better than Palin, but I don't think she wants in.  I can see her doing a second term as governor, wrapping up in 2018 and running in 2020 for the prez spot.  I think 7% is too high but token woman / token Hispanic keeps her above the de minimis level.

FWIW, I haven't heard her speak but she's apparently a very impressive speaker.

Rubio, Christie, and McDonnell are too high.  Daniels and Jindal are probably too low.  DeMint and Fortuno should be in the discussion.

I have the same map and I am not Republican leaning. Cook Political Report has a similar map. We all think that the current polls are more or less irrelevant and that the election will be close.

I agree with this.