<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Did Romney Win A Binder Full of Women Voters?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2012/10/19/did-romney-win-a-binder-full-of-women-voters/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2012/10/19/did-romney-win-a-binder-full-of-women-voters/</link>
	<description>A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:45:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sheldon Sloan</title>
		<link>http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2012/10/19/did-romney-win-a-binder-full-of-women-voters/comment-page-1/#comment-31281</link>
		<dc:creator>Sheldon Sloan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:21:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=13710#comment-31281</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Actually, Matt, I believe some of the things that happened in debate 2 are resonating far beyond what the Obama folks would prefer.

The &quot;binder&quot; remark was selected by Obama folks for attack, trying to turn it into a pejorative, but it has backfired and created an opportunity for people like his former Lt. Governor to come forward and elaborate, all positive statements about his open regard for the ability of women.

But by far the biggest event was the now infamous Libya exchange, with the submissive &quot;proceed&quot; remark followed by a weak &quot;read the ssloanlaw@aol.com&quot; parsing, followed by the improper and incorrect Candy Crowley intervention has played over and over all week long and will continue into Monday night&#039;s final debate.  I suspect it sets the table for Romney to demand that Obama come clean with the full explanation for the cover up for the families of the dead Americans and for all Americans.

He will likely ask about the &quot;not optimal&quot; remark as well.

We all know that in politics, when you are explaining, you are losing.

Recall that months ago I predicted a Romney landslide here.  I&#039;m doubling down now.

By the way, 20 million Evangelistic Christians did not vote in 2008.  They are mainly in Ohio, Pennsylvania and the rust belt.  Rev. Billy Graham&#039;s ad is part of Ralph Reed&#039;s plan to get them out to the polls.  I suggest that explains Romney&#039;s surge in those states and some guy named Smith pulling within 2 points of Senator Casey.  Remember the Governors and the legislatures in the key states of Ohio and Pennsylvania are all Republicans.  None of this bodes well for Obama or his coat tails.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, Matt, I believe some of the things that happened in debate 2 are resonating far beyond what the Obama folks would prefer.</p>
<p>The &#8220;binder&#8221; remark was selected by Obama folks for attack, trying to turn it into a pejorative, but it has backfired and created an opportunity for people like his former Lt. Governor to come forward and elaborate, all positive statements about his open regard for the ability of women.</p>
<p>But by far the biggest event was the now infamous Libya exchange, with the submissive &#8220;proceed&#8221; remark followed by a weak &#8220;read the <a href="mailto:ssloanlaw@aol.com">ssloanlaw@aol.com</a>&#8221; parsing, followed by the improper and incorrect Candy Crowley intervention has played over and over all week long and will continue into Monday night&#8217;s final debate.  I suspect it sets the table for Romney to demand that Obama come clean with the full explanation for the cover up for the families of the dead Americans and for all Americans.</p>
<p>He will likely ask about the &#8220;not optimal&#8221; remark as well.</p>
<p>We all know that in politics, when you are explaining, you are losing.</p>
<p>Recall that months ago I predicted a Romney landslide here.  I&#8217;m doubling down now.</p>
<p>By the way, 20 million Evangelistic Christians did not vote in 2008.  They are mainly in Ohio, Pennsylvania and the rust belt.  Rev. Billy Graham&#8217;s ad is part of Ralph Reed&#8217;s plan to get them out to the polls.  I suggest that explains Romney&#8217;s surge in those states and some guy named Smith pulling within 2 points of Senator Casey.  Remember the Governors and the legislatures in the key states of Ohio and Pennsylvania are all Republicans.  None of this bodes well for Obama or his coat tails.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
