Lets see.

I'm upper middle class ( 120k+/year, mmm more like 150k including wife). I don't need a tax break ( I would take it if it came but I woudn't bitch much if my taxes were raised  either). My tax rate is more than double what Mitt pays and the thing is I don't want it lowered, I want Mitt's rate raised :P

I'm pro choice, against death penalty.

I'm better off than 4 years ago ( mortgage is paid, it wasn't then, retirement savings are growing nicely, we replaced our 2 cars, wife works, she didn't back then ) so based on what Mitt is saying I should vote Obama ;)

I have about zero trust in a republican canditate that says he's going to cut taxes on the rich, balance the budget and at the same time not touch the defense budget. You do the maths, that's about impossible ( which is why each time he's asked about details he doesn't give any)...

Oh and I believe in global warming ( although this is about the worse way to say it, there's not belief or faith here, the facts are there, you can deny everything you want, it won't change the facts, denying it is like saying 2 + 2 isn't 4) and if we don't do something now , sometime in this century our children will pay the price for it...

I find totally stupid and irresponsible to hit on the Chinese so much and blame them for everything, especially as a republican canditate. Either you believe free markets are everything or you believe there needs to be some controls, but you can't have it both ways... Although it shouldn't surprise me that much, it's always been a strategy to hit on a foreigh power to try to unite the country behind you...

I appreciate your thoughts, Ail.

In regard to taxes, he has stated that "removing loopholes" will generate more revenue. I agree with you, that is incredibly vague, but bears some credence. If you remove deductions (loopholes), you are essentially increasing taxes. It is cleverly-worded to avoid stating that he will raise taxes.

We're complaining about China because we cannot compete with their essential slave-labor. That's really to what it boils down. Need to incentivize manufacturing in the US if we want to promote its growth here.

I absolutely understand your and other Americans' distrust of Romney. I cannot state that I disagree. I just view it from the perspective of one proven, failed presidency over another untested candidate whom happens to have a background in venture capitalism and job creation. From there, my choice is clear.

Sidenote: Global warming has evidence, but the evidence is from such a brief period of time in the history of the Earth that it is pretty nescient to consider it proven, much less equate it to "2+2 = 4."

I think the jury is still very much out on whether Romney created jobs during his stint in venture capitalism.

Especially seeing how many of the companies that Bain bought while he was in charge are now bankrupt or facing tough problems ( Stapple). What would be interesting is how much the jobs he supposedly created actually pay...

Romney as a republican champions free market and as a rule in free markets company will always try to produce their products at the lowest cost, if it's not China it will be India or the Philipines. And if Romney puts in place policies to fight that, that will in the end gives advantage to companies based in countries that do not face the same policies. ( like European, Japanese or Asiatics companies..). In the end you have to know that big corporate will never let Romney change anything, so it's just an empty promise trying to unite the americans against a "bad" country...

As for your failed presidency comment, based on my situation, it wasn't one. Things are better now that they were 4 years ago... A lot better in my case..( Go ask the GM and Chrysler employees).

So you're saying he's making campaign on cutting taxes while he will actually increase them and then you can actually trust anything the guy says ?

Eh, hard to say.

The reason people are saying this is because most polls are modeled after the 2008 election in which there was HUGE democratic turnout.

If you were to model your base after the 2010 elections, Romney would likely be winning in quite a few polls. (Though not all of them.)

2012... who can say what voter turnout looks like.

This is another thing where republicans have a legitamite beef but Fox News and Newt Gingrich blow shit way out of proportion and claim intentional conspiracy so nobody takes it seriously.

It's this way essentially because pollsters don't want to just make up what they think voting turnout will be.

Anyone who thinks there is NO issue just isn't actually paying attention.

I think we might all laugh at America if they are stupid enough to vote for such an out of touch moron.

He was an embarrassment in 2008 and he remains so now.

Romney is leading in EVERY poll....... in Texas.

Your personal situation is unique. When one considers the nation as a whole, it is quite clear that Obama's presidency has been a complete failure. Disputing that would be a tough endeavor.

Romney's job creation has been cited as tens of thousands. This is not disputable. This is fact. You cite one company out of hundreds in which Romney invested and then blame him for their failure due to the economic downturn? Wow. Newsflash, he hasn't been with Bain since 1999.

Romney said he would de-regulate businesses. Businesses WANT that, to increase profit and create more employment opportunities. Manufacturing can be done elsewhere, but retail is done here. There can be good with the negative.

I challenge you to dispute these facts from Obama's "success":

-$16 trillion in debt

-2x rate of soldiers dying at war in comparison to Bush years. (Not to mention attacks on our embassies)

-3 releases of quantitative easement

-8% unemployment as a whole, 16% for blacks (It was 9% for blacks in 2008)

-100 million on welfare

Proof is in the pudding. Time to wake up.

What... was Science mentioned in the OP or am I missing something?

Someone asks this: Without mentioning Obama, explain why you support Mitt Romney.  Few people can do this.  In this regard, it is 2004 all over again, where the reason to vote for the party out of power is because you dislike the encumbent.

As it is now, it is shaping up to be Obama vs the Bush administration again.  Anyone care to explain how Mitt Romney does NOT support the same policies GW Bush had?  And with that choice, I end up going with Obama.  Romney hasn't provided reason to vote for him.  I also lost my job in 2004 and again in 2007, so I have personal reasons for not supporting GW Bush or his policies redone.