Jump to content

Weird...obama Has Huge Surge In The Polls (For Now) According To Gallup.


Recommended Posts

Rasmussen has a long and impressive track record. Even Nate Silver has called it the most accurate in the past.

But let's just forget the polls for a minute and use a little common sense.

THINGS ARE F*CKING HORRIBLE! How could an Incumbent be a shoe in to win 2 months prior to the election?

It just defies common sense.

I'll just point out that people were saying that Obama's policies had failed when he was only 8 days in office...

The Internet has been a double edged sword. We think that everything can be solved in a few minutes when in reality it takes maybe a few more than 3 years to fix problem that have been more than 10 years in the making.

I remember asking someone for regulations that need to be be removed and all I saw was EPA. I wondered how those regulations affect small businesses. So I ask again... Which regulations do we take away that will instantly get us going?

Oh and Romney told me he will create 350k jobs in NC.... I have no idea where those magic jobs are coming from...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Rasmussen has a long and impressive track record. Even Nate Silver has called it the most accurate in the past.

But let's just forget the polls for a minute and use a little common sense.

THINGS ARE F*CKING HORRIBLE! How could an Incumbent be a shoe in to win 2 months prior to the election?

It just defies common sense.

Thats exactly right and now this debecle in the Middle east showcases the obama administrations lack of judgement and clarity abroad, as well. No. The mass's will not go to the polls Nov 7th and vote this man in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rasmussen has a long and impressive track record. Even Nate Silver has called it the most accurate in the past.

But let's just forget the polls for a minute and use a little common sense.

THINGS ARE F*CKING HORRIBLE! How could an Incumbent be a shoe in to win 2 months prior to the election?

It just defies common sense.

Before we forget about the polls, Silver is the guy who gives Rasmussen a 1.9 percent pro Republican house effect. That's what I'm basing my assessment on . .

Now, trying to forget about the polls . . .

. . . . still trying . . . .

. . . mmmmmgggrrrrhhhhh . . . . trying . ......trying . . .

. . . . trying REALLY hard . . . . .

DANG! CAN'T!!!!!! Because you're right! Based on various economic indicators, historically, this race is Romney's to lose. But there is something to be said for the candidate himself/themselves, as a CANDIDATE. Things have been the way they are for the entire election cycle and Romney has NOT MOVED THE NEEDLE! (See, that's why I can't forget about the polls.) He has had chance after chance and he has essentially bungled every one.

Obama does not have much of a lead, but, based on . . . .well, the polls . . . he has enough of a lead to win this thing unless Romney or events change the proverbial game. Romney has proven that he can't. In fact, thus far Romney has proven quite adept at NOT changing the game when game changing events are presented to him.

Does that make sense? I'm trying to say this as a prognosticator, not as a partisan. This isn't about policy, its about the person (and changing demographics, but that's another really long storty.)

Edited by holymoses
Link to post
Share on other sites

This election will be abt the economy and it sux. This latest calamity in the ME is another example of a President in way over his head. Polls are so often wrong and with the MEDIA cheerleading Obama at every stage, even democrats KNOW this is not real. Obama is done and the Polls on Nov 8th will be aghast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This election will be abt the economy and it sux. This latest calamity in the ME is another example of a President in way over his head. Polls are so often wrong and with the MEDIA cheerleading Obama at every stage, even democrats KNOW this is not real. Obama is done and the Polls on Nov 8th will be aghast.

You're having a Truthiness moment, good for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AS if the Obama administrations Domestic policy's were not ruinous enough. Now, we have foreign news services doing what the America Media wont do. TELL THE TRUTH.

The conservative Die Welt writes:

"US President Barack Obama's Middle East policy is in ruins. Like no president before him, he tried to win over the Arab world. After some initial hesitation, he came out clearly on the side of the democratic revolutions. … In this context, he must accept the fact that he has snubbed old close allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Egyptian military. And now parts of the freed societies are turning against the country which helped bring them into being. Anti-Americanism in the Arab world has even increased to levels greater than in the Bush era. It's a bitter outcome for Obama."

"Obama was naive to believe that one only needed to adopt a new tone and show more respect in order to dispel deep-seated reservations about the free world. In practice, the policies of the Obama administration in the region were not as naive as they may have seemed at times, and the Americans have always been much more involved in the Middle East than the passive Europeans. But Washington has provided the image of a distracted superpower in the process of decline to the societies there. This image of weakness is being exploited by Salafists and al-Qaida, who are active in North Africa from Somalia to Mali."

"One thing is clear: If jihadists believe they can attack American installations and kill an ambassador on the anniversary of Sept. 11, then America's deterrent power has declined considerably. For a superpower, it is not enough just to want to be loved. You have to scare the bad guys to keep them in check."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before we forget about the polls, Silver is the guy who gives Rasmussen a 1.9 percent pro Republican house effect. That's what I'm basing my assessment on . .

Now, trying to forget about the polls . . .

. . . . still trying . . . .

. . . mmmmmgggrrrrhhhhh . . . . trying . ......trying . . .

. . . . trying REALLY hard . . . . .

DANG! CAN'T!!!!!! Because you're right! Based on various economic indicators, historically, this race is Romney's to lose. But there is something to be said for the candidate himself/themselves, as a CANDIDATE. Things have been the way they are for the entire election cycle and Romney has NOT MOVED THE NEEDLE! (See, that's why I can't forget about the polls.) He has had chance after chance and he has essentially bungled every one.

Obama does not have much of a lead, but, based on . . . .well, the polls . . . he has enough of a lead to win this thing unless Romney or events change the proverbial game. Romney has proven that he can't. In fact, thus far Romney has proven quite adept at NOT changing the game when game changing events are presented to him.

Does that make sense? I'm trying to say this as a prognosticator, not as a partisan. This isn't about policy, its about the person (and changing demographics, but that's another really long storty.)

The last thing I'll say about the polls (until the next one comes out) is this. As you've pointed out, this is a unique election cycle. We have a challenger who, by all rights should be leading, and the best he is doing is a one point lead in Rasmussen.

I just don't think any of the pollsters are sure who is going to show up to vote on election day. Are all those voters who were excited about hope and change still going to be motivated to show up at the polls this time around? I'm not so sure.

But I am sure that the anti-Obama crowd is motivated to show up at the polls.

So that is a bit of a wild card for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last thing I'll say about the polls (until the next one comes out) is this. As you've pointed out, this is a unique election cycle. We have a challenger who, by all rights should be leading, and the best he is doing is a one point lead in Rasmussen.

I just don't think any of the pollsters are sure who is going to show up to vote on election day. Are all those voters who were excited about hope and change still going to be motivated to show up at the polls this time around? I'm not so sure.

But I am sure that the anti-Obama crowd is motivated to show up at the polls.

So that is a bit of a wild card for me.

If you look historically at the Polls, its the Obama administration that Should be worried. Presidential challengers have historically been down, this far out specially, and its Obama, the incumbant that reads the negatives in the #'s. They are panicked. Carter was up over 10% at this juncture to Reagan in 80. The polls a week out and nearer are the ones to really care abt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last thing I'll say about the polls (until the next one comes out) is this. As you've pointed out, this is a unique election cycle. We have a challenger who, by all rights should be leading, and the best he is doing is a one point lead in Rasmussen.

I just don't think any of the pollsters are sure who is going to show up to vote on election day. Are all those voters who were excited about hope and change still going to be motivated to show up at the polls this time around? I'm not so sure.

But I am sure that the anti-Obama crowd is motivated to show up at the polls.

So that is a bit of a wild card for me.

3 pt. lead

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

AS if the Obama administrations Domestic policy's were not ruinous enough. Now, we have foreign news services doing what the America Media wont do. TELL THE TRUTH.

The conservative Die Welt writes:

"US President Barack Obama's Middle East policy is in ruins. Like no president before him, he tried to win over the Arab world. After some initial hesitation, he came out clearly on the side of the democratic revolutions. … In this context, he must accept the fact that he has snubbed old close allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Egyptian military. And now parts of the freed societies are turning against the country which helped bring them into being. Anti-Americanism in the Arab world has even increased to levels greater than in the Bush era. It's a bitter outcome for Obama."

"Obama was naive to believe that one only needed to adopt a new tone and show more respect in order to dispel deep-seated reservations about the free world. In practice, the policies of the Obama administration in the region were not as naive as they may have seemed at times, and the Americans have always been much more involved in the Middle East than the passive Europeans. But Washington has provided the image of a distracted superpower in the process of decline to the societies there. This image of weakness is being exploited by Salafists and al-Qaida, who are active in North Africa from Somalia to Mali."

"One thing is clear: If jihadists believe they can attack American installations and kill an ambassador on the anniversary of Sept. 11, then America's deterrent power has declined considerably. For a superpower, it is not enough just to want to be loved. You have to scare the bad guys to keep them in check."

Anti-Americanism in the region has little to do with us being the "Free World." It has far, far more to do with reckless intervention in the region for decades, most notably starting with the coup in Iran to reinstall the Shah, and blind support for Israel. So, it doesn't really help that Obama jumped into the Libya intervention and is conducting a drone war in areas like Yemen, so it's not like there's a new tone at all. I, likewise, still do not understand the rationale of the right when it came to the Arab Spring; For six years I kept hearing we went into Iraq to bring democracy to the country so it would spread and overthrow the dictatorships in the region, then when that actually happens they throw a fit since they overthrew dictators we supported so they began complaining that Obama should have done something to keep them in power which, as common sense would dictate, would have led to total disaster in the region and lit vastly worse powder kegs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-Americanism in the region has little to do with us being the "Free World." It has far, far more to do with reckless intervention in the region for decades, most notably starting with the coup in Iran to reinstall the Shah, and blind support for Israel. So, it doesn't really help that Obama jumped into the Libya intervention and is conducting a drone war in areas like Yemen, so it's not like there's a new tone at all. I, likewise, still do not understand the rationale of the right when it came to the Arab Spring; For six years I kept hearing we went into Iraq to bring democracy to the country so it would spread and overthrow the dictatorships in the region, then when that actually happens they throw a fit since they overthrew dictators we supported so they began complaining that Obama should have done something to keep them in power which, as common sense would dictate, would have led to total disaster in the region and lit vastly worse powder kegs.

Hammer, meet nail. The biggest issue I have with the President's actions during the "Arab Spring" is that he took any action at all. Better to leave them to their devices than interject ourselves on one side or the other.

We should always engage in diplomacy, but supporting a rebellion without knowing who will end up in power isn't diplomacy. It's stupidity. It's the opposite of supporting the dictatorships (which is what we did for so many years, as you rightly point out). The opposite of error isn't always truth. Sometimes, and specifically in this case, it's just the opposite error.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-Americanism in the region has little to do with us being the "Free World." It has far, far more to do with reckless intervention in the region for decades, most notably starting with the coup in Iran to reinstall the Shah, and blind support for Israel. So, it doesn't really help that Obama jumped into the Libya intervention and is conducting a drone war in areas like Yemen, so it's not like there's a new tone at all. I, likewise, still do not understand the rationale of the right when it came to the Arab Spring; For six years I kept hearing we went into Iraq to bring democracy to the country so it would spread and overthrow the dictatorships in the region, then when that actually happens they throw a fit since they overthrew dictators we supported so they began complaining that Obama should have done something to keep them in power which, as common sense would dictate, would have led to total disaster in the region and lit vastly worse powder kegs.

Saddam was a threat deemed Needed to be takin out, by the leaders of most every country. Our country was hit on 9/11 and Saddam was seen as possessing WMDs. Those just happen to be in Syria now, but the congress and senate, past presidents including Clinton, said Saddam was a threat, thereby we eliminated him. We were NOT nation building, per say in Iraq although there was Far more to do after his fall then we had planned. Stabiliztion was the goal, and it worked for the most part. Iraq is a Much more stable country in respect to all her sister countries.

We backed the Arab spring without knowledge of what was actually happening. The Mubarak regime was by Far the most stable partner in the region and Now look at the Muslim Brotherhood, which our President has No clue how to acknowledge or handle. Bad mistake. Libya is a snakes cauldron. We need to pull all personal out of this region. We also need to punch back, those who killed our people and we need to continue backing our most trusted allie Israel and let Noone think, we have wavered there. That will Be Mitts job. This administration has squandered all good will and hope in an attempt to appease a bunch of terrorists.

Edited by Deisel
Link to post
Share on other sites

Saddam was a threat deemed Needed to be takin out, by the leaders of most every country. Our country was hit on 9/11 and Saddam was seen as possessing WMDs. Those just happen to be in Syria now, but the congress and senate, past presidents including Clinton, said Saddam was a threat, thereby we eliminated him. We were NOT nation building, per say in Iraq although there was Far more to do after his fall then we had planned. Stabiliztion was the goal, and it worked for the most part. Iraq is a Much more stable country in respect to all her sister countries.

We backed the Arab spring without knowledge of what was actually happening. The Mubarak regime was by Far the most stable partner in the region and Now look at the Muslim Brotherhood, which our President has No clue how to acknowledge or handle. Bad mistake. Libya is a snakes cauldron. We need to pull all personal out of this region. We also need to punch back, those who killed our people and we need to continue backing our most trusted allie Israel and let Noone think, we have wavered there. That will Be Mitts job. This administration has squandered all good will and hope in an attempt to appease a bunch of terrorists.

Considering all of the intelligence for Iraqi WMDs came from one Iraqi man who later said he fabricated it all leads me to ask if you have any proof of their existence outside of the narrative you've come up with. Likewise, why would Syria help Iraq in that endeavor? The Syrian and Iraqi Ba'ath parties were fierce rivals, so I cannot see Hussein giving his WMDs to Assad just so he wouldn't be 'found out.' Also, the stability for Iraq argument makes no sense. They were in a civil war since Hussein fell and it only slowed down over the past few years, and to say it's a model of stability compared to neighboring countries simply because they fought their civil war a few years before they did is idiotic to say the very least.

Finally, you still, after being repeatedly asked before, have yet to answer this question: What would you have preferred us to do with the Arab Spring? Most of the dictators had either fallen or were guaranteed to fall before the administration decided to recognize the new governments, namely Mubarak who fell the moment the army sided with the rebels. The only way to keep the dictators in power was either to send in the military or to sneak them out and conduct a coup to reinstall them, both of which would have led to total disasters in the region and would have inflamed anti-American sentiments in the region vastly more. Libya was an obvious exception, but I have made my thoughts on that situation known. So, again, I ask you: What would you have done in that situation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gibbons, the Iraqi WMDs were noted and documented by the weapons inspectors. They were used on the Kurds and were Not NOTED to have been disposed of. Either Saddam kept up the sherade thinking we would not come in and take him out or he had them and with our more then 6 month lead time he easily could have buried them or shipped them else where. Syria and Iraq had their differences but aligned against the West non the same. Ask, why did Saddam fly his airforce to Iran during the 1st Gulf War?

As for the Arab Spring, we should have Pulled all personal out and let them do as they CHOSE. We facilitated the take over and provided diplomatic cover and weapons to Unknown entities. Look at what thats gotten us.

In ending. Surprisingly, WMD are being warned abt in Syria. Wonder where they got those?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Razor thin and volatile.

I invite you to use an app such as the one at CNN, compare the historical performances and attempt to find a combination of current state polling and voting track record that could bring Romney to 270 electoral votes. 538 has the current splits at 312.5-225.5. Romney's pulling of ads from Pennsylvania and Michigan was particularly odd in this regard because it created a much more difficult path to victory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I invite you to use an app such as the one at CNN, compare the historical performances and attempt to find a combination of current state polling and voting track record that could bring Romney to 270 electoral votes. 538 has the current splits at 312.5-225.5. Romney's pulling of ads from Pennsylvania and Michigan was particularly odd in this regard because it created a much more difficult path to victory.

Honestly, it's just not worth all that effort. I'll wait til election day and see how it turns out.

If we re-elect President Obama, I think there is one thing we can all agree on. We will deserve what we get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gibbons, the Iraqi WMDs were noted and documented by the weapons inspectors. They were used on the Kurds and were Not NOTED to have been disposed of. Either Saddam kept up the sherade thinking we would not come in and take him out or he had them and with our more then 6 month lead time he easily could have buried them or shipped them else where. Syria and Iraq had their differences but aligned against the West non the same. Ask, why did Saddam fly his airforce to Iran during the 1st Gulf War?

As for the Arab Spring, we should have Pulled all personal out and let them do as they CHOSE. We facilitated the take over and provided diplomatic cover and weapons to Unknown entities. Look at what thats gotten us.

In ending. Surprisingly, WMD are being warned abt in Syria. Wonder where they got those?

First, what the **** are you talking about the Iraqi Air Force flying to Iran during the Gulf War? Did you just make that up, because that caught me off guard since I had never heard of that happening before and not even Google is giving me any information about that even from crackpot websites. Second, the WMDs you're talking about were there and used in the 1980s, prior to the Gulf War and constant weapons inspections. Meanwhile, the weapons inspectors who went into Iraq prior to the War in Iraq found nothing. Repeatedly found nothing.

edit: As for the Syria and Iraq relationship, just because they were both Ba'athist while Hussein was in power doesn't mean they would help each other. There was a sharp ideological divide between the two as they vied for power in the movement and Hussein giving Syria WMDs was not something he would do, as that would give his rivals greater power and would put him at a huge disadvantage in the off chance he and his movement ever regained power. It's comparable to the relationship between the Soviet Union and China; They were both communist, but they were major rivals due to ideological differences as both vied for authority in the overall movement. ****, they even fought a brief war against each other.

Edited by Psychic Gibbon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, it's just not worth all that effort. I'll wait til election day and see how it turns out.

If we re-elect President Obama, I think there is one thing we can all agree on. We will deserve what we get.

I still believe Romney will win because I don`t believe most Independents will take the time to go to the polls to vote for Obama. They don`t necessarily like Romney, but will be willing to sit this one out and let the chips fall where there may. Americans will understand that 4 more years of Obama means for more years of gridlock and stagnation. The only way Obama would have smooth sailing after winning re-election would be to have Democrats in control of both the House and Senate like they had in 08....Oh wait!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still believe Romney will win because I don`t believe most Independents will take the time to go to the polls to vote for Obama. They don`t necessarily like Romney, but will be willing to sit this one out and let the chips fall where there may. Americans will understand that 4 more years of Obama means for more years of gridlock and stagnation. The only way Obama would have smooth sailing after winning re-election would be to have Democrats in control of both the House and Senate like they had in 08....Oh wait!

Can't we say the same if Romney is elected and the senate or house are in democratic hands?

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, what the **** are you talking about the Iraqi Air Force flying to Iran during the Gulf War? Did you just make that up, because that caught me off guard since I had never heard of that happening before and not even Google is giving me any information about that even from crackpot websites. Second, the WMDs you're talking about were there and used in the 1980s, prior to the Gulf War and constant weapons inspections. Meanwhile, the weapons inspectors who went into Iraq prior to the War in Iraq found nothing. Repeatedly found nothing.

edit: As for the Syria and Iraq relationship, just because they were both Ba'athist while Hussein was in power doesn't mean they would help each other. There was a sharp ideological divide between the two as they vied for power in the movement and Hussein giving Syria WMDs was not something he would do, as that would give his rivals greater power and would put him at a huge disadvantage in the off chance he and his movement ever regained power. It's comparable to the relationship between the Soviet Union and China; They were both communist, but they were major rivals due to ideological differences as both vied for authority in the overall movement. ****, they even fought a brief war against each other.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/fogofwar/archive/post012891.htm

Iraq never got those jets back and I'm not sure they got their Pilots back either. It was a very well known event, so you not knowing abt it tells me you were very young at the time and Your google skills sux. 2nd- Weapons of WMDs were found after the Gulf War and inspectors Hans Blix and others were thwarted from going to different sites for years. Again, this is OLD news and You not finding it means you didn't try.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...