Why isn't Obama well ahead in the polls?

[Deadwood]

Considering some of the basics of politics, Barack Obama should have a 12 to 15% lead on Romney at this point.

First we have to travel back in time a bit and look at what’s ‘normal’ for an incumbent seeking a second term. We forget that Jimmy Carter lead Reagan consistently, and at one point by almost 20 points until the first debate. Even then it was a see-saw battle until the closing days.
This is not unusual for an incumbent, and the trappings and perks of the Oval office usually give the incumbent five to seven points out of the gate. Obama has proven himself to be an outstanding speaker, one of the best campaigners in themodern era [although he's been off, flat and somewhat lethargic these last few weeks].

Now lets add some truths about Romney. He’s not exactly earth shatteringly charismatic, not nearly as much as Obama, has an ‘old white guy’ aura, has been plagued by gaffs, and has the albatross of his faith hanging around his neck as we have seen in so many bait threads in here. He's a a sign post campaigner and seems to try his best NOT to get crowds fired up. He is weak with the left, weak with the far right, although the ABO [Anybody But Obama] movement seems to be coalescing.

Further, his promise to scrap Obamacare is fraught with danger since he implemented much the same plan as Governor.
On top of everything else, he’s almost as wealthy as God and in the US that is only acceptable if your an athlete or a movie star or Beyonce or someone.

Even the convention didn’t give Romney a lift and Ryan has yet to show his stuff - although I can't wait to see what he does to the racist booze hound president of vice.

So how come they’re in a statistical dead heat?

Looking forward to replies.

[Captain Obvious]

Same reason Romney's not well ahead in the polls, both supporting constituents are not quite sure.

[KC]

The Republicans have done a wonderful job of demonizing the president. While some of the criticism is due, the job has been done so well that Obama's incumbent advantage turns around. He wishes this was 2008 and he didn't have a sour record to run on, more than likely. Also there a lot of young, college liberals who aren't voting for him because of his record on Gitmo, the economy, the Trans Pacific Partnership, NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, civil rights, drones, the war in Afghanistan and the lack of transparency his administration has displayed.

[Deadwood]

In other words, his record

[KC]

I'm long winded.

[Deadwood]

Same reason Romney's not well ahead in the polls, both supporting constituents are not quite sure.


With Romney I agree. But Obama's "supporting constituents" should be. They were mad about him in 08. So, are they mad AT him now?

[wingrider]

Obama ... Just another way to spell L-O-S-E-R

[KC]

With Romney I agree. But Obama's "supporting constituents" should be. They were mad about him in 08. So, are they mad AT him now?

They should be. Speaking as a person in one of his best demographics, a student who identifies himself as progressive on a number of issues, who is now undecided between Stein and Johnson.

[Shoot the Goose]

I don't trust the polls any more. Except probably Rasmussen, but even then, I am not a fan. All things Press are corrupted beyond any expected norm now.

The enthusiasm gap favors Romney huge. Just as produced the '10 midterm results. The country is no better now than in 2010. Not one bit. The better arguement says that we are even worse. Obama continues clueless, with a Dem Senate blocking any changes to the Obama status quo.

If Obama is reelected, we are screwed. Not because its Obama in the WH until 2016, but because we are past the tipping point of being a country of the lard-asses and parasites. That is the doom of our Democracy that was predicted 200 years ago.

[Captain Obvious]

With Romney I agree. But Obama's "supporting constituents" should be. They were mad about him in 08. So, are they mad AT him now?

Yes, YES!

I tried digging it up, but last night driving home I listened to Democracy Now. A black guy, leader of some black progressive group essentially stated that Obama is an extension of the right-wing political machine.

[wingrider]

Yes, YES!

I tried digging it up, but last night driving home I listened to Democracy Now. A black guy, leader of some black progressive group essentially stated that Obama is an extension of the right-wing political machine. what is that? some lefthanded way of getting righties to vote for Obama? sounds like reverse psychology

[Deadwood]

Yes, YES!

I tried digging it up, but last night driving home I listened to Democracy Now. A black guy, leader of some black progressive group essentially stated that Obama is an extension of the right-wing political machine.

Ah, now we get some real answers.

When the core of your support goes the other way, you have a problem.

Anecdotaly, I know some life long Democrats who feel so burned by this guy they are sitting this out or are even voting Romney, just to get even.


This is one president who CAN'T run on his record.

[Captain Obvious]

No, he can't - even though he hinted at it during the DNC.

Once all of the liberal sheeple are finished masturbating in unison after the DNC, they'll start to think a little.

That's when BO goes back on the attack to make Romney look like a rich white guy.

[The Little Dictator]

Yes, YES!

I tried digging it up, but last night driving home I listened to Democracy Now. A black guy, leader of some black progressive group essentially stated that Obama is an extension of the right-wing political machine.

How does that work? I can't imagine the correlation here.

As to the opening poster: I agree with shoot the goose - I don't trust the polls any longer, if I ever did. I think a lot of people are lying about who they're going to vote for and also, a lot of people who are being polled are "registered voters" unlike Rasmussen who polls "likely voters." I also believe that most of these polls are skewed so inaccurate. He might get the hispanic vote since he bought that, but I'm not so sure he will get the black vote in such high numbers again.

[Deadwood]

No, he can't - even though he hinted at it during the DNC.

Once all of the liberal sheeple are finished masturbating in unison after the DNC, they'll start to think a little.


That's when BO goes back on the attack to make Romney look like a rich white guy.


You are making two assumptions that appear to have no basis. One, that they can stop masturbating and two, that they can think.


He will definitely go on attack mode. It's his best asset on the campaign trail. Look what he did to Hillary, and that's his own family.

[KC]

That's when BO goes back on the attack to make Romney look like a rich white guy.

Romney's already done most of the work for him.

[Captain Obvious]

Romney's already done most of the work for him.

So is this why you don't like the guy?

O'bama's basically a rich white guy, face it - but how relevant is any of this in the grand scheme of things?

[Captain Obvious]

How does that work? I can't imagine the correlation here.

As to the opening poster: I agree with shoot the goose - I don't trust the polls any longer, if I ever did. I think a lot of people are lying about who they're going to vote for and also, a lot of people who are being polled are "registered voters" unlike Rasmussen who polls "likely voters." I also believe that most of these polls are skewed so inaccurate. He might get the hispanic vote since he bought that, but I'm not so sure he will get the black vote in such high numbers again.

It was quite the listen.

There was so much angst and frustration on this guys part that BO didn't follow through wholly with his radical progressive agenda that his position was that, by default O'bama was aiding and abetting the conservative enemy.

And he peppered it up with a lot of "Obama is a war president" and "austerity" was tossed around a few times.

[Deadwood]

How does that work? I can't imagine the correlation here.

As to the opening poster: I agree with shoot the goose - I don't trust the polls any longer, if I ever did. I think a lot of people are lying about who they're going to vote for and also, a lot of people who are being polled are "registered voters" unlike Rasmussen who polls "likely voters." I also believe that most of these polls are skewed so inaccurate. He might get the hispanic vote since he bought that, but I'm not so sure he will get the black vote in such high numbers again.

I do.

A poll is a snapshot of a particular moment in the political life line. Yes, people lie about how they will vote...that is ne of the reasons why there is a margin of error.

Also, more sophisticated polls have a way of eliminating obvious mis-direction.

You have to remember, the polling firms do politics for free, as a form of marketing to their real customers, consumer based companies - so they have an interest in being right.

Further, if you reject the polls, then who do you say is in the lead and why?

[KC]

So is this why you don't like the guy?

O'bama's basically a rich white guy, face it - but how relevant is any of this in the grand scheme of things?

I don't agree with either of them on most policy issues. I don't care if Romney was successful at Bain and I don't care that Obama has never been in business.

[The Little Dictator]

So is this why you don't like the guy?

O'bama's basically a rich white guy, face it - but how relevant is any of this in the grand scheme of things?

It's amazing how many people forget that he's half white. I guess it's because he's married to a Black woman.


It was quite the listen.

There was so much angst and frustration on this guys part that BO didn't follow through wholly with his radical progressive agenda that his position was that, by default O'bama was aiding and abetting the conservative enemy.

And he peppered it up with a lot of "Obama is a war president" and "austerity" was tossed around a few times.
ah ha! thank you for the explanation. Makes good sense now.

[Deadwood]

Romney's already done most of the work for him.

Please explain.

[Shoot the Goose]

.... He will definitely go on attack mode. It's his best asset on the campaign trail. Look what he did to Hillary, and that's his own family.

I understnd it is an asset, but not his best, and in fact is only credible because of what is Obama's "best asset".

The Press. The overwhelming support of the MSM is what got Obama elected in 2008, and why he is not 10 points behind in all the polls now.

Its his 5th column. It is massive in influence.

[Captain Obvious]

It's amazing how many people forget that he's half white. I guess it's because he's married to a Black woman.


ah ha! thank you for the explanation. Makes good sense now.

I tried finding a podcast of it with no success. It was dumbfounding.

[The Little Dictator]

I do.

A poll is a snapshot of a particular moment in the political life line. Yes, people lie about how they will vote...that is ne of the reasons why there is a margin of error.

Also, more sophisticated polls have a way of eliminating obvious mis-direction.

You have to remember, the polling firms do politics for free, as a form of marketing to their real customers, consumer based companies - so they have an interest in being right.

Further, if you reject the polls, then who do you say is in the lead and why?
Okay well, I understand what you're saying and how you believe. But there is no way that it's this close - in the real world and in my opinion. I understand about the MOE and that stuff but I firmly believe that there are just not that many progressives (or Marxists as I like to call them) in this country. I think there are a lot of people who will just NOT admit to being wrong the first time around and even fewer who will switch to the Republican party or admit to doing so. Those will be people who will become independents.

I think Romney's in the lead by at least 5 pts, maybe more.

The only poll I trust is the one on election night. But once those dems get into the voting booth, they'll do what their wallets tell them to do. And I don't believe anyone with a brain wants to do another 4 year of this. We'll be going into an abyss in a big hurry if TheOne is elected again.

And I'll probably end up slitting my throat...

[The Little Dictator]

I understnd it is an asset, but not his best, and in fact is only credible because of what is Obama's "best asset".

The Press. The overwhelming support of the MSM is what got Obama elected in 2008, and why he is not 10 points behind in all the polls now.

Its his 5th column. It is massive in influence.
Great point. Wished I'd thought of that.

[Deadwood]

I understnd it is an asset, but not his best, and in fact is only credible because of what is Obama's "best asset".

The Press. The overwhelming support of the MSM is what got Obama elected in 2008, and why he is not 10 points behind in all the polls now.

Its his 5th column. It is massive in influence.


Good point. Perhaps I should have said 'personal asset'. He is way better at jacking his opponents than he is at delivering a clear, concise vision for the future....

Let's face it, he can't even get a budget together...

[Deadwood]

Okay well, I understand what you're saying and how you believe. But there is no way that it's this close - in the real world and in my opinion. I understand about the MOE and that stuff but I firmly believe that there are just not that many progressives (or Marxists as I like to call them) in this country. I think there are a lot of people who will just NOT admit to being wrong the first time around and even fewer who will switch to the Republican party or admit to doing so. Those will be people who will become independents.

I think Romney's in the lead by at least 5 pts, maybe more.

The only poll I trust is the one on election night. But once those dems get into the voting booth, they'll do what their wallets tell them to do. And I don't believe anyone with a brain wants to do another 4 year of this. We'll be going into an abyss in a big hurry if TheOne is elected again.

And I'll probably end up slitting my throat...

You can do that if you like. However, putting Romney ahead by five while allowing a three point MOE is basically where we are. A statistical dead heat. So, in fact you agree, within a point or two with the polls you distrust?

In any event, this election, like all close ones, will come down to the swing states which now reflect the national polls - a dead heat.

IMO Obama should have a 10 to 15 point lead.....he doesn't even according to your guesswork. Any idea why that is?

[GCF]

So how come they’re in a statistical dead heat?

I find this to be rather obnoxious, the way it was laid out basically. You do not even question that the paradigm has not occured? In 79' the media was three news channels that was orchestrated by the NYT's. The Radio voices were not present and the Internet was still a ways off. Everything today is vastly different, except for one difference, the news media is still peddling for the Dem's. Dude, you don't even take into account the shift of party identification, in the last month alone the Rasmussan People found a 2% increase of name identification towards the Republicans.

Once again lets look back at 79', Reagen overwhelming victory was due to those that identified democrat that went Reagen in a big way. While the media in the closing days suggested there might be a swing of democrats or just miss the gigantic shift totally?

So I suggest it isn't in the polling questions but the attitude of the voter. Most all polsters are now reporting a % of people identifying to be conservative or libertarian nature will just hang up an not take any questions, ones that to say something tends to suggest their feeling is that polsters are corrupt an rather not talk to them. Republicans in 79' was a much smaller party, they wouldn't hold even on numbers compared to the Democratics till after 94' an really not till 2000, even then it was suggested that Republicans were short several percentage points behind Democrats on party affiliation. That can not be said today, in fact I do believe Nationally the Republican hold a edge on party indentification vs the Democrats. Likely the first time in modern political landscape, this election is clearly favoring republicans in numbers and motivation.

I think any sweep of the political landscape, the idea of Obama being in a tight race or even haveing a chance to win is solely wholecloth of the media desire to either shill for their Democratic Candidates or to create an atmosphere of suspense to sell advertisements during election coverage.

[Deadwood]

I find this to be rather obnoxious, the way it was laid out basically. You do not even question that the paradigm has not occured? In 79' the media was three news channels that was orchestrated by the NYT's. The Radio voices were not present and the Internet was still a ways off. Everything today is vastly different, except for one difference, the news media is still peddling for the Dem's. Dude, you don't even take into account the shift of party identification, in the last month alone the Rasmussan People found a 2% increase of name identification towards the Republicans.

Once again lets look back at 79', Reagen overwhelming victory was due to those that identified democrat that went Reagen in a big way. While the media in the closing days suggested there might be a swing of democrats or just miss the gigantic shift totally?

So I suggest it isn't in the polling questions but the attitude of the voter. Most all polsters are now reporting a % of people identifying to be conservative or libertarian nature will just hang up an not take any questions, ones that to say something tends to suggest their feeling is that polsters are corrupt an rather not talk to them. Republicans in 79' was a much smaller party, they wouldn't hold even on numbers compared to the Democratics till after 94' an really not till 2000, even then it was suggested that Republicans were short several percentage points behind Democrats on party affiliation. That can not be said today, in fact I do believe Nationally the Republican hold a edge on party indentification vs the Democrats. Likely the first time in modern political landscape, this election is clearly favoring republicans in numbers and motivation.

I think any sweep of the political landscape, the idea of Obama being in a tight race or even haveing a chance to win is solely wholecloth of the media desire to either shill for their Democratic Candidates or to create an atmosphere of suspense to sell advertisements during election coverage.

Ah 'Dude" I suggest you re-read the OP again.

I made none of the points you are attributing to me but merely laid out the groundwork for a question.

Your points about a different culture are certainly valid and a great contribution to the discussion.


If you are that easily offended I suggest you grow some skin if you want to last in here...."Dude".

[KC]

Please explain.

Romney's past combined with his gaffes make President Obama's job of painting Romeny as a rich old white guy pretty easy. Things like how he told an audience of his wife's Cadillacs. He does it to himself. Not that voters should care, but I think often times they do care.

[Mainecoons]

Yeah, a rich young black guy (who sure didn't make his money in the private sector) versus a rich older white guy. Obviously to a liberal, the former is better than the latter. I mean, after all, spending your life sponging off of government is a far better qualifier for being the President of a semi-capitalitic country than being a guy who actually has made money and employed people.

BTW, Romney is a young punk compared to me. :grin:

[Deadwood]

Romney's past combined with his gaffes make President Obama's job of painting Romeny as a rich old white guy pretty easy. Things like how he told an audience of his wife's Cadillacs. He does it to himself. Not that voters should care, but I think often times they do care.


I thought I covered that by mentioning he was gaff prone.....


Ah....."told an audience of his wife's Cadillacs?" I don't usually call people on grammar, but you are a budding educator.....

[KC]

I thought I covered that by mentioning he was gaff prone.....


Ah....."told an audience of his wife's Cadillacs?" I don't usually call people on grammar, but you are a budding educator.....

I am also posting on an internet forum. Trust me, I wouldn't earn my 4.0 if I was always so loose with language.

[GCF]

Ah 'Dude" I suggest you re-read the OP again.

I made none of the points you are attributing to me but merely laid out the groundwork for a question.

Your points about a different culture are certainly valid and a great contribution to the discussion.


If you are that easily offended I suggest you grow some skin if you want to last in here...."Dude".

I guess if you know I'm right you come back with more obnoxious statements, such as me being insulted! I assure you I don't get insulted easily if you haven't notice, but I'm assuming my use of the word "Obnoxious" lead you that way?


ob·nox·ious   /əbˈnɒkʃəs/ [/URL]Show Spelled[uhb-nok-shuhs] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html)[U]Show IPA
adjective 1. highly objectionable or offensive; odious: obnoxious behavior.

2. annoying or objectionable due to being a showoff or attracting undue attention to oneself: an obnoxious little brat.

3. Archaic . exposed or liable to harm, evil, or anything objectionable.

4. Obsolete . liable to punishment or censure; reprehensible.





I found your case that you laid out to be objectionable an while not offensive to me offensive to the subject matter.

Main Point, your use of Charisma, you suggest Obama is full of Charisma and Romney is not? I would suggest what Obama is, is more entertaining on stage, his delivery is better then Romney which is partially charismatic. Yet as we see from his exceptence speech at the DNC Convention, while his delivery was good his content was found flat if not out right objectionable, yet you an others can not find a way to define that. While Romney might not deliver a point during a speech as good in the frame of entertainment, his content is for the most part believeable. Obviously, if one is trying to act indifferent to context then yes that is how Obama get high score for being charismatic. Those who find content to be important would see it otherwise. Go back an look at the Nixon/Kennedy Debates, those who watch it thought Kennedy won an those that listen to it on radio believed that Nixon won it.

Has society been dumb-down enough that the average person does not count context? Personally I don't think so, well at least I hope that the majority still has enough brains to distinquish the difference between Delivery an Content.

In other words I found your use of "Charisma" to be objectionable and the weight you give it do be wrong.

[Shoot the Goose]

Romney's past combined with his gaffes make President Obama's job of painting Romeny as a rich old white guy pretty easy. Things like how he told an audience of his wife's Cadillacs. He does it to himself. Not that voters should care, but I think often times they do care.

That is pretty stupid. But illustrates that it is the Press being in Obama's pocket that matters. We have a terrible economy under Obama. Unemployment at 11.4% if we use the LFPR that Obama had when he took office. A stagnant GDP. After Obama threw a trillion to his cronies.

And yet the "rich old white guy" is the theme. Only for idiots, and we have so many that it may sink us.

No one gives a shit about your 4.0, btw. Good for you, but it is not a measure of common sense.

[Deadwood]

I guess if you know I'm right you come back with more obnoxious statements, such as me being insulted! I assure you I don't get insulted easily if you haven't notice, but I'm assuming my use of the word "Obnoxious" lead you that way?



I found your case that you laid out to be objectionable an while not offensive to me offensive to the subject matter.

Main Point, your use of Charisma, you suggest Obama is full of Charisma and Romney is not? I would suggest what Obama is, is more entertaining on stage, his delivery is better then Romney which is partially charismatic. Yet as we see from his exceptence speech at the DNC Convention, while his delivery was good his content was found flat if not out right objectionable, yet you an others can not find a way to define that. While Romney might not deliver a point during a speech as good in the frame of entertainment, his content is for the most part believeable. Obviously, if one is trying to act indifferent to context then yes that is how Obama get high score for being charismatic. Those who find content to be important would see it otherwise. Go back an look at the Nixon/Kennedy Debates, those who watch it thought Kennedy won an those that listen to it on radio believed that Nixon won it.

Has society been dumb-down enough that the average person does not count context? Personally I don't think so, well at least I hope that the majority still has enough brains to distinquish the difference between Delivery an Content.

In other words I found your use of "Charisma" to be objectionable and the weight you give it do be wrong.


I get your point and complimented you on content and yet you provoke. Why is that?

I am old enough to remember the Nixon/Kennedy debate and it is exactly what I'm talking about. Nixon WON on the issues. In fact the observers at the scene gave the debate to him 100%, until the next day when "public opinion" showed Kennedy the winner because of Nixon's o'clock shadow.

And that is my point when I point out that Obama is "more charismatic" than Romney [do not put words in others mouths -- I never even SUGGESTED he none.

Instead of picking the OP to pieces over petty shit, try dealing with the question....with the power of the presidency behind him, momentum etc., why is he not in the lead? If you are suggesting he doesn't deserve to be in the lead, say so.

BTW, you needn't have posted a definition of "obnoxious", your posts fill the bill.

[roadmaster]

This is one president who CAN'T run on his record.

It doesn't matter, they will overlook anything he does. If he claimed to be a con and ran independent or rep I would still want this one out.

[Awryly]

Simple. All those poor blue collar whites and fundamentalist Christians who ludicrously vote for the rich.

[The Little Dictator]

You can do that if you like. However, putting Romney ahead by five while allowing a three point MOE is basically where we are. A statistical dead heat. So, in fact you agree, within a point or two with the polls you distrust?

In any event, this election, like all close ones, will come down to the swing states which now reflect the national polls - a dead heat.

IMO Obama should have a 10 to 15 point lead.....he doesn't even according to your guesswork. Any idea why that is?
Okay. I should have been clearer when I said 5 pt PLUS THE MARGIN OF ERROR.
So if the margin is 3 it would be 8
if the margin is 4 it would be 9

sorry. I'm such a fool.

[Trinnity]

Yes, YES!

I tried digging it up, but last night driving home I listened to Democracy Now. A black guy, leader of some black progressive group essentially stated that Obama is an extension of the right-wing political machine.


what is that? some lefthanded way of getting righties to vote for Obama? sounds like reverse psychologyEveryone's mad at him for different reasons. The far left is mad cuz he isn't implementing Marxism fast enough, and the Right is mad at him for being too far left. Students/graduates are mad cuz they have no jobs now of jobs to look forward to. Blacks are fed up and many will sit this one out. Women are abandoning him cuz they have to balance the checkbook and see depressed wages and rising prices. Seniors because he's gonna raid Medicare to pay for Pelosi/Obamacare and discourage end of life care for them. The military resent him and even now there are efforts to shut out their votes. People of faith are mad at him for attacking their faith, especially Catholics. Jews are mad at him for dissing Israel. Even the unions are mad at him over the XL pipeline denial. Business people are mad at him for massive increases in regulations.....

Oh and his wifey wants to vacay lavishly at our expense and tell us what to eat while she stuffs her face with french fries and foie gras.

Uh, is that enough? No?

Well then, he's an arrogant, lying, ass, and a con artist, his speeches are the exact same speeches he used in '08, he's NOT cool, and he doesn't care one damn bit about us.

[roadmaster]

Simple. All those poor blue collar whites and fundamentalist Christians who ludicrously vote for the rich.

Why do you always bring race and religion into things? I will vote for a person who I think will help all Americans. Not Obama or McCain.

[Awryly]

Why do you always bring race and religion into things? I will vote for a person who I think will help all Americans. Not Obama or McCain.


Because it happens to be true?

[roadmaster]

Because it happens to be true?

I think that the majority of blacks voted for him because he is half without looking at his background. But he didn't get in because of his race among whites he got in because people were tired of Bush.

[The Little Dictator]

/snip.... Well then, he's an arrogant, lying, ass, and a con artist, his speeches are the exact same speeches he used in '08, he's NOT cool, and he doesn't care one damn bit about us.
Trinn, I heard a side by side comparison of his acceptance speech and Jimmy Carter's the other day. Did you hear this too? It was amazing - almost verbatim. All big government and "investments" (i.e. taxes.) All obtuse and nothing specific. Lots of pie in the sky but no way to pay for it all (i.e. hire 100,000 teachers.)

Why would we rehire this guy when we have no idea how much he plans to tax us? We have no idea how he plans to pay for these things.

[Carygrant]

Trinn, I heard a side by side comparison of his acceptance speech and Jimmy Carter's the other day. Did you hear this too? It was amazing - almost verbatim. All big government and "investments" (i.e. taxes.) All obtuse and nothing specific. Lots of pie in the sky but no way to pay for it all (i.e. hire 100,000 teachers.)

Why would we rehire this guy when we have no idea how much he plans to tax us? We have no idea how he plans to pay for these things.


Why on earth would you imagine that pre election manifestos are true ones -- that is , pledges of what are really intended and planned?

[Trinnity]

Why would we rehire this guy when we have no idea how much he plans to tax us? We have no idea how he plans to pay for these things.Because of the moron vote. He lies like a rug and the idiots believe every word out of his mouth. :moron:

[GCF]

I get your point and complimented you on content and yet you provoke. Why is that?

I am old enough to remember the Nixon/Kennedy debate and it is exactly what I'm talking about. Nixon WON on the issues. In fact the observers at the scene gave the debate to him 100%, until the next day when "public opinion" showed Kennedy the winner because of Nixon's o'clock shadow.

And that is my point when I point out that Obama is "more charismatic" than Romney [do not put words in others mouths -- I never even SUGGESTED he none.

Instead of picking the OP to pieces over petty shit, try dealing with the question....with the power of the presidency behind him, momentum etc., why is he not in the lead? If you are suggesting he doesn't deserve to be in the lead, say so.

BTW, you needn't have posted a definition of "obnoxious", your posts fill the bill.

Yea I fancy myself as provocative not obnoxious but that would be semantics. In the end yet I suggested your weight to charisma is overdone, guess that didn't come out clearly enough in my rant.

Okay, now the charisma point was totally blown out of the water you want to talk about Momentum an the office of the Presidency. Guess I'll destroy the ideas that Obama can take advantage of either or why one would even suggest Obama has momentum. Or do you just want yes I agree or no I don't? As far as your nit-picking faux outrage I can only suggest this is a debate forum an don't view myself exactly alone in this.

Office of the Presidency, what does this come from? Comes from the "Bully Pulpit", unforturnely for Obama an all to follow, the new media has basically taken this away from the Presidency. If I decide to tune this out I can an can even do it without noticing it. I don't even have cable, don't need it or even desire it. I have the internet, an this is forever to change the modern political landscape, more an more are tuning out the media. Some complain that Obama shows up on TV alot, yet I wouldn't know, honestly~! I have netflix an other services, I choose the shows and rarely do I see talking heads or late night shows like Letterman even a choice, wonder why??? I pick my show an I get nothing else including commercials! The politician an pollsters are simply besides themselves, some suggest it has to be fix, fixing stupid I guess?

Yet, Romney has done something, he has even up the advantage of the Internet, Obama had in 2008. Not saying McCain was not a total loser but that is subjective, he had no ability with the new media tool. The real question here should of been, why isn't Romney leading more in the polls? Nothing that I suggest is uncommon or new, just becoming more mainstream.

Yet one could suggest that the power of the presidency an application of use is being able to read the public an respond with the bully pulpit. Yet what we see is that Obama has very few within his inner circle that he actually listens too. This has been pointed out but never talked about on the talking head shows, I don't even see FOX covering it much either from my perspective. It would seem to any casual onlooker, that Obama has very few people whispering in his ears making his talking point rather outdated and disconnected to the feeling of the general public. It would seem Jarrett an Axelrod are the sole advisors, an I think they are not worried about mainstream vs their political agenda that they share with Obama.

So now I assume you know why Obama isn't leading in the polls? In the end I think Obama is loosing not because he deserves it (of course he doesn't deserve it from my perspective), but because he doesn't have the ability to use what is there. He just isn't as smart or politically savvy as we were lead to believe.

[The Little Dictator]

Because of the moron vote. He lies like a rug and the idiots believe every word out of his mouth. :moron:

Here's what I think might happen:
We're hearing and reading some mmmm disappointment in the LSM and some mea culpas from them that they didn't vet him as well as they did Palin, McCain or Hillary. Jake Tapper said that there were times when he felt like the coverage (including photos for mag covers, etc) just wasn't that fair to the other candidates. The media was harder on them than on TheOne. And he felt it even back then. (Although why he's talking about it now and not then, is a topic for us to consider... LOL) And I think through this month and maybe a couple weeks into October, they will "appear" hard on Obama and ask him some tough questions. It will help mend some of the public's low feelings about the media.

But come late October, they'll be right back in the bag for TheOne. They want him reelected. Period.

[Trinnity]

And the MSM continues to lose cred, and ground to the new media. Fools. This is why.

[Awryly]

Obama should win in a landslide. But half Americans believe Bush III has a miracle up his sleeve.

These hope and pray enthusiasts also believe in much the same things Muslims do. A heaven populated by virgins they expect they will be allowed to deflower while gobbling grapes to the tune of 700 brides for seven brothers.

Whatever. Obama has most of the swing states. So Romney will have to go hang.

[GrumpyDog]

Obama should win in a landslide. But half Americans believe Bush III has a miracle up his sleeve.

These hope and pray enthusiasts also believe in much the same things Muslims do. A heaven populated by virgins they expect they will be allowed to deflower while gobbling grapes to the tune of 700 brides for seven brothers.

Whatever. Obama has most of the swing states. So Romney will have to go hang.

Are you refering to these people:

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/CONFEDERATES-ROMNEY-RYAN-BUTTON-/00/s/MjI0WDIxNg==/$T2eC16VHJF0E9nmFRpH,BQRV)hp1bw~~60_35.JPG

[GrumpyDog]

Or maybe you meant these Mormons for Romney:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pwOufycloUM/UDQo3Vg4B7I/AAAAAAAAFOs/XMV8-muJa4c/s1600/MORMON%2BNEO%2BNAZIS.jpg

[Trinnity]

Flame-baiting this early in the morning? To associate Romney with the Klan, is just plain silly and doesn't enhance your personal credibility. Can you debate the issues instead?

[birddog]

Obama has been a failure by his own words. With Romney, we have a good chance for success, with Obama, no chance.

I still say also, "Better A Morman Than A Muslim!"

[Deadwood]

Okay. I should have been clearer when I said 5 pt PLUS THE MARGIN OF ERROR.
So if the margin is 3 it would be 8
if the margin is 4 it would be 9

sorry. I'm such a fool.

Easy does it friend. It appears I was the one who jumped to a conclusion.

[Trinnity]

Obama has been a failure by his own words. With Romney, we have a good chance for success, with Obama, no chance.

I still say also, "Better A Morman Than A Muslim!"Obama may have been raised in Islam, but I'm pretty sure he's an atheist. The only thing that narcissistic prick believes in is himself.

[birddog]

Obama may have been raised in Islam, but I'm pretty sure he's an atheist. The only think that narcissistic prick believes in is himself.

Nah, he's a secret Muslim, although a weak one. The whole list of things that he has done to support islam and not support Christianity gives him away.

[patrickt]

Sorry, President Obama can conceive of no being greater than himself. He will ally himself with anyone that can promote the Annointed One. For now, that's Muslims but if they trust him they're dumber than I thought.

[Deadwood]

Are you refering to these people:

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/CONFEDERATES-ROMNEY-RYAN-BUTTON-/00/s/MjI0WDIxNg==/$T2eC16VHJF0E9nmFRpH,BQRV)hp1bw~~60_35.JPG


Right up there with "Once you vote black, you never go back."

And the woman whop told the DNC she wanted to kill Romney?


Radicals on both sides, but you don't see these idiots being cheered at a Republican convention

[Awryly]

Or maybe you meant these Mormons for Romney:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pwOufycloUM/UDQo3Vg4B7I/AAAAAAAAFOs/XMV8-muJa4c/s1600/MORMON%2BNEO%2BNAZIS.jpg


Could be. They're Nazis, aren't they?

[Conley]

That guy on the right is showing no passion...seems like he's only a white slightly better, not a white supremist

he's giving a fail-heil...needs to show some more effort or he's never gonna make grand wizard

[Conley]

http://data.whicdn.com/images/328528/20090129172328_thumb.jpg

:laugh:

[Shoot the Goose]

Could be. They're Nazis, aren't they?

I thought they were all your brothers-in-law.

[Awryly]

I thought they were all your brothers-in-law.


Goose alive and well.

You missed.

[Deadwood]

Goose alive and well.

You missed.



Nah, put a fork in it...best line of the thread

[Awryly]

http://data.whicdn.com/images/328528/20090129172328_thumb.jpg

:laugh:

American Nazis have trouble drawing, I see.

How can they expect to commit a genocide?

[roadmaster]

Obama may have been raised in Islam, but I'm pretty sure he's an atheist. The only thing that narcissistic prick believes in is himself.

I too believe he is an atheist.

[Awryly]

I too believe he is an atheist.

That's almost as heinous a sin as trying to tax the rich.

But not quite.
:sign_amen::boobs::boobs::boobs:

[GrumpyDog]

I thought they were all your brothers-in-law.

No, they are the goose stepping crowd, so must be from your flock.

[wingrider]

lets tone down the flamebaiting and get back on topic.

[Deadwood]

lets tone down the flamebaiting and get back on topic.

I can only stand back and wonder how and why it is the Obama bots have not offered an answer to the question but rather went radical...

Is there a liberal around who can address the question with civility?


Just asking.

[wingrider]

lets wait and see, I am sure some one has the intelligence to do it.. after all we are all supposed to be adults.

[Deadwood]

lets wait and see, I am sure some one has the intelligence to do it.. after all we are all supposed to be adults.

I admire that trust you have in mankind. From what I've seen in this thread....I can only hope that that faith is not misplaced.

[patrickt]

President Obama's problem is that last time he was the fictional candidate with no record. This time, he has a record. He's still a fictional person but he has a miserable record.

[wingrider]

I admire that trust you have in mankind. From what I've seen in this thread....I can only hope that that faith is not misplaced. it isn't trust..so much as a belief we can all be better to each other if we choose to be..

[wingrider]

President Obama's problem is that last time he was the fictional candidate with no record. This time, he has a record. He's still a fictional person but he has a miserable record.
this is true.. Patrickt.. this is exactly why he isn't running on his record but is instead running a campaign filled with half truths and smear..

[KC]

No one gives a shit about your 4.0, btw. Good for you, but it is not a measure of common sense.

I'm well aware that no one here cares, I was merely assuring Fearandloathing that I am capable of forming sentences correctly, since he had expressed concern over some of my grammatical errors.

[Deadwood]

I'm well aware that no one here cares, I was merely assuring Fearandloathing that I am capable of forming sentences correctly, since he had expressed concern over some of my grammatical errors.

Not concern. If you're going to lord your lofty teaching status over people, then it might be a good idea not to write like a third grader.
\

[KC]

Not concern. If you're going to lord your lofty teaching status over people, then it might be a good idea not to write like a third grader.
\

Hm. Not sure where I did that. My posts related to my degree of choice have been sincere.


As someone who Is currently seeking an education degree I may be a little biased, but I'm really curious what broad reforms we could do in order to fix education at the state/local level.


Why I want to become a teacher goes back to my own experience. I loved high school. Many of the people I looked up to were my teachers. I really needed this. I realize I was very fortunate in this. I lost my mom at a young age and up until high school my father was my only role model. Most can't speak to having great teachers who have a real impact on their lives. Since I was so fortunate, I want to be like those people. In my case I still correspond with and even hang out with one of those teachers, whom I consider my personal mentor and friend. I know it's always suspect when a student and a teacher become close and spend time together outside of class (something I would stay away from if I do end up landing a job in the field), but my teacher used to host philosophical debate clubs after school and even taught me calligraphy when I wanted to learn more. I have been friends with my mentor for the last 6 years now, and I can assure you that his intentions were always pure. I think teachers who are really passionate about having an impact are what's needed, and that's what I want to do.


However I totally agree about raising the bar for education majors in college. Bring it on. I could use a little less competition.


Why I want to become a teacher goes back to my own experience. I loved high school. Many of the people I looked up to were my teachers. I really needed this. I realize I was very fortunate in this. I lost my mom at a young age and up until high school my father was my only role model. Most can't speak to having great teachers who have a real impact on their lives. Since I was so fortunate, I want to be like those people. In my case I still correspond with and even hang out with one of those teachers, whom I consider my personal mentor and friend. I know it's always suspect when a student and a teacher become close and spend time together outside of class (something I would stay away from if I do end up landing a job in the field), but my teacher used to host philosophical debate clubs after school and even taught me calligraphy when I wanted to learn more. I have been friends with my mentor for the last 6 years now, and I can assure you that his intentions were always pure. I think teachers who are really passionate about having an impact are what's needed, and that's what I want to do.

I'm not trying to lord anything over any one. This issue has a certain level of significance for me. Sorry that my third grade writing style is so poor, but I write enough for school. I come here to relax and talk about politics.

[bladimz]

IMHO, in answer to your question in the OP, Obama isn't 10-15 points ahead at this time because, as you probably know, traditionally any incumbent president dealing with a struggling economy has a tough time in a campaign for re-election. I don't hold much stock in the polls; i don't think anyone should.

The only reason that he isn't 10-15 points under right now is because his opponent is weak, most republicans are unimpressed with the man and find him difficult to back. Some think this will be a close race. I don't. I think that Obama will be re-elected, and it will be because Romney ran a failed campaign; Obama only ran a mediocre one, but it was better than Romney's. I also believe that picking Ryan as his running mate was a mistake. Those two just didn't seem to get their shit together very well and that'll cost them as well.

[GrumpyDog]

Not concern. If you're going to lord your lofty teaching status over people, then it might be a good idea not to write like a third grader.
\

Don't confuse the nice looking well spoken German Shepard for the Grumpy dog riding the surfboard, or the NZ dog who loves to ridicule Americans for entertainment.

[GrumpyDog]

Romney is not a bad guy. He just is trapped in his own party. He wants to be a moderate, I can tell in his demeanor. But his party has some hard right conservatives, especially on social issues. He should discuss his economic plan in more detail. He needs an "explainer" counterpart to the Democrat explainer Bill Clinton.

[Captain Obvious]

Romney is not a bad guy. He just is trapped in his own party. He wants to be a moderate, I can tell in his demeanor. But his party has some hard right conservatives, especially on social issues. He should discuss his economic plan in more detail. He needs an "explainer" counterpart to the Democrat explainer Bill Clinton.

More reasons why we need a multi-party system.

Everything doesn't fit into two little boxes.

[Awryly]

More reasons why we need a multi-party system.

Everything doesn't fit into two little boxes.

Right on. But the corporate elite will never let that happen. Look what happened to Nader.

[Awryly]

Well, the question is now redundant. Obama is well ahead in the polls.

I see Fox has decided that even it can't disguise that. So its latest strategy is to say it over and over and over; presumably in the hope of lulling Dem voters into a false sense of security that will keep many of them away from the polling booths. Allied with the usual array of Republican dirty tricks - discriminatory voter ID laws, polling hour restrictions and heaven knows what else (rumour has it they have hired the Chocktaws to do a rain dance on election day) - they hope they will be able to defeat what it is that the majority of Americans seem to want.

[Calypso Jones]

poor baby.

[Captain Obvious]

Right on. But the corporate elite will never let that happen. Look what happened to Nader.

Exactly.

It's a two-party system not because citizens want it, but because the political machine keeps it that way.

[Awryly]

Exactly.

It's a two-party system not because citizens want it, but because the political machine keeps it that way.

Which just goes to show how impotent your "citizens" are.

[GrumpyDog]

:but: WAAAA AHHA AIAAAA AITE.. A MINUTE....Obama IS way ahead in the polls (as of this post).

[URF8]

Well, the question is now redundant. Obama is well ahead in the polls.

I see Fox has decided that even it can't disguise that. So its latest strategy is to say it over and over and over; presumably in the hope of lulling Dem voters into a false sense of security that will keep many of them away from the polling booths. Allied with the usual array of Republican dirty tricks - discriminatory voter ID laws, polling hour restrictions and heaven knows what else (rumour has it they have hired the Chocktaws to do a rain dance on election day) - they hope they will be able to defeat what it is that the majority of Americans seem to want.

You don't hate all Americans do you? Your antipathy extends only to conservative Americans because they are an obstacle to the creation of a new more liberal international order. This is a common theme among western leftists.

[Awryly]

You don't hate all Americans do you? Your antipathy extends only to conservative Americans because they are an obstacle to the creation of a new more liberal international order. This is a common theme among western leftists.

Well, I have to qualify that by noting that all Americans have contributed to the political mess that US is in. Some by their stupidity, others by their apathy, and yet others by their ineptitude.

The rest are OK.

[Carygrant]

You don't hate all Americans do you? Your antipathy extends only to conservative Americans because they are an obstacle to the creation of a new more liberal international order. This is a common theme among western leftists.


Taking away power from your enemy is naughty but new ?
By jove , Sir .
What an incredible new idea !!
They are so fiendish these implacable foes .

[URF8]

Taking away power from your enemy is naughty but new ?
By jove , Sir .
What an incredible new idea !!
They are so fiendish these implacable foes .

Ray, the problem for western leftists is that the western dominated era of history is over. Western leftists are small fish in a huge pond.

The best response for American conservatives is to work towards disempowering the entire west since there is no longer anything left to lose. That diminishes the power of western leftists.

Western leftists have no influence with Chinese or other ethno/nationalists. Your side has been overtaken by the forces of history and processes of economics that are sweeping all of western civilization away.

[head of joaquin]

Ray, the problem for western leftists is that the western dominated era of history is over. Western leftists are small fish in a huge pond.

The best response for American conservatives is to work towards disempowering the entire west since there is no longer anything left to lose. That diminishes the power of western leftists.

Western leftists have no influence with Chinese or other ethno/nationalists. Your side has been overtaken by the forces of history and processes of economics that are sweeping all of western civilization away.

I love it when conservatives beat their breast and project.

Conservatism is on its last legs in the US. This is the last election where the GOP can promote its usual toxic mix of xenophobia and scapegoating and economic incoherency, mostly because the demographic trends will make the base of the conservatives (elderly bitter white people who live off the system) a minority in a few years.

Clearly the GOP will become a minority regional party within the next decade. And then the US can start making progress again, as it always has when the ugliness of conservatism was defeated.

[URF8]

I love it when conservatives beat their breast and project.

Conservatism is on its last legs in the US. This is the last election where the GOP can promote its usual toxic mix of xenophobia and scapegoating and economic incoherency, mostly because the demographic trends will make the base of the conservatives (elderly bitter white people who live off the system) a minority in a few years.

Clearly the GOP will become a minority regional party within the next decade. And then the US can start making progress again, as it always has when the ugliness of conservatism was defeated.

A determined cohort of people fighting American leftism domestically can be combined with foreign powers like China to destroy the existing order in America. America is becoming weaker and weaker.

Internal corrosion coupled with the application of foreign power will collapse your ideology. I don't see how you can fight that successfully.

[Awryly]

I love it when conservatives beat their breast and project.

Conservatism is on its last legs in the US. This is the last election where the GOP can promote its usual toxic mix of xenophobia and scapegoating and economic incoherency, mostly because the demographic trends will make the base of the conservatives (elderly bitter white people who live off the system) a minority in a few years.

Clearly the GOP will become a minority regional party within the next decade. And then the US can start making progress again, as it always has when the ugliness of conservatism was defeated.

Fortunately, while white men seem to want to indulge their bromides of liberty, freedom, individual responsibility and so on ad nauseam, their wives (most of whom I assume are also white) are disagreeing with their redneck husbands and voting for the other side.

Bring back the burqa should be the new and desperate cry of the Republican superpacs.

[Awryly]

Well, it looks as though Obama will benight you for another 4 years.

Since he is likely to introduce a range of policies that cons will dislike, it will be fascinating to see whether the cons are as blatant in their support for the rich as they have been for the last 10 years.

And whether the American public will tolerate it.

There seems to be an opportunity for the Dems to destroy the Republican movement as a credible force in US politics.

[Canadianeye]

Considering some of the basics of politics, Barack Obama should have a 12 to 15% lead on Romney at this point.

First we have to travel back in time a bit and look at what’s ‘normal’ for an incumbent seeking a second term. We forget that Jimmy Carter lead Reagan consistently, and at one point by almost 20 points until the first debate. Even then it was a see-saw battle until the closing days.
This is not unusual for an incumbent, and the trappings and perks of the Oval office usually give the incumbent five to seven points out of the gate. Obama has proven himself to be an outstanding speaker, one of the best campaigners in themodern era [although he's been off, flat and somewhat lethargic these last few weeks].

Now lets add some truths about Romney. He’s not exactly earth shatteringly charismatic, not nearly as much as Obama, has an ‘old white guy’ aura, has been plagued by gaffs, and has the albatross of his faith hanging around his neck as we have seen in so many bait threads in here. He's a a sign post campaigner and seems to try his best NOT to get crowds fired up. He is weak with the left, weak with the far right, although the ABO [Anybody But Obama] movement seems to be coalescing.

Further, his promise to scrap Obamacare is fraught with danger since he implemented much the same plan as Governor.
On top of everything else, he’s almost as wealthy as God and in the US that is only acceptable if your an athlete or a movie star or Beyonce or someone.

Even the convention didn’t give Romney a lift and Ryan has yet to show his stuff - although I can't wait to see what he does to the racist booze hound president of vice.

So how come they’re in a statistical dead heat?

Looking forward to replies.

It might be worth noting, without a shred of proof mind you...but perhaps the power of the internet has finally overtaken the oft joked about LSM, remembering it has been an anticipated occurence to happen for a few years now. Maybe the corner was turned and that is the common denominator to your query.

[Awryly]

It might be worth noting, without a shred of proof mind you...but perhaps the power of the internet has finally overtaken the oft joked about LSM, remembering it has been an anticipated occurence to happen for a few years now. Maybe the corner was turned and that is the common denominator to your query.

The lamestream media is a concept reserved to the US. It is refreshing to read and watch New Zealand, Australian and, occasionally, British media (like the Guardian and New Statesman) that actually challenge and expose the goings-on of the various elites who can't control it.

In the US, everything - apart from a few maverick commentators like Michael Moore and Bill Maher, is controlled. Its only salvation is, as you say, the internet.

Much as I don't like the guy, however, Piers Morgan is doing a great job on CNN. What other US outlet has given airtime to Ahmadinejad? But, of course, Morgan is British and is easily ignored by "true patriots".

[Awryly]

A man fatally shot himself in the head on live FoxNews television at the end of a high-speed carjacking chase that began in Phoenix and ended about 90 minutes later within 130 kilometres of the California border.

Was it Romney in a moment of self-awareness?

[head of joaquin]

Was it Romney in a moment of self-awareness?

He just saw the latest polls.

[Captain Obvious]

http://www.truthdig.com/images/cartoonuploads/liberalnumbers_500.jpg

[Cedric]

Considering some of the basics of politics, Barack Obama should have a 12 to 15% lead on Romney at this point.

First we have to travel back in time a bit and look at what’s ‘normal’ for an incumbent seeking a second term. We forget that Jimmy Carter lead Reagan consistently, and at one point by almost 20 points until the first debate. Even then it was a see-saw battle until the closing days.
This is not unusual for an incumbent, and the trappings and perks of the Oval office usually give the incumbent five to seven points out of the gate. Obama has proven himself to be an outstanding speaker, one of the best campaigners in themodern era [although he's been off, flat and somewhat lethargic these last few weeks].

Now lets add some truths about Romney. He’s not exactly earth shatteringly charismatic, not nearly as much as Obama, has an ‘old white guy’ aura, has been plagued by gaffs, and has the albatross of his faith hanging around his neck as we have seen in so many bait threads in here. He's a a sign post campaigner and seems to try his best NOT to get crowds fired up. He is weak with the left, weak with the far right, although the ABO [Anybody But Obama] movement seems to be coalescing.

Further, his promise to scrap Obamacare is fraught with danger since he implemented much the same plan as Governor.
On top of everything else, he’s almost as wealthy as God and in the US that is only acceptable if your an athlete or a movie star or Beyonce or someone.

Even the convention didn’t give Romney a lift and Ryan has yet to show his stuff - although I can't wait to see what he does to the racist booze hound president of vice.

So how come they’re in a statistical dead heat?

Looking forward to replies.

Wellllllllll . . . according to schizoid polling companies reporting on the national level Obama is anywhere between a dead heat with Romney to leading him by about four to five points and then the same polling company will reverse itself twice during the same week. Now in regards to the swing states those polling companies have Barack Obama already elected and just waiting for another jar of anointing oil. But then another pesky polling company declared that Romney now essentially has the vast majority of both independents and the middle class in his camp. Ooooooooooops!

Conclusion? If polling companies are that incompetent or that corrupt or simply that stupid then people have no choice but to resort to a wide cross section of reading [across party lines] and then they have to apply common sense to evaluating the results. I have the sense that even after three weeks of Romney getting utterly hammered by the 'in the tank for Obama' media he and the Left's bumbling, stumbling, clown price are still pretty much neck and neck in the view of the general public.

Probably part of that is because the media could not have been any more obvious in their pandemic bias for Obama and against Romney. That sort of thing irritates the average voter because they figure that they are being taken for idiots.

But none of us can know for sure. The polling companies simply cannot be trusted -- not even Rasmussen on the whole -- and without clean figures we are all just guessing; but then again that's why this is an election and not a coronation . . . although I swear that sometimes the Left seems to be a bit confused regarding the difference.

[Cedric]

With Romney I agree. But Obama's "supporting constituents" should be. They were mad about him in 08. So, are they mad AT him now?

Most of them are disappointed in him because of the nature of his record of accomplishments -- bearing in mind that as far Left as Obama has been they want him to go radically farther Left in his politics. Then too , on a level that they will not allow themselves to consciously acknowledge, they believe that he really is an incompetent president with almost no real leadership skills.

Even leftwing pundits have repeatedly compared Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter and must resort to calling Carter misunderstood and underestimated, because even they can no longer claim that Obama is another Reagan or Bill Clinton awaiting the opportune moment to dazzle the nation and the world with his brilliance.

[Deadwood]

Wellllllllll . . . according to schizoid polling companies reporting on the national level Obama is anywhere between a dead heat with Romney to leading him by about four to five points and then the same polling company will reverse itself twice during the same week. Now in regards to the swing states those polling companies have Barack Obama already elected and just waiting for another jar of anointing oil. But then another pesky polling company declared that Romney now essentially has the vast majority of both independents and the middle class in his camp. Ooooooooooops!

Conclusion? If polling companies are that incompetent or that corrupt or simply that stupid then people have no choice but to resort to a wide cross section of reading [across party lines] and then they have to apply common sense to evaluating the results. I have the sense that even after three weeks of Romney getting utterly hammered by the 'in the tank for Obama' media he and the Left's bumbling, stumbling, clown price are still pretty much neck and neck in the view of the general public.

Probably part of that is because the media could not have been any more obvious in their pandemic bias for Obama and against Romney. That sort of thing irritates the average voter because they figure that they are being taken for idiots.

But none of us can know for sure. The polling companies simply cannot be trusted -- not even Rasmussen on the whole -- and without clean figures we are all just guessing; but then again that's why this is an election and not a coronation . . . although I swear that sometimes the Left seems to be a bit confused regarding the difference.




It has been my experience that the polling companies are neither corrupt nor incompetent. First, everyone must realize that the polling companies do elections for free...it is their form of advertising and with that they strive to be as accurate as possible. I mean, if you were about to release "The New App" would you want an obviously biased polling company doing your market research?

Didn't think so.

So, let's back up.

First we have to recognize we are getting filtered information. The headlines never really tell us whether the poll is based on people who will vote, although sometimes we see "likely to vote." Further, we don't see much about the rating of favor, very sure, a little bit sure etc. And we seldom see, the "undecided" in the headlines; that is usually buried if touched on at all.

As you pointed out, last week we saw polls telling us that Obama was winning in the "swing states" although I have never understood how people's dance styles have anything to do with politics. [Sorry couldn't resist].

At the same time, I heard an interview on the definitive left-wing broadcaster in Canada, the CBC, in which a political science professor [sorry I forget what university, it may have been Stanford] was on about how this is the tightest race in since, now get this, Carter?Reagan if not in the history of the US.

So many people think that Reagan trampled Carter, and to a degree he did. It was closer than we remember, perhaps because of the huge victory going into the second term. But, as this guy pointed out, Reagan actually trailed Carter until the debate and even then, was neck and neck until the last few days of the election. The win, he noted, was far greater than even the most accurate polls indicated, and that is why he is giving the “edge” to Romney in this.

Say what?

He asserted a number of parallels to Carter/Reagan, not the least of which was how Reagan was, my words, hunted, haunted and harassed in the media. It was this man’s contention, as you have pointed out, that congealed Reagan’s support where Carter’s was soft with even the gun toting, drunken genius Hunter S. Thompson, withdrawing his endorsement of Carter, threatening to move to Canada if “that son of a bitch ever gets to use the White House toilets again.”

Now, and I have been saying this for two years, he stated clearly that everything depends on the "perception" of the debate. At this point I suggest the numbers are a mere academic exercise with a good deal of pollsters wondering if they should find a new career.

And that, my friends, is why the White House is playing the “reduced expectations” game. And that is also why Romney’s sphincter muscles are clenched tighter than lug nuts on a race car; this is his only shot at “unfiltered” exposure to the undecided. And he is praying that he gets that “now, there you go again” moment.

Now, I have to add, that the interviewer is a woman with a touch of the devil in her and in closing she asked who this prof was voting for, to which he replied only “I am a registered Democrat.”

That says it all, I assert.

[Awryly]

It has been my experience that the polling companies are neither corrupt nor incompetent. First, everyone must realize that the polling companies do elections for free...it is their form of advertising and with that they strive to be as accurate as possible. I mean, if you were about to release "The New App" would you want an obviously biased polling company doing your market research?

Didn't think so.

So, let's back up.

First we have to recognize we are getting filtered information. The headlines never really tell us whether the poll is based on people who will vote, although sometimes we see "likely to vote." Further, we don't see much about the rating of favor, very sure, a little bit sure etc. And we seldom see, the "undecided" in the headlines; that is usually buried if touched on at all.

As you pointed out, last week we saw polls telling us that Obama was winning in the "swing states" although I have never understood how people's dance styles have anything to do with politics. [Sorry couldn't resist].

At the same time, I heard an interview on the definitive left-wing broadcaster in Canada, the CBC, in which a political science professor [sorry I forget what university, it may have been Stanford] was on about how this is the tightest race in since, now get this, Carter?Reagan if not in the history of the US.

So many people think that Reagan trampled Carter, and to a degree he did. It was closer than we remember, perhaps because of the huge victory going into the second term. But, as this guy pointed out, Reagan actually trailed Carter until the debate and even then, was neck and neck until the last few days of the election. The win, he noted, was far greater than even the most accurate polls indicated, and that is why he is giving the “edge” to Romney in this.

Say what?

He asserted a number of parallels to Carter/Reagan, not the least of which was how Reagan was, my words, hunted, haunted and harassed in the media. It was this man’s contention, as you have pointed out, that congealed Reagan’s support where Carter’s was soft with even the gun toting, drunken genius Hunter S. Thompson, withdrawing his endorsement of Carter, threatening to move to Canada if “that son of a bitch ever gets to use the White House toilets again.”

Now, and I have been saying this for two years, he stated clearly that everything depends on the "perception" of the debate. At this point I suggest the numbers are a mere academic exercise with a good deal of pollsters wondering if they should find a new career.

And that, my friends, is why the White House is playing the “reduced expectations” game. And that is also why Romney’s sphincter muscles are clenched tighter than lug nuts on a race car; this is his only shot at “unfiltered” exposure to the undecided. And he is praying that he gets that “now, there you go again” moment.

Now, I have to add, that the interviewer is a woman with a touch of the devil in her and in closing she asked who this prof was voting for, to which he replied only “I am a registered Democrat.”

That says it all, I assert.


Apparently the dancing states are going Obama's way.

That is terrible news for the god-fearing, gun-slinging, racist people who regularly vote to get their god-fearing, gun-slinging and racist views imposed on the rest of America.

They are lucky they are not Sunnis or Shias. Or they would have to explode themselves and become martyrs no-one remembers.

[Calypso Jones]

:wink: