• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Rasmussen: Cain 43, Obama 41

Anagram said:
Do you have anything at all to back that up? There have been no polls showing anything close to a Republican landslide, and there is no historical precedent of a president with Obama's current approval being easily beaten for re-election.
Click to expand...

He doesn't poll above 50% against anyone. That's "ass is grass" time for an incumbent.
 
Reg said:
He doesn't poll above 50% against anyone. That's "ass is grass" time for an incumbent.
Click to expand...

Of course, I forgot that not polling 50% a year before the election mattered so much. That's why we had President Dole and President Kerry right?
 
Anagram said:
Of course, I forgot that not polling 50% a year before the election mattered so much. That's why we had President Dole and President Kerry right?
Click to expand...

If you look at incumbents, being under 50% is a big deal.

Bush was at 50% in 2003. Clinton lead Dole by about 7 points at this point in 1995.
 
Reg said:
If you look at incumbents, being under 50% is a big deal.

Bush was at 50% in 2003. Clinton lead Dole by about 7 points at this point in 1995.
Click to expand...

Kerry led Bush 5 months later than this point, in February 2004. Clinton was not above 50% in several polls in late '95.
 
Anagram said:
Kerry led Bush 5 months later than this point, in February 2004. Clinton was not above 50% in several polls in late '95.
Click to expand...

They exchanged leads. Neither of them was in the hole like Obama is.
 
pbrauer said:
Anyone who gives credence to poll numbers this early is a fool, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? What could possibly happen between now and November 2012 that would boost Obama's numbers?
 
Reg said:
They exchanged leads. Neither of them was in the hole like Obama is.
Click to expand...

You see these polls differently than Obama and Mitt Romney/Herman Cain exchanging leads? Obama has, for the most part, led both of them in national polls with a few deficits. His approval rating is only 4-5 points under Reagan's in late 1983. And we all know how the 1984 election turned out. There is no basis whatsoever for predicting a Republican landslide.
 
Anagram said:
Kerry led Bush 5 months later than this point, in February 2004. Clinton was not above 50% in several polls in late '95.
Click to expand...

Let's keep it real. Obama doesn't have anything to run on.
 
Anagram said:
You see these polls differently than Obama and Mitt Romney/Herman Cain exchanging leads? Obama has, for the most part, led both of them in national polls with a few deficits. His approval rating is only 4-5 points under Reagan's in late 1983. And we all know how the 1984 election turned out. There is no basis whatsoever for predicting a Republican landslide.
Click to expand...

By 1984, the recession was over. Obama has no plans to end this recession.
 
apdst said:
Why do you say that? What could possibly happen between now and November 2012 that would boost Obama's numbers?
Click to expand...

He believes whipping up riots will work in his favor.
 
Reg said:
By 1984, the recession was over. Obama has no plans to end this recession.
Click to expand...

Maybe so. However, you said anyone who is polling under 50% at this time during an election cycle couldn't win. I provided you of two examples to disprove that. I think Obama would probably lose to the right candidate, but you have no numerical or historical basis to predict that Obama will lose in a landslide.
 
I expected this would happen because Mr Cain clearly knows more about executive management than Obama ever dreamed of.

As I have said before Obama is not qualified to manage a pay toilet, and he proves it every time he comes up with another hair brained idea.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Yeah yeah yeah and everyone thought the same thing about Bush in 08.
Click to expand...

How many Republicans suggested that Bush seize power?

So far, there are two Democrats that have suggested that Obama seize emergency powers and suspend the elections.
 
apdst said:
How many Republicans suggested that Bush seize power?

So far, there are two Democrats that have suggested that Obama seize emergency powers and suspend the elections.
Click to expand...

Guilt by association is your bread and butter.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Guilt by association is your bread and butter.
Click to expand...

You've yet to post a link proving that Republicans suggested that Bush declare emergency power.

We'll be waiting.
 
apdst said:
You've yet to post a link proving that Republicans suggested that Bush declare emergency power.

We'll be waiting.
Click to expand...

The point is not what Republicans or a couple of democrats tell the president to do, the point is what he does himself.

During the worst economic crisis since the great depression, two wars on the go and many other problems an election still took place.

Obama is not going to do anything of the kind.
 
Jetboogieman said:
The point is not what Republicans or a couple of democrats tell the president to do, the point is what he does himself.

During the worst economic crisis since the great depression, two wars on the go and many other problems an election still took place.

Obama is not going to do anything of the kind.
Click to expand...

Did Bush incite violence in the streets to support his agenda, as Obama is doing?

Now, get those links for us, young man.
 
apdst said:
Did Bush incite violence in the streets to support his agenda, as Obama is doing?

Now, get those links for us, young man.
Click to expand...

Obama is inciting violence... where?

I don't have to get you links. And as usual you're propagating the usual crap to rile people up in hopes of a reaction. Obama is not going to cancel the election with emergency powers so it doesn't matter what a couple of idiot democrats said.

And frankly I don't care as both sides are ****ing retards, and if you can support either side with a straight face after they've both sold your country down the river then I honestly feel sorry for you.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Obama is inciting violence... where?

I don't have to get you links. And as usual you're propagating the usual crap to rile people up in hopes of a reaction. Obama is not going to cancel the election with emergency powers so it doesn't matter what a couple of idiot democrats said.

And frankly I don't care as both sides are ****ing retards, and if you can support either side with a straight face after they've both sold your country down the river then I honestly feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...

Don't feel sorry for me. I'm not the one supporting the first American dictator.
 
pbrauer said:
Before you dismiss the following report I must tell you that David W Moore is a former Vice President of the Gallup Organization and was a senior editor with the Gallup Poll for thirteen years.

Herman Cain – A Frontrunner? Don’t Be Fooled Once Again.
Click to expand...

He's part of Huffington Post. When I hear someone is part of Huffington Post, and especially Washington Post, I know they have political bias and both of them want Romney to win. Cain is skipping New Hampshire, but he is not skipping Iowa, and he currently leads in Iowa.
Just In: Herman Cain Heading Back to Iowa

Then there is Nevada, South Carolina and Florida. He has potental to win all three of them. In fact Romney is weak on this front, because most of the Northeast is going to have their primaries in April.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom