• 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!

Obama Gets 30% of Americans Certain to Support Re-Election in Economy Poll

j-mac said:
The economy you are right on, and Obama is doing NOTHING to make it any better. How "extreme" a candidate is, isn't determined by liberal extremists thankfully.

j-mac
Click to expand...

The candidate doesn't have to be determined by liberals for the party to choose poorly or for it to make a difference. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
The candidate doesn't have to be determined by liberals for the party to choose poorly or for it to make a difference. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Wheather or not you think the GOP choice is a smart one or not is irrelevant, espically since you wouldn't be voting for any of them anyway. All you need to do is be available the day after the election to take your lumps honestly.....

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Wheather or not you think the GOP choice is a smart one or not is irrelevant, espically since you wouldn't be voting for any of them anyway. All you need to do is be available the day after the election to take your lumps honestly.....

j-mac
Click to expand...

That's true to a point, but that doesn't make a good choice either. The fact is, she has issue that will hurt her in the general election. This is true no matter who says it.

You may not believe this, but I would love to see a valid candidate. I don't think our system benefits from having poor candidates run. I would rather risk losing to a good candidate than having two poor candidates run. whether you believe me or not, would you argue hat what I say is wrong?
 
Boo Radley said:
That's true to a point, but that doesn't make a good choice either. The fact is, she has issue that will hurt her in the general election. This is true no matter who says it.

You may not believe this, but I would love to see a valid candidate. I don't think our system benefits from having poor candidates run. I would rather risk losing to a good candidate than having two poor candidates run. whether you believe me or not, would you argue hat what I say is wrong?
Click to expand...

Interesting, you think Obama a "poor candidate"?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Interesting, you think Obama a "poor candidate"?

j-mac
Click to expand...

I don't think he is the best we could have; he was just better than what he ran against. Put a better candidate up there and I'll consider that person.

Now would you argue I was wrong in what I said?
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't think he is the best we could have; he was just better than what he ran against. Put a better candidate up there and I'll consider that person.

Now would you argue I was wrong in what I said?
Click to expand...


Who is the best then....Tell us, who would Boo Radley think couldn't be beaten, that would be the best America has to offer?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Who is the best then....Tell us, who would Boo Radley think couldn't be beaten, that would be the best America has to offer?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Don't know for sure at this moment. What little I know of Hunstman seems good. But I do knwo we don't need crazy, or extreme, or stupid. I just think we need to work harder at getting good, intelligent, reasonable people to run, frown on the excessive gottcha nonsense, and stop feeding the attack ad machine.

Do you argee with me or not?
 
Got to go J. Perhaps you'll have an answer before I return. :2wave:
 
I particularly like Marco Rubio. I hope he can keep his nose clean and cover his six while he swims with the sharks.

If he survives, he might make for a GREAT president someday. He's the only real voice of reason coming out of Florida right now, IMO. Keep your eye on him America.
 
Last edited:
And of course J-mac cherry picks:

At the same time, Americans are skeptical that Republican control of the White House and Congress will be a better prescription for their economic wellbeing. Sixty percent said that any Republican candidate will need to move so far to the right on fiscal and social issues to win their party’s nomination that it will be very hard to back the nominee.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, the poll leaves out the most important factor in determining if Obama's out of a job: who's he's running against.
 
Mickey Shane said:
These polls are meaningless before we know who is the competition.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Ptif and J-Mac are deliberately ignoring this.

From recent polls, Obama loses to a generic republican. But once you start putting real candidates against him, Obama goes from a victory margin of ~4% to dominating 16% depending on the Republican. Polls like this tell us nothing useful.
 
j-mac said:
Hmmm....Not looking good for 'the One'... Aren't these numbers lower than Bush at the same mark?

j-mac
Click to expand...

If the GOP props up Sara Palin or John McCain, Mitt Romney or some other RINO then they might as well be guaranteeing Obama's second term. So it isn't over until the fat Lady croaks.
 
obvious Child said:
Indeed. Ptif and J-Mac are deliberately ignoring this.

From recent polls, Obama loses to a generic republican. But once you start putting real candidates against him, Obama goes from a victory margin of ~4% to dominating 16% depending on the Republican. Polls like this tell us nothing useful.
Click to expand...

Finally something I agree with .. this far out .. polls are nothing more then fodder for the news media ..

The bottom line here is the economy, plain and simple .. if it can be reversed .. and show strong “real” signs of improvement .. obama will difficult to beat .. the other thing that will be used against him is the debt and deficit spending .. that will also have to be gotten under control .. But if the average American is somewhat better off then when a president took office .. then chances are good he will be re-elected.

At this point in time .. Americans aren't better off .. unemployment is still high, companies aren't hiring and people are suffering more … inflation .. is beginning to show it's ugly head .. so yes at this time he would be hard pressed to win over any reasonable candidate. But he has a year to turn some of that around ..

One thing I've been pondering tho .. and this has no fact basis at all … .but he has made a lot of enemies of big business, and if they so choose to do so .. could easily cause a turn down in the economy in say .. April or May of next year .. that would insure a defeat. As I said no facts to back this up, just my own thinking that if business were to decide they wanted someone more favorable to them running this country, they could pull back their money .. give another round of layoffs .. pull their money out of the stock market, release reports of them losing money .. a 2nd dip so close to an election would have the desired effects . As I said just my own opinion …... but on the other hand .. My money is coming out of the stock market right after Christmas … I'll risk the rewards of upwards ticks for 6 or 7 months .. just in case ..
 
Boo Radley said:
That's true to a point, but that doesn't make a good choice either. The fact is, she has issue that will hurt her in the general election. This is true no matter who says it.

You may not believe this, but I would love to see a valid candidate. I don't think our system benefits from having poor candidates run. I would rather risk losing to a good candidate than having two poor candidates run. whether you believe me or not, would you argue hat what I say is wrong?
Click to expand...

Compared to Obamacare and the economy we have under Obama and the high unemployment under Obama not to mention the wars and Obama apologizing I would say Obama is the bad candidate.
 
j-mac said:
Hmmm....Not looking good for 'the One'... Aren't these numbers lower than Bush at the same mark?

j-mac
Click to expand...

That must be the 30% of Americans who still have a job.
 
To me it seems like Barack Obama is going to be a one term president. According to history no president has ever been reelected with unemployment rate above 8 percent since 1936. It seems like that what's going to happen in November 2012, the economy is still doing very poorly. The job report for the month of may was terrible, the economy only added a total 54000 jobs. I think if the president wants to win a second term he has a total of 14 months left to get the unemployment rate below 8 percent.
 
The Barbarian said:
Finally something I agree with .. this far out .. polls are nothing more then fodder for the news media
Click to expand...

And mindless hacks who lack even the most basic critical thinking skills. Unfortunately, there are plenty here.

The bottom line here is the economy, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Which in a way, was stupid for Obama to release his birth certificate. The longer he keeps the GOP off the economy, the more likely he's to win with a bad economy. But on the flip side, the faster he gets them to commit to stupid plans like Palwenty's (who would actually push us into default) the more likely he's going to get the college educated crowd who understands a bit about finance. But that's a small voting block to b sure.

if it can be reversed .. and show strong “real” signs of improvement .. obama will difficult to beat .. the other thing that will be used against him is the debt and deficit spending .. that will also have to be gotten under control .. But if the average American is somewhat better off then when a president took office .. then chances are good he will be re-elected.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure he can. The problem is not supply. Corporations are sitting on $2 trillion of cash. They aren't investing and hiring because demand is just not there DESPITE the market being up leaps and bounds from the worst of the recession. Honesty, though, the GOP's current candidates are basically jokes when it comes to the economy. Most of them would cut spending so dramatically we'd see a new recession and higher deficits due to automatic stabilizers and less tax revenue. I'm really just waiting for Huntsman and Romney to release an actual, adult, intelligent plan. Right now it's a joke.

At this point in time .. Americans aren't better off .. unemployment is still high, companies aren't hiring and people are suffering more … inflation .. is beginning to show it's ugly head .. so yes at this time he would be hard pressed to win over any reasonable candidate. But he has a year to turn some of that around ..
Click to expand...

Reasonable is key though.

One thing I've been pondering tho .. and this has no fact basis at all … .but he has made a lot of enemies of big business, and if they so choose to do so .. could easily cause a turn down in the economy in say .. April or May of next year .. that would insure a defeat.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the GOP would have much to gain from basically killing the economy. The worse the economy is, the better they'd do which in a way is massively un-American as they'd benefit from more unemployment and more suffering.

As for Business though, they exist to make a profit. Intentionally shooting yourself in the foot doesn't make sense no matter who's in office. Furthermore, CEOs tend not to be idiots and I'd gather many of them realize that whoever wins the next election is going to make tough decisions that will hurt them regardless. There is no realistic way to balance the budget and start reducing the debt without significant tax hikes and major cuts, neither of which are good for a consumer based economy. Anyone who argues this can be done with just tax cuts or spending cuts is lying or delusional.

As I said no facts to back this up, just my own thinking that if business were to decide they wanted someone more favorable to them running this country, they could pull back their money .. give another round of layoffs .. pull their money out of the stock market, release reports of them losing money .. a 2nd dip so close to an election would have the desired effects . As I said just my own opinion …... but on the other hand .. My money is coming out of the stock market right after Christmas … I'll risk the rewards of upwards ticks for 6 or 7 months .. just in case ..
Click to expand...

It's possible, but the risk to one's livelihood seems to counteract that. A CEO won't risk losing their job by destroying profits merely to hurt Obama. Especially in this day and age where shareholders can get in on class action lawsuits.
 
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't know for sure at this moment. What little I know of Hunstman seems good. But I do knwo we don't need crazy, or extreme, or stupid. I just think we need to work harder at getting good, intelligent, reasonable people to run, frown on the excessive gottcha nonsense, and stop feeding the attack ad machine.

Do you argee with me or not?
Click to expand...


Huntsman? Really? why? Was one of the calculations in your mind that he worked for Obama?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Huntsman? Really? why? Was one of the calculations in your mind that he worked for Obama?

j-mac
Click to expand...

No, as I said, I know little about him, but what I hear is that he is moderate, seems to speak with reason, and I haven't heard anything nutter from him, which in this class is a good thing.

I do know you won't answer the question. Why?
 
Boo Radley said:
No, as I said, I know little about him, but what I hear is that he is moderate, seems to speak with reason, and I haven't heard anything nutter from him, which in this class is a good thing.

I do know you won't answer the question. Why?
Click to expand...

Well, a couple of reasons really.

1. I think you have about as much of a chance of voting for any republican today, as I do voting for Obama.

2. Huntsman, with his "wishy/washy" approach is naive. If he really believes that Obama is out there earlier than any other incumbent in history, trying to raise more money (even if from questionable sources) than anyone else in history because he wants to run a clean campaign based on the issues of his first term, then Huntsman is crazy.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Well, a couple of reasons really.

1. I think you have about as much of a chance of voting for any republican today, as I do voting for Obama.

2. Huntsman, with his "wishy/washy" approach is naive. If he really believes that Obama is out there earlier than any other incumbent in history, trying to raise more money (even if from questionable sources) than anyone else in history because he wants to run a clean campaign based on the issues of his first term, then Huntsman is crazy.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Well, I have voted republicna in the past. true, if you select a nutter, or someone too far from my belief system, I won't vote for them. Nor should you expect me to. But if you nominate someone reasonable, moderate, and a better option than Obama I would consider it. And if he or she was clearly better, I would vote for that person.

Now I don't know who that person is. Huntsman, who I admit I don't know very well, seems the only one I know of running to what I would vote for. And Huntsman not being a hateful as some doesn't make him crazy. Many would like to see a candidate move away from the vile attack approaches we've seen the last few years. few doubt it will happen, but I won't fault Huntsman for being civil.

BTW, nothing about what you believe concerning me should prevent you from answering the question. The question was not about what you thought about me, but about what I said and argued. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, I have voted republicna in the past. true, if you select a nutter, or someone too far from my belief system, I won't vote for them. Nor should you expect me to. But if you nominate someone reasonable, moderate, and a better option than Obama I would consider it. And if he or she was clearly better, I would vote for that person.

Now I don't know who that person is. Huntsman, who I admit I don't know very well, seems the only one I know of running to what I would vote for. And Huntsman not being a hateful as some doesn't make him crazy. Many would like to see a candidate move away from the vile attack approaches we've seen the last few years. few doubt it will happen, but I won't fault Huntsman for being civil.

BTW, nothing about what you believe concerning me should prevent you from answering the question. The question was not about what you thought about me, but about what I said and argued. ;)
Click to expand...


There are indications Joe, that Obama is going to run the most expensive attack campaign right from the start, so your option is that we should run someone who is not going to stand up against that onslaught, rather promote puff about how civil he is? Get out of here with that....This is why we shouldn't give a damn what liberals think of who we nominate.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
There are indications Joe, that Obama is going to run the most expensive attack campaign right from the start, so your option is that we should run someone who is not going to stand up against that onslaught, rather promote puff about how civil he is? Get out of here with that....This is why we shouldn't give a damn what liberals think of who we nominate.

j-mac
Click to expand...

How much money is spent doesn't tell us how he will run. I would expect the republican candidate to give as good as he gets, or better, but that is not the point. Do you desire better? Do want a strong candidate, or less? Do what to look up, or to the gutter?
 
Boo Radley said:
How much money is spent doesn't tell us how he will run. I would expect the republican candidate to give as good as he gets, or better, but that is not the point. Do you desire better? Do want a strong candidate, or less? Do what to look up, or to the gutter?
Click to expand...

Ofcourse I want a strong candidate, with less government, fiscal responsible, pro liberty goals. Certainly not what we have now.

And to think that we would let liberals tell us how to select our candidate is absurd....

Worry about your own disaster currently occupying the WH before you try and choose ours.

j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom