• 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's Approval Rating Drops to Lowest Ever, According to Gallup

Status
Not open for further replies.
Conservative said:
Obama has already lost the independent and has no policy to get them back. Doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate as the Obama record is there for all to see, it is a disaster
Click to expand...
Suuure, Con. Uh-huh. You put up a hard rightwinger evangelist like Perry and watch how fast the middle races back to Obama.
 
Conservative said:
Obama has already lost the independent and has no policy to get them back. Doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate as the Obama record is there for all to see, it is a disaster
Click to expand...

that is where you are 100% wrong. The election is not simply an up or down referendum on Obama. Your refusal to admit that is your Achilles heel rendering your views totally a FAIL.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
What you don't understand is that the head-to-head polls are not mutually inclusive. People polled are not limited to one choice, which as you claim, they will switch to whomever gets the nod from the GOP. In these polls, they can pick every GOPer if they so choose. So no, I don't see narrowing the field to one candidate having much impact on those polls. It might to some degree pick someone they hadn't considered previously, thanks to the herd mentality, but I don't see that being enough to overcome the current numbers. It's my opinion the biggest factor which will move those numbers is that some of the candidates are not all that well known, which will change when there's one candidate. But even that can work against them as much as it can help them. Remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
'

What you don't understand is that most of those polls were before Perry even announced and before the economy took its latest dive. It will be the Obama results that will be on the ballot and his lack of leadership and management skills that will defeat him. He is exactly what happens when you put an unqualified, empty suit, incompetent candidate in a position well above his maximum "pay grade."
 
haymarket said:
that is where you are 100% wrong. The election is not simply an up or down referendum on Obama. Your refusal to admit that is your Achilles heel rendering your views totally a FAIL.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion, you were wrong in 2010 and will be wrong in 2012
 
haymarket said:
Romney has a chance... IF ...... - Perry will be quickly exposed for the extremist that he is and will go nowhere.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. There are few states a rightwinger like Perry can get elected. In a rightwing state like Texas, he's accepted. I don't see him being as successful with much of the rest of the nation.
 
Obama is right. We elected Bush twice and now, we have a result of it. Moreover, we elected abunch of Republicans into Congress. I do not approve Obama, but for a different reason. Nevertheless, I will vote for him again. I think many of those, who disapprove him now, will vote for him in 2012.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Exactly right. There are few states a rightwinger like Perry can get elected. In a rightwing state like Texas, he's accepted. I don't see him being as successful with much of the rest of the nation.
Click to expand...

Barring a right wing third party candidacy Texas is firmly in the GOP column for 2012. This means that Perry adds nothing to the ticket in a positive way and only can detract from it once his own views are well publicized.
 
Conservative said:
You don't recall your predictions prior to the 2010 elections? Seems to me you were way off on the outcome.
Click to expand...

And what exactly were my predictions that were way off the mark?
 
j-mac said:
By nearly every measure....At least he didn't go around apologizing for America's existence.


j-mac
Click to expand...

No....instead he sold out the moral core and integrity of our country.
 
haymarket said:
that is where you are 100% wrong. The election is not simply an up or down referendum on Obama. Your refusal to admit that is your Achilles heel rendering your views totally a FAIL.
Click to expand...

You are correct. Some cons act like a goose. They wake up in a new world everyday. Apparently the con has short memory recall and needs his rose colored glasses corrected.
 
haymarket said:
And what exactly were my predictions that were way off the mark?
Click to expand...


As I recall you said that the GOP was in for a shock and that the Democrat losses wouldn't be as bad as predicted and in fact that Democrats would have a more favorable showing. Democrats recorded record losses as the state and national level so you were way off and wrong.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
What you don't understand is that the head-to-head polls are not mutually inclusive. People polled are not limited to one choice, which as you claim, they will switch to whomever gets the nod from the GOP. In these polls, they can pick every GOPer if they so choose. So no, I don't see narrowing the field to one candidate having much impact on those polls. It might to some degree pick someone they hadn't considered previously, thanks to the herd mentality, but I don't see that being enough to overcome the current numbers. It's my opinion the biggest factor which will move those numbers is that some of the candidates are not all that well known, which will change when there's one candidate. But even that can work against them as much as it can help them. Remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

Looks like the tide is changing, as stated most of the polls were in July before the unemployment numbers and economic growth numbers were announced. Here is an indication of what is coming, Registered voters

Romney
Gallup
8/17 - 8/18 879 RV 46 48 Romney +2

Perry
Gallup
8/17 - 8/18 879 RV 47 47 Tie
 
Conservative said:
As I recall you said that the GOP was in for a shock and that the Democrat losses wouldn't be as bad as predicted and in fact that Democrats would have a more favorable showing. Democrats recorded record losses as the state and national level so you were way off and wrong.
Click to expand...
Here's another gift from the Bush & Co. ...


Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2 Trillion From Fed

Citigroup Inc. (C) and Bank of America Corp. (BAC) were the reigning champions of finance in 2006 as home prices peaked, leading the 10 biggest U.S. banks and brokerage firms to their best year ever with $104 billion of profits.

By 2008, the housing market’s collapse forced those companies to take more than six times as much, $669 billion, in emergency loans from the U.S. Federal Reserve. The loans dwarfed the $160 billion in public bailouts the top 10 got from the U.S. Treasury, yet until now the full amounts have remained secret.​


How much impact do you suppose that had on the deficit Bush handed to Obama?
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Here's another gift from the Bush & Co. ...


Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2 Trillion From Fed

Citigroup Inc. (C) and Bank of America Corp. (BAC) were the reigning champions of finance in 2006 as home prices peaked, leading the 10 biggest U.S. banks and brokerage firms to their best year ever with $104 billion of profits.

By 2008, the housing market’s collapse forced those companies to take more than six times as much, $669 billion, in emergency loans from the U.S. Federal Reserve. The loans dwarfed the $160 billion in public bailouts the top 10 got from the U.S. Treasury, yet until now the full amounts have remained secret.​


How much impact do you suppose that had on the deficit Bush handed to Obama?
Click to expand...

Obama vs. Romney
Gallup
8/17 - 8/18 879 RV 46 48 Romney +2

Obama vs. Perry

Gallup
8/17 - 8/18 879 RV 47 47 Tie Perry
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Here's another gift from the Bush & Co. ...


Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2 Trillion From Fed

Citigroup Inc. (C) and Bank of America Corp. (BAC) were the reigning champions of finance in 2006 as home prices peaked, leading the 10 biggest U.S. banks and brokerage firms to their best year ever with $104 billion of profits.

By 2008, the housing market’s collapse forced those companies to take more than six times as much, $669 billion, in emergency loans from the U.S. Federal Reserve. The loans dwarfed the $160 billion in public bailouts the top 10 got from the U.S. Treasury, yet until now the full amounts have remained secret.​


How much impact do you suppose that had on the deficit Bush handed to Obama?
Click to expand...

Let me know what Obama has proposed that has lowered the deficit, 3.7 trillion dollar spending vs. 3.0 trillion Bush in 2008?
 
Conservative said:
Obama vs. Romney
Gallup
8/17 - 8/18 879 RV 46 48 Romney +2

Obama vs. Perry

Gallup
8/17 - 8/18 879 RV 47 47 Tie Perry
Click to expand...


Perry has impressive numbers
 
Conservative said:
Looks like the tide is changing, as stated most of the polls were in July before the unemployment numbers and economic growth numbers were announced. Here is an indication of what is coming, Registered voters

Romney
Gallup
8/17 - 8/18 879 RV 46 48 Romney +2

Perry
Gallup
8/17 - 8/18 879 RV 47 47 Tie
Click to expand...

Umm, there are other polls since then ... here are the ones you left out ...

Vs Romney
Democracy Corps (D) ... Obama +1
CNN/Opinion Research ... Obama +2

Vs Perry
CNN/Opinion Research ... Obama +5

But I appreciate you cherry-picking the polls which favor you most. Reveals a lot about you.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Umm, there are other polls since then ... here are the ones you left out ...

Vs Romney
Democracy Corps (D) ... Obama +1
CNN/Opinion Research ... Obama +2

Vs Perry
CNN/Opinion Research ... Obama +5

But I appreciate you cherry-picking the polls which favor you most. Reveals a lot about you.
Click to expand...

Nope, notice the dates of those polls. I posted the latest once
 
pbrauer said:
OMG, is the election today? I didn't vote.:doh:(
Click to expand...

No problem, I am sure your vote was cast a few times by Democrat activists. I did hear that activists in Chicago are upset however since the city is broke and no longer putting indigents names on head stones in the cemetary. That is making it hard for Democrat registration groups to register the dead which could make Chicago in play in the 2012 elections.
 
Conservative said:
Let me know what Obama has proposed that has lowered the deficit, 3.7 trillion dollar spending vs. 3.0 trillion Bush in 2008?
Click to expand...
That's it?? We learn that while Bush was president, $1.2 trillion was doled out in corporate welfare to Wall Street, far exceeding that Bush told us would be given them, and you turn a blind eye to it?

How much impact do you suppose that $1.2 trillion had on the deficit Bush handed Obama? The deficit for FY2009 was $1.8 trillion. That $1.2 trillion we're now learning about isn't even the $1.2 trillion Bush's FY2009 budget was expect to fall short of.

Aren't you the one complaining 80 times a day about the debt? How much do you suppose that drove up the debt??

Where's your outrage, Con? How come you're never outraged at Bush or his peeps, no matter how badly they ****ed this country? Obama sneezes and we get 400 posts from you whining that Obama sneezed.


The $1.2 trillion peak on Dec. 5, 2008 -- the combined outstanding balance under the seven programs tallied by Bloomberg -- was almost three times the size of the U.S. federal budget deficit that year and more than the total earnings of all federally insured banks in the U.S. for the decade through 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.​


Well, Con? Any outrage? Any at all?

That's just part of the huge pile of mess Bush left for Obama.
 
Remember this oldy but goody?

"The US flew nearly $12bn in shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, then distributed the cash with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent.
The staggering scale of the biggest transfer of cash in the history of the Federal Reserve has been graphically laid bare by a US congressional committee.

In the year after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 nearly 281 million notes, weighing 363 tonnes, were sent from New York to Baghdad for disbursement to Iraqi ministries and US contractors. Using C-130 planes, the deliveries took place once or twice a month with the biggest of $2,401,600,000 on June 22 2004, six days before the handover.

Details of the shipments have emerged in a memorandum prepared for the meeting of the House committee on oversight and government reform which is examining Iraqi reconstruction. Its chairman, Henry Waxman, a fierce critic of the war, said the way the cash had been handled was mind-boggling. "The numbers are so large that it doesn't seem possible that they're true. Who in their right mind would send 363 tonnes of cash into a war zone?"

How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish | World news | The Guardian
 
Conservative said:
Nope, notice the dates of those polls. I posted the latest once
Click to expand...
Since when do you care that polls need to be the latest? Let's not forget you were the one posting Obama's JAR was 39% even when the latest Gallup poll at the time said 40%. You cherry pick polls you like the best. Just like you cherry pick GDP numbers; when you like nominal figures better you use them, when real figures suit you better, you switch to real figures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom