• 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!

Christie favorables are dropping

haymarket said:
This comes right on the heels of another poll which said that less than one in four New Jersey citizens would support Christie on the 2012 national GOP ticket. There is little doubt that a figure like Christie is divisive and polarizing and that is an issue in and of itself which many citizens do not like.

Christie is not one fish alone in the tank. Similar ratings drops have been produced for Walker in Wisconsin, Kasich in Ohio and Snyder in Michigan. For Snyder, he dropped farther in just three months than the previous governor had done in six years of approval ratings. These stealth governors think they can sneak in on relatively moderate platforms and then throw off the Halloween costume of the moderate and get away with it. Sorry, but there is a price to pay for deception and radical right wing legislation.
Click to expand...

The people who voted for Walker and got Walker elected... those numbers there are what really matters. If they are happy, then Walker is safe.
Wisconsin Governor Walker: 43% Approval Rating - Rasmussen Reports™
Among those who voted for Walker last November, 77% approve of his performance, with 67% who Strongly Approve. As for those who voted for his Democratic opponent, Tom Barrett, 93% disapprove of how Walker is governing, including 88% who Strongly Disapprove.
Click to expand...
He's safe.
 
Whovian said:
You two should be working with Ricardo Montalban on Fantasy Island... that's where you appear to be.
Click to expand...

We will find out in 2012 who is in fantasy land and who is not.
 
Whovian said:
The people who voted for Walker and got Walker elected... those numbers there are what really matters. If they are happy, then Walker is safe.
Wisconsin Governor Walker: 43% Approval Rating - Rasmussen Reports™

He's safe.
Click to expand...

That is not at all the way electoral politics works. It does NOT matter who likes him and who does not like him in terms of specific details of each and every person and who they voted for. The fact is a simple one: in a two person race - 43% loses each and every time.
 
lpast said:
We cant afford falls on deaf ears when all the teaparty brats do is give themselves huge tax cuts...were not all stupid reverend and btw I am not one of the dependent class and never was..Im part of the realistic class and the class that realizes the rich are full of chit and just want it all...
Click to expand...




Most in the tea party make 50k or less. Fail.
 
You can spin it anyway you want...Christies numbers have been falling, there was a poll that im looking for last week that showed women view him in the negatives and men are split 51% for and 47 against....these numbers reflect a HUGE drop in popularity for him and his policies since even 3 months ago. The more he runs his mouth the more people are realizing its the same song on a different day over and over again....Women outnumber men in NJ and OUTVOTE them...Rick Scott in florida is dropping fast also.
Time will tell but this hardliner teaparty crap will not be around longterm, in my opinion, they are going to turn the mass's off..WE WANT WHAT WE WANT AND WE WONT COMPROMISE all that rhetoric does is make the other side dig in and then nothing gets done. Teaparty is no different than Pelosi and her house they are just on two different sides of the spectrum but still BOTH THE SAME in their gestapo demands
 
I know. A balanced budget, low taxes, representatives held accountable. How gestapo. Duh.
 
lpast said:
You can spin it anyway you want...Christies numbers have been falling, there was a poll that im looking for last week that showed women view him in the negatives and men are split 51% for and 47 against....these numbers reflect a HUGE drop in popularity for him and his policies since even 3 months ago. The more he runs his mouth the more people are realizing its the same song on a different day over and over again....Women outnumber men in NJ and OUTVOTE them...Rick Scott in florida is dropping fast also.
Time will tell but this hardliner teaparty crap will not be around longterm, in my opinion, they are going to turn the mass's off..WE WANT WHAT WE WANT AND WE WONT COMPROMISE all that rhetoric does is make the other side dig in and then nothing gets done. Teaparty is no different than Pelosi and her house they are just on two different sides of the spectrum but still BOTH THE SAME in their gestapo demands
Click to expand...

Heres the poll I found it...- New Jersey Local News - NJ.com
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I know. A balanced budget, low taxes, representatives held accountable. How gestapo. Duh.
Click to expand...

No reverend thats not the problem at all. The gestapo is the constant Rhetoric that WE WANT WHAT WE WANT AND THERE WILL BE NO COMPROMISE. The problem is that all the teaparty backed Govs first thing they did was give tax cuts to the wealthiest and corporations then second thing they did was ATTACK the working class and blame them for all the deficits. If you think that is going to float in the longterm ok...I do not. There are far more working class americans, the mass's awaken slowly.
Giving continuous tax cuts at the state level to only the richest citizens and corps..then extending the bush tax cuts that mostly benefit the rich...then ryans plan which is a candy store of HUGE tax breaks for the rich on the backs of the middle class..
THAT IS CLASS WARFARE and its being waged by the teaparty. This reverse robin hood Ryan take from the middle class and give to the rich is NOT DEBT reduction...its a tax reduction plan for the super rich.
 
lpast said:
No reverend thats not the problem at all. The gestapo is the constant Rhetoric that WE WANT WHAT WE WANT AND THERE WILL BE NO COMPROMISE. The problem is that all the teaparty backed Govs first thing they did was give tax cuts to the wealthiest and corporations then second thing they did was ATTACK the working class and blame them for all the deficits. If you think that is going to float in the longterm ok...I do not. There are far more working class americans, the mass's awaken slowly.
Giving continuous tax cuts at the state level to only the richest citizens and corps..then extending the bush tax cuts that mostly benefit the rich...then ryans plan which is a candy store of HUGE tax breaks for the rich on the backs of the middle class..
THAT IS CLASS WARFARE and its being waged by the teaparty. This reverse robin hood Ryan take from the middle class and give to the rich is NOT DEBT reduction...its a tax reduction plan for the super rich.
Click to expand...



How simplisticly partisan of you.

If nj does not give a tax break panasoni moves to pa instead of newark. Newark also gave a tax break, corey booker mayor, democrat


Also while complaining about this nonsense perhaps you can tell me how you feel abou talf loans er i mean gifts of the tarp money to wives of big bankers, or the amount of bailout money given to GE.


Please obama has handed money to colorations wheras hristie simply lowered taxes to entice businesses to stay or come to jersey.
 
Try to increase the so-called millionaire's tax, he [christie] warned, and all those business owners who hire people will flee to more tax-friendly environs. "This is a tax which has proven to be destructive to job creation in states, and that's why states all over the country are rejecting it," Christie said.

With a millionaire's tax, your son or niece will never get a job in this tough economy, Christie reasoned at a recent town-hall meeting, because "the long, ugly, hairy hand of Trenton is coming to take that [hiring] money."

...

Charles Varner, a doctoral candidate in sociology at Princeton University, and Cristobal Young, an assistant professor of sociology at Stanford University, were given special access to New Jersey tax returns to determine the effect of the millionaire's tax, which Gov. Jim McGreevey approved in 2004. They studied tax filings from before and after the tax was instituted, and compared the affected "millionaires" (those earning more than $500,000) to the slightly less rich ($200,000 and above).

"We estimated that 70 tax filers, single or families, moved because of the tax over the four-year period," Varner said in an interview.

That was just 0.04 percent of the millionaires in New Jersey. And retirees or those living off their investments - not business owners - are most likely to leave, the study found.
Click to expand...
Christie discounts Princeton study on "millionaire's tax" | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/21/2011

appears they are both right
christie overestimates the number of existing businesses which would leave due to the millionaire excise tax. seems only those who cut coupons actually leave due to the added taxes

but christie is likely very correct about attracting new business
while relocating an established business is often a cost prohibitive process, selecting a location other than NJ to avoid high taxes is not unlikely
each additional tax burden on a prospective business makes NJ less attractive to business (and wealthy) interests otherwise interested in a NJ operation

this is the unvarnished reality that christie is willing to speak. but the truth is also a difficult thing for taxpayers to be willing to hear

if christie could learn to be more diplomatic in making his (often truthful) case, he could be a viable presidential contender
if he insists on being his caustic self, not so much
 
justabubba said:
Christie discounts Princeton study on "millionaire's tax" | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/21/2011

appears they are both right
christie overestimates the number of existing businesses which would leave due to the millionaire excise tax. seems only those who cut coupons actually leave due to the added taxes

but christie is likely very correct about attracting new business
while relocating an established business is often a cost prohibitive process, selecting a location other than NJ to avoid high taxes is not unlikely
each additional tax burden on a prospective business makes NJ less attractive to business (and wealthy) interests otherwise interested in a NJ operation

this is the unvarnished reality that christie is willing to speak. but the truth is also a difficult thing for taxpayers to be willing to hear

if christie could learn to be more diplomatic in making his (often truthful) case, he could be a viable presidential contender
if he insists on being his caustic self, not so much
Click to expand...




He's from NJ, he's not used to catering to folks with tender feelings.
 
haymarket said:
The fact is a simple one: in a two person race - 43% loses each and every time.
Click to expand...

Tell that to...
10 Presidents Who Won with Less Than 50% of the Vote | Top 10 Lists | TopTenz.net
John Quincy Adams – 30.5% of the popular vote in 1824
Abraham Lincoln – 39.8% of the popular vote in 1860
Woodrow Wilson – 41.9% of the popular vote in 1912

and...

William Clinton – 42.9% of the popular vote in 1992
Click to expand...

Once again, you prove to the board you haven't a clue about a word you say... or you're simply a liar hoping no one checks his statements out.

Which is it Hay? :rofl:
 
Whovian said:
Tell that to...
10 Presidents Who Won with Less Than 50% of the Vote | Top 10 Lists | TopTenz.net


Once again, you prove to the board you haven't a clue about a word you say... or you're simply a liar hoping no one checks his statements out.

Which is it Hay? :rofl:
Click to expand...


Why do you insult me and attack me?

Why do you reprint my comment and completely ignore the copntent of it in a partisan desire to attack me and ridicule me?

Obviously the answer is because you have identified me as the enemy.

Here was my statement:
The fact is a simple one: in a two person race - 43% loses each and every time.
Click to expand...

You then point to four US presidential elecions: 1824, 1860, 1912, and 1992 in which somebody won in the 40th%.

In the 1824 Election there were four candidates who got significant votes making it possible for a minority leader to win: Adams, Jackson, Crawford & Clay. FOUR - not a two person race.
In the 1860 Election there were four candidates who got significant votes making it possible for a minority leader to win: Lincoln, Douglas, Berckenridge & Bell. FOUR - not a two person race.
In the 1912 Election there were four candidates who got significant votes making it possible for a minority leader to win: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft & Debs. FOUR - not a two person race.
In the 1992 Election there were three candidates who got significant votes makign it possible for a minority leader to win: Clinton, Bush & Perot. THREE - not a two person race.

So in your opinion I do not have a clue.
In your opinion I am a liar.
In your opinion I hope nobody checks out my statement.

All in a desire to defend Walkers low numbers and attack me.

If I do not have a clue - where does that now put you with the above evidence that you could have discovered yourself before attacking me?
If I am a liar - what does that make you with the above evidence being consistent with my original post about a two person contest?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Why do you insult me and attack me?............
Click to expand...

I did neither. I stated opinions. Complain to a mod if you feel slighted.

As for the 'two man' comment, there have been numerous primary elections where less that 43% won the election... and anyway, if you really want to count a race as 3 man when the 3rd gets less than 2-3% of the vote, then I feel sorry for you.

FairVote - Non-majority Winners in US Elections
We have assembled a great deal of information about the frequency and impact of American primary and general elections won with less than 50% of the vote. The great majority of American states have had governors who have won elections with less than 50% of the vote since 1990. In the presidential elections since 1988, every state except Arkansas, at least once, awarded all of their electoral votes to a candidate who was opposed by most voters in that state. A significant number of congressional seats were won by mere pluralities. Read the overview to our report.
Click to expand...
Sorted By Winning Percentage

35.0-39.9%

State Year Winner Winning %
Maine 1994 Angus King 35.0%
Connecticut 1994 John Rowland 36.0%
Hawaii 1994 Benjamin Cayetano 37.0%
Minnesota 1998 Jesse Ventura 37.0%
Utah 1956 George D. Clyde 38.2%
Alaska 1990 Walter J. Hickel 39.0%
Alaska 1978 Jay S. Hammond 39.1%
Maine 1974 James B. Longley 39.1%
Arizona 1986 Evan Mecham 39.7%
Maine 1986 John R. McKernan Jr. 39.9%

40.0-44.9%

State Year Winner Winning %
Connecticut 1990 Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. 40.0%
Utah 1988 Norman H. Bangerter 40.1%
Alaska 1994 Tony Knowles 41.1%
Idaho 1966 Don Samuelson 41.4%
New Hampshire 1972 Meldrim Thomson 41.4%
Utah 1992 Michael Leavitt 42.0%
Oklahoma 2002 Brad Henry 43.0%
Click to expand...
 
Which words do you not comprehend in this statement?

The fact is a simple one: in a two person race - 43% loses each and every time.

If it is only a two person race and one candidate gets 43% please tell us how much the other lone candidate must have gotten. Do the math. Use pencil and paper and do it the olod fashioned way. Use a fancy calculator. Use your computer. Place 100 pennies on your desk and put 43 in one pile and now count how many are in the other pile. I don't care how you do it. Just do it and have the decency to man up and admit you blew it.

Your attack on me was brought on by hatred and vitriol and even now when the facts have been laid before you and anyone can see you were WRONG, you still refuse to man up with any sense of decency because I am the hated enemy.

and anyway, if you really want to count a race as 3 man when the 3rd gets less than 2-3% of the vote, then I feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...

Are you serious?!?!?!?! You do not know the difference between 2 and 3? Get real and man up for heavens sakes.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Which words do you not comprehend in this statement?

The fact is a simple one: in a two person race - 43% loses each and every time.

If it is only a two person race and one candidate gets 43% please tell us how much the other lone candidate must have gotten. Do the math. Use pencil and paper and do it the olod fashioned way. Use a fancy calculator. Use your computer. Place 100 pennies on your desk and put 43 in one pile and now count how many are in the other pile. I don't care how you do it. Just do it and have the decency to man up and admit you blew it.

Your attack on me was brought on by hatred and vitriol and even now when the facts have been laid before you and anyone can see you were WRONG, you still refuse to man up with any sense of decency because I am the hated enemy.



Are you serious?!?!?!?! You do not know the difference between 2 and 3? Get real and man up for heavens sakes.
Click to expand...
you keep whining about an attack where there was none.

MODS... PLEASE review the post in question, and determine if I 'attacked' Hay.

We'll wait..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................



Hay appears to have never heard of write in votes or non of the above votes. Pity. I had such hopes for him.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Which words do you not comprehend in this statement?

The fact is a simple one: in a two person race - 43% loses each and every time.

If it is only a two person race and one candidate gets 43% please tell us how much the other lone candidate must have gotten. Do the math. Use pencil and paper and do it the olod fashioned way. Use a fancy calculator. Use your computer. Place 100 pennies on your desk and put 43 in one pile and now count how many are in the other pile. I don't care how you do it. Just do it and have the decency to man up and admit you blew it.

Your attack on me was brought on by hatred and vitriol and even now when the facts have been laid before you and anyone can see you were WRONG, you still refuse to man up with any sense of decency because I am the hated enemy.



Are you serious?!?!?!?! You do not know the difference between 2 and 3? Get real and man up for heavens sakes.
Click to expand...
Some people can't seem to get the correct answer with all those things.:lamo
 
Perhaps math is not your strong suit.

my statement of indisputable fact

The fact is a simple one: in a two person race - 43% loses each and every time.

So the total amount of voter is 100%. Now take 100 pennies and place them on a table. In a two candidate race, the votes go to the two candidates. Place 43 pennies in one pile and count the remaining pennies and place them in a different pile. I am willing to bet you a new car that you end up with 57 pennies. 57 beats 43 every time.

And that also applies to a two person race where your boy Walker runs and gets the same percentage... 43% ... that he scored in the latest poll.

But please do present your math.

Or you can call me a liar again for daring to say that the fact is a simple one: in a two person race - 43% loses each and every time.
 
haymarket said:
Perhaps math is not your strong suit.

my statement of indisputable fact

The fact is a simple one: in a two person race - 43% loses each and every time.

So the total amount of voter is 100%. Now take 100 pennies and place them on a table. In a two candidate race, the votes go to the two candidates. Place 43 pennies in one pile and count the remaining pennies and place them in a different pile. I am willing to bet you a new car that you end up with 57 pennies. 57 beats 43 every time.

And that also applies to a two person race where your boy Walker runs and gets the same percentage... 43% ... that he scored in the latest poll.

But please do present your math.

Or you can call me a liar again for daring to say that the fact is a simple one: in a two person race - 43% loses each and every time.
Click to expand...

broken+record.jpg
 
Whovian said:
broken+record.jpg
Click to expand...

excellent photo of the argument you have attempted to present.

Tell us again how you can subtract 43 from 100 and get less than 43?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom