• 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.

Gallup: More States Lean Republican in 2011 than 2010

SypherAL said:
I think obama could beat every gop candidate even with a terrible economy. Why? Look at the solutions the gop is throwing out. More tax cuts for the rich and more taxes on the middle class. I think americans are finally beginning to see that tax cuts for corporations do NOT produce jobs. Also, those who say history will show who will win is dead wrong. America had never been in this big of a mess before a president took office, congress.has a ten percent approval rating and the polls show americans prefer obama lead the debate on the economy.
Click to expand...

You really do see what you wish to see, don't you? But hey . . . trust you.
 
SypherAL said:
I think obama could beat every gop candidate even with a terrible economy. Why? Look at the solutions the gop is throwing out. More tax cuts for the rich and more taxes on the middle class. I think americans are finally beginning to see that tax cuts for corporations do NOT produce jobs. Also, those who say history will show who will win is dead wrong. America had never been in this big of a mess before a president took office, congress.has a ten percent approval rating and the polls show americans prefer obama lead the debate on the economy.
Click to expand...

...and all of that could easily change if the economy stagnates again. The election is still nine months off.
 
99percenter said:
All that poll showed was that it was a statistical dead hit and it ended up being close in ohio. I think the only polls that will count are the ones close to the election.
Click to expand...

Of course. That was my point.
 
Harshaw said:
Sure. In February. Of course, in October of 2004, Kerry was to take it:

Poll: Advantage Kerry in Ohio Race - ABC News
Click to expand...

But if this poll showed the GOP was to take ohio, this poll would be credible in your eyes, correct?

-----

I think i would be willing to bet my house that Obama wins Ohio. It is a MUST win, Democrats will double the GOP's spending in this state, maybe even more. Ohio is a blue-collar state, unions are very powerful, a candidate of a party who supports the destruction of these unions stands no chance winning this state. Thats what i dont understand about the GOP. They could easily even the playing field if they didnt take such hard-line, 19th century stances on social issues and workers rights. Their arrogance will be their downfall this election.
 
Last edited:
SypherAL said:
I think i would be willing to bet my house that Obama wins Ohio.
Click to expand...

That's foolish. It is impossible to predict the outcome of the election this far in advance. Even in a Democratic wave year like 2008, Obama only won Ohio by 4.5%. Is it really so inconceivable that Republicans could overcome that margin of defeat, if 2012 is NOT a Democratic wave year like 2008?

It is a MUST win,
Click to expand...

That makes it a "must win" for both parties. The fact that it's a "must win" doesn't necessarily mean Obama WILL win it.

Democrats will double the GOP's spending in this state, maybe even more.
Click to expand...

It remains to be seen what the balance of money would look like in an Obama vs Romney campaign, especially with Super PACs now clouding the picture. It's also unclear how much spending can actually change the ultimate outcome of a state. My guess is that Obama will have a slight edge over Romney in overall spending (including outside groups working on their behalf), but it will certainly not allow him to "double spending, maybe even more." You are visualizing a fantastical world where everything goes the way you WANT it to, rather than what is actually likely to happen. Romney has plenty of wealthy backers and has a good chunk of change in his own bank account.

Ohio is a blue-collar state, unions are very powerful, a candidate of a party who supports the destruction of these unions stands no chance winning this state.
Click to expand...

Umm Ohio elected John Kasich as their governor just two years ago, and voted for George Bush for president in both 2000 and 2004. It's hardly unthinkable that Ohio would vote for a Republican for president again, if the overall economic/political winds swing that way.

Thats what i dont understand about the GOP. They could easily even the playing field if they didnt take such hard-line, 19th century stances on social issues and workers rights. Their arrogance will be their downfall this election.
Click to expand...

Historically the economy has played a bigger role. And predicting what it will do in the future is, at the very least, very difficult (some would say impossible).
 
Kandahar said:
That's foolish. It is impossible to predict the outcome of the election this far in advance. Even in a Democratic wave year like 2008, Obama only won Ohio by 4.5%. Is it really so inconceivable that Republicans could overcome that margin of defeat, if 2012 is NOT a Democratic wave year like 2008?



That makes it a "must win" for both parties. The fact that it's a "must win" doesn't necessarily mean Obama WILL win it.



It remains to be seen what the balance of money would look like in an Obama vs Romney campaign, especially with Super PACs now clouding the picture. It's also unclear how much spending can actually change the ultimate outcome of a state. My guess is that Obama will have a slight edge over Romney in overall spending (including outside groups working on their behalf), but it will certainly not allow him to "double spending, maybe even more." You are visualizing a fantastical world where everything goes the way you WANT it to, rather than what is actually likely to happen. Romney has plenty of wealthy backers and has a good chunk of change in his own bank account.



Umm Ohio elected John Kasich as their governor just two years ago, and voted for George Bush for president in both 2000 and 2004. It's hardly unthinkable that Ohio would vote for a Republican for president again, if the overall economic/political winds swing that way.



Historically the economy has played a bigger role. And predicting what it will do in the future is, at the very least, very difficult (some would say impossible).
Click to expand...


You cannot use "history" as a tool to measure this election. No president has ever taken (as of RECENTLY) office during this big of a economic crisis, so measuring a presidents re-election chances based on the economy is flawed considering he didn't cause the mess to begin with. Gallup polls show that Americans prefer that Obama steer the direction of the country when it comes to the economy. American's may be stupid enough to hand this country back to the GOP in November, but Ohio sure wont, especially a state compiled of blue-collar voters and unions. The GOP witch hunt on unions in recent years will plague their election chances. Union support=voter support, thats something George W. Bush understood.

When Obama wins Ohio in November and outspends Romney convincingly, I will be sure to remind you. There is NO way Romney can beat Obama in a general election, NO WAY. Obama's campaign will eat this man's record alive. His multiple stances on multiple fiscal and social issues will paint him as a bigger flip-flopper then Kerry was in 04. The best chance Romney has at even making this a ball game is praying for an Obama scandal which the GOP is desperately trying to create. The Economy could tank once again and Obama would still be re-elected, check me.
 
Last edited:
SypherAL said:
But if this poll showed the GOP was to take ohio, this poll would be credible in your eyes, correct?
Click to expand...

Didn't say a thing about "credibility"; you miss the point (and project your own hyperpartisanship). If it had shown Bush was going to take Ohio, it would have been correct.


I think i would be willing to bet my house that Obama wins Ohio. It is a MUST win, Democrats will double the GOP's spending in this state, maybe even more. Ohio is a blue-collar state, unions are very powerful, a candidate of a party who supports the destruction of these unions stands no chance winning this state. Thats what i dont understand about the GOP. They could easily even the playing field if they didnt take such hard-line, 19th century stances on social issues and workers rights. Their arrogance will be their downfall this election.
Click to expand...

This is a ton of wishful thinking, and Ohio is . . . not exactly as you describe.
 
SypherAL said:
You cannot use "history" as a tool to measure this election. No president has ever taken (as of RECENTLY) office during this big of a economic crisis, so measuring a presidents re-election chances based on the economy is flawed considering he didn't cause the mess to begin with.
Click to expand...

The economy is still the most important factor, just not the simplistic one-dimensional view of the economy that you described.

Gallup polls show that Americans prefer that Obama steer the direction of the country when it comes to the economy.
Click to expand...

Indeed they do. The question is whether or not that will still be the case in November. A few months of bad economic data could easily scuttle that advantage.

American's may be stupid enough to hand this country back to the GOP in November, but Ohio sure wont, especially a state compiled of blue-collar voters and unions. The GOP witch hunt on unions in recent years will plague their election chances. Union support=voter support, thats something George W. Bush understood.
Click to expand...

This is a simplistic stereotype of Ohio. The voting patterns of an entire state - especially one as large and diverse as Ohio - cannot be reduced to a single description like "blue-collar union voters." 87% of Ohio workers are NOT members of unions. In fact, Ohio is only slightly above the national average in terms of the percentage of workers in unions.

And again, Ohio elected John Kasich in 2010 and George Bush in 2000 and 2004. It's not as though anti-union politicians have never been successful in the state.

When Obama wins Ohio in November and outspends Romney convincingly, I will be sure to remind you.
Click to expand...

Cool, except I haven't suggested he WON'T win Ohio. I'm saying that nine months before the election, it's almost totally unpredictable.

There is NO way Romney can beat Obama in a general election, NO WAY.
Click to expand...

This is what the less-rational supporters of every candidate in the history of American politics have said about the opposing candidate.

Obama's campaign will eat this man's record alive. His multiple stances on multiple fiscal and social issues will paint him as a bigger flip-flopper then Kerry was in 04. The best chance Romney has at even making this a ball game is praying for an Obama scandal which the GOP is desperately trying to create. The Economy could tank once again and Obama would still be re-elected, check me.
Click to expand...

:roll:
OK, I'll "check you." If the economy tanks between now and Election Day, Obama is not getting reelected. Period.
 
The Gallup I see is the GOP galloping off the proverbial cliff this year. LOL. :mrgreen:
 
cpwill said:
Interesting stuff. anyone less lazy than I want to do the math on what this means in terms of electoral votes?







I'm thinking Virginia is a definite Republican pick-up; with solid possibilities in Ohio, Colorado, and Florida.
Click to expand...


Why didn't you just call the thread 'Polls say what I want them to'?


Rhetorical question...
 
Kandahar said:
I would say it's far too early to start speculating about individual states. Polling data is sparse and generally meaningless at this point. A better indicator for now are the nationwide polls...they don't have a whole lot of predictive value this early either, but at least there is a lot of data and the predictive value improves each month as we get closer to the election.

Right now Obama runs ahead of Romney by 3.8 points in the RCP average. If Obama still enjoys that kind of lead on Election Day (or if Romney has a similarly large lead over Obama on Election Day), I don't think it will matter much who wins Virginia or Florida or any other particular state. The electoral college only matters when the popular vote is extremely close.
Click to expand...

Something to think about and hopefully those in the "Swing States" actually get it. Wonder when those wage slaves will get it? How many wage slaves, people working for someone else, think their employer is making too much money, not paying enough in taxes to the Obama Govt. that wants to provide solutions to everyone else?

The Government Can- Tim Hawkins (Insanitized DVD) - YouTube
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom