• 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.

Santorum Beats Obama for First Time in National Poll

apdst said:
But, if Rasmussen said that Obama was going win by a landslide, it would suddenly be gold headed for the bank.
Click to expand...

If Rassmuseen gave Obama a favorable rating about anything I'd be terribly surprised...





...but I still wouldn't trust it.
 
Objective Voice said:
If Rassmuseen gave Obama a favorable rating about anything I'd be terribly surprised...





...but I still wouldn't trust it.
Click to expand...

Because Obama is so wonderful, that any negative info can't possibly be accurate. Am I close?
 
apdst said:
And, you call Santorum an imbecile? :lamo

Are you as worried as Ron Paul is about Obama becoming a dictator?
Click to expand...

Not just Obama.
 
apdst said:
Because Obama is so wonderful, that any negative info can't possibly be accurate. Am I close?
Click to expand...

Your Obama derangement syndrome is so severe that I fear for your heart come November.
 
poweRob said:
Your Obama derangement syndrome is so severe that I fear for your heart come November.
Click to expand...

Must be derangement, because he's done such an awesome job. Right?

That's probably why he's going to put his record at the forefront of his campaign. Oh, wait...
 
apdst said:
Must be derangement, because he's done such an awesome job. Right?

That's probably why he's going to put his record at the forefront of his campaign. Oh, wait...
Click to expand...

Ok... when you look at the jobs from when he began to now... you'd better hope he doesn't run on that. Oh, GM? Mr. Romney "let them fail" instead of being #1 in the world like they are now... You are working in some serious derangement territory. The level of your hate won't change reality to your favor.
 
poweRob said:
Ok... when you look at the jobs from when he began to now... you'd better hope he doesn't run on that. Oh, GM? Mr. Romney "let them fail" instead of being #1 in the world like they are now... You are working in some serious derangement territory. The level of your hate won't change reality to your favor.
Click to expand...

Yeah! I hope Obama runs on jobs and GM. That's going to be awesome!!! How about all the jobs he created at Solyndra and how the Chevy Volt is a huge success?
 
apdst said:
Yeah! I hope Obama runs on jobs and GM. That's going to be awesome!!! How about all the jobs he created at Solyndra and how the Chevy Volt is a huge success?
Click to expand...

So Solyndra's and the Chevy Volt are Obama? lol

You keep wishing for your own misery...




Not that I care. I won't vote for Obama but I sure as hell won't be voting for a Gingrich, Romney or Santorum. Either way I don't have a horse in that race. I'll be voting for sure but I'm under no delusion (even derived in hate and anger as you apparently are) of what's going to happen in November.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
So Solyndra's and the Chevy Volt are Obama? lol

You keep wishing for your own misery...




Not that I care. I won't vote for Obama but I sure as hell won't be voting for a Gingrich, Romney or Santorum. Either way I don't have a horse in that race. I'll be voting for sure but I'm under no delusion (even derived in hate and anger as you apparently are) of what's going to happen in November.
Click to expand...

Of course Obama didn't have anything to do with Solyndra. He's never got anything to do with the bad stuff.

Do us a favor and don't cry foul when he's voted out.
 
apdst said:
Of course Obama didn't have anything to do with Solyndra. He's never got anything to do with the bad stuff.

Do us a favor and don't cry foul when he's voted out.
Click to expand...

It'd be no skin off my nose if he did lose. I'm not so blinded by partisanship that I see the sky falling anytime I don't get my way. Which frees me up to vote independently.

November is really going to suck for you. I'm serious.
 
Uzidoesit said:
Santorum is an impotent candidate who was tossed out of office onto his butt, in the street, in Pennsylvania.

He will fade into the sunset, as it should be, as soon as the money runs out.

He will be forgotten and his days in the sun will be over very quickly.
Click to expand...


But the term, Santorum will live on! LOL!

Urban Dictionary: Rick Santorum
 
Catawba said:
But the term, Santorum will live on! LOL!

Urban Dictionary: Rick Santorum
Click to expand...

Really?

Really? The best you can do is to post a link to crude, stupid stuff like this? :3oops:

I appreciate some of Santorum's POVs and hope he doesn't quit the race. Seems to me that if you had a legit criticism of Santorum, you could've brought it.

Barnyard mocking of a candidate only trivializes your opinion in my book.
 
nota bene said:
Seems to me that if you had a legit criticism of Santorum, you could've brought it.
Click to expand...

Why??? There is no need to criticize him.
 
nota bene said:
Really?

Really? The best you can do is to post a link to crude, stupid stuff like this? :3oops:

I appreciate some of Santorum's POVs and hope he doesn't quit the race. Seems to me that if you had a legit criticism of Santorum, you could've brought it.

Barnyard mocking of a candidate only trivializes your opinion in my book.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I disagree with Santorum on almost everything, but I believe those disagreements are in good faith. This BS is just uncalled for.
 
samsmart said:
Santorum's an imbecile.
Click to expand...

I expected something more substantive from you, he's in the race isn't he?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
 
American said:
I expected something more substantive from you, he's in the race isn't he?
Click to expand...

I figured that brevity is the soul of wit.

If you want a bit more substance to that, I think he's an imbecile because he's so ideologically inconsistent.

A few weeks ago on "Meet The Press" Santorum railed against Obama for not using the military to support the Green Revolution in Iran to overthrow Ahmehdinijad and install a more democratic government, and he said he would be willing to use military force against Iran, and possibly install such a government.

But right after that, Santorum criticized Obama for not supporting President Mubarak in Egypt, which may become more democratized and, if so, should the Muslim hard-line political parties be popularly elected that government may rescind Egypt's treaties with Israel and could even be openly hostile to them.

So Santorum is all for democratizing the Middle East - as long as those democracies pursue U.S. interests. And if they don't then he's not afraid to use the military to change a Middle Eastern democracy into a dictatorship the U.S. prefers.

And he's so blatant about it and is completely blind to the ideological inconsistency in that stance.

Thus, he's an imbecile.

That, and he says that gay marriage will lead to polygamy and bestiality. And that's just ****ing stupid.
 
apdst said:
But, if Rasmussen said that Obama was going win by a landslide, it would suddenly be gold headed for the bank.
Click to expand...

Rasmussen uses phone surveys and doesn't correct for the inherent bias of it's methodology. When you know ahead of time that the method of conducting a poll is going to bias the data a certain way, you can use a correction factor to get an honest result. Rasmussen knows this and intentionally makes their poll biased.

If a Rasmussen poll says a Democrat is going to win, you can bank on it, if some bomb shell event doesn't happen.

Santorum is the best candidate the Republicans have. He's hard core conservative and doesn't have the taint the other candidates have. Romney is going to have problems with conservatives and his being a Mormon doesn't motivate the religious right. Gingrich has a personal life that makes him look like a complete hypocrite, but he's smart as a politician. Ron Paul has that record of being against the Federal Reserve System and looks ridiculous when asked about using a gold standard. If you took all the gold in the world to back our money supply, the price of gold would have to be more than $100,000 per troy ounce. The idea that you could get rid of central banking and not collapse a modern economy is ridiculous and even a libertarian, like Greenspan, would oppose it.

The fact is, the Republicans don't need the Presidency to continue their obstruction of government. They already have the policies in effect to keep our economy poor. All the Republicans have to do is bide their time and blame the poor economy on Obama and the Democrats.
 
apdst said:
Santorum is a Republican. "you're stupid", is really the argument that the Libbos have. I mean, what are they going to do? Run Obama on his record? :lamo
Click to expand...


...Looks like that is Exactly what they intend to do. It's gotta piss you off that this revolutionary tactic is likely to work. Santorum is already fading into a footnote, as expected.
 
samsmart said:
I figured that brevity is the soul of wit. If you want a bit more substance to that, I think he's an imbecile because he's so ideologically inconsistent. A few weeks ago on "Meet The Press" Santorum railed against Obama for not using the military to support the Green Revolution in Iran to overthrow Ahmehdinijad and install a more democratic government, and he said he would be willing to use military force against Iran, and possibly install such a government. But right after that, Santorum criticized Obama for not supporting President Mubarak in Egypt, which may become more democratized and, if so, should the Muslim hard-line political parties be popularly elected that government may rescind Egypt's treaties with Israel and could even be openly hostile to them.
Click to expand...
now, i happen to disagree with him (I think it's probably better for the region for the Islamists to go to war with - and get pounded by - Israel), but to say that we should pursue our interests, and one of our interests is spreading democracy is hardly inconsistency. if that's the best case for him being inconsistent, he might be stronger than I think.
 
Objective Voice said:
If Rassmuseen gave Obama a favorable rating about anything I'd be terribly surprised...

...but I still wouldn't trust it.
Click to expand...

So the months and months and months and months that Rasmussen has had Obama over the vast majority of every Presidential candidate on the Republican side must've given you a heart attack from shock then.

:roll:

"Rasmussen polls show Obama over Santorum"
Left: *Silence*
"Rasmussen polls show Obama over Santorum"
Left: *Silence*
"Rasmussen polls show Obama over Santorum"
Left: *Silence*
"Rasmussen polls show Obama over Santorum"
Left: *Silence*
"Rasmussen polls show Obama over Santorum"
Left: *Silence*
"Rasmussen polls show Santorum over Obama"
Left: OMG! ITS CONSERVATIVE BIAS! KILL IT WITH FIRE!

Liberals who immedietely simply dismiss Rasmussen are being as ridiculous as Conservatives who simply take it as the only worth while poll. People who point recent races as the only indication as to whether or not Rasmussen is useful are being ridiculously cherry picking by ignoring the high quality of their picks for much of the decade before that.

The reality is that Rasmussen's polling methods and trends is well known, not as an inherent purposeful "conservative bias" but rather a methodology that lends itself to better measure likely voters. Older voters tend to be the more consistent voting block, as are those who actually identify themselves as likely voteres. Anyone with a little bit of knowlege of Rasmussen knows that this is what the poll gears too. Knowing that, looking at trends within that poll itself, and comparing it to others can give you very useful data.

The Democratic base is made up of a multitude of disparate parts that do not necessarily directly correlate even though they often are viewed together. Those who make up the anti-war movement could easily not be part of the pro-choice movement who could easily not be part of the environmental movement who could potentially not be part of the "civil rights" movement which itself can be split between african americans and the LGBT community. While often they interconnect some, its largely a mass of individual groups all under th Democratic umbrella. If the Republicans are the "Big Tent" then the Democrats are like an outdoor carnival with different attractions all over and loosely enclosed in a particular area.

If you say that 33% of the country leans right and 33% lean left, what you'd likely find is that the right likely has a larger strong more politicall motivated "base" in that 33% that can be counted on to come out and vote than the left. So in years where there's voter apathy towards the Democratic nominee, likely voter polls will likely look accurate. In years where voter attitude towards the Democratic nominee is an extremely positive and energized one, then those polls are likely going to paint an inaccurate picture. This is why Rasmussen's pick in 2004 and in 2008, given the nature of the Democratic base in both elections, is not surprising but relatively expected.

We can look at this and say that, while it doesn't necessarily mean that Santorum WOULD beat Obama (actually, I'd say it definitely doesn't say that. Obama, whlie not nearly the pop icon of 2008, is still popular enough with the portions of the base that he'll drive many out to vote that normally wouldn't be likely voters), it does tell us that Santorum is having a small surge within the Republican base. There's a sudden and relatively strong uptick in support for him within the base and the public in general in the belief that he could be viable. It's a good sign for him, but not in any way a sign that he would beat Obama. The polls, by and large...and you should take a macro level collected view of them...indicate he'd have a hard time. However, he is improving a bit in standing which is a positive, regardless of whether or not its Rasmussen or not showing it.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
IRONY, you post one dead link, and another that's part of Huffpo to complain about "bias".
Click to expand...

All I did was type "Rasmussen accused of bias" in the search engine to find the article. Both articles said the same thing and gave Scott Rasmussen's response. I would think anyone who has ever followed polls would have known about the bias for years.

I've found polls where Santorum did the best against Obama, but not that Santorum beat Obama. It's sort of a mute point, because unless something happens for Newt to drop out and all the conservatives give their support to Santorum, it's over for him. I don't expect him to last beyond Super-Tuesday and it's possible with all the trouble his daughter is having, that Santorum may drop out before then, to give a conservative a chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom