• 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.

Obama rebounds in PEW Research poll, leading Romney 54-42 among potential voters

Well the fact is that Obama said if we enacted his massive spending plan, that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%.

Uh, no he didn't.

But you're in good - if not dubious company - even Cantor repeated that lie. Perhaps you're referring to the Romer-Bernstein report that made qualified projections.
 
Uh, no he didn't.

But you're in good - if not dubious company - even Cantor repeated that lie. Perhaps you're referring to the Romer-Bernstein report that made qualified projections.

Well in this press conference, a reporter asks him that he and his advisors said unemployment wouldn't reach 8% if we enacted his spending bill. Obama didn't deny it.
 
Unless something totally earth-shattering and cataclysmic occurs, Obama would have told the truth in 2009, that he'd be a 1 termer if the economy didn't improve. Let's face it, in 2008, Nobody, other then the 2nd coming of Christ, could've beaten Obama. 2008 was the height of his popularity. But the Obama of 2008 no longer exists, and much of the country had more then enough of him. Despite his popularity, he barely beat McCain. I think he won by like 6-8%. Now in 2012 he has a miserable record to defend; and if the Republican candidate focuses on the right things, Obama will be defeated in a landslide. I think judging by the sentiment of the country, the GOP can easily pick up that 6%!

It should be of no coincidence that Obama's approval is about equal to the amount of people recieving government hand-outs!

Obama barely beat Mccain? I'm not even going to respond to that rediculous statement, however, Obama will not be beat in 2012. You can tell yourself he will all you want but it will just lead to a bigger disappointing defeat. Economists project the economy to continue to steadily recover into the election. Unemployment will still be a problem number for Obama, however, confidence in the recovery will increase around the country. The republicans have based their argument on the economy since day #1....how is this going to look when Obama can compaign on several consistent months on economic growth? Also, the stock market is the best predictor of the election we have available. I think it recently made the biggest recovery in decades. If the stock market stays stable into october, it will be a landslide in Obama's favor. The GOP is not leading in a single swing state to make me think otherwise.
 
Well in this press conference, a reporter asks him that he and his advisors said unemployment wouldn't reach 8% if we enacted his spending bill. Obama didn't deny it.

They thought that they could keep unemployment below 8%, but the underestimated the depth of the recession. That's why they said that the 8% figure was subject to a "substantial margin of error".
 
They thought that they could keep unemployment below 8%, but the underestimated the depth of the recession. That's why they said that the 8% figure was subject to a "substantial margin of error".
Underestimated it??? Everyone thought we were heading into a depression at the end of '08 so people actually overestimated the depth of the recession. That said, I agree with you that the economy is improving. But at what cost? The US set a record deficit in the month of february or $229 billion. You take that number and divide it by the number of jobs created in February of 227,000 and you get over $1,000,000 per job. Economic growth based almost solely upon debt is not really a positive and certainly not sustainable.
 
Underestimated it??? Everyone thought we were heading into a depression at the end of '08 so people actually overestimated the depth of the recession. That said, I agree with you that the economy is improving. But at what cost? The US set a record deficit in the month of february or $229 billion. You take that number and divide it by the number of jobs created in February of 227,000 and you get over $1,000,000 per job. Economic growth based almost solely upon debt is not really a positive and certainly not sustainable.

The math doesn't quite work that way, as the entire deficit was not spent to create jobs.

But yeah, they understimated the depth of the problem. If you look at the administration's projections, they predicted that unemployment would be capped below 11% even without any stimulus. As it turns out, it probably would have come in between 12 and 13%
 
Last edited:
what was GDP on January 21st, 2009?

where was the stock market on January 21st, 2009?

in which direction was unemployment going, on January 21st, 2009?

you can ignore all the signs...all you like. But the fact is our economy is getting better.

I notice you skipped a few questions.

What was the national debt?
How is that health care working out?
How much is your monthly energy bill?

I think all of those are going the wrong direction from 2009. They impact on the economy and on how people decide to vote.
 
The math doesn't quite work that way, as the entire deficit was not spent to create jobs.

But yeah, they understimated the depth of the problem. If you look at the administration's projections, they predicted that unemployment would be capped below 11% even without any stimulus. As it turns out, it probably would have come in between 12 and 13%

So yeah, spend 2 trillion? Cmon.
 
I notice you skipped a few questions.

What was the national debt?
How is that health care working out?
How much is your monthly energy bill?

I think all of those are going the wrong direction from 2009. They impact on the economy and on how people decide to vote.

The debt is obviously higher, as it has been every year since Reagan was elected.

Health care seems to be working okay.

Gas prices are higher, which is a result of the improved economy.
 
No its not. Romney also has declared "human life begins at conception," so removing "God" from Santorum's statement, it also is Romney's. Romney also has spoken on the topic of contraception - and it is not only what a candidate says on a topic, but what he then also excludes.

Regardless, polls show it is losing 1.) women voters and 2.) Latino voters as to why Republicans are crashing in the polls.

Less than 30% of voters want all abortions outlawed and less than 5% oppose contraceptives.

(PS, Obama has been criticized for not condemning China on human rights. But this isn't China and China doesn't control the human rights of Americans - so your's is the "terrible post.")

I saw a poll with 20%. :doh
 
Real Clear Politics is yet another left leaning politically biased "news" reporting agency. Their polls have been off most often. Rassmussen, a far more accurate polling agency, showed a recent poll that had Romney with a 5 point advantage. Neither poll is a basis to go off of for 1) the outcome of the Republican primary, or 2) the general election. Romney is not facing Obama in the primary, he is against Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul. In those polls he is about 20pts ahead. However, those poll numbers change over time. The polls for the general election will rise and fall over time as well. When Romney wins the nomination, and has several months head to head against Obama, and the results of the 3 debates, you will begin to see more steady polls which show basically a dead heat between the two, which could very well come down to voter turnout in key counties in battleground states on election day. Neither candidate is overwhelmingly enthusiastically supported at the moment. It will come down to how the people feel about the economy in the end, namely price of gas, unemployment number, the national debt, and the general skepticism about the "recovery". A few weeks ago, everyone thought the recovery was booming... now they are broke after fueling up. So Obama's polls dropped from 50+% to 45%. If gas goes back down, his numbers will rise. If gas climbs higher or stays high over a prolonged period, the economic numbers will all trend downward, and Obama's poll numbers will decline, and ultimately he will not be re-elected.
 
Real Clear Politics is yet another left leaning politically biased "news" reporting agency. Their polls have been off most often. Rassmussen, a far more accurate polling agency, showed a recent poll that had Romney with a 5 point advantage.

Wow, how clueless are you? First, RealClearPolitics is a right wing site that doesn't actually do any polling. They simply aggregate polls from a variety of sources. Second, Rasmussen has been one of the least accurate of all polling firms in recent cycles, showing an unmistakeable Republican bias.
 
Have you looked at how other polls are done? No Zogby is not a reliable polling agency.. but the rest? They pretty much have the same split, and those that are most "off" often favor one side or the other more than they should.

They normally fall into 38/32/30 - 35/35/30 range.

Gallup's latest "party id" poll, which is about 4 months old, has it at 31/27/40.
 
Last edited:
Wow, how clueless are you? First, RealClearPolitics is a right wing site that doesn't actually do any polling. They simply aggregate polls from a variety of sources. Second, Rasmussen has been one of the least accurate of all polling firms in recent cycles, showing an unmistakeable Republican bias.
That's the sad part of the media today. Real Clear Politics is considered to be conservative, just because it isn't as biased as the New York Times, the Huffington Post, etc.

Real Clear Politics originates out of Chicago, by bloggers John McIntyre (a centrist, that has been used by Michael Reagan to appear as the soft conservative on his liberal leaning show), and Tom Brevan (also a centrist), funded by Steve Forbes Media, ya know Steve Forbes, that ultra-conservative. :roll:

They have made an attempt to counter ballance the media coverage by creating a 50%-50% unbiased site. However, to balance their efforts they constantly show many articles y the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Sun-Times, etc. So in order to appear they aren't right leaning, they have ended up leaning to the left. Not exactly the best source of what the conservative vote is going to be...

They do conduct their own polls, which is why you will see on their site RCP Poll (and no I don't mean the RCP Average). They do focus on aggregate polling though, and try to form accurate polls in that manner, but their poll numbers always end up favoring the Liberals, or media friendly candidate, or underdog candidate, etc. because they are conducted improperly, and don't vet the actual polling process of the polls they publish.

Bill Spetrino's polls have been FAR more accurate. Only, in the last few elections, since he seems to shut down early, his polling numbers have failed to pick up the late day voting swing in favor of Santorum. However, for the most part he is right on the dot. Similarly to Real Clear Politics, he publishes other agencies' polls and averages, but he does much better work to get the actual numbers himself.

Over time Rassmussen polls have also been far more accurate, which is why so many consistently turn to them. The trouble Rassmussen and Gallup run into, though, is because they do daily tracking results of small samples, their polls will jump up and down so many times, that people report the swing numbers and leave up inaccurate poll numbers on their site for days, when in actuality the new daily tracking numbers show something different, and the aggregate polling numbers arent reflective of the published story based off a daily swing.
 
Last edited:
That's the sad part of the media today. Real Clear Politics is considered to be conservative, just because it isn't as biased as the New York Times, the Huffington Post, etc.

Real Clear Politics originates out of Chicago, by bloggers John McIntyre (a centrist, that has been used by Michael Reagan to appear as the soft conservative on his liberal leaning show), and Tom Brevan (also a centrist), funded by Steve Forbes Media, ya know Steve Forbes, that ultra-conservative. :roll:

It's always amusing when someone with such an obvious right wing bias attacks the media for being biased. :lol:

You described RealClearPolitics as "left leaning".

RealClearPolitics is a political news and polling data aggregator[2] based in Chicago, Illinois. The site's founders say their goal is to give readers "ideological diversity."[3] They have described themselves as frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-Christian media bias,[4] and while some have suggested the commentary is conservative-leaning,[5] the site includes columns and commentary from both sides of the political spectrum.

The site was founded in 2000 by former options trader John McIntyre and former advertising agency account executive Tom Bevan.[4][6][7] Forbes Media LLC bought a 51% equity interest in the site in 2007.[8]


In an interview with the conservative magazine Human Events, McIntyre described the philosophy behind the Web site as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values." Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions." He further stated,
"we have a frustration all conservatives have", which is "the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives."

So it's a site that was started by Republicans to counter a percieved liberal bias in the media. The site is now majority-owned by conservative Republican Steve Forbes -- a former Republican presidential candidate.

Very left leaning. :2rofll:

As for Rasmussen, it used to be a good polling firm, but since the '08 election it has been very inaccurate and very biased on the Republican side.
 
Do you think it's valid to extrapolate from your particular job and employer to the whole country? Should we give more credibility to that extrapolation than we do to the rafts of economic indicators pointing to a pretty healthy recovery? Unemployment is falling, manufacturing is growing, consumer confidence and spending are increasing, stock markets are rising, etc. Whether you buy it or not.

Everything is just rosey.
 
It's always amusing when someone with such an obvious right wing bias attacks the media for being biased. :lol:

You described RealClearPolitics as "left leaning".






So it's a site that was started by Republicans to counter a percieved liberal bias in the media. The site is now majority-owned by conservative Republican Steve Forbes -- a former Republican presidential candidate.

Very left leaning. :2rofll:

As for Rasmussen, it used to be a good polling firm, but since the '08 election it has been very inaccurate and very biased on the Republican side.

And you're not biased?
 
All Democrats need keep doing is reminding of Santorum explaining that a teenage girl or women made pregnant by a rapist has received "a gift from God" in the rapist's baby that all Republican candidates want to force her to have - and to remind voters that women who use contraceptives are engaging in sexual perversion.

This attaches to all Republican candidates, like it or not. Romney is SOOOOO afraid of the Republican religious right he is afraid to condemn Santorum's statements - so he gets to buy it too.

I've heard this Santorum/rapist quote quite often here, do you have a link to this quote?
 
Santorum would have no trouble making the argument that he is the "true whack-job", maybe he should take that approach...
 
A CNN interview... Here is a video of him in his own words, plus the article has it in text word-for-word.

Rick Santorum On Opposition To Abortion In Cases Of Rape: 'Make The Best Out Of A Bad Situation'

Thanks. Santorum is a Catholic and as I've stated here before, the Catholic Church hasn't changed there laws on abortion/birth control in hundreds of years. So being a true believer, I'm not surprised he would take this stance in regards to his daughter.

That said, I don't think anyone on this site thinks for 1 minute that Santorum could outlaw abortion, since it's been established as Constitutional, nor will he get both houses to pass a bill that outlaws birth control. So this whole issue, in my humble opinion, is moot . . . . . except as a ploy to change the subject of the how the country is going to hell in a handbasket.
 
Thanks. Santorum is a Catholic and as I've stated here before, the Catholic Church hasn't changed there laws on abortion/birth control in hundreds of years. So being a true believer, I'm not surprised he would take this stance in regards to his daughter.

That said, I don't think anyone on this site thinks for 1 minute that Santorum could outlaw abortion, since it's been established as Constitutional, nor will he get both houses to pass a bill that outlaws birth control. So this whole issue, in my humble opinion, is moot . . . . . except as a ploy to change the subject of the how the country is going to hell in a handbasket.

True, but you can ferdamnedsure bet he would try to put justices on the SC who would reverse Roe.
 
That said, I don't think anyone on this site thinks for 1 minute that Santorum could outlaw abortion, since it's been established as Constitutional, nor will he get both houses to pass a bill that outlaws birth control. So this whole issue, in my humble opinion, is moot . . . . . except as a ploy to change the subject of the how the country is going to hell in a handbasket.

Yep, and the same holds true for Obama banning guns, but just start a thread on it and see how many pages it garners and how impassioned the conversation gets...LOL...:lol:
 
The latest DanaRhea poll just came out. It includes one respondent, danarhea.

The poll says that 100% of respondents are sick to death of polls. :mrgreen:

Something to sit up and note as rarely do you see a poll with such definitive result. Pollsters everywhere should be fearing for their jobs now that they know just unpopular and unappreciated their work actually is.
 
Back
Top Bottom