Rasmussen: Rick Perry now up 11 points on GOP field

Conservative · Aug 21, 2011

roguenuke said:
Obama, because he is the lesser of two evils. I look at what both of their records are, what they want to implement in the future, and how likely they are to get those ideas that I like actually enacted or not to get those ideas that I don't like enacted.

Obama: can't stand Obamacare, but it is likely to go away via courts, otherwise, hopefully it can get gone another way within the next 5-10 years
hate stance on immigration, one thing that scares me about keeping him in office
economy issues, he isn't doing well, but neither is Congress or most of the states, I understand that most of the plans require so much compromise that they become useless or hurt more people than they help

Perry: doesn't care about the poor or even, it seems, much about education
seems to be all about giving his campaign donors jobs and contracts rather than actually caring about the people
has no solid plan about the economy, just brings up his state's rankings and job creation as if he is completely responsible, which is not what the evidence suggests
plans on trying to get multiple amendments passed to restrict freedoms, including an anti-SSM amendment (not likely to happen, but still possible if multiple amendments pushed at once)
doesn't seem to hold science in any high regard, despite evidence to the contrary of his own beliefs (big issue with this)
doesn't care about the environment (another hot topic of mine)

Lesser of two evils definitely Obama.

Yep, results don't matter nor do the increase in poverty under Obama, the 25 million unemployed or under employed Americans and the 16% African Unemployment rate. Sounds like the Obama brainwashing is working

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch! 40% JAR and well over 50% disapproval ratings.

winston53660 · Aug 21, 2011

Conservative said:
Yep, results don't matter nor do the increase in poverty under Obama,

I thought the poverty metric didn't matter to you?:roll:

roguenuke · Aug 21, 2011

Conservative said:
Yep, results don't matter nor do the increase in poverty under Obama, the 25 million unemployed or under employed Americans and the 16% African Unemployment rate. Sounds like the Obama brainwashing is working

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch! 40% JAR and well over 50% disapproval ratings.

Again, you're wrong. I'm looking at the results of both people, not just basing it off of one of them. I also factor in the possible future results, with as many factors as I can find with what either of them is likely to be able to get enacted during their term and how it will likely affect me and other Americans during that time and after.

If the GOP could nominate a candidate that I consider will have a more positive or less negative (however you wish to look at it) impact on America, I would vote for that person rather than Obama. I am not a Party person. I vote based on the records of both candidates (when each is compared) and what I see as each of them likely to try to get done and how much positive or negative I see coming out of that. Someone like Huntsman, I would probably vote for over Obama, and I certainly would not vote for Obama to try to ensure he didn't get into office, like I would for Perry or Bachman or a couple of other current GOP contenders.

Conservative · Aug 21, 2011

winston53660 said:
I thought the poverty metric didn't matter to you?:roll:

Results matter to me, when will they matter to you? How can anyone vote for Obama with these kind of economic results

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch! 40% JAR and well over 50% disapproval ratings.

Conservative · Aug 21, 2011

roguenuke said:
Again, you're wrong. I'm looking at the results of both people, not just basing it off of one of them. I also factor in the possible future results, with as many factors as I can find with what either of them is likely to be able to get enacted during their term and how it will likely affect me and other Americans during that time and after.

If the GOP could nominate a candidate that I consider will have a more positive or less negative (however you wish to look at it) impact on America, I would vote for that person rather than Obama. I am not a Party person. I vote based on the records of both candidates (when each is compared) and what I see as each of them likely to try to get done and how much positive or negative I see coming out of that. Someone like Huntsman, I would probably vote for over Obama, and I certainly would not vote for Obama to try to ensure he didn't get into office, like I would for Perry or Bachman or a couple of other current GOP contenders.

What makes you an expert on Perry and TX when I live here and have for 19 years. The Perry record trumps the Obama record as does his resume. Obama has done enough damage in less than 3 years yet that doesn't seem to matter. I am still waiting for you to explain why businesses are moving their employees to this "hell hole" and why the numbers for Obama are being ignored. You really don't seem to understand TX at all but have no problem ignoring the Obama promises and then his record.

Why would anyone vote for someone with this record?

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch! 40% JAR and well over 50% disapproval ratings.

winston53660 · Aug 21, 2011

Conservative said:
Results matter to me, when will they matter to you? .

Then why doesn't the high poverty rate, crappy education, high uninsured rate in Texas matter to you?

AdamT · Aug 21, 2011

Conservative said:
Results matter to me, when will they matter to you? How can anyone vote for Obama with these kind of economic results

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch! 40% JAR and well over 50% disapproval ratings.

You have to consider where he started.

And what Obama inherited: economy shedding 700,000+ jobs per month, GDP shrinking at 6+% per year, financial institutions teetering on the edge of collapse, trillion+ deficit.... Nice improvement.

pbrauer · Aug 21, 2011

Conservative said:
Why would anyone vote for someone with this record?

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch! 40% JAR and well over 50% disapproval ratings.

Conservative · Aug 21, 2011

winston53660 said:
Then why doesn't the high poverty rate, crappy education, high uninsured rate in Texas matter to you?

They do matter to me but those are local issues, I don't have a problem with my school district at all, nor do I have a problem with the economic policy of TX. I have a serious problem with the nanny state being promoted by Obama as would you if you are a true Texan. Healthcare is a personal responsibilty as well.

My son graduated from this school district and is a successful architect. My grandkids are getting a great education in this District that has the elementary Principal of the Year.

Conservative · Aug 21, 2011

pbrauer said:

Great numbers Pb, please explain why those haven't led to a net job gain in this country? If you lose more jobs than you create your chart is worthless

winston53660 · Aug 21, 2011

Conservative said:
They do matter to me but those are local issues, I don't have a problem with my school district at all, nor do I have a problem with the economic policy of TX. I have a serious problem with the nanny state being promoted by Obama as would you if you are a true Texan. Healthcare is a personal responsibilty as well.

My son graduated from this school district and is a successful architect. My grandkids are getting a great education in this District that has the elementary Principal of the Year.

Ahhh I see as long as you think / percieve it doesn't affect you everything is hunky doorey:roll:

Conservative · Aug 21, 2011

AdamT said:
You have to consider where he started.

And what Obama inherited: economy shedding 700,000+ jobs per month, GDP shrinking at 6+% per year, financial institutions teetering on the edge of collapse, trillion+ deficit.... Nice improvement.

Of course he did and added four trillion to the debt creating these numbers. If you spent the money Obama has spent and generated these numbers you wouldn't have your job right now but you give Obama a pass

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 24+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch! 40% JAR and well over 50% disapproval ratings.

Conservative · Aug 21, 2011

winston53660 said:
Ahhh I see as long as you think / percieve it doesn't affect you everything is hunky doorey:roll:

The numbers back me up as does the context of those numbers.

winston53660 · Aug 21, 2011

Conservative said:
The numbers back me up as does the context of those numbers.

Whatever you think con:roll:

roguenuke · Aug 21, 2011

Conservative said:
What makes you an expert on Perry and TX when I live here and have for 19 years. The Perry record trumps the Obama record as does his resume. Obama has done enough damage in less than 3 years yet that doesn't seem to matter. I am still waiting for you to explain why businesses are moving their employees to this "hell hole" and why the numbers for Obama are being ignored. You really don't seem to understand TX at all but have no problem ignoring the Obama promises and then his record.

Why would anyone vote for someone with this record?

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch! 40% JAR and well over 50% disapproval ratings.

Because, he isn't responsible alone for most of the job growth within Texas. Many of the policies that he considers the draw for those companies to move to Texas were in place before he took office. And the one he implemented seems to be providing a lot of money to people who donated money to his campaigns. And, many of the jobs, like those within the energy industry or due to the increased military in TX have nothing whatsoever to do with his being in office. I don't have to live there to read or apply common sense to what is going on.

So, I consider the fact that his record shows that he hasn't done a whole lot for TX, but rather got lucky in the way the economy went and where TX sat in that situation.

Then I look at what he is offering to improve the economy,
-changing tax laws to benefit corporations and/or the rich...not good in my eyes
-if we go by what he has done in TX, many jobs created in the US would be lower wage jobs
-plus, the education system of TX is suffering
-on most social issues, I disagree with him profusely, with the possible exceptions of gun control and immigration, and I have seen and heard little from him on either of these on a national level
-seems to dismiss evidence that he finds inconvenient or that contradicts his own beliefs...not a good position for any Presidential hopeful to take

Conservative · Aug 21, 2011

roguenuke said:
Because, he isn't responsible alone for most of the job growth within Texas. Many of the policies that he considers the draw for those companies to move to Texas were in place before he took office. And the one he implemented seems to be providing a lot of money to people who donated money to his campaigns. And, many of the jobs, like those within the energy industry or due to the increased military in TX have nothing whatsoever to do with his being in office. I don't have to live there to read or apply common sense to what is going on.

So, I consider the fact that his record shows that he hasn't done a whole lot for TX, but rather got lucky in the way the economy went and where TX sat in that situation.

Then I look at what he is offering to improve the economy,
-changing tax laws to benefit corporations and/or the rich...not good in my eyes
-if we go by what he has done in TX, many jobs created in the US would be lower wage jobs
-plus, the education system of TX is suffering
-on most social issues, I disagree with him profusely, with the possible exceptions of gun control and immigration, and I have seen and heard little from him on either of these on a national level
-seems to dismiss evidence that he finds inconvenient or that contradicts his own beliefs...not a good position for any Presidential hopeful to take

Do you think Obama has done anything positive for this country? Stop buying the rhetoric and get the facts. Jobs created in TX aren't all low wage jobs. Fortune 500 Companies don't pay low wages and benefits. Sounds to me like your leanings are skewed left not right. This country wasn't built on the vision of Barack Obama but was more in line with Perry, limited and not a nanny state. States' rights were established and not a large Central govt.

Don't know if Perry will be the candidate but if he is he beats the alternative but not the distorted view being presented by those with an agenda. Get the facts and don't just buy the rhetoric.

pbrauer · Aug 21, 2011

Conservative said:
Great numbers Pb, please explain why those haven't led to a net job gain in this country? If you lose more jobs than you create your chart is worthless

Notice this chart reflects only private sector jobs,not government jobs, something you dislike.

Conservative · Aug 21, 2011

pbrauer said:
Notice this chart reflects only private sector jobs,not government jobs, something you dislike.

The unemployment number includes both and the net is a job loss for Obama since he took office. There has been a net private sector job loss as well but it is the total that matters. by the way help your buddy Sheik out and explain to him that the TX 8.4%unemployment rate helps lower the national rate and that the percentage change in TX doesn't really matter. He doesn't seem to understand that 8.4 is less than 9.1. By the way if you take the TX labor force and unemployment out of the total the National Unemployment rate would be 9.2% so the rate is lower with TX included

Sheik Yerbuti · Aug 21, 2011

deltabtry said:
You can't see it? Large influx of people moving Texas looking for work, filing for unemployment or already on it but now reside in Texas, this makes the numbers change. Now a question for you , if Texas is one of the worst states to live in regarding unemployment and other factors, then why the large influx of people moving to Texas, especially from NYC and L.A. You can post numbers, statistics and theories but the fly in the butter milk is that thousand upon thousands are flocking to Texas..WHY?

First off, I never said Texas was one of the worst states to live in, though I, and others have certainly pointed out some of Texas' shortcomings. That aside, you can't give Perry credit for the increase in employment while at the same time, make excuses for him for the rise in the unemployment rate as they go hand in hand.

As far as why people are migrating to Texas, I have no idea. Why are people flocking to Utah? Why are people flocking to Wyoming, Colorado, and Arizona? Those are the states with the highest immigration and there is no single answer why.

Sheik Yerbuti · Aug 21, 2011

Conservative said:
Keep digging that hold deeper, TX unemployment is lower than the national average and that helps the total number. You simply cannot admit that you are wrong. The change in TX unemployment doesn't matter, the unemployment number does when it relates to the national rate

Seriously? It doesn't matter that that unemployment rose more under Perry than it has under Obama??

Conservative · Aug 21, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Seriously? It doesn't matter that that unemployment rose more under Perry than it has under Obama??

What matters is unemployment in TX is lower than the national average and TX employment and unemployment numbers helped the national numbers. You simply cannot admit that you are wrong

roguenuke · Aug 21, 2011

Conservative said:
Do you think Obama has done anything positive for this country? Stop buying the rhetoric and get the facts. Jobs created in TX aren't all low wage jobs. Fortune 500 Companies don't pay low wages and benefits. Sounds to me like your leanings are skewed left not right. This country wasn't built on the vision of Barack Obama but was more in line with Perry, limited and not a nanny state. States' rights were established and not a large Central govt.

Don't know if Perry will be the candidate but if he is he beats the alternative but not the distorted view being presented by those with an agenda. Get the facts and don't just buy the rhetoric.

What I want is a realistic government where we don't end up with 50 little states that are run by tyranny of the majority. I am in the military and a military dependent. I know what it feels like to move around and it would suck a whole lot to have to live by all those different sets of laws just because the Constitutional protections of the US Constitution no longer applied to the states. This is what it seems a lot of Republicans want.

I would like to see people held responsible for their own actions, and given a hand up, not just a hand out. But I also understand that large companies can be just as bad as a large government. A completely capitalistic economy, with no limits on any commerce, will lead to us being ruled by those companies. That is no better than being ruled by a huge central government or a small tyrannical state government. I want the power to actually reside with the people, not the state, nor the federal governments, nor huge corporations.

I understand that our economy cannot be fixed by throwing money at it, nor by trickle-down economics. We can't keep spending the amount of money we do, nor can we ignore the fact that we need taxes to pay for things to ensure our country and countrymen don't go down the drain. We also must find ways to ensure everyone is treated as fairly as possible, taking into account as many facts for any issue as possible. The economy is not going to improve overnight and it is going to take a lot of sacrifices and compromises from both sides.

I am in the middle of the political spectrum, especially on the economy. Social issues I usually fall to either side on, sometimes siding with Republicans, sometimes siding with Democrats, sometimes having my own opinion outside both. But I still understand the need for compromise and at least understanding each side.

deltabtry · Aug 21, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
First off, I never said Texas was one of the worst states to live in, though I, and others have certainly pointed out some of Texas' shortcomings. That aside, you can't give Perry credit for the increase in employment while at the same time, make excuses for him for the rise in the unemployment rate as they go hand in hand.

As far as why people are migrating to Texas, I have no idea. Why are people flocking to Utah? Why are people flocking to Wyoming, Colorado, and Arizona? Those are the states with the highest immigration and there is no single answer why.

Well there is one common denominator, most states you mentioned are conservative states meaning less regulation and lower taxes. I'll give no head a state ie; Governor of Texas or any other state's Governor credit for any thing accomplished in the private sector. What i will give Perry credit for is staying out of the way of the private sector and allowing the market to do what it does best, making money and hiring the citizens of Texas. Although on the other hand state Governors can take the credit for stepping on the necks of free markets and stifling growth and job creation, and as far as I can tell Perry is not a participant in this scenario.

Conservative · Aug 21, 2011

roguenuke said:
What I want is a realistic government where we don't end up with 50 little states that are run by tyranny of the majority. I am in the military and a military dependent. I know what it feels like to move around and it would suck a whole lot to have to live by all those different sets of laws just because the Constitutional protections of the US Constitution no longer applied to the states. This is what it seems a lot of Republicans want.

I would like to see people held responsible for their own actions, and given a hand up, not just a hand out. But I also understand that large companies can be just as bad as a large government. A completely capitalistic economy, with no limits on any commerce, will lead to us being ruled by those companies. That is no better than being ruled by a huge central government or a small tyrannical state government. I want the power to actually reside with the people, not the state, nor the federal governments, nor huge corporations.

I understand that our economy cannot be fixed by throwing money at it, nor by trickle-down economics. We can't keep spending the amount of money we do, nor can we ignore the fact that we need taxes to pay for things to ensure our country and countrymen don't go down the drain. We also must find ways to ensure everyone is treated as fairly as possible, taking into account as many facts for any issue as possible. The economy is not going to improve overnight and it is going to take a lot of sacrifices and compromises from both sides.

I am in the middle of the political spectrum, especially on the economy. Social issues I usually fall to either side on, sometimes siding with Republicans, sometimes siding with Democrats, sometimes having my own opinion outside both. But I still understand the need for compromise and at least understanding each side.

That is why we have a Constitution and great people like you defending it. The Constitution was established giving states certain rights and promoting a small central govt. Barack Obama has done his best to create a large central govt. and thus the nanny state. Therein lies the problem. Obama has thrown money at the problem and generated the results I have posted. You keeping more of your money isn't an expense to the govt which Obama seems to claim every time he says that tax cuts have to be paid for. Tax cuts aren't an expense to the govt. unless that person works for the govt. If you grow govt. and spend more you have to pay for it not by taking money away from the taxpayers.

roguenuke · Aug 21, 2011

Conservative said:
That is why we have a Constitution and great people like you defending it. The Constitution was established giving states certain rights and promoting a small central govt. Barack Obama has done his best to create a large central govt. and thus the nanny state. Therein lies the problem. Obama has thrown money at the problem and generated the results I have posted. You keeping more of your money isn't an expense to the govt which Obama seems to claim every time he says that tax cuts have to be paid for. Tax cuts aren't an expense to the govt. unless that person works for the govt. If you grow govt. and spend more you have to pay for it not by taking money away from the taxpayers.

There is no other way to pay for government than some form of taxes. I have no problem paying taxes to ensure that we can pay for those things that provide for the good of society as a whole. I think we need to evaluate what exactly we are paying for, what we actually need, and what needs to change to even these out. If that means higher taxes somewhere, then so be it.

And this isn't just from Obama. This is how our government has been being run for decades now. It is very dishonest to blame this on Obama. He is responsible for his share of the problems only, but you keep attributing much more to him than what is actually due to him, at least it isn't just due to him alone.