• 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!

Only 24% Say They Share Obama's Political Views

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Most voters still believe President Obama is more liberal than they are, while just one-out-of-four say they share the same ideological views as the president.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 54% of Likely U.S. Voters think Obama is more ideologically liberal than they are, while only 13% view him as more conservative. Twenty-four percent (24%) say their political views are about the same as the president's. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
The number who see the president as more liberal than they are stayed at 57% in three-out-of-four previous surveys conducted since August of last year. That number climbed to 61% in late February. The number who view the president as more conservative ranged from nine percent (9%) to 12% in that same period.
The number of voters who say they share about the same political views as the president ties the lowest result measured since August and, interestingly, compares exactly with the number who say the same of Congress. Only 24% of voters hold about the same ideological views as the average Republican member of Congress, and another 24% feel that way about the views of the average Democratic congressman.

Only 24% Say They Share Obama's Political Views - Rasmussen Reports™


the 'money quote' being the part I highlighted shows a serious problem for Obama as he starts out his bid for re election. If only 13% of the country agrees with you, I'd say you are in trouble.

What say you all?

j-mac
 
And to think, that 13 percent mingles among us. Eeek!
 
the 'money quote' being the part I highlighted shows a serious problem for Obama as he starts out his bid for re election. If only 13% of the country agrees with you, I'd say you are in trouble.

What say you all?

j-mac

I think that realistically, he probably gets 37% of the vote by that poll. I figure those that think Obama is more conservative than them aren't going to vote for the Republican candidate. The 54% is where the Republican candidate must draw from. It would be interesting to know the breakdown of the 54%. Are they in any way upset with Obama? How do they categorize themselves; moderate, conservative, very conservative? There isn't a lot that can be inferred from this poll, other than Obama has 37% of the vote in his corner. The question is, how much does the Republican candidate have and who will the two candidates be pandering to?
 
I think that's accurate, doesn't surprise me at all.

However there's a big difference between the President's views and his actions.
 
Last edited:
the 'money quote' being the part I highlighted shows a serious problem for Obama as he starts out his bid for re election. If only 13% of the country agrees with you, I'd say you are in trouble.

What say you all?

I would really like to know what percentage of the country have their politics lined up with the GOP candidates.
 
the 'money quote' being the part I highlighted shows a serious problem for Obama as he starts out his bid for re election. If only 13% of the country agrees with you, I'd say you are in trouble.

What say you all?

I say you don't know how to read a poll report?

13%?? Better check your math.
 
I would really like to know what percentage of the country have their politics lined up with the GOP candidates.

I think that is tough to say at this moment. Too early and all. And for the record Sam, I am not usually one to rely on polls, but I found this one interesting that so many liberals are mad at the President today, some for not going far enough, and some, if not a majority think that he is a liar. No wonder he feels he needs such a big war chest of money this time around....Deflect and distract you know.


j-mac
 
I say you don't know how to read a poll report?

13%?? Better check your math.

Well, I did get that part wrong. Thanks for pointing that out. But the real scary number for you Hazlnut, should be the 54% of "Likely voters" that do not want you in.

j-mac
 
Well, I did get that part wrong. Thanks for pointing that out. But the real scary number for you Hazlnut, should be the 54% of "Likely voters" that do not want you in.

j-mac

The is for the GOP to avoid the rock-star candidate and choose someone someone sensible and serious.
 
Do you believe that Obama is a truthful President Red?


j-mac

Does this have anything to do with what I said? You took a comment saying one thing, spun it into something entirely different, and now are trying to spin again.
 
I think that is tough to say at this moment. Too early and all. And for the record Sam, I am not usually one to rely on polls, but I found this one interesting that so many liberals are mad at the President today, some for not going far enough, and some, if not a majority think that he is a liar. No wonder he feels he needs such a big war chest of money this time around....Deflect and distract you know.

Yeah, but this is nothing new.

The President is a single man. No single man can ever emobody the incredibly wide political spectrum of the U.S. in its entirety, and even a very few embody even a majority of the political spectrum of the U.S. Most of the time, the President embodies a majority within a majority, which nationally means a minority.

But that's also caused because of our political system. The primaries determine which candidate embodies the majority from within one of the two parties, and then whichever one of those get the majority vote from the electoral college is chosen to lead the executive branch. So our electoral process naturally causes this, and always has.

But the President, while he represents the whole of American people, does not represent the politics of the American people. That purpose is delegated to Congress.

So if 24% of people nationwide find that the President holds political views close to their own I would say that that's pretty average for what it should be, if not good.

And if we want a President that a higher percentage of people agree with on policies then we shouldn't attack the President for the fact that he doesn't but rather implement an electoral process that better allows such a person to get elected President.
 
The is for the GOP to avoid the rock-star candidate and choose someone someone sensible and serious.

It's not rock-star candidates that Republicans have to be wary for, as they usually don't choose rock-star candidates anyways.

Rather, they're going to have to be wary of douchebag candidates who are going to call Obama the worst President 3V4R for implementing socialist communist Marxist Nazi Kenyan anti-colonialist anarchist tyrannical policies without detailing their own detailed choices for policies on certain issues.
 
Does this have anything to do with what I said? You took a comment saying one thing, spun it into something entirely different, and now are trying to spin again.


You'll have to explain to me where I did such...

j-mac
 
Rather, they're going to have to be wary of douchebag candidates who are going to call Obama the worst President 3V4R for implementing socialist communist Marxist Nazi Kenyan anti-colonialist anarchist tyrannical policies without detailing their own detailed choices for policies on certain issues.

Oh, wait a minute here. I think you are setting up a situation where only Obama can use attacks to campaign on. Listen, most people don't have the first clue concerning the complexity of issues that are boiled down to sound bytes on a regular basis. So it is just a little more than unfair to expect them to formulate an opinion that someone like us in forums like this who live, breath, and discuss politics daily.

This is why the media is such a strong tool, and when that has openly gone as biased as it has, then it is really screwed up.


j-mac
 
I think that's accurate, doesn't surprise me at all.

However there's a big difference between the President's views and his actions.

IOW, Obama is a liar.....I agree.

j-mac

You'll have to explain to me where I did such...

j-mac

Not acting on your views is not the same thing as being a liar. There can be several reasons to not act on your views. Those views may not be a good thing to implement all at once, those views may not be what you ran on, those views may be something that would never pass congress, and so on.
 
Oh, wait a minute here. I think you are setting up a situation where only Obama can use attacks to campaign on.

You are massively misrepresenting my post.

In NO way did I ever say that it was okay for Obama to attack GOPers but it wasn't okay for GOPers to attack back. In fact, nowhere in my post did I say that it was okay for Obama to make unfounded attacks to anybody at all, or that it was okay for Obama to attack anybody at all. My post didn't address what Obama should do at all. Your reading of my post to interpret it in that way only shows your own incredibly partisan bias in all of this.

Rather, that particular post detailed what GOP voters should be wary of in their candidates. That particular post pointed out "rock-star candidates." I pointed out that those are not who they should be wary of, since the GOP usually doesn't pick rock-star candidates anyway. Rather, they should be wary of candidates who make unfounded hyperbolic attacks on the incumbent without providing realistic viable solutions of their own.

In no way did I ever state that a GOP candidate cannot make an attack against Obama that's actually rooted in reality and rationality. So I would appreciate it if you'd stop claiming I said things that I didn't actually say.

Listen, most people don't have the first clue concerning the complexity of issues that are boiled down to sound bytes on a regular basis. So it is just a little more than unfair to expect them to formulate an opinion that someone like us in forums like this who live, breath, and discuss politics daily.

This is why the media is such a strong tool, and when that has openly gone as biased as it has, then it is really screwed up.

There is some truth to that. However, I don't see what particular bearing this has on this particular issue. Please go more into depth on that.
 
When the GOP nomination is complete, Obama's numbers are going to skyrocket. Right now it's just the normal 'diss the prez' time, without any lesser of the two evils factored in.
 
Not acting on your views is not the same thing as being a liar. There can be several reasons to not act on your views. Those views may not be a good thing to implement all at once, those views may not be what you ran on, those views may be something that would never pass congress, and so on.


Oh I see, it wasn't what I said to you in response to your post, noooooooo, let's throw in a vague reference that makes it look like I misrepresented you, when all along you were talking, or presumptively speaking for someone else. How very genuine of you to debate that way. :doh

But Let's now take a look at your own response to me right here and now shall we?

You just said that Obama is not a liar, but then admit these things about him

Red said:
...Those views may not be a good thing to implement all at once

Or ever. But those are the things he ran on to get elected. Didn't you liberals continually bash Bush I for the "read my lips" statement, then when demo's turned around and made a deal with him, never meaning to live up to what they promised in that deal hung him out to dry....Now shoe on the other foot, you can't take it. Interesting.

those views may be something that would never pass congress

Then why say that you "WILL" get them done. Pandering? I thought Liberals were above that sort of thing? Well, sans welfare recipients, or Unions, or any given minority that they happen to be speaking to while changing their delivery to reflect disingenuously the dialect of that particular group at the time....Uh, how rude.

and so on.

And so on, and so on, and on, and on....:lamo So the excuse train never stops. Got it.


j-mac
 
You are massively misrepresenting my post.

I am not trying to misrepresent anyone here, I thought we were having a discussion. Now there are at least two ways a discussion can go,

1. both sides discuss back and forth using what is written, and having interpretations of what is said hashed out

2. one side offering their opinion and expecting not to be challenged, and refusing to be reasonable in assumption of the other....

The second I would say is very dishonest, so which one are we having?

In NO way did I ever say that it was okay for Obama to attack GOPers but it wasn't okay for GOPers to attack back. In fact, nowhere in my post did I say that it was okay for Obama to make unfounded attacks to anybody at all, or that it was okay for Obama to attack anybody at all.

If I implied that I apologize. I meant to offer that the Obama machine is now gathering what is estimated to be more than $1 BILLION dollars to campaign with. As an incumbent that is unheard of, not to mention that the speculation right now seems to be that the money will be spent not in promoting what a success this man has been, but rather to dig, and smear his opponent whom ever that may be.

Do you think that an honest way to run a campaign.? Or acceptable?

My post didn't address what Obama should do at all. Your reading of my post to interpret it in that way only shows your own incredibly partisan bias in all of this.

Come on, let's have a conversation and knock that victimhood crap off Sam.

In no way did I ever state that a GOP candidate cannot make an attack against Obama that's actually rooted in reality and rationality.

And whom decides the "reality" or "rationality" of the attack? The one being attacked?

So I would appreciate it if you'd stop claiming I said things that I didn't actually say.

As I said earlier, stop the whining and debate.

There is some truth to that. However, I don't see what particular bearing this has on this particular issue. Please go more into depth on that.

You don't see how media bias can drive the polling? Really?


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom