• 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 state numbers predict huge Obama loss in November

99percenter said:
What it is about the failed bush economic policies that create blind loyalty like yours?
Click to expand...

I guess I learned personal responsibility which apparently liberals don't understand. Failed economic policies are adding 4.6 trillion to the debt and generating worse numbers than before the spending. Doubt that the 99 percenters agree with you that spending that amount of money to get worse results was worth it.
 
Conservative said:
We have had a safety net for decades but liberalism loves having people dependent for that buys their vote. you simply think with your heart and ignore your brain and that defines the problem with liberalism. We are over 15.2 trillion in debt and more below the poverty level thus more poor people than at any time in history, 24 million unemployed/under employed Americans yet you still buy the liberal rhetoric? What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
Click to expand...
'but liberalism loves having people dependent for that buys their vote.'

again, proof of this statement?
 
Conservative said:
I guess I learned personal responsibility which apparently liberals don't understand. Failed economic policies are adding 4.6 trillion to the debt and generating worse numbers than before the spending. Doubt that the 99 percenters agree with you that spending that amount of money to get worse results was worth it.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Last warning. Get on the topic.
 
Hatuey said:
There is a serious disconnect between what this editorial says and what Gallup actually says:



Job approval does NOT equal a prediction for elections. Actually, Gallup says nothing about how the job approval will predict the 2012 election. Wishful thinking on the part of the OP and a piece of **** editor who clearly doesn't have an honest bone in his body.
Click to expand...

Yeah, good point. I understand that in elections there's actually an opponent that has to beat you. I'm having a difficult time seeing any of the Republican dwarves beating Obama.
 
Wiggen said:
Yeah, good point. I understand that in elections there's actually an opponent that has to beat you. I'm having a difficult time seeing any of the Republican dwarves beating Obama.
Click to expand...

Gallup poll numbers disagree with you as will the poll numbers after Romney is the official nominee
 
Meathead said:
Ok, so pretend it is. Interesting graph. I especially like the starting point in Bush's term. Pretty disingenuous but will work on the dumbed down (obviously).
Click to expand...

First, I think you need to look up the word "disingenuous" before using it again. Nothing in my post was disingenuous, unless you are somehow referring to the monthly unemployment results. If you think that that is disingenuous you probably should take it up with the Bureau of Labor Statistics; its their chart. Moreover, its purpose was only to show job losses and recovery during the great recession. It was never intended to be a comparison of the Bush years to the Obama years. Certainly that was not my point nor is it the subject of this thread, which is whether Obama has the credentials for re-election.

You made the a) absurd b) unintellectual or c) disingenuous (pick one) proposition that there would be no basis to suggest that Obama has done a good job and was worthy of re-election. Now, its ok to not like his policies, to think he is taking the country in the wrong direction, to advocate you should not vote for him or to advocate he is a bad president. However, to universely dismiss that very notion that someone could disagree with you is a) absurd, b) unintellectual or c) disingenuous (pick one).... and unbecoming of anyone that is a serious politico.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
First, I think you need to look up the word "disingenuous" before using it again. Nothing in my post was disingenuous, unless you are somehow referring to the monthly unemployment results. If you think that that is disingenuous you probably should take it up with the Bureau of Labor Statistics; its their chart. Moreover, its purpose was only to show job losses and recovery during the great recession. It was never intended to be a comparison of the Bush years to the Obama years. Certainly that was not my point nor is it the subject of this thread, which is whether Obama has the credentials for re-election.

You made the a) absurd b) unintellectual or c) disingenuous (pick one) proposition that there would be no basis to suggest that Obama has done a good job and was worthy of re-election. Now, its ok to not like his policies, to think he is taking the country in the wrong direction, to advocate you should not vote for him or to advocate he is a bad president. However, to universely dismiss that very notion that someone could disagree with you is a) absurd, b) unintellectual or c) disingenuous (pick one).... and unbecoming of anyone that is a serious politico.
Click to expand...
Boy, you read a lot into a very short post. The graph was certainly for the dumbed down - people who lack analytical skills.

People may disagree with me of course, but if they do it disingenuouly by, using and manipulating materials that anyone with an iota of intelligence can see through, I will continue to call them out just as I did. I would personally be embarrassed posting that kind of tripe, but we all have different standards.
 
Erod said:
Ten months away, Gallup polls say Obama is in great trouble in states he won in 2008.


Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner


Screen%20shot%202012-02-01%20at%209.41.29%20AM.png
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, could you show me who Obama is running against in this hypothetical poll.

Because if the 'Approves' show up and vote for him, and the 'disapproves' don't vote, then he wins the biggest landslide in history.

Everywhere I look, I see the desperation of the right. This jackass at the Washington Examiner says the WH is worried. Really, who did he talk to? What a moron...
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Given the info below, I have a very difficult time believing the GOP will win, much less win by a huge margin.

View attachment 67122102

Source on 2/6/12: RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval
Click to expand...

Very true....Obama had "High" approval ratings for a President in the middle of a 3 year recession....honestly...if job gains continue to rise it's a landslide. Republicans definately don't help themselves with the field they are putting out...but I think there's a good reason a lot of their potentially strong canidates didn't jump in.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Given the info below, I have a very difficult time believing the GOP will win, much less win by a huge margin.

View attachment 67122102

Source on 2/6/12: RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval
Click to expand...

If half the people in the country vote for Obama, and the other half (non-approves) either vote for someone else, don't vote, or vote for Obama because they disapprove of the other choice so much, then...

Clint Eastwood was right, it is half-time in American. Let's hope Obama brings his A-game into the second half and delivers.
 
hazlnut said:
If half the people in the country vote for Obama, and the other half (non-approves) either vote for someone else, don't vote, or vote for Obama because they disapprove of the other choice so much, then...

Clint Eastwood was right, it is half-time in American. Let's hope Obama brings his A-game into the second half and delivers.
Click to expand...

What is very concerning is the lack of knowledge most voters have as to the role of the Federal Govt. or the actual results obama has generated. They continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance. It really is a shame that some of these people actually are allowed to vote.
 
Conservative said:
What is very concerning is the lack of knowledge most voters have as to the role of the Federal Govt. or the actual results obama has generated. They continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance. It really is a shame that some of these people actually are allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

So Con what is the role of the federal government?
 
It's far FAR too early to call the election.
 
Conservative said:
What is very concerning is the lack of knowledge most voters have as to the role of the Federal Govt. or the actual results obama has generated. They continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance. It really is a shame that some of these people actually are allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

Apparently people like a president who took a huge job loss every month and turned it into a modest job gain. And since you so often tout job numbers when crying about Obama, you can't go now and claim that the turnaround was not Obama's.

Over the last 2 months Obama's approval has risen 6 points and continues to rise. That makes the map even more useless than it is at first glance.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
What is very concerning is the lack of knowledge most voters have as to the role of the Federal Govt. or the actual results obama has generated. They continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance. It really is a shame that some of these people actually are allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

Your boy bush expanded the role of the fed govt.
 
Far too early. You never know when an intern slips into the picture. LOL!

But, if the election were held today, depending on who Obama is running against, here's what the median poll reflects.

Obama vs. Romney

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

Obama vs. Gingrich

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Gingrich vs. Obama

I won't bore you with the Obama vs. Santorum or Paul polls. It only gets worse for the GOP.

Obama hasn't begin to even kick his campaign machine in to second gear yet. I suspect, barring any goo on a blue dress, the GOP is in for a long haul.
 
Last edited:
99percenter said:
Your boy bush expanded the role of the fed govt.
Click to expand...

"my" boy Bush isn't on the ballot in 2012, "your" Boy is and his record disqualifies him for another 4 years but then again results don't matter to you as you like him and what he says. In your world this is American Idol
 
Conservative said:
"my" boy Bush isn't on the ballot in 2012, "your" Boy is and his record disqualifies him for another 4 years but then again results don't matter to you as you like him and what he says. In your world this is American Idol
Click to expand...

Don't you hate it on American Idol when your favorite contestant doesn't make the finals? LOL!
 
Captain America said:
Far too early. You never know when an intern slips into the picture. LOL!

But, if the election were held today, depending on who Obama is running against, here's what the median poll reflects.

Obama vs. Romney

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

Obama vs. Gingrich

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Gingrich vs. Obama

I won't bore you with the Obama vs. Santorum or Paul polls. It only gets worse for the GOP.

Obama hasn't begin to even kick his campaign machine in to second gear yet. I suspect, barring any goo on a blue dress, the GOP is in for a long haul.
Click to expand...

Obama will never run on his actual record but will indeed lie about it

Obama's made up numbers
Click to expand...

CURL: Obama's made-up jobless numbers - Washington Times
 
Last edited:
Captain America said:
How ironic. Most Americans I know don't have a clue who this "Barack Hussein Obama," fictitious character, that your side is running against, even is. And most don't even care about the invented demon. They neither fear bridge trolls or boogiemen. That is, if we are to believe the polls.
Click to expand...

Yet the results speak for themselves.


Jan-09 Jan-12
Unemployment 12049 12754
Discouraged 734 1059
Private Sector Emp 133563 131900
Labor Force 154236 154395
Total Employment 142187 141637

Obama today has a net job loss
Obama today has a declining labor force
Obama today has fewer people employed than when he took office
Obama today has almost a million discouraged workers which he has averaged over the past three years
Obama today has a U-6 unemployment of 15.2% or 24 million unemployed/under employed Americans
Obama today has add 154395
ed 4.6 trillion dollars to the debt in 3 years
Obama today spent over 842 billion in a stimulus plan that failed
Obama today has a higher misery index than when he took office
Obama today has participated in crony capitalism and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars trying to pick winners in the private sector
Obama today has promoted class warfare and demonized individual wealth creation
Obama today has seen record numbers in poverty and record numbers of people on food stamps
Obama today still claims he brought this country back from the brink of financial collapse when TARP did that and it was Bush's legislation
Obama today claims he saved the auto industry by taking over GM/Chrysler ignoring that Ford took no bailout money nor did any other Auto Manufacturer. Taxpayer losses will be in the billions
Obama today has wasted the repayment of TARP and never used the money to pay down the deficit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom