Gallup: 55% Oppose Re-election of Obama

[Rozman]

For me it has always been about the job numbers.
Unemployment to me is everything.

8.5 % or higher and the GOP has a shot.
8.0% or lower and we have another 4 years of this.. A mess.It comes down to that .5%

 

[jillian]

eh... she can whine to her heart's content... he still beats all comers...

RealClearPolitics - President Obama vs. Republican Candidates


maybe if they picked someone who wasn't a loser?

 

[del]

lol...come on.....You still have Obama beating every GOP runner as of right now. 55% saying he doesnt deserve the seat is a far cry from 55% saying they wont vote for Obama period.

You WISH it was the other way, but its not. This is merely grasping for something.

I certainly do wish that the tenure of this wind-bag was at an end.

He will lose....the only question remaining is how badly he will lose.

Afterwards, it will take a post of booklength to ascertain the myriad the reasons.
I look forward to writing that post.

the first one you write yourself is always special.

good luck with it

helpful hint: ctrl-c, ctrl-v won't do it

 

[rightwinger]

Obama will still win reelection by a comfortable margin

Given the current state of the economy, Republicans has a legitimate chance of knocking him off in 2012. However, given the pathetic bunch of feebs running for the GOP nod, there is little chance any of them would be trusted by the voters to run the country

 

[WillowTree]

You have a point...partially.
There is a weaker slate: Democrats.

Women don't understand that there's a difference between not liking a candidate and thinking that the candidate is a weak candidate. Men watch alot of sports so we understand that the team we most hate might be really good.

If you're going to win an election against a sitting president you need 2 things.

1. You need to have a bad economy that you can blame on him. I think that the GOP is going to have a hard time with that.
2. You need to energize your own base. Romney and Gingrich cannot and will not.

Therefore, on Jan 21, 2013, the President of the United States of America will be Barack Obama.

Talk about one ignorant statement, dude.

he watches too much msnbc..

 

[Toro]

More Than 4 in 10 Say Obama Deserves Re-Election

1. "Voters' views about President Obama's re-election fall in between their views of most members of Congress and of their local representative. Forty-three percent say Obama deserves to be re-elected, while 55% say he does not. The "deserves" percentage is slightly lower than Gallup measured in August and May of this year, but above the low point of 37% measured in October 2010."

2. And this is testimony to firm decisons by those who responded. Only 2% couldn't make a choice.

3. And Gallup's results are based on 'registered voters' not the more valid 'likely voters:'
"Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Nov. 28-Dec. 1, 2011, with a random sample of 1,012 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of 903 registered voters used in this analysis, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points."
Record High Anti-Incumbent Sentiment Toward Congress

4. Interesting that Gallup hid the negative news way down in the poll, after questions and graphs about whether or not Obama deserves re-election. Wouldn't you think that the question about the President's chances would be prime news?
You think it's an accident, huh?


First, Obama-supporters...say bye-bye to the Pres.
Next, analyze why your choice was such a blunder....
...what does it say about your politics?

Then apologize.

This is a big reason why "President Gingrich" or "President Perry" or "President Huckabee" is / would have been a real possibility.

I think the Republicans are going to sweep next year, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Dems made gains in the House.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have a point...partially.
There is a weaker slate: Democrats.

Women don't understand that there's a difference between not liking a candidate and thinking that the candidate is a weak candidate. Men watch alot of sports so we understand that the team we most hate might be really good.

If you're going to win an election against a sitting president you need 2 things.

1. You need to have a bad economy that you can blame on him. I think that the GOP is going to have a hard time with that.
2. You need to energize your own base. Romney and Gingrich cannot and will not.

Therefore, on Jan 21, 2013, the President of the United States of America will be Barack Obama.

Well, Sammy...an astounding post!

1. I'll have to check Guinness, but this is probably a record in relation to the number of errors in such a short post.

2. "Women don't understand..."
Consider the rest of this post as a cautionary tale for other misogynists.

3. "...there's a difference between not liking a candidate and thinking that the candidate is a weak candidate."
Obama has seen his poll number fall with every single constituent group. In his case, likeability is no longer a factor. He is recognized by all as a fake and pompous incompetent.
Any GOP candidate will defeat him.

4. "Men watch alot of sports ..."
Just this week: Survey shows liberals and conservatives watch different TV shows too... Jon Stewart and Larry the Cable Guy are the new faces American polarization | Mail Online
Actually, conservatives favor competition, such as sports, in their viewing habits.

5. "You need to have a bad economy that you can blame on him. I think that the GOP is going to have a hard time with that."
Really?
Obama in 2009: "If I can’t fix the economy in three years, you can call me former President Obama"
Obama 2009: If I can

6. "You need to energize your own base. Romney and Gingrich cannot and will not."
Another 'common knowledge' error.
Once the GOP has a candidate, the nation will coalesce aroung same.
The same phenomenon as McCain '08:

"Myth: In 2008, million of conservatives stayed home rather than vote for McCain. Facts: Exit polls showed 34% of the electorate self-identified as conservative in 2008 – the same percentage as in 2004, when George W. Bush was re-elected. And, overall turnout was higher in 2008 – meaning the number of conservatives who voted in 2008 (44.6 million) was more than the number who voted in 2004 (41.6 million).

Myth: McCain was a drag on the rest of the ticket in a way that a more conservative candidate would not have been. Facts: McCain drew nearly 8 million more votes that Republican House candidates in 2008 and carried 49 congressional districts in which the Republican house candidates lost. Had House candidates run as well as McCain, they would have won a majority in Congress."
Medved on McCain, Conservatives, & Electability « New Hampshire Journal

7."Therefore, on Jan 21, 2013, the President of the United States of America will be Barack Obama"
Sammy, as a prognosticator, you make a darn fine organ donor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama will still win reelection by a comfortable margin

Given the current state of the economy, Republicans has a legitimate chance of knocking him off in 2012. However, given the pathetic bunch of feebs running for the GOP nod, there is little chance any of them would be trusted by the voters to run the country

Didn't you mean "comfortable margarine"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

lol...come on.....You still have Obama beating every GOP runner as of right now. 55% saying he doesnt deserve the seat is a far cry from 55% saying they wont vote for Obama period.

You WISH it was the other way, but its not. This is merely grasping for something.

I certainly do wish that the tenure of this wind-bag was at an end.

He will lose....the only question remaining is how badly he will lose.

Afterwards, it will take a post of booklength to ascertain the myriad the reasons.
I look forward to writing that post.

the first one you write yourself is always special.

good luck with it

helpful hint: ctrl-c, ctrl-v won't do it

I probably shouldn’t tell you, but it’s so flattering every time one of you tacitly admits that they are unable to deal with the substance of my post…and can only comment on the form.
A white flag, is it?

 

[EriktheRed]

So what does Barron's have to say about next year's election?

 

[PoliticalChic]

More Than 4 in 10 Say Obama Deserves Re-Election

1. "Voters' views about President Obama's re-election fall in between their views of most members of Congress and of their local representative. Forty-three percent say Obama deserves to be re-elected, while 55% say he does not. The "deserves" percentage is slightly lower than Gallup measured in August and May of this year, but above the low point of 37% measured in October 2010."

2. And this is testimony to firm decisons by those who responded. Only 2% couldn't make a choice.

3. And Gallup's results are based on 'registered voters' not the more valid 'likely voters:'
"Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Nov. 28-Dec. 1, 2011, with a random sample of 1,012 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of 903 registered voters used in this analysis, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points."
Record High Anti-Incumbent Sentiment Toward Congress

4. Interesting that Gallup hid the negative news way down in the poll, after questions and graphs about whether or not Obama deserves re-election. Wouldn't you think that the question about the President's chances would be prime news?
You think it's an accident, huh?


First, Obama-supporters...say bye-bye to the Pres.
Next, analyze why your choice was such a blunder....
...what does it say about your politics?

Then apologize.

This is a big reason why "President Gingrich" or "President Perry" or "President Huckabee" is / would have been a real possibility.

I think the Republicans are going to sweep next year, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Dems made gains in the House.

You are the first one I've seen to suggest that the House might be in play.

But I see a reason why, based on economics, you might wish for that....

1. The two periods of fiscal responsibility in six decades were the Eisenhower and the Clinton administrations, periods during which the presidency and Congress were controlled by different parties. William A. Niskanen, “A Case For Divided Government,” A Case for Divided Government | William A. Niskanen | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

2. The worst spending periods were those with one party in charge.

a. a. 1967 and 1968, LBJ and the Democrats, spending increased 11.6% a year. Historical Tables | The White House (table 1.1)

3. The largest average decrease came in 1955 and 1956, with spending decreasing an average 4.2% a year. Eisenhower was President, with Democrats in charge in Congress. Ibid.

4. If you don’t want to see expansion of government, gridlock is good.

5. In 1997, the most promising budget reform in American history died aborning! President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich secretly created a abipartisan plan to permanently rin in Social Security and Medicare. It would provide Social Security personal accounts and convert Medicare into a market-based, premium support program. The idea was for Clinton to offer the plan during his Januar 1998 State of the Union address, and Gingrich to endorse it.

What happened? Six days before the Clinton speech the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. Steve M. Gillon, “The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry that Defined a Generation.”
If Obama was less of an ideologue, an more like Clinton, he'd be a shoo-in.
That's the difference beteen what folks expected and what they got.

 

[Listening]

Only 55%.

That seems low.

He won't be campaigning in Kansas.

 

[HUGGY]

More Than 4 in 10 Say Obama Deserves Re-Election

1. "Voters' views about President Obama's re-election fall in between their views of most members of Congress and of their local representative. Forty-three percent say Obama deserves to be re-elected, while 55% say he does not. The "deserves" percentage is slightly lower than Gallup measured in August and May of this year, but above the low point of 37% measured in October 2010."

2. And this is testimony to firm decisons by those who responded. Only 2% couldn't make a choice.

3. And Gallup's results are based on 'registered voters' not the more valid 'likely voters:'
"Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Nov. 28-Dec. 1, 2011, with a random sample of 1,012 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of 903 registered voters used in this analysis, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points."
Record High Anti-Incumbent Sentiment Toward Congress

4. Interesting that Gallup hid the negative news way down in the poll, after questions and graphs about whether or not Obama deserves re-election. Wouldn't you think that the question about the President's chances would be prime news?
You think it's an accident, huh?


First, Obama-supporters...say bye-bye to the Pres.
Next, analyze why your choice was such a blunder....
...what does it say about your politics?

Then apologize.

Your OP is stupid and meaningless. In Sept of 2008 Gallup had McCain leading:

When we interview a typical Gallup Poll random sample, we are estimating the responses of all adults 18 years of age and older. We call these national adults. In our recent poll conducted the weekend of Sept. 5-7, for example, John McCain led Barack Obama among these national adults by a 48% to 46% margin.

But we almost never report this figure. It's unrealistic to do so because we know that a percentage of these national adults not only won't vote, but can't vote -- because they are not U.S. citizens or are not registered to vote in their local areas.

So we narrow down the national adult sample to registered voters. This is the group who in response to a standard poll question say they are "registered to vote in their precinct or election district." This is the group whose data we report most often, because it represents an estimate of Americans who in theory are eligible to vote and could vote if they want to. In the Sept. 5-7 poll, this group divided 50% for McCain and 46% for Obama.

Registered Voters vs. Likely Voters

 

[Meister]

More Than 4 in 10 Say Obama Deserves Re-Election

1. "Voters' views about President Obama's re-election fall in between their views of most members of Congress and of their local representative. Forty-three percent say Obama deserves to be re-elected, while 55% say he does not. The "deserves" percentage is slightly lower than Gallup measured in August and May of this year, but above the low point of 37% measured in October 2010."

2. And this is testimony to firm decisons by those who responded. Only 2% couldn't make a choice.

3. And Gallup's results are based on 'registered voters' not the more valid 'likely voters:'
"Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Nov. 28-Dec. 1, 2011, with a random sample of 1,012 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of 903 registered voters used in this analysis, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points."
Record High Anti-Incumbent Sentiment Toward Congress

4. Interesting that Gallup hid the negative news way down in the poll, after questions and graphs about whether or not Obama deserves re-election. Wouldn't you think that the question about the President's chances would be prime news?
You think it's an accident, huh?


First, Obama-supporters...say bye-bye to the Pres.
Next, analyze why your choice was such a blunder....
...what does it say about your politics?

Then apologize.

Your OP is stupid and meaningless. In Sept of 2008 Gallup had McCain leading:

When we interview a typical Gallup Poll random sample, we are estimating the responses of all adults 18 years of age and older. We call these national adults. In our recent poll conducted the weekend of Sept. 5-7, for example, John McCain led Barack Obama among these national adults by a 48% to 46% margin.

But we almost never report this figure. It's unrealistic to do so because we know that a percentage of these national adults not only won't vote, but can't vote -- because they are not U.S. citizens or are not registered to vote in their local areas.

So we narrow down the national adult sample to registered voters. This is the group who in response to a standard poll question say they are "registered to vote in their precinct or election district." This is the group whose data we report most often, because it represents an estimate of Americans who in theory are eligible to vote and could vote if they want to. In the Sept. 5-7 poll, this group divided 50% for McCain and 46% for Obama.

Registered Voters vs. Likely Voters

I really get tired of the left coming up with these sites to retort a poll, but then swear up and down that Obama beats the field in the polls, and uses them like it IS the Bible.

 

[del]

I certainly do wish that the tenure of this wind-bag was at an end.

He will lose....the only question remaining is how badly he will lose.

Afterwards, it will take a post of booklength to ascertain the myriad the reasons.
I look forward to writing that post.

the first one you write yourself is always special.

good luck with it

helpful hint: ctrl-c, ctrl-v won't do it

I probably shouldn’t tell you, but it’s so flattering every time one of you tacitly admits that they are unable to deal with the substance of my post…and can only comment on the form.
A white flag, is it?

no, it's a refusal to participate in intellectual theft.

as stunningly bad as most of the crap that you post here is, it isn't even your own, so why would one discuss it with you, who can't articulate your thoughts with your own words?

 

[PoliticalChic]

More Than 4 in 10 Say Obama Deserves Re-Election

1. "Voters' views about President Obama's re-election fall in between their views of most members of Congress and of their local representative. Forty-three percent say Obama deserves to be re-elected, while 55% say he does not. The "deserves" percentage is slightly lower than Gallup measured in August and May of this year, but above the low point of 37% measured in October 2010."

2.And this is testimony to firm decisons by those who responded. Only 2% couldn't make a choice.

3. And Gallup's results are based on 'registered voters' not the more valid 'likely voters:'
"Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Nov. 28-Dec. 1, 2011, with a random sample of 1,012 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of 903 registered voters used in this analysis, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points."
Record High Anti-Incumbent Sentiment Toward Congress

4. Interesting that Gallup hid the negative news way down in the poll, after questions and graphs about whether or not Obama deserves re-election. Wouldn't you think that the question about the President's chances would be prime news?
You think it's an accident, huh?


First, Obama-supporters...say bye-bye to the Pres.
Next, analyze why your choice was such a blunder....
...what does it say about your politics?

Then apologize.

Your OP is stupid and meaningless. In Sept of 2008 Gallup had McCain leading:

When we interview a typical Gallup Poll random sample, we are estimating the responses of all adults 18 years of age and older. We call these national adults. In our recent poll conducted the weekend of Sept. 5-7, for example, John McCain led Barack Obama among these national adults by a 48% to 46% margin.

But we almost never report this figure. It's unrealistic to do so because we know that a percentage of these national adults not only won't vote, but can't vote -- because they are not U.S. citizens or are not registered to vote in their local areas.

So we narrow down the national adult sample to registered voters. This is the group who in response to a standard poll question say they are "registered to vote in their precinct or election district." This is the group whose data we report most often, because it represents an estimate of Americans who in theory are eligible to vote and could vote if they want to. In the Sept. 5-7 poll, this group divided 50% for McCain and 46% for Obama.

Registered Voters vs. Likely Voters

Your understanding is flawed.

1. "...Using one definition of likely voters, those who are registered to vote and are "absolutely certain" to vote, the poll shows President Bush with a modest two-point lead (48% to 46%). Using this definition but excluding all those who were old enough to vote in 2000 but did not do so, President Bush has a commanding eight-point lead (51% to 43%). This second definition has proved more accurate in the past,..."
Mystery Pollster: Likely Voters I: Thanks Harris

2.This from Gallup: "The basic process attempts to winnow down the total adult population in the weeks and months prior to an election to those most likely to vote -- or in other words, likely voters."
How Do You Define "Likely Voters"?


"Likely voters" is more accurate than 'registered voters.

Why?

3. "Republicans appear more energized than Democrats at the outset of the 2012 presidential campaign,..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/u...obs-plan-is-well-received.html?pagewanted=all


There are more Democrats registered than Republicans. But...if they don't vote, are not 'likely voters,' then registered numbers don't matter.

So, by calling and counting 'registed voters,' Gallup is slanting the result in favor of Obama...so the 55% is probably on the low side of 'likely voters.'


Get it, Hugs?
Say bye-bye to your guy.

 

[WillowTree]

the first one you write yourself is always special.

good luck with it

helpful hint: ctrl-c, ctrl-v won't do it

I probably shouldn’t tell you, but it’s so flattering every time one of you tacitly admits that they are unable to deal with the substance of my post…and can only comment on the form.
A white flag, is it?

no, it's a refusal to participate in intellectual theft.

as stunningly bad as most of the crap that you post here is, it isn't even your own, so why would one discuss it with you, who can't articulate your thoughts with your own words?

get real asswipe. when one posts their own thoughts and opinions some asswipe from your left hand side of the isle demands ,,,,,, guess what??? a cut and paste link.. you're just picking on PC cause you don't like her.

 

[WillowTree]

so the new rules are no cut and paste? opinion only.. don't ever let me hear you ask for a link all yer ever gonna get is my opinion.. I bet PC can do that too.

 

[del]

I probably shouldn’t tell you, but it’s so flattering every time one of you tacitly admits that they are unable to deal with the substance of my post…and can only comment on the form.
A white flag, is it?

no, it's a refusal to participate in intellectual theft.

as stunningly bad as most of the crap that you post here is, it isn't even your own, so why would one discuss it with you, who can't articulate your thoughts with your own words?

get real asswipe. when one posts their own thoughts and opinions some asswipe from your left hand side of the isle demands ,,,,,, guess what??? a cut and paste link.. you're just picking on PC cause you don't like her.

my side of the aisle?



good one, have a cookie.

 

[WillowTree]

no, it's a refusal to participate in intellectual theft.

as stunningly bad as most of the crap that you post here is, it isn't even your own, so why would one discuss it with you, who can't articulate your thoughts with your own words?

get real asswipe. when one posts their own thoughts and opinions some asswipe from your left hand side of the isle demands ,,,,,, guess what??? a cut and paste link.. you're just picking on PC cause you don't like her.

You a thinker? lol....hahahahhahahahhahaha

I am. I think you are a shit stain.