Obama is back! New NBC poll results

[Cheddarmelon]

RCP turned into a Right Wing Hack site a long time ago.

I'll take Nate Silver, because last time, he got 49 out of 50 states right.

Curiosity. Which did he miss on?

I'm just wondering.

I believe he missed Indiana... He thought McCain was going to carry that and he didn't.

Wouldn't have come close to impacting the outcome. That's a pretty sterling record to stand on.

 

[Maple]

i won,t give up. it been tough day but we got to fight to the end . that all we can do and hope it goes obama way man.

This guy has given up.


I Too Have Become Disillusioned.

By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San
Francisco Examiner)

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack
Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a
baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the
Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of
professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could
manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful
military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life:
ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades
and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community
organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative
achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did
he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the
United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his
presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature
legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his
troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher
who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life,
actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political
sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all
and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be
sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken
hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist
like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama
was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have
hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if
they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama
was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of
his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history
matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself
had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance
to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of
racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the
Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of
course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all
affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily
to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about
themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat
themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools
for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the
inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.
Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't
around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem
resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes,
racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the
color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if
that isn't racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never
troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many
have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite
undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough
for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told
he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the
Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was
good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the
contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display
every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked
executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory
skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives
included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when
he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent
he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever
issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that
has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and
everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I
inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the
task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise
his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But
really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for
anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the
temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand
that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of
liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise
with such a man in the Oval Office.

 

[JoeB131]

Curiosity. Which did he miss on?

I'm just wondering.

I believe he missed Indiana... He thought McCain was going to carry that and he didn't.

Wouldn't have come close to impacting the outcome. That's a pretty sterling record to stand on.

No, it wouldn't have, and in Nate's defense, no one really saw IN coming.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Polls: Obama holds his lead in Iowa, Wisconsin - First Read

It’s about the individual states and the EC.

As the OP article notes:

These two battleground states combined account for just 16 electoral votes in this presidential contest. But they play a large role in each campaign’s path to securing the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the White House.

If Obama wins both Iowa and Wisconsin, according to NBC’s latest battleground map, he could reach or surpass 270 electoral votes by either winning: 1) just Ohio; 2) a combination of Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire; or 3) a combination New Hampshire and Virginia.

Currently the president is ahead in Ohio, as well as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nevada.

 

[mudwhistle]

You people are too funny. If you like the results the poll is valid. When you don't it's a crooked, dishonest poll.

Actually the polls showing Romney winning by 7 points are wrong..........



........he's winning by much more.

 

[decker]

i won,t give up. it been tough day but we got to fight to the end . that all we can do and hope it goes obama way man.

This guy has given up.


I Too Have Become Disillusioned.

By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San
Francisco Examiner)

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack
Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a
baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the
Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of
professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could
manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful
military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life:
ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades
and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community
organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative
achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did
he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the
United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his
presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature
legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his
troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher
who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life,
actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political
sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all
and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be
sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken
hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist
like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama
was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have
hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if
they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama
was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of
his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history
matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself
had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance
to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of
racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the
Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of
course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all
affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily
to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about
themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat
themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools
for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the
inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.
Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't
around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem
resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes,
racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the
color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if
that isn't racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never
troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many
have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite
undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough
for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told
he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the
Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was
good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the
contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display
every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked
executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory
skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives
included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when
he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent
he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever
issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that
has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and
everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I
inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the
task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise
his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But
really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for
anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the
temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand
that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of
liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise
with such a man in the Oval Office.

does not sound like someone who backed obama in the first place.

anyway look obama underdog but i am not one to give up fight to very end.

 

[decker]

Polls: Obama holds his lead in Iowa, Wisconsin - First Read

It’s about the individual states and the EC.

As the OP article notes:

These two battleground states combined account for just 16 electoral votes in this presidential contest. But they play a large role in each campaign’s path to securing the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the White House.

If Obama wins both Iowa and Wisconsin, according to NBC’s latest battleground map, he could reach or surpass 270 electoral votes by either winning: 1) just Ohio; 2) a combination of Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire; or 3) a combination New Hampshire and Virginia.

Currently the president is ahead in Ohio, as well as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nevada.

you make good point. he can win though with five states. ohio, wi,nev,pa and mi. they can all be won but he must fight for those states till very last sweat has dropped.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And, guy, you are dishonest with yourself. We have excluded you fair weather sisters already and win or lose the far right crazees are going to be made impotent politically.

Guy, any of thoe weaker candidates would be better than Romney. Because Romney is just a totally evil human being. And he's going to lose, badly... and the funny thing is, all these "conservatives" who pretend to be your buds now will turn on you for suggesting him to start with. Everything will be Romney's fault WHEN he loses.

Um, actually . . . you are the hack, JoeB.

RCP is good and fair, and you are a lying sack of manure, even from the moment you were trying to sway people to nine weaker candidates than the one you knew that can, and will, beat the President in November.

You have never been honest, you have never been smart enough to hide your dishonesty, and your day of dishonor is coming on election day.

RCP turned into a Right Wing Hack site a long time ago.

I'll take Nate Silver, because last time, he got 49 out of 50 states right.

 

[decker]

And, guy, you are dishonest with yourself. We have excluded you fair weather sisters already and win or lose the far right crazees are going to be made impotent politically.

Guy, any of thoe weaker candidates would be better than Romney. Because Romney is just a totally evil human being. And he's going to lose, badly... and the funny thing is, all these "conservatives" who pretend to be your buds now will turn on you for suggesting him to start with. Everything will be Romney's fault WHEN he loses.

Um, actually . . . you are the hack, JoeB.

RCP is good and fair, and you are a lying sack of manure, even from the moment you were trying to sway people to nine weaker candidates than the one you knew that can, and will, beat the President in November.

You have never been honest, you have never been smart enough to hide your dishonesty, and your day of dishonor is coming on election day.

well you hope if romney wins the he does not listen to far right people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know that he will listen to them and then ignore them.

It's what he has done to folks on his boards with whom he disagrees. It's what he did as governor while working with dems in Mass, it's what he did at SLC Olympics, and is what he is going to do with the far right once he is elected.

Watch the behind scenes pressure he exerts during the lame duck session. He will trade giving up significant opposition to ACA in return for the Dems extending all of the Bush tax cuts.

All of his presidential career will be like that.

 

[decker]

I know that he will listen to them and then ignore them.

It's what he has done to folks on his boards with whom he disagrees. It's what he did as governor while working with dems in Mass, it's what he did at SLC Olympics, and is what he is going to do with the far right once he is elected.

Watch the behind scenes pressure he exerts during the lame duck session. He will trade giving up significant opposition to ACA in return for the Dems extending all of the Bush tax cuts.

All of his presidential career will be like that.

well i hope your right but it still going to be hard to bring divided congress together . too much hatred on both sides still

 

[JoeB131]

And, guy, you are dishonest with yourself. We have excluded you fair weather sisters already and win or lose the far right crazees are going to be made impotent politically.

]

Guy, The GOP has three major problems.

1) It takes the side of the wealthy over working people.

2) It has completely alienated people of color.

3) It has been totally hijacked by religious crazies.

Romney makes all three of those problems worse. And the first rule when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. Romney's digging that hole liek he expects to find the Golden Plates at the bottom of it.

If Unemployment were at 6%, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

It the GOP had nominated someone sensible like Pawlenty or Daniels or Thune or even Rick Perry, Obama would be packing his bags right now.

 

[Rozman]

well that is a boost for sure

There you go decker. The momentum is turning back to Obama. We must not let up. This is to important

You got that right...

China and Japan still has way too much money that we need to borrow
and spend like crazy....

Debbie Wasserman Schultz still has a wish list to get through
before she is done in politics.

 

[decker]

well that is a boost for sure

There you go decker. The momentum is turning back to Obama. We must not let up. This is to important

You got that right...

China and Japan still has way too much money that we need to borrow
and spend like crazy....

Debbie Wasserman Schultz still has a wish list to get through
before she is done in politics.

bit harsh that.

both these are issues president will need to address well in the debate. china is important issue

 

[JoeB131]

And, guy, you are dishonest with yourself. We have excluded you fair weather sisters already and win or lose the far right crazees are going to be made impotent politically.

Guy, any of thoe weaker candidates would be better than Romney. Because Romney is just a totally evil human being. And he's going to lose, badly... and the funny thing is, all these "conservatives" who pretend to be your buds now will turn on you for suggesting him to start with. Everything will be Romney's fault WHEN he loses.

well you hope if romney wins the he does not listen to far right people.

Jake has deluded himself into believing that Romney has character and he won't go to the strongest well of gravity. Which right now, is the TEA Party in the GOP.

Fact is, Romney will be ineffective because the Democrats will be trying to get payback on him for taking out Obama and Republicans will never really trust him unless he aceeds to all their demands.

Think Jimmy Carter.

 

[decker]

And, guy, you are dishonest with yourself. We have excluded you fair weather sisters already and win or lose the far right crazees are going to be made impotent politically.

well you hope if romney wins the he does not listen to far right people.

Jake has deluded himself into believing that Romney has character and he won't go to the strongest well of gravity. Which right now, is the TEA Party in the GOP.

Fact is, Romney will be ineffective because the Democrats will be trying to get payback on him for taking out Obama and Republicans will never really trust him unless he aceeds to all their demands.

Think Jimmy Carter.

he got a promblem in sense that tea party gop will want him to do thing they want and dem be hard to work with due to their dislike of romney

but i hope both sides come together under romney as good for country if something gets done.

congress is been very bad at coming together.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JoeB has been wrong on almost every issue since the campaign began and he will be wrong on this as well.

And, guy, you are dishonest with yourself. We have excluded you fair weather sisters already and win or lose the far right crazees are going to be made impotent politically.

well you hope if romney wins the he does not listen to far right people.

Jake has deluded himself into believing that Romney has character and he won't go to the strongest well of gravity. Which right now, is the TEA Party in the GOP.

Fact is, Romney will be ineffective because the Democrats will be trying to get payback on him for taking out Obama and Republicans will never really trust him unless he aceeds to all their demands.

Think Jimmy Carter.

 

[decker]

JoeB has been wrong on almost every issue since the campaign began and he will be wrong on this as well.

well you hope if romney wins the he does not listen to far right people.

Jake has deluded himself into believing that Romney has character and he won't go to the strongest well of gravity. Which right now, is the TEA Party in the GOP.

Fact is, Romney will be ineffective because the Democrats will be trying to get payback on him for taking out Obama and Republicans will never really trust him unless he aceeds to all their demands.

Think Jimmy Carter.

i hope your right that romney does work across the center and with dems well. hope both sides work together for the sake of the country ..

 

[Rinata]

You people are too funny. If you like the results the poll is valid. When you don't it's a crooked, dishonest poll.

Actually the polls showing Romney winning by 7 points are wrong..........



........he's winning by much more.

Very funny!!! You almost had me going there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama is winning every state Kerry won in 2004, plus Obama is winning Ohio.

That's all it takes, people.