Discussion in 'Politics' started by IHBF, Sep 17, 2012.
Papa Obama can not run on this economic record
only away from it
What should those numbers be? Just wondering what your expert opinion is.
[Sending a gay male as ambassador to a Muslim country weren't too bright neither. Lets face it, the guy is mind blowingly incompetent but there are too many people on the Government dole who won't vote to upset their applecart. America, Reagan's "Shining City on the hill" will be history after this election if the Chicago Communist Jesus wins.]
"There was a time when images of American embassies under siege and a United States ambassador being dragged through the streets by a baying mob would have represented serious trouble for the administration in power, especially when coupled with obvious dishonesty about the circumstances that led to the debacle and an apparent lack of foresight and prudence on the part of the State Department. If anything might be expected to move the polls, this should be it. Yet the effects of the last week’s events on polling in the presidential race have been: nothing.
Most polls bounce around because the composition of the sample is ever-changing. Pollsters will sample a lot of Democrats, and breathless headlines then allege that Obama is surging–while, at the same time, Romney is leading among independents by eight points. As I have written before, I think the Rasmussen poll is valuable not only because it samples likely voters, but because it uses a consistent methodology that normalizes responses according to the current mix of party affiliation, which is separately tested on a regular basis. Therefore, shifts in Rasmussen’s numbers probably represent real trends, rather than merely reflecting a different sample composition.
So how have Rasmussen’s numbers been affected by the crumbling of Barack Obama’s foreign policy? They haven’t been. At all. Today, Romney leads Obama 47%-46%, not a significantly different finding from those that preceded Obama’s foreign policy disasters.
How can this be? I think it is a manifestation of the frequently-commented-upon polarization of the electorate. As I wrote here, this election shouldn’t be close, on paper, given Obama’s record of abject failure. But so many Americans are now cashing federal checks that self-interest drives many millions to vote Democrat, regardless of the public interest. Another factor is at work, too: more than ever, party affiliation reflects not so much empirical judgments about public policy issues, but deep-seated cultural affinity. As I noted here, the extent to which regular church attendance, or the lack thereof, is a predictor of presidential preference is shocking...."
The Polls: Solid As A Rock | Power Line
Let's take them one by one starting with the bottom.
Do you like where that's at? What about the rest?
well the very first one is wrong, it's 23 million Unemployed Americans.
Why would I like any of them? What does that have to do with what I asked?
So let's try again....what should those numbers be?
What should the number be? If Obama didn't screw it all up?
Uh Oh the economy ?
Cue and cut to Sandra FLuke in giant vagina suit in 1, 2, 3,
I gave you an answer. We are still on that one. Do you think that should be where it's at?
So you agree the numbers are bad. Are you sure you want to continue this exercise?
Separate names with a comma.