WHY Obama will not be re-elected..

[Zxereus]

Why ? It's the Chicago White Sox issue.

 

[Dot Com]

Styx - Crystal Ball - YouTube

all these con prognosticators saying this is a done deal need to put up all they own on a wager in Vegas if they want to be taken seriously.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

WHY Obama will not be re-elected.

Your psychic-abilities (obviously) need new batteries.

It's SETTLED!!!!!!!

Obama WILL Be Re-Elected
(Pass the word.)

Carry on........​

 

[candycorn]

incumbents under 50% always lose..........thats why.

Wow, someone should tell the voters of WI, OH, PA, FL, IA, MN, NV, CO, NM, and VA that. Obama is leading in all of those states. I'm sure the Governor will pick up some of those states...but not enough.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It'll be nice to be envied by the rest-o'-the-World......again!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_iZiNUp6Vc]Renewed Hope: The World Reacts to an Obama Victory! - YouTube[/ame]


We could leave the Teabaggers at home.....with the dog.​

 

[earthling01]

To the OP. Sorry for the long-winded reply.

A prior comment :"The Obama campaign continues to try to mislead voters with ads"

How did he "mislead" them? Did he mention a few facts that FOX News couldn't refute?
Please link some of those misleading comments. I would love to read them

Obama continually misleading voters is the key.
Remember the adage: "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me".

Yeah, we remember it because it was so ironic coming from Bush43....
Where and when did the current president "fool" anyone?
Please link.



Well Obama continues to try to "fool" people but not only are more white people especially since they statistically were the reason Obama was re-elected, now have the past lies of Obama to compare with reality.."I'll close Gitmo"..NOT.. I'll be the most transparent,"NOT,

Actually, those are not "lies", but rather campaign promises, which as you already know, are never 100% guaranteed to actually happen. (The words "I will cut the deficit in half" and "Read my lips; no new taxes" are very reminiscent, don't you think?
Curious that you did not bring those "lies" up in your OP.) They represent a goal or vision of the administration.

Now, you may accuse the president of being "naive" to believe that closing a major terrorist containment facility would be easy. And I would likely agree to that.
But to categorize all unfulfilled campaign promises as "lies" is, to be honest, just plain dumb.


But Obama TOLD Americans..In an interview with Matt Lauer in the beginning of his presidency, Barack Obama said he should only serve one term if he could not fix the economy.
Is the economy fixed? NO!

Indeed, the economy is NOT fixed. There is a minor issue of a global financial crisis (and the blatant irresponsible spending of a previous war-mongering administration, and some rather devastating tax cuts for the wealthy to deal with first, but I digress...)

The pivotal issue is HOW to "fix" the economy. Should we allow corporations (oh sorry, the so-called "job-creators") to make the rules to suit them (e.g. the Romney method), or should we build up the dwindling middle-class (the Obama method) by balancing the tax code? The question really is that simple. I am hopeful that, with a US Congress that actually takes an interest in working together to build the middle-class, the economy will be "fixed". In short, Obama STILL is president, and there is STILL hope for a (better that moderate!) economic recovery.

Then when ANY person examines THIS statement you have to ask..Is the guy truly that dumb?
President Obama tells ABC News' Diane Sawyer that he'd rather be a "really good one-term president" than a "mediocre two-term president."

WHAT??? Does HE Understand how totally STUPID that is?
IF a president was a REALLY GOOD (sounds like a 5th grader..) why would he NOT be re-elected?
It makes NO sense! If you were doing a good job as President ..people would want to keep you!

Well, this is something called "humility", which you are obviously unfamiliar with.

Perhaps he was referring to certain public servants that are "open for business" to the highest paying lobbyists in Washington, or those those brown-nosing GOP elected officials who, in spite of their blatant incompetence, vote against ideas that who benefit the nation at the expense of their own party's political standing.

Many of us believe that, in spite of Obama's faults, that he takes an honest, responsible approach to his office and that he would give it up to whomever could do a better job. So far, I for one have not seen such a candidate on the GOP side.

But you see that's why Obama IS NOT going to be re-elected!
People have seen he talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.. for you younger post Vietnam..means Obama is all show and no dough, means HE talks a good game but is worth crap when it comes to action!

Question, how much can you expect a president to accomplish with a do-nothing, blocking, filibustering, self-serving, lying bunch of nincompoops controlling the House? Most of the good stuff (killing Bin Laden) was done on his own, without any worthless House approval.

All of the above shows Obama has FAILED to do what he said he would do and in doing so
Obama has FAILED to convince those white voters that voted the first time out of ignorance of his lack of qualifications but because he was black.. they NOW KNOW even with on the job training Obama is STILL NOT qualified!

Well, I can agree that not enough has been done, but I must reply with another question.
Is the lack of progress because Obama is going the wrong direction?
Or is it that he is going in the right direction, but just not FAR enough? If you believe the latter (as I do), then I think you can place the lion's share of the blame on the disfunctional Congress that has committed themselves to making Obama a one-term president.

Perhaps you should blame the fire on the arsonist, not on the fireman.

The reasons he's not qualified is he hates people. He hates America. He hates businesses.

(Wow! You really got me with that one. Very effective logic. Oh, you forgot the phrase "Obama is a Socialist-Dictator-Islamist" in there ...)

And NONE of those statements are made up but can be proven from Obama's OWN mouth his hatred of whites,America, businesses. His actions prove that.

And those actions would be....?

So coupled with his failures, his words and actions.. MORE people will not re-elect him!


OK, I get that last word here, my friend.
No one walks on water. In spite of Obama's short-comings, I will vote Obama (again) simply because his vision for America is grounded in sound economics and sound foreign policies. He may be slow to get us there, but he understands what needs to be done.

And here is a suggestion; why not stand out of the way, and let Obama do what he want to do. At the end of his term, THEN you can complain about what he HAS done, rather than what he HASN'T. Because that is exactly what you are doing now.

Then if you are not happy, you can put things back to the way Bush 43 left them....

Fair enough?

 

[P@triot]

The Washington Post is reporting that back in 2010, Obama advisor David Plouffe accepted a $100,000 speaking engagement from a subsidiary of a company in business with Iran.

 

[jgarden]

The Washington Post is reporting that back in 2010, Obama advisor David Plouffe accepted a $100,000 speaking engagement from a subsidiary of a company in business with Iran.

*****************************************************************

THE GW BUSH - OSAMA BIN LADIN CONNECTION

James R. Bath, friend and neighbor of George W. Bush, was used as a cash funnel from Osama bin Laden's rich father, Sheikh bin Laden, to set George W. Bush up in business, according to reputable sources from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The connection between GW Bush, the bin Laden family, and the Bank Commerce Credit International (BCCI) is well documented.

http://lundissimo.info/wtc/bushbinladen.html

I don't remember "Rottweiler" or any other conservative ever making reference to "THE GW BUSH - OSAMA BIN LADIN CONNECTION" - it must have slipped their minds!

As for Mitt Romney, his father George made a point of releasing 12 years of back tax forms to ensure that his personal finances would never become a distraction.

Mitt will certainly never be accused of possessing the political "smarts" that his father had and has, in his infinite wisdom, handed the Democrats a major issue to base their campaign!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I don't remember "Rottweiler" or any other conservative ever making reference to "THE GW BUSH - OSAMA BIN LADIN CONNECTION" - it must have slipped their minds!

Well....let's be fair.

That was back....before he quit drinking....and, still had a tendency to.....

...."shoot-off" his drunken pie-hole.

 

[P@triot]

Actually, those are not "lies", but rather campaign promises, which as you already know, are never 100% guaranteed to actually happen.

LMAO! Seriously folks, you can't make this stuff up. Only the idiot liberal would actually use the sentence "promises are never 100% guaranteed to actually happen". That pretty much sums up the entire Democrat ideology! Make promises you have no intention of keeping to gain power. And don't worry - the idiot Democrat voters will support your lies and actually assist your campaign efforts by making excuses for your lies...

If you Google "definition of promise" the very first thing listed at the top of the search results says: A declaration or assurance that one will do a particular thing or that guarantees that a particular thing will happen.

But hey, you liberal assholes have changed the meaning of every word in the US Constitution, so why not start changing the definition of words in the dictionary now? I would be so ashamed to open my mouth and show the world what an ignorant asshole I was if I were you idiot liberals. But for some reason, you people are almost proud to display how insanely stupid you really are.

 

[onecut39]

Whatever.. can't deny FACTS..
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows
Mitt Romney attracting 47% of the vote,
while President Obama earns 44%.
Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and
five percent (5%) are undecided.
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

Must be right in your view because when people like you can not dispute the facts..
you shoot the messenger which doesn't alter the FACTS!

As far as I am concerned Rasmusssen has long lost it's credibility. It consistently leans a few points toward the right. (whoever that may be) Look at today's polls. They have Obama leading but iti s the lowest lead of any of the polls. Keep watching it. With an exception here and there it wil remain consistent.

Note how often the right wingers on this board refer you t Rasmussen. It is no coincidence.

By the way in the last couple of weeks Obama has doubled his lead. Thanks Mitt. You keep those taxes secret as long as possible. It is your RIGHT!

 

[Jackson]

In the 2004 presidential election, "Rasmussen...beat most of their human competitors in the battleground states, often by large margins," according to Slate magazine.[37] Rasmussen projected the 2004 presidential results within one percentage point of the actual vote totals earned by both George W. Bush and John Kerry.[38]
In 2004, Slate said they “publicly doubted and privately derided Rasmussen” polls because of the methodology. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the most accurate.[37]
[edit] 2008

According to Politico, "Rasmussen’s final poll of the 2008 general election — showing Obama defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 percent to 46 percent — closely mirrored the election’s outcome."[39] In reference to the 2008 presidential election, a Talking Points Memo article said, "Rasmussen's final polls had Obama ahead 52%-46%, which was nearly identical to Obama's final margin of 53%-46%, and made him one of the most accurate pollsters out there."[40]

Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A Fordham University report by Costas Panagopoulos rates the pollsters for this presidential election. Here are the most accurate:
1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
6T. ARG (10/25-27)*
8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)
8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
13. FOX (11/1-2)
14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
18. Marist College (11/3)
19. CBS (10/31-11/2)
20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
23. Newsweek (10/22-23)
Thanks go to Texas On The Potomac for the heads up.
http://politicalvindication.com/who-were-the-most-accurate-presidential-pollsters/

 

[Jackson]

In the 2004 presidential election, "Rasmussen...beat most of their human competitors in the battleground states, often by large margins," according to Slate magazine.[37] Rasmussen projected the 2004 presidential results within one percentage point of the actual vote totals earned by both George W. Bush and John Kerry.[38]
In 2004, Slate said they “publicly doubted and privately derided Rasmussen” polls because of the methodology. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the most accurate.[37]
[edit] 2008

According to Politico, "Rasmussen’s final poll of the 2008 general election — showing Obama defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 percent to 46 percent — closely mirrored the election’s outcome."[39] In reference to the 2008 presidential election, a Talking Points Memo article said, "Rasmussen's final polls had Obama ahead 52%-46%, which was nearly identical to Obama's final margin of 53%-46%, and made him one of the most accurate pollsters out there."[40]

Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A Fordham University report by Costas Panagopoulos rates the pollsters for this presidential election. Here are the most accurate:
1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
6T. ARG (10/25-27)*
8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)
8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
13. FOX (11/1-2)
14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
18. Marist College (11/3)
19. CBS (10/31-11/2)
20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
23. Newsweek (10/22-23)
Thanks go to Texas On The Potomac for the heads up.
Most Accurate Pollsters in 2008 election | Political Vindication

 

[Mac1958]

.

Rasmussen himself is obviously a righty, but there are times when his polling shines the best light on the Democrat. The person and the polling system can be mutually exclusive.

The Fordham University study is interesting. I often wonder which polls are the most/least accurate.

.