Obama vs. Republican Field - Clueless Media

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,411
Reaction score
5,960
Points
1,830
In my opinion this is the most important poll. For the right, we're supposed to be looking at the candidates who are polling with the most favorable chance against Obama. He's the sitting president, it's war time, and he's not going to be that easily removed. It's only been 3 short years since voters distanced themselves from a pretty rough Bush presidency and overall huge disappointment that was the republican party in congress. Regardless of how horrible you think Obama's been, nothing is a lock against him.

The RCP average for each R candidate against Obama is as follows:

Perry -1.6
Romney +0.2
Bachmann -7
Palin -13
Paul -4.3
Cain -10
Gingrich -14.7
Huntsman -12.3
Generic Republican +1.2

My beef with the media, especially Fox, is why are they still giving Bachmann any credit at all mentioning her in the "top tier", and why even bother mentioning Palin at all? She's getting creamed at -13 points against Obama, she would be a fucking disaster as the nominee.

Romney is the only one on the plus side and he's only 0.2, and generic republican is only 1.2. The only other candidate besides Romney and Perry that's close enough to narrow the gap and contend against Obama is Paul.

The top tier should be Perry, Romney, Paul. Bachmann and Palin shouldn't even be getting consideration. Why is the media, especially Fox, so against mentioning Paul as a contender when he's the only other candidate keeping a respectable pace with Romney and Perry against Obama in the polling. At -4.3 he's statistically about as close as Perry, and in many individual polls like Rasmussen and Gallup he's as close as -1. Yet he continues to be called unelectable.

We have a broken mainstream media if they think Bachmann continues to deserve credibility in the overall presidential election, but Paul doesn't. The polls are what they are.
 
Last edited:

percysunshine

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
4,986
Points
280
Location
Sty
Opinion polls over the years have proven to be a wildly inaccurate prediction tool up until about two weeks before an election. I have no idea why this is, but it just is.
 
OP
Paulie

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,411
Reaction score
5,960
Points
1,830
Opinion polls over the years have proven to be a wildly inaccurate prediction tool up until about two weeks before an election. I have no idea why this is, but it just is.
Maybe. But that doesn't stop the media from continually referring to them when it's convenient. If they're going to offer the polls credibility whenever it helps them build up a candidate, then they're creating their own precedent to take the polls seriously.

This being said, Paul is 3rd best against Obama, and statistically very close to Romney and Perry while having a pretty big gap in front of anyone else in the field.

How much longer can they really continue to pretend this guy doesn't exist, and if he's polling so well against Obama, why would they WANT to? Fox should be all over this guy, but instead they hate him and would rather talk about Bachmann who's got no chance of beating Obama.
 

percysunshine

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
4,986
Points
280
Location
Sty
Opinion polls over the years have proven to be a wildly inaccurate prediction tool up until about two weeks before an election. I have no idea why this is, but it just is.
Maybe. But that doesn't stop the media from continually referring to them when it's convenient. If they're going to offer the polls credibility whenever it helps them build up a candidate, then they're creating their own precedent to take the polls seriously.

This being said, Paul is 3rd best against Obama, and statistically very close to Romney and Perry while having a pretty big gap in front of anyone else in the field.

How much longer can they really continue to pretend this guy doesn't exist, and if he's polling so well against Obama, why would they WANT to? Fox should be all over this guy, but instead they hate him and would rather talk about Bachmann who's got no chance of beating Obama.
The media uses polling to influence opinions that they then claim to be objectively measuring.

Sort of like the relationship between Enrons balance sheet and Nigerian barges.
 

FactFinder

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
2,689
Reaction score
207
Points
83
Paul is not a bought and paid for establishment candidate.
 
OP
Paulie

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,411
Reaction score
5,960
Points
1,830
Opinion polls over the years have proven to be a wildly inaccurate prediction tool up until about two weeks before an election. I have no idea why this is, but it just is.
Maybe. But that doesn't stop the media from continually referring to them when it's convenient. If they're going to offer the polls credibility whenever it helps them build up a candidate, then they're creating their own precedent to take the polls seriously.

This being said, Paul is 3rd best against Obama, and statistically very close to Romney and Perry while having a pretty big gap in front of anyone else in the field.

How much longer can they really continue to pretend this guy doesn't exist, and if he's polling so well against Obama, why would they WANT to? Fox should be all over this guy, but instead they hate him and would rather talk about Bachmann who's got no chance of beating Obama.
The media uses polling to influence opinions that they then claim to be objectively measuring.

Sort of like the relationship between Enrons balance sheet and Nigerian barges.
I know that, and you know that, but that doesn't explain the exclusion of Paul from the discussion of contender. If they're going to include 3 candidates in the discussion of top tier, they're only exposing themselves as tools by giving Bachmann consideration and ignoring Paul.

This would be a moot point if they decided to only run with whoever the top 2 candidates are at any given time, but they don't.

Apparently Paul is more electable against Obama than Bachmann, Palin, Gingrich, etc, but for some reason he's the only one they ever frequently go out of their way to label "unelectable". It doesn't add up.
 

percysunshine

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
4,986
Points
280
Location
Sty
Maybe. But that doesn't stop the media from continually referring to them when it's convenient. If they're going to offer the polls credibility whenever it helps them build up a candidate, then they're creating their own precedent to take the polls seriously.

This being said, Paul is 3rd best against Obama, and statistically very close to Romney and Perry while having a pretty big gap in front of anyone else in the field.

How much longer can they really continue to pretend this guy doesn't exist, and if he's polling so well against Obama, why would they WANT to? Fox should be all over this guy, but instead they hate him and would rather talk about Bachmann who's got no chance of beating Obama.
The media uses polling to influence opinions that they then claim to be objectively measuring.

Sort of like the relationship between Enrons balance sheet and Nigerian barges.
I know that, and you know that, but that doesn't explain the exclusion of Paul from the discussion of contender. If they're going to include 3 candidates in the discussion of top tier, they're only exposing themselves as tools by giving Bachmann consideration and ignoring Paul.

This would be a moot point if they decided to only run with whoever the top 2 candidates are at any given time, but they don't.

Apparently Paul is more electable against Obama than Bachmann, Palin, Gingrich, etc, but for some reason he's the only one they ever frequently go out of their way to label "unelectable". It doesn't add up.

Sins of omission?

Tool of their trade. They are trying to influence elections.

They are hosed. Too many people have internet connections now.
 
OP
Paulie

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,411
Reaction score
5,960
Points
1,830
The media uses polling to influence opinions that they then claim to be objectively measuring.

Sort of like the relationship between Enrons balance sheet and Nigerian barges.
I know that, and you know that, but that doesn't explain the exclusion of Paul from the discussion of contender. If they're going to include 3 candidates in the discussion of top tier, they're only exposing themselves as tools by giving Bachmann consideration and ignoring Paul.

This would be a moot point if they decided to only run with whoever the top 2 candidates are at any given time, but they don't.

Apparently Paul is more electable against Obama than Bachmann, Palin, Gingrich, etc, but for some reason he's the only one they ever frequently go out of their way to label "unelectable". It doesn't add up.

Sins of omission?

Tool of their trade. They are trying to influence elections.

They are hosed. Too many people have internet connections now.
They're not "trying", they've already been succeeding at it for decades.

And they're not hosed, because tens of millions of people in the US are online and the mainstream media still continues to get their candidates.

It's no coincidence that Perry shot right up to #1 when he announced. The media had been telling us he'd be #1 for weeks leading up to it. They led the sheep right where they wanted them to go. It was like taking candy from a baby.

It's getting to be pretty pathetic to watch unfold every election.
 

yidnar

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
12,273
Reaction score
4,764
Points
315
Location
Inside your head.
In my opinion this is the most important poll. For the right, we're supposed to be looking at the candidates who are polling with the most favorable chance against Obama. He's the sitting president, it's war time, and he's not going to be that easily removed. It's only been 3 short years since voters distanced themselves from a pretty rough Bush presidency and overall huge disappointment that was the republican party in congress. Regardless of how horrible you think Obama's been, nothing is a lock against him.

The RCP average for each R candidate against Obama is as follows:

Perry -1.6
Romney +0.2
Bachmann -7
Palin -13
Paul -4.3
Cain -10
Gingrich -14.7
Huntsman -12.3
Generic Republican +1.2

My beef with the media, especially Fox, is why are they still giving Bachmann any credit at all mentioning her in the "top tier", and why even bother mentioning Palin at all? She's getting creamed at -13 points against Obama, she would be a fucking disaster as the nominee.

Romney is the only one on the plus side and he's only 0.2, and generic republican is only 1.2. The only other candidate besides Romney and Perry that's close enough to narrow the gap and contend against Obama is Paul.

The top tier should be Perry, Romney, Paul. Bachmann and Palin shouldn't even be getting consideration. Why is the media, especially Fox, so against mentioning Paul as a contender when he's the only other candidate keeping a respectable pace with Romney and Perry against Obama in the polling. At -4.3 he's statistically about as close as Perry, and in many individual polls like Rasmussen and Gallup he's as close as -1. Yet he continues to be called unelectable.

We have a broken mainstream media if they think Bachmann continues to deserve credibility in the overall presidential election, but Paul doesn't. The polls are what they are.
this is common in most primaries ...once the smoke clears and we have a locked in candidate to challenge Obama you will see the numbers sky rocket for the GOP !! and never underestimate Obama and the lefts ability to screw up big time before the election !!
 

percysunshine

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
4,986
Points
280
Location
Sty
I know that, and you know that, but that doesn't explain the exclusion of Paul from the discussion of contender. If they're going to include 3 candidates in the discussion of top tier, they're only exposing themselves as tools by giving Bachmann consideration and ignoring Paul.

This would be a moot point if they decided to only run with whoever the top 2 candidates are at any given time, but they don't.

Apparently Paul is more electable against Obama than Bachmann, Palin, Gingrich, etc, but for some reason he's the only one they ever frequently go out of their way to label "unelectable". It doesn't add up.

Sins of omission?

Tool of their trade. They are trying to influence elections.

They are hosed. Too many people have internet connections now.
They're not "trying", they've already been succeeding at it for decades.

And they're not hosed, because tens of millions of people in the US are online and the mainstream media still continues to get their candidates.

It's no coincidence that Perry shot right up to #1 when he announced. The media had been telling us he'd be #1 for weeks leading up to it. They led the sheep right where they wanted them to go. It was like taking candy from a baby.

It's getting to be pretty pathetic to watch unfold every election.
We shall see. I am optimistic.
 

get_involved

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
2,046
Reaction score
427
Points
130
Romney is the only one that can beat Obama. Perry, Paul, Palin, and Bachmann are to right wing and have stuck their feet in their mouths too many times.
 

Wicked Jester

Libsmackin'chef
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
11,924
Reaction score
1,890
Points
153
Location
So. Cal, Malibu!
Maybe. But that doesn't stop the media from continually referring to them when it's convenient. If they're going to offer the polls credibility whenever it helps them build up a candidate, then they're creating their own precedent to take the polls seriously.

This being said, Paul is 3rd best against Obama, and statistically very close to Romney and Perry while having a pretty big gap in front of anyone else in the field.

How much longer can they really continue to pretend this guy doesn't exist, and if he's polling so well against Obama, why would they WANT to? Fox should be all over this guy, but instead they hate him and would rather talk about Bachmann who's got no chance of beating Obama.
The media uses polling to influence opinions that they then claim to be objectively measuring.

Sort of like the relationship between Enrons balance sheet and Nigerian barges.
I know that, and you know that, but that doesn't explain the exclusion of Paul from the discussion of contender. If they're going to include 3 candidates in the discussion of top tier, they're only exposing themselves as tools by giving Bachmann consideration and ignoring Paul.

This would be a moot point if they decided to only run with whoever the top 2 candidates are at any given time, but they don't.

Apparently Paul is more electable against Obama than Bachmann, Palin, Gingrich, etc, but for some reason he's the only one they ever frequently go out of their way to label "unelectable". It doesn't add up.
Did you see the last debate?

That's why FOX considers him unelectable.......Seriously, how many more times do we have to see the man go off on one of his rambling, nonsense laden answers to very simple questions, before the Paullette's fully understand the man is not all there upstairs?

Face it, and I hate to say it, if Paul goes up against Obama in debate, Obama will slaughter him.

If you get asked a simple question about FEMA, and start talking about removing Air Conditioners in Afghanistan, you are a certifiable kook.:cuckoo:
 
Last edited:

Mr_Rockhead

Slouching toward Medicare
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
359
Reaction score
65
Points
78
Location
New Hampshire
Opinion polls over the years have proven to be a wildly inaccurate prediction tool up until about two weeks before an election. I have no idea why this is, but it just is.
I agree and I also include this poll.

At this stage of the game, nobody knows anything except Obama is the incumbent and the election will be a referendum on him and his policies.

So, until there are some actual votes cast for actual republican delegates, I say the more the merrier.
 
R

rdean

Guest
If America votes another lunatic like George Bush into office, we deserve what we get.
 
OP
Paulie

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,411
Reaction score
5,960
Points
1,830
The media uses polling to influence opinions that they then claim to be objectively measuring.

Sort of like the relationship between Enrons balance sheet and Nigerian barges.
I know that, and you know that, but that doesn't explain the exclusion of Paul from the discussion of contender. If they're going to include 3 candidates in the discussion of top tier, they're only exposing themselves as tools by giving Bachmann consideration and ignoring Paul.

This would be a moot point if they decided to only run with whoever the top 2 candidates are at any given time, but they don't.

Apparently Paul is more electable against Obama than Bachmann, Palin, Gingrich, etc, but for some reason he's the only one they ever frequently go out of their way to label "unelectable". It doesn't add up.
Did you see the last debate?

That's why FOX considers him unelectable.......Seriously, how many more times do we have to see the man go off on one of his rambling, nonsense laden answers to very simple questions, before the Paullette's fully understand the man is not all there upstairs?

Face it, and I hate to say it, if Paul goes up against Obama in debate, Obama will slaughter him.

If you get asked a simple question about FEMA, and start talking about removing Air Conditioners in Afghanistan, you are a certifiable kook.:cuckoo:
Despite all of this, he continues to poll very well against Obama.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
Opinion polls over the years have proven to be a wildly inaccurate prediction tool up until about two weeks before an election. I have no idea why this is, but it just is.
Most people don't pay attention to politics until it is right in front of them. Romney is ahead because he has been running for president for about 6 years so more people know him.
Paulie is an idiot. In case it wasn't obvious.
 

Grampa Murked U

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
82,894
Reaction score
22,477
Points
2,205
Location
Kansas City
We had Bush and a spending congress. Now we have Obama and a half clueless congress. And you want Paul now? We might as well just let the terrorists on the planes and give them the explosives ourselves.
Paul would make Obama look smart, no thanks.
 

pgm

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2011
Messages
510
Reaction score
34
Points
16
Location
South Florida
The media uses polling to influence opinions that they then claim to be objectively measuring.
You're over-analyzing it. The media focus on polls because they're lazy. Polls are an easy story to write about and look like they mean something to the uneducated viewer/reader. If you write a story about polls, it'll take all of five minutes for the experienced political beat reporter and then he/she'll get to take a really long lunch.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,186
Reaction score
13,610
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
In my opinion this is the most important poll. For the right, we're supposed to be looking at the candidates who are polling with the most favorable chance against Obama. He's the sitting president, it's war time, and he's not going to be that easily removed. It's only been 3 short years since voters distanced themselves from a pretty rough Bush presidency and overall huge disappointment that was the republican party in congress. Regardless of how horrible you think Obama's been, nothing is a lock against him.


We have a broken mainstream media if they think Bachmann continues to deserve credibility in the overall presidential election, but Paul doesn't. The polls are what they are.

Ah, you're a Paul-bot. That explains everything.

The GOP would rather have a second term of Obama than risk having Dr. Crazy be the nominee.

Libertarians are right wing hippies, and unlike the Democrats, we don't nominate hippies.
 

Charles_Main

AR15 Owner
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
16,692
Reaction score
2,248
Points
88
Location
Michigan, USA
If America votes another lunatic like George Bush into office, we deserve what we get.
Yep, Much better off with an arrogant, Ignorant, Clueless asshole right?

We are getting what we deserve for giving an completely inexperienced guy, who never held a real job, and lacks any ability to learn on the Job, the gig.

You fools will never learn. Obama has done 10 Times the Damage to this country, Bush ever dreamed of doing.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top