[OFFICIAL] USMB Post Debate Poll/Thursday 10-16

[Foxfyre]

Of course he has flaws. There has been no perfect person who is without sin that has ever existed since Jesus of Nazareth, and non-Christians don't believe even he was perfect or without sin.

I agree.

But Romney also has a very visible, transparent, and good track record to evaluate as to whether he is up to the job of being President.

Oh... My... I disagree. First and foremost I look for in any president is integrity. You know... No flip flops.

Obama had no proven track record for much of anything when he was hired for the job, and his admirers didn't care. They liked the way he looked. They liked the speeches he made. And they liked the rose colored promises he laid out in front of them. Well, we now have three years and nine months experience with Obama and his track record sucks in almost every single category. Nobody with any sense of management would keep an even very high level employee who had not learned the job and become productive in three months, let alone three years and nine months.

I agree. Obama is a shit president.

You won't find a politician anywhere--at least not one that has any chance to be elected for anything--who has never changed a position either out of conviction or out of political expediency. And Romney has had fewer of these than most. But neither has he hidden or omitted any of his credentials, nor has he not admitted that he has changed his position on this or that. I would have far more worries about somebody without any flexibility at all to change point of view in face of new information or who can't go with what works instead of what hasn't worked or who can't admit they were wrong about anything.

 

[Shelzin]

Of course he has flaws. There has been no perfect person who is without sin that has ever existed since Jesus of Nazareth, and non-Christians don't believe even he was perfect or without sin.

I agree.


Oh... My... I disagree. First and foremost I look for in any president is integrity. You know... No flip flops.

Obama had no proven track record for much of anything when he was hired for the job, and his admirers didn't care. They liked the way he looked. They liked the speeches he made. And they liked the rose colored promises he laid out in front of them. Well, we now have three years and nine months experience with Obama and his track record sucks in almost every single category. Nobody with any sense of management would keep an even very high level employee who had not learned the job and become productive in three months, let alone three years and nine months.

I agree. Obama is a shit president.

You won't find a politician anywhere--at least not one that has any chance to be elected for anything--who has never changed a position either out of conviction or out of political expediency.

If you say so... *shrugs* I don't believe that without evidence. Make no mistake, I think most politicians are bought by corporations/Banks.

And Romney has had fewer of these than most. But neither has he hidden or omitted any of his credentials, nor has he not admitted that he has changed his position on this or that.

*blink*blink*

If it was just that then I wouldn't have a problem. However he says different things to different sets of people. It's not like his values changed over time, he's telling people what they want to hear to make a sale. I'm not a fan of that.

I would have far more worries about somebody without any flexibility at all to change point of view in face of new information or who can't go with what works instead of what hasn't worked or who can't admit they were wrong about anything.

I want to know what I get with my vote. I won't vote for the unworthy, and I won't vote for an unknown.

Obama, not worthy.
Willard, unknown. And thus not worthy.

 

[paulitician]

But I don't believe Willard is articulate or a skilled debater. I think he's just up against someone who... He shouldn't have to work for at all to beat. And yet he's struggling. I agree that it should have been cakewalk... But not for Obama... Why hasn't it been for Willard? What's wrong with Willard that he is having such trouble beating quite possibly the worst president in the history of this country? Well... 2nd worst. Pretty hard to beat Nixon.

This should not be a close race. Why is it? Is Obama really that good?

Well, we obviously see it quite differently. Most of the MSM works 24/7 to prop Obama up.

Maybe that is part of my problem. I don't listen to MSM in the traditional fashion. For the life of me I can't figure out how Willard wasn't beating Obama's ass right from the get go. Oh wait... Yes I can. I don't listen to MSM in the traditional fashion.


I think that's sad. I think we both can agree that Obama is a shit president. But it's surprising that someone who all they really need to do is walk a straight line and say nothing stupid is leading against him? I'm sorry... It's sad.

It tells me Independents are beginning to break for Romney. And i do think the Obamabots vastly underestimated him.

*shrugs* I generally find little use for partisans on either the Dem or Repub side.

Obama had his shot, and he failed. It's as simple as that. His time is up.

I agree. But if the choice is Obama or Mitt only... There is no point in voting. Thank god there is another choice.

I hear ya. I respect your opinion.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree.


Oh... My... I disagree. First and foremost I look for in any president is integrity. You know... No flip flops.


I agree. Obama is a shit president.

You won't find a politician anywhere--at least not one that has any chance to be elected for anything--who has never changed a position either out of conviction or out of political expediency.

If you say so... *shrugs* I don't believe that without evidence. Make no mistake, I think most politicians are bought by corporations/Banks.

And Romney has had fewer of these than most. But neither has he hidden or omitted any of his credentials, nor has he not admitted that he has changed his position on this or that.

*blink*blink*

If it was just that then I wouldn't have a problem. However he says different things to different sets of people. It's not like his values changed over time, he's telling people what they want to hear to make a sale. I'm not a fan of that.

I would have far more worries about somebody without any flexibility at all to change point of view in face of new information or who can't go with what works instead of what hasn't worked or who can't admit they were wrong about anything.

I want to know what I get with my vote. I won't vote for the unworthy, and I won't vote for an unknown.

Obama, not worthy.
Willard, unknown. And thus not worthy.

Williard as far better known quantity than Obama was when Obama was elected and a far better known quantity than ANYBODY else who is currently running for President. We know his parents and their background, his upbringing, how he financed his education, how he has spent his time from birth to present, what jobs he has had, who his friends, affiliations, and business associates were/are, and what he has accomplished with the opportunities he has been given. You have to dig more to find out his private life, because he doesn't talk about that much, but what his friends and business associates tell us about that is absolutely remarkable and not in any way a negative.

And unless you are willing to hold the one you are planning to vote for to the same standard, please don't insult our intelligence by saying you won't vote for Mitt because he flip flopped on something or because you don't know know who he is. If you don't know who he is, you simply have never tried to find out.

 

[Ernie S.]

Of course he has flaws. There has been no perfect person who is without sin that has ever existed since Jesus of Nazareth, and non-Christians don't believe even he was perfect or without sin.

I agree.

But Romney also has a very visible, transparent, and good track record to evaluate as to whether he is up to the job of being President.

Oh... My... I disagree. First and foremost I look for in any president is integrity. You know... No flip flops.

Obama had no proven track record for much of anything when he was hired for the job, and his admirers didn't care. They liked the way he looked. They liked the speeches he made. And they liked the rose colored promises he laid out in front of them. Well, we now have three years and nine months experience with Obama and his track record sucks in almost every single category. Nobody with any sense of management would keep an even very high level employee who had not learned the job and become productive in three months, let alone three years and nine months.

I agree. Obama is a shit president.

I looked for integrity in 1976 and voted for Carter. Sorry. Jimmy put integrity down the list a couple spots. Skills are far more important to me.

 

[Ernie S.]

I agree.


Oh... My... I disagree. First and foremost I look for in any president is integrity. You know... No flip flops.


I agree. Obama is a shit president.

You won't find a politician anywhere--at least not one that has any chance to be elected for anything--who has never changed a position either out of conviction or out of political expediency.

If you say so... *shrugs* I don't believe that without evidence. Make no mistake, I think most politicians are bought by corporations/Banks.

And Romney has had fewer of these than most. But neither has he hidden or omitted any of his credentials, nor has he not admitted that he has changed his position on this or that.

*blink*blink*

If it was just that then I wouldn't have a problem. However he says different things to different sets of people. It's not like his values changed over time, he's telling people what they want to hear to make a sale. I'm not a fan of that.

I would have far more worries about somebody without any flexibility at all to change point of view in face of new information or who can't go with what works instead of what hasn't worked or who can't admit they were wrong about anything.

I want to know what I get with my vote. I won't vote for the unworthy, and I won't vote for an unknown.

Obama, not worthy.
Willard, unknown. And thus not worthy.

Willard is unknown? obama has been in full public view for 5 or 6 years now and we know less about him than we do about Romney.

But still we hear that Mitt flip flops and obama's positions "evolve".

 

[paulitician]

Not sure this matters anymore. Romney is clearly pulling ahead. There was no post-debate 'Obama Bounce.' I know this upsets the MSM, but it is what it is.

 

[Shelzin]

You won't find a politician anywhere--at least not one that has any chance to be elected for anything--who has never changed a position either out of conviction or out of political expediency.

If you say so... *shrugs* I don't believe that without evidence. Make no mistake, I think most politicians are bought by corporations/Banks.


*blink*blink*

If it was just that then I wouldn't have a problem. However he says different things to different sets of people. It's not like his values changed over time, he's telling people what they want to hear to make a sale. I'm not a fan of that.

I would have far more worries about somebody without any flexibility at all to change point of view in face of new information or who can't go with what works instead of what hasn't worked or who can't admit they were wrong about anything.

I want to know what I get with my vote. I won't vote for the unworthy, and I won't vote for an unknown.

Obama, not worthy.
Willard, unknown. And thus not worthy.

Williard as far better known quantity than Obama was when Obama was elected

I agree.

and a far better known quantity than ANYBODY else who is currently running for President.

I agree with that also. With the understanding that it doesn't mean that he is more worthy than ANYBODY else who is currently running for president. Because I obviously don't believe that.

We know his parents and their background, his upbringing, how he financed his education, how he has spent his time from birth to present, what jobs he has had, who his friends, affiliations, and business associates were/are, and what he has accomplished with the opportunities he has been given. You have to dig more to find out his private life, because he doesn't talk about that much, but what his friends and business associates tell us about that is absolutely remarkable and not in any way a negative.

I agree. However those things we know don't really support, in my opinion, that he is better than Obama.

And unless you are willing to hold the one you are planning to vote for to the same standard, please don't insult our intelligence by saying you won't vote for Mitt because he flip flopped on something or because you don't know know who he is. If you don't know who he is, you simply have never tried to find out.

If you are insulted that's on you. I would suggest guilty conscience because I don't know what he stands for BECAUSE I tried to find out. It's not that he flip flopped on something... It's about the's flip flopped on most things. If you don't know that you simply have never tried to find out.

Edit: I should say more things I care about. There might be a great many things that he didn't flip flop on.

 

[Shelzin]

Not sure this matters anymore. Romney is clearly pulling ahead. There was no post-debate 'Obama Bounce.' I know this upsets the MSM, but it is what it is.

It would make sense to me that the MSM would want a close race. If it wasn't there wouldn't be anything to report. It would be boring. And frankly harder to make shit up.

 

[Shelzin]

Willard is unknown? obama has been in full public view for 5 or 6 years now and we know less about him than we do about Romney.

I disagree. We know he's a shit president. We don't know that about Willard.

But still we hear that Mitt flip flops

True.

and obama's positions "evolve".

Some people say that. I'm not one of them.

Honestly... I think if Paul Ryan was the presidential nominee Obama wouldn't have stood a chance in hell. Or Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Romney won simply because of the outrageous lies Obama said about Energy, and Libya.

LMAO!!!!

Romney lies about a new position on every major issue four or five times a year. Either that or he's mentally incapacitated.

 

[oreo]

Now that the debate is over, who won and did it make you finally choose a candidate?

If you have already decided on a candidate please just choose a winner.


**Thread will open immediately after the debates**

Today's Gallop poll (after the second debate) has Romney surging by 7 points.

A new national poll that includes one day of polling data after the second presidential debate shows Republican Mitt Romney with his biggest lead to date.

Romney has surged to a 7-point lead over President Obama among likely voters, according to Gallup’s latest daily tracking poll.

Romney received 52 percent of the votes compared to 45 percent for Obama; Romney also led 48 percent to 47 when registered voters were surveyed.

Thursday's Gallup poll shows Romney with 7-point lead - Tampa Bay Tampa Top News | Examiner.com


It appears that everyone is losing interest in our high school "Prom King" President--who can deliver a darn good speech--written by someone else--that he can read off of a teleprompter. They're much more interested in SUBSTANCE and SOLUTIONS than they've ever been before.

Anyone who has watched the 1st and 2nd Presidential debate--realizes now what a LEADER looks like--and it sure isn't Barry. The "glitter is gone" from our celebrity--community organizer President."

The Frank Luntz focus group of former Obama voters--(mainly democrats) spells a landslide victory for Mitt Romney. DEMOCRATS ARE MOVING TO THE ROMNEY COLUMN QUICKLY. Here is the video of that focus group--(former Obama voters) and what they had to say after the second debate.
Video: Luntz focus group unloads on Obama after debate « Hot Air

"Barack Obama is the greatest HOAX ever perpetrated on the American population"--Clint Eastwood.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Now that the debate is over, who won and did it make you finally choose a candidate?

If you have already decided on a candidate please just choose a winner.


**Thread will open immediately after the debates**

Today's Gallop poll (after the second debate) has Romney surging by 7 points.

A new national poll that includes one day of polling data after the second presidential debate shows Republican Mitt Romney with his biggest lead to date.

Romney has surged to a 7-point lead over President Obama among likely voters, according to Gallup’s latest daily tracking poll.

Romney received 52 percent of the votes compared to 45 percent for Obama; Romney also led 48 percent to 47 when registered voters were surveyed.

Thursday's Gallup poll shows Romney with 7-point lead - Tampa Bay Tampa Top News | Examiner.com


It appears that everyone is losing interest in our high school "Prom King" President--who can deliver a darn good speech--written by someone else--that he can read off of a teleprompter. They're much more interested in SUBSTANCE and SOLUTIONS than they've ever been before.

Anyone who has watched the 1st and 2nd Presidential debate--realizes now what a LEADER looks like--and it sure isn't Barry. The "glitter is gone" from our celebrity--community organizer President."

The Frank Luntz focus group of former Obama voters--(mainly democrats) spells a landslide victory for Mitt Romney. DEMOCRATS ARE MOVING TO THE ROMNEY COLUMN QUICKLY. Here is the video of that focus group--(former Obama voters) and what they had to say after the second debate.
Video: Luntz focus group unloads on Obama after debate « Hot Air

"Barack Obama is the greatest HOAX ever perpetrated on the American population"--Clint Eastwood.

Wait till the Gays, the Blacks, the Hispanics, The young women, folks working two jobs, those drawing welfare checks, the seniors on social security, Medicaid and/or Medicare show up at the polls. You folks forget that a lot of people in this country don't have computers and you assume that what you see here is a relative sample. Ain't no way!

 

[OODA_Loop]

Wait till the Gays, the Blacks, the Hispanics, The young women, folks working two jobs, those drawing welfare checks, the seniors on social security, Medicaid and/or Medicare show up at the polls. You folks forget that a lot of people in this country don't have computers and you assume that what you see here is a relative sample. Ain't no way!

Teh Gays dont have computers ?

 

[clevergirl]

Yes, Romney has a beautiful opportunity to knock Obama's lie on its ass.

The rub for Obama comes, ironically enough, out of Romney’s biggest flub in the debate, the Libya question. That flub kept Romney from winning the evening outright. But Obama’s answer has left him a hostage to fortune. Missed by Romney, missed by the audience, missed by most of the commentariat, it was the biggest gaffe of the entire debate cycle: Substituting unctuousness for argument, Obama declared himself offended by the suggestion that anyone in his administration, including the U.N. ambassador, would “mislead” the country on Libya.

Charles Krauthammer: Obama’s great gaffe - The Washington Post

 

[Charles_Main]

I read the transcripts of the Rose Garden speech, and The President did call it a terrorist attack. The only one lying, was Romney and the moderator called him out. Instantly.

He made a Vague References to "Acts of Terror" Not going Unpunished.

Would probable work for your excuse if he and his People did not then go on a 2 week full court press of claiming it was a Mob that got out of control reacting to a Video.

Sorry, Nice Try but

EPIC FAIL.

 

[mamooth]

So many delusional conservatives. All the random-sampling polls say Obama romped. FOX declaring "we'll call it a draw" (black knight style) confirmed that, as did Ann Romney's sour post-debate face. As did the way an enthusiastic Obama went into the crowd, while Mitt quickly retreated to cover. As did all the conservative whining about how the mean, mean moderator wouldn't let Mitt lie.

Liberals are more honest than conservatives in this way. Liberals admit when their guy loses. Conservatives don't. They understand they'll be banished from the herd if they dare admit a liberal won. Banishment is like a death sentence to a conservative herdbeast, so they all form a circle with horns out, and moo loudly that DearLeaderRomney achieved total victory, not caring how ridiculous it looks.

 

[Vast LWC]

Love the fact that this poll shows the right/left demographics of this posting board.

Lots more righties than lefties posting here.

Can't say I'm surprised though.

I actually think it is indicative of our country as a whole

You feel the population of the US Message Board is representative of the US population?

Now THAT is interesting.

 

[Cammmpbell]

So many delusional conservatives. All the random-sampling polls say Obama romped. FOX declaring "we'll call it a draw" (black knight style) confirmed that, as did Ann Romney's sour post-debate face. As did the way an enthusiastic Obama went into the crowd, while Mitt quickly retreated to cover. As did all the conservative whining about how the mean, mean moderator wouldn't let Mitt lie.

Liberals are more honest than conservatives in this way. Liberals admit when their guy loses. Conservatives don't. They understand they'll be banished from the herd if they dare admit a liberal won. Banishment is like a death sentence to a conservative herdbeast, so they all form a circle with horns out, and moo loudly that DearLeaderRomney achieved total victory, not caring how ridiculous it looks.

I agree but that's not the end of it. Look at how often some Republican figure across the nation tells a bold faced lie and within hours Fox news repeats it. It's like a mass conspiricy to misinform the public by repeating the same false information so often and so many times that those who know little about everyday happenings are totally screwed up. It's always there but since the campaign began it's worse.

Anybody among the Republican supporters who dares to mention the national debt has their head so far up their ass they'll never smell fresh air again. Reagan and the Bushes borrowed 80% of all this great nation has owed in 230 odd years and left an annual interest payment(which unlike the debt must be paid) of half a trillion dollars. It's like the bastards had pulled a Rip Van Winkle and just awakened from a thirty year nap.

Any Republican who criticizes the current administration for it's foreign policy was no doubt continuing their nap when the Bush administration told 1000 lies about Saddam Hussein's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" so they could invade a sovereign nation half way around the world which had done us no harm, get 4500 young Americans killed and waste a trillion dollars. It's like they are in a hermitically sealed bubble and don't know shit from shinola.

 

[Jarhead]

But I don't believe Willard is articulate or a skilled debater. I think he's just up against someone who... He shouldn't have to work for at all to beat. And yet he's struggling. I agree that it should have been cakewalk... But not for Obama... Why hasn't it been for Willard? What's wrong with Willard that he is having such trouble beating quite possibly the worst president in the history of this country? Well... 2nd worst. Pretty hard to beat Nixon. Edit: Going by a four year scale. Bushes 8 years against Obama's 4 ... Damn... Hard call. /Edit

This should not be a close race. Why is it? Is Obama really that good?

It really isnt hard to see why.

The attorney general of the United States admittedly lied to congress as it pertains to fast and furious......admitted when he retracted his first statements and submitted conflicting ones 8 moinths later.

Yet it was reported on the news as "The democratic party states a case that the fast and furious hearings are a witch hunt".

It is suggestive reporting like that, that can be deemed asw "accurate and true" but, in fact, completely misleading.

Look at what is out there now in the news....

"the transcript shows that Obama DID refer to the attack in Libya as an act of terror"....with editorials and commentaries making republicans as "naive" with poor comprehension skills...

Yet not mentioning anywahere that, yes, such would have been taken as Obama admitting it was an act of terror, but was completley clouded by Obama's appointees claiming otherwise for 2 weeks.

For the last 2 days, the media is having a field day discussing how Romeny is so out of touch that he refers to a group of qualified women as "a binder full".

It really sint rocket science.

So it's your opinion that there is nothing wrong with Willard. This is all the media's fault that they put him in a bad light, he doesn't actually have flaws?

where did I say that? I simply answered your question as to why Romney is not beating Obama by a larger margin as you implied he should be.

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about.

Wednesday on WINS News radio in NY.....

They were reporting on the Al Smith dinner that was happening the following day...

They mentioned how President Obama will be putting his campaign on hold for a day so he can attend the highly regarded fundraiser. They then mentioned how much money the fundraiser has raised in previous years and how the President being in attanedence has always been a plus for the cause. They finished the report by quoting a WH spokesman who said something along the lines of "charity will always come before camapiagning in the eys of the President"

The next item mentioned the dozens of campaign stops Romney has planned over the next few weeks...IMPLYING Thursday as being included.....but not actually saying it.

If I did not know better, I would have thought Romney was not going to attned the fundraiser and instead put his campaign in front.

WINS did not lie. They simply offered u0p suggestive reporting.