Real Clear Politics (Average): Obama 48.7 Gingrich 43 (SPREAD: Obama +5.7)

[Lakhota]

Rasmussen was the only one of seven that showed Gingrich ahead. Obama leads in the other six - including Fox News.

I'll repeat:

What's the M.O.E.?

Why don't you click on the OP link, then click on each poll, and find out for yourself. Plus, any margin of error could also be in Obama's favor.

 

[hortysir]

Rasmussen was the only one of seven that showed Gingrich ahead. Obama leads in the other six - including Fox News.

I'll repeat:

What's the M.O.E.?

Why don't you click on the OP link, then click on each poll, and find out for yourself. Plus, any margin of error could also be in Obama's favor.

Why don't you defend your position?

The average margin of error for any poll is 3-5 points.
That would make most, if not all, of your wet-dreams of polls nothing but statistical ties.

 

[Trajan]

RealClearPolitics - President Obama vs. Republican Candidates

Congress is still at 12% approval:

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Congressional Job Approval

Wonder why Repubs never seem to notice?

you do know half of congress is DEMOCRATIC....right?

 

[Lakhota]

I'll repeat:

What's the M.O.E.?

Why don't you click on the OP link, then click on each poll, and find out for yourself. Plus, any margin of error could also be in Obama's favor.

Why don't you defend your position?

The average margin of error for any poll is 3-5 points.
That would make most, if not all, of your wet-dreams of polls nothing but statistical ties.

Defend what position? Polls are polls...

 

[hortysir]

Why don't you click on the OP link, then click on each poll, and find out for yourself. Plus, any margin of error could also be in Obama's favor.

Why don't you defend your position?

The average margin of error for any poll is 3-5 points.
That would make most, if not all, of your wet-dreams of polls nothing but statistical ties.

Defend what position? Polls are polls...

And trolls are trolls.

Admit it, you attempted to slant the string of bullshit toward one candidate when the data simply didn't support it.
The polls don't favor (R) or (D)

 

[Lakhota]

Why don't you defend your position?

The average margin of error for any poll is 3-5 points.
That would make most, if not all, of your wet-dreams of polls nothing but statistical ties.

Defend what position? Polls are polls...

And trolls are trolls.

Admit it, you attempted to slant the string of bullshit toward one candidate when the data simply didn't support it.
The polls don't favor (R) or (D)

Polls are polls...

President Obama vs. Republican Candidates

General Election: Gingrich vs. Obama
**************************************
RCP Average (11/8 - 11/29) - Obama +5.7
Obama (D) 48.7
Gingrich (R) 43.0

Rasmussen Reports1 (11/28 - 11/29) - Gingrich +2
Obama (D) 43
Gingrich (R) 45

Quinnipiac (11/14 - 11/20) - Obama +9
Obama (D) 49
Gingrich (R) 40

FOX News (11/13 - 11/15) - Obama +5
Obama (D) 46
Gingrich (R) 41

CNN/Opinion Research (11/11 - 11/13) - Obama +8
Obama (D) 53
Gingrich (R) 45

Pew Research (11/9 - 11/14) - Obama +12
Obama (D) 54
Gingrich (R) 42

PPP (D) (11/10 - 11/13) - Obama +6
Obama (D) 49
Gingrich (R) 43

McClatchy/Marist (11/8 - 11/10) - Obama +2
Obama (D) 47
Gingrich (R) 45

RealClearPolitics - President Obama vs. Republican Candidates

 

[JoeB131]

Still way too early.

However, the poll that has Gingrich kicking Romney's butt here in Florida also has Gingrich losing to Obama by 5 points in this state.

that same poll shows him beating Reversable Mittens, too.

Which again, is meaningless.

Mitt and Newt are the only ones who've lasted this long because they both took the long view of this process and stuck with it.

This doesn't become real to most people until after the Olympics.

 

[jillian]

Why don't you defend your position?

The average margin of error for any poll is 3-5 points.
That would make most, if not all, of your wet-dreams of polls nothing but statistical ties.

Defend what position? Polls are polls...

And trolls are trolls.

Admit it, you attempted to slant the string of bullshit toward one candidate when the data simply didn't support it.
The polls don't favor (R) or (D)

i'm sorry, horty, where was your wisdom on all the rightwingnut threads saying that rasmussen (a single poll) has newtie beating the president, when it was a) only one poll which ignored the SIX others that had the president winning by up to 12 percentage points; and b) was pretty much within the margin of error?

 

[hortysir]

Defend what position? Polls are polls...

And trolls are trolls.

Admit it, you attempted to slant the string of bullshit toward one candidate when the data simply didn't support it.
The polls don't favor (R) or (D)

i'm sorry, horty, where was your wisdom on all the rightwingnut threads saying that rasmussen (a single poll) has newtie beating the president, when it was a) only one poll which ignored the SIX others that had the president winning by up to 12 percentage points; and b) was pretty much within the margin of error?

I' sorry, Jill, where did I reply to those threads?
Had I seen them I would have.

I can't find the time to reply to every bit of bullshit around here.
I find it where I can

 

[Flopper]

Polls mean jack squat right now. Check back next september, let's see how it's going then. Cuz until then most Americans don't give a crap.

Right now Obama has five potential opponents attacking him. By Sept. the Democratic campaign will be in full swing focusing on one opponent. Any improvement in the 8.6% unemployment, the removal of the last combat troops from Iraq and the Afghanistan troop reductions are likely to improve Obama's numbers.

On the Republican side, the nominee will draw support for all the current hopefuls. I don't see any current candidate not throwing their full support behind the nominee. Even thou Romney is not a favorite of the Tea Party, they will support him.

 

[JoeB131]

Polls mean jack squat right now. Check back next september, let's see how it's going then. Cuz until then most Americans don't give a crap.

Right now Obama has five potential opponents attacking him. By Sept. the Democratic campaign will be in full swing focusing on one opponent. Any improvement in the 8.6% unemployment, the removal of the last combat troops from Iraq and the Afghanistan troop reductions are likely to improve Obama's numbers.

On the Republican side, the nominee will draw support for all the current hopefuls. I don't see any current candidate not throwing their full support behind the nominee. Even thou Romney is not a favorite of the Tea Party, they will support him.

Except Romney probably won't be the nominee. He's falling apart faster than he did in 2008.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This is an important point.

The pubs have been very clear. The readily admit that they work for the 1%. They say it over and over, as has Newt.

Last November, same thing. Bagger candidates said they would vote against the interests of the American people. The American people voted for them anyway and sure nuff, baggers have been screwing them over ever since.

Yes, Newt is changeable. He's got more positions that Mitt has even dreamed of and his speeches consist mostly of him explaining why yesterday's position is gone and today's position is better.

Common thread that runs through every single thing Newt says is -

Take money out of the pockets of the 99% and Put more money in the pockets of the 1%.

Why would anyone in their "right" mind vote for this cold-blooded reptile of a man?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is an important point.

The pubs have been very clear. The readily admit that they work for the 1%. They say it over and over, as has Newt.

Last November, same thing. Bagger candidates said they would vote against the interests of the American people. The American people voted for them anyway and sure nuff, baggers have been screwing them over ever since.

Yes, Newt is changeable. He's got more positions that Mitt has even dreamed of and his speeches consist mostly of him explaining why yesterday's position is gone and today's position is better.

Common thread that runs through every single thing Newt says is -

Take money out of the pockets of the 99% and Put more money in the pockets of the 1%.

Why would anyone in their "right" mind vote for this cold-blooded reptile of a man?

Bagger candidates said they would vote against the interests of the American people

They said that? Could you be more precise? Links would be nice.
Thanks!!!

 

[JoeB131]

This is an important point.

The pubs have been very clear. The readily admit that they work for the 1%. They say it over and over, as has Newt.

Last November, same thing. Bagger candidates said they would vote against the interests of the American people. The American people voted for them anyway and sure nuff, baggers have been screwing them over ever since.

Yes, Newt is changeable. He's got more positions that Mitt has even dreamed of and his speeches consist mostly of him explaining why yesterday's position is gone and today's position is better.

Common thread that runs through every single thing Newt says is -

Take money out of the pockets of the 99% and Put more money in the pockets of the 1%.

Why would anyone in their "right" mind vote for this cold-blooded reptile of a man?

Ummmm, guy, when is it the government job to decide what is in people's pockets? And really, how is one party better than the other in this regard.

Obama could have raised taxes on the rich when he had both houses in Congress and a filibuster proof majority. He refused to do so. He could have even passively let the Bush Tax cuts expire, and he didn't do that, either.

Now he's all gung ho to increase taxes knowing the voters have said a resounding no to that. In short, he wants the GOP to co-sign.

 

[Toro]

Ummmm, guy, when is it the government job to decide what is in people's pockets?

When is it the government's job to decide where corporations should build a plant?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

This is an important point.

The pubs have been very clear. The readily admit that they work for the 1%. They say it over and over, as has Newt.

Last November, same thing. Bagger candidates said they would vote against the interests of the American people. The American people voted for them anyway and sure nuff, baggers have been screwing them over ever since.

Yes, Newt is changeable. He's got more positions that Mitt has even dreamed of and his speeches consist mostly of him explaining why yesterday's position is gone and today's position is better.

Common thread that runs through every single thing Newt says is -

Take money out of the pockets of the 99% and Put more money in the pockets of the 1%.

Why would anyone in their "right" mind vote for this cold-blooded reptile of a man?

Ummmm, guy, when is it the government job to decide what is in people's pockets? And really, how is one party better than the other in this regard.

Obama could have raised taxes on the rich when he had both houses in Congress and a filibuster proof majority. He refused to do so. He could have even passively let the Bush Tax cuts expire, and he didn't do that, either.

Now he's all gung ho to increase taxes knowing the voters have said a resounding no to that. In short, he wants the GOP to co-sign.

Wish he was gung ho about choosing jobs over playing politics. His political campaign seems to be more important than making an executive decision on the Keystone Pipeline. Shows you how committed the Democrats are when it comes to creating jobs, now doesn't it? Then again when has Obama shown that he has got a spine to make an executive decision about this economy, without handing that responsibility over to some established committee? We are going to need more than an empty seat in the White House, or a glorified senator cheerleader pushing his pom poms across America, but someone with at least some kind of leadership ability to do something to move this country foward. Whether that job will eventually go to Gingrich or Romney, it's too soon to tell. Ron Paul I just don't see it. However, when it comes to the economy, anyone is better than this learn-as-you-go amateur-in-chief at this point.


One Big Ass Mistake America

 

[JoeB131]

Ummmm, guy, when is it the government job to decide what is in people's pockets?

When is it the government's job to decide where corporations should build a plant?

When it gave itself the right to regulate interstate and international commerce.

That's why I can't buy Cuban Cigars, dumbass...

 

[JoeB131]

Wish he was gung ho about choosing jobs over playing politics. His political campaign seems to be more important than making an executive decision on the Keystone Pipeline. Shows you how committed the Democrats are when it comes to creating jobs, now doesn't it? Then again when has Obama shown that he has got a spine to make an executive decision about this economy, without handing that responsibility over to some established committee? We are going to need more than an empty seat in the White House, or a glorified senator cheerleader pushing his pom poms across America, but someone with at least some kind of leadership ability to do something to move this country foward. Whether that job will eventually go to Gingrich or Romney, it's too soon to tell. Ron Paul I just don't see it. However, when it comes to the economy, anyone is better than this learn-as-you-go amateur-in-chief at this point.


One Big Ass Mistake America

Oh, I agree, this is typical of Obama's kind of leadership. The only reason he didn't cancel the project outright was because his union buddies want it. But his environmental buddies don't. So he kicked the can down to after the election, but by that time, the Canadian oil producers will just find markets in China for their stuff.

 

[Toro]

Ummmm, guy, when is it the government job to decide what is in people's pockets?

When is it the government's job to decide where corporations should build a plant?

When it gave itself the right to regulate interstate and international commerce.

That's why I can't buy Cuban Cigars, dumbass...

... which is the same right the government has to decide what is in people's pockets because it dictates to American savers and businesses who they can and cannot not hire. That is the government injecting itself into the redistribution of wealth amongst Americans.

Not to mention that the government has given itself the right to also do so through social security, income taxation, welfare, etc.

So sorry you to pwn you twice this morning with your own contradictions. But it was pretty easy.

 

[JoeB131]

When is it the government's job to decide where corporations should build a plant?

When it gave itself the right to regulate interstate and international commerce.

That's why I can't buy Cuban Cigars, dumbass...

... which is the same right the government has to decide what is in people's pockets because it dictates to American savers and businesses who they can and cannot not hire. That is the government injecting itself into the redistribution of wealth amongst Americans.

Not to mention that the government has given itself the right to also do so through social security, income taxation, welfare, etc.

So sorry you to pwn you twice this morning with your own contradictions. But it was pretty easy.

So you define "pwn" as "stalking someone because he hurt my little feelings by mocking my candidates batshit crazy religion".

Sorry, guy, nope. "Wealth Redistribution" is nowhere in the constitution. The regulation of trade and commerce are.