PDA

View Full Version : Elections Obama 39% Paul 38%


Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 01:00 PM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/obama_39_paul_38

orange
08-23-2011, 01:05 PM
Generic Republican +5
Ron Paul -1

:hmmm:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/generic_presidential_ballot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot

evenfall
08-23-2011, 01:07 PM
Generic Republican +5
Ron Paul -1

:hmmm:


Does this mean that Obama sucks so bad, the entire Republican field is now electable?

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 01:08 PM
Interview 1,000 random voting age Americans from all geographic and economic levels and you'll get 400, maybe, that know who Ron Paul is.

I'm lukewarm on Obama myself, but if the Republicans put up a 75 year old (or whatever) fruitcake, then Obama is gonna roll to victory.

patteeu
08-23-2011, 01:09 PM
Romney 48% > Obama 46%

Obama 47% > Paul 45%

Gallup (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-gop-dead-heat-20110823,0,1167001.story)

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 01:10 PM
Does this mean that Obama sucks so bad, the entire Republican field is now electable?

Yes: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=248864


Right up until the debates start and Obama destroys the current field of weak sauce.

I'm not kidding -- Obama is a truly great public speaker, but the Republicans can take the WH away from him if they can field someone who doesn't flat out suck.*



*assuming the economy continues sputtering along like it has been, of course.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 01:12 PM
Romney 48% > Obama 46%

Obama 47% > Paul 45%

Gallup (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-gop-dead-heat-20110823,0,1167001.story)



Tell me the truth Pat -- and without saying "I hate Obama worse" or whatever dodge you could employ :D -- does the thought of Paul, Bachmann or Palin (currently undeclared I know) as the Republican candidate not fill you with dread?

patteeu
08-23-2011, 01:12 PM
Yes: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=248864


Right up until the debates start and Obama destroys the current field of weak sauce.

I'm not kidding -- Obama is a truly great public speaker, but the Republicans can take the WH away from him if they can field someone who doesn't flat out suck.*



*assuming the economy continues sputtering along like it has been, of course.

He's a much greater speaker when he can say nothing and allow his listener to imagine sunshine and prosperity. When his hollow oratory contrasts with the wreckage of his record, the results may not be so favorable for him.

vailpass
08-23-2011, 01:14 PM
Interview 1,000 random voting age Americans from all geographic and economic levels and you'll get 400, maybe, that know who Ron Paul is.

I'm lukewarm on Obama myself, but if the Republicans put up a 75 year old (or whatever) fruitcake, then Obama is gonna roll to victory.

Truthiness.

evenfall
08-23-2011, 01:15 PM
Interview 1,000 random voting age Americans from all geographic and economic levels and you'll get 400, maybe, that know who Ron Paul is.

I'm lukewarm on Obama myself, but if the Republicans put up a 75 year old (or whatever) fruitcake, then Obama is gonna roll to victory.

I think Paul's problem is that he is a niche candidate and already has the support of everyone who finds him palatable.

If, say, Bachmann goes out, those people aren't going to Paul, they will go to Romney or Perry or someone else more mainstream. In my opinion.

Last time around Paul's massive fundraising made little difference. I think that too is a sign that he's topped out on his appeal. Right or wrong, I think those are the facts.

Most people like myself like him, like him in Congress, but don't like him as a potential President.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 01:16 PM
He's a much greater speaker when he can say nothing and allow his listener to imagine sunshine and prosperity. When his hollow oratory contrasts with the wreckage of his record, the results may not be so favorable for him.


I disagree. Remember, Obama took on -- whoever it was -- all the House Republicans or whatever, and wrecked 'em.

He can handle his own very well in debates, not just reading off teleprompters, including on very specific policy areas. Love him or hate him, he's Reaganesque or Clintonesque when it comes to public speaking. And that makes him a brutal opponent to deal with come election time.

vailpass
08-23-2011, 01:17 PM
Obama isn't a speaker, he's a pompous bullshitter full of sound and fury that is much ado about nothing.
Problem is there may now be enough voters in our country either too ignorant or to willfully blind to recognize the uppity bullshit boy for what he is and what he isn't.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 01:18 PM
I think Paul's problem is that he is a niche candidate and already has the support of everyone who finds him palatable.

If, say, Bachmann goes out, those people aren't going to Paul, they will go to Romney or Perry or someone else more mainstream. In my opinion.

Last time around Paul's massive fundraising made little difference. I think that too is a sign that he's topped out on his appeal. Right or wrong, I think those are the facts.

Most people like myself like him, like him in Congress, but don't like him as a potential President.


Agree with every word, including "like him in Congress". I'm not sure *I* would vote for him, but I think his general intelligence and point of view are useful in the public forum of debate.

But he's topped out on his appeal. He is what he is -- the ardently loved and revered spokesperson for a solid 3-5% of American voters. That's it.

Donger
08-23-2011, 01:18 PM
I disagree. Remember, Obama took on -- whoever it was -- all the House Republicans or whatever, and wrecked 'em.

He can handle his own very well in debates, not just reading off teleprompters, including on very specific policy areas. Love him or hate him, he's Reaganesque or Clintonesque when it comes to public speaking. And that makes him a brutal opponent to deal with come election time.

Well, he didn't really have a record to run on last time, Amno. He does this time. Sure, there will be plenty who still listen him to him just to hear him speak, but there will be a lot more this time who will actually be listening to the words.

WTF is he going to run on?

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 01:19 PM
Obama isn't a speaker, he's a pompous bullshitter full of sound and fury that is much ado about nothing.
Problem is there may now be enough voters in our country either too ignorant or to willfully blind to recognize the uppity bullshit boy for what he is and what he isn't.


Careful, your racism is showing. Again.

vailpass
08-23-2011, 01:20 PM
Careful, your racism is showing. Again.

Think harder.

evenfall
08-23-2011, 01:20 PM
He's a much greater speaker when he can say nothing and allow his listener to imagine sunshine and prosperity. When his hollow oratory contrasts with the wreckage of his record, the results may not be so favorable for him.

His schtick of being a blank canvas that people made into whatever they want to believe isn't going to work this time around. His record is pathetic and all these appeals to hope and change will ring hollow when there seems to be no hope for the average Joe on the economy, and any change has not been for the good.

He was and is an empty suit who hid under his desk in the Senate for that election strategy. Won't work this time.

orange
08-23-2011, 01:20 PM
WTF is he going to run on?

His contrast to the Republican. It's no more complicated than that.

Donger
08-23-2011, 01:21 PM
His contrast to the Republican. It's no more complicated than that.

Weird. Why won't he run on his record?

vailpass
08-23-2011, 01:21 PM
His contrast to the Republican. It's no more complicated than that.

Would that be enough for obama to garner your vote?

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 01:22 PM
Well, he didn't really have a record to run on last time, Amno. He does this time. Sure, there will be plenty who still listen him to him just to hear him speak, but there will be a lot more this time who will actually be listening to the words.

WTF is he going to run on?


He has 15 months to figure it out and get that message across. I agree that he didn't have a record before to have held against him, which helped then and won't help now.

But the Republican field is a bunch of weak sauce atm. I can't believe some are even serious candidates. They need to come up with something better.

The two biggest questions are (1) what happens to the economy / jobs between now and next November, and (2) how much do people blame Republicans for the economic mess we're in, and do they think of that when they had to the 2012 polls?

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 01:24 PM
Would that be enough for obama to garner your vote?


I'll let Orange answer for himself, of course, but the real issue is whether that's enough to get a majority of independents, which is where the fight needs to be won.

Donger
08-23-2011, 01:25 PM
He has 15 months to figure it out and get that message across. I agree that he didn't have a record before to have held against him, which helped then and won't help now.

But the Republican field is a bunch of weak sauce atm. I can't believe some are even serious candidates. They need to come up with something better.

The two biggest questions are (1) what happens to the economy / jobs between now and next November, and (2) how much do people blame Republicans for the economic mess we're in, and do they think of that when they had to the 2012 polls?

Heh. So, you can't think of something that he should/could run on that he's accomplished?

I don't disagree on 1 and 2, BTW. I do think Perry's going to the "enemy."

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 01:26 PM
Think harder.


:shrug: I've accused you of racism on this board over and over again for similar reasons -- your posts come across as racist when you're discussing Obama. Not insulting and demeaning in the usual "I hate that politician way", but flat out and obviously racist.

I've said it point blank at least five times across the last six or more months.

Maybe I'm wrong, but all I can react to is a string of electrons on a computer screen, and from you they are consistently coming across that way. I'm glad to think harder, but I'm not perceiving any need to.

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 01:27 PM
Paul would destroy Obama in a debate.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 01:30 PM
Heh. So, you can't think of something that he should/could run on that he's accomplished?

I don't disagree on 1 and 2, BTW. I do think Perry's going to the "enemy."


:shrug:

Killing OBL.

If Libya works out, he can tout that.

If Iraq draw down works out, he can tout that.

If there's quantifiable progress in AFghanistan, he can tout that.


Saving thousands of jobs with TARP etc. but none of that sticks well if unemployment remains over 9%. If he can at least get it to 8, then he can say unemployment is no worse than it was the day he took over the Oval Office, which is soemthing to say (though not much), and saw us through a financial armageddon and is helping us return to prosperity blah blah blah.

But if unemployment stays at 9+%, might all be for naught for him.

blaise
08-23-2011, 01:30 PM
The fact that after three years Obama is close to poll numbers on some of these clowns is very poor for him. If the Republicans had someone even remotely attractive Obama could lose in a gigantic landslide.
He was coming off all the Hope and Change and W being "the worst ever" and here he is in almost dead heats with Paul? Holy crap.

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 01:31 PM
:shrug:

Killing OBL.

If Libya works out, he can tout that.

If Iraq draw down works out, he can tout that.

If there's quantifiable progress in AFghanistan, he can tout that.


Saving thousands of jobs with TARP etc. but none of that sticks well if unemployment remains over 9%. If he can at least get it to 8, then he can say unemployment is no worse than it was the day he took over the Oval Office, which is soemthing to say (though not much), and saw us through a financial armageddon and is helping us return to prosperity blah blah blah.

But if unemployment stays at 9+%, might all be for naught for him.


ROFL saving jobs thats a farce!

Donger
08-23-2011, 01:32 PM
:shrug:

Killing OBL.

If Libya works out, he can tout that.

If Iraq draw down works out, he can tout that.

If there's quantifiable progress in AFghanistan, he can tout that.


Saving thousands of jobs with TARP etc. but none of that sticks well if unemployment remains over 9%. If he can at least get it to 8, then he can say unemployment is no worse than it was the day he took over the Oval Office, which is soemthing to say (though not much), and saw us through a financial armageddon and is helping us return to prosperity blah blah blah.

But if unemployment stays at 9+%, might all be for naught for him.

So, basically, the only lock is getting bin Laden, right?

I can imagine that we'll hear "it was a lot worse than we thought" over the next 15 months.

evenfall
08-23-2011, 01:32 PM
I'll let Orange answer for himself, of course, but the real issue is whether that's enough to get a majority of independents, which is where the fight needs to be won.

The white middle class suburbanites aren't going to be sold a bill of goods again this time. They cheerfully voted for a novelty before, but four years of zero results make all the empty platitudes ring hollow. This isn't some group where he still enjoys near 90% support.

These are the people losing jobs and their investment portfolios and being impacted by fuel prices and inflation. these are the people who used to have private insurance, who are thrown on to MA now because they lost their job, and the president goes on tv and says he turned the economy around, or that it was good until - aww shucks, some bad luck came around. These are the least wealthy class of people who are actually paying into the system and thus calculating what it is they are getting for their.money.

In Obama's case, its actually their money walking, and the BS talking, instead of the other way around.

This class of voter demands results. They threw Carter out..They threw Bush 1 out. They will throw this feckless BS artist out too, I believe we will see.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 01:33 PM
Paul would destroy Obama in a debate.


3-5% of Americans would definitely think so, yes. You're in that group. Congrats.

He'll be 77 on election day 2012. Reagan wasn't even 70 when he was elected the first time and he was considered pretty damn old.

If you think America is electing a near-Octogenerian fruitcake for President, then that's great. You go with that.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 01:34 PM
So, basically, the only lock is getting bin Laden, right?

I can imagine that we'll hear "it was a lot worse than we thought" over the next 15 months.


Yup.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 01:36 PM
The white middle class suburbanites aren't going to be sold a bill of goods again this time. They cheerfully voted for a novelty before, but four years of zero results make all the empty platitudes ring hollow. This isn't some group where he still enjoys near 90% support.

These are the people losing jobs and their investment portfolios and being impacted by fuel prices and inflation. these are the people who used to have private insurance, who are thrown on to MA now because they lost their job, and the president goes on tv and says he turned the economy around, or that it was good until - aww shucks, some bad luck came around. These are the least wealthy class of people who are actually paying into the system and thus calculating what it is they are getting for their.money.

In Obama's case, its actually their money walking, and the BS talking, instead of the other way around.

This class of voter demands results. They threw Carter out..They threw Bush 1 out. They will throw this feckless BS artist out too, I believe we will see.

I'm in the class you describe. The question is whether the Republicans have a better "offer" for me.

So far I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing fruitcakes and mediocrity, except Romney, who I like but who won't win the nomination because his party is so far to the right it can't remove it's head from its arse*.



*This one's for you Donger. :D

SNR
08-23-2011, 01:37 PM
3-5% of Americans would definitely think so, yes. You're in that group. Congrats.

He'll be 77 on election day 2012. Reagan wasn't even 70 when he was elected the first time and he was considered pretty damn old.

If you think America is electing a near-Octogenerian fruitcake for President, then that's great. You go with that.
http://www.yarntomato.com/images/misc/fruitcake.jpg

??

BWillie
08-23-2011, 01:38 PM
Paul would destroy Obama in a debate.

I'm not so sure, if they ask him direct questions, he's going to answer it directly with much less of a politician type tone (he won't bounce around the issue). Sometimes it sounds bad. Like they may ask him what he would do to fix the economy, first he'd say something like get rid of the band aids, talk about private investment, and that unemployment would probably actually rise for a couple years before everything started to go on the up and up. I think that would lose some ppl right there. I think Paul is too nerdy, and when I mean nerdy, educated and understanding in fiscal policy to persuade alot of middle aged swing voters. But what he doesn't get with them, he may make up with the younger votes that voted for Obama before.

orange
08-23-2011, 01:41 PM
??

This one:

http://rattlethempotsandpans.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/King-Tuts-fruitcake4.jpg

blaise
08-23-2011, 01:43 PM
orange would vote for Obama if he set a sack full of kittens on fire in the middle of the Rose Garden, and then wiped his ass with an American flag.

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 01:44 PM
3-5% of Americans would definitely think so, yes. You're in that group. Congrats.

He'll be 77 on election day 2012. Reagan wasn't even 70 when he was elected the first time and he was considered pretty damn old.

If you think America is electing a near-Octogenerian fruitcake for President, then that's great. You go with that.

How many times can you post the same thing in 1 thread? Paul is much more knowledgeable on economics than Obama. While Obama was community organizing Paul was predicting this mess. The 77 year old is in better shape than you.

I don't really give a shit who America is for electing. They thought it was a great idea to re-elect Jimmy Carter in 2008.

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 01:45 PM
I'm not so sure, if they ask him direct questions, he's going to answer it directly with much less of a politician type tone (he won't bounce around the issue). Sometimes it sounds bad. Like they may ask him what he would do to fix the economy, first he'd say something like get rid of the band aids, talk about private investment, and that unemployment would probably actually rise for a couple years before everything started to go on the up and up. I think that would lose some ppl right there. I think Paul is too nerdy, and when I mean nerdy, educated and understanding in fiscal policy to persuade alot of middle aged swing voters. But what he doesn't get with them, he may make up with the younger votes that voted for Obama before.

Basically Paul would tell the truth and from an economic standpoint. The American people would vote for 4 more years of a recession instead of begining to fix the economy. This sounds about right.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 01:48 PM
How many times can you post the same thing in 1 thread?

As many times as you can say "Ron Paul is GREAT."

Paul is much more knowledgeable on economics than Obama. While Obama was community organizing Paul was predicting this mess. The 77 year old is in better shape than you.

No, really, he's not. He's just a guy with flaky ideas who believes in a very minority position of economic thought.

I don't really give a shit who America is for electing. They thought it was a great idea to re-elect Jimmy Carter in 2008.


Well you may not give a shit, but it's all that will matter at the end of election day.

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 01:50 PM
Obama and his supporters are nothing but a bad comedy show. They tell us this is all Bush's fault yet hold over half the economic team and appoint Geithner as security of treasury. The same guy who oversaw all the fraud. He's either extremely incompetent or a criminal yet Obama thought it'd be a great idea to appoint this man to treasury ROFL Please keep telling us how things are turning around!

orange
08-23-2011, 01:50 PM
Paul is much more knowledgeable on economics than Obama. While Obama was community organizing Paul was predicting this mess.

How many times can you guys make this laughable assertion? When you predict an economic crash every year for 30+ years, you're occasionally going to be right.

How is he going to be able to explain all the good years in between?

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 01:51 PM
No, really, he's not. He's just a guy with flaky ideas who believes in a very minority position of economic thought.




Well you may not give a shit, but it's all that will matter at the end of election day.

Right he just predicted the housing market crash because he has flaky ideas. While the rest of the Republican candidates in 07' were saying we aren't heading for a recession he was. WHAT A TOTAL FLAKE!

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 01:52 PM
How many times can you guys make this laughable assertion? When you predict an economic crash every year for 30+ years, you're occasionally going to be right.

How is he going to be able to explain all the good years in between?

Economic bubble. Are you really going to try and argue this?

Donger
08-23-2011, 01:52 PM
Right he just predicted the housing market crash because he has flaky ideas. While the rest of the Republican candidates in 07' were saying we aren't heading for a recession he was. WHAT A TOTAL FLAKE!

Doesn't he pretty much predict everything is going to suck? Stopped clock, you know?

evenfall
08-23-2011, 01:53 PM
Paul supporter: If we just scream louder and longer maybe you fucking morons will start agreeing with us. Pretty please, vote for Paul.

KC-TBB
08-23-2011, 01:53 PM
just because you disagree with someone doesnt mean you don't like thier race...it is VERY racist to even ASSUME that!

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 01:54 PM
And the fact that Obama is only polling at 39% against a supposed fringe candidate says alot. Please Orange & Amnorix continue to speak out you only hurt your cause. America doesn't take kind obnoxious liberals.

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 01:54 PM
Doesn't he pretty much predict everything is going to suck? Stopped clock, you know?

You can't polish a turd.

orange
08-23-2011, 01:54 PM
They tell us this is all Bush's fault yet hold over half the economic team and appoint Geithner as security of treasury. The same guy who oversaw all the fraud.

You want banking/financial reform? Democrats managed to bring you Dodd-Frank, watered down as it is.

Paul's solution? Eliminate all the regulations.

Yeah, that will play well.

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 01:57 PM
You want banking/financial reform? Democrats managed to bring you Dodd-Frank, watered down as it is.

Paul's solution? Eliminate all the regulations.

Yeah, that will play well.

Dodd/Frank? The same ones who brought us the Fannie and Freddie Crisis.

orange
08-23-2011, 01:57 PM
Are you really going to try and argue this?

Voter: "Economic bubble. Oh yeah, back when I had a decent job."


Are you really going to try and argue this?

Are you really imagining Americans aren't going to reject the Ayn Rand delusion again, like every time before?

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 01:58 PM
just because you disagree with someone doesnt mean you don't like thier race...it is VERY racist to even ASSUME that!


I assume you are referring to me.

I have not accused anyone other than Vailpass on here of racism, despite the fact that MANY on here detest Obama and I argue with pretty much all of them from time to time.

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 01:58 PM
Voter: "Economic bubble. Oh yeah, back when I had a decent job."




Are you really imagining Americans aren't going to reject the Ayn Rand delusion again, like every time before?

So because people had a job it means there wasn't a bubble? This is sound reasoning.

Donger
08-23-2011, 01:59 PM
You can't polish a turd.

You're referring to Paul?

orange
08-23-2011, 02:00 PM
So because people had a job it means there wasn't a bubble? This is sound reasoning.

Average voter: "Bubble = Jobs? Vote BUBBLE!"

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 02:06 PM
Average voter: "Bubble = Jobs? Vote BUBBLE!"

Obama's bubble has got us to over 9% unemployment and a credit downgrade.

orange
08-23-2011, 02:10 PM
Obama's bubble has got us to over 9% unemployment and a credit downgrade.

All you have to do is get America to believe that Paul's plan - defaulting on our debts and plunging us into a necessary correction depression is a better plan.

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 02:14 PM
All you have to do is get America to believe that Paul's plan - defaulting on our debts and plunging us into a necessary correction depression is a better plan.

Proof that this would happen?

We were told if we don't add more debt to destroy our dollar we would get a credit downgrade. They did it and we still were downgraded. This is kind of like the time we were told if a stimulus wasn't passed we'd see double digit unemployment and that if a stimulus were passed unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. Hmm that's strange.

orange
08-23-2011, 02:18 PM
Proof that this would happen?

We were told if we don't add more debt to destroy our dollar we would get a credit downgrade. They did it and we still were downgraded. This is kind of like the time we were told if a stimulus wasn't passed we'd see double digit unemployment and that if a stimulus were passed unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. Hmm that's strange.

We were "downgraded" by one organization, who basically proved they're idiots and made themselves irrelevant (see my brilliant "Nine days ago, today" thread).

The markets said otherwise.

As for your belief that defaulting on our loans would not have immense negative implications - Vote for Michelle. She's younger and prettier than Ron, and maybe even a bit more batshit crazy.

BigChiefFan
08-23-2011, 02:18 PM
Good. We need to get rid of these banker scum and their ilk and run them out of Congress and the White House. Ron Paul would be a good start.

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 02:20 PM
We were "downgraded" by one organization, who basically proved they're idiots and made themselves irrelevant (see my brilliant, "Nine days ago, today" thread).

The markets said otherwise.

As for your belief that defaulting on our loans would not have immense negative implications - Vote for Michelle. She's younger and prettier than Ron, and maybe even a bit more batshit crazy.

Typical liberal mantra. It's always someone elses fault! I thought it was the Tea Party's fault we were downgraded? Now it's S&P?

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 02:21 PM
There's not much more to say than this -- Ron Paul wants to float the entire nation's currency on gold, right? Worldwide gold production (much less US) is not even 1/10th of the US's GDP. So how the hell do you do that?

I found hte numbers and put them in a post before, and don't want to go through the exercise, but it's literally impossible. Unless gold has a value of like a million dollars an ounce, of course, which I'm sure would excite the Paulites to no end, though it's nonsensical to base an economy on production of a single metals commodity.

patteeu
08-23-2011, 02:22 PM
Proof that this would happen?

We were told if we don't add more debt to destroy our dollar we would get a credit downgrade. They did it and we still were downgraded. This is kind of like the time we were told if a stimulus wasn't passed we'd see double digit unemployment and that if a stimulus were passed unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. Hmm that's strange.

Wrong. It's even worse than that. Obama's economic team told us that without stimulus, unemployment would peak at 9%. With stimulus, it wasn't supposed to get over 8%.

http://winteryknight.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/unemployment-stimulus-projection-dec10.jpg

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 02:24 PM
Wrong. It's even worse than that. Obama's economic team told us that without stimulus, unemployment would peak at 9%. With stimulus, it wasn't supposed to get over 8%.

http://winteryknight.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/unemployment-stimulus-projection-dec10.jpg

Bush's fault.

orange
08-23-2011, 02:24 PM
Now it's S&P?

No, not "now." I said that the very day of the downgrade (24 hour day, not calendar day). A much better prediction than your hero ever made.

orange
08-23-2011, 02:26 PM
Wrong. It's even worse than that. Obama's economic team told us that without stimulus, unemployment would peak at 9%. With stimulus, it wasn't supposed to get over 8%.

I'm guessing that they probably underestimated BOTH.

Not everyone is as gifted as orange at this prediction business.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 02:29 PM
Wrong. It's even worse than that. Obama's economic team told us that without stimulus, unemployment would peak at 9%. With stimulus, it wasn't supposed to get over 8%.

http://winteryknight.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/unemployment-stimulus-projection-dec10.jpg


What was your plan to solve the worsening economy? Cut taxes on the wealthy, again, because that's the answer to both a good and a bad economy?

You and I both know that stimulus spending is the standard, Keynesian response to a recession. You and I both know that while we may argue at the margins, both Republicans and Democrats tend to follow Keynesian economics.

While lower taxes may have been equally "stimulative" (or not, as the case may be), the bottom line is that the problem isn't not enough people/companies with cash in their pockets. The 500 highest capitalized corporations are sitting on a TRILLION dollars in cash. They don't want to deploy it until consumer demand picks up. Consumers aren't spending because they have lost jobs and many have lost wealth, whether in home equity or in the market.

Stimulus spending has made and continues to make sense, especially in American infrastructure to improve its economic competitiveness going forward. TARP made sense to avoid a horrendous spiralling down the drain, which is why BushCo was also in favor of bailouts that were so unpopular with many on the right. Heck, if Obama had put those packages together instead of Bush, I have no doubt he'd be getting villified for that too.

FishingRod
08-23-2011, 02:34 PM
I’m quite Libertarian in my political beliefs and as such find Paul the candidate most to my liking. Having said that, the few times I have listened to him I was not awed by his speaking ability. He is no Reagan, Clinton or Obama. Style sells over substance. I don’t think Paul can beat Obama.

BigChiefFan
08-23-2011, 02:41 PM
Iím quite Libertarian in my political beliefs and as such find Paul the candidate most to my liking. Having said that, the few times I have listened to him I was not awed by his speaking ability. He is no Reagan, Clinton or Obama. Style sells over substance. I donít think Paul can beat Obama.Truth always trumps lies. Paul can win hands down. Don't buy the bankers line of "Ron Paul can't win." What a crock.

Donger
08-23-2011, 02:46 PM
Truth always trumps lies. Paul can win hands down. Don't buy the bankers line of "Ron Paul can't win." What a crock.

LMAO

FishingRod
08-23-2011, 02:47 PM
Truth always trumps lies. Paul can win hands down. Don't buy the bankers line of "Ron Paul can't win." What a crock.

You sir have more faith in our fellow manís moral center to care about the truth and intellectual ability to recognize it than I do. An optimist how Refreshing.

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 02:47 PM
What was your plan to solve the worsening economy? Cut taxes on the wealthy, again, because that's the answer to both a good and a bad economy?

You and I both know that stimulus spending is the standard, Keynesian response to a recession. You and I both know that while we may argue at the margins, both Republicans and Democrats tend to follow Keynesian economics.

While lower taxes may have been equally "stimulative" (or not, as the case may be), the bottom line is that the problem isn't not enough people/companies with cash in their pockets. The 500 highest capitalized corporations are sitting on a TRILLION dollars in cash. They don't want to deploy it until consumer demand picks up. Consumers aren't spending because they have lost jobs and many have lost wealth, whether in home equity or in the market.

Stimulus spending has made and continues to make sense, especially in American infrastructure to improve its economic competitiveness going forward. TARP made sense to avoid a horrendous spiralling down the drain, which is why BushCo was also in favor of bailouts that were so unpopular with many on the right. Heck, if Obama had put those packages together instead of Bush, I have no doubt he'd be getting villified for that too.

Ask Japan what Keynesian economics did for them.

vailpass
08-23-2011, 02:53 PM
:shrug: I've accused you of racism on this board over and over again for similar reasons -- your posts come across as racist when you're discussing Obama. Not insulting and demeaning in the usual "I hate that politician way", but flat out and obviously racist.

I've said it point blank at least five times across the last six or more months.

Maybe I'm wrong, but all I can react to is a string of electrons on a computer screen, and from you they are consistently coming across that way. I'm glad to think harder, but I'm not perceiving any need to.

Spooky isn't it?

vailpass
08-23-2011, 02:55 PM
just because you disagree with someone doesnt mean you don't like thier race...it is VERY racist to even ASSUME that!

Hard to believe you can even type holding a white hood in one hand and a burning cross in the other.

vailpass
08-23-2011, 02:58 PM
We were "downgraded" by one organization, who basically proved they're idiots and made themselves irrelevant (see my brilliant "Nine days ago, today" thread).

The markets said otherwise.

As for your belief that defaulting on our loans would not have immense negative implications - Vote for Michelle. She's younger and prettier than Ron, and maybe even a bit more batshit crazy.

How sad it must be to be you. The credit rating of the United States of America gets downgraded by S&P and you try to cast the blame on S&P. Not a word from you on the performance of obama that led up to the downgrade.

FishingRod
08-23-2011, 03:03 PM
I think if the Government is determined to throw money at the problem, they would probably get a better result if a large percentage of the monies were used for small business loans.

HonestChieffan
08-23-2011, 03:29 PM
I disagree. Remember, Obama took on -- whoever it was -- all the House Republicans or whatever, and wrecked 'em.

He can handle his own very well in debates, not just reading off teleprompters, including on very specific policy areas. Love him or hate him, he's Reaganesque or Clintonesque when it comes to public speaking. And that makes him a brutal opponent to deal with come election time.



Surely you are making a funny. Right? er er er ahh ahha ha I er er laughed ummmm a ummm you know ummm a Lot

orange
08-23-2011, 03:31 PM
Surely you are making a funny. Right? er er er ahh ahha ha I er er laughed ummmm a ummm you know ummm a Lot

Paul's hysterical soprano notes don't exactly serve him well, either.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 03:35 PM
Surely you are making a funny. Right? er er er ahh ahha ha I er er laughed ummmm a ummm you know ummm a Lot


Since you disagree with his position so vehemently, you're unable to perceive him as uttering anything more than vile lies etc.

Presumably, however, you can take off your rose-colored glasses long enough to note that he's a very polished public speaker and excellent debater. If not, then whatever, that's fine. I think most on both sides of the aisle would disagree with you.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 03:36 PM
How sad it must be to be you. The credit rating of the United States of America gets downgraded by S&P and you try to cast the blame on S&P. Not a word from you on the performance of obama that led up to the downgrade.


As if the downgrade was the result of our policies over the last three years. :rolleyes:

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 03:37 PM
Spooky isn't it?


Not really. If it walks and talks and quacks like a duck, then I'm not going to perform some kind of microscopic analysis to figure it's probably a duck. You actually seem decent enough, except for these occassional rounds of race-baiting. Maybe you're just trying to rile people up. If so, that's fine. I think it's classless but whatever. I dont' get riled about any of it, but I'll call it for what it is when I see it.

vailpass
08-23-2011, 03:51 PM
Not really. If it walks and talks and quacks like a duck, then I'm not going to perform some kind of microscopic analysis to figure it's probably a duck. You actually seem decent enough, except for these occassional rounds of race-baiting. Maybe you're just trying to rile people up. If so, that's fine. I think it's classless but whatever. I dont' get riled about any of it, but I'll call it for what it is when I see it.

Seriously? I haven't seen someone miss so many in a coon's age.
We can agree on one thing though: race baiting is utterly wrong.

Donger
08-23-2011, 04:11 PM
LMAO

SNR
08-23-2011, 04:12 PM
Trolly shit! :eek:

Calcountry
08-23-2011, 06:36 PM
Yes: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=248864


Right up until the debates start and Obama destroys the current field of weak sauce.

I'm not kidding -- Obama is a truly great public speaker, but the Republicans can take the WH away from him if they can field someone who doesn't flat out suck.*



*assuming the economy continues sputtering along like it has been, of course.Dude, do you think that people will want to listen to this guy, ONE MORE TIME, by that time?

Calcountry
08-23-2011, 06:42 PM
What was your plan to solve the worsening economy? Cut taxes on the wealthy, again, because that's the answer to both a good and a bad economy?

You and I both know that stimulus spending is the standard, Keynesian response to a recession. You and I both know that while we may argue at the margins, both Republicans and Democrats tend to follow Keynesian economics.

While lower taxes may have been equally "stimulative" (or not, as the case may be), the bottom line is that the problem isn't not enough people/companies with cash in their pockets. The 500 highest capitalized corporations are sitting on a TRILLION dollars in cash. They don't want to deploy it until consumer demand picks up. Consumers aren't spending because they have lost jobs and many have lost wealth, whether in home equity or in the market.

Stimulus spending has made and continues to make sense, especially in American infrastructure to improve its economic competitiveness going forward. TARP made sense to avoid a horrendous spiralling down the drain, which is why BushCo was also in favor of bailouts that were so unpopular with many on the right. Heck, if Obama had put those packages together instead of Bush, I have no doubt he'd be getting villified for that too.In the last presidential debates, I remember Obama fielding a question that went like, "Given the weakness of the economy, should you maybe prioritize how much of your agenda you can tackle, given the weakness. Kind of like, can we afford health care and cap and trade right now?

He rammed that shit through full speed ahead, and has the EPA putting the environmental crap through by fiat. President BOHICA. I am surprised at how successful he has been in implementing his agenda.

VAChief
08-23-2011, 06:47 PM
Since you disagree with his position so vehemently, you're unable to perceive him as uttering anything more than vile lies etc.

Presumably, however, you can take off your rose-colored glasses long enough to note that he's a very polished public speaker and excellent debater. If not, then whatever, that's fine. I think most on both sides of the aisle would disagree with you.

Quit bothering Jethro, it's getting late and he still has to practice his "ciphering."

Brock
08-23-2011, 07:24 PM
In the last presidential debates, I remember Obama fielding a question that went like, "Given the weakness of the economy, should you maybe prioritize how much of your agenda you can tackle, given the weakness. Kind of like, can we afford health care and cap and trade right now?

He rammed that shit through full speed ahead, and has the EPA putting the environmental crap through by fiat. President BOHICA. I am surprised at how successful he has been in implementing his agenda.

He rammed through cap and trade?

stevieray
08-23-2011, 07:34 PM
...it's funny watching Ahmno come all the way from Bahston to white knight and look down at other's criticsms like he's above it....considering how he's deflected and typed the word Bush at least five hundred times.

...."but he's a great speaker...."

...iow, he's great at tickling your ears.

evenfall
08-23-2011, 09:10 PM
...it's funny watching Ahmno come all the way from Bahston to white knight and look down at other's criticsms like he's above it....considering how he's deflected and typed the word Bush at least five hundred times.

...."but he's a great speaker...."

...iow, he's great at tickling your ears.

It would be nice just once to hear a reasoned defense of Obama's record that in no way mentioned his predecessor, but that would be like seeing someone square the circle I guess.

Saul Good
08-23-2011, 09:13 PM
If the election were held today, Obama would lose to any of the Republicans who have announced. The turnout would be low, but it would be much lower on the left and the middle than the right.

Extra Point
08-23-2011, 09:23 PM
His contrast to the Republican. It's no more complicated than that.

And thank you for painting that picture. First one with a defined platform wins, at least two weeks before the first convention. The leader for each party must show their cards, cards that the followers will bet on.

This "Change" bullshit is going to be exposed as fraud. Tell me your plans, in outline form, and the steps you're going to take to make them work. Otherwise, GTFO!

BigChiefFan
08-24-2011, 12:00 AM
Use a common sense approach and listen to this again. If you are a true American you should hold the Constitution in the highest regard. Why on Earth would you choose to go against a document that gives YOU rights?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ9HFrL4LoQ&feature=related

Calcountry
08-24-2011, 10:33 AM
He rammed through cap and trade?EPA.

Calcountry
08-24-2011, 10:37 AM
If the election were held today, Obama would lose to any of the Republicans who have announced. The turnout would be low, but it would be much lower on the left and the middle than the right.All the Republican nominee has to do, is demonstrate to the country, that they are honorable enough to give them a chance. Obama has already shit in his own bed.

Saul Good
08-24-2011, 01:29 PM
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2011/08/magellan-poll-obama-in-trouble-but-no-republicans-alighting-florida.html

Romney is up by double digits over Obama in Florida. Don't believe the bullshit when the libs say that the Republicans don't have a candidate who can beat Barry.

If Obama loses Florida by double digits, he's going to lose every swing state.

orange
08-24-2011, 01:49 PM
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2011/08/magellan-poll-obama-in-trouble-but-no-republicans-alighting-florida.html

Romney is up by double digits over Obama in Florida. Don't believe the bullshit when the libs say that the Republicans don't have a candidate who can beat Barry.

If Obama loses Florida by double digits, he's going to lose every swing state.

You need to read with your eyes, not your heart:

A new Associated Industries of Florida poll by McLaughlin & Associates shows former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with a double-digit lead over Texas Gov. Rick Perry in the Republican presidential primary ó and that either man would run strongly against President Barack Obama.

Excerpts from the release:

President Obama is in a statistical tie with Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee (44 percent to 45 percent). In a scenario where Gov. Rick Perry (TX) is the Republican nominee, President Obama maintains a 5 percentage point-lead, 39 percent to 44 percent. Independents and Ticketsplitters were more likely to vote for Romney as the Republican candidate over Gov. Perry.

p.s. When considering candidatesí alignment to the Tea Party, 43 percent of those polled said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by the Tea Party while 26 percent would be more likely. Opinions on Tea Party issues and priorities were split with 46 percent of respondents disagreeing with the Tea Party movementís issues and priorities and 42 percent agreeing.

p.p.s. Since this is a Ron Paul Tout thread, how did RP do?

Romney 27
Perry 16
Bachmann 10
Paul 5
Gingrich 5
Cain 5
Huntsman 3
Pawlenty 1
Santorum 0
Other 6
Undecided 22

Saul Good
08-24-2011, 01:55 PM
Try again, orange. For Florida voters, "matchups would have Romney beating Obama 49-39".

orange
08-24-2011, 02:42 PM
Try again, orange. For Florida voters, "matchups would have Romney beating Obama 49-39".

I take no blame for your link going to an old page. (see attachment)

I also note that:

Magellan Data & Mapping Strategies, a Louisville, Colo.,-based research firm that usually gets hired to do polling by Republican candidates and committees.

still doesn't acknowledge Ron Paul's existence.

[edit] Your link was to a broken web page earlier, the redirect was to the old page

Saul Good
08-24-2011, 02:53 PM
I take no blame for your link going to an old page. (see attachment)

I also note that:

Magellan Data & Mapping Strategies, a Louisville, Colo.,-based research firm that usually gets hired to do polling by Republican candidates and committees.

still doesn't acknowledge Ron Paul's existence.

WTF are you talking about? The link works, and the article was posted yesterday. I don't know how much more I can spoonfeed this to you.

Saul Good
08-24-2011, 02:56 PM
Scroll down the page to where they talk about FLORIDA.

orange
08-24-2011, 02:56 PM
WTF are you talking about? The link works, and the article was posted yesterday. I don't know how much more I can spoonfeed this to you.

The link didn't work. The page was broken. As seen above.

Saul Good
08-24-2011, 02:58 PM
Call geek squad. The link works.

orange
08-24-2011, 02:59 PM
Call geek squad. The link works.

Orlando Sentinel must have done just that.

Probably all the traffic from Drudge broke it.

orange
08-24-2011, 03:13 PM
August 24, 2011
Perry Zooms to Front of Pack for 2012 GOP Nomination .. Leads Romney by 29% to 17%

by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- Shortly after announcing his official candidacy, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has emerged as rank-and-file Republicans' current favorite for their party's 2012 presidential nomination. Twenty-nine percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents nationwide say they are most likely to support Perry, with Mitt Romney next, at 17%.

These results are based on an Aug. 17-21 Gallup poll, the first conducted after several important events in the Republican nomination campaign, including the second candidate debate, the Iowa Straw Poll, and Perry's official entry into the race after months of speculation.

Romney and Perry essentially tied for the lead in late July, based on re-computed preferences that include the current field of announced candidates. Gallup's official July report, based on the announced field at the time and thus excluding Perry, showed Romney with a 27% to 18% lead over Michele Bachmann. Romney enjoyed an even wider, 17-percentage-point lead in June over Herman Cain among the field of announced candidates (Gallup did not include Perry among the nominee choices before July).

Perry's official announcement may have overshadowed the Aug. 13 Iowa Straw Poll, which Bachmann won narrowly over Ron Paul. Neither candidate appears to have gotten a big boost from the straw poll results; Paul's support was up slightly from July and Bachmann's down slightly.

Perry is a strong contender among key Republican subgroups. Older Republicans and those living in the South show especially strong support for him, at or near 40%. Conservative Republicans strongly favor Perry over Romney, but liberal and moderate Republicans support the two about equally. Perry's support is also above average among religious Republicans.

In addition to liberals and moderates, Perry is also relatively weak among young Republicans and those residing in the East. Paul continues to demonstrate stronger appeal to young Republicans, and limited appeal to those aged 50 and older.

Palin, Giuliani Also Trail Perry

While the eight announced candidates continue to campaign in key early primary and caucus states, Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani are two prominent Republican politicians who have indicated they are still contemplating getting into the race. Palin and Giuliani each receive about 10% of the vote when included in the nomination preference question, with Perry still holding a significant lead over Romney, 25% to 14%, on this measure.

Last month, Romney and Perry essentially tied in preferences among the full list of candidates and potential candidates.

Implications

Perry's official entry has shaken up the Republican race, making him the new leader for the party's nomination. Gallup also finds Perry generating strong positive intensity among Republicans familiar with him, suggesting he has a strong initial base with potential to grow, given his below-average recognition.

Still, he, like Romney before him, rates as a weaker front-runner than those in prior GOP nomination contests. Perry will attempt to avoid the same fates as late-entering candidates in the last two nomination contests -- Fred Thompson in the 2008 Republican field and Wesley Clark in the 2004 Democratic field. Both created a buzz surrounding their potential candidacies, and ranked among the national leaders upon entering the race. However, both fared poorly in early primaries and caucuses and soon after ended their candidacies.

Sign up for Gallup.com email alerts to get breaking Election 2012 news.

Track every angle of the presidential race on Gallup.com's Election 2012 page.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/sndff0moc0crwlz7xki0xa.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149180/Perry-Zooms-Front-Pack-2012-GOP-Nomination.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics

orange
08-24-2011, 03:15 PM
Bo's Pelini: "Paul increased his support 33% and the damned cheating pollsters still won't call him a front-runner!!!"

Dave Lane
08-24-2011, 03:17 PM
Careful, your racism is showing. Again.

Shocking I tell you. Alert the press.

Dave Lane
08-24-2011, 03:22 PM
All you have to do is get America to believe that Paul's plan - defaulting on our debts and plunging us into a necessary correction depression is a better plan.

Depression would be an upgrade from the nuclear financial holocaust that is Ron Paul. Whether you believe in the long run it would be a good idea or not its scary as shit.

Chocolate Hog
08-24-2011, 03:29 PM
Bo's Pelini: "Paul increased his support 33% and the damned cheating pollsters still won't call him a front-runner!!!"

Huh?

vailpass
08-24-2011, 03:43 PM
Shocking I tell you. Alert the press.

Loon when I want any lip from you I'll tell you to unzip your pants.

Donger
08-24-2011, 03:56 PM
But will Republicans ever nominate Romney?

No.

Saul Good
08-24-2011, 03:59 PM
Bo's Pelini: "Paul increased his support 33% and the damned cheating pollsters still won't call him a front-runner!!!"

Billay wouldn't say that. He'd say that RP increased his support by 6%. He's pretty shitty at math.

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=7764849#post7764849

KILLER_CLOWN
08-24-2011, 05:38 PM
"Ron Paul Picks Up Steam Despite Minimal Media Coverage"

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zbR-iapU9Qc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Saul Good
08-24-2011, 06:08 PM
What "steam" is that? He had 12% in May and trailed the leader by 7 points. Now, he's got 13% but trails by 16 points.

Chocolate Hog
08-24-2011, 06:10 PM
Or national polls don't mean much at this point and he started out in the mid single digits in Iowa and has risen to 16% within 6 points of the leader. Goober.

Saul Good
08-24-2011, 06:34 PM
Or national polls don't mean much at this point and he started out in the mid single digits in Iowa and has risen to 16% within 6 points of the leader. Goober.
Let's see the poll...

Saul Good
08-24-2011, 06:37 PM
I'm guessing you're referencing the PPP poll that shows him in 4th place.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2011, 08:17 PM
What "steam" is that? He had 12% in May and trailed the leader by 7 points. Now, he's got 13% but trails by 16 points.

Where was McCain polling last time? Where did he place?

BucEyedPea
08-24-2011, 08:20 PM
[INDENT][INDENT]August 24, 2011
Perry Zooms to Front of Pack for 2012 GOP Nomination .. Leads Romney by 29% to 17%

And Paul bumps Bachmann. And Perry is mouthing Paul's ideas ( although he doesn't really mean it)

It's too early.