Skip to comments.Rasmussen: Obama leads Romney in key swing states
Posted on 04/06/2012 4:21:57 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
click here to read article
Just as the proverbial lemmings...going nowhere fast.
“Rasmussen completely missed the Republican take-over of the US House in 2010, and patriots taking over 26 state legislatures.”
You are dead wrong. Rasmussen actually overestimnated Republican strength in the 2010 elections.
I understand not voting for Bishop Romney, but I did not understand your post.
As has been said many times on these pages, Mitt Romney is unelectable.
Quite simply, not voting for whomever is the nominee is, objectively, a vote for Obama.
I understand your point, but an individual American has to vote as an individual. Supporting, endorsing, Bishop Romney is something that many Americans cannot do, even if they have been voting for Republican candidates for decades.
It is easy to think in terms of Obama versus Romney, but for millions of us, we will not be forced into voting for Romney, no matter how you phrase it, there is a conservative force within the GOP which is fighting to defeat the left, and that fight includes stopping the Romney/Rockefeller element from defeating the Reagan/Palin branch of the GOP.
Where was your argument when you guys were fighting to defeat the GOP Senate candidate in Alaska?
yes, during Obamas election, Soros & Co., made sure gas would skyrocket before and in the very month of the election.
They will do the reverse this time.
Really? How? If price is a function of supply/demand how other then massively increasing the supply of crude can he drive prices down? Even if Obama emptied the reserves it would have a very short term effect and the crude to replace what is now in the reserve (avg cost about $22.00 bbl) would be in the $100 range.
Give an example of how this(your scenario)could come about.
Gallup at this point is polling only national adults and that method is the most inaccurate when trying to see ahead. The use of likely voters is the only way to get results approaching a semblance of accuracy and even then they are nothing but a snapshot.
Nonsense. Polling adult voters without regard to whether they are even registered or likely to vote is hugely undependable and even a 5% (and that is almost within the MOE anyway) error would result in Obama polling at 45% instead of 50%
The survey of 500 Likely Voters in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Virginia was conducted on March 31 April 5, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.."
Note the very small sample and that at 3% it is still within the MOE. Add to that the fact Obama is the incumbant AND that only 22% of those id'd as ubsure in the head to head matchup have a favorable opinion of Obama while 78% do not. It is accepted that undecided voters usually break toward the challenger.
No chance the USSC blowup is helping Obama since according to Ras only 15% or so believe the USSC has to much influence on government.
This is because of stupid, easily influenced women. They bought into the whole republican war on women BS. He’s winning them big in the swing states. Hard to belive people don’t yet see him for the fraud and liar that he is.
Thanks for info.
Give an example of how this(your scenario)could come about.
Well, now that I think about it, I cannot give you any scenario in which a group which is collectively worth 100 trillion dollars could drive up or down the price of anything.
You, my friend, already have a very keen and savvy understanding of economics. I could tell by your use of the term ‘supply and demand’. That went way over my head.
You are right. I am wrong. There is no way possible to manipulate the price of oil or anything
I will end with this; oil is bought with money, money is a fantasy, money is only worth what people believe or perceive it is worth.
Of course the price of a commodity can be regulated and it can be done by regulating the supply not by a process of bid and ask on the commodity. For every bet on prices going up there is a bet on them staying static or going down. For every buyer there must be a seller. But these bids one way or the other are based on the actual or perceived supply.
For Obama to benefit from a drop in price there must be a large increase in supply. Increased drilling, refining etc would do that but at the expense to him of the loss of votes from the Environmentalists and Luddite coalition.
“I will end with this; oil is bought with money, money is a fantasy, money is only worth what people believe or perceive it is worth.”
So is oil worth what someone is willing to pay, in this case the speculators. It is only worth what they BELIEVE it will be worth based on their perception of what the future holds.
being within the MOE is hardly “winning them big” and the campaign has yet to start.
What if it is the same guy. Picture a guy who owns at billion barrels of oil. So, he simply sells it at a crazy low price. He is losing million but millions are just lunch money, and it is only temporary anyway.
I am in no way saying the price of oil will go down. I am just saying that it will go down substantially before the election.
Everybody buys futures and the price goes right back up. If I were buying futures, I would bet on FEB13. Until then the price, I believe, will keep falling.
There are very real risks however, Obama has pissed off the Saudies while simultaneously ‘banning’ any oil production, or energy production of any kind, in America. And he is very likely to go to war with someone, anyone, before the election to keep himself in power.
There are risks, but the natural cycle is, oil gets cheaper when a Democrat runs, and more expensive when a Republican runs, depending on who is ahead.
However, the catch is nobody knows ‘what’ Obama is, or who he is, or what he will do. Obama is a wildcard in the scenario.
I will always favor the most conservative candidate inside the party. Once that contest has been decided, however, I will still vote for the most conservative candidate in the general. Again, not to do so is an objective vote for the declared enemy of our constitution. I have yet to hear a logical basis in refutation of tha premise.
Which won't work at all once he starts doing it against a Democrat and the MSM refuses to pick it up the way they picked up all the Republican dirt.
We’re not morons and no one’s claiming Obama himself isn’t worse than Romney. People like you simply have no ability to think more than one chess move ahead on the board. Keep in mind we are going to vote Republican House and Senate seats. So if Obama wins, he will be gridlocked, limiting the damage he can do. As the opposition party, we’ll gain even more seats in 2014, maybe even enough to block judicial appointments. And the GOP voters will have learned that Newt and Rick were right, a moderate Republican can’t win. Then we can get a real conservative nominee in 2016 who will win. And whatever Obama has done by executive order can be overturned instantly. Obama will do some damage, but not an unchecked amount. This option is the strategic retreat.
On the other hand, if Romney wins and is successful for two terms, the GOP will be convinced they need to continue going moderate and liberal. We will no longer have a conservative opposition party at all. The article that came out recently showing the GOP is “softening” on gay marriage is starting to show where the party will go. I won’t be participating in the political process to elect that kind of “progressive” candidate now or in the future no matter what letter is placed after his name. Conservatives will probably have to go 3rd party if this happens, which is a risky move that may or may not work. The best option is to make sure we make the Republican party OUR party and marginalize the moderate and liberal wings. That’s impossible to do if you keep voting for them.
And now for the last scenario. If Romney wins and is unpopular, like he was as governor, then all the nightmare scenarios you envision if Obama is reelected will be FAR MORE LIKELY to occur in 2016. The Demonrats will gain seats in 2014 just as they did in 2006. Then they will be able to run a candidate as far to the left as Obama, if not further and win in 2008. This will be a candidate who follows through on all his anti-war, anti-military policy and who will put in single payer socialized health care. And because of the big Demonrat congressional gains, he will be able to do it after 2016 with impunity.
So you have three choices. Vote for gridlock, basically the same we’ve seen for the past 2 years, far better than when Obama had the votes to pass the stimulus and Obamacare, and get a chance at a reboot in 2016. Vote for a newly rebranded liberal GOP, basically a party that’s friendly to big business but will compromise on every other core value and principle. By doing the latter, you will only push the Demonrats further to the left so they can distinguish themselves which sets up severely dangerous scenarios once they regain power.
My bank account will not survive another 4 year term of Obama. My business investments are already in dire straits. And I am not relishing the idea of my soon to be graduating from college kids moving back in my house from lack of jobs. Capital gains and dividend taxes will take a quantum jump in tax year 2013. The Bush tax cuts expire unless congress extends them and Obama signs them, but he will not. That is going to kill my retirement income.
I really do not care about 2016 at this point. I got to survive the 4 years until 2016. I do not care which person the GOP convention nominates. I hope and pray he or she will defeat Obama.
Taxachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 in job creation during Romney’s tenure there. He was a tax-and-spend governor. He’s been all over the map in his tax policy in the campaign so far, so I don’t see him as reliably doing what you want on taxes anyway. His record as governor and the record of the classic GOP moderate platform is to be open to raising taxes (Bush Sr., Dole, McCain).
I’m not going to let the GOP use Obama as a boogieman to scare me into voting for the urban elite limousine liberal that’s been their dream candidate every single time. They are the ones who decided to play with fire by betting that Obama is so unpopular that the GOP conservative base will hold their nose and vote for anyone they shove down our throats, giving them a golden to opportunity to shift the party in the direction they want it to go with a liberal candidate who will marginalize conservatives.
I can’t speak to your personal situation, but it seems like a bad idea to plan your retirement around a tax cut that was set to expire and as you say always had a 50/50 chance of doing so. I’m not going to judge anyone negatively for how they vote in this election, but I will defend anyone’s choice to not vote for either of the out-of-touch liberal elitists being handed to us.
I will never criticize your decision on voting. I have zero right to do so. However I have been living on this earth long enough to know the difference between Obama and the moderate from Massachusetts.
Obama has never run even a hot dog stand successfully that I am aware of. The moderate from MA was associated in running over 100 small and large companies. Obama was recorded on tape telling Joe the plumber he wants to redistribute the wealth. I do not recall the moderate from MA ever saying that. Obama has never signed front of a paycheck and is on record of being anti-corporations, anti-profit and pro-tax hikes.
A large portion of retiree’s depend on dividend income. I am one of them. It is one of the few dependable sources of steady income. I can control which companies to invest in, but I can not control government taxes. Taxes affect every single aspect of my life such as where I can afford to live, what healthcare I can afford, right down to what foods I can afford.
I am certain Obama will raise my taxes. With the presumptive nominee, Romney, it is an open question. I will take that over certainty. Even if GOP wins majority in senate and House, Obama will NOT sign a bill extending Bush tax cuts. With Romney there is a good chance he will sign such a bill if passed by congress.
I was and still am hoping that a more effective person like Newt becomes the nominee. He can effect more change favorable to conservatives than the other 3 combined. He actually was Speaker for 4 years, and his accomplishments are on record. But I am not the type to throw out some good in search of perfect.
I’m comparing a gridlocked Obama against a Romney that can pass whatever he wants. Gridlock mitigates Obama’s worst qualities. I’m also considering 8 years out if Obama loses, which would either be 4 years of Romney and 4 years of a Democrat, or 8 years of Romney. I’m comparing that to 4 years of Obama vs. the chance to nominate a strong conservative for the next 4 to 8 years.
If Romney has a term like Bush Sr.’s or Bush Jr.’s second term, that sets us up for disaster in 2016. I simply find it impossible to believe that Romney will decide to govern as a strong Reagan conservative when everything he’s said and done in his career indicates he doesn’t like conservatism and probably doesn’t even understand much about conservative principles. I don’t think hoping he will change is rational in the slightest. It’s pure wishful thinking. We could all hope Obama would change in his second term too.
Whether Obamacare is overturned or not will make a difference on whether or not I think the damage a gridlocked Obama will do in 4 years would be worth the chance to elect a strong conservative for the next 4. Obamacare gives him a lot of power that doesn’t need congressional approval. That isn’t something we’ll have to worry about if Obamacare is overturned.
Since Obama already extended the Bush tax cuts once, I don’t think we can be certain he won’t do it again. But of course I wouldn’t bet on that. There might also be an outside chance of building a veto-proof majority by 2014.
Romney changes with the wind. In liberal MA he acted the left of center part. In a national office of presidency, my instinct is he will act right of center, where the country is. He is smart enough to realize he has no need to go left.
If that’s true, I would expect him to go along with a Republican Congress if elected but also to flip and go along with a Democrat Congress if they win back control in 2014. In that sense he would be like the Republican Clinton. Again, my fear is not so much that Romney would be worse than Obama in the next 4 years, but that he would give us that squishy moderate Republican type of presidency we had in 1988-1992 and 2004-2008 that paves the way for a big Democrat takeover. If that happened, they’d have a Democrat Congress by that time, whereas if Obama beat Romney, we might be able to retain gridlock for 4 years and then try again for the presidency.
I also worry that he would actually be popular as a liberal/moderate bigger-government/socially liberal type which would severely damage the position of conservatives within the Republican party. If he swung to the hardline right and stayed there I wouldn’t have a problem with him. That’s just so implausible given that on knee-jerk issues that he probably wasn’t advised on specifically like the minimum wage question and the Augusta question, his natural impulses come on and are completely liberal. And we know who the type of advisors that the GOP assigns to their candidates are, e.g. Nicole Wallace who end up voting Democrat if the GOP ticket turns out too conservative for them. Or of course Romney’s advisor John Sununu who also advised Bush, Sr. to raise taxes and appoint David Souter.