Fox News ‘Stunned’ By Its Own Poll That Says President Obama Will Win

Addicting Info ^ | 12-11-2011 | By Michael Hayne

[prisoner6]

That is what we need to do. I could care less now who the R candidate is at this point. I won't support any of them. My efforts will be going to local, state and federal contests other than the presidency.

AFAIC if any of the current crop gets in, 2016 or 2020 will go completely communist across the board. If Obama is re-elected and Congress is generally conservative it's a standoff and conservatives have a good chance in 2016.

[DH]

It’s all ready over. We no longer have free thinkers, we have autobots.

They have been manufactured in our public indoctrination centers (schools) and higher education (indoctrination finishing schools) over the past two generations.

Now, with the programming they have received, they blindly vote for the one that fits preselected models and flavors their handlers approve.

Our indoctrination centers and liberal entertainment handlers have insured that independent and free thinking are no longer required and that the government and progressives will program them in which direction they will think.

There are too many bots on the dole from the government by one way or the other, either direct money, food, medical care,and indirect money from businesses who are only in business due to the stroke of liberal government pens or via the direct issue of special interest regulations or under the table deals.

[Yosemitest]

My Core is Not Up for Grabs

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?

Palin was my first choice
Bachmann is now my first choice, and Cain is my second.
Newt is my third choice, and I might consider Rick Santorum.

But Romney, Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, and Johnson are NOT acceptable,
and if on the ballot for the general election for President or V.P., would cause me to do a write in.

There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct by interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[ROCKLOBSTER]

And 52% were STUPID enough to elect this Marxist last time......they haven’t got ANY SMARTER.

The dead are intellectually challenged.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Why would Americans support a communist?

Because, it seems, most Americans below a certain age have been taught that communism is just another "alternative lifestyle" and is inherently more "fair" that evil capitalism.

[Sooth2222]

"44 percent of respondents believed President Obama would win"

It's been a while since I took 7th grade arithmetic, but doesn't that mean that 56% don't think Obama will win?

[ncalburt]

This is a left Wing website quoting a stupid poll premise which has one Dem option vs multiple GOP options ?
Naturally the one Dem option would win out in that scenario ??
Why post such stupidity ?

[scooby321]

I live in a cross over state North Carolina usually votes GOP but last time voted Obama.

Grew up in Florida which can go either way.

Obama had alot of support in both States in 2008

The anti-Obama feelings out their are much more now than the pro Obama in 2008.

It will not be easy but Ohio and Florida are the key states as usual.Pennsanylia, Wisconsin ,Pennsylvania, Colorado and Iowa might flipped too.

[scooby321]

sorry

It will not be easy but Ohio and Florida are the key states as usual. Wisconsin ,Pennsylvania, Colorado and Iowa might flipped too.

[ncalburt]

Have you noticed all the posts about the GOP is going to lose suddenly appearing now?
The Obama medis psych ops is in full bloom and all these posters are too stupid
To read your post to figure outs it’s a BS left-wing website
Distorting The newly lefty Fox poll using a false premise!

[Tupelo]

1996
Play it again Sam.
1996

[Kaslin]

Just think about what we can do when we have the Super majority in the Senate and in the House

[Erik Latranyi]

Reagan was not supposed to win against Carter, according to the MSM.

Polls this early are useless. The average voter does not know what Romney or Gingrich stand for, so their support is tepid.

Keep your powder dry.

[BilLies]

The clip runs for 33 seconds, like a Obama Political TV Excerpt, hardly representative of the full discussion. Based on the clip it would appear that all the Republicans will be running in splintered parties at the same time....Stupid premise.

The first line of the Site’s ABOUT US section:
“Addicting Info started as a resource to discredit all the lies and propaganda that the right-wing spreads.”

Bias site reporting on stupid presentation....A Two Hole Privy, One hole at the top and one hole at the bottom.

[dixiedarlindownsouth]

Now that post was sheer greatness. Got my blood pumping this morning!

[Kaslin]

I just looked at the video, and have watched the show when the poll was shown. What the article left out was that when it was 0-bama against Newt Gingrich, Newt would win and if it were against Romney, the 0-bama would only win by a few points

[expat1000]

Was the question “who will you vote for?” or “who do you think will win?”

Who do you think will win? The numbers are misleading and do not add up either. I don't care enough to dig around to find out what happened to the other 25%.

According to the Fox News Poll, 44 percent of respondents believed President Obama would win the 2012 presidential election while only 16 percent believed Newt Gingrich would win and 15 percent thinking Mitt Romney would.

So less than 1/2 think he will be reelected.

[LibLieSlayer]

You people had better wake up... I mean this election was controlled from the start. We have not chosen romney or newt as our candidates... many of us cannot support those two any more than we can support obama himself. Reagan warned us in his 1975 CPAC speech... in great detail... but how many of you even know what he said?

The parties plot and conspire against us... planning and manipulating along with their allies in the Goebbels media... promoting the progressive line and obama will most likely be reelected because of it... and the end of America as we know it will happen in 2013. THAT is because a small majority of Americans have been programmed to react like Pavlov's dogs... and Freedom and Liberty will die because of it. Line up the leaders of BOTH parties and those that control the media... THERE ARE YOUR REAL LEADERS AMERICA... WELCOME TO AMERIKA COMRADES!

LLS

[jersey117]

Apparently not much with Boehner and McConnell in charge.