Posted on 12/12/2011 3:30:10 AM PST by Carbonsteel
The fembots and mannequins at Fox & Friends, the horrific pretend news hour that consists of vapid banter that makes Good Day NY look like PBS News Hour, were flabbergasted by one of their own polls that showed their viewers overwhelmingly believing President Obama would beat Republicans Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
(Excerpt) Read more at addictinginfo.org ...
LLS
LLS
National polls are one thing, but how’s the electoral math shaping up? I haven’t heard much on the battleground states thus far.
IMHO...
If you weren’t aware of the polls in 1980 and 1984, and are not aware of the electoral results (which states won by which candidates) for those years, you would be perhaps surprised to find out.
Example hint: In the final two weeks Reagan polled between 39% and 46% in 1980. That’s the final two weeks - not 10 months before the election. The polling data wound up being absurdly wrong when he won 44 States, all but Hawaii, Minnesota, Georgia, West Virginia, Maryland and Rhode Island, having 489 electoral votes. I remember liberals all whining about the electoral system not being fair because it looked like such a landslide. They said a pure popular vote was the only way to go. Because actually Democrat operatives were so outraged that it painted the picture of their beloved party of FDR being such a dismal failure under Carter. I didn’t notice any whining about the unfair electoral college system when Obama won.
This is why, BEFORE the primary is done and a candidate is selected, one need not be swayed much by polls in selecting one’s own party’s candidate.
When the country is hurtin’ and calling for a change, it’s always way more than the media can somehow grasp when the media’s guy is in power. Conversely, when the guy in power is not the media’s guy, a good stiff breeze is a national emergency where the media says we need to know who knew what and when, and the evil guy needs to be impeached. And somehow when the country is hurtin’ and calling for a change - and the challenger candidate is a polar opposite to the incumbent - the challenger can win without worrying about somehow appealing to the far left and the far right at the same time. If you study Reagan, you’ll find that people in the center were fine with him because he had a “traditional American” perspective on basic American values, without trying to speak out of both sides of his mouth and water down his values. He did not have to deny his Christian faith to - in those dismal times - to appeal to some of those in the center who might not have been religious at all.
“So less than 1/2 think he will be reelected.”
So what’s up with all the angst?
I agree. This feels strangely like the lead up to 2008.
The ONLY consolation is whoever is at the helm, inherits the collapse.
The flip side of that -- he WANTS to be at the helm for the collapse. He's got marching orders.
I like what you say, always have, LLS.
If the Muslim is re-elected, it will be the end of a FRee America. At that point, we will have to decide to either surrender to Communism or proceed with the second American Revolution.
Wonderfully stated in the article. Either I get a genuine conservative (read: not ‘perfect’ conservative), or I’m off the reservation. It’s really that simple.
I found real hope in California last week while visiting relatives. A young lawyer in the family who two years ago
wanted to fight when I referred to the Bamster as a Marxist
has seen the light and refers to him as an idiot. Hes not quite there yet as Paul seems to be his first choice but will not vote for Obama under any circumstance.
A sobering thought, and the absolute truth.
The poll is likely accurate in that Republicans are biased toward one of the several candidates and Democrats are biased toward their one candidate.
And if you wanted to get down to who among Obama, Newt, Romney, Bachmann, Paul and Perry has the best chance of being elected, the obvious answer would be Obama.
However, once the GOP selects a nominee, the variables to that question will be drastically different and the answer very well may be different.
Beautiful, isn't it. Here's a guy who has an audience of millions, and he doesn't even understand the difference between the primaries and the general election, let alone how they relate to each other.
Then again, maybe he does...
1000%
Seriously? Which one was it?
Maybe a leftist site, but the Foxnews Poll has nothing to do with them.
Because it was that stupidity that put this clown in office in the first place.
“We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality”
Ayn Rand~
And that is the Dem strategy in a nutshell. Create a supermajority of parasites. Get elected forever.
Of course that game won't play out long term, it never has in history, but politicians don't care about long term, only the next election.
Ancient Rome followed much the same trajectory. A growing dependency class came to expect their "free" grain allotment, provided by the Populari (Dems of the Roman times). Romans who craved power promised more and more; free food, free land, free circuses. Power became concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer unchecked by a Senate that became increasingly emasculated and timid. The caesars then were the natural outcome of these events.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.