Thread: Obama Now Leading in All National Polls

Yeah, people don't really feel compelled to vote for someone who really isn't any different than the person already in office. Big shock there.

I heard this on Fox this week, as they must have had some polls showing obama leading romney. It even caused Carl Rove to swallow so hard his adam's apple did the up and down number as he tried to allay fears from the viewers.

Now this means the negetive ads from the repubs will have to grow and become even more ludicrous, as this F and F deal fades out.

But let's watch what the right wing propaganda outlets can do in the coming months as they use this ACA deal against the dems and obama. I think there are large enough numbers who do not want ACA to help the repubs out in Nov. I am curious to see what the new numbers are in regards to ACA since it has been upheld by the SC based not upon the commerce clause but upon the right of gov't to tax americans. Americans it seems in large numbers are ok with taxing the rich more, but not so much when it involved taxing themselves instead.

Of course the great weakness that the repubs have is their choice in who runs against obama. Many people will see romney as little different from obama and may not see the need to change because of the similiarity of the two men. And they are very similiar really if you look at what romney has done while in gov't.

To me personally, it matters little who wins. The jobless rates will see little change regardless of who wins. The shrinking of the middle class will continue as that trend is unavoidable given our new economy. And since this is the major problem that I see, all that must be decided is how fast the middle shrinks. The dems will give us a slower shrinkage with social safety nets to help out until we can no longer afford them, while the repubs will give us a faster shrinking middle with fewer safety nets. That is the only choice that I see here.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

But let's watch what the right wing propaganda outlets can do in the coming months as they use this ACA deal against the dems and obama.

Yep. Insuring that an asmatic child has access to an inhaler is a threat to our freedom--I don't see how that argument could go wrong.

Yeah, because as we all know, there is never, ever any "left wing propaganda" being put out. Nope, not one iota.

Anyone who thinks there is a major difference between the two parties, or even between Obama and Romney, is fooling themselves.

If there's no difference between the parties why are you bothered who wins?

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

If there's no difference between the parties why are you bothered who wins?

Honestly, in this upcoming election, I'm not. Either way, we're going to get a President who:

1. Change his positions as the wind shifts
2. Spends more than we have, year after year after year

Neither of these guys stands for anything for more than a few minutes. It's pathetic. For the first time in my life, I am considering not voting at all for the President/Vice President slot.

Obama did one thing real smart...He didn't gloat one bit during his brief post-Court decision speech.

Romney was pretty much looking at the ground when he promised he would start the war against RomneyCare on day 1 of his presidency.

He went from down 1 to up 3 and that's a big deal? Somehow I don't think Romney is scared just yet. Especially since Obama doesn't have a message yet.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Yeah, because as we all know, there is never, ever any "left wing propaganda" being put out. Nope, not one iota.

Anyone who thinks there is a major difference between the two parties, or even between Obama and Romney, is fooling themselves.

US population has for a while now been 40% on the left and 40% on the right with the middle 20% swinging back and forth.

This middle 20% decides the election.

To win a primary and get the party nomination a candidate has to swing to the party extreme and then rush to the centre for the general election.

The incumbent always has an advantage as he never has to go away from the centre and this always makes the challenger look bad.

The only presidential incumbents in the modern political era to have lost were Ford ( the public was so sick of Nixon and the GOP that the Dems could have run a communist and won.), Carter because he was so far left that he lost the incumbent advantage and Bush 41 who was first elected as an affirmation of the popularity or Regan.

Wouldn't it be great if people actually studied the candidates as opposed to rallying around one headline at a time.

Originally Posted by RDK

US population has for a while now been 40% on the left and 40% on the right with the middle 20% swinging back and forth.

This middle 20% decides the election.

To win a primary and get the party nomination a candidate has to swing to the party extreme and then rush to the centre for the general election.

The incumbent always has an advantage as he never has to go away from the centre and this always makes the challenger look bad.

The only presidential incumbents in the modern political era to have lost were Ford ( the public was so sick of Nixon and the GOP that the Dems could have run a communist and won.), Carter because he was so far left that he lost the incumbent advantage and Bush 41 who was first elected as an affirmation of the popularity or Regan.

You do realize only 3 presidents won reelection during that same time period, right? Throughout US history, the incumbent doesn’t win a second term about two thirds of the time. Only 4 Democrats have ever won reelection.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

I heard this on Fox this week, as they must have had some polls showing obama leading romney. It even caused Carl Rove to swallow so hard his adam's apple did the up and down number as he tried to allay fears from the viewers.

Now this means the negetive ads from the repubs will have to grow and become even more ludicrous, as this F and F deal fades out.

But let's watch what the right wing propaganda outlets can do in the coming months as they use this ACA deal against the dems and obama. I think there are large enough numbers who do not want ACA to help the repubs out in Nov. I am curious to see what the new numbers are in regards to ACA since it has been upheld by the SC based not upon the commerce clause but upon the right of gov't to tax americans. Americans it seems in large numbers are ok with taxing the rich more, but not so much when it involved taxing themselves instead.

Of course the great weakness that the repubs have is their choice in who runs against obama. Many people will see romney as little different from obama and may not see the need to change because of the similiarity of the two men. And they are very similiar really if you look at what romney has done while in gov't.

To me personally, it matters little who wins. The jobless rates will see little change regardless of who wins. The shrinking of the middle class will continue as that trend is unavoidable given our new economy. And since this is the major problem that I see, all that must be decided is how fast the middle shrinks. The dems will give us a slower shrinkage with social safety nets to help out until we can no longer afford them, while the repubs will give us a faster shrinking middle with fewer safety nets. That is the only choice that I see here.

I can't help but think that we will see a much stronger Obama during his second term and that will make a difference.

What, he'll suddenly change? If anything, he'll be more likely to fold for Republicans, since they will control all of Congress and he'll want a legacy. Obama has pretty much given up on being FDR, he's going to have to settle for being Bill Clinton.