U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[warlocked]

Obama is a little right wing for me. I'm a Canadian who drifts between Liberal and NDP and he is right of Steven Harper whom is pretty far right in Canada. However I do appreciate his Charisma and his resourcefulness to find the few loopholes he may exploit while republican congress
( congress controls most of the power) has actually stated their only goal to be to insure he is a 1 term president.

---------- Post added 2012-02-07 at 10:14 PM ----------

I voted for Obama first go around. As far as his first term has gone it has been quite dissapointing. One one side I understand that the las idiot..I mean President got us into a crap load of trouble. Wars mainly and the ecomony to be fair you can't always blame on just one President in my opnion. President Bush did get us into a war while cutting taxes on the very rich and also not the biggest fan of de-regulation which they are alot of people to blame.

Along comes President Obama. Again I think he missed the boat in trying to first get his Health Care pushed across instead of doing more getting jobs and economy going. I'm again for universal health care but just the wrong time to do it. What I liked about Obama was that he was trying to find the middle road yet the Republicans fought him on everything. So I feel bad for the guy yet then again I think he didn't do a great job of fighting for things. Shoot at Bush rammed crap through even if it was not popular. My least favorite thing is Obama has been really weak. Like lately (just so happens to be an election year, go figure) he talks tough about getting job bills signed yet, nothing. Really frustrating..yes I know Republicans are of no help. My opinion of course. On the foreign policy he has definately been unbelievable with killin of Osama and getting us out of the two wars as much as possible.

So I guess while I have not really been the bigest fan of what Obama has done he is much better than the Republican candidates. I won't start a flame fest here but I'll just say much of what the Republican candidates have said and done I'm not a fan of their ideas. I like Ron Pauls view on foriegn policy of isolationism but he goes to far in his libertarian views. So Obama for 2012.

I personally wish the USA had simply gone with the traditional universal healthcare or gone with the swiss version of making insurance agencies have to supply non-profit health insurance

As for ron pauls view on military I agree. However at the same time I would like to see foreign aid by shiping agriculture implements. Solar panals, Wind turbines, funding for schools.

This creates for an excellent defense. If the USA merely isolates itself enemies in the middle east will continue to see Americans as pigs who via arms dealing bankrupt their countries.

If you are providing food, shelter and education you are seen as a valuable ally and at the same time when people are well fed, and educated it makes for a more stable populace that gradually progresses. Not to mention security of person increases negotiation with corperations hence driving up the global minimum wage of which over time benefits the USA and at a fraction of the cost of the present military budget.

---------- Post added 2012-02-07 at 11:46 PM ----------

4 more years barry soetoro or obama or whatever his name is will destroy the United States. He will destroy all of our constitutional rights should he be elected into office once more. He has already destroyed our right to trial... he can lock us away without trial at this very moment if he wanted. He signed that bill right last month. BHO is ineligible to serve anyways his biological father was a British subject in Kenya. You can't be a natural born citizen unless both your parents are citizens.

What this country really needs is no political parties because they mostly just breed corruption and no representation for the people. America needs leaders who won't bow to the Chicoms or the King of Saud.

America needs leaders who will enforce our borders, language (english) and culture. Which is what defines a nation.

Ya a bill passed via congress which just so happens to be republican. Unfortunately a purposefully imposed image is a godhead president when he has fairly few abilities. This is done for the purpose of having a scape goat.

Can you imagine the convenience of having 1 person who would take the blame for everything yet not the glory, who could be canned and shipped out to a happy life if public rep goes down

Both parties supported the US defense bill because the people passing it have lobbyists and a simple strategy of putting forth bills under non stoppable names

United states defense bill
Patriot act
Stop online piracy act
Protect Intellectual property act
Stop child pornography act

Essentially an uninformed voter hears that the president used his limited veto on any of those acts is going to vote against him.

[Twiddly]

Obama flip flops on Super Pacs: He first says they are evile and terrible and bad for democracy, in the midterms when his majority was threatened; now, they are gooood and he is gonna get them!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...1812&#46301798

Super Pac's are a blight on American politics, and him embracing them suddenly further cements my belief that he does not care anything about the people, just his job.

---------- Post added 2012-02-08 at 01:05 AM ----------

And do not get me wrong, I would vote for Obama over any of the current crop of Republicans other then Paul, and he will not get the nomination obviously. I think Super Pacs are bad for BOTH sides.

[Cattaclysmic]

Ya a bill passed via congress which just so happens to be republican. Unfortunately a purposefully imposed image is a godhead president when he has fairly few abilities. This is done for the purpose of having a scape goat.

Can you imagine the convenience of having 1 person who would take the blame for everything yet not the glory, who could be canned and shipped out to a happy life if public rep goes down

Both parties supported the US defense bill because the people passing it have lobbyists and a simple strategy of putting forth bills under non stoppable names

United states defense bill


Patriot act
Stop online piracy act
Protect Intellectual property act
Stop child pornography act

Essentially an uninformed voter hears that the president used his limited veto on any of those acts is going to vote against him.

I never understood how the public can be content with a government which creates laws which are named to be "sold" to the public like that... Its just so... shallow and shortsighted...

[Grummgug]

Traditionally, polling data shows a democrat bias in most major polls. One example were all the early calls of Florida for Al Gore. Most recently, The Real Clear Politics average in the final days of the 2008 campaign offered the same:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...obama-225.html

The most accurate polls were from FOX News and Rasmussen. Each had Obama winning by 7%, very close to his 7.3% margin of victory. By comparison, Gallup and Reuters/C-Span/Zogby had Obama winning by 11. CBS and ABC had Obama winning by 9.

Currently, Rasmussen has Obama +3 on Gingrich, while most of those others have it at double digits. Rasmussen has Santorum +1 over Obama, while most other polls have it Obama in double digits. When it comes to Romney, most all of them have it Obama +6.

[McSpriest]

Traditionally, polling data shows a democrat bias in most major polls. One example were all the early calls of Florida for Al Gore. Most recently, The Real Clear Politics average in the final days of the 2008 campaign offered the same:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...obama-225.html

The most accurate polls were from FOX News and Rasmussen. Each had Obama winning by 7%, very close to his 7.3% margin of victory. By comparison, Gallup and Reuters/C-Span/Zogby had Obama winning by 11. CBS and ABC had Obama winning by 9.

Currently, Rasmussen has Obama +3 on Gingrich, while most of those others have it at double digits. Rasmussen has Santorum +1 over Obama, while most other polls have it Obama in double digits. When it comes to Romney, most all of them have it Obama +6.

it depends and varies for each election to the next with poll is closest. its trying to sample a (by comparison) small group of people and project that to figure what it would be overall. aside from the fact that its hard to get an accurate enough sample size, its also hard to predict this far out. many things can change between now and November. plus it always is thrown off when multiple people are on one side and one person is on the other. We'll see a little closer in the race

[Chonogo]

Traditionally, polling data shows a democrat bias in most major polls. One example were all the early calls of Florida for Al Gore. Most recently, The Real Clear Politics average in the final days of the 2008 campaign offered the same:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...obama-225.html

The most accurate polls were from FOX News and Rasmussen. Each had Obama winning by 7%, very close to his 7.3% margin of victory. By comparison, Gallup and Reuters/C-Span/Zogby had Obama winning by 11. CBS and ABC had Obama winning by 9.

Currently, Rasmussen has Obama +3 on Gingrich, while most of those others have it at double digits. Rasmussen has Santorum +1 over Obama, while most other polls have it Obama in double digits. When it comes to Romney, most all of them have it Obama +6.

The bolded scares me the most. And PPP's new poll has Santorum leading.

Seriously, Santorum is better than Obama? Seriously?

Pro-war, pro-life, anti-gay, anti-women. As a free thinking American, I don't get it. I really, really, don't.

[Shamanberry]

Santorum isn't "anti-women", but other than that, yeah, he seems to be against the tide on most social issues.

I think it's all a sign of how much people are stressing fiscal issues this time around. Santorum's fiscal plan is one of the stronger ones amoung the Republican Candidates, and Romney's, ironically, is the single weakest (it's almost a "keep everything the same and then wait and see" proposal -- something politically very "safe" -- vs any sort of dramatic action to get the spending under control, which is what Republicans, and an ever-increasing number of independents are looking for).

It could also be the evangelicals, Catholics and other religious groups that are turning to the candidate that's most like them. Obama's recent actions with the health care law that are seen as being against the Catholic Church have hurt him with that crowd, and many of them are independents that may have voted for Obama last time, but were turning away from him anyway (again, due to the fiscal concerns).

I could see Santorum winning if he could manage to woo Floridians to vote for him. Romney is still a much safer (and in my personal opinion, a saner) choice on social issues - but I do wonder just how much the drive for fiscal reform is going to dominate the election when more people are paying attention to it. It's something to think about.

[moogogaipan]

I feel like Dems need another round in office, before we see another GOP up there.
Is it me or does it feel like the repubs are not even trying?

[Amontoya86]

Seriously, Santorum is better than Obama? Seriously?

Pro-war, pro-life, anti-gay, anti-women. As a free thinking American, I don't get it. I really, really, don't.

We don't need a brainwashed person running this country.

[Chonogo]

Santorum isn't "anti-women", but other than that, yeah, he seems to be against the tide on most social issues.

I think it's all a sign of how much people are stressing fiscal issues this time around. Santorum's fiscal plan is one of the stronger ones amoung the Republican Candidates, and Romney's, ironically, is the single weakest (it's almost a "keep everything the same and then wait and see" proposal -- something politically very "safe" -- vs any sort of dramatic action to get the spending under control, which is what Republicans, and an ever-increasing number of independents are looking for).

It could also be the evangelicals, Catholics and other religious groups that are turning to the candidate that's most like them. Obama's recent actions with the health care law that are seen as being against the Catholic Church have hurt him with that crowd, and many of them are independents that may have voted for Obama last time, but were turning away from him anyway (again, due to the fiscal concerns).

I could see Santorum winning if he could manage to woo Floridians to vote for him. Romney is still a much safer (and in my personal opinion, a saner) choice on social issues - but I do wonder just how much the drive for fiscal reform is going to dominate the election when more people are paying attention to it. It's something to think about.

That's just it, I haven't seen or heard Santorum's fiscal policies. They're either being ignored, or he's too busy talking about abortion, contraception, gays in the military, making a marriage amendment to the Constitution, Iran needing to be invaded, etc etc.

Which makes me all the more flabbergasted about his popularity increasing. I can't see myself ever voting for this guy. If he's the candidate, he will have forced me to vote for Obama, who I did not vote for last election.

[Wells]

Traditionally, polling data shows a democrat bias in most major polls. One example were all the early calls of Florida for Al Gore. Most recently, The Real Clear Politics average in the final days of the 2008 campaign offered the same:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...obama-225.html

The most accurate polls were from FOX News and Rasmussen. Each had Obama winning by 7%, very close to his 7.3% margin of victory. By comparison, Gallup and Reuters/C-Span/Zogby had Obama winning by 11. CBS and ABC had Obama winning by 9.

Currently, Rasmussen has Obama +3 on Gingrich, while most of those others have it at double digits. Rasmussen has Santorum +1 over Obama, while most other polls have it Obama in double digits. When it comes to Romney, most all of them have it Obama +6.

A single polling event is not enough to draw your conclusion from.

---------- Post added 2012-02-10 at 11:30 PM ----------

Especially since Rasmussen gets pretty constant claims of conservative bias and was one of the least accurate polling groups in 2010.

After Election night that year, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model.[23] He singled out as an example the Hawaii Senate Race, in which Rasmussen showed the incumbent 13 points ahead, although in actuality Inouye won by 53[24] – a difference of 40 points, or "the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998".[23]

[Dacien]

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/4890/87882392.jpg

We don't need a brainwashed person running this country.

I love how Santorum runs around like he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination. If by some freak of politics he manages to win the Republican nomination, he's fucking doomed against Obama. Dude needs to sit down and bow out.

[Merkava]

Especially since Rasmussen gets pretty constant claims of conservative bias and was one of the least accurate polling groups in 2010.

So you rebuke his point about Rasmussen's accuracy in the 2008 presidential election by pointing out that Rasmussen was wrong on a 2010 senate race in Hawaii?

You want another presidential election? In 2004 Bush got 50.7% of the vote and Kerry got 48.3%. The final Rasmussen poll had Bush at 50.2% and Kerry at 48.5%

[Felya420]

So you rebuke his point about Rasmussen's accuracy in the 2008 presidential election by pointing out that Rasmussen was wrong on a 2010 senate race in Hawaii?

You want another presidential election? In 2004 Bush got 50.7% of the vote and Kerry got 48.3%. The final Rasmussen poll had Bush at 50.2% and Kerry at 48.5%

How long before elections were those poles? Were these presidential projections during the primaries?

---------- Post added 2012-02-11 at 03:55 AM ----------

Traditionally, polling data shows a democrat bias in most major polls. One example were all the early calls of Florida for Al Gore.

The poles were right, the result was bias. The poles were correct that Gore won:
http://www.electionstudies.org/florida2000/

[Merkava]

How long before elections were those poles?

final Rasmussen poll

I don't know. Final poll, within a couple days of the election I'm guessing.

Were these presidential projections during the primaries?

Bush at 50.2% and Kerry at 48.5%

Bush didn't run against Kerry in a primary.

[Wells]

Come on Merkava, I know you can read better than that. And your data lacks dates.

---------- Post added 2012-02-11 at 11:44 PM ----------

I don't know. Final poll, within a couple days of the election I'm guessing.

One of the more common problems with Rasmussen actually is they do their "final polling" much farther back from the actual date than many other groups.

[Felya420]

I don't know. Final poll, within a couple days of the election I'm guessing.

Do you think accuracy within a few days is as impressive as accuracy nearly a year in advance of the date?

Bush didn't run against Kerry in a primary.

What were Rasmussen polls like regarding Howard Dean v Bush, before his outburst during the primaries, nearly a year before the elections as opposed to after? The primaries that featured Dean v Kerry... Because, currently we are still in the primary... which I assure you, I am aware does not feature Obama...

[Merkava]

Come on Merkava, I know you can read better than that. And your data lacks dates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html

One of the more common problems with Rasmussen actually is they do their "final polling" much farther back from the actual date than many other groups.

See above and http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...obama-225.html. Now perhaps you can show me some data that shows that Rasmussen does their final polling for presidential races "much farther back from the actual date than many other groups"

---------- Post added 2012-02-11 at 07:01 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

Do you think accuracy within a few days is as impressive as accuracy nearly a year in advance of the date?
.

I don't know. Take it up with Wells. He seems to think that Rasmussens does his final polling early. I would say that would be more impressive. I've given links to show they all do it around the same time.

---------- Post added 2012-02-11 at 07:04 PM ----------

What were Rasmussen polls like regarding Howard Dean v Bush, before his outburst during the primaries, nearly a year before the elections as opposed to after? The primaries that featured Dean v Kerry... Because, currently we are still in the primary... which I assure you, I am aware does not feature Obama...

IDK, you can look it up. I gave data for Bush vs Kerry, and you asked me if those presidential projections were for during the primaries. Obviously they weren't. Yes I know were still in a primary, but the issue was Rasmussen's performance in a presidential general election.

[Wells]

I don't know. Take it up with Wells. He seems to think that Rasmussens does his final polling early. I would say that would be more impressive.

No. A pollster's job is to accurately predict the mood of the public at a given time. If they happen to hit the same mark a month earlier that ends up being the final election count that doesn't mean they're doing their job better, it just means they're getting lucky.

Shit even Nate Silver counts against them for that.

And you're still missing the point. He took a single election event where Rasmussen was more accurate and determined that everything that got results to the left of that was displaying a liberal bias. Even if his premise wasn't faulty (and it is) its not proof of his conclusion.

[Felya420]

I don't know. Take it up with Wells. He seems to think that Rasmussens does his final polling early. I would say that would be more impressive. I've given links to show they all do it around the same time.

Why should I take it up with anyone, but you? You were the one who backed up the accuracy of a poll during a primary, with one in a presidential election... days before the actual vote... I think it's an invalid comparison... The fact that you don't know when it's from should really speak for it self. You seriously don't understand why it would be more impressive to predict an even a year ahead of time vs a couple of days? You don't see how the two are drastically different, when we don't even now who will be running against Obama?

IDK, you can look it up. I gave data for Bush vs Kerry, and you asked me if those presidential projections were for during the primaries. Obviously they weren't. Yes I know were still in a primary, but the issue was Rasmussen's performance in a presidential general election.

You were responding to someone who was questioning current primary candidates vs the president. How is giving data for Bush vs Kerry a few days before the actual election, an example of accuracy during a primary poll, where a candidate is not even declared?

I do not understand your point of bringing up polling numbers from days before the actual elections, as a reflection of accuracy of their polling during a primary that is nearly a year away from these elections.