President Barack Obama/Vice-President Joe Biden Re-elected to 2nd Term Thread

[twa]

I know a great number of ES don't believe in the POTUS. But can you really say you believe in Mitt Romney?

I have no faith left in Obama,and even less in those around him.....my vote will go to another,most likely Mittens

[Predicto]

I have no faith left in Obama,and even less in those around him.....my vote will go to another,most likely Mittens

No. Really?!?!!?

[Larry]

I have no faith left in Obama,and even less in those around him.....my vote will go to another,most likely Mittens

No. Really?!?!!?

And after having so much faith in him, up till now.

[@DCGoldPants]

And after having so much faith in him, up till now.

I know. We all felt you were so close to STICKING with Obama for another term.

Hey, I did hear there was a new poll with Latinos

Poll: Obama Leads Among Latinos

A new NBC–Wall Street Journal–Telemundo poll reveals that Obama still has a significant lead over Mitt Romney among Latino voters, garnering 67 percent of those registered to vote compared with Romney’s 23 percent. These numbers are similar to a poll from last month. Obama’s 44-point advantage (compared with his 6-point advantage among the general population) is likely due to the president's executive order stopping the deportation of illegal immigrants brought to the United States at a young age. However, getting respondents to vote may be difficult, as the Hispanic population is 10 points below the average level of national interest in the election, with only 68 percent rating themselves as “high interest.” Additionally, 59 percent of Hispanic voters also approve of Obama’s handling of the economy, compared with 44 percent nationwide.

Very short piece, there is a link but nothing more from it. Maybe Rubio is the guy to pick if he wants it. Even taking 10% from Obama on that would be huge from Romney.

[twa]

And after having so much faith in him, up till now.

What was your first clue?

[Larry]

What was your first clue?

Four years of falsely claiming that Obama has massively increased spending, and the debt, and then, when people point out for the 50th time that he has done neither, whining that it's unfair to compare Obama's actual performance against what he inherited?

I suspect that that was at least a part of it.

[twa]

Dat ol deficit and budget be going down....if it wasn't for Bush

when your own party runs from your budget ..........

[twa]

ouch

[Larry]

[YouTube "the more context" commercial]

Wow. I'm shocked.

They actually mentioned the whole context.

And then tried to claim it says something other than what it actually said.

They're actually trying to push a load of spin, while actually putting out the truth that shows that it's spin.

And the scary part? I bet that there are people out there who are so partisan, that even when they've seen the truth, that they'll still believe the spin. And in fact, they'll probably insist that this proves that the spin is true.

I bet that some of them will even be so partisan, that they'll run right out and try to spread it, because they actually think that it helps "their side".

[Wrong Direction]

[NoVaO]

Hmmmm.....out of those polled, 46% are or lean democrat. 35% are or lean republican. I would imagine that poll would have Obama with a strong lead.

A couple things...

1. It's an apples and oranges comparison. The poll pushes independents to state what party they normally vote with. It can't be compared to a poll that just uses the D/R/I breakdown.

2. On their final poll in 2008, they had a similar "oversampling" of Democrats, yet they pretty much nailed the top line (8 points vs. 7.3). What's the point? Having the wrong party breakdown didn't necessarily impact the polling results. This happens mainly because some of the other internals in the poll happen to skew more Republican. And if you look at some of the other internals like the percentage of white voters (74% I think) looks a little high, while the ideological preferences looks right on. I'll also add that pollsters don't weight for party ID because it tends to fluctuate for some people. It's most important for the demographic/ideological components of a poll to be right because they are more constant.

3. Adjusting the partisan breakdown of the poll doesn't alter it as much as you would expect. Making it a D+4 electorate still makes it around a 3 point Obama lead, which is actually where I think the state of the race is today...around a 2 or 3 point Obama lead.

---------- Post added July-26th-2012 at 06:05 PM ----------

SHUT UIP!!!

Only Rasmussen has an agenda in polling.

Rasmussen does have an agenda based on his past results. He doesn't cook the books or anything, but he uses an extremely right-leaning electorate to get the results he wants. Not every poll he does is an inaccurate one, but his polls often provide the campaign's biggest outliers, almost all in favor of the Republican candidate.

---------- Post added July-26th-2012 at 06:09 PM ----------

It is also true that a higher percentage of Registered Democrats dont vote than the percentage of Registered GOPers that dont vote.

It's one of the reasons Rasmussen uses likely voters instead.

How do you determine what a likely voter is so many months away from the election? There is a reason pollsters don't switch to a likely voter model until later in the campaign. We're getting closer to that point, but probably not for a month or so.

But don't expect a likely voter model to show results that are much different from registered voter models. In a Presidential year, you get a lot of "non-likely" voters who end up going to the polls. It's mid-term or off-year elections where likely voter models carry more weight.

---------- Post added July-26th-2012 at 06:12 PM ----------

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/yguwfvhgfuin8q32r3zzfa.gif

Depends on how you ask the question. Ask if voters are enthusiastic, Democrats post much better numbers. Compared to past years? Not so much.

[Larry]

Yahoo: USOC, IOC ban pro-Obama ad from using Opening Ceremony footage to attack Mitt Romney

LONDON – Both the International and United States Olympic Committees moved swiftly Thursday against a pro-President Obama Super-Political Action Committee that had created an advertisement using Olympic footage to blast Mitt Romney for claims that his companies shipped jobs to China and India while he held personal bank accounts in other countries.

Priorities USA had planned to run the ad on television in four battleground states using footage of a past opening ceremony showing the various national teams entering a stadium. The video is copyrighted and the IOC quickly banned the super-PAC from using it. The USOC slammed the group for politicizing the Games in the ad, which was only available online.

More at the link, including a transcript and a still clip from the ad.

(Frankly, I would have thought that a few very short video clips would fall under Fair Use. But then, I'm not a lawyer.)

----------

Yahoo: White House: Obama not seeking new gun laws

WASHINGTON (AP) — Even as the issue of guns shifts to the forefront of the presidential campaign, the White House and the Senate's top Democrat made it clear Thursday that new gun legislation will not be on the political agenda this year. Instead, President Barack Obama intends to focus on other ways to combat gun violence — a position not unlike that of his rival, Mitt Romney.

Days after the mass shootings in Colorado, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama still supports a ban on the sale of assault weapons, a restriction that expired in 2004. But he added: "There are things we can do short of legislation and short of gun laws that can reduce violence in our society."

Carney's comments came the day after Obama, in a speech to an African-American group Wednesday in New Orleans, embraced some degree of additional restrictions on guns. He acknowledged that not enough had been done to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and pledged to work with lawmakers from both parties to move forward on the matter.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday that the Senate would not consider the gun issue this year, even though he agreed with Obama's remarks in New Orleans.

"With the schedule we have, we're not going to even have a debate on gun control," Reid told reporters.

The White House and Reid's stance illustrate a reality in Washington, where advocating for restrictions on gun ownership is viewed as a political liability.

(Wondered about putting this in the "gun ban" thread, but decided here was better.)

[Thiebear]

i throw my vote away on third party every time now hoping others will follow eventually causing even a slight disturbance in this 2 party system.

They don't really work against each other, behind the scenes they work to secure their job even when they lose for the next 4 years when they get back in.

See the PayGo as the primary example of bipartisanship.

[deejaydana]

The Romney camp should use today's GDP #'s against Obama. It stinks for everyone how slowly this economy is crawling along right now. On the campaign trail earlier this week Obama tried to link himself to the mid nineties Clinton economy. Seems like a stretch to me but he can't run on his own economic record right now.

[JimboDaMan]

The Romney camp should use today's GDP #'s against Obama. It stinks for everyone how slowly this economy is crawling along right now. On the campaign trail earlier this week Obama tried to link himself to the mid nineties Clinton economy. Seems like a stretch to me but he can't run on his own economic record right now.

I agree that they will use that. It will be a relief if we see them actually using an issue as opposed to manufactured outrage at distorted quotes. Mitt is an upstanding member of the crowd that caused the economic collapse in the first place, so if the question is "Who is better able to deal with the economy than Barack Obama" the answer is hardly Mitt Romney. But it should be a useful club anyway.

[@DCGoldPants]

The Romney camp should use today's GDP #'s against Obama. It stinks for everyone how slowly this economy is crawling along right now. On the campaign trail earlier this week Obama tried to link himself to the mid nineties Clinton economy. Seems like a stretch to me but he can't run on his own economic record right now.

Like what was posted recently. Majority still blames Bush for the economy. Its not inaccurate. It was a runaway train of doom during the 2008 election. I'll take a slowly inching forward economy over a collapsing one right now.

Again, not voting for Obama.....and he is hurt by this issue. But the thought that Mitt Romney would do better is sad. You can't run a Gov't like a business. If you could, his run as Governor would be used by his campaign now.

[deejaydana]

Ive never jumped on the Romney train but I do occasionally like pointing out that parts of the media are paying attention to very flimsy stories about Mitt while the economy continues to implode. And I'm not sure Bush derangement syndrome will help Obama enough at the polls come Nov. People vote their present circumstances historically. The #'s on the economy and incumbent approval rating all work against Obama. Fortunately for him--at present--it appears that Mitt is like Eugene Levy in Best In Show: a man with two left feet. And while I readily acknowledge you don't run a country like a business you also don't try to or shouldn't value govt and govt jobs AT the expense of the private industry. The downward spiral in new business formation the past couple of years should frighten anyone who pays attention to that statistic.

[Hersh]

Ive never jumped on the Romney train but I do occasionally like pointing out that parts of the media are paying attention to very flimsy stories about Mitt while the economy continues to implode. And I'm not sure Bush derangement syndrome will help Obama enough at the polls come Nov. People vote their present circumstances historically. The #'s on the economy and incumbent approval rating all work against Obama. Fortunately for him--at present--it appears that Mitt is like Eugene Levy in Best In Show: a man with two left feet. And while I readily acknowledge you don't run a country like a business you also don't try to or shouldn't value govt and govt jobs AT the expense of the private industry. The downward spiral in new business formation the past couple of years should frighten anyone who pays attention to that statistic.

You should really like Obama based on what you say: The public sector has lost over 600,000 jobs while the private industry has gained over 4.2 million jobs to rise above the point of jobs before the recession. Doesn't look like public jobs are being valued more than the private sector.

[@DCGoldPants]

You should really like Obama based on what you say: The public sector has lost over 600,000 jobs while the private industry has gained over 4.2 million jobs to rise above the point of jobs before the recession. Doesn't look like public jobs are being valued more than the private sector.

Its a trap. Some folks love to talk about shrinking the Gov't. But they never mention that means removing jobs from that sector.

[deejaydana]

It's simply a question of perhaps what you value more my friends. The public or the private sector. Throw out all the stats you want Obama has no conception of business. NONE. WHATSOEVER. heck I'd love him to death like the govt channel workers on this board because he's completely on board with the (mistaken) belief that govt can answer all our ills. What Romney has achieved is infinitely harder to accomplish. It's just my view of course and I 'll never impugn the fine govt people we do have. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't drastically reduce the size and scope of govt at this point. And I'll finish by saying I don't think either will have an easy time addressing the myriad ills BOTH parties have brought us to.

[Hersh]

It's simply a question of perhaps what you value more my friends. The public or the private sector. Throw out all the stats you want Obama has no conception of business. NONE. WHATSOEVER. heck I'd love him to death like the govt channel workers on this board because he's completely on board with the (mistaken) belief that govt can answer all our ills. What Romney has achieved is infinitely harder to accomplish. It's just my view of course and I 'll never impugn the fine govt people we do have. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't drastically reduce the size and scope of govt at this point. And I'll finish by saying I don't think either will have an easy time addressing the myriad ills BOTH parties have brought us to.

If the scope and size was drastically cut now it would cause another massive recession. I value both the private and public sector because we need both.

[Larry]

Ive never jumped on the Romney train but I do occasionally like pointing out that parts of the media are paying attention to very flimsy stories about Mitt while the economy continues to implode.

And the problem with you pointing that out is that it isn't true.

The economy is getting better, and has been pretty much since Obama took office.

It's getting better really slowly. Pathetically so. (Well, parts of it are. The stock market, and corporate profits, keep setting records. But those aren't the whole economy, or even, IMO, the most important part.)

Now "getting better really slowly" isn't "wow, this is fantastic! I'm really looking forward to four more years of this!"

But it isn't "imploding", either.

And I'm not sure Bush derangement syndrome will help Obama enough at the polls come Nov.

Oh, look! It's Rush Limbaugh's patented buzz-phrase for people who point out the reality of Republican leadership.

People vote their present circumstances historically. The #'s on the economy and incumbent approval rating all work against Obama. Fortunately for him--at present--it appears that Mitt is like Eugene Levy in Best In Show: a man with two left feet.

Agreed. Obama is very weak, and it's because of dissatisfaction with the economy.

And while I readily acknowledge you don't run a country like a business you also don't try to or shouldn't value govt and govt jobs AT the expense of the private industry.

Good thing that the only place such a thing is happening is in your imagination.

The only reason why the economy doesn't look better, if not great, is because of government layoffs.

[deejaydana]

If the scope and size was drastically cut now it would cause another massive recession. I value both the private and public sector because we need both.

I certainly didn't mean a wholesale gutting of the govt. Clearly that would be a bad move. The problem with the very nature of govt programs is how intractable they are once put in place. And as I stated I do have a fair amount of appreciation for what happens there.

[Jumbo]

Whatever else may be pertinent in evaluation of related factors, when it comes strictly to operating in the business world and the knowledge thereof in this nation at this time, how can anyone seriously think Obama is on the same level as Romney? The better way to ask the question would be:does anyone?

Educate me---honestly, while I'm no dummy on such matters, financial/economic topics are one of my weaker zones. That's why you don't see me post much in those threads, though I study them (I realize that not posting strong opinions on topics I know less about goes against tailgate protocol, but I hope you'll forgive me :pfft:).

And I do see where one could (reasonably) go with how, in some ways, that's a "good thing" for Obama (as in the "Romney's business practices reflect part of the problem" arguments), but I mean just fundamenrtally and overall.

Neither am I one who thinks Obama is some kind of moron (or anything remotely close) regarding the business world, as many of his opposition like to infer or outright state, or that Romney is right up there with Jobs or Buffet.

All I'm saying is what I said --between the two, it seems face-value to me that one guy has a much higher "score" than the other in that area.

[twa]

The only reason why the economy doesn't look better, if not great, is because of government layoffs.

say what?

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/01/government-payroll-across-us.html

The top 3 federal job-creators were LBJ, JFK, and Obama, Democrats, while 4 out of the top 5 top federal job-slashers were Nixon, Bush, Bush, and Ford, Republicans. Interestingly, Clinton ranks first in cutting the federal payroll; it fell by almost 10% when the population grew by roughly the same amount - in adjusted terms, that's -18% fewer federal jobs.