Generic Presidential Ballot

C

Canceled2

Banned
Oblama's going down:blowup:

________________________________________


For the fourth week in a row, a generic Republican candidate holds a very slight advantage over President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds a generic GOP candidate earns support from 45% of Likely U.S. Voters, while the president picks up 43% of the vote. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and another eight percent (8%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
 
Hillarious if generic was running, Obama crushes any named repuke

Obama wins or loses on the economy, right now it appears he wants to be a one term pres.
 
In a story posted on its website Monday night, the Post reports, "New Post-ABC numbers show Obama leading five of six potential Republican presidential rivals tested in the poll. But he is in a dead heat with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. … Among all Americans, Obama and Romney are knotted at 47 percent each, and among registered voters, the former governor is numerically ahead, 49 percent to 46 percent."
 
Obama is a liar and an asshole, seeing him go would make me happy.

I'm just not convinced Romney would be much better but we could transfer the waisted hope from obama to MItt.
 
At least mitt knows buisness enough to make a fortune, Obama takes notes from turbolibs then tries to be Reagan when that bs fails.
 
Obama has always been an anti business; pro big government; elitist ideologue who had never governed anything-either politically or privately. Of course things were going to get economically bad under his lack of leadership experience and abilities~

But it just felt so good to vote for him because he was handsome and black and all that liberal white guilt could be assuaged. Instead what we have been treated to is the proverbial race card if we, conservatives, object to his incompetence and bad policy... Good job liberals...NOT!
 
while I didn't vote for the tool, I didn't think he'd be as inept as he has turned out. many big wall street guy's supported him and that was good enough for me.

Bring on a new Republican
 
Good luck running Gordon Gekko....when Mittzie the Mass Mormon gets the GOP nod, the Dems will make dogmeat of his claims to be a job creator...






Mitt Romney, in a second bid for the White House, is promoting his private-sector business experience to show he could do better than President Barack Obama in creating jobs.




But opponents will find fault in his record as a corporate raider in the 1980s and as Massachusetts governor when his performance on employment was mixed at best.




He made a fortune wheeling and dealing in companies which endured big job cuts as part of restructuring. Some ultimately went bankrupt.




"He was a corporate raider who often made companies profitable, not by helping them perform better -- but by simply laying off employees and killing jobs," said Ray Buckley, Democratic Party chairman of New Hampshire.




Bain Capital, which Romney headed for more than a decade, specialized in leveraged buyouts: buying companies with money borrowed against their assets, grooming them to be sold off, and in the interim collecting huge management fees.




Later, as Massachusetts governor from January 2003 to January 2007, Romney presided over one of the puniest rates of employment growth among the 50 U.S. states, at a time the nation's economy was booming.




Labor Department figures showed Massachusetts ranked 47th among the states in the rate of jobs growth in those four years -- ahead of only Ohio, Michigan and Louisiana.








http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/13/mitt-romney-jobs-record-_n_848522.html
 
Ice Dancer said:
Obama has always been an anti business; pro big government; elitist ideologue who had never governed anything-either politically or privately. Of course things were going to get economically bad under his lack of leadership experience and abilities~
Click to expand...

Your timeline is a bit fucked. The economy was spectacularly bad before Obama assumed office and has improved significantly since then. Things didn't "get economically bad" under Obama, they were already bad. Under Obama, they got better. Just not enough better. Now, you can criticize him for things not getting enough better, as I have, but to claim that things got bad because of Obama is fucking stupid.


Ice Dancer said:
But it just felt so good to vote for him because he was handsome and black and all that liberal white guilt could be assuaged. Instead what we have been treated to is the proverbial race card if we, conservatives, object to his incompetence and bad policy... Good job liberals...NOT!
Click to expand...

In the real world, under the Republican president "things got economically bad" (as you would put it) and John McCain wasn't promoting and meaningful change from Bush. Hence, Obama.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Obama has always been an anti business; pro big government; elitist ideologue who had never governed anything-either politically or privately. Of course things were going to get economically bad under his lack of leadership experience and abilities~

But it just felt so good to vote for him because he was handsome and black and all that liberal white guilt could be assuaged. Instead what we have been treated to is the proverbial race card if we, conservatives, object to his incompetence and bad policy... Good job liberals...NOT!
Click to expand...


And another thing, even assuming the above were true, the only Republican that out-polls Obama is "Generic Republican." That's hilarious.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Your timeline is a bit fucked. The economy was spectacularly bad before Obama assumed office and has improved significantly since then. Things didn't "get economically bad" under Obama, they were already bad. Under Obama, they got better. Just not enough better. Now, you can criticize him for things not getting enough better, as I have, but to claim that things got bad because of Obama is fucking stupid.


In the real world, under the Republican president "things got economically bad" (as you would put it) and John McCain wasn't promoting and meaningful change from Bush. Hence, Obama.
Click to expand...

The economy was only beginning to get "bad" when Oblama took office. The point being, his policies have not improved the economy to any kind of degree that real "success" can be claimed. The second bailout, that was ALL Oblama, has not provided one iota of economic turn-around...not one-we stll have record unemployment and are still facing foreclosures and still shedding jobs and still watching states verge on bankruptcy! Indeed it can be argued his policies have hindered growth.

McCain it can likewise be argued may have helped the economy-no one knows nor can know- This is all about Oblama's failed economic policies. This race is all about that- ALL of it.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Obama has always been an anti business; pro big government; elitist ideologue who had never governed anything-either politically or privately. Of course things were going to get economically bad under his lack of leadership experience and abilities~

But it just felt so good to vote for him because he was handsome and black and all that liberal white guilt could be assuaged. Instead what we have been treated to is the proverbial race card if we, conservatives, object to his incompetence and bad policy... Good job liberals...NOT!
Click to expand...

Obama really isn't an ideologue. All of the Republicans are more ideological than him.
 
Again, in two-way polling Obama crushes nearly everyone. The only serious candidate who is competitive with him is Romney, who sometimes ties or comes out barely ahead in some polls. This can change during the campaign, but you rarely see well-known candidates making up the 20 point or so margins that we are seeing. Also, there's a reuters poll that showed Romney down by a 13 point margin: http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10797
 
Ice Dancer said:
The economy was only beginning to get "bad" when Oblama took office.
Click to expand...

According to what specific metric? As of January 2009 we were already over one year into the recession. The recession ended five months after he took office.


Ice Dancer said:
The point being, his policies have not improved the economy to any kind of degree that real "success" can be claimed.
Click to expand...

Then make that point instead of lying.


Ice Dancer said:
The second bailout, that was ALL Oblama, has not provided one iota of economic turn-around...not one-we stll have record unemployment and are still facing foreclosures and still shedding jobs and still watching states verge on bankruptcy! Indeed it can be argued his policies have hindered growth.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the "second bailout" is, but claiming that there has not been "one iota of economic turn-around" is demonstrably false, as is that claim that we are still shedding jobs. And I'm not sure what Obama has to do with state finances. Sure it can be argued that Obama's policies have hindered growth, but there isn't much factual support for the argument.


Ice Dancer said:
McCain it can likewise be argued may have helped the economy-no one knows nor can know- This is all about Oblama's failed economic policies. This race is all about that- ALL of it.
Click to expand...

OK, the race is still all about that and the only Republican that beats Obama is "Generic Republican." That's pretty sad.
 
I wonder how Ice Dancer would explain Mittzie's poor showing as Governor of Mass...if she could, that is.
 
Ice Dancer said:
The economy was only beginning to get "bad" when Oblama took office. The point being, his policies have not improved the economy to any kind of degree that real "success" can be claimed. The second bailout, that was ALL Oblama, has not provided one iota of economic turn-around...not one-we stll have record unemployment and are still facing foreclosures and still shedding jobs and still watching states verge on bankruptcy! Indeed it can be argued his policies have hindered growth.

McCain it can likewise be argued may have helped the economy-no one knows nor can know- This is all about Oblama's failed economic policies. This race is all about that- ALL of it.
Click to expand...

Actually, the economy got bad in October of 2007, it then got worse throughout 2008 and blew up in the fourth quarter of 2008 and into 2009.

While Obama's policies have done little to improve the situation, it is incorrect to state that things didn't 'get bad' until he took office.
 
Watermark said:
Again, in two-way polling Obama crushes nearly everyone. The only serious candidate who is competitive with him is Romney, who sometimes ties or comes out barely ahead in some polls. This can change during the campaign, but you rarely see well-known candidates making up the 20 point or so margins that we are seeing. Also, there's a reuters poll that showed Romney down by a 13 point margin: http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10797
Click to expand...

At this point in the last Presidential election cycle, Hillary was the SURE thing to win the Dem nomination and the Presidency. Bottom line, it is way too early to be making blanket statements one way or another.

If the economy gets better over the next year (unemployment down under 8%, GDP growth over 3.5%, deficit spending drastically reduced) then Obama wins re-election. If it does not, as long as the Reps put up a relatively moderate candidate, Obama is gone. If they put up a crackpot.... then it will be a battle of 'who sucks the least'.
 
I get this is a fun topic to discuss but it is 17 months before the election. We don't even know who all is running for the Republicans yet. And don't 'generics' always tend to trend higher than a real person?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top