fish82;793243 wrote:The problem is, Junior, that the numbers already deem Rush/Hannity/Beck are relevant. Pick any one of them and they reach more people in a day than Little Billy does in a month. Excellent try, though.

I'm surprised you're not on here trumpeting the latest ABC/WaPo poll about "Obama the Unbeatable." Oh wait....check that...I'm not surprised at all.

Which one?

The one that shows his approval rating still at 47%

How about the Gallup poll that shows him at +10% and how about his average still being +5.5

Wow...

Michelle Bachman just made the first(and most likely only) good decision of her entire political life by hiring the best Republican strategist alive to run her campaign. Too bad she is a moron and will be out by New Hampshire.

Sorry Ed Rollins

Ty Webb;793367 wrote:Wow...

Michelle Bachman just made the first(and most likely only) good decision of her entire political life by hiring the best Republican strategist alive to run her campaign. Too bad she is a moron and will be out by New Hampshire.

Sorry Ed Rollins

You serious? Rollins isn't fit to shine Rove's shoes.

fish82;793243 wrote:The problem is, Junior, that the numbers already deem Rush/Hannity/Beck are relevant. Pick any one of them and they reach more people in a day than Little Billy does in a month. Excellent try, though.

I'm surprised you're not on here trumpeting the latest ABC/WaPo poll about "Obama the Unbeatable." Oh wait....check that...I'm not surprised at all.

That's not really a fair comparison seing as Maher is on HBO and the others are on networks with far higher viewership. Maher is relevant or you wouldn't get some damn pissy about him. Same goes for the Repubs. They're relevant as long as there are people who care.

And Quaker, there aren't currently any Marxists in charge. So who are you referring to?

I Wear Pants;793390 wrote:That's not really a fair comparison seing as Maher is on HBO and the others are on networks with far higher viewership.

There is a reason why Maher is not on a network with higher viewership. They would like to keep their viewership high.

fish82;793380 wrote:You serious? Rollins isn't fit to shine Rove's shoes.

Rollins hasn't ever had to cheat to win one(and potentially two) elections and used underhanded tactics to win multiple others

Have you ever heard Rollins talk? That alone puts him above Karl Rove

Ty Webb;793413 wrote:Rollins hasn't ever had to cheat to win one(and potentially two) elections and used underhanded tactics to win multiple others

Have you ever heard Rollins talk? That alone puts him above Karl Rove

Seriously....just stop. You're in danger of descending into your psychobabble again.

majorspark;793410 wrote:There is a reason why Maher is not on a network with higher viewership. They would like to keep their viewership high.

HBO has high viewership it's just that a premium channel will always have lower views than ones included in basic and expanded packages.

I Wear Pants;793811 wrote:HBO has high viewership it's just that a premium channel will always have lower views than ones included in basic and expanded packages.

You are contradicting yourself. If Maher had the market appeal of Limbaugh he would be enjoying similar ratings and success. Major media conglomerates would be scrambling to pick Maher up. Its just not the case.

Manhattan Buckeye;792861 wrote:Where's Jon Stewart? Granted, I find him unfunny, smug and a POS, not nearly on the same level of Maher (can you believe he actually tried to pass himself as a Libertarian?) - but where are they?

This was obvious from day 1. Just like the Duke lacrosse case. Rational, smart people knew it was BS from day 1, yet the defendants involved were dragged along the "liberal" spectrum - Likewise rational, smart people knew there was something up with Weiner (I and other people posted this) from day 1. You don't just randomly have a hacker send a crotch-shot from your twitter account and you certainly don't fail to outright reject the occurrence if you are innocent.

Is common sense and rational logic just lost on people? It really isn't that difficult.

Jon Stewart ran jokes about the Weiner incident. But either way, even if he did not, it would make sense because he and Weiner are old college buddies. If there was one person I would expect him to go easy on it would be Weiner. That's not to say that it's ok but I think a person using common sense and rational logic (which you are so astute at as you remind us often) might be able to understand why a person emotional invested in decades of friendship might not lead the charge in media coverage blasting his friend, no?

Ty Webb;793352 wrote:No Quaker......that is your opinion...not a fact

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/june_2011/only_24_say_they_share_obama_s_political_views

"Yet for the second week in a row, a generic Republican candidate edges President Obama 45% to 42% among Likely U.S. Voters in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup."


Is that what the teenagers call getting 'powned'?

Yes Quaker.....and Hillary was up 20 points at this point in 2007

A poll with a generic Republican doesn't mean shit Quaker.......
Only Ones that matter are against named candidates

Ok Quaker.....if you want to throw out Generic Ballots...

Take a look at the RCP average that has the Democrats ahead in Congressional races

And again Quaker....

His average margin of victory against a Generic Republican is +6.5%

I have friend on Facebook who keeps posting "Obama 2012" and I keep asking him why he wants Obama to be re-elected and he keeps skipping my question. Finally one day he writes back and says "Republicans are for the rich, Democrats care for the people, and Obama is trying to slash the debt." Not that there aren't naive voters on both sides but I had to laugh at his response and you should have seen the number of people get on him about it. There was one person who agreed with him but of course she had no response either after questioned. That is why people should have to pass a test to vote.

Ty Webb;794414 wrote:And again Quaker....

His average margin of victory against a Generic Republican is +6.5%

Looking at this on another level...what does this say about our country?:

Does the majority want to re-elect someone who's policies have led to the highest sustained levels of unemployment since nearly 80 years ago?
Are the majority of Americans so thrilled with the growth of the economy that they believe this man-child deserves 4 more years?
Are the majority of Americans happy that our debt will be close to $16,000,000,000,000 come election-time 2012?
Are Americans jumping for joy over home values that have returned to 2002 levels and wish to annoint this economic dolt with 4 more years to make it worse?
Is anyone doing cartwheels over $4/gal gas...soon to be $5? And this administration's plan to "help average Americans" is.....ummm....well....uhhh....ahem....plan?.... what plan? But I digress.

I don't think the answer to any of these is "yes". So why is Obama leading (except on Rasmussen, who polls people intending to vote, not just those with a phone)? The quick and short answer is that it's wayyy too early as indeed there is no named Republican yet. I still don't believe the Pub's nominee has declared yet, so these polls are mere fodder.

Obama will run, hide, deflect, and forget his "record" while continuing to blame Bush for all of his own faults over the next year and a half. I wonder how the MSM will help him? It should be interesting to watch.

Obama received 97% of the Black vote in 2008 (voted race) he will be lucky to get 47% in 2011 .. Why? .... Out of gas .... Homeless ... Unemployed ... Don't care ... Lied to.. Many are very consciences of the betrayal of the Obama Administration and the Democratic party now…
Oh! One more thing Oprah gone so goes the Black women voter.

Other than the UNION Mules who will vote for Obama? Half of those individual what to keep their guns and the other half don't show up to vote because there no beer or burning barrel..............

Lets be honest about it what percentage of the American public actually knows what is going on in politics? I can provide you with 6 or 7 examples of people who vote that have no clue what is going on but they love the president. That is just in my friend circle/family.

I have friend on Facebook who keeps posting "Obama 2012" and I keep asking him why he wants Obama to be re-elected and he keeps skipping my question. Finally one day he writes back and says "Republicans are for the rich, Democrats care for the people, and Obama is trying to slash the debt." Not that there aren't naive voters on both sides but I had to laugh at his response and you should have seen the number of people get on him about it. There was one person who agreed with him but of course she had no response either after questioned. That is why people should have to pass a test to vote.

Ty Webb;794404 wrote:Yes Quaker.....and Hillary was up 20 points at this point in 2007

A poll with a generic Republican doesn't mean shit Quaker.......
Only Ones that matter are against named candidates

Like the WaPo one (oversampling democrats 31-24 no less) that has him down to Romney 49-46?

fish82;794460 wrote:Like the WaPo one (oversampling democrats 31-24 no less) that has him down to Romney 49-46?

Exactly fish.....

And seeing how that is the only one that has him down....I'd take it with a grain of salt

fish82;794460 wrote:Like the WaPo one (oversampling democrats 31-24 no less) that has him down to Romney 49-46?

It's not like Romney is a real conservative anyways. He's a liberal faking it to get elected mirite? Romney hasn't believed enough impossible things for long enough to win the Republican primary IMO. But, here's hoping he can pull it off...

Ty Webb;794414 wrote:And again Quaker....

His average margin of victory against a Generic Republican is +6.5%

No president has been re-elected with unemployment at 8% or higher, and with the chronic unemployment problem this nation faces, I don't see obama skirting the issue.

Ultimately the main issues are:

Did obama inherit a debt - yes; did he make it worse -- yes, way worse

Did obama inherit deficit spending - yes; did he make it worse -- yes, way worse

Did obama inherit unemployment - yes; did he make it worse, yes, way worse.


There is the election in a nutshell; amateur hour is over; 2012 cannot arrive soon enough.

BoatShoes;794521 wrote:It's not like Romney is a real conservative anyways. He's a liberal faking it to get elected mirite? Romney hasn't believed enough impossible things for long enough to win the Republican primary IMO. But, here's hoping he can pull it off...

He'll likely win the nomination because unfortunately, that's what the Pubs do. They nominate the "next guy in line" who has "paid his dues," rarely with good results. I wouldn't say he's a "liberal faking it" necessarily, but he is no question an "establishment" Pub candidate.

Ty Webb;794470 wrote:Exactly fish.....

And seeing how that is the only one that has him down....I'd take it with a grain of salt

LOL...unless the numbers say what you want them to say, then one poll is the gospel. Got it.

All one has to do is look at the Electoral Map, and it becomes obvious that Bam is gonna have his hands full.

Told ya - http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/07/its-not-the-economy-its-you-says-obama/

A cascade of bad economic and political news knocked President Barack Obama off his game today, and prompted him to revive his 2008-style criticism of his predecessor, and also to suggest that investors, consumers and even the media are responsible for today’s stalled economy.

It is the ONLY arrow in his quiver and it doesn't shoot as straight as it did nearly 3 years ago.