Oh for christ''s sake- who listens to polls anymore?
Now, OP, don''t you know that Quinnipiac is a freeper organization and that when Obama loses it will only be due to mass voter fraud.
You freeper shit, why don''t you go obsess more about the new Black Panther Party! Isn''t that your hate-de-jour. You are probably an overweight man in an apartment or a house to be foreclosed upon and you KNOW IT.
You know how much can happen in two years?%0D\
A couple of things:%0D\
Losing to an "unnamed opponent" isn''t any huge threat. Plug any current Republican hopeful into that slot and run the poll again... and I bet Obama would win against most of them.%0D\
Also... anyone who would vote for Republicans after seeing the way they''ve behaved, lied, smeared, and obstructed (not to mention their denigration and slander of people who are currently unemployed as a direct result of Republican mismanagement of the economy and their hard-on for excessive deregulation) is just a fucking moron.%0D\
Oh, Christ. The Obama-Is-Doooooomed troll is back yet again. Fuck off freeper asshole.
Actually he''d win by more than that but we don''t want to enrage the morons.
I think the most offensive part of OP''s post is the use of that tired and hackneyed "Buh-bye."\
Please stop that.
[quote]But the election isn''t being held today, OP.\
But the trend is NOT his friend.
Obama''s just playing chess while everybody else plays checkers.
And you can quote me on that on Nov. 6, 2012
At this point in his term, Bush Sr. had something like 80% approval. He was not reelected. Sorry freeper kids, you can''t predict what will happen in the fall elections, much less 2012.
R14, I think most of us would prefer not quoting a complete idiot who fucked up a two word post.
And you can quote me on that on July 21, 2010
Obama and company have had been in office long enough to stop blaming Bush for everything, but if they did it would draw attention to the multi-trillions Barack has put us in debt for
Any poster who uses "Freeper" is someone who properly defend their position and has to resort to name calling like they did in grammar school.
The Republicans are now just openly insane and openly greedy. That appeals to some but not enough to win an election. And they have no major viable candidates. Bama will get reelected easily.
[quote]And you can quote me on that on Nov. 6, 2012
No, thanks. Can I punch you right now instead?
[quote]the multi-trillions Barack has put us in debt for
Lamentable sentence construction aside, please do tell how President Obama has racked up the trillions and how his spending compares to the $4.9 trillion racked up by President George W. Bush?
Let me help.
Here are the increases in the National Debt under both presidents.
> Ronald Reagan%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s First Term %C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93 $656 billion increase
> Ronald Reagan%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s Second Term %C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93 $1.036 trillion increase
> George H.W. Bush%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s Term %C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93 $1.587 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s First Term %C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93 $1.122 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s Second Term %C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93 $418 billion increase
> George W. Bush%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s First Term %C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93 $1.885 trillion increase
> George W. Bush%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s Second Term %C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93 $3.014 trillion increase
> Barack Obama%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s First year %C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93 $1.573 trillion increase
Current Obama administration projections indicate that the National Debt will increase by approximately $6.5 trillion during President Obama%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s first term.
But there's a catch, of course. Assuming an interest rate of, say, 5%, the interest on the Bush portion of the national debt alone is some $250 billion per year. Over a four-year term, that's $1 trillion.
The interest costs of the debt incurred under the last three Republican presidents? About $400 billion per year.
And the bail-out, which was already pretty much framed by the Bush Administration, is a huge chunk of the remainder.
As are the cost of legacy wars which cannot be won and which drag us further and further into debt.
Until President Obama took office, over 85% of the National Debt was incurred under Republican administrations and the vast majority of that under the Reagan and Bush administrations.
President Reagan took us $1.65 trillion into debt. In the 1980s. As a relative share of GDP, that equates to $4.75 trillion today. And since we haven't paid any of it back, we've paid interest on it for twenty years.
Republicans are in no position to carp about spending when they did the unthinkable and paid for two wars without raising taxes. First time in post-WWII history that this happened.
The Republicans want to convince the American people that President Obama is a free-wheeling spender. The bottom line is that, if you strip out obligations to which the nation was committed at the time he took office, his programs will add less than $1 trillion to the National Debt.
Learn the facts. The Republicans have been spend, spend, spend since President Reagan.
This is not rocket science; it's just that most Republicans are essentially innumerate.
[quote]Any poster who uses "Freeper" is someone who properly defend their position and has to resort to name calling like they did in grammar school.\
Dear Lord, you seem to forget why they call it "grammar school."
R21 is 100% correct!
[quote]First time in post-WWII history that this happened.%0D\
Actually, I believe it''s the only time in human history that this has happened.%0D\
They let Obama win, because they knew that the bill was due on 8 years of their supremely fucked-up economic policies, and they needed a Dem scapegoat to blame. They got him. \
If the House goes GOP in November, they have two item on their agenda - shut down the US government completely, and investigate the Obama administration nonstop for 2 years. Mark my words.
The current Republican party is relying on a reputation for fiscal rectitude that they gained at some point in the misty past.\
Plus, they''re all a bunch of fat, middle-aged businessmen. People assume they know how to handle money. Democrats are all blacks, women and sweaty, urban ward heelers. Everyone thinks they''re thieves. \
Of course, mountains of evidence that white, middle-aged businessmen are the biggest thieves on earth matters little to the average American voter.
If (God forbid) the Rs get a hold of one of the chambers of Congress (which is possible), then we can forget the government doing ANYTHING till 2012. \
It''ll be two years of stupid bullshit like this poor woman who got fired from the Ag department.
Republicans are criminals that hate the government because Democratic government is instituted to protect the majority from criminals. They consistantly portray the Democratic government as a monarchy made up of unelected officials specifically because it''s the only way to portray a Democratic government as existing to protect the "rich elite." That happens only as much as the majority allow it to happen, and because Republicans have been so successful at confusing people as to what their interests actually are, they side with the very people that are hitting them over the head with frying pans.%0D\
The Republican Party is the example of exactly and everything Karl Marx was talking about, which is why they do everything in their power to dissuade people from reading Das Kapital.
This percentage probably masks an even greater electoral defeat of Obama. He could come back but it''s not looking good. All those trillions and job losses continue. The war is a bigger mess than when he took over. Our old diplomatic friends he insults, and his kowtowing to tyrants and radicals has done NOTHING. He is a complete and total failure. And Pelosi/Reid''s leftist cabal in legislation is massively unpopular. %0D\
He had a chance to govern from the center but he doesn''t know how. I pray he will be a one term President.
"they have two item on their agenda - shut down the US government completely, and investigate the Obama administration nonstop for 2 years."\
That''s certainly possible. That''s what they did to Clinton in his last 2 years. They made the whole nation focused on the Monica scandal and Bill''s sex life and nothing else.
While I think it''s ridiculous that we should be polling when the election is more than two years away - I disagree with r8. There are many attractive moderate Republicans that I would vote for over Obama. Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, etc. Many people are crying for change after the last two years of destruction by this President and his incompetent admin.
Mitt Romney isn''t even remotely moderate, and he once said, "Atheists aren''t capable of morality, because they have no fear of God."%0D\
Or is it okay to be a hateful bigot if atheists are the targets of it? He''s also publicly advocated theocracy, claiming religion and government can be mixed with positive results and lied about what James Madison meant by, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."%0D\
That he realizes he''ll be more popular (and therefore more electable) by playing the moderate, he makes David Duke look reasonable.
[italic]Mitt Romney isn''t even remotely moderate, and he once said, "Atheists aren''t capable of morality, because they have no fear of God."[/italic]\
This is what the majority of the country believes too.
[quote]Republicans that I would vote for over Obama. Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, etc. Many people are crying for change after the last two years of destruction by this President and his incompetent admin.\
Oh, you poor, delusional thing.\
I''d really like to kick you in the cunt.
Obummer is a disgrace to the country, he only cares about communism and black people!
If someone responds to R35 in a serious manner, I''ll know DL is lost forever.
Um, OP? Freepbot? The election is NOT being held today. It''s over two years away. And three points is nothing. In most polls that''s the margin of error, making it a dead heat. If nothing else, Obama is a master campaigner, and if all he needs to do is make up three measly points, 27 months before election day, he''ll win handily.
R31 is in dreamland. I agree with R8...the Republicans have nobody. It will be interesting to see what happens in the nest two years.
I seem to recall they called 2008 for McCain until the final three days.
R29? You''re a complete fucking moron. Good god. What the hell is wrong with you?%0D
Even Rasmussen was saying McCain had no chance.
[quote]Even Rasmussen was saying McCain had no chance.\
McCain staffers lost hope after the first debate.
I thought Debbie was dead.
This thread is proof that Republicans are as stupid as they are corrupt.
Enjoy the rest of your one term, Barack!
The problem with this type of assertion is that it assumes Obama has to live with the facts and his actions in the last two years but completely dismisses any change in opinion based on the actions of his opponents faced with the same facts. \
That is nothing but speculation and be honest, how exactly do you think McCain/Dumbshit would have done differently, much less better?
39 % versus 36 %, what is the margin of error?\
Also how does it break down by state. The electoral college determines presidential elections not the popular vote. Also unnamed is not the same as a specific candidate and finally it is two years out.
Drove behind a truck today which had two bumper-stickers on it:%0D\
"A village in Kenya is missing its idiot!" (with the "o" in "idiot" being the Obama campaign icon)%0D\
"Support Arizona! Take Our Country Back!"%0D\
It took all my self control not to ram that truck and drive it off the road. Fucking ignorant bigoted racist piece of trash.%0D\
It''s still the middle of summer 2010, people aren''t even paying attention to the upcoming midterms elections until the kids go back to school. \
I stopped listening to the pundits and their polls a long ago when I realized they just try to create narratives so they have something to talk about between election cycles. People do have short term memories, but Independents aren''t going to forget who got us into this mess. The Republicans have no new ideas or leaders just the same old mantra of tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts.
I would like to think this is not true, but I''ve learned to never underestimate the utter stupidity of the American public.
Bumping so that more people read R21%0D
I notice the Freepers aren''t supporting their claims, in predicting Obama to be a one-term president, with [italic]details[/italic].%0D\
Why is that?
yeah, r21 wins my vote.
Rachel Maddow laid out a bunch of reasons why Obama should be reelected. He''s accomplished quite a bit in the short time he''s been in office, but all he gets is criticism, he''s not perfect, but I''d vote for him again. Some of the hits he takes are fair, but many are not.
[quote]Buh-bye Obama! And you can quote me on that on Nov. 6, 2012
OK R14, whatever you say.
[quote]Buh-bye Obama! And you can quote me on that on Nov. 6, 2012
Done, Miss Log Cabin!
Well then, I guess it worked out that Obama gave out his "gifts" when he did.
...as opposed to all the gifts promised to your backers, Mr. Romney?
This is a rather hilarious thread from a suicidal nothing we call the "OP."