Gallup: R 52-O 45 Time to Worry?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Iowa Wisconcin going Obama pretty much wraps this thing up.

I still can't believe people are going on and on about how we should give Mitt a chance to fix the economy because he was a businessman. First of all, the economy is showing great signs of recovery. Anyone expecting a magic cure to the huge problems we had in 4 years needs to get over themselves when we were on the verge of a depression/much worse recession. As for his business experience, if Mitt ran America like he ran his businesses jobs would be shipped overseas and anyone that wasn't doing well would be shut down. The whole idea that America can be run like a business is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The whole point of a business is to make as much money as possible even if they means choosing the cheapest options available. The point of a government isn't to make lots of money especially in downturn. If you're going to vote for Mitt Romney on the basis that you are rich and don't want any more of your money to go to the government just admit it. And if you are a business person I would hope you would realize that having a greater base of customers with jobs would be better for your business. None of Romney's plans show any data to back up the idea that they would create job. Cutting taxes does not create jobs.
 
RDreamer said:
Empty Vessel. He's a guy around here that usually jumps on this sort of thing.

But yes, we have a Fiat Monetary system, which means that the US Government has monetary sovereignty over the creation of our dollar. Every dollar spent is a dollar created. Dollars taxed are dollars destroyed. In order to expand an economy with an expanding population it is necessary to create more dollars, and we've done so almost every year of our existence with a few exceptions (Andrew Jackson got rid of our debt, and there were a few more times throughout history that we pulled in a bit more than we sent out, though the debt didn't disappear in those instances.... and after every single one but one time the economy went through a depression afterwards)

But really none of that matters in the current discussion. You're talking about a stimulus, something that really no reputable economist has any problems with. You do realize that this isn't a politically or economically questionable thing, right? Almost every candidate running in 08 had a stimulus plan (and Romney's was the largest!). And now most economists agree our stimulus wasn't big enough. There is absolutely no question that a stimulus pretty much does what it's supposed to do and can kick start a lagging economy. You'd be pretty extreme to think otherwise.
Click to expand...
Damn me and this phone. Not in front of my PC so I try to keep it short. My whole point isnt what is - it is what is perceived by the average individual who doesn't see Obama or what he has done or the reality of stimuli - rather see him for the broken promises, a stagnant economic growth and higher deficits than "Dubya".

You ask the average joe where the govt gets money and they say "the taxpayer" - hence my 5 for 5 analogy (piss poor, I know).

Again, im no good at poliGAF - especially on a touchscreen ha!
 
Iowa is now far out of Mitt's... um... mitts.


Jack_AG said:
Damn me and this phone. Not in front of my PC so I try to keep it short. My whole point isnt what is - it is what is perceived by the average individual who doesn't see Obama or what he has done or the reality of stimuli - rather see him for the broken promises, a stagnant economic growth and higher deficits than "Dubya".

You ask the average joe where the govt gets money and they say "the taxpayer" - hence my 5 for 5 analogy (piss poor, I know).

Again, im no good at poliGAF - especially on a touchscreen ha!
Click to expand...

Alright, then, this is understandable. I will agree that people nowadays have a painfully terrible grasp on some of these things, and the administration really did an awful job of selling the stimulus to people. Unfortunately, too, no one predicted the recession would be quite as bad as it was, and so their projections were off, making it a much harder sell.

Still, most average people should know we're better off. I mean unless they were living under a rock, 2008 was beyond horrible. We were losing metric tons of jobs every month. Everything was collapsing. It should be indisputable fact that we're better off now than then. Problem is that people are impatient assholes. Hell, they protest voted after 2 years, and put in people that wanted to stop EVERYTHING Obama wanted to do. Essentially we gave him 2 years to fix the worst recession since the great depression and then made it harder on him, and bitched and moaned when he didn't get it done.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Wasn't the health care bill debated for almost a year? Isn't that one of the talking points from the GOP, that he spent too much time on that instead of jobs?
Click to expand...
Yes and yes, but the finalized work wasn't in front of America until it was too late to scrutinize it before it passed - hence the "don't you want to see what's in it" remark - insisting it must be passed before you find out what's in it.
 
Hell, they protest voted after 2 years, and put in people that wanted to stop EVERYTHING Obama wanted to do. Essentially we gave him 2 years to fix the worst recession since the great depression and then made it harder on him, and bitched and moaned when he didn't get it done.
Click to expand...

This is the exactly problem with the whole "let's give someone else a try" mentality. People seem to think everything works by magic and they want everything now. It's especially worrying that people would vote for the party that literally said their one goal was make sure Obama didn't get reelected. How in the world can you trust the economy to people who would let it flounder for political gain?
 
RDreamer said:
And in hindsight it's probably a great thing he worked on healthcare. With a recession that size, there were probably plenty of people who lost their jobs and couldn't afford to continue their coverage. Being covered for a pre-existing condition may be a godsend to those people in the next few years or so.
Click to expand...

This is the most important aspect of Obamacare and something that he hasn't communicated well -- it will raise everybody's wages and make the country more productive. It's a stimulus bill all on its own! Albeit a really slow one.
 
The_Darkest_Red said:
You mean "facts" like Obama stating that coal production in the US has gone up since he became president? As someone who works in the coal industry, I cannot fully convey to you just how infuriating that was to hear given the state of the industry right now. I'm not going to argue the pros and cons of coal, I've already done that in enough threads here on GAF, but seeing a president create policies that purposefully kill off the only good jobs in an area of the country (coal jobs in the Central Appalachian region of the US) and then lie about it during the debate is reason enough for me not to support him.

I understand if this issue isn't as important to anyone here who is a supporter of Obama, and I do not hold that against you, but it's just something that hits too close to home for me to tolerate.
Click to expand...

http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t1p01p1.pdf ?

I think you have the recession to blame more than Obama. There was a dip from 2008 to 2009, but production has gone up every year since.

Hasn't there been a pretty huge shift towards Wyoming for coal production over the last 5 years, too?
 
RDreamer said:
Iowa is now far out of Mitt's... um... mitts.




Alright, then, this is understandable. I will agree that people nowadays have a painfully terrible grasp on some of these things, and the administration really did an awful job of selling the stimulus to people. Unfortunately, too, no one predicted the recession would be quite as bad as it was, and so their projections were off, making it a much harder sell.

Still, most average people should know we're better off. I mean unless they were living under a rock, 2008 was beyond horrible. We were losing metric tons of jobs every month. Everything was collapsing. It should be indisputable fact that we're better off now than then. Problem is that people are impatient assholes. Hell, they protest voted after 2 years, and put in people that wanted to stop EVERYTHING Obama wanted to do. Essentially we gave him 2 years to fix the worst recession since the great depression and then made it harder on him, and bitched and moaned when he didn't get it done.
Click to expand...
Cool. I didn't want to come off like a jerk or anything for being short. With that im getting off this phone, lol. Taker easy.
 
pigeon said:
This is the most important aspect of Obamacare and something that he hasn't communicated well -- it will raise everybody's wages and make the country more productive. It's a stimulus bill all on its own! Albeit a really slow one.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone's communicated that aspect at all, at least I haven't heard it. It's usually about how we already needed healthcare reform in this country, which is true. But after a huge drop like we had we really really needed it specifically for those people who were hit hardest.
 
Cooter said:
Can't stay away. :). Good ole' discounting Gallup because it says something I don't like. The main reason I see Romney winning comfortably is turnout. There is a very very very small chance Obama can replicate 08' turnout of hope and change/Bush sucks with his argument this year of things are bad but they will get better and my opponent is a horrible human being. Add that to a much stronger republican turnout and I just don't see it happening.
Click to expand...

Outliers are corrected for no matter who they come from. If it's not an outlier, the other polls will show the same thing soon enough and the analysis of the data continues as normal. Predicting a comfortable Romney win is pure ignorance of the data.
 
What policies has Obama implemented (this gets tiring to say especially when half of the stuff attributed to Obama is what Congress comes up with) that has killed off coal jobs?
 
GashPrex said:
Uh no it doesn't ....

It all comes down to Ohio IMO - whoever wins that state will win the presidency.
Click to expand...

Uh...nope. Romney needs a lot more than just Ohio to win, but without Ohio it's almost impossible for him to win. And Ohio while still technically a toss up is very likely to go Obama.
 
RDreamer said:
There's very little chance right now that Romney wins Ohio. It's not impossible or out of the question, but there's very little chance of it.
Click to expand...

Prior to this poll Ohio was looking far more favorable for Obama than Iowa.

There's very little reason right now to believe Obama loses Ohio.
 
GashPrex said:
Uh no it doesn't ....

It all comes down to Ohio IMO - whoever wins that state will win the presidency.
Click to expand...

And Jon Husted is still hard at work trying to keep his voter suppression campaign alive. Meanwhile the Tea Party is trying to keep purging voter rolls of undesirables such as students, African Americans, the homeless and so on. No matter that the majority of challenges they file are invalidated, including EVERY student they've challenged, they'll keep on truckin' on.
 
GashPrex said:
You guys must be seeing different polls then me in ohio - everything i have seen is 1-2% in favor of Obama.
Click to expand...

WIULi.jpg


There's more under that too, but overall 538 calculates the average at Obama +3.5 and the adjusted vote share at +1.9, which is significant enough.
 
GashPrex said:
You guys must be seeing different polls then me in ohio - everything i have seen is 1-2% in favor of Obama.
Click to expand...

Which was pretty much the floor that Obama has. Even with Obama's terrible last couple of weeks Romney wasn't ever able to lead which is a terrible sign with the momentum at worst stalled for Romney or shifting back towards Obama
 
GashPrex said:
You guys must be seeing different polls then me in ohio - everything i have seen is 1-2% in favor of Obama.
Click to expand...

Not only has Romney never actually been leading in Ohio, but early voting has started and some of the polls are showing 20% of the people have already voted and something like 2/3 of them were for Obama. It's only been growing since then. Obama's ground game is astounding there. Mitt would need to swing things with voters on election day an astounding amount in order to win.

Really, it's kind of the same as the Iowa numbers that someone just posted here. If 1/3 of the vote is in and Obama has 2/3 of that vote, then just think what Romney has to do. It's hard enough to swing things that small percentage when no one's already clocked in their vote, but when they have? He's just got very little wiggle room.
 
KHarvey16 said:
WIULi.jpg


There's more under that too, but overall 538 calculates the average at Obama +3.5 and the adjusted vote share at +1.9, which is significant enough.
Click to expand...

yep i've seen the 538 aggregate polling...

and if somebody can look at the latest polls in Ohio and tell me "Yep he's got this in the bag" then I don't know what to say.
 
and if somebody can look at the latest polls and tell me "Yep he's got this in the bag" then I don't know what to say.
Click to expand...

It's not that he's got this in the bag and there is not even a single percentage point that Romney wins it, but it is highly unlikely that Romney takes Ohio at this point.
 
metalslimer said:
What policies has Obama implemented (this gets tiring to say especially when half of the stuff attributed to Obama is what Congress comes up with) that has killed off coal jobs?
Click to expand...

Here's the sad reality -- American coal is dying. Short of an aggressive government intervention to SAVE coal, natural gas is just way too cheap for coal to do well. In the next three years or so our coal production is going to drop by 25% or so just by attrition. And that's not even considering the fact that coal reduction is a necessary part of any global warming initiative.

Obama has put incentives into place -- for CLEAN coal, i.e., coal with sequestration. The problem is that clean coal is by leaps and bounds even more expensive than regular coal, so it's basically a red herring. There are essentially zero coal-and-carbon-sequestration plants in America. So his incentivizing clean coal and lack of incentivizing OG coal is basically signing the death warrant for coal.

The problem is that incentivizing non-clean coal would just be a bad idea for everybody except the people working in coal mines. Sure, Romney could do it, but he probably won't -- we're better off outsourcing that industry to countries that still use coal. The real question isn't how do we save coal, because we can't and shouldn't. The real question is what do we do for coal miners, and the answer is that we need to provide them with better opportunities and a better safety net.

RDreamer said:
I don't think anyone's communicated that aspect at all, at least I haven't heard it. It's usually about how we already needed healthcare reform in this country, which is true. But after a huge drop like we had we really really needed it specifically for those people who were hit hardest.
Click to expand...

See? Lousy Democratic messaging.

Employee compensation has not risen in pace with productivity in the last thirty years, as it mostly did before that. But the numbers are actually even worse, because employee compensation doesn't just include employee wages, but also employer-provided insurance. The thing about employer-provided insurance is that it's often a non-ideal way for an employee to spend their compensation dollars, because it's a group plan that they don't actually choose themselves. At the same time, of course, it's even more expensive, or even impossible, for them to actually buy insurance themselves -- so there's a lock-in effect where you're much more dependent on your employers than they are on you. This has a corrosive effect on labor rights.

Aside from the general cost-reduction efforts of the PPACA, it will also pretty effectively free employees from their requirement to get healthcare through their employers. In many cases, this will incentivize people to prefer jobs which provide more compensation in wages and less compensation in insurance, which will mean more such jobs, which will result in an increase in wages. The measure's efforts to ensure unemployed people don't lose their insurance immediately will reduce the lock-in effect, which will lessen people's need to be employed, lowering the nominal supply of labor and thus raising its value -- which will also cause compensation to rise.

That's why a strong social safety net is key to an effective and competitive free market -- it fights wage slavery.
 
pigeon said:
This is the most important aspect of Obamacare and something that he hasn't communicated well -- it will raise everybody's wages and make the country more productive. It's a stimulus bill all on its own! Albeit a really slow one.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but guaranteed health coverage--regardless of pre-existing conditions--will greatly reduce job lock and proportionately enhance labor market mobility. This is an enormous benefit that's almost entirely overlooked.
 
GashPrex said:
yep i've seen the 538 aggregate polling...

and if somebody can look at the latest polls in Ohio and tell me "Yep he's got this in the bag" then I don't know what to say.
Click to expand...

Here's what I was trying to say:

PPP's newest Ohio poll finds Barack Obama leading 51-46, a 5 point lead not too different from our last poll two weeks ago when he led 49-45.

The key finding on this poll may be how the early voters are breaking out. 19% of people say they've already cast their ballots and they report having voted for Obama by a 76-24 margin. Romney has a 51-45 advantage with those who haven't voted yet, but the numbers make it clear that he already has a lot of ground to make up in the final three weeks before the election.
Click to expand...

Romney needs to swing election day to an astoundingly large amount in order to overcome the early voting advantage.
 
pigeon said:
This is the most important aspect of Obamacare and something that he hasn't communicated well -- it will raise everybody's wages and make the country more productive. It's a stimulus bill all on its own! Albeit a really slow one.
Click to expand...

One of my biggest hopes for Obamacare is that, after it's fully implemented, it will make the country's economy more dynamic. It will be a lot easier to quit your job or work part time to focus on a start up or creative project if you don't have to worry so much about finding health insurance. I think this effect will yield more rewards than people expect.
 
Maybe we'll get a Obama Electoral win and a Romney popular vote win, and the entire country comes together under the banner of hypocrisy.
 
DrForester said:
Maybe we'll get a Obama Electoral win and a Romney popular vote win, and the entire country comes together under the banner of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't be the worst thing to happen. Then both parties would have been burned by it happening in recent memory and there might be some real political will to change to a straight popular vote. Electoral system that makes only certain states matter is fundamentally broken.
 
Kusagari said:
The biggest thing about that Ohio poll to me is how stable it remains.

People there seem pretty set at this point.
Click to expand...

And as the early voting numbers show, Romney needs to sway an increasingly large number of voters.

I think we can infer two things from the lopsided degree to which the early voting numbers favor Obama. The first is enthusiasm. The other is ground game.

I'm not sure how to say how much of the share comes from which. But each passing day locks in votes in a way that makes it increasingly difficult for Romney to overcome.

And in Iowa, 1/3 of the vote is done, and Romney is down 35 points. Good lord.
 
Something Wicked said:
Well, in a basic statistical sense, just from looking at the numbers of "likely voters," the Gallup is nearly two times more accurate than any of the other polls. The ABC poll could be considered the least accurate. Now, I understand different polls can have different methods of determining whether a voter is "likely' or not and that swing-state polls matter much more than overall national polls, but people using the term "outlier" for the most extensive of national polls demonstrates some mathematical ineptitude.
Click to expand...

holy shit
 
Kusagari said:
The biggest thing about that Ohio poll to me is how stable it remains.

People there seem pretty set at this point.
Click to expand...

Romney hasn't been able to move the Midwest firewall at all. Someone posted a Gallup poll that showed the Midwest as the only region where white middle class workers favored Obama. I think Obama's been really successful pushing the auto bailout here to improve his image, plus people just really don't like Romney still.
 
Isn't he ahead in Wisconsin as well? Ohio and Wisconsin are the two states that the Koch brothers pushed the hardest with their anti union stuff.
 
RDreamer said:
Obama's still ahead in Wisconsin, too. It's got a bit close for my own comfort, but he's still ahead.
Click to expand...

And to add, from today's NBC/Marist polls:

What especially seems to be helping Obama in Iowa is early voting. Thirty-four percent of likely voters in the poll say they have already cast their ballots, and the president is winning those people, 67 percent to 32 percent. Another 11 percent are planning to vote early, and he’s up among that group, 55 percent to 39 percent. But it’s reversed among Election Day voters: Romney is ahead, 54 percent to 39 percent.

In Wisconsin, just 15 percent say they have already voted or plan to vote early, and Obama leads among this group, 64 percent to 35 percent. Yet it’s even among Election Day voters, with Obama getting 48 percent and Romney at 47 percent.
Click to expand...
Romney has a big hole to climb out of come election day.
 
Gallup is an absolutely horrendous polling company. Remember 2000? At this point, George W. Bush led Al Gore 50-39 in their poll of "likely voters". They were junk for much of 2004, ranked 17th of 23 in 2008 and 2010 was their nadir.
 
eBay Huckster said:
Gallup has been coasting on their polling reputation from the mid-20th century for decades
Click to expand...

They're one of the worst. I'm an Obama supporter, so I saw a lot of people bigging them up at the time they showed him leading, but the truth is that even Rasmussen, which should only be considered a legitimate barometer when they drop the GOP skew in the last week or so of a campaign, has been better in recent times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Time to bring back Politics forum?
6
1K
EviLore replied
‘Deadpool & Wolverine’ Becomes Top-Grossing R-Rated Pic Of All Time
31
2K
ForAcademicPurposes replied
Time Machine
2
633
Solarstrike replied
Most aesthetically pleasing computer of all time?
Opinion  2
84
3K
The Lunch Legend replied
  • Locked
I think it's time we take off and nuke Reddit from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
3
660
Aesius replied
Top Bottom