PPP is a very credible and reliable source, though.
I know, but it doesn't mean they are infallible. I'm going to wait until the next NBC poll to confirm.
PPP is a very credible and reliable source, though.
Yep, it's getting tighter... and this is pre-debate.
Sarcasm?It's just sampling error in Romney's favor obviously.
Anti-Obama commercials in Ohio are starting to get extra crazy. "Obama - radical on abortion, EVEN when it's just because the baby is a girl." Stay classy, Republicans.
One poll, and it's "getting tighter."Yep, it's getting tighter... and this is pre-debate.
That actually says alot does it not?That's one point since their last poll three weeks ago.
Why haven't they muzzled that idiot yet. Great way to point out that the prior GOP administration NEVER got him, Sununu. Great job.
Well, what was his reason for opposing it?
TAPPER: The House is, I think, this afternoon preparing to take up a bill that would ban gender selection as a factor in abortions in this country. And I was wondering — I haven’t a statement of administration policy; I was wondering if the White House had a position on that?
CARNEY: I will have to take that as well. Been focused on other things, but I will get back to you.
Note: The White House got back to me this evening to say the president opposes the bill.
White House deputy press secretary Jamie Smith says in a statement: “The Administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision. The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”
You know the boy who cried wolf?
If you keep crying that Romney is coming back no one will take you seriously even if he does.
Well, what was his reason for opposing it?
No such stipulations (against sex-selective abortions) exist in many US states, with IVF clinics there seeking to capitalise on a growing desire among wealthy couples from around the world to design their families rather than leaving it to chance.
This is the thing that never made sense to me about American politics - making party candidates go through a primary process where people in your own party attack you and expose your flaws (and it seems to get pretty vicious). Then they have to turn round and say "on no, he/she is a swell guy/girl after all".
I'm not sure I'm thought enough about an alternative. It just seems very counterproductive the way it currently is with candidates within a single party tearing each other down (and spending money to do so). Maybe if there was more breathing room between the end of the primaries and the elections themselves that might help?
Commonwealth countries like NZ, Australia and the UK seem to have much less in-party fighting that the public is exposed to, at least with respect to putting forward candidates for Prime Minister. Or maybe I'm just not paying enough attention.
I'm fine.I'm seriously concerned for the health and well being of Diablos, PhoenixDark and Cartoon_Soldier if an Ohio poll shows race being tied at 46%-47% in favor of Romney.
I'm seriously concerned for the health and well being of Diablos, PhoenixDark and Cartoon_Soldier if an Ohio poll shows race being tied at 46%-47% in favor of Romney.
I'm seriously concerned for the health and well being of Diablos, PhoenixDark and Cartoon_Soldier if an Ohio poll shows race being tied at 46%-47% in favor of Romney.
I'm not sure I'm thought enough about an alternative. It just seems very counterproductive the way it currently is with candidates within a single party tearing each other down (and spending money to do so). Maybe if there was more breathing room between the end of the primaries and the elections themselves that might help?
Commonwealth countries like NZ, Australia and the UK seem to have much less in-party fighting that the public is exposed to, at least with respect to putting forward candidates for Prime Minister. Or maybe I'm just not paying enough attention.
The primary process is actually intended to expose the candidates' flaws. Whichever candidate has the best responses to those flaws then gets nominated for the general election. If your primary opponents did a good enough job, your general election opponent will then have little left to throw at you.
The Republicans had Herman Cain leading the primaries for a while, until he bombed out due to a number of sexual harassment cases coming to light that he was unable to get through. Rick Perry was leading the primaries for a while until it was shown that he had difficulty stringing complete sentences together. Newt Gingrich also lead for a while, which slowly eroded due to being an asshole to everyone. The process is intended to knock those people out.
The main problem this time around is that the Republicans simply didn't have any good candidates. They tried out everything and eventually settled for the least self-destructive of the bunch, which wasn't saying much. Normally when a candidate gets shat on that much without reasonable responses, someone better ends up getting nominated.
I'm fine.
I'll be ok, trust me. My life and thoughts aren't dominated by concern for Barack Obama
You sure? Because this shit is so tight.
And it's getting tighter!
Yeah, it's more dominated by inventing weird ways to make up stuff about him.
HahahahaI'm seriously concerned for the health and well being of Diablos, PhoenixDark and Cartoon_Soldier if an Ohio poll shows race being tied at 46%-47% in favor of Romney.
Romney is winning 60% of Latinos in that poll btw
Yeah, I feel it too. Dems are getting really cocky, talking like the race is already over, and I think it's a mistake to be so overconfident.
No Pres has been re-elected with UE and GDP figures like this since FDR.
I actually take Christie at his word that Romney has a good chance of taking Obama by surprise in a debate.
I love how me simply noticing Dems blowing their load so early means I'm a worrywort.
Romney is winning 60% of Latinos in that poll btw
No candidate trailing in the polls by as much as Romney is has won since Truman (and those were not good polls).
Nobody with net negative favorability at this stage in the campaign has won in the history of net favorability.
Nobody has ever won the Presidency while being a Mormon! Although in fairness nobody has ever been reelected as a black dude either.
There just isn't really a meaningful sample size for claims of this nature yet. Check back in fifty years.
No Presidents have been re-elected with a 8+ UE % for a long ass time either.
I'll be ok, trust me. My life and thoughts aren't dominated by concern for Barack Obama
Hmm...
Don't worry. Hillary is going to be fine.
Do you think she might need to get a facelift for the 2012 campaign? She looks a lot older these days. I wish politics weren't about optics but they totally are.
Democratic Party interest group politics and fundraising.
Again, many countries have banned the practice without descending into Handmaid's Tale-style dystopias.
British couples flying to US for banned baby sex selection
Eggs are then collected, fertilised in the test tube, and then screened for genetic abnormalities and gender using a now well established technique called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).
Romney is winning 60% of Latinos in that poll btw
They only talked to 10 latinos.
No Presidents have been re-elected with a 8+ UE % for a long ass time either.
And they happened to talk to 10 who do not represent the majority of Latinoas in Ohio. Given that, what's to say they talked to non-Hispanic Ohioans who represent what's actually going on in the state?
Her face looks fine, I'm not sure what you're talking about
Don't worry. Hillary is going to be fine.
And they happened to talk to 10 who do not represent the majority of Latinoas in Ohio. Given that, what's to say they talked to non-Hispanic Ohioans who represent what's actually going on in the state?
lol, Hillary won't need a facelift to run in 2016. She will just need a better haircut.
66% of Dems in Ohio 'very excited' to vote, 62% of Republicans. Little evidence of pro-GOP enthusiasm gap at this pt:
I thought we were just trolling PD, but man, she does need a different haircut. What's going on right there.
Eh.
Well maybe people won't care. You know exactly what you're getting with Hillary.
Hmm...
This is a stat that suffers from lack of sample size, since the unemployment rate has rarely risen above 8% since the end of the Great Depression. In fact, I'm pretty sure no election in that period has taken place with unemployment exceeding 8%. It's not immediately obvious that an incumbent will have great difficulty being elected during such high unemployment either. It seems likely that many voters do understand that Obama inherited a mess and are willing to give him time. Furthermore, the economic situation has been terrible for years, yet Romney hasn't led in the polls since late 2011. As long as the current economic trends continue, the effects of high unemployment have already been factored into the polls. Nate Silver's model makes clear that good or bad economic data at this point will only shift Romney's chances a few percent either way. Therefore, it's clear that Romney, not Obama, is the one who must overcome historical precedence to win in November, because he has much more to overcome.No Presidents have been re-elected with a 8+ UE % for a long ass time either.
What do you expect him to say, "cynical political calculations?" That approach would really shorten press conferences on both sides of the aisle.