Definitely encouraging so far, but I still say we should wait till the weekend for a clearer picture on the daily trackers. And for national polls & swing state polling, anything that was polled this current week rather than the direct post-debate period.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 |OT4|: Your job is not to worry about 47% of these posts.
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
Definitely encouraging so far, but I still say we should wait till the weekend for a clearer picture on the daily trackers. And for national polls & swing state polling, anything that was polled this current week rather than the direct post-debate period.
DataStream
Member
I would love to see this run in the swing states.
Black Mamba
Member
Oh I still agree. Just hope the chicken little is quelled a bit.
RustyNails
Member
I wish. But even if the UE rate dips to 7.3%, I think the Jobbers have muddled the economic message by injecting doubt about the credibility of BLS. Jack Welch is still a BFD. A few more CEOs join his bandwagon, and we'll have a legit story.
speculawyer
Member
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blog...welsh-cakes-132603792--abc-news-politics.html
Did the Romney campaign really think putting their elitist dancing horse tax-shelter on GMA was a good idea? That doesn't strike me as a wise decision but what do I know.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Whoa man. Bold prediction. Sometime in the future...how can you be sure? It might take 4.6 billion years when our Sun only has 4.5 billion years left.
Black Mamba
Member
The ue dropping to 7.3 would be insane and I don't its possible. If jobs are gaining that fast then lot of people out of he labor force should be coming back in pushing it up.
That said a half percent dip is gigantic. I would bet lots of money it does not come close or move more than .1
That said a half percent dip is gigantic. I would bet lots of money it does not come close or move more than .1
Gallup's UE poll is junk. A half a point in a regular poll is barely recognized statistical noise, a half point in UE is giant. That is why it takes a big govt. organization who specializes in it to track it. Gallup is just a regular pollster. Their UE number always bounces all over the place. I find it really weird they even poll that honestly.
They have some odd daily trackers, they track happiness.
They have some odd daily trackers, they track happiness.
She looked first-ladylike to them. Some people think that's what a first lady should be, a fancy white lady with expensive hobbies.
Those people are out of touch with the majority of Americans.
BrokenEchelon
Banned
Thequietone
Member
Take the wine glass away since women are not supposed to drink alcohol becauseWhat women should be, act, and look like, according to the GOP:
they are the caretakers of the family and shouldn't be under the influence of anything that could jeopardize their role. Otherwise spot on.
Isn't she also showing to much arm as well?
ErasureAcer
Banned
I think Obama's got this guys.
He's only losing two states of those polled. Yes, West Virginia is one of them.
He's only losing two states of those polled. Yes, West Virginia is one of them.
Indeed. Only liberated hussies like Michelle Obama show that much arm!
I don't think so. Obama's on a good path, but if he doesn't pump up this economy before 2016, Hillary is going to get credit for the economic boost. The number one most important thing is having a strong economy (which is done through a foundation of education and manufacturing. Sure he'll get mentioned alongside Hillary, but more-so as an afterthought. I guarantee you the general population won't remember him as well as they'll remember Bill and potentially Hillary (partially by virtue of having Bill).
Obama's done a lot, but people will ask "was it enough?" Yeah you could argue "oh well what did Bill do?" Well, he didn't really have to do anything. His main focus was boost the economy by investing in American jobs/education (this was the theme of the '92 debates). Whether or not the economy was due to him (or the .com bubble) doesn't really matter. He did what he said he was going to do. Obama also had this responsibility of boosting the economy. Our economy was hit hard and I don't blame him for what he's done, because he's had to deal with a lot of Republican opposition blocking everything, but in the end he's going to be judged by results. It's great that he's now under 8.0% unemployment, but that's not what people want to see- even if it's not fair to the President.
Well those three things were pretty good under Clinton. I remember- while Clinton was President- reading in my Scholastic Weekly school newsletter about the dangers of a guy named Osama Bin Laden. A few years later? 9/11. Then Republicans have the nerve to say the Clinton administration didn't do enough to stop him.
Clinton's political power has shown its effects in other places, most significantly by creating the New Democrat movement. (I'm no expert on this sort of thing, so I'll just copy and paste the New Democrat wikipedia page)
Also Clinton is a walking Colbert Bump. You ask Clinton to show up to one of your events and you get all demographics to show up AND you convert a lot of people over. You'll notice not even Fox News can talk trash about Bill.
Yeah. Nobody wants Obama to be remembered as the "first African-American President." That's insulting. People want Obama to stand on his own merits. Sure DODT is gone. Sure gay marriage is getting closer. But I don't think either of those things will be remembered in the future. Obama's done some great things, but how great are those things in the context of American history? They're important to a lot of younger, more liberal voters because we care about our gay friends. We care about everyone being able to afford healthcare. We'll see what will define him by the end of his Presidency though. I like Obama. I cared enough to stand in line 3 hours to vote for him even though he has literally a zero percent chance of winning my state. And I'll do it again this year. But he gets constantly overstated on here. People were saying he'd completely knock it out of the ballpark at the DNC while I knew Clinton would overshadow him. People were saying he'd completely demolish Romney at the first debate- some even saying that Obama is one of the greatest debaters of all time. Let's be real. Obama is a good President that we're passionate about. That doesn't mean that we have to be unrealistic in our expectations of him.
It changes the dynamics of the game and Republican party will be forced to realign. There is no realistic midwest winning strategy. They still think they can win under their current strategy and voter ID laws (if they even pass) but if the GOP loses Texas, they lose period. But where they realign to would just hand-waving on my part. It'll have to be something with a wider appeal than old, angry, white males who want welfare for themselves and not for "the others".
aronnov reborn
Banned
love it
Clinton's current popularity and "can do no wrong" status is because he's the President we had the last time the economy was thriving with no foreign wars. He was just as hated as Obama by the right and he had several scandals (unlike Obama) which the media destroyed him for. No one talks about that anymore because he's a good guy and former presidents are afforded a certain level of deference. It's easy to have great popularity with everyone when you're an ex-president because no one is blaming you for their current problems and the media's not criticizing everything you say.
To be clear, when I refer to Bill as a game-changer, I'm referring to the demographics that he can reach and the enthusiasm that he can cause. Obama's "Hope and Change" message was powerful when he was running for his first term, but it has dimmed down mostly because of results. Clinton can fall back on his record (regardless of whether it was due to his economic policies) while Obama currently can't (even though most liberals and economists would say that he did as well as could've been hoped for).
ryutaro's mama
Member
That margin in TX is LOL worthy.
People who want to be told who to vote for.
It's not like there's bee na campaign going on for the last 2 years
He was not just as hated by the Right. Ninety percent of the people I talk to everyday is a heavily Conservative Republican (mostly socially rather than fiscally) and most love Clinton. I watch Fox News occasionally just to see what those guys have to say and most are afraid to talk trash about Clinton. Not because he's a former President, but because they know how much influence he has. Think liberals don't talk trash about George W Bush? They do. If you're willing to give Fox News more credit than that, I don't know what to say. And George W definitely does not have "great popularity" even among the Right. There's a reason he wasn't invited to the RNC.
They love him now. Obviously him being white and from the South helps but the same Fox personalities praising him and attacking Obama were attacking Clinton back then.
Also, cynics would say Clinton's economy was so good because of the dot-com bubble. I don't think that's the whole story because his tax policies were certainly better than Bush's. However, Clinton (urged by a Republican congress) is responsible for a lot of the deregulation that led to our current problems..
Oh, I agree that they hated Bill back then. But that's their job. I don't think they'll suddenly love Obama when he leaves office. I don't think they'll give him any praise.
Clinton's economy probably could've been better (in regards to deregulations), but probably most importantly it gave people a very positive perception of the Democratic party.
He was definitely hated by the right when he was in office. They claimed he killed Vince Foster. The Whitewater investigation is the whole reason the Monica Lewinsky thing even came up in the first place. The Militia Movement came to rise when he was in power, largely because of Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Actually, I think Obama has had it easy compared to some of the stuff Bill had to deal with.
Iowa is the bluest state LOL
cartoon_soldier
Member
Even the reporter's twitter feeds are filled with more Romney-Ryan stories. Probably because Obama campaign doesn't offer any OTR talk, another mistake when trying to push Romney's lies.
So what 11% undecided?
Gallup changing their methodology
http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2012/10/survey-methods-complex-and-ever-evolving.html
http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2012/10/survey-methods-complex-and-ever-evolving.html
empty vessel
Member
Falsely, unfortunately, because it made people believe that government surpluses were good, when in fact Clinton was draining the economy of financial assets and putting the private sector in a lot of debt (much to the pleasure of the financial industry--if you ever wondered why that industry likes the government to be in surplus, it's because it forces people to borrow and shifts bargaining power to finance), setting the table for the financial crisis that would eventually strike.
What else do you call winning every swing state?
you're like a worse Diablos for chicken littling now, 'cause you just find any negative news you can and then blow it up for pages and remove any context. Don't you know this is not how politics works? Let's say Romney tied right now in Ohio, Obama would still be at advantage for his head start in early voting. But polling out of Ohio shows Obama with the same point or one less, just with Romney solidifying his own support. He's going to net it.
At least with PhoenixDark we know he's trolling, you're just being sort of Andrew Sullivan-esque but without even his tenuous grasp of reality.
Obama's gonna win, Cartoon, unless Biden blows the next debate and Obama blows the next two and on top of that Obama fucks a white chick. Relaaaax.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
I'm not against the idea of a single payer system. The problem I have is I see a huge bureaucracy opening up around it and being extremely inefficient with more people pushing papers than actually providing healthcare.
Alternatively, I think the government should focus on strict oversight and allow the market to compete while stomping down any idea of cartels or monopolies. Also I don't think that insurance companies etc shouldn't be allowed into the stock market. I have a problem when they become beholden to shareholders.
If that doesn't work, then I think we should ultimately move to a single payer system.
empty vessel
Member
Well, but all an insurer does is push paper. That's literally the task at hand, which is why it is ideal for government to do it all, rather than have a bunch of middle men pushing paper in private sector under strict government regulation, except less efficiently, because the capacity to streamline both on the insurer side and the health care provider side is entirely lost. (In other words, when you split up the insurance payment processing system into a bunch of different entities, each with their own forms and methods of processing, you force doctors offices to have to deal with each and every slight variation in the way these insurers individually require. It's wasteful, costly, and, quite frankly, obnoxious.)
In case you were thinking otherwise, a single payer health care system does not mean the government is the entity providing the care. It's just the entity that processes payments to those who provide the care on behalf of the insured.
Do other polling companies use cell phones? I doubt the robo calls use cell phones.
Black Mamba
Member
11% undecided, sheesh.
I think the key here is Obama losing numbers, Romney not really gaining. He's not causing people to switch their vote.
As long as this trend continues, the Obama voters will simply come home.
Ras is one of the few that doesn't.
Almost all the pollsters use cell phones to some extent, these days. Also, Obama does better with cell phones since cell phone exclusive users tend to be democrats, obviously.
Still, there are some polls that don't use it. Silver showed some of them, IIRC.
http://thepage.time.com/2012/10/09/the-view-from-1-pru/
Halperin had a big interview yesterday. But yeah, they don't just spout off OTR randomly like Romney's campaign.
Sounds exactly like an insurance company. The only difference is that an insurance company profits when they deny you coverage.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
Hmmm, good point.
I still have this idea that having true competition will ultimately result in a better system, but you made it really hard to hold on to
And I want the government to have strict regulations so that they can't do that type of thing. Severe fines or ultimately the gov can have the ability to shut them down.
edit: public healthcare doesn't mean there won't be any private healthcare for those who want it on top of the basic free universal healthcare. It just means everyone has access to it, regardless of their preexisting conditions/social status.
What do you think about the efficiency of European systems? Germany has had universal healthcare for as far back as 1883 IIRC. There hasn't really been any problems.
What do you think about the efficiency of European systems? Germany has had universal healthcare for as far back as 1883 IIRC. There hasn't really been any problems.
Yeah, and look what it led to. HITLER.
empty vessel
Member
Hmmm, good point.
I still have this idea that having true competition will ultimately result in a better system, but you made it really hard to hold on to
Streamlined administration of claims and payments is one of the, although certainly not the only, reasons why single payer systems cost less per capita.
But if you never have a surplus you can never pay down debt. How are governments supposed to ever reduce debt load without a surplus?
NullPointer
Member
The crux of it right here.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked