Abc News/washington Post Poll: Obama Leading Romney Ahead Of First Debate

[SteeleJoe]

I don't get why homosexual people want to get married. Non homosexuals are trying to get out of marriages in their millions, so what's the big deal anyway?

Choice and equality. Very important in such matters of social security and immigration. Marriage isn't REQUIRED for anyone.

If homosexuals think it's so important to get what non homosexuals are rejecting in their millions ( most people I know back home are divorced ) , they should work to elect politicians that support their cause. If they can't do that, it's because most people have more important things to worry about, like how to pay the mortgage, buy food etc.

While homosexuals may think it's important, to the vast majority, it's a non issue.

Your (repeated) comment about 'non homosexuals rejecting marriage in their millions' is just dumb; first of all, millions of straight are also choosing marriage (indeed many or most of those who are divorcing will remarry). Secondly it is totally irrelevant. The fact is, regardless if even almost no straight people were getting married, they have the legal right to do so while homosexuals do not. It's about equal rights.

Oh, and if it's a non-issue, then there should be no objection to allowing it. Homosexuals getting married and enjoying the same rights as you or me will not prevent anyone from paying their mortgage or buying food.

It's not only homosexuals who think it's important -- not by a long shot. There's plenty of heterosexual Americans (like myself) who care about this.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[thaibeachlovers]

I'm sure people who watch Fox News are very fired up about this Libyan thing. However, like most, I think this election is going to be decided on economic matters.

If it was, Obama would be at 5% instead of 48%. 6 trillion $ in 3 1/2 years is a bit hard to explain away.

Whether or not it is an economic based election, I'm looking forward to Obama trying to explain why they refused to send extra security to Libya when the ambassador was asking for it, given that he was murdered because of that decision.

[SteeleJoe]

Any attempt to turn this thread into a gay marriage thread will result in a ban. There are other forums more appropriate to such a discussion.

Just saw this. Fair enough. I wasn't making any such attempt but I'll certainly not comment further on that topic here.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[thaibeachlovers]

Any attempt to turn this thread into a gay marriage thread will result in a ban. There are other forums more appropriate to such a discussion.

Sorry. Subject closed so far as I'm concerned.

[qdinthailand]

My 2 cents:

Kudos to Martha Raddatz for managing the debate so well, and getting both parties to actually say something meaningful, instead of mouthing talking points.

The polls don't mean squat. Most of those polls you site were based on viewer audience, already pre-screened as to their voting preferences. God, what horse dung. It's all in the methodology - the population selection and format of the questions - that determines whether a poll has relevance to what's being measured, or is just a waste of time.

Take a statistics course covering the design and analysis of experiments.

Most of the U.S. political polls are pure crap. The only one that matters is the one on election day.

[chiangmaikelly]

My 2 cents:

Kudos to Martha Raddatz for managing the debate so well, and getting both parties to actually say something meaningful, instead of mouthing talking points.

The polls don't mean squat. Most of those polls you site were based on viewer audience, already pre-screened as to their voting preferences. God, what horse dung. It's all in the methodology - the population selection and format of the questions - that determines whether a poll has relevance to what's being measured, or is just a waste of time.

Take a statistics course covering the design and analysis of experiments.

Most of the U.S. political polls are pure crap. The only one that matters is the one on election day.

Poll accuracy 2008

http://www.nowpublic...ential-election

Poll Score Grade Accuracy Consistency Rasmussen Reports 91% A- 92% 86% Ipsos/McClatchy 89% B+ 92% 79% CNN/Opinion Research 88% B+ 92% 77% Fox News 84% B 92% 61% Pew 83% B- 92% 56% GWU/Battleground 79% C+ 92% 41% Diageo/Hotline 77% C+ 77% 79% NBC News / Wall St. Journal 76% C 77% 75% Gallup Traditional 73% C- 77% 63% Marist 67% D+ 62% 82% ABC News / Wash Post 67% D+ 62% 82% IBD/TIPP 66% D 77% 34% Gallup Expanded 66% D 62% 78% CBS News / NYT 60% D- 62% 56% Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 35% F 31% 48%

[thaibeachlovers]

My 2 cents:

Kudos to Martha Raddatz for managing the debate so well, and getting both parties to actually say something meaningful, instead of mouthing talking points.

The polls don't mean squat. Most of those polls you site were based on viewer audience, already pre-screened as to their voting preferences. God, what horse dung. It's all in the methodology - the population selection and format of the questions - that determines whether a poll has relevance to what's being measured, or is just a waste of time.

Take a statistics course covering the design and analysis of experiments.

Most of the U.S. political polls are pure crap. The only one that matters is the one on election day.

Poll accuracy 2008

http://www.nowpublic...ential-election

Poll Score Grade Accuracy Consistency Rasmussen Reports 91% A- 92% 86% Ipsos/McClatchy 89% B+ 92% 79% CNN/Opinion Research 88% B+ 92% 77% Fox News 84% B 92% 61% Pew 83% B- 92% 56% GWU/Battleground 79% C+ 92% 41% Diageo/Hotline 77% C+ 77% 79% NBC News / Wall St. Journal 76% C 77% 75% Gallup Traditional 73% C- 77% 63% Marist 67% D+ 62% 82% ABC News / Wash Post 67% D+ 62% 82% IBD/TIPP 66% D 77% 34% Gallup Expanded 66% D 62% 78% CBS News / NYT 60% D- 62% 56% Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 35% F 31% 48%

Rasmussen was the most accurate in 2008. At present they have Romney ahead slightly.

However, as said, the only one that counts is in 25 days time.

[chiangmaikelly]

The last time I remember a number of polls being wrong for President was 1948 ,

[Jingthing]

I am certain that most democrats think Biden did brilliantly and masterfully changed the subject away from Obama's first debate performance, and interestingly, even though he is old now, his performance has made some people think of him more seriously for 2016.

Of course Obama would have to be reelected, the economy well recovered, and Biden identified with the recovery (which he would be).

Other names now of course Hillary Clinton, but also Mark Warner, Martin O’Malley, and Andrew Cuomo.

The comment before that Biden sacrificed himself with his smiling act I don't buy for a minute.

He's a man that will want to be president till his last breath.

Not likely really, but more possible then it was before his debate.

http://www.washingto...514a_story.html

Hehehe, I do kind of like the sound of going from an O'bama to an O’Malley ...

Edited October 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Interesting to note Dick Cheney's rise and fall. When W was elected, few outside the Beltway or Halliburton knew or cared much about him. That changed, when it became evident that W's dad's buddy was actually the one calling the shots.

Plenty of people knew who he was before becoming VP in 2001. In 1991 Cheney was Secretary of Defense under Bush 41 during the Persian Gulf War. Another Bush 41 appointee from those days also found themselves in a very high position under Bush 43 was Gen. Colin Powell, who was Bush 43's Secretary of State, and his father's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both men were well known in America before W was elected.

[koheesti]

However, the real issue with Republicans, is that they morally condemn gay behavior and therefore any discussion of equality falls on deaf ears...

I'm Republican and I don't care if gays get married. I know a lot of other Republicans who feel the same way. In fact, I think the only time I've heard a Republican say anything against gay marriage has been on TV or in the newspapers.

[koheesti]

Again, the reason Biden won and won BIG is that he helped his president massively more than Ryan helped his wanna be president. That is always the job of VP's in these VP debates.

Again, the reason Biden won and won BIG is that he helped his president massively more than Ryan helped his wanna be president. That is always the job of VP's in these VP debates.

What debate were you watching? In the one I saw, it was at most a draw.

Given Biden's years in office he SHOULD have beaten Ryan well and truly.

I wish Ryan had taken him up on his statement that they didn't know the ambassador had asked for military assistance, given that the hearing in Congress had heard just the day before that the ambassador had asked for more security and been refused. Hopefully Romney will use Benghazigate to destroy Obama in the foreign policy debate.

Up to me, I'd have sent Biden to the naughty step for being irritating at best and rude at worst.

I wish Ryan had pointed it out when Biden flat out lied about voting against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[koheesti]

Benghazigate is hardly worthy of a gate.

Truly a case of gate inflation.

What's next?

Bidensmilegate?

or how about

Romneydoubleespressogate?

You're just like Biden, making jokes and laughing about something that got 4 American diplomats killed including the Ambassador - the first one in over 30 years. That man is unfit to be Commander in Chief.

[koheesti]

If homosexuals think it's so important to get what non homosexuals are rejecting in their millions ( most people I know back home are divorced ) , they should work to elect politicians that support their cause. If they can't do that, it's because most people have more important things to worry about, like how to pay the mortgage, buy food etc.

While homosexuals may think it's important, to the vast majority, it's a non issue.

We're doing that. It takes time. Did you notice President Obama? The hope is he can get some key supreme court picks for his second term as it is generally understood this issue is eventually going to settled at the supreme court level, just as previous bans on INTERRACIAL marriages were settled there. Do you think discrimination against an entire class of fellow citizens makes it easier for people to pay the mortgage? Governments can do MULTIPLE (and unrelated) things quite easily.

If Obama or any other president chooses their Supreme Court nominees based on how they would vote on the same sex marriage issue, they should be immediately impeached at the minimum. Seriously, it is a minor issue, not worthy of 10% of the attention it has gotten.

Sorry about that, I'm catching up on a few pages of reading on this thread and reply as I come across. No more comments on the gay thing from me.

Anyway, Supreme Court picks by a President are one of the most important things they can do to change the course of the country. A president should pick judges based on their ability to uphold the Constitution, and not how they would vote on a number of pet issues. Especially issues that don't even affect 95% of the population.

Edited October 13, 2012 by koheesti

[koheesti]

I am certain that most democrats think Biden did brilliantly and masterfully changed the subject away from Obama's first debate performance, and interestingly, even though he is old now, his performance has made some people think of him more seriously for 2016.

Of course Obama would have to be reelected, the economy well recovered, and Biden identified with the recovery (which he would be).

Other names now of course Hillary Clinton, but also Mark Warner, Martin O’Malley, and Andrew Cuomo.

The comment before that Biden sacrificed himself with his smiling act I don't buy for a minute.

He's a man that will want to be president till his last breath.

Not likely really, but more possible then it was before his debate.

http://www.washingto...514a_story.html

Hehehe, I do kind of like the sound of going from an O'bama to an O’Malley ...

Not a chance in he_ll that Biden will run for President in 2016. First of all, he'd be almost 80 yrs old by the time his first term ended. Second, I think Dems have slandered old, white men enough the past 4-5 years that they can never go back to choosing one to run for President, and third, Biden has turned into a late night comedy punchline. He isn't a serious candidate for anything any more than Palin is.

[theslime]

If homosexuals think it's so important to get what non homosexuals are rejecting in their millions ( most people I know back home are divorced ) , they should work to elect politicians that support their cause. If they can't do that, it's because most people have more important things to worry about, like how to pay the mortgage, buy food etc.

While homosexuals may think it's important, to the vast majority, it's a non issue.

We're doing that. It takes time. Did you notice President Obama? The hope is he can get some key supreme court picks for his second term as it is generally understood this issue is eventually going to settled at the supreme court level, just as previous bans on INTERRACIAL marriages were settled there. Do you think discrimination against an entire class of fellow citizens makes it easier for people to pay the mortgage? Governments can do MULTIPLE (and unrelated) things quite easily.

If Obama or any other president chooses their Supreme Court nominees based on how they would vote on the same sex marriage issue, they should be immediately impeached at the minimum. Seriously, it is a minor issue, not worthy of 10% of the attention it has gotten.

Sorry about that, I'm catching up on a few pages of reading on this thread and reply as I come across. No more comments on the gay thing from me.

Anyway, Supreme Court picks by a President are one of the most important things they can do to change the course of the country. A president should pick judges based on their ability to uphold the Constitution, and not how they would vote on a number of pet issues. Especially issues that don't even affect 95% of the population.

Judges should be impartial, no wonder the US is up the Creek without a Paddle. Can you all Impeach past Presidents?, Ifin so Bushy 2 then Bushy 1 for either downright lying or for being Dilly Bags

[Ulysses G.]

I am certain that most democrats think Biden did brilliantly and masterfully

Then why did so many democrats come out and say that he was condescending and downright rude? His manic performance did little but hurt his campaign for reelection.

More importantly, Biden was rude. Perhaps he was trying to emulate Romney’s dominant performance from the week before. But where Romney was commanding, Biden was just insulting. The most damning moments came when the camera went split screen. On the right was Ryan trying to make a serious point about world peace. On the left was Biden laughing. http://blogs.telegra...the-rude-party/

Edited October 13, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[maidu]

I suppose a more interesting query would be: who do you feel would be a better leader in the event the commander in chief dies, Ryan or Biden. That is a more prescient issue.

Can we vote for the empty chair?

The laughing was a debate strategy. Biden is heavily experienced and very ready to be president, especially in foreign policy. Ryan is really what he seems: a WONK.

Do you think Biden would interrupt, grimace, smile, laugh out loud and snicker when Putin is speaking? Sadly the debate is what Biden will be remembered for. He would be as ineffectual as President as he has been as number 2.

Biden has met many foreign leaders, before and after he was VP. He's an adept, smart and endearing diplomat.

The thing about Biden and his ocassional kind facial expression during the debate: Republicans are and will be scurrying after each debate to quickly find whatever issue they can attack. Then they will rail and rail on that one point, hoping it will define the entire debate in the public's view. With the 1st presidential debate, it was Obama's seemingly nonchalant non-intense demeanor (Republicans caricturized it more scathingly). With the VP debate, it was Biden's smile (again, R's characterized it scathingly). Admittedly, such strategies can be effective for some voters. Republicans know that many people make decisions based upon appearances, rather than substance or, in the case of candidates, policies or beliefs.

When you bring a new friend home and your grandma first sees him/her, she's going to make her lion's share of judgement on that person moral character based on appearances (facial expressions, attire, etc), compared to what that person may say (or what others say) about him/her.

I've been wrong on judging individuals' character and beliefs by appearances, as I would venture all of us have at times.

Still, Republicans are quite smart in attacking facial expressions of their debate opponents, as that will be more effective (to remaining undecideds or waffling members of their own party) than attacking opponents for their ideas and policies.

[Ulysses G.]

The comment before that Biden sacrificed himself with his smiling act I don't buy for a minute.

He's a man that will want to be president till his last breath.

I agree that he did not realize that he was sealing his own fate, but he sealed it never the less. He will never be president as long as the footage of the VP debate exists. Even Tom Brokaw from NBC admonished Biden for his odd behavior. He was obviously coached to be condescending to Ryan, but he took it way too far and turned his performance into the stuff of bizarre comedy. I look forward to the Saturday Night Live skit.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[keemapoot]

However, the real issue with Republicans, is that they morally condemn gay behavior and therefore any discussion of equality falls on deaf ears...

I'm Republican and I don't care if gays get married. I know a lot of other Republicans who feel the same way. In fact, I think the only time I've heard a Republican say anything against gay marriage has been on TV or in the newspapers.

You bring up an excellent point, and one that has torn at me and many over the years. I've always felt fiscally Republican (and have voted that way), and at the same time socially very liberal. The idea that some Sunday morning TV quack preacher swindler is going to dictate the social conversation to me is repulsive. Yet, many right-leaning people, such as me, who would otherwise vote Republican, can only get there in exceptional cases, with exceptional candidates, such as Reagan. I also like Bush Sr., and spent some time with him once, found him engaging.

But, as I have ranted before, The far right shift led by Limbaugh, and the rest has shifted the party to the extreme and made it nasty.

[keemapoot]

In a race this tight, things like this could make a difference. It's unfortunate for Republicans that their recent 2-term President is persona non grata, both in his own party faithful and with undecideds.

Bill Clinton is back in the game big time, serving as President Barack Obama's surrogate in chief and relying on his oratorical skill and folksy style to help Democratic candidates.

Also, there's this uncomfortable truth: Obama needs Clinton to generate support with white, working-class and independent voters who were drawn to Clinton and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, but who haven't warmed to Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/bill-clintons-back-campaign-game-big-time-143643283--election.html

[Ulysses G.]

I'm wondering what the ramifications will be from Biden trying to blame the State Department and intelligence agencies for the Libya scandal during the debate. There are rumors that Hillary is being set up to take the fall and that will not go over well with Bill Clinton.

[keemapoot]

I'm wondering what the ramifications will be from Biden trying to blame the State Department and intelligence agencies for the Libya scandal during the debate. There are rumors that Hillary is being set up to take the fall and that will not go over well with Bill Clinton.

Yeah, big time not go over well. I don't think there's any way Obama will risk that. However, the scandal is being blown way out of proportion, understandably, in what would normally just be another screw up abroad.

[Ulysses G.]

I agree that normally Obama would never risk it, but IMO 3 weeks before the election anything is possible.

[keemapoot]

Just musing about this for a minute. Obama could do that and not suffer anything as a result. We all know Hilary's going to resign after election anyway and get her 2016 campaign ready. Arguably, the Clintons have so much political firepower they don't really need Obama at all in 2016, even if the country turns around. And, returning to your Brutus idea of falling on her sword, would she do this voluntarily to get him to win? Hard to say. Obama would have to give up something really big in return, not sure what yet. And, at the end of the day, this scandal will just be a minor footnote and would not impact her chances in 2016.

[Ulysses G.]

That sound plausible, but if she thinks that Obama might lose anyway, what would he be able to offer her that would be worth damaging a spotless record in her present position? Politics sure are a dirty business.

[keemapoot]

That sound plausible, but if she thinks that Obama might lose anyway, what would he be able to offer her that would be worth damaging a spotless record in her present position? Politics sure are a dirty business.

I don't think it matters whether Obama loses or not that much to the Clintons. If they believe, as I do, that the economy will not significantly turn around in the next 4 years, under either Romney or Obama, without significant financial reforms, and let this silly notion go that those jobs that went to China and India will ever magically reappear, even if China revalues its currency, then all they have to do is slowly distance themselves from whoever is in office over the next 4 years, and pound on an alternate solution.

Honestly, I do think she will just throw him under the bus on this one.

Edited October 14, 2012 by keemapoot

[Ulysses G.]

I would seriously consider voting for her in 2016 unless Romney wins and does really well in the next 4 years. I admit that things do not look good for Europe and the USA, but they do not look good for China either and sometimes miracles do happen.

[chiangmaikelly]

I would seriously consider voting for her in 2016 unless Romney wins and does really well in the next 4 years. I admit that things do not look good for Europe and the USA, but they do not look good for China either and sometimes miracles do happen.

That's why the smart people have moved to Thailand.

[Chicog]

I must admit I didn't think the Presidential debates would have such a big impact, but the effects on the polls have been surprising. Florida has spun heavily in Romney's direction. Obama really has to push back in number two to redress the balance.

It does show what a powerful medium TV has become, we had the first such debates before our last election in the UK, and the best speaker was the one from the tiniest, third party. He ended up getting enough votes to be the only one with which the big two could form a coalition to take power.

And it obviously isn't about whether or not what you say is true, it's about whether or not you're believable.

I don't think either candidate has a clear plan to deal with what's going on in the global economy, but Romney for damned sure sounds like he does to people who aren't prepared to scrutinise his answers.