Poll: Obama Leading Romney 49% To 46% Ahead Of Second Debate

[koheesti]

This thing about trying to paint Obama with a Marxist paintbrush is silly. It may work with oldie arch conservatives, but that's about it. It's like saying Romney is the monopoly man with the silver cane and top hat. Gimme a break.

I wonder what percentage of Americans walking around in Che Guevara T-shirts are Obama supporters? I'm guessing 99.9%.

[koheesti]

Yes, base enthusiasm is vital. That's part of the motivation behind the Romnesia craze which appears to be for real beating out Binders of Women.

Speaking of the famous Binders, it turns out (as usual) Romney was misleading people in the last debate. He claimed he called for the women applicants when it turns out the binders of women's RESUMES was the idea of an outside group. Not his idea as he claimed. Also insiders in the one term of Romney in Mass. say his enthusiasm for women hires waned a lot later in his term.

His entire answer of course, slippery as it was, was a total dodge about the direct question that was asked, support for equal pay for women. Which he never answered.

Romney will definitely have a women's problem come November and it won't be in any binders.

So, it wasn't Romney who put all those women in binders!? It was an outside group?? THANK GOD!! All of those women who were offended can now relax and vote for Romney with a clear conscience.

[Ulysses G.]

Romney will definitely have a women's problem come November and it won't be in any binders.

Women are not simple. They can see through all the silly "War on Women" rhetoric. They know that a decent economy is more important than saving $9 per month on free birth control and so they are switching to Romney in droves. Obama has had 4 years and despite alll the broken promises, he has just not delivered.

Pro choice women won't be switching.

Lots of women have changed their choice to Romney already. He is running even with Obama and is ahead with men.

[Jingthing]

... He is running even with Obama and is ahead with men.

According to one outlier poll, innit? Wouldn't bank on that.

[Jingthing]

So, it wasn't Romney who put all those women in binders!? It was an outside group?? THANK GOD!! All of those women who were offended can now relax and vote for Romney with a clear conscience.

Resumes. Not women.

[samran]

This thing about trying to paint Obama with a Marxist paintbrush is silly. It may work with oldie arch conservatives, but that's about it. It's like saying Romney is the monopoly man with the silver cane and top hat. Gimme a break.

I wonder what percentage of Americans walking around in Che Guevara T-shirts are Obama supporters? I'm guessing 99.9%.

If we are going to pander to stereotypes, then can I dare say that the average American wearer of the t-shirts wouldn't have a clue who they actually have on that shirt

Edited October 21, 2012 by samran

[Ulysses G.]

... He is running even with Obama and is ahead with men.

According to one outlier poll, innit? Wouldn't bank on that.

Plenty of other polls have Romney ahead.

With just 16 days left before the presidential election, Mitt Romney has sustained the momentum he gained from the debate. A series of polls conducted over two weeks of likely voters showed that Mitt Romney gained ground on President Obama nationally and in all swing state polls. http://www.examiner.com/article/poll-of-polls-obama-vs-romney-show-mitt-romney-will-win-the-2012-election

[samran]

... He is running even with Obama and is ahead with men.

According to one outlier poll, innit? Wouldn't bank on that.

Plenty of other polls have Romney ahead.

With just 16 days left before the presidential election, Mitt Romney has sustained the momentum he gained from the debate. A series of polls conducted over two weeks of likely voters showed that Mitt Romney gained ground on President Obama nationally and in all swing state polls. http://www.examiner.com/article/poll-of-polls-obama-vs-romney-show-mitt-romney-will-win-the-2012-election

Even to me that Gallup poll looks like an outlier.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html#polls

What I don't get is that examiner link speaks about the real clear politics site giving Romney the edge, when the actual site says nothing of the sort.

Then it follows the analysis with a diatribe against Obama.

Now ulysses I actually have a lot of respect for you, but you can't be serious referencing partisan sites like you just have?

Edited October 21, 2012 by samran

[maidu]

Romney will definitely have a women's problem come November and it won't be in any binders.

Women are not simple. They can see through all the silly "War on Women" rhetoric. They know that a decent economy is more important than saving $9 per month on free birth control and so they are switching to Romney in droves. Obama has had 4 years and despite alll the broken promises, he has just not delivered.

Where do R and R stand on womens' rights? From their histories, I'd assume they're against abortion. That's a big issue for most women. Women want to have the option. Also for families of all stripes, particularly in their personal struggles. For example, even arch conservative parents, if their 17 yr old daughter got pregnant at a summer camp by who-knows-who, you can bet they'd at least want the option of abortion. It's common for conservatives to proclaim one set of values in public, while retaining another set in private. If Romney becomes president, we'll see a much more conservative set of values than the crowd-pleasing things Romney is currently projecting.

This thing about trying to paint Obama with a Marxist paintbrush is silly. It may work with oldie arch conservatives, but that's about it. It's like saying Romney is the monopoly man with the silver cane and top hat. Gimme a break.

I wonder what percentage of Americans walking around in Che Guevara T-shirts are Obama supporters? I'm guessing 99.9%.

I recall a guy walking along an Atlantic beach boardwalk - with a baseball cap which had fake bird crap all over its top and visor. Who do you think he will he be voting for? (any answer is allowable)

Edited October 21, 2012 by maidu

[bendejo]

Just because someone is wearing a Che t-shirt it doesn't mean they have the least idea who he was.

Saw a lad in Rio wearing such a shirt, on the back it said "XXXX America.' He was standing in line at McDonalds.

Edited October 21, 2012 by metisdead
: Profanity

[Ulysses G.]

Now ulysses I actually have a lot of respect for you, but you can't be serious referencing partisan sites like you just have?

My purpose was to show the statistics that point out that "A series of polls conducted over two weeks of likely voters showed that Mitt Romney gained ground on President Obama nationally and in all swing state polls." and the article is correct about that. Romney has gained ground against Obama and the Real Clear Politics average says that they are virtually even. Partisan, yes, but the information about the different polls is factual and Romney is the one with the momentum right now.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

Romney will definitely have a women's problem come November and it won't be in any binders.

Women are not simple. They can see through all the silly "War on Women" rhetoric. They know that a decent economy is more important than saving $9 per month on free birth control and so they are switching to Romney in droves. Obama has had 4 years and despite alll the broken promises, he has just not delivered.

Where do R and R stand on womens' rights? From their histories, I'd assume they're against abortion. That's a big issue for most women.

The president can not outlaw abortion - even if he wanted to - and I doubt if he really wants to. Both sides play politics and say things to please their base.

[keemapoot]

Romney will definitely have a women's problem come November and it won't be in any binders.

Women are not simple. They can see through all the silly "War on Women" rhetoric. They know that a decent economy is more important than saving $9 per month on free birth control and so they are switching to Romney in droves. Obama has had 4 years and despite alll the broken promises, he has just not delivered.

Where do R and R stand on womens' rights? From their histories, I'd assume they're against abortion. That's a big issue for most women.

The president can not outlaw abortion - even if he wanted to - and I doubt if he really wants to. Both sides play politics and say things to please their base.

I agree with this, as much as Romney has had to pander to the far Christian right to get the nomination, he bends with the wind, and likely will be moderate on this issue himself, but, abortion being "outlawed" under Romney is a real possibility, starting with two Supreme Court appointees pro-life (though Supreme Court Justices have been notoriously unpredictable - even with a clear agenda left or right) who could overturn Roe v. Wade, and then with the introduction of new legislation by the Republicans, which Romney would likely sign to pay off such voter loyalty.

So, yes Romney is a threat to pro-choice and abortion is a real differentiating issue in this election.

Edited October 21, 2012 by keemapoot

[maidu]

Romney will definitely have a women's problem come November and it won't be in any binders.

Women are not simple. They can see through all the silly "War on Women" rhetoric. They know that a decent economy is more important than saving $9 per month on free birth control and so they are switching to Romney in droves. Obama has had 4 years and despite alll the broken promises, he has just not delivered.

Where do R and R stand on womens' rights? From their histories, I'd assume they're against abortion. That's a big issue for most women.

The president can not outlaw abortion - even if he wanted to - and I doubt if he really wants to. Both sides play politics and say things to please their base.

As you know, a president can have considerable influence over social issues. #1 is, appointment of justices. The reason Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. weren't able to overthrow Roe vs Wade is not for lack of wanting to. It's that 'the groundswell of support for womens' right to choose what to do with their bodies and their private decisions' has remained strong in the US, for decades. If US demographics were like Wyoming or Utah, the laws of the land would be different. Unfortunately for them, there are loads of more liberal thinkers in CA and NY and other populous states which form the overall consensus. R and R will try to tip the balance toward arch conservative values. They don't say that now, but they will if/when they get elected.

[geriatrickid]

We will find out in about 3 weeks how reliable Gallup is. All the polls are accurate sometimes and inaccurate at other times. There is no way to know until the election.

I suggest you have a look at this review;

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/oct-19-after-romney-gains-should-obama-concede-florida/

It is a comprehensive list of all current poll results prepared by the NYT. It's just the facts. The Gallup poll while showing a Romney lead, actually shows an increase for Obama from its previous poll. It is an interesting analysis of the polling results because it offers good news for Romney if one looks at the results state by state, even though the polls favour Obama. All about key states and trends. There is no argument that Romney has made gains and has strong support, but the support and gains appear to be coming in states that were already in the Republican win column.

[geriatrickid]

As you know, a president can have considerable influence over social issues. #1 is, appointment of justices. The reason Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. weren't able to overthrow Roe vs Wade is not for lack of wanting to. It's that 'the groundswell of support for womens' right to choose what to do with their bodies and their private decisions' has remained strong in the US, for decades. If US demographics were like Wyoming or Utah, the laws of the land would be different. Unfortunately for them, there are loads of more liberal thinkers in CA and NY and other populous states which form the overall consensus. R and R will try to tip the balance toward arch conservative values. They don't say that now, but they will if/when they get elected.

Hmm, I wonder if it is coincedental that there are more top ranked universities and university educated people in CA and NY than WY and UT?

Edited October 21, 2012 by geriatrickid

[Ulysses G.]

The reason Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. weren't able to overthrow Roe vs Wade is not for lack of wanting to. It's that 'the groundswell of support for womens' right to choose what to do with their bodies and their private decisions' has remained strong in the US, for decades.

That is your theory. However, nothing has changed as far as most citizens preferring a choice on abortion and it is very unlikely that the Republicans would make serious try at changing it. They would lose the presidency if they did.

[keemapoot]

The reason Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. weren't able to overthrow Roe vs Wade is not for lack of wanting to. It's that 'the groundswell of support for womens' right to choose what to do with their bodies and their private decisions' has remained strong in the US, for decades.

That is your theory. However, nothing has changed as far as most citizens preferring a choice on abortion and it is very unlikely that the Republicans would make serious try at changing it. They would lose the presidency if they did.

In legal reality, as much as this abortion issue gets tossed around casually, in no way is it treated that way in appellate and State and Federal Supreme Courts. Lawyers have to fashion complex legal arguments for overturning Roe v. Wade, which the Judges and Justices have to be able to adopt based on sound legal precedent.

It is VERY hard to overturn Roe v. Wade in practice, even with the most severe right winger in office.

[Ulysses G.]

There is no argument that Romney has made gains and has strong support, but the support and gains appear to be coming in states that were already in the Republican win column.

He has made serious gains in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. They are very important swing states and none were in the bag for republicans. Also, Romney is ahead on the electoral votes.

.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

It is VERY hard to overturn Roe v. Wade in practice, even with the most severe right winger in office.

Correct and most people know it. Trying to turn it into an issue to retain power is sinking pretty low.

[keemapoot]

Turning toward Monday's debate on foreign policy, Madeleine Albright made some noteworthy comments about Romney's lack of credentials to lead on foreign policy. Of course, the same argument could have been made about Obama 4 years ago, and in fact about most candidates historically (not Bush Sr.), but nonetheless, shows that the incumbent does have a big edge in foreign policy experience. Speaking of Romney she said:

"He has absolutely no experience, and neither has Congressman Ryan, in foreign policy. I've never seen a ticket like this," said Albright, who spoke in a phone interview arranged by the Obama campaign.

"You don't get the sense Gov. Romney has an overall view beyond just chest-beating for how America should behave in the 21st century," said Albright, was served as secretary of state under Democrat Bill Clinton, and was the first woman to serve in that position.

http://www.jsonline....-175101861.html

[maidu]

The reason Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. weren't able to overthrow Roe vs Wade is not for lack of wanting to. It's that 'the groundswell of support for womens' right to choose what to do with their bodies and their private decisions' has remained strong in the US, for decades.

That is your theory. However, nothing has changed as far as most citizens preferring a choice on abortion and it is very unlikely that the Republicans would make serious try at changing it. They would lose the presidency if they did.

That could be interpreted to read: Republican candidates believe such 'n such, but realize it would not be smart politics to reveal it during a campaign. Republican candidates should speak the truth as they see it. They should reveal their true standings on issues, not just what their handlers think is most conducive to garnering votes. That's what slick salesmen do: they tell customers all the attributes of a particular product, while keeping its drawbacks secret. Caveat emptor!

[Ulysses G.]

...

said Albright, was served as secretary of state under Democrat Bill Clinton

Isn't she a democrat? Who is going to take her opinion seriously during an election?

[Ulysses G.]

Republican candidates should speak the truth as they see it. They should reveal their true standings on issues, not just what their handlers think is most conducive to garnering votes.

So should democrats, but none of then do. They are all playing politics.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[keemapoot]

It is VERY hard to overturn Roe v. Wade in practice, even with the most severe right winger in office.

Correct and most people know it. Trying to turn it into an issue to retain power is sinking pretty low.

Even more remote is the chance that the Supreme court even would entertain hearing the issue, given the huge political stakes. In most cases, the Supreme court decides which cases it will hear via a writ of Certiorari. Even to grant the writ, a minimum of 4 Justices must decide in favor, which would already set a civil war in the Supreme Court they don't want to have.

[keemapoot]

...

said Albright, was served as secretary of state under Democrat Bill Clinton

Isn't she a democrat? Who is going to take her opinion seriously during an election?

The point is that someone without experience abroad is a risk, as most non-incumbent candidates have been. Personally, I suspect most of Romney's work in private equity involved domestic investments, otherwise he would be touting his globe trotting experience. I do know some global PE leaders who have tremendous experience in dealing with foreign governments, though of course, not on issues of State.

[maidu]

Speaking of honesty in campaigning: Some of us may remember Mondale's statement while he was campaigning against Reagan in 1984, "By the end of my first term, I will reduce the Reagan budget deficit by two-thirds. Let's tell the truth. It must be done, it must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."

Mondale was honest, but it contributed largely to him losing the election by a large margin. American voters don't want too much honesty. They want candy coated rhetoric. Mondale was also correct in his assertion, as Reagan hiked taxes 11 times during his 8 years at the helm.

Romney is following Reagan's example by pledging no tax increases, yet he too, if elected, will invariably have to raise taxes - particularly if he follows through with his pledge to increase military spending by a trillion dollars (increases which the military itself is not asking for).

Bush Sr. also gained a lot of votes by his famous campaign pledge: "Read my lips, No new taxes." Bush won on that lie, and not surprisingly, Bush also raised taxes which, among other things, compelled Gingrich to slam down the phone when VP Quail called him to tell him the news.

Republicans can always milk votes from gullible voters with the 'no new taxes' pledge. And just as assuredly, if elected, they will always raise taxes, .......and increase the defecit by large proportions.

[chuckd]

...

said Albright, was served as secretary of state under Democrat Bill Clinton

Isn't she a democrat? Who is going to take her opinion seriously during an election?

The point is that someone without experience abroad is a risk, as most non-incumbent candidates have been. Personally, I suspect most of Romney's work in private equity involved domestic investments, otherwise he would be touting his globe trotting experience. I do know some global PE leaders who have tremendous experience in dealing with foreign governments, though of course, not on issues of State.

I expect the Romney administration will have several foreign policy experts they can call on to help reorganize State.

Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell come to mind as possibles.

[keemapoot]

...

said Albright, was served as secretary of state under Democrat Bill Clinton

Isn't she a democrat? Who is going to take her opinion seriously during an election?

The point is that someone without experience abroad is a risk, as most non-incumbent candidates have been. Personally, I suspect most of Romney's work in private equity involved domestic investments, otherwise he would be touting his globe trotting experience. I do know some global PE leaders who have tremendous experience in dealing with foreign governments, though of course, not on issues of State.

I expect the Romney administration will have several foreign policy experts they can call on to help reorganize State.

Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell come to mind as possibles.

Exactly. I am really curious if he can lure Rice back for another tour of duty...

[chuckd]

It is VERY hard to overturn Roe v. Wade in practice, even with the most severe right winger in office.

Correct and most people know it. Trying to turn it into an issue to retain power is sinking pretty low.

Even more remote is the chance that the Supreme court even would entertain hearing the issue, given the huge political stakes. In most cases, the Supreme court decides which cases it will hear via a writ of Certiorari. Even to grant the writ, a minimum of 4 Justices must decide in favor, which would already set a civil war in the Supreme Court they don't want to have.

As I have explained many times on this forum, overturning Roe v. Wade would be a long and bumpy road which will very likely never succeed.

Any new legislation outlawing abortions must be passed by both houses of Congress and, even if the Republicans gain control of the Senate, they will never have the required 60 votes for cloture and that is where the legislation will die.

This entire Roe v. Wade issue is a red herring thrown out to deflect discussion from the fact Obama has never said what his plan is for the next four years and why his first term was such a disaster.

What is the man going to accomplish that differs from the last four years? Where's his plan???