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

[carmine]

I can remember watching the BBC World service during the UK election and being shocked that Gordon Brown even came close to reelection. he totally dismantled our econmy, sold off all our gold reserves on the cheap etc and created the most enormous black hole of debt yet still claiming he was best qualified to run the country and the economy.

Thing about Gordon was though that he always had a scowl that suggested a chip on the shoulder and horrible greasy hair a dandruff that created a frankly very unelectable persona.

the danger in the states is that Odama is every bit as incompetant if not considerably more from what i can summize but..and heres the thing...he comes across as a nice guy and can talk the talk!

In short, re elect him and he'll take your economy back the the dark ages

[Jingthing]

Yeah, accomplishing some kind of universal health care for the USA, something that has been a goal of many since FDR, that is so incredibly selfish!

Of course the health care reform wasn't selfish, what was selfish was pushing it as his top priority to accomplish first in office, when he should have wiaited until his 2nd term. He wanted that to be his legacy come hell or high water.

He had no idea if he would have a second term. He ran on the promise and he fulfilled it in his first term and now that is a flaw? I don't think so.

[rucus7]

Worth a look , google 538 blog

[Jingthing]

Yeah, accomplishing some kind of universal health care for the USA, something that has been a goal of many since FDR, that is so incredibly selfish!

Of course the health care reform wasn't selfish, what was selfish was pushing it as his top priority to accomplish first in office, when he should have waited until his 2nd term. He wanted that to be his legacy come hell or high water.

Not much of a legacy if he gets voted out and Romney dismantles it.

The truth is he probably will not be able to dismantle it if elected. I know he runs on killing it on day one. He fails to say that is totally impossible. Edited October 22, 2012 by Jingthing

[keemapoot]

Yeah, accomplishing some kind of universal health care for the USA, something that has been a goal of many since FDR, that is so incredibly selfish!

Of course the health care reform wasn't selfish, what was selfish was pushing it as his top priority to accomplish first in office, when he should have waited until his 2nd term. He wanted that to be his legacy come hell or high water.

Not much of a legacy if he gets voted out and Romney dismantles it.

The truth is he probably will not be able to dismantle it if elected. I know he runs on killing it on day one. He fails to say that is totally impossible.

Romney's gonna have a busy first day, what with also cancelling all the Walmart and Target orders in China. Truth is he will have to and will scale back all this nonsense rhetoric if elected.

[samran]

I cannot cincieve of any president not making that decision but he still deserves a lot of credit ofcourse.

Quite what state the american economy will be in after four more years of Obama is too frigthening to think about. If i were able to vote i'd find both rather uninspiring but atleast Romney seems to understand business.

Other leaders who understand business include Thaksin, Berlusconi. Not that I'm implying Romney is of their ilk, but just to show that one doesn't lead to another.

Another thing. Economics isn't accounting. People who don't know what they are talking about often confuse one for the other.

Nor what is good for individual business good for the economy as a whole.

[Jingthing]

Romney's gonna have a busy first day, what with also cancelling all the Walmart and Target orders in China. Truth is he will have to and will scale back all this nonsense rhetoric if elected.

It's beyond that. Assuming the senate is going to go the way it looks like it's going, he won't be able to dismantle it. Period. Ever. Now what can be done is that the STATES can choose to not cooperate with expanded Medicaid, basically killing many of their poor people. They have that choice anyway now based on the supreme court decision, but they will probably pay a political price if they try that.

[GiHadOrange]

Yeah, accomplishing some kind of universal health care for the USA, something that has been a goal of many since FDR, that is so incredibly selfish!

Its called: "doing good with other people's money."

easy task.

Not sure what you are saying. Obama should pay for everything from his own wallet? In any kind of health care system, the costs are shared in complex ways. Obamacare is modeled on the very republican, conservative idea of individual responsibility with mandates originated by ... Mitt Romney. Now Romney is all Romnesiad on all that.

Ohh, i was not sure what you wanted to say.

Was your intention to say that Obama cannot be called selfish because Obamacare?

Did you never heard the expression "doing good with other people's money"? Milton Friedman, the classic liberal, said you can't.

[lomatopo]

Worth a look , google 538 blog

Not sure if you are referring to this?

http://fivethirtyeig...historic-highs/

The "Tipping Point States" and "Return on Investment" (the chance that a single voter could decide the election) side-bars are quite interesting.

Edited October 22, 2012 by lomatopo

[chuckd]

Please give an example over the past 4 years of Obama displaying leadership.

Are you serious?

How do you spell "plausible deniability"? The order to "get" Bin Laden was squarely on the back of Admiral McRaven if things had gone belly up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Barack Obama's order to "go in and get [Osama] bin Laden" has been made public, as recorded in a memo scribbled by then-CIA chief Leon Panetta shortly after the decision was made.

8:50PM BST 26 Apr 2012

Published by Time magazine as the first anniversary of the al-Qaeda leader's killing in Pakistan approaches, the succinct memo dated April 29, 2011, 10:35am was written by hand and signed by Mr Panetta.

...from the article:

"The direction is to go in and get Bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out," wrote Mr Panetta, who is now defence secretary, in the memorandum.

"The decision is to proceed with the assault," he wrote.

"The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven's hands,"

"The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the president," Panetta continued. "Any additional risks are to be brought to the president for his consideration."

http://www.telegraph...ade-public.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All Obama had to do if the operation had proven unsuccessful is to state the "risk profile" had not been accurately briefed to Obama before he issued his order.

A classic CYA government issued order with full weight on another, Admiral McRaven.

[koheesti]

Please give an example over the past 4 years of Obama displaying leadership.

Obamacare. It not only required leadership and a shedload of negotiation, but he actually fulfilled an election promise, and millions more now have health care coverage because of it.

Ending most US involvement in Iraq, which was a f**king waste of time in the first place. And hopefully he'll end the pointless and costly involvement in Afghanistan as well - that should make a dent in the deficit and debt.

With the technology the US has at its fingertips it can almost prosecute a war in Afghanistan completely hands off. And if (unlike Romney) you actually work with the Russians instead of re-inventing the Cold War, you may have a very powerful ally in the war against Islamic terrorists (let's call it what it is).

1) Obamacare - he didn't lead. He made it his admin's priority and handed it off to Reid and Pelosi. Traditionally the White House does a lot of the initial work, but Obama had more important things to attend to (such as his handicap). He did add the weight of his personality when negotiating bribery terms with states and unions to get it passed though.

2) He didn't get us out of Iraq. The withdrawal had already been negotiated under the Bush Admin. He did manage to get us kicked out completely which is not quite the same as a withdrawal.

3) Obama's "reset" with Russia was actually "overcharge". Most people know of Obama's infamous promise to Medvedev to give up a lot to Russia after the election when he was no longer accountable to the American people. Trust me, people here in Eastern Europe are rightfully scared of Obama winning a second term. He has already thrown them under the bus once backing out of the missile defense agreement

[uptheos]

With the whole middle east going bananas........it needs someone that is going to give Israel a bit of confidence. It doesn't need a person who bows as low as possible to a Saudi King and whispers to Putin about having more flexibility if he's re-elected. I was keen on Obama, but he's let the USA down big time.

[Jingthing]

In rebuttal to the charge that Obama lacks a second term agenda:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-the-not-so-hidden-obama-agenda/2012/10/21/a4280792-1ba4-11e2-9cd5-b55c38388962_story.html

Everywhere you turn, President Obama is accused of not offering a clear second-term agenda. It’s not surprising that Republicans say it, but you also hear it from quarters sympathetic to the president.

But how true is the charge?

[Chicog]

1) Obamacare - he didn't lead. He made it his admin's priority and handed it off to Reid and Pelosi. Traditionally the White House does a lot of the initial work, but Obama had more important things to attend to (such as his handicap). He did add the weight of his personality when negotiating bribery terms with states and unions to get it passed though.

Another pitiful dig about the bloke taking time off when the last President broke all kinds of records for handing over the reins to others.

2) He didn't get us out of Iraq. The withdrawal had already been negotiated under the Bush Admin. He did manage to get us kicked out completely which is not quite the same as a withdrawal.

Oh yes he did. Bush only negotiated that "deal" as an election stunt, when the House tried to set a deadline in 2007 he vetoed it. Obama said he'd pull the troops out and he has. Blame for the Iraqi (Shi'a) Governments dislike for the US can be squarely laid at Bush's feet for needlessly invading it in the first place.

3) Obama's "reset" with Russia was actually "overcharge". Most people know of Obama's infamous promise to Medvedev to give up a lot to Russia after the election when he was no longer accountable to the American people. Trust me, people here in Eastern Europe are rightfully scared of Obama winning a second term. He has already thrown them under the bus once backing out of the missile defense agreement

"Thrown them under a bus" my arse. Let Europe create its own missile defences if it feels it needs them, why should the US be involved? Trust me, I'm European and I do not want Europe being caught in a shitfight between a belligerent and misguided Romney and the bloke who actually does have Russia by the balls.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Chicog

[rucus7]

Worth a look , google 538 blog

Not sure if you are referring to this?

http://fivethirtyeig...historic-highs/

The "Tipping Point States" and "Return on Investment" (the chance that a single voter could decide the election) side-bars are quite interesting.

Yes that is the site. If you look them up via wiki you will see that their history of calling political races is close to 100% correct.

[Jingthing]

I wonder if Romney wins, is he legally obligated to use his real and FULL name when being sworn in?

Willard

Obama used his real full name:

(And what a great, historic day it was.)

In case you're wondering what ads are being shown in the few swing states now (probably nonstop):

http://www.slate.com...f_campaign.html

Edited October 22, 2012 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

In rebuttal to the charge that Obama lacks a second term agenda:

http://www.washingto...8962_story.html

Everywhere you turn, President Obama is accused of not offering a clear second-term agenda. It’s not surprising that Republicans say it, but you also hear it from quarters sympathetic to the president.

But how true is the charge?

E. J. Dionne is a liberal opinion writer for the Washington Post, among others.

He does say this in your link:

"The president does lack a crisp, here’s-my-plan set of sound bites. What’s less obvious is whether this should matter to anyone."

My answer to this simple question is to look at the past four years and, if he has no new agenda, vote him out of office. It does matter

[Chicog]

My answer to this simple question is to look at the past four years and, if he has no new agenda, vote him out of office. It does matter

If the devil is in the detail, why aren't you questioning how Romney is going to pay for all these tax cuts? Or what he is going to do to force China to change its ways?

Obama says he wants to get the debt down and his plans are detailed here

Romney says he's going to cut taxes and create jobs, but he hasn't given so much as a sniff of what exact measures he's going to take to fund the former and effect the latter.

I simply can't see why someone would vote for a man full of soundbites and no substance; to me Obama is the obvious choice.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Chicog

[GiHadOrange]

With the whole middle east going bananas........it needs someone that is going to give Israel a bit of confidence. It doesn't need a person who bows as low as possible to a Saudi King and whispers to Putin about having more flexibility if he's re-elected. I was keen on Obama, but he's let the USA down big time.

Joe Biden should be your man then.

http://www.ynetnews....3586542,00.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cnXeoJYa_Q[/media

[Ulysses G.]

to me Obama is the obvious choice.

Only if one can ignore the last 4 years.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[GiHadOrange]

I wonder if Romney wins, is he legally obligated to use his real and FULL name when being sworn in?

Obama used his real full name:

(And what a great, historic day it was.)

In case you're wondering what ads are being shown in the few swing states now (probably nonstop):

http://www.slate.com...f_campaign.html

Using his full name? What kind of point you are trying to make? Honest question, i have no clue what this is about.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Scott

[Chicog]

to me Obama is the obvious choice.

Only if one can ignore the last 4 years.

Not ignoring the last 4 years.

Actually taking into account the last 12.

[metisdead]

A post has been removed due to possible violation of copyright and non compliance of fair use. It is generally accepted, but not written into law, that quoting the first two or three sentences of an article and giving a link to the source is considered “fair use” and not a violation of copyright.

[koheesti]

My answer to this simple question is to look at the past four years and, if he has no new agenda, vote him out of office. It does matter

If the devil is in the detail, why aren't you questioning how Romney is going to pay for all these tax cuts? Or what he is going to do to force China to change its ways?

Obama says he wants to get the debt down and his plans are detailed here

Romney says he's going to cut taxes and create jobs, but he hasn't given so much as a sniff of what exact measures he's going to take to fund the former and effect the latter.

I simply can't see why someone would vote for a man full of soundbites and no substance; to me Obama is the obvious choice.

It would seem that you haven't paid attention to what Romney has been saying in the debates about his tax plan. Cutting tax rates across the board and eliminating deductions so that the top earners are still paying the same share (~60%) that they are currently paying. Is that different to what he has said in the past? No idea, I didn't pay that much attention then. But for the first two debates against Obama he has repeated the above plan so freakin' many times that anyone watching knows it.

What about Obama's tax plan? As he has said, it is to tax the wealthiest more in order to rake in enough money to run the gov't for 9 days. This guy isn't a serious candidate even if he is already the POTUS.

[koheesti]

This may be all just a misunderstanding. After all, Obama's Sec of Treasury (which oversees the IRS) Timothy Geithner couldn't figure out how to use TurboTax, hence failed to pay his taxes. These guys just aren't good with financials - which has become painfully obvious as we watch our economy tank.

Obama campaign accepted foreign Web donation -- and may be hiding more

Chris Walker, a British citizen who lives outside London, told The Post he was able to make two $5 donations to President Obama’s campaign this month through its Web site while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney cash was rejected. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept money from foreign citizens.

“When I did Romney’s, the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered,” he said. “Romney’s Web site wanted the code from the back of card. Barack Obama’s didn’t.”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bam_blind_eye_to_illegal_donors_8SWotytr1RvbhyDCRyyrEL

[Chicog]

My answer to this simple question is to look at the past four years and, if he has no new agenda, vote him out of office. It does matter

If the devil is in the detail, why aren't you questioning how Romney is going to pay for all these tax cuts? Or what he is going to do to force China to change its ways?

Obama says he wants to get the debt down and his plans are detailed here

Romney says he's going to cut taxes and create jobs, but he hasn't given so much as a sniff of what exact measures he's going to take to fund the former and effect the latter.

I simply can't see why someone would vote for a man full of soundbites and no substance; to me Obama is the obvious choice.

It would seem that you haven't paid attention to what Romney has been saying in the debates about his tax plan. Cutting tax rates across the board and eliminating deductions so that the top earners are still paying the same share (~60%) that they are currently paying. Is that different to what he has said in the past? No idea, I didn't pay that much attention then. But for the first two debates against Obama he has repeated the above plan so freakin' many times that anyone watching knows it.

What about Obama's tax plan? As he has said, it is to tax the wealthiest more in order to rake in enough money to run the gov't for 9 days. This guy isn't a serious candidate even if he is already the POTUS.

Romney has said he is going to fund his tax cuts by "eliminating tax loopholes". However, he has pointedly refused to identify which tax loopholes he intends to remove that can fund that amount of money. Perhaps the ones that led to the amount of tax he paid prior to 2010? But of course, we don't know that either because, like the loopholes he intends to close, we have no idea about his tax payments either.

All part of Romney's "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy, I'm sure. As in "Don't ask me about my tax returns, and I won't tell you how my financial plans are mathematically impossible".

Edited October 22, 2012 by Chicog

[chuckd]

My answer to this simple question is to look at the past four years and, if he has no new agenda, vote him out of office. It does matter

If the devil is in the detail, why aren't you questioning how Romney is going to pay for all these tax cuts? Or what he is going to do to force China to change its ways?

Obama says he wants to get the debt down and his plans are detailed here

Romney says he's going to cut taxes and create jobs, but he hasn't given so much as a sniff of what exact measures he's going to take to fund the former and effect the latter.

I simply can't see why someone would vote for a man full of soundbites and no substance; to me Obama is the obvious choice.

Your link concerns Obama's federal budget submitted for fiscal year 2013. The budget was defeated in the House by a vote of 414-0 and was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 97-0. Not ONE single Democrat voted for his proposed budget. The chance of getting these proposals through Congress is nil. If that is his plan for the next four years, where does that leave us? Your argument is untenable since it is based on nothing.

Check out the history of tax cuts in the US. They always create more revenue for the government than the previous years because they create growth in the private sector, thereby creating jobs for those 23 million US citizens that are unemployed or underemployed. Adding millions of jobs to private sector companies creates a much enlarged tax base. The record is there, look it up.

It is estimated that Obama's executive orders and departmental regulations will cost the economy $46 Billion annually. How many jobs could be created if the private sector was allowed to use that money in their businesses rather than paying the money based on yet another pie in the sky regulation?

Getting Obamacare taken out will create some certainty in the tax tables and permit the private sector to stabilize and plan for the future, something that has not existed in the US since 2009.

Perhaps if you only realized what turmoil there is in the US as it relates to private enterprise and the indecisiveness of Obama, you might not be such a vociferous supporter of the man.

[chuckd]

1) Obamacare - he didn't lead. He made it his admin's priority and handed it off to Reid and Pelosi. Traditionally the White House does a lot of the initial work, but Obama had more important things to attend to (such as his handicap). He did add the weight of his personality when negotiating bribery terms with states and unions to get it passed though.

Another pitiful dig about the bloke taking time off when the last President broke all kinds of records for handing over the reins to others.

2) He didn't get us out of Iraq. The withdrawal had already been negotiated under the Bush Admin. He did manage to get us kicked out completely which is not quite the same as a withdrawal.

Oh yes he did. Bush only negotiated that "deal" as an election stunt, when the House tried to set a deadline in 2007 he vetoed it. Obama said he'd pull the troops out and he has. Blame for the Iraqi (Shi'a) Governments dislike for the US can be squarely laid at Bush's feet for needlessly invading it in the first place.

3) Obama's "reset" with Russia was actually "overcharge". Most people know of Obama's infamous promise to Medvedev to give up a lot to Russia after the election when he was no longer accountable to the American people. Trust me, people here in Eastern Europe are rightfully scared of Obama winning a second term. He has already thrown them under the bus once backing out of the missile defense agreement

"Thrown them under a bus" my arse. Let Europe create its own missile defences if it feels it needs them, why should the US be involved? Trust me, I'm European and I do not want Europe being caught in a shitfight between a belligerent and misguided Romney and the bloke who actually does have Russia by the balls.

1. Can you give some examples of Bush handing the reins over to others?

2. Bush negotiated the Status of Forces Agreement in 2008 to pull our troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011. You call it an "election stunt" so remind me again...Which Republican candidate ran for the office of President in 2008. Precisely how can you call an agreement by a sitting President who is NOT running for any office an "election stunt"?

3. There is this little thing called NATO which calls for the collective defense of member nations yet you ask why the US should be involved in the affairs of Europe? I have asked myself this question many times, particularly since I lost my older brother in WWII. Then I realized it was necessary then to assist and it would be necessary now to protect them from a hostile nation. As a European you will likely see it differently but you know full well the US will be there when and if the time ever comes again.

4. Who exactly has Russia by the "balls" as you so succinctly put it?

[Steely Dan]

This may be all just a misunderstanding. After all, Obama's Sec of Treasury (which oversees the IRS) Timothy Geithner couldn't figure out how to use TurboTax, hence failed to pay his taxes. These guys just aren't good with financials - which has become painfully obvious as we watch our economy tank.

Obama campaign accepted foreign Web donation -- and may be hiding more

Chris Walker, a British citizen who lives outside London, told The Post he was able to make two $5 donations to President Obama’s campaign this month through its Web site while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney cash was rejected. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept money from foreign citizens.

“When I did Romney’s, the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered,” he said. “Romney’s Web site wanted the code from the back of card. Barack Obama’s didn’t.”

http://www.nypost.co...r1RvbhyDCRyyrEL

Some of Obama's campaign funds in 2008 came from as far off as the Gaza strip, I doubt many are surprised.

[Steely Dan]

Latest Gallup 7 day rolling poll shows Romney up 7% with likely voters and 2% with registered voters. Looks like this 'outlying' poll is getting even more outlying.