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

[koheesti]

The trouble is, if it was Romney, he'd invade Canada thinking he was invading Mexico or something. This cock up from Mitt the Twitt is beyond incredible:

""Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world," he said. "It's their route to the sea."

Er.... what?

Aside from the fact Iraq is now quite chummy with Syria, what with their governments sharing the same muslim sect and all, perhaps someone needs to get a globe and show Romney the Arabian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Caspian Sea - and which country borders all three.

Strewth, that's right up there with "aircraft need windows that open".

My globe shows something called the Mediterranean Sea.

Edited October 23, 2012 by koheesti

[Mosha]

...And failing that, he can always invade Canada or something.

Last time they tried, they needed a new White House

[bendejo]

I'm calling it now.

Romney wins the popular vote. Obama wins the electoral college.

Not that I have any faith in my prediction. But if I get it right, I'll be acting like the smartest guy in the room

Oh I don't know. All it takes is for Obama to double tap the Ambassador's killers and show their lifeless bodies on prime time news and he'll probably get a winning swing. I expect Special forces are hiding outside their tent right now waiting for orders to take them out on November 5th.

He has until next Thursday to produce the stiffs, this way it gets all the chatter of the weekend talk shows, Sunday newspapers, etc. The GOP channel and Romney camp will of course find something to denounce about it.

I think better yet it happens the weekend before the election, so that Monday all news outlets are trumpeting justice/vengeance.

[Chicog]

The trouble is, if it was Romney, he'd invade Canada thinking he was invading Mexico or something. This cock up from Mitt the Twitt is beyond incredible:

""Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world," he said. "It's their route to the sea."

Er.... what?

Aside from the fact Iraq is now quite chummy with Syria, what with their governments sharing the same muslim sect and all, perhaps someone needs to get a globe and show Romney the Arabian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Caspian Sea - and which country borders all three.

Strewth, that's right up there with "aircraft need windows that open".

My globe shows something called the Mediterranean Sea.

Well perhaps Romney should send America's dreadnoughts and three-masted schooners there then, if he thinks that's Iran's route to the sea. And perhaps stock up on blunderbusses.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Chicog

[keemapoot]

I reluctantly agree, however, the problem is that there are so very, very few credible sources of information and stable places in the Middle East that backing Israel is the best bet on all kind of fronts. I wouldn't call it kow-towing, although I can see how a lot of people think of it that way.

This is true, and the overwhelming number of American Jews who are democrat shows which party they think historically supports Israel best. but, I do give credit to Romney for leveraging his relationship with Bibi and trying to assume ownership of the Jewish vote loyalty for the Republicans. It looks like it will work to pry some of those Jewish Democrats over to vote for him this time.

If any votes are pried away it will have been done with a lot of help from the Democrats for abandoning Israel in their party platform at their convention in September. Who can forget that debacle of a floor vote?

All the same, even though I agree support of Israel is important, really it's gone too far, and after 8 years of Bush Jr.'s escapades, alienates an entire Muslim world out there. I do agree with Obama's efforts to reign this relationship in. Most importantly, I don't think the tail should wag the dog.

[GiHadOrange]

The trouble is, if it was Romney, he'd invade Canada thinking he was invading Mexico or something. This cock up from Mitt the Twitt is beyond incredible:

""Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world," he said. "It's their route to the sea."

Er.... what?

Aside from the fact Iraq is now quite chummy with Syria, what with their governments sharing the same muslim sect and all, perhaps someone needs to get a globe and show Romney the Arabian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Caspian Sea - and which country borders all three.

Strewth, that's right up there with "aircraft need windows that open".

Where is the "Arabian Gulf"?

[rucus7]

I'm calling it now.

Romney wins the popular vote. Obama wins the electoral college.

Not that I have any faith in my prediction. But if I get it right, I'll be acting like the smartest guy in the room

You are most likely half right. Obama will win the electoral college. However he win also win the popular vote.

[koheesti]

The trouble is, if it was Romney, he'd invade Canada thinking he was invading Mexico or something. This cock up from Mitt the Twitt is beyond incredible:

""Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world," he said. "It's their route to the sea."

Er.... what?

Aside from the fact Iraq is now quite chummy with Syria, what with their governments sharing the same muslim sect and all, perhaps someone needs to get a globe and show Romney the Arabian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Caspian Sea - and which country borders all three.

Strewth, that's right up there with "aircraft need windows that open".

Where is the "Arabian Gulf"?

That's what Arabs call the Persian Gulf.

[Ulysses G.]

An interesting debate. I am an Obama supporter, but I left the debate feeling much more comfortable with Romney.

That was exactly what he was trying to do as concerns the general public and he succeeded admirably. Romney did exactly what most of the Republican strategists were recommending in the days before the debate and they would not have recommended it if they were not pretty sure that he is on his way to winning.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted.

[keemapoot]

Watching Romney glide through the debate on foreign policy with his clear shift to the center, away from his Neocon Bush Jr. advisers, and in fact toward Obama's position perhaps self-secure in the knowledge that now it is his turn to ride out the clock to the finish (much as Obama appeared to do in the first debate with a lead), it really reminded me of the "Teflon President" Reagan. I liked Reagan, but he did have an uncanny ability to slip out of the most sticky situations.

Romney has been able to accomplish this flip-flopping for some reason, not only on foreign policy, but on abortion and a host of issues. Reagan had endless winning charm and was clever. Romney lacks all of the charm, but no doubt is clever. I suppose Romney may be the next Teflon President.

Romney Shifts to Center; Obama Tries to Tie Him to Policies Under Bush

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

Edited October 23, 2012 by keemapoot

[Jingthing]

This is true, and the overwhelming number of American Jews who are democrat shows which party they think historically supports Israel best. but, I do give credit to Romney for leveraging his relationship with Bibi and trying to assume ownership of the Jewish vote loyalty for the Republicans. It looks like it will work to pry some of those Jewish Democrats over to vote for him this time.

In my opinion as a lifetime, liberal, democratic American Jew you've got a basic thing quite wrong. The vast majority of American Jews of both parties do support the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, yes, but it is not true that means most Jews vote based on Israel policy as their only issue or that most Jews are supportive specifically of the right wing government(s) in Israel. Jews are a tiny percentage of Americans, only two percent. As far as fanatic support for the right wing government of Israel a much higher percentage comes from right wing "end times" style fundamentalist Christians (most vote republican). Yes the majority of modern American Jews vote democratic, this time, and previously, because the vast majority of American Jews are politically LIBERALS. On an entire range of domestic and foreign policies and yes that includes that many oppose Israeli west bank settlements and definitely most support a Palestinian state if that is possible to do and also keep Israel. I believe if you polled Americans Jews today is Obama or Romney more "gung ho" on Israel most would say Romney, but still vote Obama. Now of course if a democratic nominee was seen as hostile to Israel's existence, yes he would lose the American Jewish vote, but Obama is NOT seen that way by the vast majority of American Jews.

I do get it that when the general public sees an extremist "Israel first" pro-Romney character like Sheldon Adelson some innocently assume he represents the majority of American Jews. But objectively he absolutely does not and you can see that in the voting.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

btw - the moderator Schieffer did a good job. He must have a clock showing him how much time each candidate spoke. His questions seemed fine to me - but I did start to drift after both candidates had spoken 30 minutes each.

His first question was about the Benghazi cover-up and I bet he was surprised that Romney took the high road and totally avoided attacking Obama over it. For Obama's side, I bet he was relieved to get that question out of the way first and to get away without having to spin his way out again. He could then relax more. Looking back on it, Romney probably did the right thing by not attacking (looking more presidential as some would say) but I would have liked to hear him say something like, "Look, this controversy is being played out all over the news, my position has been made clear as is the President's.I'd rather look at the...." that would signal that he was taking the high road instead of leaving people to wonder why he was avoiding the answer.

[koheesti]

I believe if you polled Americans Jews today is Obama or Romney more "gung ho" on Israel most would say Romney, but still vote Obama. Now of course if a democratic nominee was seen as hostile to Israel's existence, yes he would lose the American Jewish vote, but Obama is NOT seen that way by the vast majority of American Jews.

Unless of course those American Jews were watching the Democratic Convention when the floor vote was rammed through against the booing protest from the convention delegates the majority of whom are hostile to Israel.

[Jingthing]

I believe if you polled Americans Jews today is Obama or Romney more "gung ho" on Israel most would say Romney, but still vote Obama. Now of course if a democratic nominee was seen as hostile to Israel's existence, yes he would lose the American Jewish vote, but Obama is NOT seen that way by the vast majority of American Jews.

Unless of course those American Jews were watching the Democratic Convention when the floor vote was rammed through against the booing protest from the convention delegates the majority of whom are hostile to Israel.

It is well known that both parties attract the more fringe elements in their delegate pool to their respective conventions.

[keemapoot]

This is true, and the overwhelming number of American Jews who are democrat shows which party they think historically supports Israel best. but, I do give credit to Romney for leveraging his relationship with Bibi and trying to assume ownership of the Jewish vote loyalty for the Republicans. It looks like it will work to pry some of those Jewish Democrats over to vote for him this time.

Yes the majority of modern American Jews vote democratic, this time, and previously, because the vast majority of American Jews are politically LIBERALS. On an entire range of domestic and foreign policies and yes that includes that many oppose Israeli west bank settlements and definitely most support a Palestinian state if that is possible to do and also keep Israel.

Your points are well taken, but let me say, that as someone who knows and has known MANY prominent wealthy American Jews, highly successful in business and law, and other professions, I have always been puzzled why this particular group would not be more Republican for the usual pro-business reasons? I've never asked them that. Maybe you can answer.

[Jingthing]

So did Romney's debate performance help him find a way to turn Ohio in his direction? I think not. So the electoral demographics remain set. Obama wins by holding on to the midwest. Yes Florida and North Carolina appear hopeless for Obama now, maybe Virginia is possible, but he doesn't need any of those to win.

A great endorsement from the New Yorker:

The choice is clear. The Romney-Ryan ticket represents a constricted and backward-looking vision of America: the privatization of the public good. In contrast, the sort of public investment championed by Obama—and exemplified by both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act—takes to heart the old civil-rights motto “Lifting as we climb.” That effort cannot, by itself, reverse the rise of inequality that has been under way for at least three decades. But we’ve already seen the future that Romney represents, and it doesn’t work.

The reelection of Barack Obama is a matter of great urgency. Not only are we in broad agreement with his policy directions; we also see in him what is absent in Mitt Romney—a first-rate political temperament and a deep sense of fairness and integrity. A two-term Obama Administration will leave an enduringly positive imprint on political life.

It will bolster the ideal of good governance and a social vision that tempers individualism with a concern for community. Every Presidential election involves a contest over the idea of America. Obama’s America—one that progresses, however falteringly, toward social justice, tolerance, and equality—represents the future that this country deserves.

http://www.newyorker...s#ixzz2A6DDPiT7

Edited October 23, 2012 by Jingthing

[Chicog]

It's quite interesting reading the fact checking today. More than one (i.e. two) regular posters here have reminded us that "gas prices have doubled under Obama". Not being American or living in America (I pay a dollar a gallon), I'm quite surprised to hear this, although the oil price being high does me no harm personally.

However, What I didn't know was that until the collapse of Lehmann Brothers, it was virtually the same price it is now. The price collapsed when the economies collapsed. All it's really done is gradually returned to pre-crisis levels as demand picks back up.

So you can safely ignore that little bit of spin from the right, amazing how you can paint something by leaving out a simple little thing like a tiny fact.

[Ulysses G.]

However, What I didn't know was that until the collapse of Lehmann Brothers, it was virtually the same price it is now. The price collapsed when the economies collapsed. All it's really done is gradually returned to pre-crisis levels as demand picks back up.

So you can safely ignore that little bit of spin from the right, amazing how you can paint something by leaving out a simple little thing like a tiny fact.

Facts like this? One gallon of gasoline is about an average of $4.00 today.

1990 - $1.341

1991 - $1.053

1992 - $1.069

1993 - $0.999

1994 - $1.077

1995 - $1.082

1996 - $1.227

1997 - $1.112

1998 - $0.993

1999 - $1.273

2000 - $1.414

2001 - $1.096

2002 - $1.441

2003 - $1.478

2004 - $1.791

2005 - $2.197

2006 - $2.341

2007 - $3.053

Edited October 23, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[geriatrickid]

Yeah, because only the USA gets oil through the Strait of Hormuz.

Romney made it clear he didn't want to get involved in Syria militarily - not even enforcing a non-fly zone.

Maybe the USA won't get involved, trying to position themselves in a position of favor with the future Syrian leadership, but I guarantee other countries are.

Mr. Romney's position is a reversal of his support for a more robust involvement in Syria. In respect to the strait, it has fallen to the USA to protect the rest of the world.

Flows through the Strait in 2011 were roughly 35 percent of all seaborne traded oil, or almost 20 percent of oil traded worldwide. More than 85 percent of these crude oil exports went to Asian markets, with Japan, India, South Korea, and China representing the largest destinations. In addition, Qatar exports about 2 trillion cubic feet per year of liquefied natural gas (LNG) through the Strait of Hormuz, accounting for almost 20 percent of global LNG trade. Furthermore, Kuwait imports LNG volumes that travel northward through the Strait of Hormuz. These flows totaled about 100 billion cubic feet per year in 2010. http://www.eia.gov/countries/regions-topics.cfm?fips=WOTC&trk=p3

Let the Asians protect their energy supply. The USA is spending an enormous sum to protect the energy interests of third parties. Why?

The USA is stuck facing the brunt of Iranian aggression when it is Europe and Gulf states that are on the firing line. Why? No one ever says thank you to the USA for providing this protection. Both Romney and Obama are of the view that a disruption in the strait would damage the international economy and plunge the world into another war which in turn would hurt US interests. Maybe they are doing the right thing, but I don't know. All I know is that it is time to let the Asians take care of themselves. While the USA has paid for the security, these countries have been able to invest in their infrastructure and prosper, while the USA has taken on more debt. I believe that some Republican isolationists have a point and the one guy that had the courage to raise it was Ron Paul. (And yes, this comes from a guy that doesn't support the man.) The message Obama was giving in the foreign policy debate seemed to be more in line with some Republicans in that he was saying, the USA should start looking after its own country now, investing in the USA.

[geriatrickid]

The trouble is, if it was Romney, he'd invade Canada thinking he was invading Mexico or something. This cock up from Mitt the Twitt is beyond incredible:

""Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world," he said. "It's their route to the sea."

Er.... what?

Aside from the fact Iraq is now quite chummy with Syria, what with their governments sharing the same muslim sect and all, perhaps someone needs to get a globe and show Romney the Arabian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Caspian Sea - and which country borders all three.

Strewth, that's right up there with "aircraft need windows that open".

Romney is the last guy that would mix up Canada with Mexico. He grew up in Michigan and was governor of Massachusetts, two states that are linked to Canada. He even had a vacation home in Canada. If anything it calls into question, the man's understanding of the sensitivities the USA's largest trading partner and energy supplier has. Traditionally, the first visit for any US president is Canada. Why then would Romney say his first visit would be to Israel? In that statement alone, he offended and hurt the USA's strongest and most important ally. The only country that has consistently backed the USA and had stronger sanctions against Iran is Canada.When the next persian gulf conflict occurs, and I emphasize when not if, the USA is going to be looking to Canada to fill the shortfall in energy supplies. And yet this man has managed to annoy the very people he would have to go cap in hand to and ask for more oil and electricity.

I found it amusing that Romney gave lip service to Latn America and both candidates made oblique references to China. And yet nowhere did they discuss the implications of Japan's slow but steady move towards economic collapse. Nor did they discuss the implications of North Korea's madness to the security of the pacific region. These two situations present an economic threat to the USA as serious or more serious, than the conflict with Iran. No mention was made of building on the trade relationship with Canada. The USA has some nasty trade barriers, particularly with its buy American policies that have hurt its own economy as those policies harmed the trade relationship with Canada. The same goes for Mexico, which is a key energy supplier of the USA. There is practically a civil war in Mexico and no discussion of the implications to the USA and its energy supply. While these two twits pandered to the masses with their obsessive middle east focus they neglected Mexico and Canada. Perhaps like most Americans they are in denial that both the Mexicans and Canadian population are growing resentful of US trade policies and want to show that resentment by cutting back on their energy exports. If you think pump prices are high now, just imagine if Canada and Mexico cut their energy exports by 5%.

[notmyself]

However, What I didn't know was that until the collapse of Lehmann Brothers, it was virtually the same price it is now. The price collapsed when the economies collapsed. All it's really done is gradually returned to pre-crisis levels as demand picks back up.

So you can safely ignore that little bit of spin from the right, amazing how you can paint something by leaving out a simple little thing like a tiny fact.

Facts like this? One gallon of gasoline is about an average of $4.00 today.

1990 - $1.341

1991 - $1.053

1992 - $1.069

1993 - $0.999

1994 - $1.077

1995 - $1.082

1996 - $1.227

1997 - $1.112

1998 - $0.993

1999 - $1.273

2000 - $1.414

2001 - $1.096

2002 - $1.441

2003 - $1.478

2004 - $1.791

2005 - $2.197

2006 - $2.341

2007 - $3.053

Didn't Lehmann collapse in 2008?

[Ulysses G.]

He said that "until the collapse of Lehmann Brothers, gas was virtually the same price it is now". That is obviously not correct.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[notmyself]

He said that "until the collapse of Lehmann Brothers, gas was virtually the same price it is now". That is obviously not correct.

Obviously... Like when someone has turned 50 and is asked their age. When they say until their birthday they were in their 40s is not correct because 20 years previous they were not in their 40s. What was the price of gas July - October 2008?

[Chicog]

He said that "until the collapse of Lehmann Brothers, gas was virtually the same price it is now". That is obviously not correct.

Romnesia again? Or was your selective editing deliberate?

The average price of Regular Gas today is $3.687 per Gallon according to http://www.eia.gov/p...leum/gasdiesel/

So where did you get your "$4 a gallon" price from, or are we widening the brim of the hat again? Massaging the facts, how Romneyesque.

(For the record, Lehmann went tits up on 9/15/2008, the effects of which you can see three days later at the tip of the very steep drop in the above chart).

Edited October 23, 2012 by Chicog

[somtumlion]

LMAO at all the political science profs in TV

[chiangmaikelly]

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 50% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 46%. One percent (1%) prefers some other candidate, and two percent (2%) are undecided.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[Chicog]

LMAO at all the political science profs in TV

You call that political science?

Hardly political science. It's just gasoline prices.

[koheesti]

More than 85 percent of these crude oil exports went to Asian markets, with Japan, India, South Korea, and China representing the largest destinations. In addition, Qatar exports about 2 trillion cubic feet per year of liquefied natural gas (LNG) through the Strait of Hormuz, accounting for almost 20 percent of global LNG trade. Furthermore, Kuwait imports LNG volumes that travel northward through the Strait of Hormuz. These flows totaled about 100 billion cubic feet per year in 2010. http://www.eia.gov/c...ips=WOTC&trk=p3

Let the Asians protect their energy supply. The USA is spending an enormous sum to protect the energy interests of third parties. Why?

Because it would be foolish to relinquish control to the Chinese.

Maybe you think that the US Navy should stop activity everywhere other than within 12 miles of the US coastline?

[notmyself]

Because it would be foolish to relinquish control to the Chinese.

Maybe you think that the US Navy should stop activity everywhere other than within 12 miles of the US coastline?

Truman wouldn't be happy.