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

[koheesti]

Of course the economic is more important.

Looks like Obama could not disprove the claim that he is a socialist.

Unfortunately the American right's definition of 'socialist' bears absolutely no resemblance to the definition used in the rest of the world.

By any measure in any other western democracy, the Democrats - and Obama- would be a right-of-centre party.

But the USA isn't the "rest of the world" it is the USA and over there, the Democrats are not a right-of-center party, they are on the Left. As popular as Obama might be in the "rest of the world" it doesn't matter one iota. I guarantee voters in other western democracies do not look to how popular their politicians are with Americans before voting for them.

Edited October 17, 2012 by koheesti

[keemapoot]

@Geriatric - Here is a good objective piece in the Washington Post business section today:

Few relationships are as critical to the world today. Managing the competition for global influence between the world’s superpower and its still-rising rival so that it does not become outright confrontation will be a priority for whoever wins next month’s presidential election.

Little of the enormity and importance of U.S.-China ties found its way into Tuesday night’s debate between Obama and Romney. Instead, the candidates used it as a convenient foil for their campaign positions about revitalizing the U.S. economy and getting Americans back to work.

http://www.washingto...0b8d_story.html

Edited October 17, 2012 by keemapoot

[samran]

Of course the economic is more important.

Looks like Obama could not disprove the claim that he is a socialist.

Unfortunately the American right's definition of 'socialist' bears absolutely no resemblance to the definition used in the rest of the world.

By any measure in any other western democracy, the Democrats - and Obama- would be a right-of-centre party.

But the USA isn't the "rest of the world" it is the USA and over there, the Democrats are not a right-of-center party, they are on the Left. As popular as Obama might be in the "rest of the world" it doesn't matter one iota. I guarantee voters in other western democracies do not look to how popular their politicians are with Americans before voting for them.

I genuinely wasn't trying to get into the 'if only the rest of the world got a choice in this'. It is indeed a US election for US citizens, and you are right very few voters care about what others think.

That wasn't my point. All i was saying is that on a western democratic poltical spectrum, the Democrats would be centre-right. Sure, American's consider them the party of the 'left', but everything is relative.

[maidu]

For me, one of the issues which jangled my bells was the drilling for oil issue, where Romney emphasized several times that he would allow easy access to any areas - to drillers. I forget his exact words, but it sounded like there were no off-limits areas, not national parks, not arctic regions, not offshore. Granted, many of those who think like I do (being v. careful about drilling) are already in the Obama camp. Yet, that one issue may be the decider for some waffling voters.

Obama stressed, several times, his keen interest in getting much happening with alternative energy resources. Romney gave a nod to wind energy briefly, but also mentioned the importance of nuclear, which is a red flag issue for many.

[Ulysses G.]

Granted, many of those who think like I do (being v. careful about drilling) are already in the Obama camp. Yet, that one issue may be the decider for some waffling voters.

The fact that Obama mischaracterized his position on the oil pipeline is a lot more important to most voters.

[bigbamboo]

Lucky for America this body language analysis wasn't considered important in FDR's day.

[Throatwobbler]

Of course the economic is more important.

Looks like Obama could not disprove the claim that he is a socialist.

Unfortunately the American right's definition of 'socialist' bears absolutely no resemblance to the definition used in the rest of the world.

By any measure in any other western democracy, the Democrats - and Obama- would be a right-of-centre party.

But the USA isn't the "rest of the world" it is the USA and over there, the Democrats are not a right-of-center party, they are on the Left. As popular as Obama might be in the "rest of the world" it doesn't matter one iota. I guarantee voters in other western democracies do not look to how popular their politicians are with Americans before voting for them.

His point was that Americans throw around the word socialist but have no real idea what it means.

[GiHadOrange]

I genuinely wasn't trying to get into the 'if only the rest of the world got a choice in this'. It is indeed a US election for US citizens, and you are right very few voters care about what others think.

That wasn't my point. All i was saying is that on a western democratic poltical spectrum, the Democrats would be centre-right. Sure, American's consider them the party of the 'left', but everything is relative.

And so is the term "socialist" very relative and doesn't have necessary to mean that someone is "left".

You are right - both of them are on the right side of that political spectrum you mentioned. But in the perception of the Americans who trust much more Romney than Obama in economical issues there seems to be a lot of them thinking Obama is somehow a "socialist".

I know its more complicated, but we can keep it simple, because it wouldn't matter for our American friends how the rest of the world thinks about what makes one to a "socialists."

I liked the last question which came right after Romney reminded us again that the POTUS is a "socialist" who has no clue how economic works.:

ROMNEY: Government does not create jobs. Government does not create jobs.

CROWLEY: Governor Romney, I want to introduce you to Barry Green, because he’s going to have the last question to you first?

ROMNEY: Barry? Where is Barry?

QUESTION: Hi, Governor. I think this is a tough question. To each of you. What do you believe is the biggest misperception that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate? Using specific examples, can you take this opportunity to debunk that misperception and set us straight?

...

IMHO Obama failed to handle this. The perception or misperception of him as a socialist is still there.

[GiHadOrange]

Of course the economic is more important.

Looks like Obama could not disprove the claim that he is a socialist.

Unfortunately the American right's definition of 'socialist' bears absolutely no resemblance to the definition used in the rest of the world.

By any measure in any other western democracy, the Democrats - and Obama- would be a right-of-centre party.

But the USA isn't the "rest of the world" it is the USA and over there, the Democrats are not a right-of-center party, they are on the Left. As popular as Obama might be in the "rest of the world" it doesn't matter one iota. I guarantee voters in other western democracies do not look to how popular their politicians are with Americans before voting for them.

His point was that Americans throw around the word socialist but have no real idea what it means.

Actually you could also claim the Americans have a fine sense what socialist ideas really mean.

[Jingthing]

The second debate in one picture.

The betting sites are raising Obama's odds about 2.5 percent after the debate.

Not a bad night's work for the President.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Jingthing

[chiangmaikelly]

The second debate in one picture.

The betting sites are raising Obama's odds about 2.5 percent after the debate.

Not a bad night's work for the President.

To what?

[Jingthing]

The second debate in one picture.

The betting sites are raising Obama's odds about 2.5 percent after the debate.

Not a bad night's work for the President.

To what?

Intrade now up to 64.1 percent.

http://www.washingto...721b_story.html

At least some people closely watching the contest — those betting money on the election’s outcome — did offer a kind of consensus view: President Obama soundly beat expectations in his second contest against Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

During the course of the night, at three sites where participants essentially bet on who will win, shifts in wagering reflected the fact that the perceived odds in favor of Obama winning election were rising.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Jingthing

[metisdead]

An off topic post and a reply have been removed.

[GiHadOrange]

The second debate in one picture.

The betting sites are raising Obama's odds about 2.5 percent after the debate.

Not a bad night's work for the President.

I cannot open the picture, there is an error message.

Is it another attempt to create a meme like it was tried with Big Bird?

I am wondering if that helps to convince any undecided voters or rather turn them away.

[Jingthing]

The reaction to the debate is sinking in now.

I now predict the polls in three days to show leads for Obama in all swing states including Florida.

There is a fickle segment of voters who just want to be for the side perceived as the winner and that has shifted back again to Obama.

You read it here first.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Jingthing

[chiangmaikelly]

New: Since the debate last night, we've seen only a little bit of a shift in the odds to win the 2012 Presidential Election. Coming into the second debate of three, Romney had made up quite a bit of ground getting all the way up to +170. But, once the debate concluded, Romney's odds to win the election have dropped to +200 or 2 to 1.

http://www.politicalbettingodds.com/2012-us-presidential-election-odds.html

[koheesti]

Lucky for America this body language analysis wasn't considered important in FDR's day.

Or Television.

[GiHadOrange]

For me, one of the issues which jangled my bells was the drilling for oil issue, where Romney emphasized several times that he would allow easy access to any areas - to drillers. I forget his exact words, but it sounded like there were no off-limits areas, not national parks, not arctic regions, not offshore. Granted, many of those who think like I do (being v. careful about drilling) are already in the Obama camp. Yet, that one issue may be the decider for some waffling voters.

Obama stressed, several times, his keen interest in getting much happening with alternative energy resources. Romney gave a nod to wind energy briefly, but also mentioned the importance of nuclear, which is a red flag issue for many.

Whats wrong from becoming independent from oil imports from outside North America?

Do tree huggers believe it is greener and cleaner when the oil comes from South America or the middle east?

If he is pro nuclear it is just a sign that he is sane.

[Scott]

The topic is not about a definition of socialism/marxism or your definitions of these terms. Posts have been deleted. Stick to the topic.

[keemapoot]

Romney's "Binders full of women" comment in the debate has gotten some good laughs, and after fact-checking, it looks like another half-truth. Honestly, I guess all we can expect from either candidate is half truths at this point, but enjoy:

But women’s issues, almost entirely absent from round one, finally came up. In the second question of the night, “undecided voter” Katherine Fenton asked Obama: “In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?”

For female voters, it was his chance to show 50.8 percent of the country that he cared.

I went to a number of women's groups and said: ‘Can you help us find folks,’ and they brought us whole binders full of women.”

“What actually happened was that in 2002—prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration—a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

[/url]

“They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.”

<a href="http://www.thedailyb...-sets-internet-ablaze.html

[keemapoot]

There is quite a difference between the candidates on energy policy, just as there was 4 years ago (When Palin coined the phrase drill baby drill), but Romney used the debate to try to suggest that Obama was to blame for high prices at the pump, which is largely false.

"The reality is that presidents have very little to do with near-term fluctuations in gasoline prices," Frank Verrastro, director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told a U.S. Senate panel earlier this year.

"High gas prices are bad for incumbents," Weiss says, because presidents can exert only limited control over them. He says they can urge, but not order, regulators to crack down on Wall Street speculators who inflate crude oil prices and can — in cases of extreme supply disruption — sell oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

During Tuesday's debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., Romney suggested Obama had more control. "The proof of whether a strategy is working or not is what the price is that you're paying at the pump," Romney said, adding that gas prices would be lower if Obama's energy strategy worked.

What they didn't say is that U.S. gas prices are largely determined by something else: global crude oil prices, which depend on myriad factors such as economic sanctions on Iran, spare oil capacity in Saudi Arabia and auto use in China — factors over which they have little control.

http://www.usatoday....romney/1639609/

Edited October 18, 2012 by keemapoot

[Ulysses G.]

That is probably true, but he was basically right about Obama's record when he said that, “As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent,” “Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands, and in federal waters.” He was also right about the president blocking the most important part of the Keystone Pipeline while trying to take credit for the other part of it.

[keemapoot]

^ I also agree with that, and my own beliefs are more pragmatic and in line with Romney, even though I do think there should be efforts made at alternative energy and green initiatives.

[Ulysses G.]

We agree on all those things. I am all for alternative energy and green initiatives as long as we utilize oil, gas and coal until alternate energy is developed enough to be easily available and reasonably priced.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chiangmaikelly]

Gallup poll

Election 2012 Likely Voters Trial Heat: Obama vs. Romney

Romney 51% Obama 45%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx

[maidu]

For me, one of the issues which jangled my bells was the drilling for oil issue, where Romney emphasized several times that he would allow easy access to any areas - to drillers. I forget his exact words, but it sounded like there were no off-limits areas, not national parks, not arctic regions, not offshore. Granted, many of those who think like I do (being v. careful about drilling) are already in the Obama camp. Yet, that one issue may be the decider for some waffling voters.

Obama stressed, several times, his keen interest in getting much happening with alternative energy resources. Romney gave a nod to wind energy briefly, but also mentioned the importance of nuclear, which is a red flag issue for many.

Whats wrong from becoming independent from oil imports from outside North America?

Do tree huggers believe it is greener and cleaner when the oil comes from South America or the middle east?

If he is pro nuclear it is just a sign that he is sane.

Residents of Sacramento California voted, about 20 years ago, to close down Rancho Seco, a functioning nuclear power plant near there. Are you saying those hundreds of thousands of voters are not sane? Nuclear works most of the time. However, when it goes bad, it can go very bad. A whole city can be rendered uninhabitable for thousands of years, and the surrounding croplands and everything living within become off-limits to people for who-knows-how-long. What's the dollar cost of rendering a city uninhabitable? Certainly a higher amount than if something went wrong with a large solar array (blown over by winds, perhaps).

As you know, Obama is in favor of energy independence, of course. Obama stressed conservation (using less power) whereas Romney didn't touch on that topic. For corporate minded people like Romney and Ryan, more consumption is better for big businesses.

Edited October 18, 2012 by maidu

[maidu]

Romney smirks when he repeats the truism; "government doesn't create jobs." Not quite true. There are many ways gov't can contribute to new jobs being created. Shall I list them here? Not enough space or time. Besides the obvious proof of him being wrong, gov't on federal and state levels employ hundreds of thousands of people. Are those not jobs? There are also incentives, bail-outs of corps, R&D grants, education grants, defense contracts, .....the list could go on for pages.

It's ironic for Romney, a man seeking to become president, continually hammers on how he will use government to create jobs - while on the other side of his mouth he says government can't create jobs. Which is it?

[keemapoot]

Romney smirks when he repeats the truism; "government doesn't create jobs." Not quite true. There are many ways gov't can contribute to new jobs being created. Shall I list them here? Not enough space or time. Besides the obvious proof of him being wrong, gov't on federal and state levels employ hundreds of thousands of people. Are those not jobs? There are also incentives, bail-outs of corps, R&D grants, education grants, defense contracts, .....the list could go on for pages.

It's ironic for Romney, a man seeking to become president, continually hammers on how he will use government to create jobs - while on the other side of his mouth he says government can't create jobs. Which is it?

I think Romney successfully switched his argument slightly during the debate to hammer continually on growing small business, and how he'll pursue policies, including tax policies, that will do this. He is correct in this argument as small business does account for 50x% of jobs (correct me if wrong). However, you have a good point in that is this the real Romney, or is it the private equity Bain baron who practiced economic Darwinism in his business career? In other words, is he going to massively grow the Dept. of Commerce (negating his small Gov't argument) to create better conditions for small business?

[bendejo]

Romney is Mr Getting To Yes. I keep expecting him to push a piece of paper forward and hand me a pen to close the deal. I think he'll say anything to make the sale, so I really don't give what he says the dignity of analysis. There are probably a lot of people who think this way.

I'm with JT, I call for Obama to win by at least 5%, maybe closer to 10%.

[chiangmaikelly]

Romney is Mr Getting To Yes. I keep expecting him to push a piece of paper forward and hand me a pen to close the deal. I think he'll say anything to make the sale, so I really don't give what he says the dignity of analysis. There are probably a lot of people who think this way.

I'm with JT, I call for Obama to win by at least 5%, maybe closer to 10%.

Gallup says Romney by 6% and you and JT say Obama 10%. That is a 16% spread. I wish you guys were bookmakers. Last I heard it was Romney 2 to 1. Heck Obama even spoke in the past tense about him being President during the debates.

Edited October 18, 2012 by chiangmaikelly