Obama Likely To Win Another Presidential Term: Gallup Poll

[khaowong1]

The numbers contrast with Gallup’s results of who likely voters will support in the election. In its most recent poll, 51 percent of likely voters said they would support Romney, compared to 46 percent who said they would support Obama.

This survey has no basis other than who the people who were polled expect to win. Obama is the incumbent, so no big surprise, but the polls are so close that this does not mean much. Romney is still 5 points ahead on Gallups real poll.

True... just about a week ago, Gallup announced that Romney would win, which upset a lot of Democrats. Yesterday, the news was saying that this hurricane was gong to upset Obama's re-election. Nobody knows what's going to happen. 5 days from now everyone will know.

[Baloo22]

The facts are that Romney has managed several private businesses, managed a successful 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, and served as chief executive (governor) of a U.S. state. That's the key and critical difference between Romney and the smooth-talker "community organizer".

This comment and and other known facts about Romney brings back memories about a square headed man living in Dubai.

But your square headed man living in Dubai is more in the league of the smooth-talking "community organizer". Pablum for the populace as opposed to effective, competent management.

[Johpa]

The facts are that Romney has managed several private businesses, managed a successful 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, and served as chief executive (governor) of a U.S. state. That's the key and critical difference between Romney and the smooth-talker "community organizer". Obama's lack of comptetence and lack of management experience has been clearly demonstrated during the last three and a half years. There is no doubt. If you want different results than the last four years, you don't rehire the failure Obama.

Romney never managed any business enterprise other than Bain Capital, a vulture capital firm that bought existing struggling businesses, extracted their cash value, then forced them to borrow heavily, paid himself handsomely with that debt, and then send them adrift to sink or swim. It is the antithesis of being an entrepreneur. Romney raised a whole lot of money to run the Salt :Lake Olympics, but was not the day to day manager. Using his significant wealth, Romney was able to win the governorship of Massachusetts for a single term and then achieved little across a very partisan aisle apart from, and to his credit,, working with Ted Kennedy to implement the mandated health care plan that, to his now discredit, he now stumps against.

Even if Obama wins it will be the shortest presidency in history when everything behind the Benghazi attack is revealed

sure - the teabagger tinfoil hatter loonies are going to be in meltdown trying to prove that one.

They are already setting the groundwork as their strategy against Obama if he wins re-election. They are holding back so as not to offend the more middle of the road traditional moderate conservatives whose votes they need next week. But conservative talk radio here in the US is already abuzz about rumors and conspiracies regarding Benghazi. One already hears these armchair tacticians wondering why the US did not send in Navy Seals with guns ablazing to rescue those who were being attacked This is the issue that the far right will use to occupy the nation and Obama to prevent Obama from enacting any new legislation. So be ready, if Obama wins, the day after the election with Benghazi stories of Naval Rear Admirals removed from command, CIA safe houses, gun running into Turkey, and whatever else they can imagine. Rove and Ailes have already planned out the attack for nothing less than impeachment. Be ready for Four Years of Solitude.

[nurofiend]

Here's a thought....in a merciful few days the US election will be done and dusted.

What chance is there that the opposing parties, boosters and cheerleaders will say: "election is done, now let's focus on the real, material issues that will impact the long term future of this country and it's 300 million+ inhabitants"........

Well, if the unfortunate does happen and we end up stuck with smooth-talker Obama for another four years, it will be almost impossible. Because the main problem will still be there. We will still have a chief executive that is totally incompetent, and without the management competency and management experience to do the job.

It's like pulling a tuk-tuk driver off the street, handing him a certificate that says he is now a surgeon, and throwing him in an operating room. After four years of dead patients, you rehire him and then expect different results for the next four years? Obama did not have the management competency to do the job for the last four years and he still does not possess it. Four more years of the tuk-tuk driver with the scalpel. Shudders!

And Mitt the twit is somehow an improvement on your tuk-tuk/surgeon? I've met the man, Mitt that is, three times, spent an SFO-BOS trip next to him, still have family/friends at Bain, still have family/friends in the State House - he's a likable clueless doofy sort of guy. Presidential material - SHUDDERS. I'd take the tuk-tuk driver as POTUS. Was he born in Kenya?

The facts are that Romney has managed several private businesses, managed a successful 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, and served as chief executive (governor) of a U.S. state. That's the key and critical difference between Romney and the smooth-talker "community organizer". Obama's lack of comptetence and lack of management experience has been clearly demonstrated during the last three and a half years. There is no doubt. If you want different results than the last four years, you don't rehire the failure Obama.

obama was handed a pile of manure, it takes longer than four years to plant seeds and turn manure into roses.

(not really but still, it's an analogy alright!!)

Edited November 1, 2012 by nurofiend

[rotary]

Lets hope the polls are wrong, Obama winning again will be a severe unbearable load for the spend thrift USA and will wreck the world economy.

[Jingthing]

Very big endorsement from a very powerful man: Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City and famously successful MEDIA businessman.

He is widely regarded as the greatest mayor in the entire history of New York City.

He had previously said he wouldn't endorse anyone, but somehow something is blowing in the wind, and he thinks it is CLIMATE CHANGE.

I totally agree:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorsed President Obama on Thursday, citing climate change as the primary factor and Hurricane Sandy as the event that impelled him to make a choice.

“The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the Northeast — in lost lives, lost homes and lost business — brought the stakes of next Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief,” the political independent writes in an op-ed on Bloomberg View, part of his media empire. “Our climate is changing. … We need leadership from the White House.” Obama, he says, “has taken major steps to reduce our carbon consumption.”

http://www.washingto...-endorses-obama

Bloomberg is very well regarded by INDEPENDENT American voters. He was a democrat before he was a republican before he was an INDEPENDENT. At some times, he has seriously been discussed as a potential president himself.

http://www.dailykos....-WARMING-STUPID

This endorsement and Bloomberg's new focus on this issue might be the biggest thing to happen to raising awareness of this issue since Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth.

New York City is the media center of the world and Bloomberg is the mayor of New York so this really ain't chopped liver.

While Obama has done not so much on this issue in his first term largely because of the successful propaganda machine of the politically motivated (instead of SCIENTIFICALLY motivated) republican right wing, this big storm along with Bloomberg's power and influence can conceivably change the political environment with this issue for his second term quite a lot.

Romney as many recall RIDICULED Obama's concern for climate change at his speech at the republican convention. That's the republican position, hostility to science and ridicule of any effort to address these issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQYENlDjCPc&feature=relmfu

Watch starting at 8:00

Edited November 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[who]

This poll has no basis other than who the people who were polled expect to win. Obama is the incumbent, so no big surprise, but the polls are so close that this does not mean much.

-

Jingthing - You don't understand American polling. The only poll that has any meaning is among LIKELY voters. ( in which Romney leads by 5 points). It's not how one EXPECTS, it's about how one VOTES.

-

[Credo]

...and that's because colleges in Texas accept illegal immigrants as students. Of course, I presume you are against non-citizens breaking the laws by voting in a federal election.

And there are no NRA members who aren't US citizens are there? And none of them can get a photo ID from the NRA, can they?

Oh, and only US citizens can get a Driver's License?

Texas will not issue a driver's license to illegal immigrants.

Your rather snide responses mean little, unless you think that having a photo ID assures you the right to vote and/or that only illegal immigrants would try to vote illegally.

[keemapoot]

One of the most globally respected weekly magazines, The Economist, has endorsed Obama in what is slightly kinder than I would say, but pretty much mirrors my endorsement. Not glowing, but better than the alternative. Better the devil you know....

But while it said that Obama's achievements had been modest, Romney had flip-flopped on too many issues to be credible, while his plans to cut taxes and increase defence spending were unaffordable.

"For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don't believe most of what he says. That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive," The Economist said.

"And for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America's economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him."

http://www.macarthur...cks-obama/?cs=9

[Ulysses G.]

Very big endorsement from a very powerful man: Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City and famously successful MEDIA businessman.

Well there you go, Obama is going to win New York now. What a surprise for Romney.

[folium]

Cute little video on campaign financing;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20163081

Is the price per vote about the same in Thailand?

[Ulysses G.]

The facts are that Romney has managed several private businesses, managed a successful 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, and served as chief executive (governor) of a U.S. state. That's the key and critical difference between Romney and the smooth-talker "community organizer". Obama's lack of comptetence and lack of management experience has been clearly demonstrated during the last three and a half years. There is no doubt. If you want different results than the last four years, you don't rehire the failure Obama.

Romney never managed any business enterprise other than Bain Capital, a vulture capital firm that bought existing struggling businesses, extracted their cash value, then forced them to borrow heavily, paid himself handsomely with that debt, and then send them adrift to sink or swim.

In other words, he bought businesses that were going bankrupt and tried to make them work in order to make a profit and if they didn't improve, he closed them down, which was going to happen anyway. Capitalism is what America is about. Bain Capital is not going to lose him any votes with the regular folks.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[keemapoot]

In looking over endorsements for each candidate, it's interesting to compare Obama against Romney. I've just gone to Wiki, as I insist on absolute accuracy, and Obama's endorsements include the Economist (global circulation 1.7 million), 3 Nobel Prize Laureates in Economics, around 65 eminent scientists and 6 porn stars.

Romney's endorsements include 7 prominent clergy, no economists or scientists, and only 2 porn stars.

Just goes to show, at least on sexual matters, once you go ....., you never go back.

[Ulysses G.]

Apparently, your searching skills are rather weak. This took 10 seconds and they include FOUR Nobel Prize Laureates by the way.

Now More Than 500 Economists Back Romney Economic Plan

http://economistsforromney.com/2012/08/20/press-release-now-more-than-500-economists-back-romney-economic-plan/

[keemapoot]

Apparently, your searching skills are rather weak. This took 10 seconds and they include FOUR Nobel Prize Laureates by the way.

Now More Than 500 Economists Back Romney Economic Plan

http://economistsfor...-economic-plan/

I said: "I've just gone to Wiki, as I insist on absolute accuracy," I know humor is difficult for Romney supporters.

[keemapoot]

A lot has been discussed on here about statistical models, odds, probabilities, and the betting markets. I'm a great believer in the betting markets accuracy. Nate Silver has been at the center of the controversy.

As the week has progressed, his model has only shown Obama's chances of winning increasing, which has not coincidentally increased Silver's confidence in the outcome. (As of this morning, Five Thirty Eight gives Obama a 79 percent chance of winning, with a final Electoral College total over 300.)

Most people say the race is too close to call. But, if you're a punter, enjoy a bit of sporting wagering, if you're putting your hard earned money on it, who do you believe?

http://news.yahoo.co...-113615600.html

[Ulysses G.]

I believe all the non-partisan pollsters that say that anyone who says that they know who will win is either lying or delusional. Dick Morris says that Romney will win by a landslide and I don't believe him either.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[keemapoot]

Based on business acumen alone, I would be tempted to endorse Romney, if it weren't for his other negative baggage. But certainly it is true that Romney has forgotten more about business than Obama will ever know. However, I'm intrigued by Obama's proposal to make a new cabinet position "Secretary of Business," in essence, merge SBA and other agencies into a "one stop shop" to help business.

Romney condemns the plan, but as usual, doesn't say why.

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2012/11/01/romney-attacks-obamas-secretary-of.html

[bendejo]

This is the question asked by Gallup

http://www.gallup.co...n-election.aspx

What a stupid question to go asking, the results would be useless.

It would be like asking "do think Jesus really walked on the water?"

Then when the results come in at 90% the conjecture would be "if 90% of the people believe it then it must be true." Brilliant!

[Ulysses G.]

Based on business acumen alone, I would be tempted to endorse Romney, if it weren't for his other negative baggage. But certainly it is true that Romney has forgotten more about business than Obama will ever know. However, I'm intrigued by Obama's proposal to make a new cabinet position "Secretary of Business," in essence, merge SBA and other agencies into a "one stop shop" to help business.

Romney condemns the plan, but as usual, doesn't say why.

http://www.bizjourna...cretary-of.html

Seems pretty clear to me.

"We don't need a Secretary of Business to understand business; we need a president who understands business, and I do." Obama's Czars have not worked out too well in the past.

[keemapoot]

Based on business acumen alone, I would be tempted to endorse Romney, if it weren't for his other negative baggage. But certainly it is true that Romney has forgotten more about business than Obama will ever know. However, I'm intrigued by Obama's proposal to make a new cabinet position "Secretary of Business," in essence, merge SBA and other agencies into a "one stop shop" to help business.

Romney condemns the plan, but as usual, doesn't say why.

http://www.bizjourna...cretary-of.html

Seems pretty clear to me.

"We don't need a Secretary of Business to understand business; we need a president who understands business, and I do." Obama's Czars have not worked out too well in the past.

So by that reasoning, we don't need a Secretary of State to understand foreign policy, we need a President who does. And, Romney has sure shown his adeptness in that area.

Cutting the hyperbole, the idea of an effective merger & acquisition of government agencies should result in a leaner, more efficient, more useful agency for U.S. business. At least, that's the reason I've always done M&A.

Realistically, I think Romney should have thought of this first..., oh wait, Obama is now a biz whiz?

[Neurath]

This is the question asked by Gallup

http://www.gallup.co...n-election.aspx

What a stupid question to go asking, the results would be useless.

It would be like asking "do think Jesus really walked on the water?"

Then when the results come in at 90% the conjecture would be "if 90% of the people believe it then it must be true." Brilliant!

As a predictive tool, it turns out that a question is extraordinarily accurate:

"

But another kind of polling question, which received far less attention, produced a clearer result: Regardless of whom they supported, which candidate did people expect to win? Americans consistently, and correctly, said that they thought Mr. Bush would."

The refer to the election of 2004 above. The research covers other Presidential elections. The full piece is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/us/politics/a-better-poll-question-to-predict-the-election.html?hp

On last quote from the same piece/research: "Over the last 60 years, poll questions that asked people which candidate they expected to win have been a better guide to the outcome of the presidential race than questions asking people whom they planned to vote for, the study found."

[Jingthing]

Very big endorsement from a very powerful man: Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City and famously successful MEDIA businessman.

Well there you go, Obama is going to win New York now. What a surprise for Romney.

Bloomberg has a much wider geographical influence than New York but I can understand Romney partisans would be prone to mock the importance of his endorsement much like Romney disgustingly mocked concern about global warming.

[mania]

So by that reasoning, we don't need a Secretary of State to understand foreign policy, we need a President who does.

100% Yes we need both but,

We need a President who is skilled at all things he needs to oversee/delegate.

In any given instance if you cannot measure it you cannot manage it.

If a President is not adept at things like Foreign Policy how can he even decide on

a competent Secretary of State?

Yes commanders/owners etc. will surround themselves with good managers. But he/she will first need to understand what a good manager is. That can only be accomplished with knowledge of the task at hand in the first place.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Scott
formatting

[chuckd]

...and that's because colleges in Texas accept illegal immigrants as students. Of course, I presume you are against non-citizens breaking the laws by voting in a federal election.

And there are no NRA members who aren't US citizens are there? And none of them can get a photo ID from the NRA, can they?

Oh, and only US citizens can get a Driver's License?

Texas will not issue a driver's license to illegal immigrants.

Your rather snide responses mean little, unless you think that having a photo ID assures you the right to vote and/or that only illegal immigrants would try to vote illegally.

I apologize for any posts you consider as being snide. I consider them more as being to the point but, different strokes for different folks.

A photo ID in and of itself doesn't give anybody the "right to vote". The US Constitution does that, but ONLY for US citizens.

The photo ID merely proves who one might be and a verification of the voting lists further verify the person with the photo ID is registered to vote.

A photo ID also prevents dead people from voting. Don't laugh. Reincarnation is common in some parts of the US. It's called Chicago politics.

What I don't understand is why people are so strenuously objecting to having to obtain voter IDs. They are easily obtained at many places and most, if not all, state governments will issue them at no cost. All one has to do is present a valid birth certificate or proof of citizenship and...viola, the photo ID is issued.

How many photo IDs do you have? I just counted mine and I have 13 of them.

Edited November 2, 2012 by chuckd

[Jingthing]

The republican party is on the trend of never being able to win the presidency because of the changing demographics away from white and republicans have little appeal to most non-white Americans. So all they've got is their voter suppression efforts.

[chuckd]

Based on business acumen alone, I would be tempted to endorse Romney, if it weren't for his other negative baggage. But certainly it is true that Romney has forgotten more about business than Obama will ever know. However, I'm intrigued by Obama's proposal to make a new cabinet position "Secretary of Business," in essence, merge SBA and other agencies into a "one stop shop" to help business.

Romney condemns the plan, but as usual, doesn't say why.

http://www.bizjourna...cretary-of.html

What does Obama plan to do with the Commerce Department and the Secretary of Commerce?

Ronald Reagan once said...

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."

I seriously question whether yet another government bureaucracy is a good way to stimulate the economy.

[GiHadOrange]

This is the question asked by Gallup

http://www.gallup.co...n-election.aspx

What a stupid question to go asking, the results would be useless.

It would be like asking "do think Jesus really walked on the water?"

Then when the results come in at 90% the conjecture would be "if 90% of the people believe it then it must be true." Brilliant!

Its more a question like: What you think about the believe of other people. Do you think that the others think that Jesus really walked on the water?

[Credo]

I have one, my passport.

The constitution guarantees some the right to vote. If I sign up (register) to vote and show up and vote why do I or anyone else have to attest to anything other than who I am? Unless more than one person shows up saying they are me, I don't see why a photo ID is necessary. It's just one more impediment in allowing people to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

[chuckd]

Very big endorsement from a very powerful man: Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City and famously successful MEDIA businessman.

Well there you go, Obama is going to win New York now. What a surprise for Romney.

Bloomberg has a much wider geographical influence than New York but I can understand Romney partisans would be prone to mock the importance of his endorsement much like Romney disgustingly mocked concern about global warming.

Bloomberg's endorsement will do little to affect the outcome of the election and will very likely have about as much impact with the voters as global warming.