July 14, 2011

"'Republican Candidate' Extends Lead vs. Obama to 47% to 39%."

Gallup.

ADDED: "Obama, Moderate Republican."

117 comments:

Joe said...

How about poll of Obama vs. a shitting Canadian Goose?

chickenlittle said...

Is this a fill in the blank test? I though it was going to be multiple choice.

Curious George said...

Rudy Giuliani announced today that he is legally changing his name to "Republican Candidate".

Dose of Sanity said...

Well, this poll is nearly worthless. The "generic" candidate option is quite useless - it has no "negatives".

Essentially, all this poll confirms is that 39% of the people would vote for BO no matter who he's against.

But, you say, that must mean that 47% people will vote for the republican candidate, no matter who he is. Simply not true. Think of what Bachmann, Palin or even Romney has for negatives. The republican nominee will have endured brutal primaries and will have several firm "negatives" in the public mind by that time.

In other news, this isn't news.

Drew said...

Paul Krugman, national punch line. http://bcove.me/u3mrqbva

SteveR said...

Krugman thinks we are stupid enough to read that the way he wants. When he pulls his nose out of Obama's ass, he might be worth taking seriously. Then again, probably not.

TWM said...

"In other news, this isn't news."

Sure it is. For one thing it is probably scaring the hell out of Barry which should make it easier for the GOP to call his bluff. And secondly, it lets those who are losing faith in him know they are not alone.

Scott M said...

Meaningless. As our president has said, if you just reword the question, HE'S leading 47% to 39%.

Ron said...

If Obama is a Moderate Republican, Althouse is Lili St. Cyr!

Phil 3:14 said...

I wasn't aware of Mr. Republican's candidacy? Is he black? Is he a Mormon? What's his wife look like? What church does he go to? Did he sign the tax pledge?

Litmus tests please!!

Phil 3:14 said...

PS So I guess John McCain should run again.

David said...

Not original with me but I will repeat it anyway: The problem is that the Republicans have to run an actual candidate, not a generic one.

We are in a crazy time. The Republicans could nominate a loser, or we could have a third party candidate. Very fluid.

Quaestor said...

Dose of Sanity wrote:
Essentially, all this poll confirms is that 39% of the people would vote for BO no matter who he's against.

Symptoms indicate increased dosage.

Scott M said...

DOS

It also shows a bit of velocity of change, wouldn't you say?

Alex said...

Obama will get re-elected. The GOP will retain the House and re-gain the Senate. More gridlock to follow...

Alex said...

Kinetic Political Action.

chickenlittle said...

Alex said More gridlock to follow...

Another name for this is checks and balances.

Some people envy China where things get done more "efficiently."

MarkG said...

And that poll was taken in the black part of town. You should see how bad he did elsewhere.

madawaskan said...

ADDED

This is when I hate the caucuses in Iowa.

Kinda like how Stalin hated the Caucusus...


never mind.

madawaskan said...

Or Loreena...

chickenlittle said...

We can't have Bachmann because she's against the gays.

We can't have Romney because he's too plastic and not "colorful"

We can't have Palin because she's too real. And she's a woman.

Obama wins by default

chickenlittle said...

*waves at the mad awaskan*

Long time no see.

Carol_Herman said...

You bet, there's gonna be a rush to get their hands on as much as they can get!

It's sort'a like Herbert Hoover trying to use his position, to extract blood from the incoming FDR. Son of a bitch lost the whole hold the republican party ever held. For a total of ONE GENERATION: 20 years!

And, then Eisenhower came in ... and shoved more seats at the cabinet table. Didn't do one flying fucking good thing for the stupid party. What did you get next? Nixon.

And, sadly enough, it's not just obama who wants to oust Cantor from the table ... It's the two incompetent honchos in Congress. You tell me. How did McConnell and Boehner climb into the top of the GOP congressional seating arrangement?

Lucky for us the Tea Party didn't take a hint and just go home.

If Karl Rove could, he'd piss all over ya.

Oh, yeah. And, he'd saddle up Jeb. Who can't find his way into the "family club."

Since Sarah Palin says she's "gonna make up her mind" in August ... I'm going to presume we're gonna see a lot of the ONE NATION bus.

And, if the stupid party tries to oust her ... She's gonna oust all right. Right into an Independent run. (Which Reagan didn't want to do back in 1974).

It's gonna get interesting.

But, you bet. The stupid party will look to make ... not just a "deal" ... but a long term one to boot. Just to show they really know how to screw up the works.

AllenS said...

On a local note, the recall against Harsdorf (R):

The New Richmond News is reporting that challenger Drama Queen Moore (D) received money from 9,800 contributers. More than half came from individuals from outside Wisconsin.

Harsdorf lists 1,800 contributions with 5 from out of state.

Moore had $104,358 from individuals and $103,892 from conduits.

Harsdorf had $160,134 from individuals and $23,354 from conduits.

Interesting.

David said...

And, if the stupid party tries to oust her ... She's gonna oust all right. Right into an Independent run. (Which Reagan didn't want to do back in 1974).

It's gonna get interesting.


Interesting for sure.

Significant third party candidates tend to come when we have significant stress from a seemingly insurmountable problem. The best example is 1860, when four different candidates won electoral votes, and Lincoln was elected with considerably less than half of the popular vote.

Jay said...

Feel the momentum:

FOX 9) - Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton and Republican leaders are returning to budget talks, with a 2 p.m. meeting in Dayton’s office.

The meeting comes after the governor sent a letter Thursday morning to House Speaker Kurt Zellers and Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, saying he "reluctantly" agrees to accept the Republican budget proposal from June 30


Left wing zealots hardest hit..

DKWalser said...

A recent poll compared actual Republicans with Obama. Romney did best, with Obama leading 47% to Romney's 41%. While that looks good for Obama, if the election were held today (which it won't be) Romney would most likely win. Why? Because (assuming historical trends apply) most of the undecided voters would end up voting against the incumbent.

Does that mean Romney will win if he's the Republican nominee in 2012? No. A lot will happen between now and then. All it means is Obama is very weak right now. That, of course, may change.

Clyde said...

What color is the sky on Krugman's planet?

Dustin said...

It's so amusing seeing Obama's fans try to defend this.

If 2003's Bush was losing this badly to a generic democrat with no positives, the democrats would think that was very newsworthy.

This is before a GOP has a chance to really sell themselves on the national stage. Those who assume doing so automatically harms them should reconsider.

Obama has only one card to play: get ugly as much as possible. That will eat into his support, because he's long tried to pretend to be the referee of civility. He needs to both be the ugliest politician in American history and maintain his pose as against such behavior.

What's he going to do when he opponent attacks his record in response? He's going to lose, that's what. I want a true believer in conservatism, but I'll take an experienced executive with a strong record like Rick Perry's.

Interestingly, it will be difficult to portray Perry as anything but moderate. Many will try and fail.

Coketown said...

That margin will narrow when "Republican candidate" gets a name. Non-entities always outperform known quantities. How do you think Obama got elected?

jacksonjay said...

Pre-Bluff Poll! Bluff changes everthing!

Carol_Herman said...

Alas, Obama and his gang of thieves are inside the vault.

Whatever you hear is all propaganda.

They will steal out country right under from under out feet.

Coketown said...

Nate Silver's numbers are interesting, though, in that they show even Democrats prefer more spending cuts to "revenue enhancements."

madawaskan said...

Hey there El Pollo-

Gah! I should delete the Loreena twist-but I think you might be the only one who gets that "joke" so....

Hell w/ it.

btw- I've been traveling a lot.

Had to do a holding pattern over JFK for an hour cuz someone was fundraising.

Anyways, does Meade still "wish" he voted for-

you-know-who?

Oy.

Mick said...

Phil 3:14 said...
"PS So I guess John McCain should run again."



McCain is ineligible, born in Panama, needed USC 8 S. 1403 to be naturalized at birth as a US Citizen. Not natural born Citizen, i.e born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents.

virgil xenophon said...

If Krugman were a woman I'd say he swims out to meet troopships, but since he's not (although he whines like a Harpy) all I can say is he's EXACTLY like Obama personality-wise--a total DICK.

PackerBronco said...

The link to Krugman's column refers to "Nate Silver’s analysis of the budget proposals"

Uh, what budget proposals?
We've learned that the CBO can't score a speech and they damn sure can't score a press leak with vague numbers and no details.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Does no one have historical trends available about what the result tends to be given X% lead in a generic candidate poll? I can see a lot of problems with their predictive power when given a non-generic candidate, but I'd like to see some numbers.

- Lyssa

Fred4Pres said...

I want to meet this Generic Republican! He or she seems to be real Presidential Timber!

MadisonMan said...

I want to meet this Generic Republican! He or she seems to be real Presidential Timber!

(laugh).

Excellent!

Erik said...

Perry ought to just throw his hat in and end the speculation. Having Bachmann running around out there being herself isn't really helping. Perry is basically the only one in the potential GOP field who isn't crippled by one policy or another. He's not perfect, but I don't see him losing to Obama at this point.

SteveR said...

the only analogy we can look to is 2004 when the Democrats ran a "generic" candidate and lost. The only question is whether any Republican can be that generic.

traditionalguy said...

What does a Draft Jeb Bush organization warming up sound like?

Does it speak Spanish or English?

Do it for Barbara, Jebbie!

AJ Lynch said...

Is there any chance John "my friends" McCain will want to jump into the race?

NYTNewYorker said...

What is Perrys stance on illegal aliens?

...being from Texas and all.

blake said...

Lyssa--

Not that, but Gallup shows the two Bushes were trending before their re-election years.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148487/Republican-Candidate-Extends-Lead-Obama.aspx

Paul said...

Obama just stormed out of a meeting and said, "this could bring down my presidency".

No, only thing that will bring down Obama's presidency is Obama.

And he is doing that quite well.

Curious George said...

"Jay said...
Feel the momentum:

FOX 9) - Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton and Republican leaders are returning to budget talks, with a 2 p.m. meeting in Dayton’s office.

The meeting comes after the governor sent a letter Thursday morning to House Speaker Kurt Zellers and Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, saying he "reluctantly" agrees to accept the Republican budget proposal from June 30


Left wing zealots hardest hit.."

Not actually true. He added stipulations that the GOP is not that keen on.

Scott M said...

What is Perrys stance on illegal aliens?

...being from Texas and all.


How many illegal aliens are from Texas?

Scott M said...

Not actually true. He added stipulations that the GOP is not that keen on.

Smells like compromise.

America's Politico said...

At the Oval Room, near the WH, with the K-street consultants, we just laughed at the Gallup poll. One of the super consultants said that there is no way any GOP can win a single state. I mean the GOP should give up. There is nothing they can do. Why waste your time, money, and energy? Support OB2.

Calypso Facto said...

Great video Drew. I'm impressed that so many Northlanders not only know who Krugman is, but also realize he's a joke. Even in typically Democratic-leaning northern Wisconsin.

Triangle Man said...

I want to meet this Generic Republican! He or she seems to be real Presidential Timber!

I would like to hear about his/her policy positions and goals if elected.

chickenlittle said...

Not that, but Gallup shows the two Bushes were trending before their re-election years.

This horserace has a Gallup and a Cantor...what will the MSM trot out next...more Walker?

equin-enmity for all!

Quaestor said...

America's Politico
At the Oval Room, near the WH, with the K-street consultants, we just laughed at the Gallup poll.

Why is called the Oval Room, AP? Is it because of the all oval-shaped vitreous porcelain furniture in there?

wv: nonsan - Don't take your meals in the Oval Room on K-Street as it's likely to be nonsan in there.

edutcher said...

What this shows is that 61% of the electorate doesn't want Little Zero - and this is 16 months out.

Worthless only if you're a Lefty. Not to mention scary.

PatCA said...

But when they match Obama with any of the actual candidates, he wins. So I think the generic Republican is the aspirational Republican candidate.

Palin and Trump and their bold confrontational style hints at who that aspirational candidate might learn from.

Chuck66 said...

Minnesota....there is compromising going on. It isn't a 100% win for either side (as it probably shouldn't be).

My take? It was the Miller thing. It showed:

A) That Big Government controls everything we do.

B) That Big Government is so incompetitent that they cna't even process a simple check properly.

Dose of Sanity said...

This is from the gallup article, and never has a truer word been spoked. We are creatures with astoundingly short memories.

"Regardless of whom Republicans nominate, if national conditions improve, as was the case from 1983 to 1984 and 1995 to 1996, Obama could win re-election easily. If they do not, as occurred between 1979 and 1980, or get worse, as happened from 1991 to 1992, he could be vulnerable to defeat by whomever the Republicans nominate."

Chuck66 said...

New thing by Democrats....Michelle Bachmann isn't fit for office because she belongs to the Lutheran Church-Wisconsin Synod. The left says they are evil.

By the way....Ron Kind is also a member, but they don't talk about that.

Chuck66 said...

AllenS...did you see the Milw Journal test-o-meter on Moore's claim? That Mrs Harsdorf wants to do away with Medicare? It came back as a flaming liar liar.

Republican may lose a couple of seats in August, but I think we can thank the Democrats for running an angry union shrill against Harsdorf.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Paul

Obama just stormed out of a meeting and said, "this could bring down my presidency".

At least get quote and context right.

AllenS said...

Chuck,

Drama Queen Moore about 2 months ago was running ads on a local radio station (River Falls). There hasn't been one since. There is a couple of Harsdorf radio ads that run once every hour.

WV: chrome

Carol_Herman said...

Storms out of meeting saying "this could bring down my presidency."

While a good name for the forthcoming book would be "Acted So Stupidly No One Could believe it."

"Acted Stupidly" for short.

Enabled by the stupid party, though.

Except for Sarah Palin. I can't wait for her bus to come rolling out.

Carol_Herman said...

Right now, Obama is practicing his "twit" on Cantor.

Just you wait until Sarah Palin comes out ... and he tries "overdrive" before diving under Katie Couric's skirt.

Eric said...

"Generic X" polls aren't worth as much for handicapping the election, but as they change over time they do give you an indication of a change in voter sentiment.

I'm hopeful. I think what it means is the Republicans are winning the current budget standoff, presidential hysterics notwithstanding.

Godot said...

Jay said...
Left wing zealots hardest hit

That subheadline should read:
"Women and minority left-wing zealots hardest hit"
-

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Not that, but Gallup shows the two Bushes were trending before their re-election years.

Thanks, Blake. I wonder why they did both Bushes, but not Clinton. Seems at least possible that there would be a difference in the way Ds and Rs approach these sorts of things.

But I think Eric is right- this isn't very predictive, but it shows overall voter sentiment.

- Lyssa

Chuck66 said...

My take is that it says very very little about Republicans. The final candidate could be great or a disaster.

It says more about the incumbant. If Obama polled at least 50% against a generic Republican, then as of today, the election is his to lose.

Instead it is the Republicans to win or lose.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Curious George

Building on your 1:17 post, all repubs should simply refer to themselves as 'republican candidates'.

Or, 'not Obama'.

wv - psici

Chuck66 said...

DT2012....funny thing is, the Demcorats ran as "Not Bush" in 2004. Didn't work out for them. But they ran against Bush (instead of McCain) in 2008 and it worked out pretty good for them.

edutcher said...

Dose of Sanity said...

This is from the gallup article,
and never has a truer word been spoked. We are creatures with astoundingly short memories.

"Regardless of whom Republicans nominate, if national conditions improve, as was the case from 1983 to 1984 and 1995 to 1996, Obama could win re-election easily. If they do not, as occurred between 1979 and 1980, or get worse, as happened from 1991 to 1992, he could be vulnerable to defeat by whomever the Republicans nominate."


It say, if national conditions improve.

How many people are betting that will happen with something like 2/3 of small businesses not hiring for the rest of the year?

It also say, If they do not ... or get worse.

Which seems a lot more likely.

I think we've found out who America's Politico is.

If so, my apologies to Baghdad Bob.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Chuck66

"DT2012....funny thing is, the Demcorats ran as "Not Bush" in 2004. Didn't work out for them. But they ran against Bush (instead of McCain) in 2008 and it worked out pretty good for them."

The dem message in '04 was as weak as the dem budget proposals we have now. That too will not work for them.

Running against Bush in 2012 won't be quite as effective now that even some (independent) Obama voters know what a vapid stuffed shirt he is.

Of course you will always have the zombies voting party line. Problem is , we don't live in the Democrat States of America. I think people are waking up to the folly of voting party line (esp. the party of class warfare/covetousness) without any thought. Dogs and monkeys could also be trained to do that.

Paco Wové said...

"I want to meet this Generic Republican! He or she seems to be real Presidential Timber!"

"I would like to hear about his/her policy positions and goals if elected."


Well, I find his/her ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to his/her/its newsletter!

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Paco Wove

"Well, I find his/her ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to his/her/its newsletter!"

He/she already has my vote, regardless of 'ideas'.

Heck, I just want someone that respects the office and doesn't want to turn it into his personal bitch.

Browndog said...

How I see it:

22% of Americans are progressive/liberal/marxists.

They hate American ideals, want to destroy it, and create their own "utopia".

10-12% are their useful idiots, their lemmings-swallowing the propaganda on emotion, not thinking it through.

This is, and always will be, the base for ANY liberal.

I put true, red-blooded conservatives at 33%.

Another 10-15% are conservative based on values and logic, but don't identify as one because "conservative is a bad word".

This is, and always will be, the base against liberals.

Browndog said...

I would add-

Don't believe any poll.

These are not your father's polls.

Those polls were conducted to gauge the public.

These polls are conducted to drive an agenda.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Edutcher

I wasn't saying one way or another - but it's very closely tied to the economy.

I don't get your comment on America's politico, unless that wasn't directed at me?

@ Browndog -

That was a mighty awful post. Try harder next time. "True, red-blooded" just makes me laugh.

chickenlittle said...

@madawaskan: Anyways, does Meade still "wish" he voted for-you-know-who?

Probably but knows. I hope he didn't install an insinkerator.

edutcher said...

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Edutcher

I wasn't saying one way or another - but it's very closely tied to the economy.


We all know that. It's why we're here.

What browndog said.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Dose

"@Browndog -

That was a 'mighty awful' post."

2 bad posts don't make a good one, either.

@Browndog

Agreed, only 'poll' that matters will happen November 2012.

Lonetown said...

Its too bad anonymous can't run!

madawaskan said...

I think it only proves one thing:

Althouse can berate anyone into "wishing" they had done something, anything else.

And, we all know why Althouse voted for Obama-even if she likes to claim she was cooly unemotionally high on a hill...

She had a dream-McCain appeared to her "sweaty" sitting on her bed.

Please....do I have to fill in the blanks for Althouse...

Freud would have a....

Actually even Freud would be bored.

Triangle Man said...

I put true, red-blooded conservatives at 33%.

You might be able to draw an ideological circle around 1/3 of Americans and call them conservative, but because of the social/fiscal divide I wonder how you are defining 'true, red-blooded conservative'.

andinista said...

Well, a rational decision process is more than powerful enough to overcome this deficit. Just weigh the facts.
An adjunct lecturer of law, academic performance deliberately hidden, who has never held a real job, never won a competitive election, never successfully performed in an executive position, is able to convince two authors to ghost-write books for which he will take sole credit, whose knowledge of the U.S. military is limited to what he learned as an anti-nuclear activist in the 1970s, with 12 years of legislative bench-warming and nothing of note to show, and was a basketball bench-warmer, and is possessed of a "first-class intellect", charm, and thoughtfulness

is a more than compelling set of personal qualification attributes

compared to someone who successfully ran for and won 3 contested political executive elections, and for 12 years was a successful political executive, was able get positive results over the objections of both parties, is squeaky-clean on political corruption, who wrote two books (with credited help), and writes her own Facebook material that sets the debate terms, who came from humble circumstances to national prominence based on hard work and success, was the captain of a winning basketball team who personally brought home the trophy, and whose commitment to Liberty and frugal clean government is not in doubt.

Heck of a process there.

Carol_Herman said...

Ig Gallop was smart ... they'd start testing for a 3-way race.

Then?

The stupid party would place 3rd.

chickenlittle said...

@madawaskan: re "Loreena" Just four words:

The Woman from S.C.U.M.

David said...

From USAToday, July 30, 2003:

Dems find hope in Bush polls

WASHINGTON -- President Bush might seem poised for easy re-election, given his healthy 58% job-approval rating in the latest USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup polls.

But another number from the surveys conducted over the past two weekends is giving Democrats hope and Republicans heartburn. Asked who they're likely to vote for in 2004, 47% said Bush and 41% the Democratic nominee, whoever that turns out to be.

That's not a commanding lead, and it puts Bush's support below 50%, a threshold that traditionally divides safe incumbents from those who are vulnerable. "It's a sign that this thing's not done," political analyst Charles Cook says.

Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan didn't show any significant difference between job approval and re-election support, which is one reason job approval is seen as a reliable shorthand for a president's political standing. At this point in his first term, Clinton's job approval was 49%, his re-election support 46%. For Reagan, both were 44%.

But in this way, as in others, Bush is following in his father's footsteps. At this point, the elder Bush's job-approval rating was 74% in the wake of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but his re-election support was nearly 20 points lower, at 55%.

Why the disparity?

Both Bushes have benefited from the public's inclination to rally around the president when the nation is facing threats from abroad. Amid the conflict in Iraq and the campaign against terrorism, the current president's approval is being boosted by some Americans who are unlikely to vote for him.

In the polls, combined to provide a larger sample, 30% of liberals said they approved of the job Bush was doing, a much higher proportion of those voters than he's likely to carry. Blacks are the major demographic group least likely to vote for Bush, but roughly one in four approved of the job he's doing.

Other groups that contributed to the disparity in the numbers include some voters who are seen as up for grabs in 2004, among them moderates and people younger than 30.

Matthew Dowd, a senior Bush strategist, calls the president's job-approval rating "great" and says his re-election support isn't a concern. In recent years, with a more polarized electorate, most high-profile incumbents have seen their support slip below 50%, he says. He argues that the threshold signaling trouble now is closer to 40%.

By Election Day, voters will be choosing between Bush and a particular Democrat. That will give Republicans a specific target, but it also will give Democrats a chance to speak with a single voice.

At the moment, the polls show a race that's still up in the air. "The opening is there," Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg says. "It is incumbent on us to figure out how to take advantage of it."

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@madawaskan

Hey, long time. How're tricks??? ;)

Don't get me started on the AA 'rational' decision to vote for Zero.

Either issue the mea culpa and move on or just stop the drama!!!

It serves no purpose to rationalize a bad decision, other than to teach others how not to 'think'.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

chickenlittle wins a horse laugh from me!

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Fred4Pres said...

I want to meet this Generic Republican!

Hint: look at your avatar. Pretty generic there.

kiruwa said...

I find the comments on the Krugman article fascinating. Particularly lines like this:

"At first his bizzare bargaining method of starting out by offering far more than his opponents had even asked for seemed to be more of a statement about his naive desire for bipartisanship than a preference for his opponents positions, but now it it is clear to me that he simply prefers their policies. "


Somewhat amusingly, this is the right's constant complaint about Obama's foreign policy 'smart diplomacy'.

madawaskan said...

Don't Tread

Don't get me started on the AA 'rational' decision to vote for Zero.

Seriously...and then there was the Meade thing...I don't hold Obama responsible (for the economy), I wish I voted for him.

Completely oblivious to the $800 billion stimulus that they had the audacity to promise would keep unemployment at 8%.

Ya-how'd that work out?

Every time I land in Cali at an airport that is half dead all the time-where they are building a "brand new" airport-

I get pissed.

Ya I just landed there last night.

Someone get me a Liberal to bitch slap-STAT!

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@madawaskan

I must have missed the 'Meade' thing you refer to...do tell...is it more than blind spouse-propping?

Can't blame him for that...

Well...maybe I can.

wv - woomps

Brilliant!!!

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@madawaskan

IF I had let my wife vote for that empty suit she'd STILL be hearing about it!!!!

madawaskan said...

We-

Got Geitnered and we got it good.

You know the guy that was so fixated on the Great Depression and studied in Japan so he could-I don't know-come close to-recreating it all.


And of course now he bails.

See when you voted for Obama -Althouse-you didn't just get Obama.

You got an arrogant know it all Democrat appointed at just about every helm.

Except for DOD.

Where they got Osama-which leads Meade to decree-

I wish I voted for Obama!1111!

It's a haiku from hell.

madawaskan said...

Look he's on "campus" now-so....reality it's MIA.

Just like that $800 billion....

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@madawaskan

Aha. The 'Mojo' haiku...ooooh. I see now. How convenient.

Lemme just leave ya' with this, then, as a fitting response following the same line of thinking...

"Well, I should say.
Friends, lemme tell you what I mean.
Ya got one, two, three, four, five, six pockets in a table.
Pockets that mark the diff'rence
Between a gentlemen and a bum,
With a capital "B,"
And that rhymes with "P" and that stands for pool!"

God save the queen...

madawaskan said...

andinista-

You left out-

Liar.

See Althouse told us she voted for "Him" because she knew he was lying...

Um ya, so you left out-

Guy who tells you the truth, honor code type Navy officer vs. used car salesman.

I'm off to go hit the treadmill or eat chocolate.

Probably both.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"I'd rather trust a countryman than a townman
You can judge by his eyes, take a look if you can
He'll smile through his guard
Survival trains hard
I'd rather trust a man who works with his hands
He looks at you once, you know he understands
Don't need any shield
When you're out in the field"

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@andinista

Welcome to the 'postmodern' 'post common-sense' world we live in.

Where the difference between 'choice' and 'murder' is determined by a period of say, 9 months.

Where babies have babies, and babies kill babies. This, we have been told, is our fault, and nobody's fault.

Just a choice.

Cedarford said...

DKWalser said...
A recent poll compared actual Republicans with Obama. Romney did best, with Obama leading 47% to Romney's 41%. While that looks good for Obama, if the election were held today (which it won't be) Romney would most likely win. Why? Because (assuming historical trends apply) most of the undecided voters would end up voting against the incumbent.

Does that mean Romney will win if he's the Republican nominee in 2012? No. A lot will happen between now and then. All it means is Obama is very weak right now. That, of course, may change.

====================
The head to heads are more valuable than Obama running against the perfect undefined candidate that agrees with you on every issue (you think) and happens to be a generic Republican by title...
In the head to head, Romney is the strongest, trailing Obama by 6%...but as DK Walser pointed out, the undecideds almost always go to the challenger - unless it is a McCain, a Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell - the more voters saw of them, the more undecided voters thought they were not up to the job.

Head to head is a good snapshot of right now..and voters may shift as they get to know the candidates better...

Right now, the Republican that fares the worst against Obama head to head is Sarah Palin with a 56-30 spread...and a 26 point lead for Obama if elections were held today. If Palin got 80% of the undecided, she would still be creamed and the Republicans would probably lose the House and lose seats in the Senate with her heading the ticket.

Republicans have to decide..do they want a candidate acceptable to most Americans that can win - or do they want a conservative icon that will "send a real message to Obama before he starts his 2nd term"??

Phil 3:14 said...

Alex said;
More gridlock to follow

Other than the noise, that's a good thing.

andinista said...

Hey madawaskan, don't be jammin' on the used car salesman. Those guys are salt of the earth, hustling to make a buck and feed their families. They wear the loud plaid suits to give you fair warning to deal shrewdly with them, or repent at your leisure. Nobody's forcing you to buy that clunker, or pay a Federal tax/penalty. I've had better dealings with the used-car salesman than the new ones.

The real problem with AA's "rational decision" is she didn't realize she was being conned by two grifters. It's a life-skill that not everybody learns: when something seems too good to be true, it usually is. Just because you're a highly paid, highly trained academician, doesn't mean you have the wits and courage to recognize you're a chump being conned and cleaned out. Mewling about the justifiable rational decision that you made before writing the check, doesn't mean much when the guy you trusted sorta just disappears with everything you got.

jacksonjay said...

Perry TALKS about enforcement at election time!

Perry TALKS about border security to tweak Obama!

Perry DOES nothing about illegals!

Lifelong Texan and voted for him three times, but as we say in Texas, "All Hat, No Cattle!"

jacksonjay said...

He ain't Jan Brewer!

andinista said...

Hey Cedarford.
1. There's no bad publicity. It's always your response to the publicity that determines the result.
2. Being the presumed front-runner almost always means you will not be the nominee. Romney is toast.
3. Palin is untouchable from here on out. The MSM has shot their wad, and since they didn't kill her, she has only become stronger.
4. Bachmann is a no-account legislator: she is part of the Washington problem, and has no demonstrated successful political leadership.
5. Pawlenty doesn't have a hook to get people enthusiastic. Them's the breaks.
6. Perry is a Texan. Bush Part Trix.
7. Each major party gets 40% guaranteed at the Presidential election. The winner has an enthusiastic base that convinces the majority of independents to join the winning team. There is only one Repub Presidential Candidate that has that reservoir of enthusiasm: la Palin. She has a fanatical army just waiting for the trumpet call.
8. Nobody will be enthusiastic to vote for Barry. Nobody.

damikesc said...

Honestly, who cares? America is a failed country. We gave money to leeches who will never let go and will drag us all down. And I refuse to pay one dime into a system specifically designed to screw over my children.

E.M. Davis said...

Right now, the Republican that fares the worst against Obama head to head is Sarah Palin with a 56-30 spread...and a 26 point lead for Obama if elections were held today. If Palin got 80% of the undecided, she would still be creamed and the Republicans would probably lose the House and lose seats in the Senate with her heading the ticket.

Not a big Palin fan, but do you have a link?

andinista said...

Oh, and one more thing about Romney. He's an unemployed layabout who's been lusting after the Presidency for 7 years now. Didn't want to get a real job lest it affect his chances. Nobody wants that kind of desperation to be anywhere near the Presidency.

America's Politico said...

Drinks tonight at the W hotel. We celebrate the WH victory over debt talks, the media support of OB2, and the total destruction of the GOP yet to come next Nov.

Come join me and other K-street consultants.

John Lynch said...

Who's "republican candidate" and why haven't I seen them at the debates?

Dustin said...

Perry isn't eligible. he was born in America to only 2 birth parents, but in a hospital with many man made devices to make child birth easier. Hence, not natural, which I shall now pretend is the constitution's requirement like that idiot upthread who claims 2 US citizen parents is mandatory even though that's not in the constitution either.

We just get to add whatever requirements we make up. It's kinda fun.

Cedarford said...

Dustin, fine commentary! No doubt some armchair Birthers that fancy themselves "Konstatoonshunal Skolars" will have to ponder that.
When you can think "natural born" means anything you personally consider national born, the Birthers will continue to make idiots out of themselves.
The Grassy Knoller sort are nothing if not immersed irrevocably in their delusions. (Good news is the sort only forms up at certain times and not added to their ranks afterwards so all the Grassy Knollers are old and dying off.)

My thoughts are that someone should ask the Birthers if Caesarian Section makes a baby unaturally born. If so, then if you ignore what the Founders meant and only fixate on the 14th Amendment that supposedly just added jus solis citizenship to make all the slaves citizens - then only a vaginal birth plopped out on US soil by a citizen or an illegal alien in the absence of any man-made machinery or drugs is natural born.

Oh, and only dipolomats abroad..no child born to military or other government or private US citizens overseas that have automatic US citizenship by the initial Constitutional requirement of just Sanguinis applying outside people grandfathered before the Constitution was adapted. Can't diss the Diplomats!
But it seems like they are also under the vaginal birth only, no machines or drugs stipulations the Birthers may soon claim apply.

Then again, we can just laugh at the kooks like MIck..

Eric said...

We celebrate the WH victory over debt talks, the media support of OB2, and the total destruction of the GOP yet to come next Nov.

How do you get other people in your fantasy? Are there chemicals involved?

AllenS said...

America's Politico said...
Drinks tonight at the W hotel

W hotel? Sounds like a fictitious place to me.

Free drinks at the other hotel, hotel Q. It's on me.

Mick said...

Cedarford said,

"Then again, we can just laugh at the kooks like MIck.."


So tell is how, if the purpose of the requirement of natural born Citizenship was to prevent foreign influence (FACT), that Obama, admittedly born BRITISH, is a natural born Citizen, eligible for POTUS?