Reading that, I just assumed Romney was ahead, which he is, by 2 points. If it had been reversed, and Obama had 47 and Romney 45, do you think they'd have said "Romney, Obama in Tight Race as Gallup Daily Tracking Begins"?
Now, what's interesting is that both Democrats and Republicans back their own guy 90%. The difference is in the independents, who break 45% for Romney and only 39% for Obama.
That's a poll of registered voters, so it's very important to factor in the likelihood of voting. 80% of Romney voters say they "definitely will vote" and only 76% of Obama voters say that. Independents are also at the 76% likely level. So... tight race? That's all you can say?
Of course, Rasmussen has been doing a daily tracking poll of likely voters for a long time. Today's poll put Romney at 47% and Obama at 44.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८५ टिप्पण्या:
There have been 3 polls since Romney sealed the election: Fox, Gallup and, of course, Rasmussen. All of them show Romney with a lead.
I bet there's a significant percentage of Dems who claim they "definitely will vote," but then will be too lazy to actually go to the polling place on election day.
Talk is cheap.
Obama will lose 60/40.
He doesn't have the white-guilt vote this time, and there's not other reason to vote for him.
Enough Dead People still vote, or it'd be 70/30
You don't need to go far to prove Ann's point. Back on April 2, when Obama was ahead 49 to 45, this was the Gallup headline:
"Obama 49%, Romney 45% Among Registered Voters Nationwide
Obama, Romney supporters equally enthusiastic about voting
And the lead paragraph stated:
"While Obama's advantage is not statistically significant, it is the largest he has had over Romney in Gallup polling to date."
Today's Gallup Healine when it is Romney 47 and Obama 45:
"Romney, Obama in Tight Race as Gallup Daily Tracking Begins
Romney voters slightly more certain they will vote"
The in the second pargraph, they state: "with Romney and Obama essentially in a statistical tie."
Aside from reporting the numbers, there is nothing in today's headline about the 6 point swing in Romney's favor in the last 3 weeks. And, the first poll had plus or minus 4% margin of error while the new pro-Romney one has 3%.
I really thought Gallup would be very cautious in avoiding such obvious bias, but the reality is that it is virtually everywhere in the mainstream press.
Really, the only question for '12 election is, "Did you learn anything over the last four years that would change your vote?"
If the answer to that question is "Yes," Obama is a lame duck.
leslyn said...
"And from CNN poll today, Obama leads Romney by 9 points. Before the CNN-bashing starts, my only point is that nobody really knows where it stands if the election were held today."
Hmmm. You really don't know how polling works, do you?
Does anyone think that Obama's popularity will increase in the next six months?
Hannity had Morris on tonight and he said the Rasmussen one is more significant than the others - which he would explain tomorrow.
We'll see, but Gallup is registered voters and within the MOE, so who cares?
leslyn said...
And from CNN poll today, Obama leads Romney by 9 points.
Under the hood stuff, por favor.
jfm said...
Does anyone think that Obama's popularity will increase in the next six months?
That's one of the points Morris made. That Barry is starting out so low does not bode well.
Most incumbents can expect to drop a couple of points.
History shows that the candidates' positioning in the spring of an election year is not necessarily good at forecasting the election outcomes. For example, in an April 20-22, 1992, Gallup poll, incumbent President George H.W. Bush was ahead with 41% of the vote, compared with 26% for Bill Clinton and 25% for Ross Perot. And in an April 11-14, 1980, poll, incumbent President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan by 42% to 34%, with John Anderson receiving 18% support. Both Bush and Carter, of course, ultimately lost their re-election bids.
It sounds like incumbents have a polling advantage early in the race. I think a lot of people don't really begin paying attention until much later, if at all.
The CNN poll is typical decpetion. It provides 30 pages of detail but does not give the breakdown between democrats, republicans and independents polled. This almost certainly means it was a sample weighted more heavily democratic than any recent election results.
Rassmussen had the generic ballot plus 10% republican today. That is too high, but when CNN does not disclose the party breakdown, they are hiding information. The poll also showed Romney would get only 85% of republican votes and 73% of convervative votes. What nonsense.
"It sounds like incumbents have a polling advantage early in the race. I think a lot of people don't really begin paying attention until much later, if at all."
Incumbents almost always do have an advantage. The fact Obama isn't about ten points ahead, plus or minus a couple, suggests he's in deep doo-doo, to use an old term. The fact he's under 50% suggests he's in real trouble; it also suggests Americans realized they made in mistake in '08.
Although more than 40% of the electorate will still vote Obama, we should be grateful the electorate can still learn from experience.
They are not looking for an increase in Obama's popularity. They are counting on trashing Romney to make him look better by comparison.
.. my only point is that nobody really knows where it stands if the election were held today.
You might be asking a lot.. even for Obama.. but then again he did say he would do things without congressional approval.. who knows.. if he can make people enter into a contract - moving the date of the election should be a snap.
leslyn: Your point would have been better taken if you said "No one really knows,. . .," than by pushing out that CNN troll, looking for someone to say CNN sucks.
CNN is off in the weeds, so how does that support your cause? If CNN were to say "Obama is ahead by a Gazillion percentage points," would you have printed that?
Meanwhile, I do hope Obamao wins, because cleaning up his mess is going to be really hard. Until the full disaster is understood, Americans aren't going to jump out of the pot. I'm voting for your empowerment. I hope it isn't a thought crime in your head, and you will thank me for supporting massive state control.
I too get the CNN email news alerts.
They are good for finding out breaking news such as if Billy Mays died or there is an earthquake somewhere.
But when it comes to what they call political breaking news, it is laughable propaganda. Today's news alert about their poll was extreme hyperbole that not only talked about O's lead but then went on to talk about how Romney was losing big among women, thus proving their to be a huge gender gap. Then the release went on to talk about how everyone loves O's specific policies.
It is almost as if America's Politico or Baghdad Bob are in charge of their breaking news desk.
Or Winston Smith.
Ya know, he really was a douche.
leslyn: Your point stands on its own. It goes something like this: The real world is a complex mess, where butterfly ballots written by democrats can swing elections to Republicans.
Of course, Ann didn't attribute who would win today, merely how the press is biased. Ironically, your putting up troll CNN accentuates the point.
Other than a nice tan and lots of golfing experience, what has Omama not been a failure at? Are 45% of the "likely voters" terminally ignorant of O's failures to deliver?
I've misunderstood the power of taxing yourself into affulance. How does that work when everyone is poor because all the cash has been redistributed? Like the USSR?
It's amazing that all my colleagues are in or close to the magic $250K but they all support non-voluntary higher taxes to redistribute THEIR hard earned wealth (they all claim to be smarter and work harder than the average Ph.D.).
That Obama is getting 90% support from D's is ludicrous. D's have been hit even harder than R's by Zero's economy. And they ain't falling for "Bushes fault" again. People remember what happened with Reagan after Carter. They ain't seeing it with this loser.
Rose is closer to what I said last week, 30-35% for Zero by election time. He get's 80+% of the black vote, and 50% of the moonbat liberal vote, that's it. The rest stay home. Romney wins by a wide margin, that he will declare a mandate to do stupid shit with, like every other politician these last 30 years.
When these jackholes ever learn that we are mostly voting the other loser out, not that we like the opponent so much.
"...my only point is that nobody really knows where it stands if the election were held today."
Yes, they do. If the election were held today, Obama would lose.
Which both shocks and gratifies me. My own educated guess, after a lifetime of experience, is that people dumb enough to vote for Obama the first time around aren't smart enough to learn from their mistakes.
However, I'm happy to be proven completely wrong on that point.
leslyn said...
@Tim, edutcher and Kansas City:
Does anyone read beyond what they want to see?
All I did was ask for the under the hood stuff - adults or voters - registered or likely, sample size and composition, MOE.
Easily copied and pasted.
I'm just being a discerning consumer.
If I wanted to be nasty, I'd bring up the Hildabeast slugging down a Bud and shaking her booty on company time, Zero telling the President of Colombia he'll consider the place for his and Moochelle's next vaca - on our dime, of course.
And if I really wanted to be nasty, I'd bring up how Barry flunked geography once again - confusing the Madives with the Falklands (Malvinas).
(and these people can't figure out why they're behind?)
Tim: leslyn is correct. No one knows who would win if the election were held right now.
Maybe the NBP would come out and break arms. Maybe Acorn would sign up hundreds of thousands of voters.
Ann's point is the bias in the press. It's her way of saying if her guy doesn't make it, it's because the press isn't fair. As if we didn't know that.
“Obama will lose 60/40.”
No he won’t; I guarantee it.
However, I think there’s a real chance that Romney pulls off a squeaker, which will be good enough.
Carnifex said...
"That Obama is getting 90% support from D's is ludicrous. D's have been hit even harder than R's by Zero's economy. And they ain't falling for "Bushes fault" again. People remember what happened with Reagan after Carter. They ain't seeing it with this loser.
Rose is closer to what I said last week, 30-35% for Zero by election time. He get's 80+% of the black vote, and 50% of the moonbat liberal vote, that's it. The rest stay home. Romney wins by a wide margin, that he will declare a mandate to do stupid shit with, like every other politician these last 30 years.
When these jackholes ever learn that we are mostly voting the other loser out, not that we like the opponent so much."
I'm curious. Why do you think Democrats would do anything but vote Democrat?
Here is my prediction: Obama will get 90% of the black vote (down from 95%); 95% of the moonbat liberal vote (no decrease at all); 80% of the single white women vote (yes, significant overlap between moonbat liberals and single white women, i.e, the Sandra Fluke voters); 53% of the women vote (down from 56%); 60% of the Hispanic vote (down from 67%); 65% of the Gay/Lesbian vote (down from 70%) and, most critically, 47% of the independent vote (down from 52%).
If these hold true, it will be very close, with the states flipping from Obama to Romney the factor (as always) to watch.
Dante said...
"Tim: leslyn is correct. No one knows who would win if the election were held right now."
Dante: No, she's not.
The Gallup poll is, historically, the most accurate. The fact its poll of "registered voters" gives Romney a two-point edge indicates the real margin (amongst "likely voters" is greater, probably twice, than the spread amongst "registered voters."
It is almost a dead-bang certainty that were the election held today, Romney would win.
How does anyone not live near the ocean?
tits.
The fact that it's not 95/5 against Obama is sufficient proof that the people, or at least a good portion, are willfully insane.
Despair.
The CNN polling has been wonky for a while. They did a poll on Santorum vs. Obama back in March that was bracketed with a Rasmussen and a USA Today poll. The CNN poll was skewed to Obama by over 10 points compared to the other two.
If you look closely at the CNN poll, they will not reveal the sample party breakdown (how many Rep/Dem/Ind they polled). The giveaway that the poll is bogus is they have Obama winning men. Men have been tilting to Romney in everyone else's polling for about a month now.
The CNN polls are not to be believed. There's something wrong with them and it looks like the sampling.
Meanwhile, I do hope Obamao wins, because cleaning up his mess is going to be really hard. Until the full disaster is understood, Americans aren't going to jump out of the pot.
Ugh. After an Obama second term, America will be cooked. The living animal as we know it will be boiled. Poached. Beyond a certain point, there's no hopping out of the pot anymore.
If being in fiscal boiling water for long enough were enough to jolt the animal into getting out of the pot, Europe would not be in the mess that it is.
Some things-- once entrenched-- are irreversible. (E.g. entitlements.) Some things, once corrupted enough, are unsalvageable. After 8 years of Obama (and Holder's Justice Dept. and all the Obama czars and bureaucrats e.g. at EPA & NLRB dictating by fiat & circumventing the legislature and 4 Obama-picked Supreme Court justices and no budget for another 4 years and more record trillions in debt for nothing and Obamacare either in full or in part or another try for single payer and class warfare "fairness" policies strangling the economy and all the flexibility O guaranteed Vladimir he'd have and a nuclear Iran and god knows what else, etc. etc. etc.-- with a largely complicit MSM all the while), there will be permanent damage. Deep, extensive, grave damage. Stuff that's beyond remedy.
In fact, the urgent need for a "remedy" will be taken to justify yet more centralized governmental power.
We can't afford another 4 years of Obama. No We Can't.
One more comment on the CNN poll - read the fine print at the bottom of the article (not even the polling cross tabs.). It says they polled 1015 people, 910 of which were registered voters.
Let me pause for a moment to let that sink in.
105 of those polled, or approximately 10 percent of the sample, AREN'T EVEN REGISTERED VOTERS.
Are they kidding? They had to widen the screen to non registered people just to show Obama up, I guess...
"I'm curious. Why do you think Democrats would do anything but vote Democrat?"
People who really think Republicans are bad, but who are really disappointed or angry at Obama, simply won't vote in the next election.
That's why Team Obama is trying its best to leverage every stereotype about conservatives into a massive FUD orgy. Won't happen, but it's informative to watch.
confusing the Madives with the Falklands (Malvinas)
That's because they both speak Austrian.
I think Obama not having much for accomplishments to run on will not here hurt him directly. But goofy-ass attacks on Romney will.
We are supposed to vote Democrat as the Democrats are going to give women "free" birth control?
Still, at this time, I think the most likely outcome is Obama winning a second term, my own vote notwithstanding (this position being too familiar).
Forget candidates: Perhaps it is too late for voters to pivot, much less triangulate.
Your polls mean nothing to me. Nothing.
You say, lets talk about polls and I say do lets, I've read them so I know all about that chatter and I go to that place in my mind where the polls are stored and there is nothing there.
perfume connection
Hello Ann. I'm confident that President Obama will still win. He will have my vote.
the rainbow connection
I mean, what the hell.
/
I'm curious. Why do you think Democrats would do anything but vote Democrat
Because Clinton Democrats don't exactly have much love for Obama at this point and his previous promises to be more centrist went out the window shortly after his election. Romney is seen as someone who isn't going to go all raging right-winger on them and they can hold their noses and vote for them.
The key will be watching the number of Dems that Romney is picking up. But it will be the independents that win this election, just as it pretty much always is.
Poll experts, all! Fake news is desperately needed to support the agitprop put out there by the MSM - which would change the world with its little song . . . (to borrow from Kenny Rogers).
Romney has been running against Obama for, what, five days? So far so good.
All the above prognostications assume nothing will have changed for the substantively worse between now and November.
I think that's a big mistake.
It's going to be a dull race unless they stay within the Democratic vote fraud margin.
Reelections are all about 2 questions:
1. Does the incumbent deserve another term? If yes, stop, if no, go to q2
2. Does the challenger scare me too much? If no, stop, if yes, go back to Q1 and loop again.
I think the answers are No and No, YMMV
PS: Another political truism. Independents and undecideds break for the challenger late in the race. The face that they already favor Romney bodes poorly for the Won.
PPS: Nastiest race ever, earlier than ever. expect the MSM to carry the water early, but if O'bama looks to lose, see them back off to try and recover credibility.
PPPS: The Colonel Wife is a life-long Dem, McCain (last time) (now Romney) voter. Her opinion, "No matter who wins we're (she and I personally) are going to get screwed, but Romney looks more competent"
re the Maldives/Malvinas comment--I am ssuming that Mr O was trying to thread the needle between Britain and Argentina--since the conference was in Cartagena, he opted (unsuccessfully) to use the Argentinian name for the islands.
I am sure there will be some British reaction (other than scorn for Mr O's geographic illiteracy)
Too much can happen between now and the election to draw hard and fast conclusions--the cynic in me suggests Iran better watch its ass, because a war time president always gets plus ups in support.
While the national polling is the fodder for the media "horse race" model, the most significant polls, I submit are the internal polls done by both parties. Those are the ones that dont get significant media attention.
Roger J. said...
re the Maldives/Malvinas comment--I am ssuming that Mr O was trying to thread the needle between Britain and Argentina--since the conference was in Cartagena, he opted (unsuccessfully) to use the Argentinian name for the islands.
I am sure there will be some British reaction (other than scorn for Mr O's geographic illiteracy)
Very stupid on a number of counts. We've had at least 2 and arguably 3 wars in the last 100 years start because American diplomats were sloppy in defining the US defense umbrella. I'm thinking about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait:
- April Glaspie, Ambassador to Iraq:
We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.. One week later Iraq invaded.
or
- Dean Acheson's speech on January 12, 1950, before the National Press Club [14] did not mention the Korea Peninsula as part of the all-important "defense perimeter" of the United States, an omission that critics subsequently took to mean that the United States would not defend the ROK from communist attack.. 4 months later NK attacked.
Names matter. calling it the Falklands supports the status quo, anything else encourages bloody change....
I've read them so I know all about that chatter and I go to that place in my mind where the polls are stored and there is nothing there.
I'm not 100% sure.. but I think Althouse said something like that..
It sounds like her.
What is a bit scary is this: Lefty Activists Crash Romney’s Tea Party. I almost expect that by mid-summer, the occupy types will have switched their attention to Romney, and that wherever he goes, they will be their trying to crash the party. And, I think that they may push this a bit too hard, not fully understanding what it means to have a secret service detail. And, it isn't going to help matters that the crazies will have the implicit backing of the Dems from the top down.
Hope that I am wrong.
Drill: thanks for reminding me of SecState Acheson's failure to include the Korean penisula in America's defense perimter--most scholars suggest that failure led to the NORKs invasion. Of course that is now ancient history--but ancient history does sometimes have a certain amount of currency.
Were I the DOS advisor, I would have suggested Mr O not even bring up the Falklands and issue a characteristically bland statement about inter-regional conflict requiring negotiations by both sides--or some similar pablum like tripe. But alas, no one listens to me.
Alas Roger, it's too late to talk about talks. O'bama needs to flip-flop a bit. If he said anything more, he should say, "right of self-determination", since Plebiscites have gone 95-5 for Britan.
The bigger issue for the UK beyond the oil, is that handing over the Falklands opens up the same argument with Spain over Gibraltor.
The loss of Gib would be painful to the Brit pysche
"Other than a nice tan and lots of golfing experience, what has Omama not been a failure at? Are 45% of the 'likely voters' terminally ignorant of O's failures to deliver?"
What has he failed to deliver? His mission was and is to further empower and enrich the wealthy elites, and this is what he has done.
Those who see Obama as a failure have the misperception that he is in office to work for the American people; he is not. He is in office to deliver to his constituents--the wealthy elites--that which they desire.
That some among the wealthy are purportedly abandoning Obama indicates that in a race between two candidates eager to be their minions, the elites have a choice, and some see that Romney will be the more eager and accomodating servant to their wants.
Me? I'm voting...but not for either major party candidate, (just as was so in the last election).
"... I've misunderstood the power of taxing yourself into affulance..."
Wait, are you saying that you don't cheerfully invest more money when the government raises taxes on investment income?
I mean Tim Geithner said doubling capital gains taxes don't stifle investment.
"... What has he failed to deliver? His mission was and is to further empower and enrich the wealthy elites, and this is what he has done..."
Interesting since he seems hell bent on making them and everyone else less wealthy by demanding tax hikes.
Interestingly enough he blew his huge political capital on Obamacare early on when he could have easily used it to enact his confiscatory tax scheme. Now he's lost his Congressional majority support and his vaunted health care plan is in danger of being overturned. If that happens, talk about failsauce.
Romney is talking about a GOP version of the DREAM act.
Yay.
Romney and Obama, two Democrats happy together. They should run on the same ticket together.
Really, with Romney we're just trimming around the edges. Who knows, with his war talk, he could be worse than Zero.
I predict that Romney will win by a landslide. Obama is more disliked than the polls indicate. Because of political correctness people lie to the pollsters, they can't stand for even anonymous pollsters to think that they might be racist. You read it here first.
"Interesting since he seems hell bent on making them and everyone else less wealthy by demanding tax hikes."
He's pushing the populist rhetoric to win votes. You don't really take him seriously on such matters, do you? Jeez, you're as credulous as his supporters!
Oh, and the tax "scheme" he proposes--but which we all know will not be passed--is hardly "confiscatory." It's the least we need to do.
"... He's pushing the populist rhetoric to win votes. You don't really take him seriously on such matters, do you?.."
I tend to take people at their word. He's surrounded himself with leftists his entire life. Many leftists are very wealthy people who think it just grand that the government be granted more of our money. There are wealthy Socialists all over the world, Robert. They enjoy their wealth and work hard at making sure everyone else isnt.
"... Oh, and the tax "scheme" he proposes--but which we all know will not be passed--is hardly "confiscatory." It's the least we need to do..."
Actually having the 50% of wage earners who don't pay any Federal income tax start paying their fair share is the least we can do.
There simply aren't enough rich people to even tax at 100% to reduce our deficit to manageable levels.
There are wealthy Socialists all over the world, Robert. They enjoy their wealth and work hard at making sure everyone else isnt.
Moscow residents burning their own furniture to survive the cold winter. Because the politburo Elites redirected all the lumber resources to build dachas on the Black Sea coast.
That is socialism, Robert Cook. Its about slaves and masters.
And slavers deserve to be shot down in the streets
Robert Cook said...
Oh, and the tax "scheme" he proposes--but which we all know will not be passed--is hardly "confiscatory." It's the least we need to do.
Oh sure shit ape, it isn't confiscatory unless it hits you.
By the way, the federal government which rakes in $2.3 trillion per year (a sum of money you and 10 people could not literally count in your lifetimes) does not have a revenue problem.
Comrade.
Other things we need to do is cut our military budget in half or by two thirds, cut our intelligence budget by at least as much, and eradicate ALL "black budget" expenditures. Oh, and withdraw from all present active military actions.
Then, we need to use carrot-and-stick tax and tariff policies to encourage businesses bring outsourced jobs back home, in order to regenerate employment. It's never going to happen, otherwise. We have high unemployment (and poor wage domestic employment) because it benefits the "job creators" (sic).
"... Other things we need to do is cut our militarybudget in halfor by two thirds, cut our intelligence budget by at least as much, and eradicate ALL "black budget" expenditures. Oh, and withdraw from all present active military actions..."
Cut it all by 100% and we're down to about $850 billion deficit.
Then what? According to the COB the Buffet Rule will raise about $3.5 billion annually so now we are down to $851.5 billion.
Other things we need to do is cut our military budget in half or by two thirds, cut our intelligence budget by at least as much, and eradicate ALL "black budget" expenditures. Oh, and withdraw from all present active military actions.
That's just stupid. 1) these are preventative costs, like having a home security system (how much did 9-11 cost the economy?), and 2) your cuts would barely put a dent in the interest we pay on the debt.
Then, we need to use carrot-and-stick tax and tariff policies to encourage businesses bring outsourced jobs back home, in order to regenerate employment.
No. Its the out of control spending. Cut *everything* to the bone. Stop funding luxuries like Planned Parenthood. Then we'll talk about giving you more money to spend.
The house is in foreclosure and you think canceling the life insurance and getting a part-time job on weekends will allow you to keep the house while you continue your spending sprees at Macys. Madness.
I am very pleased that Mitt Romney understands concepts like Math.
--Alas Roger, it's too late to talk about talks. O'bama needs to flip-flop a bit. If he said anything more, he should say, "right of self-determination", since Plebiscites have gone 95-5 for Britan.
The bigger issue for the UK beyond the oil, is that handing over the Falklands opens up the same argument with Spain over Gibraltor.
The loss of Gib would be painful to the Brit pysche.--
They should say a pox on both your houses and petition to become a US territory.
No way cutting defense that much, Cookie, I prefer living under the American umbrella. As Niall Ferguson pointed out almost 10 years ago there are 4 choices, US, the ChiComs, Islamofascists or armed camps.
Those will require even more defense costs.
I think Cook prefer the Chineese.
Might as well, they'll own us in another decade.
Maybe we can give them California as collateral.
Is the program so critical that it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for? - Romney 2012
For a takedown of the CNN poll, see Patterico or Hotair.
Robert Cooke: "...the "job creators" (sic)"
I like how you have to stick that "sic" in their, like the Latin version of scare quotes, because you can't accept the obvious idea that private employers create jobs.
At least you're staying young at heart, Robert. Unfortunately, it's by acting like a petulant adolescent.
"I like how you have to stick that 'sic' in their, like the Latin version of scare quotes, because you can't accept the obvious idea that private employers create jobs."
Looked at in a certain way, the plantation owners of the antebellum south were also "job creators," as were the feudal lords...they were always on the lookout for promising young serfs.
"...acting like a petulant adolescent."
Hahahahahaha! Says the person with the "pro wrassler" avatar.
Whoa: Gallup again, Romney 48, Obama 43. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx
Yashu: The statists have been winning and winning through attrition. How does it work? In the good times money rolls in and no programs are cut. In the bad times, no one can agree on which programs to cut so up go the taxes.
How does this happen? Because the changes are slow. People don't recognize them.
I agree with your point, naturally, about entitlements. And it's not only entitlements, it's day care, health care, social security (now another welfare fund from which the income rich and wealthy are exempt).
That's why I wanted Gingrich. He alone has been able to make fundamental changes to deeply ingrained federal programs.
But instead, we get Obama lite. Until Americans wise up, I'm voting for the statists and those smug people who want the state to empower them. Maybe people will finally realize it doesn't work.
Obama is a quick trip to the executioner, romney the slow inevitable plod. I say, let's get it on and stop this stupidity from lingering for another hundred years.
He's pushing the populist rhetoric to win votes. You don't really take him seriously on such matters, do you?
Actions speak louder than words.
Obama has not only not taken even the first rhetorical steps to reducing entitlement spending (which is where the bankruptcy is coming from), he expanded entitlement spending. And if that weren't enough, he expanded discretionary spending, too.
So since he has added 4+ trillion dollars of deficits in 4 years, the tax hikes are coming.
There's no way around it.
If he gets re-elected, the other shoe will drop.
I don't know which is worse: the idea that you are so dumb that you believe Obama won't hike taxes, or that you are wittingly lying to give him whatever rhetorical cover you can.
"I don't know which is worse: the idea that you are so dumb that you believe Obama won't hike taxes, or that you are wittingly lying to give him whatever rhetorical cover you can."
I have no interest in giving cover--rhetorical or otherwise--to Mr. Obama, whom I despise. I did not vote for in 2008 and will not vote for him this year, as he pretends to be a populist when seeking votes but is a mainstream establishmentarian and vassal to the elites in governance.
The super-wealthy have become more wealthy during Obama's term, and the police state that has been germinating for some years--accelerated, but not conceived, by the 9/11 attacks--has metastasized remorselessly under his eager management of it.
I just say his tax policies won't pass because I don't believe they will. I don't believe he really wants them to pass, or, if he does, it is only in a tepid, feckless way that allows him to feel that, in the end, he has the people's interests at heart. But he won't press with any vigor for the tax increases, as that would require he betray his constituents.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा