Drudge: RASMUSSEN 2012 poll released at 10:30AM ET Obama 45% Romney 45%

[Ballygrl]

And Obama is only in office for 6 months :))

http://www.drudgereport.com/

RASMUSSEN 2012 poll released at 10:30AM ET

Obama 45% Romney 45%
Obama 48% Palin 42%

[Nevarwinter]

lol. Just think what'll happen after 4 years.

Obama 28% Palin 10229% (obama admin math again)

[Raoul Duke]

Romny or Palin...

and the band marches on

[Alex]

In order fpr Palin to win, she will have to bone up on Economics

[Late2TheParty]

Romny or Palin...

and the band marches on

Definitely playing a tune I don't like:(

[RickRhetoric]

Obama is going to serve two terms. But if Romney runs against him in 2016, he (Romney) might have a chance of winning -- providing of course he distances himself from Palin.

You betcha!

[zantax]

Interesting that we haven't seen a Palin/Obama poll yet isn't it?

[animalnut]

I'm not surprised by that. Romney is the best candidate for fiscal responsibility. Although Mass healthcare sure isn't working out.

[animalnut]

Interesting that we haven't seen a Palin/Obama poll yet isn't it?

It's in the OP. Obama 48% Palin 42%.

[stodr]

Interesting that we haven't seen a Palin/Obama poll yet isn't it?
You might want to read the first post again :)

[zantax]

In order fpr Palin to win, she will have to bone up on Economics


Why? What were Obama's economic qualifications? She at least has run a state, with a budget and everything. More qualified then our current President.

[zantax]

It's in the OP. Obama 48% Palin 42%.


Ahh ok, didn't follow the link, my bad.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

who do they have winning the national championship next year?

[Kelzan]

Why? What were Obama's economic qualifications? She at least has run a state, with a budget and everything. More qualified then our current President.

He's a Democrat, Democrats get a pass.

[tinydancer]

In order fpr Palin to win, she will have to bone up on Economics

ROTF. No, all she will need is a better teleprompter than the idiot ******* who is the current occupant of the WH.

You know, the moronic Presidential jerk who is out there saying the stimulus is working like he planned.

You know, the moronic vice presidential jerk who is out there saying that even though they claimed this economic situation was worse than the Great Depression they didn't figure it to be as bad as it is.

Palin vs the three stooges. Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

My money is on Palin.

[tinydancer]

I'm not surprised by that. Romney is the best candidate for fiscal responsibility. Although Mass healthcare sure isn't working out.

How many people did they just cut off Commonwealth care? I believe they were all legal immigrants.

[Toll Collector]

In order fpr Palin to win, she will have to bone up on Economics

You are assuming Obama has? I think he has already proven otherwise.

[Bertha]

Why? What were Obama's economic qualifications? She at least has run a state, with a budget and everything. More qualified then our current President.

Every time someone tells me how much more qualified Obama was than Palin, I literally laugh in their face.

[homiebrah]

Why? What were Obama's economic qualifications? She at least has run a state, with a budget and everything. More qualified then our current President.
Obama's economics are based on Google search results.

[croupier101]

LOL!!! Cons told us for a year that polls didn't matter. NOW they depend on them almost 4 YEARS before the next election. :)):)):))

[hillplus]

YAY Mitt Romney!

[croupier101]

In 2005, Rasmussen had Rudy Gulliani defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election.

[zantax]

LOL!!! Cons told us for a year that polls didn't matter. NOW they depend on them almost 4 YEARS before the next election. :)):)):))

Where did you pull that observation from? Discussing is not depending.

[timjy]

Obama is going to serve two terms. But if Romney runs against him in 2016, he (Romney) might have a chance of winning -- providing of course he distances himself from Palin.

You betcha!
He will be very lucky to make this term.Especially with his we are going to do this like it or not attitude.Someone should tell him he works for us.He needs his wings clipped a little.

[mydadsamuslimatheist]

Obama is going to serve two terms. But if Romney runs against him in 2016, he (Romney) might have a chance of winning -- providing of course he distances himself from Palin.

You betcha!
UHHHHHH, How is Romney going to run against Little Barry O. in 2016 ? Is Generalissimo going to try and pull off a Zelaya and Extend term limits ? I wouldnt put it past "THE THUG" !!

[animalnut]

How many people did they just cut off Commonwealth care? I believe they were all legal immigrants.

30,000 legal immigrants.

[GregMartin]

Obama's economics are based on Google search results.
Therefore, be a patriot: click here (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=58020721#post58020721)

[muhadeeb99]

In order fpr Palin to win, she will have to bone up on Economics
If Palin should run, for a "one up" perhaps she can unveil her cabinet before the election. She could this as ammunition for her ability to comprehend and handle the "crisis" before it happens.
It's from a boyscout motto, be prepared.

[dad49er]

In order fpr Palin to win, she will have to bone up on Economics

She has to win the Republican Party nomination first.
And with rumors of her quiting the GOP, and/or backing conservative Democrats that may be impossible.

Romney is clearly the front runner.

[RickRhetoric]

UHHHHHH, How is Romney going to run against Little Barry O. in 2016 ? Is Generalissimo going to try and pull off a Zelaya and Extend term limits ? I wouldnt put it past "THE THUG" !!

Yeah, well, my bad. I meant in 2012 :redface: :wall::wall: Well, you know what I meant.

[dad49er]

Where did you pull that observation from? Discussing is not depending.

Not well articulated, but still a valid point.
Leading up to the election.
Obama leads: Polls don't matter.
Obama leads: Polls don't matter.
Obama leads: Polls don't matter.
McCain gaining!!!!!!!
McCain leading!!!!!!!
Obama leading: Polls don't matter.
Obama wins;
Obama popular: Polls don't matter
Obama popular: Polls don't matter.
Obama slipping!!!!!!!!!

[who]

Not well articulated, but still a valid point.
Leading up to the election.
Obama leads: Polls don't matter.
Obama leads: Polls don't matter.
Obama leads: Polls don't matter.
McCain gaining!!!!!!!
McCain leading!!!!!!!
Obama leading: Polls don't matter.
Obama wins;
Obama popular: Polls don't matter
Obama popular: Polls don't matter.
Obama slipping!!!!!!!!!
lol.


:clap:

[dad49er]

Yeah, well, my bad. I meant in 2012 :redface: :wall::wall: Well, you know what I meant.

Done that myself more than a few times.
I recently put Pelosi in the Senate!

Anyway, IMO a lot of GOP hopefuls are already planning on waiting till 2016.

[Raoul Duke]

Definitely playing a tune I don't like:(

you and me both

[Stantz]

I'm going to go ahead and say that polling for the 2012 presidential election might be a tad too early.

Edit:
This just out !!!

3412 Presidential Election Poll..
and a real surprise here

Destructor (National Robot Party) - 52%
Annihilator (Android Unity Party) - 40%
Ron Paul's Ghost (Republican) 6%
Undecided - 2%

looks like we are in for a great election season !!

[zantax]

Not well articulated, but still a valid point.
Leading up to the election.
Obama leads: Polls don't matter.
Obama leads: Polls don't matter.
Obama leads: Polls don't matter.
McCain gaining!!!!!!!
McCain leading!!!!!!!
Obama leading: Polls don't matter.
Obama wins;
Obama popular: Polls don't matter
Obama popular: Polls don't matter.
Obama slipping!!!!!!!!!

I predicted Obama would win a long time before the election. Before the primaries ended in fact.

[who]

In 2005, Rasmussen had Rudy Gulliani defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election.
*ouch*

[mboncher]

LOL!!! Cons told us for a year that polls didn't matter. NOW they depend on them almost 4 YEARS before the next election. :)):)):))
No. CONSERVATIVES are not depending on polls. The Republican PARTY is. There is a massive difference between the two. They have not figured out that playing the polls is like playing electoral roulette. But we're talking career politicians who will sacrifice everything for personal power. Staying in office is the goal, not standing for something. There is your real enemy in BOTH parties.

Ultimately this poll is a pile of crap and never should have been done. It makes Rasmussen look very stupid IMHO.

And I still stand by my signature.

[dad49er]

I predicted Obama would win a long time before the election. Before the primaries ended in fact.

I recall that.
I'm already on record saying Obama will win in 2012.
No sense backing off now.

[zantax]

I recall that.
I'm already on record saying Obama will win in 2012.
No sense backing off now.

He doesn't have a chance, for that to happen unemployment is going to have to go back under 7%, without high inflation and raised interest rates. And if health care reform passes people will be expecting results, as in lower health care premiums without a reduction in benefits. And all of that without raising taxes on those making under 250k. The odds of which are pretty darn steep.

[deportalllibs]

2009 Rasmussen - Will libs will rush to this thread to defend Lord Obama? Yes 100%, No 0%

[Sherri0319]

He will be very lucky to make this term.Especially with his we are going to do this like it or not attitude.Someone should tell him he works for us.He needs his wings clipped a little.


Recalling the words an economist said to me before the election: "Whoever gets vote in will be put through a blender for two years and will be spit out in four".....

I keep remembering those words and it seems to me that's what's starting to happen. I suspect that as Obama continues to ram this Health Care Bill down the throats of all Americans, the Blue Dog Democrats will raise their hackles and it will spread from there.

As he continues to dictate and push his agenda, I'm hoping he'll go from PULSE to PUREE before year's end.

[dad49er]

He doesn't have a chance, for that to happen unemployment is going to have to go back under 7%, without high inflation and raised interest rates. And if health care reform passes people will be expecting results, as in lower health care premiums without a reduction in benefits. And all of that without raising taxes on those making under 250k. The odds of which are pretty darn steep.

Remember you're naysayers?
I think he will win easily.
In part because the Republican primary will be a blood bath.

[Long Island Bob]

Remember you're naysayers?
I think he will win easily.
In part because the Republican primary will be a blood bath.

so you're saying polls don't matter?

[willfla29]

This is good news, though it is sad that 45% of voters would still be dumb enough to vote for the communist.

[Canadian Jane]

In order fpr Palin to win, she will have to bone up on Economics


Maybe a Romney/Palin ticket would be something to consider. :)

[mgifford]

I love any news that sets the lefties off!

[DRS]

Maybe a Romney/Palin ticket would be something to consider. :)

I wouldn't Huckabee maybe, not fininshing her term will not look good she will have to work her way up.

That and the segment of the religous right who get upset he is LDS will have to get over themselves

[zantax]

This is good news, though it is sad that 45% of voters would still be dumb enough to vote for the communist.


You have to remember, they've only seen the spending, the bill hasn't come in the mail yet.

[tinydancer]

This is good news, though it is sad that 45% of voters would still be dumb enough to vote for the communist.

One always must factor in the stupid lib drones who drool and vote for the Pelosis and Reids on this planet.

All one has to do is look at a perfect dem stronghold called Washington DC to see how stupid they are.

When you can vote for a dude that does crack and whores around on the tax payers money....
"IF THERE WASN'T SO MANY KILLINGS, WASHINGTON WOULD HAVE A PRETTY LOW CRIME RATE"

Mayor Berry that dems re-elected. I guess they like their politicians whore meistered liars and thieves.

Oh wait. I can include the White House as well under democrats......

[E7ALR]

In order fpr Palin to win, she will have to bone up on EconomicsThe mid terms will really be telling for who is the likely Republican Nominee in 2012. For Palin to have a chance, she needs to really get out in front of the public on a grass roots level (campaigning for Republican's in the mid-term election) and articulate what a Palin platform would look like. In the 2008 election Palin was a supporting player in a McCain platform. I think she, Romney and any other potential Republican really sinks or swims by how they work the mid-term elections in support of candidates. The mid-terms is where support for specific potential presidential candidates is planted in the various state party organizations. It is also a chance to articulate their views and see what will float.

[Canadian Jane]

I wouldn't Huckabee maybe, not fininshing her term will not look good she will have to work her way up.

That and the segment of the religous right who get upset he is LDS will have to get over themselves


Huckabee doesn't have enough backbone. Nice guy - but too soft to be President of U.S.

Romney and Palin are both fiscal conservatives - that is their strength.

The biggest problem in America today is massive deficits and debt load - not religion.

At any rate, if you don't address the the economic crisis that exists soon - I would venture to say that America will soon be heading back down the path of faith anyway.

Because you'll be praying to God (whoever that may be to you) to save you from what your current secular leaders have done to your country.

[Mojotiger]

so you're saying polls don't matter?

Who said it best...

*ouch*

[ThinkingMan]

Obama's poll numbers will be back up later on. And on that note, I look forward to everything being great again starting around the summer of 2012.

"Greatest economy in 50 years."

[Penrod]

Maybe a Romney/Palin ticket would be something to consider. :)
Ive been saying that for quite some time. Sure would be the best looking Ticket ever.

[mgifford]

Obama's poll numbers will be back up later on. And on that note, I look forward to everything being great again starting around the summer of 2012.

"Greatest economy in 50 years."

LOL! I think you should go to Vegas and put big money on that statement!

[mgifford]

Ive been saying that for quite some time. Sure would be the best looking Ticket ever.

Yes and a horror story for the lefties.

[ThinkingMan]

Not well articulated, but still a valid point.
Leading up to the election.
Obama leads: Polls don't matter.
Obama leads: Polls don't matter.
Obama leads: Polls don't matter.
McCain gaining!!!!!!!
McCain leading!!!!!!!
Obama leading: Polls don't matter.
Obama wins;
Obama popular: Polls don't matter
Obama popular: Polls don't matter.
Obama slipping!!!!!!!!!

MSM:

Obama leads: Fundamental shift
Obama leads: Hope and Change!!
Obama leads: Historic!!
McCain gaining: Eh, whatever
McCain leading: Eh, whatever
Obama leading: Obama without a shirt on
Obama wins: Campaign outspends McCain by factor of 10, MSM smokes a cigarette
Obama popular: Ignore the polls (and Rush Limbaugh)!!
Obama popular: Ignore the polls harder!!!
Obama slipping: Crickets

[dad49er]

so you're saying polls don't matter?

Depends on time and place.
Four years out, means very little.
I wouldn't even pay attention till 12, 18 months at the most.

And for President electoral vote polls should mean more than popular vote polls.
Some went nuts here when McCain gained some on popular vote polls, all the while Obama was way ahead on electoral votes.

[dad49er]

MSM:

Obama leads: Fundamental shift
Obama leads: Hope and Change!!
Obama leads: Historic!!
McCain gaining: Eh, whatever
McCain leading: Eh, whatever
Obama leading: Obama without a shirt on
Obama wins: Campaign outspends McCain by factor of 10, MSM smokes a cigarette
Obama popular: Ignore the polls (and Rush Limbaugh)!!
Obama popular: Ignore the polls harder!!!
Obama slipping: Crickets

Is there anything you don't blame the MSM for?

[Charlie A]

This is usually what happens when the ideas that sound great on the campaign trail start getting dollar signs put in front of them. And zeros put after them, I might add.

If only people would remember that rhetoric is cheap but government is expensive.

[ThinkingMan]

Is there anything you don't blame the MSM for?

Is there anything they are not to blame for?

[who]

Maybe a Romney/Palin ticket would be something to consider. :)
Bring it on!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/who007/mittromneyfudge.jpg

;/

[dad49er]

Is there anything they are not to blame for?

In some people's minds, no.
No sense blaming yourself after all.
Just an all to easy excuse for elections lost.

[Ninjacorpse]

Why? What were Obama's economic qualifications? She at least has run a state, with a budget and everything. More qualified then our current President.

And how much experience will obama have had as president by then? But your right no need to brush up on anything, she should just keep campaigning. :))

[Canadian Jane]

Ive been saying that for quite some time. Sure would be the best looking Ticket ever.


I'd vote for that ticket if I was eligible.

I voted for Stephen Harper for PM here - and he is the most openly Christian Prime Minister we've had in Canada in years.

He's also the most fiscally conservative Prime Minister we've had in years - and THAT was why I voted for him.

That has paid off for Canada in spades - from the economic aspect.

Until you get your financial problems in order, that should be your priority - all the other stuff is irrelevant until that is resolved.

If your country goes bankrupt - there will be very few freedoms left to protect. Because you will no longer be in control of your future or destiny - you will be vulnerable to the whims of the rest of the world.


Edit to add: and for the record, same sex marriage passed on Harper's watch. Even though he personally opposes it, he respects that the people have spoken. So for all the fear-mongering that electing Christian leaders takes away the will of the people - is simply that.

[ThinkingMan]

In some people's minds, no.
No sense blaming yourself after all.
Just an all to easy excuse for elections lost.

Lexis-Nexis says the phrase "Republican Attack Machine" was used some 700 times in the MSM between June 07 and June 08. Yet "Democrat Attack Machine" only 15 times in same period.

Who is making the excuses now?

[homiebrah]

In some people's minds, no.
No sense blaming yourself after all.
Just an all to easy excuse for elections lost.
Because "the election was stolen" excuse became old the first time it was used from 2000-2008.

[ThinkingMan]

Because "the election was stolen" excuse became old the first time it was used from 2000-2008.


It's more of a case of "the election was purchased" nowadays, given Obama spent 0.75 billion dollars to get elected.

Donated by the inner cities, probably.

[Charlie A]

I'd vote for that ticket if I was eligible.

I voted for Stephen Harper for PM here - and he is the most openly Christian Prime Minister we've had in Canada in years.

He's also the most fiscally conservative Prime Minister we've had in years - and THAT was why I voted for him.

That has paid off for Canada in spades - from the economic aspect.

Until you get your financial problems in order, that should be your priority - all the other stuff is irrelevant until that is resolved.

If your country goes bankrupt - there will be very few freedoms left to protect. Because you will no longer be in control of your future or destiny - you will be vulnerable to the whims of the rest of the world.

If our country goes bankrupt, I suspect that the rest of the world will follow in short order. And no matter how poor we are, we still have enough nukes to incinerate the globe. Russia went out of business, and it took them all of 10 years to start throwing their weight around again.

[Charlie A]

It's more of a case of "the election was purchased" nowadays, given Obama spent 0.75 billion dollars to get elected.

Donated by the inner cities, probably.

LOL, like Paris, London, Berlin, Vienna and Riyadh?

[Canadian Jane]

If our country goes bankrupt, I suspect that the rest of the world will follow in short order. And no matter how poor we are, we still have enough nukes to incinerate the globe. Russia went out of business, and it took them all of 10 years to start throwing their weight around again.


The rest of the world will suffer, to be sure.

I'm not sure they will go bankrupt. Some countries actually lived within their means.

In the past 10 years my country had surplus federal budgets - and paid off 100 billion dollars of debt - and that's with a population of 33 million. We are weathering the current economic storm rather reasonably, because of that.

[BasicGreatGuy]

Woohoo! Another meaningless poll.

[Ballygrl]

It's in the OP. Obama 48% Palin 42%.

That's actually pretty good especially if you look at the media's coverage of Obama versus the coverage for Palin.

[ThinkingMan]

That's actually pretty good especially if you look at the media's coverage of Obama versus the coverage for Palin.


Good point B, as usual!

[Ballygrl]

I recall that.
I'm already on record saying Obama will win in 2012.
No sense backing off now.

Unemployment is projected to be 10% by the end of the year, what will it be in 4 years if Obama continues the same failed policies?

[Ballygrl]

MSM:

Obama leads: Fundamental shift
Obama leads: Hope and Change!!
Obama leads: Historic!!
McCain gaining: Eh, whatever
McCain leading: Eh, whatever
Obama leading: Obama without a shirt on
Obama wins: Campaign outspends McCain by factor of 10, MSM smokes a cigarette
Obama popular: Ignore the polls (and Rush Limbaugh)!!
Obama popular: Ignore the polls harder!!!
Obama slipping: Crickets

You can add to that, unemployment has gone up but the good news is it didn't go up as much as it could of :))

[Ballygrl]

Good point B, as usual!

Hey TM! good to see you!

[Electromyographical Alien]

I don't understand why people are sold on Palin.

Her record isn't totally conservative and she's got a whole lot of baggage with her - warranted or not. I just don't see her being electable in 2012 for POTUS.

Off the top of my head, Romney may stand the best chance right now as far as electability. I think though there are better contenders out there, they just need to start getting some national face time.

[Sinister Rouge]

Don't get too excited, politicians always try their controversial stuff early in their terms so they'll have time to rebound if their plans fail. Electoral politics 101.

The only poll that really matters is the one at the end of election day.

[Canadian Jane]

I don't understand why people are sold on Palin.

Her record isn't totally conservative and she's got a whole lot of baggage with her - warranted or not. I just don't see her being electable in 2012 for POTUS.

Off the top of my head, Romney may stand the best chance right now as far as electability. I think though there are better contenders out there, they just need to start getting some national face time.


With the right POTUS candidate (i.e. Romney) - Palin would make a great VP candidate.

She can't do any worse than Biden - that's for sure! :))

[ThinkingMan]

Hey TM! good to see you!

You too! :D

[DaveKlassix]

Interesting that we haven't seen a Palin/Obama poll yet isn't it?

The Palin/Obama poll is in the same link. Its 48% Obama 42% Palin.

[ThinkingMan]

Don't get too excited, politicians always try their controversial stuff early in their terms so they'll have time to rebound if their plans fail. Electoral politics 101.

The only poll that really matters is the one at the end of election day.

Voters have very short memories. Democrats depend on this.

[Wgirl]

LOL!!! Cons told us for a year that polls didn't matter. NOW they depend on them almost 4 YEARS before the next election. :)):)):))

Depend on? Where did you pull that from?

It's on Drudge. I heard Scott Rasmussen on Fox News talking about it. He specifically pointed out that several years before the last presidential election, Hillary was the Democrat frontrunner and most people had never heard of Obama. It's basically for entertainment purposes only. Because the poll was done and people are talking about it doesn't equate DEPENDING on it.

[homiebrah]

It's more of a case of "the election was purchased" nowadays, given Obama spent 0.75 billion dollars to get elected.

Donated by the inner cities, probably.
He was for public financing before he was against it. If that wasn't a signal that the man had issues with his word, then I don't know what is.

But I will sit back and enjoy the rabid defense of his every action. Reminds me of the good old days of Bush when they complained about his 100% defense of everything he did.

Hypocrisy tastes best served warm.

[Sinister Rouge]

Voters have very short memories. Democrats depend on this.


Actually I first saw that trick used by Bob Riley, the Republican governor of Alabama. He tried some radical new tax plan that killed his poll numbers, but did it in his first months of office. He went on to get reelected in a landslide.

Voters have short memories.

[ThinkingMan]

He was for public financing before he was against it. If that wasn't a signal that the man had issues with his word, then I don't know what is.

But I will sit back and enjoy the rabid defense of his every action. Reminds me of the good old days of Bush when they complained about his 100% defense of everything he did.

Hypocrisy tastes best served warm.

Well now they won't defend every action - only the ones that people are aware of.

It's why so many polls are taken.

(And people say polls don't matter.)

[Wgirl]

I recall that.
I'm already on record saying Obama will win in 2012.
No sense backing off now.

Surely not. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

[Jousts]

He was for public financing before he was against it. If that wasn't a signal that the man had issues with his word, then I don't know what is.

.

Bingo!

Even worse...he Admitted he lied about public financing with his excuse being "I would not be able to win if I went with it"...

So he is a man that admitted he will lie in the interest of political expediency...and the people did not care.

Go figure.

[Jousts]

The Palin/Obama poll is in the same link. Its 48% Obama 42% Palin.

And with all of the negative press Palin gets, he should be very concerned with those numbers.

[Sinister Rouge]

Well now they won't defend every action - only the ones that people are aware of.

It's why so many polls are taken.

(And people say polls don't matter.)


Polls don't matter. Elections do.
Wait until three years from now before you start planning your Obama goodbye parties.

[dianeinwa]

That and the segment of the religous right who get upset he is LDS will have to get over themselves


He can turn that into LSD...he then could possibly parlay drug use right into the WH.

[Wgirl]

In some people's minds, no.
No sense blaming yourself after all.
Just an all to easy excuse for elections lost.

Do you honestly believe that the MSM didn't play a huge role in helping Obama get elected?

[Jousts]

Depend on? Where did you pull that from?

It's on Drudge. I heard Scott Rasmussen on Fox News talking about it. He specifically pointed out that several years before the last presidential election, Hillary was the Democrat frontrunner and most people had never heard of Obama. It's basically for entertainment purposes only. Because the poll was done and people are talking about it doesn't equate DEPENDING on it.

Exactly. It is a topic of conversation. And one to gorw on and follow.

Why do many on this board....on the left....make things so "finite"?

If we do not like a policy, we are cynics. If we express our opinion, we are lacking intelligence.

Giess it comes from the President. He calls those that refute his policy's as cynics...he refers to them as "nay sayers".

Seems to be a pattern here...and seems people are following his lead.

[homiebrah]

Well now they won't defend every action - only the ones that people are aware of.

It's why so many polls are taken.

(And people say polls don't matter.)
Live by the poll, die by the poll. Or something close to that.

[ThinkingMan]

Polls don't matter. Elections do.
Wait until three years from now before you start planning your Obama goodbye parties.

I don't expect him to lose. But I am looking forward to the sudden prosperity we'll have starting around the summer of 2012.

[ThinkingMan]

Do you honestly believe that the MSM didn't play a huge role in helping Obama get elected?

The MSM having a role in his election is like gravity having a role in things falling.

[PaleoPaul]

In 2005, Rasmussen had Rudy Gulliani defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election.
I can't wait to see what things will be like come December 2010-January 2011 (when people usually start throwing their hats into the rings for Presidential Elections)

[TRIMS713]

And Obama is only in office for 6 months :))

Exactly--imagine what the numbers will look like in 2012. Also,if you notice, Romney has only made a few appearances in the MSM,unlike Gingrich Huckabee and Palin who have all been very visible, Mitt is biding his time and working mainly to help the party's candidates in the 2010 congressional elections.

This may seem odd to say but in my view the only thing that can possibly save Obama in 2012 would be the same thing that saved Slick Willy's presidency-------conservatives gained control of the purse strings in the House under Gingrich in 94 and FORCED him to do what had to be done. If one Party socialist rule continues after 2010,then the dems will face an absolute tsunami in 2012-----they'll all be road kill.

[PaleoPaul]

I don't understand why people are sold on Palin.

Her record isn't totally conservative and she's got a whole lot of baggage with her - warranted or not. I just don't see her being electable in 2012 for POTUS.

Off the top of my head, Romney may stand the best chance right now as far as electability. I think though there are better contenders out there, they just need to start getting some national face time.
Palin's just...no. Though I am sure she is a fine human being.

Romney, however, is scum. I wouldn't trust him to tell me what time it is, let alone be the leader of the free world.

[Sinister Rouge]

Romney reminds me of a shadey used-car salesman.
He lost my respect when he said that the reason his sons weren't in the military was because they were working on his campaign.
I may not have liked McCain or Palin, but at least their kids were serving their country.

[Henry Alden]

Polls don't matter. Elections do.
Wait until three years from now before you start planning your Obama goodbye parties.

Obama is in rush tizzy because he knows he has just one more year before he loses Congress..
The country is in the mood for checks and balance..and the smart Dems from tossup areas are job hunting now.

[hillplus]

Palin's just...no. Though I am sure she is a fine human being.

Romney, however, is scum. I wouldn't trust him to tell me what time it is, let alone be the leader of the free world.

You obviously don't know the man's character. I think he is a very moral person. Not perfect, but highly moral.

[hillplus]

Romney reminds me of a shadey used-car salesman.
He lost my respect when he said that the reason his sons weren't in the military was because they were working on his campaign.
I may not have liked McCain or Palin, but at least their kids were serving their country.

Are you suggesting that one can't serve the country without serving in the Armed Forces?

[dashvinny]

Obama is going to serve two terms. But if Romney runs against him in 2016, he (Romney) might have a chance of winning -- providing of course he distances himself from Palin.

You betcha!

so, obama will want to serve 3 terms?

[SunnyD24]

In 2005, Rasmussen had Rudy Gulliani defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election.

Exactly....Rasmussen is a known conservative pollster.

Furthermore, this is very, very early on, and while Obama is tied up with significant economic and political problems in general, where Mitt is just simply going around fundraising and talking high.

Things will change once the campaign starts.

[dad49er]

Lexis-Nexis says the phrase "Republican Attack Machine" was used some 700 times in the MSM between June 07 and June 08. Yet "Democrat Attack Machine" only 15 times in same period.

Who is making the excuses now?

If that was what was happening why shouldn't the MSM report it?

In 2000 Bush received more positive reporting, and Gore more negative.
Bush also received more newspaper editorial endorsements than Gore.

That could be called MSM bias too, conservative bias.
If there was such a thing.

The entire idea of SRM, and the MSM working in concert with the DNC is rubbish.

I find it ironic that the one thing BOTH the conservative and liberal fringes agree with is bias on the part of the MSM. I guess that is why they are the fringe.

[dad49er]

Because "the election was stolen" excuse became old the first time it was used from 2000-2008.

I agree.

But saying an election was 'stolen'.
And blaming defeat on the MSM are two very different things.

[2Parties1GlobalistGoal]

Obama 45%
Romney 45%
Eating a Turd 10%

[dad49er]

It's more of a case of "the election was purchased" nowadays, given Obama spent 0.75 billion dollars to get elected.

Donated by the inner cities, probably.

And where did the argument of "donations are a form of freedom of speech" come from?
Boy did that argument come back to bite some.

[dad49er]

Unemployment is projected to be 10% by the end of the year, what will it be in 4 years if Obama continues the same failed policies?

Maybe less.
Today the stock market finished up at it's highest point since early January, they seem bullish enough.

[2Parties1GlobalistGoal]

Maybe less.
Today the stock market finished up at it's highest point since early January, they seem bullish enough.

It seemed bullish enough when Hannity and Co. were ranting and raving about how great the economy was during the bubble too...

[dad49er]

I don't understand why people are sold on Palin.

Her record isn't totally conservative and she's got a whole lot of baggage with her - warranted or not. I just don't see her being electable in 2012 for POTUS.

Off the top of my head, Romney may stand the best chance right now as far as electability. I think though there are better contenders out there, they just need to start getting some national face time.

If the field is Romney, Palin, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Jindal, Huckabee, and some 'known' names I'm missing. I'm willing to bet against the field.
I think it will be someone few have heard of yet.
A new face.

[dad49er]

Surely not. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

I'm guessing you didn't vote for him.
So if you feel that way, you were not fooled.

[wildcat87]

Remember you're naysayers?
I think he will win easily.
In part because the Republican primary will be a blood bath.

This.

[wildcat87]

If that was what was happening why shouldn't the MSM report it?

In 2000 Bush received more positive reporting, and Gore more negative.
Bush also received more newspaper editorial endorsements than Gore.

That could be called MSM bias too, conservative bias.
If there was such a thing.

The entire idea of SRM, and the MSM working in concert with the DNC is rubbish.

I find it ironic that the one thing BOTH the conservative and liberal fringes agree with is bias on the part of the MSM. I guess that is why they are the fringe.

Give Rupert his due. The man knows how to sell soap.

[dad49er]

Do you honestly believe that the MSM didn't play a huge role in helping Obama get elected?

No.
Obama received 'favorable' reports during his campaign because things were going very well for him.
Meanwhile McCain had unfavorable things happening to him.

That is what the MSM accurately reported.
As Cronkite said;
"And, that's the way it is."

[dad49er]

The MSM having a role in his election is like gravity having a role in things falling.

There role is to report.
Do you think they shouldn't?

[dad49er]

Exactly--imagine what the numbers will look like in 2012. Also,if you notice, Romney has only made a few appearances in the MSM,unlike Gingrich Huckabee and Palin who have all been very visible, Mitt is biding his time and working mainly to help the party's candidates in the 2010 congressional elections.

This may seem odd to say but in my view the only thing that can possibly save Obama in 2012 would be the same thing that saved Slick Willy's presidency-------conservatives gained control of the purse strings in the House under Gingrich in 94 and FORCED him to do what had to be done. If one Party socialist rule continues after 2010,then the dems will face an absolute tsunami in 2012-----they'll all be road kill.

I think Obama's numbers have gone down because he is pursuing very controversial policies.
I expect Republicans to gain some House seats, but I think Democrats will gain even more seats in the Senate. And don't forget that "Republican" does not equal "conservative".
The GOP has turned it's back on conservatives.

[dad49er]

It seemed bullish enough when Hannity and Co. were ranting and raving about how great the economy was during the bubble too...

True.
But that was 'bullishness' built on illusion, and fueled on unsustainable growth.
There was nothing to substantiate those values.

[2Parties1GlobalistGoal]

True.
But that was 'bullishness' built on illusion, and fueled on unsustainable growth.
There was nothing to substantiate those values.

lmao and this isn't now?

[homiebrah]

I agree.

But saying an election was 'stolen'.
And blaming defeat on the MSM are two very different things.
Which begs one to ask the question "the media has no influence on an election?" Blaming an entire defeat would be wrong, but to infer the media had no hand in said defeat is a stretch. And no, I'm not making the accusation against you. Just from what I witnessed during the two-year run-up to November 2008.

[Sinister Rouge]

Are you suggesting that one can't serve the country without serving in the Armed Forces?


Of course not.

I'm suggesting that equating serving in the armed forces with campaigning for your dad is a tool-bag move.

[fava]

Romney did to Mass what Obama is trying to do to the rest of the Country.
Neither is Presidental material.

[dad49er]

Which begs one to ask the question "the media has no influence on an election?" Blaming an entire defeat would be wrong, but to infer the media had no hand in said defeat is a stretch. And no, I'm not making the accusation against you. Just from what I witnessed during the two-year run-up to November 2008.

I tend to agree with you on this.
The media can't help but have an effect.
Nixon's five o'clock shadow vs Kennedy.
Ford's gaff during his debate with Carter.
Howard Dean's 'yeehaw'.

It is just the idea of a orchestrated bias that I disagree with.
Such an effort would be impossible to coordinate for one month let alone an on going conspiracy spanning decades as some allege.
(From both sides)

[dad49er]

lmao and this isn't now?

I'm no stock expert.
But IMO no.
The market seems to be reacting to better than expected earnings.

[homiebrah]

I tend to agree with you on this.
The media can't help but have an effect.
Nixon's five o'clock shadow vs Kennedy.
Ford's gaff during his debate with Carter.
Howard Dean's 'yeehaw'.

It is just the idea of a orchestrated bias that I disagree with.
Such an effort would be impossible to coordinate for one month let alone an on going conspiracy spanning decades as some allege.
(From both sides)
I don't see it as a conspiracy. Something like that (and 9/11 for that matter) would require great coordination and silence from so many players as to be near ludicrous.

But looking back, the media gave much more favorable coverage of Obama (I'm going to go out on a limb and say it had to do with the color of his skin and the feel-good nature of the possibility of a non-white winning the White House) than they did for McCain, who was outright boring.

This election was hard for me in that I had to decide which Republican candidate to not vote for the most. I wasn't sold on Palin coming out as VP, even though it was good to see some attention paid to Alaska, albeit most looking for a scandal. Casting my vote for Obama was not an option, which I leave the results to his 53% that believe he was the best man for the job.

This was simply an election in the middle of a crsis too good to pass up.

[darknessesedge]

this time next yr, obama will be behind ronald mcdonald in the polls.

[dad49er]

I don't see it as a conspiracy. Something like that (and 9/11 for that matter) would require great coordination and silence from so many players as to be near ludicrous.

But looking back, the media gave much more favorable coverage of Obama (I'm going to go out on a limb and say it had to do with the color of his skin and the feel-good nature of the possibility of a non-white winning the White House) than they did for McCain, who was outright boring.

This election was hard for me in that I had to decide which Republican candidate to not vote for the most. I wasn't sold on Palin coming out as VP, even though it was good to see some attention paid to Alaska, albeit most looking for a scandal. Casting my vote for Obama was not an option, which I leave the results to his 53% that believe he was the best man for the job.

This was simply an election in the middle of a crsis too good to pass up.

Some good points there.
But I think the reporting was favorable for Obama because the news was favorable for Obama.
He WAS getting more contributions.
He WAS leading the polls.
The economy WAS crashing. (Favored Obama)
Meanwhile;
McCain WAS short on funds.
McCain WAS closing campaign offices.
McCain did select a controversial running mate.
McCain WAS trailing in the polls.
McCain did lose in the debates (according to polls).
And Bush's low popularity hurt him.

That WAS what was reported.

[dad49er]

this time next yr, obama will be behind ronald mcdonald in the polls.

Poll for what?
Best hamburger?

(I think In N' Out, wins)

[4Romney]

Some good points there.
But I think the reporting was favorable for Obama because the news was favorable for Obama.
He WAS getting more contributions.
He WAS leading the polls.
The economy WAS crashing. (Favored Obama)
Meanwhile;
McCain WAS short on funds.
McCain WAS closing campaign offices.
McCain did select a controversial running mate.
McCain WAS trailing in the polls.
McCain did lose in the debates (according to polls).
And Bush's low popularity hurt him.

That WAS what was reported.

You guys can make up all the excuses for McCain, but he ran a crappy campaign. Was overshadowed by Palin, did badly in the debates. He just didn't run a very good campaign...MSM being in the tank for Obama or not.

[ThinkingMan]

If that was what was happening why shouldn't the MSM report it?

In 2000 Bush received more positive reporting, and Gore more negative.
Bush also received more newspaper editorial endorsements than Gore.

That could be called MSM bias too, conservative bias.
If there was such a thing.

The entire idea of SRM, and the MSM working in concert with the DNC is rubbish.

I find it ironic that the one thing BOTH the conservative and liberal fringes agree with is bias on the part of the MSM. I guess that is why they are the fringe.


It is rubbish. I never said they were "working in concert." But they don't have to be.

[dad49er]

You guys can make up all the excuses for McCain, but he ran a crappy campaign. Was overshadowed by Palin, did badly in the debates. He just didn't run a very good campaign...MSM being in the tank for Obama or not.

Welcome to the forum.

I don't think McCain's campaign was that bad.
IMO no one was going to beat the Democrat nominee anyway.
I also don't believe McCain was overshadowed, how does a virtual unknown 'overshadow' a war hero?

[ThinkingMan]

There role is to report.
Do you think they shouldn't?

Only if someone in the federal government asks local law enforcement to immediately respond to anything they feel is misleading.

[dad49er]

It is rubbish. I never said they were "working in concert." But they don't have to be.

Glad to see you don't believe that.
But 'working in concert' and SRM gets reported as 'fact' in some quarters.

[4Romney]

Welcome to the forum.

I don't think McCain's campaign was that bad.
IMO no one was going to beat the Democrat nominee anyway.
I also don't believe McCain was overshadowed, how does a virtual unknown 'overshadow' a war hero?

Thanks for the welcome.


War hero has nothing to do with being a president. We all saw what happened with Dole, Kerry...and now McCain. These guys served their countries and lost.

I thought McCain's campaign was way too timid, he backed off on a lot of issues. He tried to be the nice guy in the race. He was afraid that if he went after Obama, he would be branded a racist. Secondly Palin overshadowed McCain big time, she was the one that brought the crowds and money for McCain. McCain if he picked somebody else like say Pawlenty, he wouldn't have gotten those kinds of crowds at his rallies. No way.

I thought it was a really crappy campaign ran by McCain, to put it simply...he was flat.

[m'head]

And Obama is only in office for 6 months :))

People seem to be missing what the Rasmussen article says. They surveyed "unaffiliated voters" So the 45 % for Romney represents 45% of 17% of the voting populace.

[ThinkingMan]

People seem to be missing what the Rasmussen article says. They surveyed "unaffiliated voters" So the 45 % for Romney represents 45% of 17% of the voting populace.

What about the other 45% that went for Obama?

[Wgirl]

I'm guessing you didn't vote for him.
So if you feel that way, you were not fooled.
Of course not.

Yes, I'm quite aware that I wasn't fooled. I guess you didn't get that I was speaking on behalf of many Americans in 2012, hopefully, hence the surely not. You know, like they can be fooled into thinking he's the Second Coming and vote for him once, but now that they're seeing him in action and witnessing what a horrible job he's doing, surely they won't be fooled again.

[rhet 2]

Thanks for the welcome.


War hero has nothing to do with being a president. We all saw what happened with Dole, Kerry...and now McCain. These guys served their countries and lost.

I thought McCain's campaign was way too timid, he backed off on a lot of issues. He tried to be the nice guy in the race. He was afraid that if he went after Obama, he would be branded a racist. Secondly Palin overshadowed McCain big time, she was the one that brought the crowds and money for McCain. McCain if he picked somebody else like say Pawlenty, he wouldn't have gotten those kinds of crowds at his rallies. No way.

I thought it was a really crappy campaign ran by McCain, to put it simply...he was flat.

:clap: precisely -- he didn't defy the Swine Lords -- which is what all those shouts of "Drill, Baby, Drill" were all about: we're very tired of getting trashed while corrupt anything-to-win lawyers suck up big bribes to stop us from having the minimum necessities of life itself

Because he didn't take a hard stand, he got labeled an "enemy collaborator" exactly like the skunks we want OUT

[rhet 2]

Of course not.

Yes, I'm quite aware that I wasn't fooled. I guess you didn't get that I was speaking on behalf of many Americans in 2012, hopefully, hence the surely not. You know, like they can be fooled into thinking he's the Second Coming and vote for him once, but now that they're seeing him in action and witnessing what a horrible job he's doing, surely they won't be fooled again.

Question: what makes you think that the destruction of the American middle class isn't exactly what his ardent admirers and supporters WANT him to do?

[Wgirl]

No.
Obama received 'favorable' reports during his campaign because things were going very well for him.
Meanwhile McCain had unfavorable things happening to him.

That is what the MSM accurately reported.
As Cronkite said;
"And, that's the way it is."
Oh, come on. The media was in the tank for Obama, period.



Meanwhile McCain had unfavorable things happening to him. Yeah, one of those things being the media!

[ThinkingMan]

Oh, come on. The media was in the tank for Obama, period.



Yeah, one of those things being the media!

In the tank?

They made the tank.

[AHA]

Obama is going to serve two terms. But if Romney runs against him in 2016, he (Romney) might have a chance of winning -- providing of course he distances himself from Palin.

You betcha!

Ha! Don't bet the mortgage on that. The way they have been doing things, behind the scenes, he may not even finish this one term.

[Gengar]

Romney? We really are doomed.

[RedStatePaPa]

No I'm not thrilled by Romney.

[homiebrah]

Some good points there.
But I think the reporting was favorable for Obama because the news was favorable for Obama.

Obama was the great hope for a country divided by race.

He WAS getting more contributions.
He WAS leading the polls.

Shedding public funding allowed him to generate an obscene amount of funds. He basically did the same thing Republicans have done in regards to fundraising.

The economy WAS crashing. (Favored Obama)

A failing economy is always a deathknell to an incumbent.

Meanwhile;
McCain WAS short on funds.
McCain WAS closing campaign offices.

Low funding does this to one. He knew he was out of touch with part of the Republican base, and also knew Obama was using a get-out-the-vote apparatus much better than the Republican model.

McCain did select a controversial running mate.

No argument there. She should have stayed in Alaska and continued to do what she was good at, and polls proved.

McCain WAS trailing in the polls.

A shoddy campaign will do that. A more favorable media for his opponent was a small factor.

McCain did lose in the debates (according to polls).

Overall, yes. Foreign policy and national defense were his only strong points.

And Bush's low popularity hurt him.

Agreed. However, what we have is a President using, in some form or another, the same, tired, failed policies of his predecessor.

That WAS what was reported.

Among other things.

[dad49er]

Of course not.

Yes, I'm quite aware that I wasn't fooled. I guess you didn't get that I was speaking on behalf of many Americans in 2012, hopefully, hence the surely not. You know, like they can be fooled into thinking he's the Second Coming and vote for him once, but now that they're seeing him in action and witnessing what a horrible job he's doing, surely they won't be fooled again.

I don't know if the GOP can take advantage though, consider:

After 6 months;
Obama 59% approval rating.
Reagan 57% approval rating.

Congressional approval ratings:
Democrats 47%.
Republicans 36%.

Public trust:
Handle Economy
Obama 56%
GOP 36%

Health care
Obama 54%
GOP 34%

Deficit
Obama 54%
GOP 35%

And finally, 34% identify as Democrats, 22% as Republicans, and 41% as Independents.
Independents tend to vote Democrat.

Obama's numbers may be down, but remain high, comparable to Reagan.
I don't see Republicans being able to take advantage, their numbers are even lower.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1092a1ObamaatSixMonths.pdf

[m'head]

What about the other 45% that went for Obama?

You'd have to add the "affiliated" pro Obama voters to that 45% of unaffiliated ones, which gets you somewhere well above 60%.

[who]

Obama was the great hope for a country divided by race.



Shedding public funding allowed him to generate an obscene amount of funds. He basically did the same thing Republicans have done in regards to fundraising.



A failing economy is always a deathknell to an incumbent.



Low funding does this to one. He knew he was out of touch with part of the Republican base, and also knew Obama was using a get-out-the-vote apparatus much better than the Republican model.



No argument there. She should have stayed in Alaska and continued to do what she was good at, and polls proved.



A shoddy campaign will do that. A more favorable media for his opponent was a small factor.



Overall, yes. Foreign policy and national defense were his only strong points.



Agreed. However, what we have is a President using, in some form or another, the same, tired, failed policies of his predecessor.



Among other things.
I'm shocked.

I agree with about everything you have posted here.

:razz:

[Kentucky Thinker]

Romny or Palin...

and the band marches on

Yep. They just can't get enough beatings from faux conservatives. It's too bad Tammy Wynette won't be around to sing "Stand By Your Man" at the 2012 GOP convention.

[Sun]

I guess I could live with Romney as POTUS, but there are stronger conservatives out there. Hopefully they'll move up in the polls, there's lots of time.

[homiebrah]

I'm shocked.

I agree with about everything you have posted here.

:razz:

It must be something in the water.

:whistle:;)

[TRIMS713]

No.
Obama received 'favorable' reports during his campaign because things were going very well for him.
Meanwhile McCain had unfavorable things happening to him.

That is what the MSM accurately reported.
As Cronkite said;
"And, that's the way it is."

It wasn't only the fvorable press he received during the campaign,his far-left ties were basically ignored before the primaries started.If he was even half vetted he would have never won any of the early primary states and he would have been done early----I don't see how any fair minded person can deny that.

[A_K_]

If Palin should run, for a "one up" perhaps she can unveil her cabinet before the election. She could this as ammunition for her ability to comprehend and handle the "crisis" before it happens.
It's from a boyscout motto, be prepared.

No campaign manager worth ANYTHING would let a candidate pick a cabinet before the general election was over. The more people introduced into the equation, the more a chance of a scandal involving one of those people becomes a possibity, the more chance that someone people dislike in the "cabinet" costs the candidate votes, any possible voters who would view it as arrogant to choose the supporting cast before the candidate even got the job, and so on.

[fwj60]

I do think that polls underestimate Palin's strength. On Hannity, Frank Luntz
did the dials with people on Palin's resignation speech. When she said she was resigning and explained why, the numbers were low. When Palin talked about the issues she was going to be pushing, the Republican dials were above 90 and even Democrats were above 60 which was pretty good. The crowds she draws have not abated. If Palin does run in Republican primaries, you will see much higher turnout numbers.

Also you will see her establish her own identity. As a vice-presidential candidate, she was tied to McCain. When she said something that didn't make sense it was probably McCain's doing. Being governor of Alaska meant being out of sight, out of mind.

At this point in time, Palin's poll numbers are not bad and they will get better. I don't see Romney's numbers getting better.

The bottom line is this. If Romney were a threat to Obama, Romney would be getting the treatment that Palin's been getting. Democrats don't fear Romney. They fear Palin because she could do what Reagan did in the 80s.

[jimmyc123]

I do think that polls underestimate Palin's strength. On Hannity, Frank Luntz
did the dials with people on Palin's resignation speech. When she said she was resigning and explained why, the numbers were low. When Palin talked about the issues she was going to be pushing, the Republican dials were above 90 and even Democrats were above 60 which was pretty good. The crowds she draws have not abated. If Palin does run in Republican primaries, you will see much higher turnout numbers.

Also you will see her establish her own identity. As a vice-presidential candidate, she was tied to McCain. When she said something that didn't make sense it was probably McCain's doing. Being governor of Alaska meant being out of sight, out of mind.

At this point in time, Palin's poll numbers are not bad and they will get better. I don't see Romney's numbers getting better.

The bottom line is this. If Romney were a threat to Obama, Romney would be getting the treatment that Palin's been getting. Democrats don't fear Romney. They fear Palin because she could do what Reagan did in the 80s.

I wouldn't put too much stock in Luntz. I still remember his focus group after the Palin-Biden debate where they thought Palin won and Luntz ended his segment declaring "Brit, this debate's gonna have significance; this debate is gonna stand out; watch the polling data over the next 48 hours, because you’re going to see a shift".

We know how accurate that prediction turned out to be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKrk_6QjcNw&eurl

[johnjay1788]

Romney's MassCare will come back to haunt him... as it should.

[mgifford]

Romney's MassCare will come back to haunt him... as it should.

I didn't read back to all the posts about Romney's care, so this may have already been said. Romney introduced his HC plan, with a cost of 125 Million, today, just a few years later, it's 1 Billion. What a plan, huh? People loved the idea of his plan to insure everyone and for only 125 Million too.

[Ballygrl]

I didn't read back to all the posts about Romney's care, so this may have already been said. Romney introduced his HC plan, with a cost of 125 Million, today, just a few years later, it's
1 Billion. What a plan, huh? People loved the idea of his plan to insure everyone and for only 125 Million too.

Hawaii had to stop their socialized medicine plan too because of the cost.

[mgifford]

Hawaii had to stop their socialized medicine plan too because of the cost.

Fact is that anytime the government gets involved in areas such as HC, we lose, because they don't know how to run hospitals, insurance companies or car dealerships you know. As far as Hawaii is concerned, people can't aford to live there already without the government running the HC system. What a mess!

[Penrod]

Hawaii had to stop their socialized medicine plan too because of the cost.
After only months. I think it was Obumas grandma that drove them broke. Funny he left her to die alone in the end and didnt even go to her funeral.

[Wgirl]

I don't know if the GOP can take advantage though, consider:

After 6 months;
Obama 59% approval rating.
Reagan 57% approval rating.

Congressional approval ratings:
Democrats 47%.
Republicans 36%.

Public trust:
Handle Economy
Obama 56%
GOP 36%

Health care
Obama 54%
GOP 34%

Deficit
Obama 54%
GOP 35%

And finally, 34% identify as Democrats, 22% as Republicans, and 41% as Independents.
Independents tend to vote Democrat.

Obama's numbers may be down, but remain high, comparable to Reagan.
I don't see Republicans being able to take advantage, their numbers are even lower.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1092a1ObamaatSixMonths.pdf
You have a point. Half the country has lost its mind.

[fwj60]

I wouldn't put too much stock in Luntz. I still remember his focus group after the Palin-Biden debate where they thought Palin won and Luntz ended his segment declaring "Brit, this debate's gonna have significance; this debate is gonna stand out; watch the polling data over the next 48 hours, because you’re going to see a shift".




Actually I am not going by what Luntz says. The dials speak for themselves.
Palin consistently draws larger crowds and more enthusiasm than Romney.
In 2008 people didn't flock to Mitt Romney and the turnout in the primaries was not very good. Again, if Romney is such a threat why are they not going after him?

[rhet 2]

I didn't read back to all the posts about Romney's care, so this may have already been said. Romney introduced his HC plan, with a cost of 125 Million, today, just a few years later, it's 1 Billion. What a plan, huh? People loved the idea of his plan to insure everyone and for only 125 Million too.

There's a very ancient saying: "The best laid plans of mice and men do often go astray."

Of course this is going to cost huge amounts more than expected.

Promise the kid a goldfish for 1.29 at the local pet shop and watch the bill soar to 30 + before you're out the door with the darned thing -- if you're lucky.

And, a year later, you've got three aquaria and 157 guppies with more coming by the moment, with a monthly bill for the entire mess triple what you paid the first time around.

Simple fact of life in this old world.