• Obama continues poll rise
    101 replies, posted
[B]UPDATE[/B] In today's Gallup poll Romney has dropped to 44 while Obama stays at 49 [img]http://puu.sh/13xfn[/img] [TABLE][TR][TD][img]http://puu.sh/13fcz[/img] [img]http://puu.sh/13fdW[/img] [url]http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-hp-pollwatch-obama-convention-bounce-20120908,0,2354713.story[/url] [quote=LA Times]President Obama’s post-convention “bounce” continued to grow Saturday, as new polls showed him widening a lead over Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Obama’s lead over Romney among registered voters grew to 49%-45% in Gallup’s tracking poll. The 49% for Obama was his highest point in the survey since late April. It represented an increase of 1 point since Friday and a 5-point swing from Romney’s 47%-46% lead in the Gallup survey just before the Republican convention began. The poll combines small samples taken each night to present a seven-day average. Since three of the nights of the survey period preceded the Democratic convention, Obama’s lead in the survey is likely to grow further. Gallup’s measure of job approval also continued to improve for Obama, with 52% of adults surveyed saying they approved of his performance in office, compared with 42% disapproving. That survey uses a three-day average. Two other tracking polls, the Rasmussen and Reuters/Ipsos surveys, also showed Obama with a lead. In the Rasmussen tracking poll, a three-day average which has tended to show better results for Romney, Obama led 46%-44% among likely voters surveyed, up from a 1-point deficit on Friday and a six-point swing from just after the Republican convention. In his account of the results, pollster Scott Rasmussen noted that for the first time in his survey, Democrats were now following the campaign as closely as Republican voters, a measure that often predicts turnout. So far, the polls indicate that Obama gained considerably more from his convention than did Romney, who got only a small bounce, from his. How much further Obama’s lead will grow and whether it proves lasting will be key questions over the next week. As the word implies, a “bounce” can be fickle. Candidates almost always benefit from a week of concentrated coverage of their message, but in some years, the advantage fades quickly. That’s not always the case, however. In 2004, George W. Bush got a substantial boost from his convention and established a lead over Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) that held up through election day. Obama’s aides have carefully studied Bush’s campaign as a model of how a president can win reelection in a sharply polarized electorate.[/quote][/TD][TD][img]http://puu.sh/13fi9[/img][/TD][/TR][/TABLE]
As I've said numerous times this is Obama's election to lose. Romney doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning it unless Obama ROYALLY fucks up. And I'm talking "whipping out the presidential penis on live TV and hip-thrusting at the nearest female that isn't Michelle" fuck-up.
I remain cautiously hopeful.
all of you fucks better go out and vote or else I will find to your house and punch you in the dick
I went to his thing at my college. This man has presence. Like, his voice is just screaming "I am gonna do [B]EVERYTHING[/B] that I'm telling you right now." Plus, he said he didn't agree with taking away pell grants(or something along those lines, I was passing out from standing on the line to get in for 5 fuckin' hours).
What a turn of events.
Well Romney seems to be looking like a bigger and bigger douchebag every day what with his constant flip flopping, the publicity regarding his tax return scandal, and overall being a jerk to everyone. I mean, Romney made it sound like he was totally okay with gay marriage when he first went into this election and now he's trying his hardest to appeal to the bigots by releasing ads saying that Obama is trying to "force gay marriage on America." He's trying his hardest to win over people he knows hate civil liberties, because most everyone else with a brainstem already knows that Romney is a liar, whereas Obama has been pretty good about trying his hardest to do as he promised.
[QUOTE=Dragoshi1;37593210] Like, his voice is just screaming "I am gonna do [B]EVERYTHING[/B] that I'm telling you right now." [/QUOTE] he hasn't held his last election promises and will continue not to if he's elected again
As stated before, people thinking Obama will certainly win is his biggest threat to not being re-elected.
[QUOTE=gra;37593333]he hasn't held his last election promises and will continue not to if he's elected again[/QUOTE] So let's elect someone worse instead?
[QUOTE=Dragoshi1;37593210] Like, his voice is just screaming "I am gonna do [B]EVERYTHING[/B] that I'm telling you right now." [/QUOTE] Too bad his promises aren't that good anyways. Obama's a great speaker though, I agree with that.
Something might be fishy here. Some percentage of the rise may be just ignorant young adults that follow the celebrities that practically bought their way into the DNC speech. Wouldn't surprise me if this is the case.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;37593388]So let's elect someone worse instead?[/QUOTE] instead of voting for someone you think is less worse, realize that the answer to the current problems we face is to work outside of the electoral system. politicians will always be politicians. become active in social justice groups, join your local occupy, and, the best thing, work for change locally in your own community. think globally, act locally.
[QUOTE=gra;37593454]join your local occupy,[/QUOTE] It's quite pointless as the OWS groups have already made their point, and most have probably moved on after their protests. It's practically a dead movement at this point.
I find it hard to believe the polls are that close, with all the shit Romney's said
[QUOTE=gra;37593333]he hasn't held his last election promises and will continue not to if he's elected again[/QUOTE] According to this, he kept more than he either broke or compromised: [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/[/url] The only broken promise that I regret is Guantanamo Bay. That entire facility is a giant middle finger to due process of law. [editline]8th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=gra;37593454]instead of voting for someone you think is less worse, realize that the answer to the current problems we face is to work outside of the electoral system. politicians will always be politicians. become active in social justice groups, join your local occupy, and, the best thing, work for change locally in your own community. think globally, act locally.[/QUOTE] I absolutely agree.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;37593477]It's quite pointless as the OWS groups have already made their point, and most have probably moved on after their protests. It's practically a dead movement at this point.[/QUOTE] No, it's really not. The press just doesn't report on it as much anymore. [editline]8th September 2012[/editline] Also it's fucking stupid to say "Oh, it's pointless to join this movement because it doesn't have a lot of members." Absolutely cynical and ignorant. People who say shit like this is the reason social movements often have a hard time taking off. If everyone thought like this, we would still have segregated water fountains.
The Occupy movement is still very much alive. Even in small cities that you wouldn't expect to see much activity to begin with.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;37593477]It's quite pointless as the OWS groups have already made their point, and most have probably moved on after their protests. It's practically a dead movement at this point.[/QUOTE] there are actually active occupy groups in a lot of major cities, but they more or less stopped occupying places and instead they hold marches and rallies regularly, fight foreclosures, arrange boycotts and blockades of banks, among a lot of other things. they're still a very powerful force
[QUOTE=gra;37593333]he hasn't held his last election promises and will continue not to if he's elected again[/QUOTE] If you actually think that any politician out there will keep all their promises then you don't understand how politicians work. You say what you need to say to get votes.
[QUOTE=gra;37593454]instead of voting for someone you think is less worse, realize that the answer to the current problems we face is to work outside of the electoral system. politicians will always be politicians. become active in social justice groups, join your local occupy, and, the best thing, work for change locally in your own community. think globally, act locally.[/QUOTE] That doesn't answer his question, who should he vote for? This is always an interesting discussion, when I ask someone who they are voting for, and they go on a tirade about the injustice of our electoral system, but then they don't actually tell me who they are voting for. If you're saying you won't vote, I feel you are mistaken in your decision, but that's just my opinion.
[QUOTE=Bentham;37593570]That doesn't answer his question, who should he vote for? This is always an interesting discussion, when I ask someone who they are voting for, and they go on a tirade about the injustice of our electoral system, but then they don't actually tell me who they are voting for. If you're saying you won't vote, I feel you are mistaken in your decision, but that's just my opinion.[/QUOTE] I believe that if you vote, you are just justifying an oppressive and undemocratic system.
[QUOTE=Bentham;37593570]That doesn't answer his question, who should he vote for? [/QUOTE] that question is a false dichotomy, there is a third option and that's what i told him to do. i'm actually voting for peta lindsay, candidate for the party of socialism and liberation. however, since she's obviously not going to get elected, it's a symbolic vote more than anything.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37593598]I believe that if you vote, you are just justifying an oppressive and undemocratic system.[/QUOTE] What if you vote in an effort to change that system? I'm not saying any current vote does that, I'm just saying what if.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37593598]I believe that if you vote, you are just justifying an oppressive and undemocratic system.[/QUOTE] And if you don't vote? you're willingly stepping out of the booth and not lending any kind of say whatsoever.
[QUOTE=gra;37593607]that question is a false dichotomy, there is a third option and that's what i told him to do. i'm actually voting for peta lindsay, candidate for the party of socialism and liberation. however, since she's obviously not going to get elected, it's a symbolic vote more than anything.[/QUOTE] [quote=Wikipedia]Peta Lindsay (born 1984) is an American anti-war activist and presidential nominee of the Party for Socialism and Liberation in the 2012 U.S. presidential election, despite being ineligible to become president due to her age, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution; she would need to be at least 35 in order to take office.[/quote] Futile in more than one way. Very nice.
[QUOTE=gra;37593607]that question is a false dichotomy, there is a third option and that's what i told him to do. i'm actually voting for peta lindsay, candidate for the party of socialism and liberation. however, since she's obviously not going to get elected, it's a symbolic vote more than anything.[/QUOTE] You're voting for someone who can't even legally be president if she won?
whats scary is how many people are actually voting for romney
[QUOTE=Bentham;37593630]And if you don't vote? you're willingly stepping out of the booth and not lending any kind of say whatsoever.[/QUOTE] if you're already in a blue state and you vote for obama, your vote's meaningless anyways.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37593598]I believe that if you vote, you are just justifying an oppressive and undemocratic system.[/QUOTE] So voicing your personal opinion and desires and taking part (even if a tiny part) on a democratic process is "undemocratic"? You can always vote for a third party.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.