[release]President Obama is polling neck-and-neck with four Republican presidential candidates, according to a Gallup survey of registered voters.When matched against Obama in a hypothetical election, the four GOP contenders -- Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann – are statistically tied with the incumbent president.
[IMG]http://articles.latimes.com/images/pixel.gif[/IMG]
Romney has a slight edge over Obama (48% to 46%), while Perry and Obama are tied at 47%. Obama has a slight edge over Paul (47% to 45%) and a slightly larger edge over Bachmann (48% to 44%).
Respondents were surveyed Aug. 17-18 and were asked whom they would support if the 2012 election were held now. [URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/Obama-Close-Race-Against-Romney-Perry-Bachmann-Paul.aspx"]The survey[/URL] has a sampling error of 4 percentage points.
Republicans appeared to prefer Perry – 92% said they would vote for him – followed by Romney (91%), Bachmann (86%) and Paul (82%) in a match-up with Obama.
Independents chose Romney, Perry and Paul over Obama, but favored Obama over Bachmann by 6 percentage points.
Obama’s support from Democrats did not exceed 86% when he was matched against any of the four Republicans. Twelve percent of Democrats said they would vote for Romney or Paul over Obama.
Historically, some incumbent presidents have rebounded from poor polling in the summer before an election year.
Bill Clinton lagged behind Republican challenger Bob Dole by 2 percentage points in an August 1995 Gallup poll. And Ronald Reagan led Democratic challenger Walter Mondale by just 1 percentage point in August 1983.
Earlier this month, Obama’s job approval rating – as measured by Gallup’s daily tracking poll -- dipped below 40% for the first time. Reagan and Clinton both had approval ratings below 50% in the summer before they were reelected.
Obama’s approval is at 40% in the latest tracking poll from Aug. 19-21.[/release]
Source: [URL]http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/23/news/la-pn-obama-gop-dead-heat-20110823[/URL]
That does not look good.
Most of which are utterly insane.
It was bound to happen because of how the GOP has basically shit all over him.
Obama said there was now a need for boots on the ground in Libya, and I'm quite assured that if there are US boots on the ground that he won't be getting reelected. The economy puts at him at a large disadvantage regardless if he does the right things or not because these issues are going to take some time to resolve.
Ron Paul 2012
why aren't there any liberal candidates?
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;31929376]why aren't there any liberal candidates?[/QUOTE]
Because Progressives don't have anything to fall back on if Obama stopped supporting them, even if not actively so.
[editline]24th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31929369]Ron Paul 2012[/QUOTE]
No thank you. I like my public schools and Social Security and Welfare.
I'm packing my bags for Canada just in case.
Ron Paul 2012!
It would be epic, Obama debating with the incorruptible Paul. It might bring out a little honesty from Obama.
Honestly, no one is really doing a fabulous job in the politics at the moment. But god dammit if I'm going to see someone like Michelle Bachmann go into office.
If these are the candidates, then keep Obama in office.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;31929416]It would be epic, Obama debating with the incorruptible Paul. It might bring out a little honesty from Obama.[/QUOTE]
This was one thought I had. A Paul-Obama debate might do Obama some good, but other than that I really don't care for Ron Paul.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31929369]Ron Paul 2012[/QUOTE]
no thanks
I'd rather not have a president who's against civil rights, gay marriage, etc.
Jesus OP that title almost gave me a heart attack because I read it wrong.
Good, lets hope one of them beats him.
[QUOTE=JDK721;31929430]no thanks
I'd rather not have a president who's against civil rights, gay marriage, etc.[/QUOTE]
[I]"Oh but he's not against them, those are for the states to decide!"[/I]
[editline]24th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE='[sluggo];31929449']Good, [B]lets[/B] hope one of them beats him.[/QUOTE]
How about no.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31929390]No thank you. I like my public schools and Social Security and Welfare.[/QUOTE]
He wouldn't get rid of those as he's said in just about every interview, but he would allow people to opt out. The people still dependent on the services would still receive them if he were president and he's made this point.
I didn't like Obama as a president and Ron Paul seems like the only decent other choice.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31929369]Ron Paul 2012[/QUOTE]
Fuck that, Mitt Romney, he's the only one who understands that insanity does not mean you'll get elected.
[QUOTE=Pepin;31929471]He wouldn't get rid of those as he's said in just about every interview, but he would allow people to opt out. The people still dependent on the services would still receive them if he were president and he's made this point.[/QUOTE]
But that's just it. If you allow the people who can afford private schools/healthcare/living expenses to opt out of these programs, it undermines the success of all of them. Schools in particular are already low on funding, they don't need less money.
[QUOTE=JDK721;31929430]no thanks
I'd rather not have a president who's against civil rights, gay marriage, etc.[/QUOTE]
That couldn't be more opposite than the truth. As far as gay marriage, he supports contract laws, the government having no ability to tell you who can make a contract with. He says it should be a private issue, not a public one. You really don't have anything to back up the civil rights unless you're going to make that argument that people keep making, that by supporting states rights he supports what the state does. Similar to saying that if you support free speech, you support what the person says.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31929510]But that's just it. If you allow the people who can afford private schools/healthcare/living expenses to opt out of these programs, it undermines the success of all of them. Schools in particular are already low on funding, they don't need less money.[/QUOTE]
Success? They are all failures. Without incentive for competition, schools are never going to get any better, which is a large reason why results have remained stagnant regardless of large increases in funding. School vouchers would give the biggest ability to the people who couldn't afford private school without the voucher, and further more, if the market for private schools expanded they'd compete on price allowing a good education for cheaper price than you'd get than under the public system. That's a topic that could get drawn out a while. Anyway, here's a chart.
[IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/2wgrxba.png[/IMG]
Social security is huge failure in that it pays out far less than you pay in or than of that you'd receive and it's entire funding is based upon a ponzi scheme. I suppose the only real distinction you can make is that a ponzi scheme is voluntary. If you were to legitimately save for yourself, you'd get a far greater return, and worse, the institution of social security has given people the idea that they don't have to save for retirement. Also, there is no social security fund, unless you consider the money the government it owes itself to be money.
Better yet, instead of having all these different programs that have money for specific causes, why not just give people money and have them spend it on what they want?
[QUOTE=Swilly;31929492]Fuck that, Mitt Romney, he's the only one who understands that insanity does not mean you'll get elected.[/QUOTE]
Mitt Romney is essentially a corporate robot, I'd prefer Jon Huntsman to him.
[QUOTE=JDK721;31929430]no thanks
I'd rather not have a president who's against civil rights, gay marriage, etc.[/QUOTE]
Stuff like that's not really a deciding factor for me because with all the big problems we're having, I doubt a pro gay marriage president would even do anything to support it.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;31929532]Stuff like that's not really a deciding factor for me because with all the big problems we're having, I doubt a pro gay marriage president would even do anything to support it.[/QUOTE]
Even his more minor economic policy of let states decide/opt out nonsense is awful:
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31929510]But that's just it. If you allow the people who can afford private schools/healthcare/living expenses to opt out of these programs, it undermines the success of all of them. Schools in particular are already low on funding, they don't need less money.[/QUOTE]
Zombie FDR 2012
i think the reason everyone on facepunch loves ron paul so much is because most facepunchers are under the age of 20 and ron paul reminds them of their grandpa.
Yeah I'm going to Mexico if Bachmann or Perry get the job.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31929577]i think everyone on facepunch loves ron paul so much is because most facepunchers are under the age of 20 and ron paul reminds them of their grandpa.[/QUOTE]
I am in fact 21, soon to be 22.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31929577]i think everyone on facepunch loves ron paul so much is because most facepunchers are under the age of 20 and ron paul reminds them of their grandpa.[/QUOTE]
Hahaha, what?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31929585]Hahaha, what?[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQQIqOwjqac[/media]
doesnt he look like such a happy nice grandpa? its like all throughout the interview im expecting him to pull a quarter or piece of candy out of my ear and hand it to me.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31929608][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQQIqOwjqac[/media]
doesnt he look like such a happy nice grandpa? its like all throughout the interview im expecting him to pull a quarter or piece of candy out of my ear and hand it to me.[/QUOTE]
Republican candidates are always grandpas
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
