Obama vs Romney - Polling

[RoyalShock]

I like Ron Paul. That said, he can do NOTHING in this election other than to "Ross Perot" Obama to reelection. How can any _Republican_ not appreciate and respect that? I understand a _Libertarian_ being upset but it's not their party.

Ron lost, Romney won. And the single most important thing right now is shutting down Obama. Get Mr. Moderate Romney elected, then let Mr. Ryan have his day in the sun.

When is the last time a VP "had his day in the sun" while serving as VP? What about former VPs? GHWB rode Reagan to the White House, but was the only POTUS since the worst in recent history (Carter) to not get re-elected. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of former VPs.

[Kung Wu]

When is the last time a VP "had his day in the sun" while serving as VP? What about former VPs? GHWB rode Reagan to the White House, but was the only POTUS since the worst in recent history (Carter) to not get re-elected. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of former VPs.

Ryan ain't no George H.W. Bush (thank God).

What's the alternative? I hope you don't think giving an avowed socialist four more years with consequence-less executive order priveleges would be better than electing a moderate Republican. But if you do, you do.

[SB Shock]

Capture.JPG

well the Romney bounce didn't stick much.

[pinstripers]

http://news.yahoo.com/u-no-block-israel-iran-netanyahu-161058318.html

this will help Romney in Florida

[shox1989]

Ryan ain't no George H.W. Bush (thank God).

What's the alternative? I hope you don't think giving an avowed socialist four more years with consequence-less executive order priveleges would be better than electing a moderate Republican. But if you do, you do.

Actually I do think re-electing Obama would be better than electing Romney. Romney would in all likely hood greatly increase the deficit and set the Republican party back, causing the Democrats to take control of the House, Senate and win back the white house in 2016. I would rather have Obama kept in check by a Republican congress, let him take the blame for the deficits and look forward to electing a better Republican in 2016.


I really don't think the deficit would be much different in 2016 regardless of who wins. In fact, it would probably be lower if Obama wins because he isn't talking about $5 trillion in additional tax cuts and $2 trillion in additional defense spending.

[WuDrWu]

I hate to admit it, but being in control of congress this last round allowed the GOP to redistrict which might protect Congress from the libs for quite some time, barring awful stewardship by the right (certainly no guarantees there).

[wu_shizzle]

Obama may have the chance to put 1-2 more Supreme Court Justices on the bench, that is not acceptable.

[Capitol Shock II]

There are no good reasons to re elect Obama. Period.

[shox1989]

Obama may have the chance to put 1-2 more Supreme Court Justices on the bench, that is not acceptable.

As long as he is just replacing liberals it really doesn't change things. And it appears most likely that only liberals would retire during the next 4 years if Obama is re-elected.

[wu_shizzle]

As long as he is just replacing liberals it really doesn't change things. And it appears most likely that only liberals would retire during the next 4 years if Obama is re-elected.

RBG should be the first to retire, but Scalia and Kennedy are both 76 years old.

[Capitol Shock II]

If Obama is elected for another term we won't have a Supreme Court.

[SB Shock]

Capture.JPG

[SB Shock]

Capture.JPG

Obama "bump" looks to have peaked. Will be interesting to see what the Middle East crisis does now to him - especially with the news coming out that the administration had 48 hours of warning, Obama being a no-show at National Security briefings and Ambassadors refusing to allow the Embassy Marines to carry live ammo.

[1979Shocker]

It looks like the drop for Obama went back to Undecided.

[kcshocker11]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]443[/ATTACH]

Obama "bump" looks to have peaked. Will be interesting to see what the Middle East crisis does now to him - especially with the news coming out that the administration had 48 hours of warning, Obama being a no-show at National Security briefings and Ambassadors refusing to allow the Embassy Marines to carry live ammo.

No credible source of 48 hr warnings(There were no specific warnings) ,only extreme rightwing internet sites. National security briefing were done daily by electronic pad not in person, and guards were allowed to carry ammo.

Update, Thursday, September 13, 2:30 p.m. PDT: Mother Jones has obtained a memorandum from the Marine Corps' congressional liaison confirming that the Marine guards at the embassy in Egypt were in fact armed with live ammunition, contrary to the anti-Obama conspiracy theory du jour:

The Ambassador did not impose restrictions on weapons or weapons status on the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group (MCESG) detachment. The MCESG Marines in Cairo were allowed to have live ammunition in their weapons. The Ambassador and Regional Security Officer have been completely and appropriately engaged with the security situation. Reports of Marines not being able to have their weapons loaded per direction from the Ambassador are not accurate.

http://news.yahoo.com/president-obama-skipping-intelligence-briefings-014857532--abc-news-politics.html

While his predecessor might have preferred an oral daily briefing, Obama religiously reads a written version of the same prepared material, often on a secure iPad (as seen in this official White HousePHOTO ). He often receives an in-person briefing in addition, aides note, as well as real-time national security updates during the day, both in the office and on the road.

The 48 hour quote comes from a British newspaper the Independant which has been denied by the State Dept.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-intelligence-agencies-didnt-issue-high-alert-mideast-001709694.html

One official, who like the others spoke on condition of anonymity, said there was at least one specific warning about possible unrest in the region that was circulated within the government, but was not so alarming as to lead to a major upgrade in security for a possible emergency.
The lack of a major upgrade in precautions may show how difficult it is for officials to assess threats that first emerge on social media. The threats can seemingly come out of nowhere and gather strength rapidly.

"The number of potentially inflammatory things that are said or broadcast every week (is so large) ... that warning about all of them would be useless," said Paul Pillar, former top U.S. intelligence analyst for the Middle East and South Asia. It was "impossible to predict" the kind of violent reaction that occurred in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere.
One U.S. official said, "You can't freak out on everything that's broadcast."
That official and others said the airwaves and Internet were filled with hateful material and U.S. authorities could be "crying wolf" if they issued a warning every time an anti-Islamic broadside was aired or posted online.
A senior congressional official said the question of what the United States knew about pre-September 11, 2012, threats and what it did about them would likely be examined in legislative inquiries into the Libyan and Egyptian violence.
Another aide indicated it would be difficult to fault U.S. agencies on the issue.