US Elections 2012 Obama v Romney Official Thread
Discussion
The FOX poll is interesting actually. It must have been slanted towards republicans as it showed Obama up by only +89 with African American voters and we all know he's actually polling close to 100% in that demographic everywhere else.
Other interesting findings from the FOX poll are that;
Obama is +15 points when asked who voters trust on foreign policy
Obama is +3 points on the economy
Obama is +14 points on education
Obama is +11 when asked who is more honest
Obama is +10 points when asked who would be a steady leader
Obama is +7 points on experience
Obama is +7 points amongst voters who think that the economy is the biggest issue
Obama is +7 points when voters are asked if the country is going in the right direction
Obama is +8 points on handling of terrorism
Obama is +9 points on healthcare
Obama is +14 points with women voters
All that from a poll from a far right leaning organisation speaks volumes.
Other interesting findings from the FOX poll are that;
Obama is +15 points when asked who voters trust on foreign policy
Obama is +3 points on the economy
Obama is +14 points on education
Obama is +11 when asked who is more honest
Obama is +10 points when asked who would be a steady leader
Obama is +7 points on experience
Obama is +7 points amongst voters who think that the economy is the biggest issue
Obama is +7 points when voters are asked if the country is going in the right direction
Obama is +8 points on handling of terrorism
Obama is +9 points on healthcare
Obama is +14 points with women voters
All that from a poll from a far right leaning organisation speaks volumes.
stevejh said:
So that Fox News poll is actually showing a bias in favour of Obama. I always thought Fox were biased. 
In all seriousness it just shows how little value you can attribute to these polls until the poll that really counts in November.
Yeah FOX are staunchly pro Obama. In all seriousness it just shows how little value you can attribute to these polls until the poll that really counts in November.
The polls all show one trend - Obama is pulling away, the RCP poll page is now all blue. Given Romney's lamentable performance over the past 2 days I would expect to see the margin increase. He's looking more like a desperate man every day and the right wing commentators have already begun to try and tell their followers that they need to ignore Romney and use their vote as a vote against Obama, rather than a vote for the GOP candidate.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/presi...
Some of us look at the polls from respected pollsters and listen to respected commentators, some choose to grasp at straws and cling to spurious right wing blogs for some reason. For those of us actually iving in the US there is no doubt that Obama is ahead and has the momentum. That may change but given the quality of the republican nominee it is looking increasingly unlikely.
For those of us actually iving in the US there is no doubt that Obama is ahead and has the momentum. That may change but given the quality of the republican nominee it is looking increasingly unlikely.In fairness the polls probably are behind the curve and Obama is probably much further ahead. I was just reminded that the under 30's generally don't answer calls from unknown numbers and therefore they are probably disproportionately under represented in all the polls. And as we all know they vote democrat by a big margin.
I'm revising my general election forecast of Obama by 6 to Obama by 7-8.
I'm revising my general election forecast of Obama by 6 to Obama by 7-8.
Good analysis here of Romney's huge gaffe yesterday;
"For people who are running for president, this is a test where people evaluate their mettle as commander in chief, and the Romney campaign put out a statement before the facts were in that politicized the matter and gratuitously attacked the administration for something they did not do. The decision to double down on the initial mistake has put them into a potentially very dangerous political situation. During a foreign policy crisis, you can't build a position on a foundation of politics. … The situation remains serious, it's volatile and Romney is appearing to be very political."
That's from Steve Schmidt, head of John McCain's 2008 bid and a prominent republican commentator.
"For people who are running for president, this is a test where people evaluate their mettle as commander in chief, and the Romney campaign put out a statement before the facts were in that politicized the matter and gratuitously attacked the administration for something they did not do. The decision to double down on the initial mistake has put them into a potentially very dangerous political situation. During a foreign policy crisis, you can't build a position on a foundation of politics. … The situation remains serious, it's volatile and Romney is appearing to be very political."
That's from Steve Schmidt, head of John McCain's 2008 bid and a prominent republican commentator.
It's interesting to see the panic really setting in now as the polls move away from the GOP and their candidate starts to look exposed. Laura Ingram, a prominent "conservative" radio host said that if Romney can't beat Obama the republican party should be "shut down", Limbaugh is reduced to effectively saying "look we know Romney's a crap candidate but vote against Obama, not for him".
It's going to get a lot worse............
It's going to get a lot worse............
Republicans seem to agree that Romney screwed up over the Libyan tragedy;
Tom Ridge said:
"I don't think President Obama sympathizes with those who attacked us. I don't think any American does."
John Sununu said:
"The campaign probably should have waited" to issue its response"
John McCain said:
"Hillary Clinton adopted the right message and tone."
Steve Schmidt said:
"Mistakes like this happen when a campaign begins to feel under pressure. The Democrats had a more successful convention, the president's opened up a lead in the polls, there's been a lot of criticism by conservative commentators about campaign strategy. … They acted too quickly, too rashly, too politically—looking obviously for a way to change the narrative, the dynamic in the race."
etc.. plus loads of anonymous republicans - exampleVery senior Romney foreign policy hand said:
"It's Romney's "Lehman" moment"—a reference to McCain's bungling of the looming financial crisis during the 2008 campaign.
Good article from John Avlon;
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/opinion/avlon-romney...
Pretty much sums it up;
"But in the hours after the death of the first U.S. ambassador killed in decades, Mitt Romney -- panicked as his poll numbers have slipped -- punched hard against the president, unleashing an unwise, inaccurate and un-presidential attack on the Obama administration".
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/opinion/avlon-romney...
Pretty much sums it up;
"But in the hours after the death of the first U.S. ambassador killed in decades, Mitt Romney -- panicked as his poll numbers have slipped -- punched hard against the president, unleashing an unwise, inaccurate and un-presidential attack on the Obama administration".
Pennsylvania voter ID law is before the state supreme court today and the South Carolina law goes before a federal court. It's important that these laws are struck down to ensure that the result of the election is fair and that the democratic right to vote is preserved for all. The state of Pennsylvania itself estimates that 758,000 of it's voters lack the correct id to vote.
Analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's law school found that 11 percent of Americans lack a government-issued photo ID such as a passport, driver's license, state ID card or military ID. However that figure rises to 25% amongst African Americans and 16 percent amongst Hispanics.
Analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's law school found that 11 percent of Americans lack a government-issued photo ID such as a passport, driver's license, state ID card or military ID. However that figure rises to 25% amongst African Americans and 16 percent amongst Hispanics.
Respected republican senator Dan Coates (who is also a former ambassador under GWB) has joned the chorus of senior republicans criticizing Romney's "knee jerk" reaction to the Libyan tragedy.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/go...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/go...
rohrl said:
All the other prominent Republicans listed must think Romney got it wrong or else they wouldn't have said anything about it. I doubt they were all hanging about looking for the perfect opportunity to have a go at Romney. Basically everyone's saying that Romney was too quick to criticise based on partial information.
Romney took a message that was sent out of the Egyptian embassy PRIOR to any attack on either embassy and attempted to make political capital out of it by claiming that it came from Obama (a lie) and that it was in response to the attacks (a lie). The following morning, even after he knew the facts, he doubled down on his ludicrous initial statement. That and his dismissal of US troops in a war zone as "unimportant" alone make him unfit for office. Brilliant piece by Daniel Kurtzer, ex US Ambassador to Cairo and Tel-Aviv
Daniel Kurtzer said:
Some years ago, while on a trans-Atlantic flight, I was reading a thriller novel when I came across a stunning passage: the American ambassador in Cairo was assassinated by the villains in the novel. What was so disconcerting personally was that I was the American ambassador at that time!
The novel got me thinking about the day after such an assassination: that is, the reactions of family, friends, colleagues and American government. Surely, there would be favorable obituaries and fond remembrances. There would be outrage over the murder and calls for bringing the perpetrators to justice. Over time, the personal sense of loss among family members would linger, while the professional friends would naturally move on.
These ruminations of long ago came back to me upon hearing the news of the assassination of Chris Stevens and three of his colleagues in Benghazi at the hands of heavily armed militants. This was an act of terrorism — horrific, inexcusable, intolerable assaults against a prominent diplomat — and a message to all Americans. Chris was a first-rate diplomat, who many of us of a certain age knew would be the “next generation” of our diplomatic leaders. His death stings us all.
Today is the day after his assassination. Besides the outpouring of emotions from family and friends, we also hear from our leaders and from editorialists about the need for resolve and steadfastness against terrorism. This is, of course, right, as are the calls for bringing the perpetrators to justice. Our diplomats and our embassies cannot become targets of choice for fanatics of any stripe.
But, on this day after, we are also hearing the voices of apologists, accusers and political gamesters, those who are intent on exploiting these acts of terrorism to advance narrow agendas. The apologists trot out familiar, offensive arguments that seek to blame us: they say that Muslims have a right to feel offended because of American attitudes or American policy, or because of a racist pastor in Florida who burns Qurans, or because of a hate-spewing filmmaker. This is a classic case of blaming the victim, and it reveals a measure of self-hate that is unflattering to those who make these arguments.
The accusers blame all Muslims for terrorism. They quote selectively from the Quran to “prove” that all Muslims are liars, murderers or deceivers. They seek to create a wedge between a self-proclaimed Christian United States or Europe and the Muslim hordes who are seen as waiting at the gates of Vienna to overrun the West. This is a case of the accusers trying to foment a civilizational clash that Christians, Jews and Muslims all reject and fear.
And then there are the political gamesters, trying to gain an advantage during this American political season. They are quick to blame the administration for what it says, does or doesn’t do. They miss the point, of course, by turning the “us-them” struggle against terrorism into an “us-them” struggle against the opposite political party.
The apologists, the accusers and the political gamesters are the last people we should listen to for answers at a time like this. The reality is that some militant fanatics decided to attack American government facilities, planned and bided their time, and carried out their act of terrorism on the anniversary of 9/11. They chose a pretext — a bigoted anti-Muslim film — to “justify” their action, just as fanatics have done in the past. They deserve no understanding on our part; they do not represent all Muslims, and they certainly do not deserve the political satisfaction of dividing Americans further from each other, widening the divide in an already dangerously polarized American society. If we allow this to happen — if we allow the apologists, the accusers, and the politicians to define what happened in Benghazi, Cairo or Sanaa according to their own narrow agendas — we will give the terrorists a political victory they do not deserve.
It is instead a moment to unite behind our government as we mourn the victims and stand up for our diplomats serving abroad. It is a time to join together to try to understand a region where long-held assumptions — assumptions that have been shared and have guided the policies of Republicans and Democrats alike — have been shattered.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got it right when she said the attack in Libya was perpetrated by a small and savage group, not by the Libyan government. We should expect that government, as well as the Egyptian and Yemeni governments, to search for, apprehend and punish those responsible for these heinous crimes against our diplomats and our embassies. We should work with them as they do so. This is the American way of pursuing justice for those who attack us.
The novel got me thinking about the day after such an assassination: that is, the reactions of family, friends, colleagues and American government. Surely, there would be favorable obituaries and fond remembrances. There would be outrage over the murder and calls for bringing the perpetrators to justice. Over time, the personal sense of loss among family members would linger, while the professional friends would naturally move on.
These ruminations of long ago came back to me upon hearing the news of the assassination of Chris Stevens and three of his colleagues in Benghazi at the hands of heavily armed militants. This was an act of terrorism — horrific, inexcusable, intolerable assaults against a prominent diplomat — and a message to all Americans. Chris was a first-rate diplomat, who many of us of a certain age knew would be the “next generation” of our diplomatic leaders. His death stings us all.
Today is the day after his assassination. Besides the outpouring of emotions from family and friends, we also hear from our leaders and from editorialists about the need for resolve and steadfastness against terrorism. This is, of course, right, as are the calls for bringing the perpetrators to justice. Our diplomats and our embassies cannot become targets of choice for fanatics of any stripe.
But, on this day after, we are also hearing the voices of apologists, accusers and political gamesters, those who are intent on exploiting these acts of terrorism to advance narrow agendas. The apologists trot out familiar, offensive arguments that seek to blame us: they say that Muslims have a right to feel offended because of American attitudes or American policy, or because of a racist pastor in Florida who burns Qurans, or because of a hate-spewing filmmaker. This is a classic case of blaming the victim, and it reveals a measure of self-hate that is unflattering to those who make these arguments.
The accusers blame all Muslims for terrorism. They quote selectively from the Quran to “prove” that all Muslims are liars, murderers or deceivers. They seek to create a wedge between a self-proclaimed Christian United States or Europe and the Muslim hordes who are seen as waiting at the gates of Vienna to overrun the West. This is a case of the accusers trying to foment a civilizational clash that Christians, Jews and Muslims all reject and fear.
And then there are the political gamesters, trying to gain an advantage during this American political season. They are quick to blame the administration for what it says, does or doesn’t do. They miss the point, of course, by turning the “us-them” struggle against terrorism into an “us-them” struggle against the opposite political party.
The apologists, the accusers and the political gamesters are the last people we should listen to for answers at a time like this. The reality is that some militant fanatics decided to attack American government facilities, planned and bided their time, and carried out their act of terrorism on the anniversary of 9/11. They chose a pretext — a bigoted anti-Muslim film — to “justify” their action, just as fanatics have done in the past. They deserve no understanding on our part; they do not represent all Muslims, and they certainly do not deserve the political satisfaction of dividing Americans further from each other, widening the divide in an already dangerously polarized American society. If we allow this to happen — if we allow the apologists, the accusers, and the politicians to define what happened in Benghazi, Cairo or Sanaa according to their own narrow agendas — we will give the terrorists a political victory they do not deserve.
It is instead a moment to unite behind our government as we mourn the victims and stand up for our diplomats serving abroad. It is a time to join together to try to understand a region where long-held assumptions — assumptions that have been shared and have guided the policies of Republicans and Democrats alike — have been shattered.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got it right when she said the attack in Libya was perpetrated by a small and savage group, not by the Libyan government. We should expect that government, as well as the Egyptian and Yemeni governments, to search for, apprehend and punish those responsible for these heinous crimes against our diplomats and our embassies. We should work with them as they do so. This is the American way of pursuing justice for those who attack us.
That voice of reason Rand Paul says cut all aid to Libya and Egypt in the wake of attacks. Good idea Rand, because the "people of Libya and Egypt" were responsible weren't they? Did Rand propose removing funding from Oklahoma after the bombing of the Alfred P Murrah building? Perhaps the British should have subjected the people of Belfast to sanctions after the Birmingham and Guildford bombings? At least John McCain has once again demonstrated his statesmanship by blasting Paul.
http://wkyufm.org/post/sen-paul-cut-all-us-foreign...
http://wkyufm.org/post/sen-paul-cut-all-us-foreign...
Good article in the LA Times ridiculing the moronic but highly popular amongst republicans Rush Limbaugh.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rush-li...
I love the last line - "It's grand living in a fact-averse world". Could just as well describe the whole Romyan campaign as the lunatic postulating of their man Rush.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rush-li...
I love the last line - "It's grand living in a fact-averse world". Could just as well describe the whole Romyan campaign as the lunatic postulating of their man Rush.
- I caught 5 minutes of Limbaugh's rant, sorry show, today. He was foaming at the mouth as usual as he opined that Obama was responsible for the attack on the consulate by having the audacity to .......... kill Osama Bin Laden! You couldn't make up the bilge that guy spews but it doesn't stop his huge and rabid regular audience of republican whackjobs from hanging on his every word!
Mermaid said:
NIce one. Would any country want Romney as their foreign secretary? And is that the issue - i.e. foreign policy does not matter to Republicans.
Given his response to the tragedy in Libya I find it very disquieting that Romney is now to receive security briefings. I know that it's protocol at this stage but I hope they are extremely circumspect with what they let old "shoot first, aim later" Romney see.
It's interesting to compare Romney's response with how the 1980 Republican candidates for president reacted when Jimmy Carter's attempt to end the Iran hostage crisis went awry.
When details of the failed raid became known Ronald Reagan said, "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united."
George H.W. Bush said he "unequivocally" supported Carter and it wasn't a time to "try to go one-up politically."
Mitt Romney could learn a lot from a history lesson and a reflection on how real statesmen behave at times like this.
When details of the failed raid became known Ronald Reagan said, "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united."
George H.W. Bush said he "unequivocally" supported Carter and it wasn't a time to "try to go one-up politically."
Mitt Romney could learn a lot from a history lesson and a reflection on how real statesmen behave at times like this.
Good article with sound perspective on the controversial Romney comments. Particularly notable is the passage referencing the Bush Govt. response to the "cartoon" incident in 2006 and it's similarity to the statement put out by the US embassy in Cairo relating to the vile little film. (The statement old kneejerk objected to).
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-13/to-be-pre...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-13/to-be-pre...
It's boring when people keep repeating lies instead of listening to the truth. Netenyahu was not snubbed as the White House made clear and as was posted here previously. If certain posters wish to merely repeat parrot fashion what they hear on the Rush Limbaugh show it really gets lame.
White House spokesperson said:
“Contrary to reports in the press, there was never a request for Prime Minister Netanyahu to meet with President Obama in Washington, nor was a request for a meeting ever denied.”
Countdown said:
Jimbeaux said:
unrepentant said:
It's interesting to compare Romney's response with how the 1980 Republican candidates for president reacted when Jimmy Carter's attempt to end the Iran hostage crisis went awry.
When details of the failed raid became known Ronald Reagan said, "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united."
George H.W. Bush said he "unequivocally" supported Carter and it wasn't a time to "try to go one-up politically."
Mitt Romney could learn a lot from a history lesson and a reflection on how real statesmen behave at times like this.
If Obama tried a similar military op that went awry, Romney would do as Reagan. Plain incompetence deserves criticism.When details of the failed raid became known Ronald Reagan said, "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united."
George H.W. Bush said he "unequivocally" supported Carter and it wasn't a time to "try to go one-up politically."
Mitt Romney could learn a lot from a history lesson and a reflection on how real statesmen behave at times like this.
Romney's actions were beyond the pale and utterly uneducated and classless. Reagan and GHWB would never have been so crass, nor would John McCain (as he was pretty quick to make clear!).Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff