PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Good economic news brightens Obama’s re-election prospects



RedGrouse
02-15-2012, 06:01 PM
Poll: Good economic news brightens Obama’s re-election prospects
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-good-economic-news-brightens-obama-election-prospects-171421056.html

I call BS on this poll. The economy is weak and gas prices are going up. How is that recovery?

Chuck58
02-15-2012, 06:21 PM
Poll: Good economic news brightens Obama’s re-election prospects
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-good-economic-news-brightens-obama-election-prospects-171421056.html

I call BS on this poll. The economy is weak and gas prices are going up. How is that recovery?

What good economic news? Have any of those people been grocery shopping lately? Not much good news in a supermarket.

Have they been to the gas pump? Not much good news there.

Have they looked at the real unemployment numbers? Unless people no longer on unemployment are counted as working, no good news there either.

The American public had better wake up, or get their heads out of the sand and start taking a serious look at the problem. If they don't, we might not have to think about the 2016 election, because it won't matter.

Rockntractor
02-15-2012, 08:44 PM
President Barack Obama launched his latest cross-country trawl for campaign cash Wednesday at an auspicious moment -- as his approval rating hit the crucial 50 percent barrier in two new polls.

There were also signs that strengthening jobs growth and a quickening recovery were improving his standing in several key states the president will need to capture if he is to win reelection in November.

While the news is not all good for Obama -- his economic management still gets low marks from voters -- the poll and other recent surveys suggest prospective Republican challengers are less popular than the president.

A New York Times/CBS News poll pegged Obama's job rating at exactly 50 percent -- a key point, as history shows presidents at that level have a much higher change of reelection than those struggling to reach the plateau.

A CNN/ORC poll had Obama at an identical 50 percent approval rating.

Obama reached the magic threshold nearly two weeks after the release of latest unemployment data which showed that the jobless rate dipped to 8.3 percent in January, the best mark since the start of his presidency.

The stock market has been booming and the latest data on the US manufacturing sector on Wednesday showed companies picking up the pace, all of which are likely contributing to improving voter sentiment.

Yet despite upbeat news, the White House has warned that one good set of economic indicators is not conclusive, and there is concern that the economy could slow or the jobless rate could rise as the election draws closer.

And outside shocks, like a worsening European debt crisis or a military confrontation with Iran, which could send oil prices soaring and hit economic and jobs growth, have the potential to darken Obama's prospects of reelection.

The Times/CBS poll also contains encouraging news for the president as he plots matchups with potential opponents.

Mitt Romney comes the closest of Obama's possible general election foes to beating him, trailing the president by 48 to 42 percent.

Obama meanwhile leads surging Republican candidate Rick Santorum by 49 percent to 41 percent.

However, there were warning signs for Obama in the survey. Fifty percent of those asked said that they still disapproved of his management of the economy, compared to 44 percent who approved.

The trend line however, appears to be working in the president's favor: in December last year, 60 percent disapproved of Obama's economic management.

In key midwestern industrial states hit hard by the economic crisis, Obama also appears to be in better shape, according to several new polls.

In a new Quinnipiac University poll of Ohio released on Wednesday, he led Romney by two percentage points, 46 percent to 44 percent.

And in a new Public Policy Polling survey of Michigan, Romney's native state, Obama led the Republican front runner by 54 to 38 percent.

Obama on Wednesday left Washington and embarked on a three-day cross country trip mixing political and fundraising events linked to his reelection campaign with what are termed official events as part of his presidential duties.

His first stop was at a padlock manufacturing plant in the key swing-state of Wisconsin, where he touted plans to return US jobs lost to low-wage economies overseas.

He will also visit Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle, on a trip that will include eight fundraisers designed to raise millions of dollars for the president's campaign fund, before returning to the White House on Friday.http://news.yahoo.com/obama-rides-west-poll-boost-213845475.html

Rockntractor
02-15-2012, 09:19 PM
Okay, I'm sorry libs but this just ain't happenin.
Newt Gingrich will continue to Help whats his name by chewing on Romney here and there, he will then at a strategic time bow out of the race and throw his support to whats his name and whats his name will beat Romney.
Obama will continue to enrage Catholics and evangelicals and they will show up in November in numbers never before seen to vote for whats his name.
Obama will have to take his bling and his muzzle loader and move on down from the east side .
We will then put Nova and Arroyo in a camp and they can take turns dropping the soap and all will be happy!:)

SaintLouieWoman
02-16-2012, 12:12 AM
Okay, I'm sorry libs but this just ain't happenin.
Newt Gingrich will continue to Help whats his name by chewing on Romney here and there, he will then at a strategic time bow out of the race and throw his support to whats his name and whats his name will beat Romney.
Obama will continue to enrage Catholics and evangelicals and they will show up in November in numbers never before seen to vote for whats his name.
Obama will have to take his bling and his muzzle loader and move on down from the east side .
We will then put Nova and Arroyo in a camp and they can take turns dropping the soap and all will be happy!:)

Hope you're right.

Hawkgirl
02-16-2012, 01:11 AM
Poll: Good economic news brightens Obama’s re-election prospects
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-good-economic-news-brightens-obama-election-prospects-171421056.html

I call BS on this poll. The economy is weak and gas prices are going up. How is that recovery?


Yes, gas went up more than 30cents/gallon since Christmas time....and not a peep from the libtard media:mad:

fettpett
02-16-2012, 08:22 AM
Yes, gas went up more than 30cents/gallon since Christmas time....and not a peep from the libtard media:mad:

yet every time it went up so much as a nickle under Bush, they were screaming "TEH END IS NEIGH!!" crap

Bailey
02-16-2012, 08:52 AM
And if the news isn't good, the MSM will fabricate it.

BadCat
02-16-2012, 09:03 AM
"The economy is improving" is the new talking point of the socialists and their media supporters. I heard it at least 20 times on the news yesterday, from various moonbat talking heads.

Unfortunately for them, real people know it's not improving, and may be getting worse.

Odysseus
02-16-2012, 09:21 AM
Poll: Good economic news brightens Obama’s re-election prospects
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-good-economic-news-brightens-obama-election-prospects-171421056.html

I call BS on this poll. The economy is weak and gas prices are going up. How is that recovery?

The economy isn't improving, but the Executive Branch is claiming that it is. The job participation rate is at its lowest in thirty years, but because the job market has discouraged so many people from looking, they can claim that the unemployment rate has dropped. It's utter BS, but the media is spreading it thick.

Janice
02-16-2012, 09:21 AM
Just another NYSlimes Poll meant to generate news or a headline where none exists. The Washington Com-Post, New York Slimes, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MS-LSD, LA Slimes. They're all oriented toward two things: advancing the Democrat Party and whoever runs it -- in this case, Barack Obama -- and, at the same time, defeating, embarrassing and humiliating Republicans and conservatives. It'll be a full court press as the elections near. So who you gonna believe -- your lying eyes, or the democrat media.

BadCat
02-16-2012, 09:45 AM
The commies are fervent believers that if you say something enough, it magically becomes the truth.

AmPat
02-16-2012, 11:30 AM
Why aren't the usual libertardians in here making up excuses as to why these lies are actually true if you disregard a few facts? I worry for them. Should we send somebody to check on them?:confused:

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 11:53 PM
Just another NYSlimes Poll meant to generate news or a headline where none exists. The Washington Com-Post, New York Slimes, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MS-LSD, LA Slimes. They're all oriented toward two things: advancing the Democrat Party and whoever runs it -- in this case, Barack Obama -- and, at the same time, defeating, embarrassing and humiliating Republicans and conservatives. It'll be a full court press as the elections near. So who you gonna believe -- your lying eyes, or the democrat media.

I need something explained.

If A: The NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and the rest of the corporate news networks are owned and operated by extremely wealthy private interests.
and B: Obama and the Democrats are wealthy-hating socialists who want to confiscate money from the rich and destroy the economy.
Then how on earth does it follow that C: all of these wealthy private corporate networks are interested in supporting Obama and the Democrats?

If A and B are true, then C does not follow.

Someone help me out.

Why would a group of extremely wealthy private corporations support a radical socialist who hates the rich and wants to confiscate everything from them?

Apocalypse
02-20-2012, 12:14 AM
I need something explained.

If A: The NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and the rest of the corporate news networks are owned and operated by extremely wealthy private interests.
and B: Obama and the Democrats are wealthy-hating socialists who want to confiscate money from the rich and destroy the economy.
Then how on earth does it follow that C: all of these wealthy private corporate networks are interested in supporting Obama and the Democrats?

If A and B are true, then C does not follow.

Someone help me out.

Why would a group of extremely wealthy private corporations support a radical socialist who hates the rich and wants to confiscate everything from them?

Several reasons Wei.

One they are all rabid liberals them selves who believe in the same as Obama. Look at Obama him self, he's rich as hell, yet he demonizes rich people. Why would he demonize him self?

Plus many of those liberal elites believe they will be exempt because of loopholes put in place for their support. Look at the unions and their support of Obamacare. A bill that should have taxed the hell out of them because of their high end bennies. But thanks to loopholes and exemptions handed down from the admin for their support, they are not paying what the law says they should.

And last I checked, NYT's isn't wealthy. Infact I can buy their stock cheaper then a roll of TP.
MSNBC to put it by a liberal mag. about them, "Only watched because you can't find the remote".
CNN is barely staying above cspan.
ABC, are they even doing actual news any more? Its bad when Nielson doesn't even rank them.
CBS is stuck in the '60s.

Apache
02-20-2012, 12:27 AM
I need something explained.

If A: The NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and the rest of the corporate news networks are owned and operated by extremely wealthy private interests.
and B: Obama and the Democrats are wealthy-hating socialists who want to confiscate money from the rich and destroy the economy.
Then how on earth does it follow that C: all of these wealthy private corporate networks are interested in supporting Obama and the Democrats?

If A and B are true, then C does not follow.

Someone help me out.

Why would a group of extremely wealthy private corporations support a radical socialist who hates the rich and wants to confiscate everything from them?

The word you are looking for is...
hy·poc·ri·sy/hiˈpäkrisē/




Noun:




The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.







Synonyms:


cant - dissimulation - double-dealing - insincerity

Starbuck
02-20-2012, 12:31 AM
I need something explained.

If A: The NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and the rest of the corporate news networks are owned and operated by extremely wealthy private interests.
and B: Obama and the Democrats are wealthy-hating socialists who want to confiscate money from the rich and destroy the economy.
Then how on earth does it follow that C: all of these wealthy private corporate networks are interested in supporting Obama and the Democrats?

If A and B are true, then C does not follow.

Someone help me out.

Why would a group of extremely wealthy private corporations support a radical socialist who hates the rich and wants to confiscate everything from them?

I can help ya out:
A is not true. All the companies you listed are publicly owned, not "private corporations" and are all for-profit organizations. They report what sells. That's how they started the Spanish-American War, for instance.

B is wrong, too. Obama & Co only hates money that does not belong to them. All "millionaires and billionaires" are evil pirates except those who, like John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, are Democrats. Republicans, they reason, must have stolen the money from the poor, while Democrats are simply good businessmen.

Now, really. You couldn't as stupid as your question implies, could you?:smile:

Odysseus
02-21-2012, 09:28 AM
I need something explained.

If A: The NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and the rest of the corporate news networks are owned and operated by extremely wealthy private interests.
and B: Obama and the Democrats are wealthy-hating socialists who want to confiscate money from the rich and destroy the economy.
Then how on earth does it follow that C: all of these wealthy private corporate networks are interested in supporting Obama and the Democrats?

If A and B are true, then C does not follow.

Someone help me out.

Why would a group of extremely wealthy private corporations support a radical socialist who hates the rich and wants to confiscate everything from them?

You are arguing from multiple fallacies. First, the ownership of the various "corporate" news interest has less to do with their editorial policies than the attitudes and preconceptions of their staffers, not to mention their owners. The elite media are not so much a series of corporate entities than they are a club, whose membership is determined by attending the "right" schools (Ivy League undergrad, Columbia School of Journalism, etc.) and then associating with the "right" kind of people. They live in the same bubble, never interact with anyone who thinks differently than they do, and cannot conceive of two sides of an argument because they have never been exposed to it. In addition, the incestuous relationship between government and media ensures that they will parrot the line of the party that has the similar contacts and background.

Also, a highly restrictive regulatory environment benefits established companies and imposes higher startup costs on newcomers, so established interests tend to favor larger, more intrusive government for that reason. The obvious example of this is the light bulb ban that recently came down. Incandesant lights are relatively easy to make, and cheap enough that almost any country can manufacture them for export, but the new, highly complex bulbs require much more complicated manufacturing facilities, if only to deal with the toxic mercury, which tilts the playing field in favor of established manufacturers, like GE. In the case of the legacy media, the rise of the internet, talk radio and FOXNews has put them in the unpleasant position of having to compete, not just in terms of audience share, but in terms of providing a compelling narrative. Their worldview is no longer uncontested, and it cannot compete with the worldview of Fox and the various alternative sources, which are far closer to the audience in terms of outlook and experience.

Finally, never underestimate the short-sightedness of corporate America. With the market screaming for alternative information, the mainstream has chosen to close ranks and try to regulate its competitors out of business, assuming that the short-term gains that they accrue from a restrictive media environment are worth the jettisoned principle of a free adversarial press, and that they wil always enjoy the freedoms that they seek to have curtailed for others. As Lenin famously said, when it comes time to hang the last capitalist, he will gladly sell us the rope.

Tipsycatlover
02-21-2012, 10:41 AM
These wealthy interests believe that if they participate they will become part of the ruling class.

noonwitch
02-21-2012, 01:18 PM
The bottom line is the gas prices. That's why groceries are so expensive and a good part of why the middle class is feeling the pinch. If they remain the same or go higher, Obama won't get re-elected unless the GOP nominates someone who is perceived as a total goofball or woman hater.

AmPat
02-21-2012, 01:22 PM
The bottom line is the gas prices. That's why groceries are so expensive and a good part of why the middle class is feeling the pinch. If they remain the same or go higher, Obama won't get re-elected unless the GOP nominates someone who is perceived as a total goofball or woman hater.

He won't have to be either. The media will make him that just to keep their goofball American hater in office. That is WAAAY better than having a logical person from the dreaded GOP take over.

Tipsycatlover
02-22-2012, 12:42 PM
obama has a plan to deal with high gas prices. The higher the gas prices the better the economy is doing. If you can't afford to put gas in your car and eat in the same pay period, it's because of Bush.

Apocalypse
02-22-2012, 02:36 PM
obama has a plan to deal with high gas prices. The higher the gas prices the better the economy is doing. If you can't afford to put gas in your car and eat in the same pay period, it's because of Bush.

Oh I expect a few things.

When gas hits $4.00 across this nation around July. Expect the National oil Reserves to be flipped wide open and him claiming its for the good of the nation. He will use it as a stumping point, though it will do nothing for the price long term.

Expect a new wave of "Stimulus" crap and those "Evil Republicans" are stopping him.