Is Obama Toast? Handicapping the 2012 Election

you're mostly right but Paul could beat Obama, multiple(but little talked about on the news networks) polls have shown Paul could beat Obama in a general election.Why? Independents...that's why.

Sounds like an echo of what you were saying about Cain.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

There also is the issue of the Supreme Court taking up the AHCA - which could - at a late stage - cut the legs out of the president. Even if it is kept, the ire of the voter will raise because the majority of voters do not agree with the plan.

Got a citation for this? A lot of people talk about it, but I have not seen too many poll results that show that the majority of voters are against it.

But then I don't look at every poll out there.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

you're mostly right but Paul could beat Obama, multiple(but little talked about on the news networks) polls have shown Paul could beat Obama in a general election.Why? Independents...that's why.

Paul can NOT beat Obama - between foreign policy and his past of running a blatently racist periodical - no way he is viable.

Got a citation for this? A lot of people talk about it, but I have not seen too many poll results that show that the majority of voters are against it.

Platapus - try here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ealth_care_law

[mookiemookie]

I'd vote Paul over Obama every day of the week. Shame that the right wing smear machine is trying to bury the only true conservative out there.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Platapus - try here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ealth_care_law

That's some pretty consistent data.

Thanks for the link

That's some pretty consistent data.

However you would need a breakown of those who oppose the bill because it went too far and those who oppose the bill because it was too much of a compromise, as one consistant complaint is that it doesn't achieve what it was set out to achieve.

[mookiemookie]

Not to mention that Rasmussen has a history of shoddy polling methods. I'd be strongly suspicious of any of their numbers:

Rasmussen's polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.

Rasmussen also weights their surveys based on preordained assumptions about the party identification of voters in each state, a relatively unusual practice that many polling firms consider dubious since party identification (unlike characteristics like age and gender) is often quite fluid.

...

The discrepancies between Rasmussen Reports polls and those issued by other companies were apparent from virtually the first day that Barack Obama took office. Rasmussen showed Barack Obama's disapproval rating at 36 percent, for instance, just a week after his inauguration, at a point when no other pollster had that figure higher than 20 percent.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...rmed-strongly/

[August]

Gee a New York times opinion piece thinks someone isn't leaning left enough. Go figure.

The only poll that really counts is the one next November 7th and even that one is not likely to be accurate given the reports of election rigging.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Gee a New York times opinion piece thinks someone isn't leaning left enough. Go figure.

The only poll that really counts is the one next November 7th and even that one is not likely to be accurate given the reports of election rigging.

First of all, it's not a "New York Times opinion piece", it's Nate Silver's blog which was bought out by the NYT and he's a statistician...and a pretty good one at that. If you can dispute any of the claims he makes, then do so. By just waving your hands and saying "oh it's a NYT opinion piece" you add nothing. Do you have an explanation why Rasmussen's polls are consistently wrong? Can you explain why they're always the outlier when compared to other polls?

[gammaphialpha]

obama is not even qualified to run under his own cosponsored house bill re mccain. his father was british. he is not natural born as he has dual allegiance, not allowed. why is NO ONE BRINGING THIS UP???? HE CAN'T RUN! A FRAUD FROM THE WORD GO.

[Sailor Steve]

Let's see...you can argue about the birth certificate some more if you like, but until you prove otherwise the fact that he was born in Hawaii of an Amercan mother does indeed make him a natural-born citizen.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

By just waving your hands and saying "oh it's a NYT opinion piece" you add nothing.

But it's ok when you wave your hands and say "oh it's a FOX article"?

As for the rest of it, how the heck do I know why, assuming that it's true, you think Rasmussen polls are "outlier".

Like I said we'll see what the results of the only poll that matters some time soon after November 7th 2012. Maybe later if Obama or Romney pulls an Algore and tries to get the courts to invalidate the election results.

[August]

Originally Posted by gammaphialpha

obama is not even qualified to run under his own cosponsored house bill re mccain. his father was british. he is not natural born as he has dual allegiance, not allowed. why is NO ONE BRINGING THIS UP???? HE CAN'T RUN! A FRAUD FROM THE WORD GO.

What Steve said.

Now if you don't like it and want to do something about it then you have two choices. A. Prove (and I mean really prove not just imply) your claims.

or

B.Start a successful revolution and then you don't have to worry about such legal niceties.

[1480]

It's a sad state of affairs when polls sway opinions rather than do what they were ideally meant for, show what people think.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by gammaphialpha

obama is not even qualified to run under his own cosponsored house bill re mccain. his father was british. he is not natural born as he has dual allegiance, not allowed. why is NO ONE BRINGING THIS UP???? HE CAN'T RUN! A FRAUD FROM THE WORD GO.

Thank god we have people like you around.

1. To imagine that the Illinois Board of Elections missed this in 1997 when Obama ran for State House.

And they missed this in 2005 when Obama ran for Senator

And they missed this in 2008 when Obama ran for POTUS.

All the reviews made by state and federal election officers. All the research done by opposing candidates just looking for something to prevent Obama from running... every one missed it. But you know the "real" truth.

So, I assume you have written to the Illinois Board of Elections, with your evidence, and lodged a complaint right? I mean you clearly have evidence right?

2. Or perhaps, just perhaps you don't really understand what you are talking about?

he is not natural born as he has dual allegiance,...

I am leaning more to the second explanation.