Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
someone is trolling...........obama is a very average potus. He doesn't even crack the top 10 for bad presidents. people are to quick to foget about ronald reagan who is highly reguarded as the worst potus of all time. almost every problem we face right now is because of Reagan. Most right wingers will even admit that
Ronald Reagan is highly regarded (try spelling properly and try using proper grammar, capitalization, and punctuation) as being the worst POTUS of all time? LOL... That's hilarious.
Some of the problems we face right now can be traced to Reagan, some to Clinton, some to W, some probably to his father (though I can't think of any off the top of my head), and a lot to the current Congress and previous Congresses. There's plenty of people deserving of blame.
The Fox News poll was an outlier. It had Obama up by 7, while some other polls around the same time had Romney up. Most polls showed them basically tied.
Also, independents have been breaking more towards Romney than they were in the vast majority of polls a few months ago so this poll would be an outlier if correct. Romney is leading among independents in most polls.
Furthermore, the commentary is wrong when you consider the incumbent rule. Obama being at 46% even with a skewed sample (that poll had an 8-point party ID advantage for Democrats; in 2008, a perfect year for Democrats, Democrats only had a 7-point party ID advantage) is not a good sign for him, even if he was way ahead.
FYI - I don't take Fox News seriously.
The incumbent rule that's funny!
Since 1952 there have being only two incumbents that have not won reelection, factoring the Kennedy assassination and President Johnson not running for a second term. They Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. In each case the economy was worse at the end of their terms than it was at the beginning. That's not the case with President Obama. The reality is the odds favor the incumbent candidate in American presidential politics for the last 60 years.
Yes, there are. Obama's approval remains below 50% in the vast majority of polling - both nationally and in states like Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and even Pennsylvania.
Incumbents basically have a ceiling of their approval rating - or actually generally a few points below their approval rating - when looking at the percentage of the vote they receive. And that's among those who actually vote. Republicans/Republican-leaning independents are more likely to vote. (Even in 2004, with a strong anti-war sentiment and relatively high turnout among Democrats/Democratic-leaning independents, Bush's approval was only about 51% in most polling around the time of the election but 53% according to exit polls of voters. He got only about 51% of the vote...he underperformed his approval as most incumbents do.)
So Obama is the one with more of a ceiling. His approval is stuck at 47%-48% - likely closer to 45%-46% among those who will actually vote. Can it come up? Sure. Is it likely to come up significantly before the election? Probably not. It's just as likely to go down. It all depends on how the economy does and on the campaign. And before you start with the demographic bullsh*t...his approval is basically around what you would expect his percentage of the vote to be among blacks and Hispanics (and people who identify as "liberal"). As far as the campaign, the Romney campaign + the Super PAC's supporting him will likely have significantly more money than the Obama campaign + the Super PAC's supporting him. If this is the case, which is very, very likely, it will be the first time an incumbent president has actually had a disadvantage as far as campaign funding.
Back to demographics - maybe you should read the graphs you post. Romney leads even among 18-29 year old whites. And, given that he leads by 10 or more in every age group of whites 30 or older, I'm sure that he leads with white women in each one of these groups as well. So, while Romney may have a problem with minorities, he certainly does not have a problem with young and middle-aged white men or with white women. Obama has problems with these groups.
More to counteract the idea that "no one" likes Romney his favorability per Gallup is 50% with his unfavorability at 41%. That means his net favorability is +9%. Obama's favorability is 52%, while his unfavorability is 46%, making his net favorability +6%. So Romney's net favorability is higher than Obama's.
In 2008, a lot of Hillary suppoters weren't happy with Obama as the nominee. This means nothing...in May. Furthermore, even if they're not happy with him, they will turn out to vote Obama out in large numbers. The same Republicans who dislike Romney the most HATE Obama.
Ronald Reagan is highly regarded (try spelling properly and try using proper grammar, capitalization, and punctuation) as being the worst POTUS of all time? LOL... That's hilarious. Gallup: Reagan and Clinton are favorite presidents
Some of the problems we face right now can be traced to Reagan, some to Clinton, some to W, some probably to his father (though I can't think of any off the top of my head), and a lot to the current Congress and previous Congresses. There's plenty of people deserving of blame.
Since 1952 there have being only two incumbents that have not won reelection, factoring the Kennedy assassination and President Johnson not running for a second term. They Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. In each case the economy was worse at the end of their terms than it was at the beginning. That's not the case with President Obama. The reality is the odds favor the incumbent candidate in American presidential politics for the last 60 years.
Actually, the economy is worse at this point in Obama's term than it was at the beginning by virtually every measure. It is better now than a few years ago, but not than it was in early 2009 (though it was going downhill then and it wasn't Obama's fault, but whether he could have done more to stop it is up for debate).
Bush Sr. was not re-elected even though the economy was improving slightly, because the improvement was not great enough. Furthermore, in the 2004 election, polling showed that voters whose main concern was the economy broke for Kerry by a large margin and the economy was coming out of the early 2000's recession - again, because the improvement was not great/fast enough. Unfortunately for Kerry, voters were more concerned about terrorism. This election, voters are most concerned about the economy.
Here is some good reading about what the actual "incumbent rule" is:
Furthermore, PPP has actually oversampled Democrats in most state polling this election cycle and put out polls far more favorable to Obama/less favorable to Romney than virtually all the other polls conducted in the same states around the same time. They have mostly been an outlier.
Also, PPP has put out polls over the past month or two that have been more favorable to Obama in many states than they did earlier in the year, which is opposite of the trend according to most other polls.
Even if the sample is a true representation of Pennsylvanians, the fact that Obama is right around 50% in Pennsylvania, which is not a safe Democratic state but is Democratic-leaning (and less in Wisconsin and Oregon of all states) is a bad sign for him.
Since 1952 there have being only two incumbents that have not won reelection, factoring the Kennedy assassination and President Johnson not running for a second term. They Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. In each case the economy was worse at the end of their terms than it was at the beginning. That's not the case with President Obama. The reality is the odds favor the incumbent candidate in American presidential politics for the last 60 years.
You honestly think the economy is better when Obama has added $6.5 Trillion to the debt? Let's not forget that electricity rates will go up because his EPA has forced coal fire power plants to shut down.
Romney wins in a landslide and even the jazzy guys know it but they're spinning like mad and trying to convince themselves that their idol is not an emperor with no clothes.
The GOP for reasons I'd rather not post always win the Vet vote. Not this vet though. Unless romney can take MI or OH or WI he can have VA and NC and still lose.
Romney will win Wisconsin. You will know after Walker handily defeats his opponent in the recall election.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
