Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: howardroark on January 05, 2012, 09:29:19 AM
-
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_1220925.pdf (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_1220925.pdf)
Q11 If the candidates for President next year were
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt
Romney, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama................... ........................ ..... 45%
Mitt Romney.................. ........................ .......... 47%
Undecided............... ........................ ................ 8%
Q12 If the candidates for President next year were
Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt
Romney, and Libertarian Gary Johnson, who
would you vote for?
Barack Obama................... ........................ ..... 43%
Mitt Romney.................. ........................ .......... 41%
Gary Johnson ........................ ........................ . 9%
Undecided............... ........................ ................ 7%
Q13 If the candidates for President next year were
Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt
Romney, and independent Ron Paul, who
would you vote for?
Barack Obama................... ........................ ..... 42%
Mitt Romney.................. ........................ .......... 37%
Ron Paul ........................ ........................ ......... 17%
Undecided............... ........................ ................ 4%
The bad news for Mitt: Ron Paul might not run in the general election, but Gary Johnson is already vying for the Libertarian nomination. The GOP has lost support of its libertarian wing and desperately needs to do something (or nominate someone) who can capture it back.
-
Gary Johnson will not get nine percent. And if Obie is polling like that now - he is done. Ron Paul is not running third party either.
-
Gary Johnson will not get nine percent. And if Obie is polling like that now - he is done. Ron Paul is not running third party either.
We've got a little under a year to the general election and Gary Johnson is already polling at 9%. It goes to show that people are dissatisfied with the GOP and are looking for someone else. Unless this poll is a fluke, there is a VERY real chance that the Republicans will lose.
-
Those polls don't support the thread title.
-
Those polls don't support the thread title.
Yes, they do. If Gary Johnson takes the LP nomination, then Mitt will lose in the general election according to this poll. Mitt's only hope is to pick up more undecideds than Obama does or to do something to diminish Gary's support.
-
Yes, they do. If Gary Johnson takes the LP nomination, then Mitt will lose in the general election according to this poll. Mitt's only hope is to pick up more undecideds than Obama does or to do something to diminish Gary's support.
Romney is ahead in the first poll by 2 percent. Obama is ahead of Romney in the second poll by 2 percent. Both are certainly within the margin of error, which means they are tied. That does not support the thread title ("Mitt Romney will lose the general election").
The third poll shows Obama ahead by 5 percent. Even that one might be within the margin of error.
Gary Johnson isn't going to decide the election. Libertarians don't impact make much of an impact at all on national elections.
-
Just out of curiosity... What determines whether a third party can get up on stage with the other two candidates? Is it based on a certain level of polling numbers?
-
Romney is ahead in the first poll by 2 percent. Obama is ahead of Romney in the second poll by 2 percent. Both are certainly within the margin of error, which means they are tied. That does not support the thread title ("Mitt Romney will lose the general election").
The third poll shows Obama ahead by 5 percent. Even that one might be within the margin of error.
Gary Johnson isn't going to decide the election. Libertarians don't impact make much of an impact at all on national elections.
Romney is ahead in the first poll because it's a two-way race... He falls behind in the second and third polls because it includes libertarians who take mostly from the Mitt's support. Sure, you could say that is within "the margin of error," but I did not see that poll stating WHAT the margin of error was for that poll, and either way, Mitt was still behind.
And yes, generally, libertarians don't make much of an impact. But when the GOP drops the ball, the Big Tent starts falling apart. Don't forget what happened in '96 with Ross Perot.
-
i can't believe it's tied at this point.
obama should be losing by 15 points. unreal how forgiving america is.
we're in the 2nd great depresssion, and a presidential contender viewed as a business genius is essentially TIED with the guy who got us in the depression.
un freaking real.
-
Romney is ahead in the first poll because it's a two-way race... He falls behind in the second and third polls because it includes libertarians who take mostly from the Mitt's support. Sure, you could say that is within "the margin of error," but I did not see that poll stating WHAT the margin of error was for that poll, and either way, Mitt was still behind.
And yes, generally, libertarians don't make much of an impact. But when the GOP drops the ball, the Big Tent starts falling apart. Don't forget what happened in '96 with Ross Perot.
I doubt the margin of error is less than 2 percent.
Perot didn't run as a libertarian. He was also a billionaire with essentially unlimited resources. And he was a very compelling figure, before he lost his mind. I was actually going to vote for him before he showed he was a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
I wouldn't put Gary Johnson in the same universe as pre-crazy Perot.
-
I mention Perot not because he was a libertarian (he obviously wasn't) but because he split from the Big Tent GOP after the GOP had seemingly lost its way. Many Republicans are EXTREMELY dissatisfied with their party now, more than they were ever before. After eight failed years of Bush and Republicans failing to accomplish much after they've taken the House in 2010, people are looking for real change. Many of those people might turn toward the LP. And a moderate Libertarian with an excellent record as a former Governor is someone who can appeal to those people.
-
i can't believe it's tied at this point.
obama should be losing by 15 points. unreal how forgiving america is.
we're in the 2nd great depresssion, and a presidential contender viewed as a business genius is essentially TIED with the guy who got us in the depression.
un freaking real.
or maybe the narrative created in the media and SCREAMED about by the right wing is not actually reflective of how people feel
-
i can't believe it's tied at this point.
obama should be losing by 15 points. unreal how forgiving america is.
we're in the 2nd great depresssion, and a presidential contender viewed as a business genius is essentially TIED with the guy who got us in the depression.
un freaking real.
::)
Put your little pecker back in your pants and come back after the nominee is decided. Obama is in massive trouble and it still humors me that you deny it. Even top dems have said as much but you know better. Hahaha.
-
or maybe the narrative created in the media and SCREAMED about by the right wing is not actually reflective of how people feel
Narrative created by the media? You mean the narrative that Obama's ridiculously weak economy is all Bush's/Japanese Tsunami's/Europe's fault? LOL.
-
Narrative created by the media? You mean the narrative that Obama's ridiculously weak economy is all Bush's/Japanese Tsunami's/Europe's fault? LOL.
Now it is boehners' fault!
-
Narrative created by the media? You mean the narrative that Obama's ridiculously weak economy is all Bush's/Japanese Tsunami's/Europe's fault? LOL.
I mean exactly what I said
btw - if your hero RP were elected the economy would take a nose dive from where it is today
-
I mention Perot not because he was a libertarian (he obviously wasn't) but because he split from the Big Tent GOP after the GOP had seemingly lost its way. Many Republicans are EXTREMELY dissatisfied with their party now, more than they were ever before. After eight failed years of Bush and Republicans failing to accomplish much after they've taken the House in 2010, people are looking for real change. Many of those people might turn toward the LP. And a moderate Libertarian with an excellent record as a former Governor is someone who can appeal to those people.
I understand the point you're trying to make, though I don't think Perot is a good analogy. He drew independents, Republicans, and Democrats. I doubt libertarians accounted for much of his 18-20 percent.
I don't think Republicans, Democrats, or independents are going to vote for Gary Johnson in significant numbers, because he'll be running on a platform that the majority of the country doesn't support.
-
I mean exactly what I said
btw - if your hero RP were elected the economy would take a nose dive from where it is today
Care to explain how? Contrary to what you believe, spending a few trillion more on stimulus won't fix anything.
-
Care to explain how? Contrary to what you believe, spending a few trillion more on stimulus won't fix anything.
Correction:
Spending 5 Trillion did not fix anything.
Obama pissed away 5 Trillion and has nothing to show for it.
Lemmings like Straw think if only GhettoBama spent 10 Trillion we would have recovered.
-
Johnson isn't a threat, not even close. If Romney is smart, once RP is clearly out, he has to sit down with him and talk. RP would never endorse Romney but if the GOP is smart they have to give RP some buy in. His domestics are very sound and in keeping with the Constitution. Hey Straw...its your guy who's killing the country..shut the fuck up. RP would be fine with business and the economy. The GOP needs to adpot some of his positions...even better if they could get RP to attack Obama on all those points.
-
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups
Romney is the only guy so far showing evidence he can beat Maobama.
-
Correction:
Spending 5 Trillion did not fix anything.
Obama pissed away 5 Trillion and has nothing to show for it.
Lemmings like Straw think if only GhettoBama spent 10 Trillion we would have recovered.
where are you getting that 5 trillion # from?
-
where are you getting that 5 trillion # from?
Are you going to explain how Paul would tank the economy or is this going to be another thread that you run away from (your M.O.)?
-
Are you going to explain how Paul would tank the economy or is this going to be another thread that you run away from (your M.O.)?
are you joking dude
I entertain your stupidity ad nauseum
you originally asked me if I'd "care to explain how" and the answer for now is no
I don't have the time nor do I care to waste what little time I have on you
I'll take a page out of your book and tell you you're welcome to do a google search and you'll find pages and pages of critique of "Ron Paul's Plan to Restore America"
-
And the pussy chooses to run from this thread aka he can't explain how because he's too fucking stupid to understand any economic concept that doesn't involve "spend as much as you can print, br0s!"
What a joke.
-
I mean exactly what I said
btw - if your hero RP were elected the economy would take a nose dive from where it is today
Actually, it would boom. How do you expect an economic recovery to take place when the government is sucking up all the funds that would normally be invested in private industry?
-
And the pussy chooses to run from this thread aka he can't explain how because he's too fucking stupid to understand any economic concept that doesn't involve "spend as much as you can print, br0s!"
What a joke.
I choose not to waste my time on YOU
period
Ron Paul plan would be an economic disaster for this country but it's really a moot point since he'll never be elected and even if he was he could never put his plan into place
-
Actually, it would boom. How do you expect an economic recovery to take place when the government is sucking up all the funds that would normally be invested in private industry?
really, well the Eurozone has adopted an austerity plan so I guess we should be getting ready for their boom and day now.
I'm sure their drop in GDP after starting austerity is just them squatting down so they can jump up
-
really, well the Eurozone has adopted an austerity plan so I guess we should be getting ready for their boom and day now.
I'm sure their drop in GDP after starting austerity is just them squatting down so they can jump up
Haha - really? You're gonna compare cutting spending and taxes to increasing spending and raising taxes even more? Two completely different policies there, buddy: the former increases the funds available for investment, the latter decreases them.
What this reveals is a more fundamental level of nonunderstanding of economics on your part. So please, elaborate on how an economic recovery is NOT hampered when the government sucks up funds that could have been used for productive investment.
-
Haha - really? You're gonna compare cutting spending and taxes to increasing spending and raising taxes even more? Two completely different policies there, buddy: the former increases the funds available for investment, the latter decreases them.
What this reveals is a more fundamental level of nonunderstanding of economics on your part. So please, elaborate on how an economic recovery is NOT hampered when the government sucks up funds that could have been used for productive investment.
so you think our government is currently "sucking up funds" that could be used for productive investment ?
-
so you think our government is currently "sucking up funds" that could be used for productive investment ?
What is a deficit? Where does that money come from?
-
What is a deficit? Where does that money come from?
you know the answer
how about this
goverment drastically cuts spending which means all those $'s are no longer paid to employees, contractors etc...
I presume we would take the money we didn't spend and divert it toward paying down the debt and that would be a good thing
what happens to consumer spending
how about unemployment
-
Government drastically cuts spending. Because government is no longer borrowing over a trillion dollars a year from the private sector, those funds are now freed up for investment and consumption. Thus, economic activity shifts away from government toward the private sector.
If we are to assume an open economy, which we have, the reduction in government deficits will also decrease our trade deficit, by decreasing our capital surplus which drives the current account deficits. So one other area where economic activity will shift is away from government and toward export-oriented industries.
-
Government drastically cuts spending. Because government is no longer borrowing over a trillion dollars a year from the private sector, those funds are now freed up for investment and consumption. Thus, economic activity shifts away from government toward the private sector.
If we are to assume an open economy, which we have, the reduction in government deficits will also decrease our trade deficit, by decreasing our capital surplus which drives the current account deficits. So one other area where economic activity will shift is away from government and toward export-oriented industries.
so the investors who are buying government bonds (which are at record low yields due to high demand) are suddenly going to stop being risk averse and intead pursue riskier investments?
why would they do that and what is stopping them from doing it now?
-
Riskier investments have higher returns for a reason. ;)
-
Those polls don't support the thread title.
actually they do... When the Obama lie machine actually starts campaigning he's going to be hard to beat. Those numbers are not good enough to state Obama has no chance like 3333 says. And Obama is going to have way more money to spend? ouch... With these candidates out there for several months now agressively attacking Obama, those numbers should be a lot more for the republicans.
-
I mean exactly what I said
btw - if your hero RP were elected the economy would take a nose dive from where it is today
Do you take idiot pills to be this stupid or does it just come naturally?
-
Do you take idiot pills to be this stupid or does it just come naturally?
I can't blame him... the majority of the economics profession still believes in this voodoo bullshit where the government can take out of one pocket and put it into another and still have a net positive impact on the economy.
Things that make you go ???
-
I can't blame him... the majority of the economics profession still believes in this voodoo bullshit where the government can take out of one pocket and put it into another and still have a net positive impact on the economy.
Things that make you go ???
I didn't even know Austrian economics existed until I came across it on my own time. All my classes were either Keynesian bullshit or Chicago-based.
-
I didn't even know Austrian economics existed until I came across it on my own time. All my classes were either Keynesian bullshit or Chicago-based.
Same here... the sad thing is that there are some glaringly obvious holes in Keynesian theory that I wasn't able to catch on my own. They have you so caught up memorizing mathematical models that by the time it's all said and done no critical thinking has been done. What's even more sad is that the mainstream "free market" alternative to Keynesian theory is Ricardian equivalence. Only out-of-touch eggheads could come up with shit like that.
-
BTW, something I noticed about academic economics: at the school I went to, my econometrics, macroeconomics, microeconomics, and international trade profs were all had undergrad degrees in math and none had one in econ.
-
Riskier investments have higher returns for a reason. ;)
no shit
your assumption is that somehow risk appetite would greatly increase
right?
-
no shit
your assumption is that somehow risk appetite would greatly increase
right?
In a one on one Romney is already beating Obama. At this pint Carter was way ahead of Reagan. Obama vs Romney one on one and Obama goes back to Kenya w uncle Omar and auntie zeiutuni
-
no shit
your assumption is that somehow risk appetite would greatly increase
right?
No.
Riskier assets carry greater returns. In the absence of those government bonds being traded on the markets, some investors would accept slightly greater risk for greater returns (thereby bringing down interest rates for funding those privately run investment projects). Others would not and would instead consume their income.
"Risk appetite" doesn't have to change one bit. Only because someone is invested in government bonds does not mean that they are extraordinarily risk-averse. All it means is that they prefer the risk/return that government bonds offer to other bonds. Thus, in the absence of government bonds, they would either accept investing in riskier assets with greater returns, while the few who do not wish to do so will simply consume their own income.
Your assumption seems to be that if it weren't for the government bonds, real money balances would skyrocket. That is patently absurd.