TOAST OF THE WEEK- PAUL BEATS OBAMA
Date: September 29, 2011
Categories: Politics
Leave a comment
Comments RSS TrackBack 85 comments
-
Richard
in September 29th, 2011 @ 09:41These poll numbers don’t necessarily surprise me at all. Ron Paul’s views on legalization of drugs, especially pot, and his foreign policy positions all mesh well with the younger demographic that went solidly for Obama in the last election.
The thing is, Ron Paul stands a snowball’s chance in hell of getting through the GOP Primary season, when in reality, he’s probably their best candidate and provides them the best opportunity to beat Obama in the general election.
What I don’t understand is the fascination with Chris Christie. Sure, he’s a union buster, but he leans pro-choice, he believes in man made climate change, and he’s pro gun control. He appears very conservative in a very liberal state like New Jersey, but in the heartland and in the south, he’d play as a moderate. He’s also Roman Catholic, and we’ve had as many black presidents as we’ve had Catholic ones, so let’s not act like that doesn’t matter.
-
Matt
in September 29th, 2011 @ 11:33It is surprising how many young people who usually default democrat support Paul. The problem is that when Paul doesn’t get the nomination they do an almost complete 180 to any dem.
-
oksteelerfan
in September 30th, 2011 @ 08:44I was talking to a young girl just out of college the other day working at a department store. Obama was the first President she had ever voted for. She had voted for the Hope and Change candidate. The problem is she related that to herself that she’d be able to use her degree and get a good paying job instead she’s left with student loans and working at a department store and moving back in with her parents.
It just had me wondering how many of those young people didn’t see their lives or their friends lives getting any better and won’t be so fired up to vote this time?
-
Bobzilla
in October 1st, 2011 @ 06:58There’s plenty more uninformed college kids where that one came from. Once MTV and VH1 crank up their propaganda machine, the sheep-like college kids will flock to the voting booths in an attempt to be hip, cool and liberal …
-
VinceL
in September 29th, 2011 @ 09:55I’m glad Ron Paul is in Congress.If I lived in his district I would vote for him because of his economic policies.But as far as the presidency,his foreign policy scares me.In one of the debates he said he “respected”Iran’s desire to pursue nuclear weapons.
Respect is not a word I would use regarding any aspect of the Iranian regime that regularly brags of wiping out Israel and funds terrorism.
Paul thinks Islamic terrorism is our fault.He would have been a great spokesman for Bin Laden.
-
John Steigerwald
in September 29th, 2011 @ 10:11The fact that he’s in the same ballpark in the polls with Obama should tell you all you need to know about how hard it’s going to be for him to get re-elected.
-
Chad Farthouse
in September 29th, 2011 @ 10:31It is foolish to keep saying that he is toast. A year is a lifetime in politics, and I couldn’t care less what the self-serving, weasel-like Dick Morris says. America will not put a Teabagger in the White House, it ain’t happening Johnny!
-
metalslam
in September 29th, 2011 @ 18:39I notice you say teabagger alot , Do you hate homosexuals.
-
Chad Farthouse
in September 30th, 2011 @ 11:06Teabagging is not exclusive to any sexual orientation. However, the kind I’m referring to is limited to people that are tragically misinformed.
-
John Steigerwald
in September 30th, 2011 @ 11:47Yeah. They don’t realize that we’re not taxed enough and they actually walk around thinking that Nancy Pelosi doesn’t know what’s best for them.
-
Chad Farthouse
in September 30th, 2011 @ 13:19Tax rates are at their lowest since 1950.
-
John Steigerwald
in September 30th, 2011 @ 15:21Taxes were ridiculously high in the 50s. Obama was against the Bush tax cuts in the beginning and he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to extending them. When is enough enough? What percentage of the taxes should the top 10% pay. What’s “fair.” How many months should the average person have to work in order to pay taxes? One month? Two? Five? Six? Do we have a tax problem or a spending problem?
-
Chad Farthouse
in October 1st, 2011 @ 12:29Way to miss the point. Dividends, interest, and capital gains should be treated as income. Wealthy people should not enjoy a lower tax rate than you or I. It is not complicated. Plus, here is where the conservative narrative flies off the tracks. Tax rates have been progressively decreasing since Reagan, to the point where they are now, which is a modern-day low. If lower taxes on the “job creators” truly spur growth and make the economy boom, shouldn’t the economy be booming right now? Instead, the economy hasn’t been this bad since the Great Depression. I know you’ll say that the economy stinks because the same “job creators” are skittish about the “Socialist” might do, but you and I both know that is ridiculous bullshit. You’ll also say that there was so many months of “growth” after tax cuts by Reagan and the Bushes, but really, the paradigm has changed. The good jobs aren’t there like they were in the 50′s and 60′s, when the tax rates were “ridiculously high” and you were enjoying the good old days when wages were good enough that one income supported a family and the American Dream was a possibility instead of an elusive myth. Again, these charts are hard to argue with:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html?ref=sunday
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
You always talk about how sports fans are stupid to think that the athletes they idolize wouldn’t give them the time of day. I could say the same thing about you and billionaires. Why do you keep advocating saving them money that they don’t need, and that the country DEFINITELY will need to balance the budget?
-
John Steigerwald
in October 1st, 2011 @ 13:48I don’t believe in the income tax- period. I agree with James Madison who said the only good tax is a consumption tax. The stupid arguments about what’s “fair” and the 4,000 page tax codes are exactly why the founders were smart enough to know not to give the federal government the power to tax our income. It should be none of ANYBODY’S business how much I make –especially Barack Obama’s or Barney Frank’s or George W. Bush’s. You think it’s right that a person’s income should be taxed and then, after he invests what the government “allows” him to keep, you’re OK with the government taxing him again. I’m not. You also think it’s right to, after a person’s death, make his heirs pay another tax on the money that has already been taxed two or more times. I don’t. The economy was going along pretty well with 52 months of growth until the real estate bubble –caused by the federal government’s intrusion in the market–caused the collapse. The quickest way to a massive tax cut would be to pass a law that would forbid the govt. from withholding taxes from our paychecks. Make everybody write a check every week to pay their taxes. When our grandparents would get paid, it would be in CASH in a little envelope that they picked up at the pay window. They paid their taxes at the end of the year. Somewhere along the line, the federal government decided to do us a favor and confiscate our money before we ever saw it. Imagine if you collected your $1,000 per week salary in cash every Friday and on the way out the door you had to stop at various pay stations to peel off fifty and hundred dollar bills to pay your income tax, SS, medicare, state tax, property tax etc. It would take two weeks before people would be rioting in the streets. Everything you wrote in your well thought out post loses all its meaning for me in your last sentence when you say I’m advocating saving them money that they don’t NEED. Who am I or you to decide how much somebody else needs? Let’s elect Obama for four more years and send him our entire paycheck and let him refund to us what he thinks we “need.” That sums up the difference in the way you and I look at government. I consider it a necessary evil. You think it should be put in charge of deciding what we need.
-
oksteelerfan
in October 1st, 2011 @ 22:25With some people it’s a losing battle John.
I spent 30 minutes arguing with a person today about the difference between helping someone back on their feet and providing everything for a person to the point they they never get back on their feet. I was told people like me are the reason our country is broke and screwed up. I don’t really understand that as I’ve been paying taxes since I was 15 except for when I was busy raising my kids and my husband was still paying taxes and he started working at the age of twelve.
So according to the person I was arguing with I’m an uncaring b….. because I believe people should earn what they have and have pride that they worked for it instead of pride in finding a way to get a free ride, because according to this person people can’t make a living wage like they could 40 years ago.
-
Chad Farthouse
in October 1st, 2011 @ 23:02Maybe “money that they don’t need” was a clumsy way of expressing what I mean. People that are trying to keep their homes out of foreclosure, or are choosing between food, gas, or electricity need the tax breaks more than people like Ben Roethlisberger, Mark Cuban, or Sarah Palin. Taxes are going to have to go up if the debt is ever going to be paid. Why should the people that benefit the most, have to pay the least, while the people struggling the most also pay the most? It doesn’t make sense.
-
John Steigerwald
in October 1st, 2011 @ 23:42Do you ever give any consideration to cutting spending? The income tax is never going to be fair. It’s a bad idea. We need a national sales tax and we need to reduce the federal government to what it was intended to be. When they passed the income tax, the code was about 4 pages. Now it’s something like 4,000.
-
oksteelerfan
in October 2nd, 2011 @ 09:42Chad,
I sort of understand what you are saying, the problem is many of those people you are talking about are paying no taxes.
Take for instance this young couple I know. They have two small kids, this year they got a refund check of over $5000, everything they paid in and then some do to earned income. They actually got back over and beyond what they paid in income tax, ss and medicare tax. How is that right?
You are also right that the super rich and large corporations find a way to skirt paying taxes.Both scenarios are why income tax is unfair and why it should be abolished. If you’re not going to have a flat tax rate and everyone pays X% of their income then we need a consumption tax and then everyone is going to pay the same amount of tax. The poor will have to pay and it won’t break their back because they’re only paying for what they buy and the super rich will pay more because they buy more.
Oh and the government needs to cut spending regardless of who it hurts.
-
Richard
in September 29th, 2011 @ 11:09It’s going to be next to impossible. I’m still skeptical of the Republican field, mostly because I don’t see a candidate yet who can run a general election campaign. That could change. There haven’t been any primaries yet.
If Mitt Romney wins the nomination, he’s going to have to run against his own record and that’s problematic for any candidate.
Rick Perry probably stands a better chance, but I don’t know his record very well and I don’t know what he was thinking when he called people “heartless” who were against letting the children of illegal immigrants receiving funding for a college education. I happen to agree with him, but as far as his campaign goes, it wasn’t smart. He’s also going to have a lot of explaining to do in the generals about his Social Security stance.
I understand Herman Cain won the straw poll in Florida, but I don’t know how well that translates to the national stage.
Bachmann? Forget it. Her comments about the HPV vaccine are enough to disqualify her.
Santorum has a google problem, and rightfully so. Homosexuality is not akin to having sex with dogs.
The rest in the field? Not a chance.
I’m not saying by any stretch that Obama is going to get re-elected. I’d bet against it, but this current crop of candidates are not very good.
-
Niblick
in September 29th, 2011 @ 12:28Richard, I totally agree with you. Well said. Obama has to lose in my opinion for the U.S. to have a future. The problem is that quite possibly the GOP candidate might be worse. You either have bimbos or religious nuts. Looks like Bachmann is running out of money fast so I expect her to disappear from the scene soon. Palin is a joke and I think she is starting to realize that. So you are mostly left with religious nutjobs. Doesn’t give me a good feeling.
-
Richard
in September 29th, 2011 @ 13:34I don’t think Obama losing means the US has a more stable future. If you want my opinion, in all honesty, I think we’re finished.
In full disclosure, I voted for Obama in 08 and my politics are very liberal.
And even if we aren’t, no politician is going to come along and save us.
-
John Steigerwald
in September 29th, 2011 @ 14:28If you vote for him again in 2012 you’ll be speeding the process up a little more.
-
Richard
in September 29th, 2011 @ 14:40I’m not voting for anyone. I’ve no faith and no stake in it anymore. Whoever is president at this point has no real impact on my life.
-
franji1
in September 29th, 2011 @ 20:33That may be true, but if you have children, or any nieces or nephews, you need to vote. If you love ANYBODY younger than 30, you need to vote, FOR THEIR SAKE.
Actually, if we all voted for the best candidate who can help young people become all they can be – we’d have a LOT better group of politicians!
-
Richard
in September 30th, 2011 @ 09:27I’m younger than thirty. My generation is lost. The first lost American generation in the history of this country.
-
John Steigerwald
in September 30th, 2011 @ 09:31Get a copy of the constitution and read it. Vote for the candidates who still think it was a pretty good idea.
-
franji1
in September 30th, 2011 @ 20:16Richard, PLEASE don’t give up – there’s a lot of people older than you messing up this country – but there are also a lot of people who are trying to save this country for YOU!
-
VinceL
in September 29th, 2011 @ 13:40Niblick,can define religious nutjob?Someone who goes to church and prays?
-
John Steigerwald
in September 29th, 2011 @ 14:27Many of our past presidents would be considered nut jobs based on what they’re on record as saying about God.
-
Richard
in September 29th, 2011 @ 14:44I’ll define it. Someone who believes problems can be solved by praying a la Rick Perry.
Someone who believes in end times theology and that the apocalypse is imminent a la Michele Bachmann and will allow that theology to decide foreign and domestic policy positions.
-
Blasto
in September 29th, 2011 @ 16:04Ditto…go to Church and pray all you want but don’t tell me you are going to address and solve serious issues by praying. I wonder if God told Dubya to invade Iraq.?
-
VinceL
in September 29th, 2011 @ 16:48I have not heard any of the candidates say they were going to implement policy based on Scripture alone or end times theology.I have heard Nancy Pelosi say she uses the Bible to form policy but of course it’s perfectly fine for a liberal to mix church and state.By the way Reagan thought we were in the end times.
-
Blasto
in September 29th, 2011 @ 21:27Why is it perfectly fine for a liberal to mix church and state.?
-
Richard
in September 30th, 2011 @ 00:15Michele Bachmann has specifically stated on numerous occasions that she believes that we’re in end times.
It’s like this: If Jesus is going to come back, and soon, why do we need a sustainable energy policy? Why do we need to worry about the environment? Why do we need to worry about future generations? Can’t you see how that automatically shapes your world view and domestic policy.
Or that according to end times theology, all the Jews must return to Israel for the apocalypse to start. So we can’t broker any peace deal over there with the Palestinians, because if we do, Jesus won’t come back.
This is the stuff that religious nut jobs believe, and if St. Gipper really thought we were in end times, well, he’s not the man I thought he was and I really never thought all that much about him in the first place.
-
HGWT
in September 29th, 2011 @ 20:25Someone who believes that everyone who doesn’t hold to their faith will burn in hell and it’s their mission to save your soul.
-
oksteelerfan
in October 1st, 2011 @ 22:34A true Christian doesn’t believe that way and instead believes there is only one person who can save your soul.
I’m not a religious nut and seldom go to church because more often than not the people running them are as bad as politicians.
However, I am a Christian, I do pray and I believe that’ my right as an American and someone running for office doesn’t give up that right, they just don’t have the right to tell someone they must believe the way they do.
I do believe people will burn in hell, many of them who sit in a pew every Sunday morning the same as many who don’t.
However, I also know it’s not me who makes that decision.To some I guess that makes me a religious nut, but to be honest I could care less what others think.
-
Chad Farthouse
in September 29th, 2011 @ 13:25It is beyond foolish to keep saying that he is toast. A year is a lifetime in politics, and I couldn’t care less what the self-serving, weasel-like Dick Morris says. America will not put a Teabagger in the White House, it ain’t happening Johnny!
-
John Steigerwald
in September 29th, 2011 @ 14:29I said America would never put a socialist in the White House. It’s not foolish to say it. Every indicator says he has no chance. You’re hanging your hat on the “anything’s possible” theory. I’m hanging mine on history. We’ll see. Were Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison teabaggers?
-
Chad Farthouse
in September 29th, 2011 @ 18:19Oh Jesus Christ! The president is NOT a socialist and the more you claim that he is, the more it becomes apparent that you don’t really know what socialism is. Also, comparing the racist, misinformed, retarded bozos that make up the so-called “Tea Party” with the founding fathers is beyond the pale, even for you.
-
John Steigerwald
in September 29th, 2011 @ 19:06OK statist.
-
Mason
in September 29th, 2011 @ 22:20Chad, I partly agree with you. I don’t think Obama is a straight up socialist. I believe he and other far leftists in federal government are a combination Socialist/Marxist-Leninist.
-
DormontDirtBag
in September 29th, 2011 @ 21:19There must be two Chad F’s who post on this blog. A few days ago, another Chad decried the demonization of one’s political opponents. Now this one calls Tea Partiers racist and retarded. Must be two different people.
-
Chad Farthouse
in September 30th, 2011 @ 11:08I must have been drunk. or sick, or temporarily insane.
-
DormontDirtBag
in September 30th, 2011 @ 14:04Funny answer. Kudos.
-
Clenis
in September 29th, 2011 @ 19:12Can we just be clear on the verbiage? Your use of the word “toast” implies that Obama has no chance to get reelected. That has led me and other to accuse you of being a, if not stupid, silly old man. Now you say, “should tell you all you need to know about how hard it’s going to be for him to get re-elected.” That implies that he has a less than 50% chance but still a chance. So just so we’re clear, are you saying Obama has absolutely no chance of winning or is the “toast” thing just a right-wing bully-boy taunt you use while acknowledging that Obama has a chance to win what will undoubtedly be a close race?
-
John Steigerwald
in September 29th, 2011 @ 20:02I think he’s toast. He has no chance. That’s an opinion based on how presidents with his poll numbers at this point in their term have done in the past. It’s an opinion. I think he’s done. I also thought he had no chance in the Spring of 2008. If not for the econmoic meltdown in August, when he was behind in the polls, he would have lost. If the republican nominee is caught running naked through an elementary school playground, things could change. Right now —toast.
-
Clenis
in September 29th, 2011 @ 20:43Ok so bully-boy taunt, that’s what I thought. And I think you’re a little confused as to history.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php?nr=1
The financial crisis hit in mid September. Obama had a fairly comfortable lead from mid April until McCain pulled ahead for under a week in early September following a big bump from a nasty RNC. Once Lehman Brothers went bankrupt on Sept 15 he pulled ahead for good. It should also be noted Palin’s Couric interview aired Sept 24. So when exactly were you convinced Obama was “toast” in ’08? When he was behind in March, when he led for 4 and a half months, or when McCain was ahead in the polls for a few days in September?
-
John Steigerwald
in September 30th, 2011 @ 00:08I thought he was toast when I saw Reverend Wright for the first time. I was foolish enough to think that the media would call him on that and expose him for the lies he was telling about being shocked to find out that his pastor had those opinions. That may be the biggest pile of steaming horseshit ever gotten away with by a presidential candidate. Then McCain wouldn’t go after him on it. McCain and the Republicans deserved to lose in 2008. Do you and Chad remember what happened to the dems last November? It was a “shellacking” of biblical proportions, right down to the state legislatures. When you’re an incumbent, you have to run on your record. What’s he going to promise, four more years of stimulus and higher taxes? Last time he promised that sea levels would drop. That shit’s not going to flush this time.
-
Clenis
in September 30th, 2011 @ 00:41Yeah non-stop Rev Wright from McCain might have done it but few people would be able to live with themselves after such ridiculous race baiting. One of those people, i guess, is you. Also, you make predictions kind of like a guy who relies on Dick Morris for information and analysis.
* Morris stated that he takes Donald Trump “very seriously.” He went on to predict that Trump is “going to run,” that “he’s got a good shot at the nomination,” and that “he could beat Obama” in the 2012 presidential election.
* The 2008 race would pit “Condi vs. Hillary”
* Morris predicts a “government shutdown”
* Latest Morris prediction: GOP could pick up 13 Senate seats, including in CT
* Infamous prognosticator Dick Morris predicts GOP wins both houses, convenes an “impeachment panel” over purported bribery
* Another Morris prediction: “I believe the Republicans will win the House and the Senate” in 2010
* Morris’ crystal ball: “Socialist” Obama “going to be at 30 percent [approval] in a year”
* Kirsten Gillibrand was in electoral peril in 2010
* With a wildly off-base prediction record, Morris said Hillary Clinton “might have some trouble … getting re-elected senator from New York”
* Rick Lazio would beat Hillary Clinton in 2000
* Morris’ final predicted 2008 electoral map, released on October 27, 2008, Morris labeled Arkansas “lean Obama”
If I were you I would stop taking Dick Morris seriously and I would stop making predictions.
-
John Steigerwald
in September 30th, 2011 @ 07:12I don’t take Dick Morris any more seriously than any other “pundit.” I take history seriously. Here’s who I don’t take seriously: The majority of Obama’s defenders who cry “racism” any time that their guy is criticized. What bothered me the most about the Rev was how quickly and easily the media accepted Obama’s ridiculous story about how he never heard him say any of those things. He had known the guy for 20 years and used one of his quotes for the title of his book. It was a glaring example of the pass that he got from the media throughout the entire campaign. They were too busysnooping around Wasilla trying to prove that Trig wasn’t really Palin’s daughter.
***************************************************************
President Obama’s rating in the Rasmussen “Presidential Index” has hit a new low. Today he is at Minus 26 – a 56-point swing from the Plus 30 he registered after his first full day in office. The total of likely voters who not only “disapprove” but “strongly disapprove” is now at 45 percent, with 56 percent disapproving overall.To put this in perspective, George W. Bush, in his last full month in office, was at 43 percent “strongly disapprove” and Minus 30 overall – at the end of an exhausted eight-year administration pummeled throughout by the MSM. Barack Obama is at virtually that level after two-and-a-half years, having started with historic goodwill and an MSM fully invested in his success. To appreciate the magnitude of the Rasmussen results, it is useful to view them in the chart-form developed by Boker tov, Boulder! Take a look.
It is a long time until November 2012, but one of the useful aspects of the Rasmussen poll is it reflects “likely voters” (not simply adults or registered voters), and measures their intensity. As Professor Larry Sabato has observed, elections are decided by those who show up; those who strongly disapprove are very unlikely to stay home, and they are approaching an absolute majority. As the BtB chart graphically illustrates, they exceed Obama’s total “approve” percentage (44 percent, of which only 19 percent “strongly approve” his performance). The differential is effectively a force multiplier that makes today’s poll results even more ominous for the president.
-
Blasto
in September 30th, 2011 @ 08:20John- are your taxes higher or lower since Obama came into office ?
-
John Steigerwald
in September 30th, 2011 @ 08:26Lower. My income dropped when I left KDKA. Check out what happens to all of our taxes when Obamacare kicks in.
-
oksteelerfan
in September 30th, 2011 @ 08:51Mine are the same as far as income taxes go, the problem is if Obama gets his way they’ll be higher.
-
Mason
in September 30th, 2011 @ 11:36Actually, I have had my total output go up considerably do to new laws and regulations put in place by a filibuster proof democrat majority and democrat president. The most recent is my new ATM bank fees that have come about as a direct consequence of the Dodd-Frank bill that hammered banks. Now the banks are passing costs on to me. Just like any other attack on business by the dems – it will also be passed on to me.
-
Blasto
in September 29th, 2011 @ 10:27It seems Ron Paul always speaks the truth ( according to him) and rarely flip flops to become the flavor of the month. Him saying he “respected” Irans desire does not mean he’d furnish them with a nuke..it meant he understands why they’d want one with their enemies armed to the teeth.. He certainly never said that “islamic terrorism is our fault” but says he understands how American foreign policy can piss people off…and so do I. The fact that he doesn’t drape himself in false patriotism and American exceptionalism is enough to sink him with the VinceL’s of the world and his ilk . I, for one, would probably vote for Paul if he won his parties nomination.
-
GeeWhiz
in September 29th, 2011 @ 10:32“Paul thinks Islamic terrorism is our fault.He would have been a great spokesman for Bin Laden.”
Paul explains his stance on that pretty well. He called it “blowback.” If you think about it, if another country we hated (let’s pretend Russia, China or even Iran,) was a super power – superior to the US – came on our land, built bases and huge embassies, exploited our own natural resources and started influencing the leadership. How do you think the citizenry would react? He makes sense, but corporate media, including FOX (especially last election) goes out of their way to portray him as a nut. But he still lasted longer than the other “front runners” last election (Giulianni, Huckabee and even Romney) until the GOP in Texas encouraged a younger Republican candidate, who tows their line, to run for his House seat, and he dropped out of the race to focus on that. (Which he was successful) Now he’s not going for re-election of the House – just focusing on becoming President. I don’t think everyone agrees with everything he stands for, but he’s the only straight-shooter in the bunch on either side. He’s the only candidate during my life time I ever wanted to vote FOR instead of voting against someone else by voting for their opponent.
-
VinceL
in September 29th, 2011 @ 16:41Islamic terrorists are a threat in the Phillippenes.Is it because of US foreign policy?They have attacked in Indonesia,India and African countries.Does that have anything to do with US foreign policy?They hate us because we exist.There is never a justification or explanation for terrorism.
-
GeeWhiz
in September 30th, 2011 @ 07:58Terrorists are what the big army calls the little army – and they hate us because we exist… on their land. RP doesn’t want our military to police the world. He wants to bring all our troops home – and they all agree because he gets the most military donations than any other candidate.
-
Dan
in September 29th, 2011 @ 11:28Mr. Obama, can you hear the fat lady singing? If Ron Paul is this close in the polls, it’s over for the accidental president. Goodbye and good riddance.
-
George Washington
in September 29th, 2011 @ 12:41For the last few months I’ve been saying “too bad Herman Cain has no chance to win this” Then the last debate and straw poll seem to have jumped him near the front of the pack.
I hope he can get enough awareness to make a legit run. What a prez race it would be!
Can you imagine the racial debates alone? Dems would be squirming in their seats! The questions the media would be afraid to ask for fear of being called racist. And even if they do, would have to defend everything? that would be too much fun.
Morons like Garafalo have already weighed in and shown their stupidity. Priceless.
-
franji1
in September 29th, 2011 @ 20:37He could become the first Black President, after Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama.
-
Chad Farthouse
in September 29th, 2011 @ 13:23Here is an interesting question for you John. Why is it that Ron Paul is some type of hero to you, or at least someone that you admire, while Jeremiah Wright is an anti-American menace? They have basically the same opinion with respect to the reasons behind 9/11, and that is the main reason that Wright has been hysterically criticized in this country, isn’t it?
-
John Steigerwald
in September 29th, 2011 @ 14:33Paul is not a hero to me and I disagree with him on 9/11 and Iran.
-
Chad Farthouse
in September 29th, 2011 @ 18:21So, should we be as suspicious of Rand Paul as you claim we all should be of Obama because of his close association with a well known America hater?
-
John Steigerwald
in September 29th, 2011 @ 19:06Who’s suspicious? Obama is guilty if being an apologist for America and a socialist as far as I’m concerned. I got beyond suspicion a long time ago.
-
francis
in September 29th, 2011 @ 16:19…obama voters cried the nite he won now they have tears again but for a very different reason…worst president ever…
-
Bunk Moreland
in September 29th, 2011 @ 21:12He is not toast. As a political scientist, I understand the logic and you’re correct. But as Richard pointed out, this is not only about Obama. It is also about the Republican party. None are electable. Barring an unforseen and galvanizing event, I just don’t see who llines up head to head and beats him. Especially when demographics suggest that people who dislike Obama most (rural, underemployed/underpaid, white males 35-65) are least likely to vote. I just don’t see him being toast. And if he ends up losing, we sure as hell can’t know it yet.
-
John Steigerwald
in September 29th, 2011 @ 23:57It’s a prediction. Check back with me in November, 2012. Do you think he’s going to get the same turnout from blacks and the young voters? The independents can’t run away from him fast enough. I’m no big fan of Romney, but he will blow Obama out. Perry had a bad debate. He’s a good campaigner and he’s never lost an election. Forget the national polls. Look at how he’s doing in states that he has to win like Florida, Virginia and Ohio. If Marco Rubio is the VP nominee, Florida is a slam dunk and he’ll take a good chunk of the Latino vote away every where else.
-
Mason
in September 30th, 2011 @ 08:05I get a good laugh everytime a liberal tells us that none of the republican nominees are electable.
-
Bunk Moreland
in September 30th, 2011 @ 22:30Far from a liberal if you are referring to me. And why the ‘good laugh’ if you are? What’s funny?
-
Bunk Moreland
in October 1st, 2011 @ 09:32No, I dont think he will get that turnout. You are correct. However, I think you overestimate Romney. I don’t see it. Most important is your point of looking at individual states. It seems most overlook it. Do you really think there is a chance Rubio emerges? Do you think Perry can carry norhern/eastern swing states?
-
John Steigerwald
in October 1st, 2011 @ 10:52Obama has to win Ohio, Fla and Va. That’s not going to happen. The repubs will win the red states they lost in 08.
-
Clenis
in October 1st, 2011 @ 15:06That’s not true. You need to play around with an electoral map. He does not need all three, he may not even need two of three. Last year he could have won without any of the three. Assuming he gives back NC, IN, IA, and NV. If he holds CO,NM then he could lose Florida and Ohio as long as he wins Virginia. I think Colorado New Mexico and Virginia are the ones to watch. That is of course as long as he doesn’t give up Michigan and Wisconsin. And Florida wouldn’t have mattered in 2000 in Gore won New Hampshire.
-
John Steigerwald
in October 1st, 2011 @ 18:34He’s not winning Virginia. And by the way, what’s he going to run on “Tax The Rich?”
-
Clenis
in October 1st, 2011 @ 19:35Yes. And I’m not sure why you feel that is an unpopular position.
“But as it happens, strong majorities of moderates and independents support tax hikes on the wealthy as the best way to close the deficit. I’ve compiled a half dozen polls showing that to be the case:
1) This month’s New York Times poll found that 86 percent of moderates, and 74 percent of independents, support deficit reduction through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. It also found that 65 percent of moderates, and 57 percent of independents, favor taxk hikes on those over $250,000.
2) Last month’s Marist-McClatchy poll found that 80 percent of moderates, and 68 percent of independents, support dealing with the deficit by raising taxes on income over $250,000.
3) Last month’s CNN poll found that 74 percent of moderates, and 62 percent of independents, think the deficit supercommittee should raise taxes on businesses and higher-income Americans.
4) Last month’s Gallup poll found that 64 percent of independents support reducing the Federal debt by hiking taxes on upper-income Americans.
5) A Washington Post poll in July found that 73 percent of moderates, and 64 percent of independents, favor reducing the deficit through a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts. It also found that 80 percent of moderates, and 73 percent of independents, favor tax hikes on those over $250,000. (WaPo also has a nice chart of other polling on Obama’s jobs positions.)
6) An NBC/WSJ poll in July found that 66 percent of moderates, and 54 percent of independents, supported Obama’s approach to reducing the deficit over that of the GOP — including tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy.”
Wow. You are going to have to read about a dozen Dick Morris columns to convince you all that isn’t true.
-
John Steigerwald
in October 1st, 2011 @ 21:27If that’s such a popular position, what happened in November 2010? How does a Republican or a conservative ever get elected? I’ve never understood why anyone would think that it would make sense for a party to “only care about the rich.” There are fewer “rich” than non-rich voters. Either the Repiublicans are amazingly principled or amazingly stupid because to have that position would make it impossible to get elected. Somehow those same people who think it’s a great idea to re-distribute the wealth have Obama with an approval rating hovering near 40. How does that happen? How many of those people are saying they would rather raise taxes on incomes over $250,000 instead of raising everyone’s taxes. All of those poll numbers add up to more evidence for scrapping the income tax. How can you not see the danger in having candidates getting eledcted by promising “free stuff” to the people who don’t pay taxes that will be paid for by people who do pay taxes? The only way that makes sense is if you only allow the people who pay income taxes to vote. They’re finding out in Europe that taxing the rich and giving it to the nonproductive means that the rich will stop producing or start figuring out ways to make their money outside the country. Do you have any polls on how people feel about the government spending too much?
Meanwhile:
Here are the facts according to the IRS:
• Those making more than $1 million pay 24% of income in taxes
• Those making $200,000 to $300,000 pay 17.5%
• Those making $100,000 to $125,000 pay 9.9%
• Those making $50,000 to $60,000 pay 6.3%
• Those making $20,000 to $30,000 pay 2.5%And what of millionaires who pay no taxes?
There are 1,470 of them. They represent six-tenths of one percent of all those with million dollar incomes in the U.S. If we assume that they make an average income of $2 million a year each, taxing them at the same rate as other millionaires (24.4%) would yield $367 million, which would increase Treasury income tax revenues by 30 one-hundredths of one percent or one-third of one-tenth of one percent!
And then there’s this:
• The top 1% pays 39%
• The top 5% pays 60%
• The top 10% pays 72%
• The bottom half pays 3%So the top 10% pays 72%. You don’t think that’s enough. Give me a “fair” number. 80? 90? 100?
-
Mark Davis
in September 29th, 2011 @ 21:48Bill Clinton had an approval rating of 40% a year before the 1996 election and he smoked Dole a year later so your history is inaccurate http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx
The fact is that a year is a lifetime in politics. This election will be decided by two things: who the reps nominate and how the economy is in November, 2012. You can keep saying he’s toast, but that’s just ridiculous. You base it on history, but politics are different today compared with 30 years ago and even 14 years ago. Keep in mind, people thought there was no way that Bush would win and he did. And Bush Sr had an approval rating over 70% when he invaded Iraq and he lost a year later. You dislike the guy and want him out, we get it. But saying he’s toast, well we’ll see in a year. I’ll take my chances with Obama and his $1B warchest.
-
John Steigerwald
in September 29th, 2011 @ 23:55Clinton didn’t get elected because the country fell in love with his life story and wanted to make history. There is no way that he is going to get the turnout from blacks and young voters that he got in 2008. Clinton won because he was smart (and unprincipled) enough to take Dick Morris’ advice and steal the republicans ideas (triangulation.) Obama is too much of a socialist/statist to move to the right the way Clinton did.
Toast.
-
Mason
in September 30th, 2011 @ 08:10Clinton also didnt ram a so-called health care bill down our throats with a filibuster proof majority – the entire time lieing about it’s benefits.
The reality that liberals fail to see is that starting with a republican winning Ted Kennedy’s old seat to try to stop the healthcare madness, up thru the 2010 devestation of the democrats – this election is going to be a referendum on the garbage the dems pulled to pass that grotesque bill that has already caused premiums to go up dramatically and has proven the fact over and over again that Obama flat out lied over and over to the American public. 50% of the country will never forget what happened, how it was handled and how they blantantly lied.
-
Richard
in September 30th, 2011 @ 11:50In other Dick Morris news, he apparently believes that Obama is going to withdraw from the race come January.
-
John Steigerwald
in September 30th, 2011 @ 12:57He said he hasn’t ruled it out. That’s along way from “believes.”
-
Richard
in September 30th, 2011 @ 13:28True that. It’s pure speculation at this point, and seems like it might be good strategy for the democratic party, but one that could backfire. If they forced Obama out, they’d better have a candidate who can win unlike Hubert Humphrey.
-
Blasto
in September 30th, 2011 @ 11:50I agree with some of this Mason…but…were premiums going up dramatically when the GOP had total control for 6 years not long ago.? ..You bet your sweet St. Ronnie button they were. What exactly did the GOP do to address this..? Absolutely nothing as usual. Now, somebody actually adresses the issue of me paying for every free loader walking into an emergency room anytime they want on my dime and what happens.?.The GOP shoots it full of holes and basically blames it for the ruination of the country. “Obamacare” isn’t perfect…but some good things DO come out of it as well. The GOP did nothing to address health care and will do nothing to address it if they get power again..except to repeal Obamas version.
-
John Steigerwald
in September 30th, 2011 @ 12:59If the democrats hadn’t demagogued the issue every four years, maybe we’d have health saving accounts by now.
-
oksteelerfan
in October 2nd, 2011 @ 16:12Has the government ever been able to run anything right?