The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 19, 2021, 12:27:05 AM

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1086237 times)
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,492
Samoa


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« on: April 16, 2012, 11:03:22 AM »

Instead of going to the expense of having an election, why don't we just do it by who Ras has ahead on  the day we would otherwise have one. If we had an election where the results differed from Ras's numbers, it would be due to Dem fraud anyway. So we could at once save money and have an "honest" election. Cool!
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,492
Samoa


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2012, 09:17:45 PM »

I highly doubt just this debate will cause Romney to lead. But if this becomes a pattern, and the people think Obama has nothing new to offer them while Romney keeps playing to the middle, watch out.

The most effective thing Mittens said in my mind, with the voters who will decide the election, is that he worked for bipartisan consensus with Romneycare, and Obama didn't with Obamacare, and that approach can bear poison fruit. All major pieces of social legislation in the past have had important bipartisan support - all of them. And yes, Mittens is playing the middle hard now. It must be a relief for him that the primaries are over. That period was absolutely horrible.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,492
Samoa


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2012, 09:31:47 PM »

I highly doubt just this debate will cause Romney to lead. But if this becomes a pattern, and the people think Obama has nothing new to offer them while Romney keeps playing to the middle, watch out.

The most effective thing Mittens said in my mind, with the voters who will decide the election, is that he worked for bipartisan consensus with Romneycare, and Obama didn't with Obamacare, and that approach can bear poison fruit. All major pieces of social legislation in the past have had important bipartisan support - all of them. And yes, Mittens is playing the middle hard now. It must be a relief for him that the primaries are over. That period was absolutely horrible.

Of course Obama's response should be that no Republican wanted to play ball with him, but he wasn't able to make that argument at all during the debate. He has an even better case with the debt debacle of a couple years back (when Nancy was not calling the shots), and he failed there as well. Truman won by running against an obstructionist congress, Obama must do the same.

Well actually Obama didn't play much ball with the Pubs on Obamacare at all, walked out on Boehner because he could not even suck up using the chained CPI for SS payment adjustments, ignored Simpson Bowles, that had a bipartisan majority in support of something, and indeed does not talk much to anybody. Dems in Congress bitch all the time what a loner and unapproachable Obama is.  I suspect he holds most of the political class in contempt. That is my honest opinion.

Obama has his talents. Being a consensus builder, and finding the middle, is not one of them however. It is just not within him. Mittens should play this card hard from now until the election. His base will have to suck it up.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,492
Samoa


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2012, 09:36:05 PM »

I highly doubt just this debate will cause Romney to lead. But if this becomes a pattern, and the people think Obama has nothing new to offer them while Romney keeps playing to the middle, watch out.

The most effective thing Mittens said in my mind, with the voters who will decide the election, is that he worked for bipartisan consensus with Romneycare, and Obama didn't with Obamacare, and that approach can bear poison fruit. All major pieces of social legislation in the past have had important bipartisan support - all of them. And yes, Mittens is playing the middle hard now. It must be a relief for him that the primaries are over. That period was absolutely horrible.


I thought that entire discussion was awful... It's difficult to be bipartisan when the other side refuses to do anything other than what they want.

Kind of the same as in MA, Romney's point about working with democrats was silly, because he didn't have a choice. they could have overrun his veto, and this this was before the gop went into the psychiatric ward, and being seen as a 'concilliator' was going to be a plus. but in reality, he was bent over a barrell.

I'm startled he didn't attack congress, not even a little...

Well Obama chose to do nothing, rather than work out compromises with the Pub House when he "had no choice but to do so if he wanted to do anything at all." He never had serious negotiations with them about anything really. So the Pubs were unanimous against him, including all the moderates and centrists - all of them.  One simply could not do business with him. JMO.  
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,492
Samoa


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2012, 09:39:08 PM »

I highly doubt just this debate will cause Romney to lead. But if this becomes a pattern, and the people think Obama has nothing new to offer them while Romney keeps playing to the middle, watch out.

The most effective thing Mittens said in my mind, with the voters who will decide the election, is that he worked for bipartisan consensus with Romneycare, and Obama didn't with Obamacare, and that approach can bear poison fruit. All major pieces of social legislation in the past have had important bipartisan support - all of them. And yes, Mittens is playing the middle hard now. It must be a relief for him that the primaries are over. That period was absolutely horrible.

Of course Obama's response should be that no Republican wanted to play ball with him, but he wasn't able to make that argument at all during the debate. He has an even better case with the debt debacle of a couple years back (when Nancy was not calling the shots), and he failed there as well. Truman won by running against an obstructionist congress, Obama must do the same.

Well actually Obama didn't play much ball with the Pubs on Obamacare at all, walked out on Boehner because he could not even suck up using the chained CPI for SS payment adjustments, ignored Simpson Bowles, that had a bipartisan majority in support of something, and indeed does not talk much to anybody. Dems in Congress bitch all the time what a loner and unapproachable Obama is.  I suspect he holds most of the political class in contempt. That is my honest opinion.

Obama has his talents. Being a consensus builder, and finding the middle, is not one of them however. It is just not within him. Mittens should play this card hard from now until the election. His base will have to suck it up.

Alright... i'm asking a serious question, since i respect you and unlike JJ you've haven't turned into a hack.

do you genuinely believe that this congress, especially with McConnell and the TP caucus.... that anything even close to a compromise could have been reached?

Every reasonable GOPer was terrified of being primaried...

I don't know if a deal could be cut, but yes, Obama could have made more of an effort, and I am quite confident he could have peeled off some Pubs with something that ended up effectively insuring everyone somehow for example to some degree - which obviously has to be done, along with moving Medicare more towards an HMO system. Heck, he could have peeled off me if I had been in Congress.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,492
Samoa


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2012, 11:26:09 PM »

I highly doubt just this debate will cause Romney to lead. But if this becomes a pattern, and the people think Obama has nothing new to offer them while Romney keeps playing to the middle, watch out.

The most effective thing Mittens said in my mind, with the voters who will decide the election, is that he worked for bipartisan consensus with Romneycare, and Obama didn't with Obamacare, and that approach can bear poison fruit. All major pieces of social legislation in the past have had important bipartisan support - all of them. And yes, Mittens is playing the middle hard now. It must be a relief for him that the primaries are over. That period was absolutely horrible.

Of course Obama's response should be that no Republican wanted to play ball with him, but he wasn't able to make that argument at all during the debate. He has an even better case with the debt debacle of a couple years back (when Nancy was not calling the shots), and he failed there as well. Truman won by running against an obstructionist congress, Obama must do the same.

Well actually Obama didn't play much ball with the Pubs on Obamacare at all, walked out on Boehner because he could not even suck up using the chained CPI for SS payment adjustments, ignored Simpson Bowles, that had a bipartisan majority in support of something, and indeed does not talk much to anybody. Dems in Congress bitch all the time what a loner and unapproachable Obama is.  I suspect he holds most of the political class in contempt. That is my honest opinion.

Obama has his talents. Being a consensus builder, and finding the middle, is not one of them however. It is just not within him. Mittens should play this card hard from now until the election. His base will have to suck it up.

Regarding Obamacare, it is just so similar to Republican plans that I don't understand why more Republicans didn't sign on to it. I don't think there was much reasoning to the opposition to it, which is why you saw the raving nonsense about "kill the bill" and all that. Of course I think the Wyden-Bennett bill would have been better, although much more politically difficult to get through, but you cannot criticize Obamacare as being too liberal or leftist. It just doesn't make sense. I guess the Democrats were more concerned about pleasing their own moderates than reaching out to the Republicans? It's all drama really, I don't see what Republicans would have wanted in reality that they didn't get with the bill, except credit of course. And that is worth way more than passing good bills in today's media driven political world.



I thought I had explained at length and in detail why Obamacare is a disaster, and will collapse of its own weight. It cannot stand even if the Dems hold every seat in Congress. I would give up sex before voting for Obamacare. I mean that. And I am a Pub who believes in universal insurance. So no, it was not only politics in my opinion, it was substance.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.041 seconds with 10 queries.