Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 127

Thread: Analyzing the JI Polls

  1. #41
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4310938]
    Deficit when Obama took office: $438B - then a record Now? $1.3Trillion
    [/QUOTE]

    "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." -Dick Cheney

  2. #42
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,872
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4310954]"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." -Dick Cheney[/QUOTE]

    This is why you're the laughing stock of the poli forum...

  3. #43
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4310965]This is why you're the laughing stock of the poli forum...[/QUOTE]

    if I cared about what you think of me, i wouldn't post here.

  4. #44
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4310837]W. Bush was in power when it happened, he gets the blame. It's not fair but that's how it works.

    It should also be noted Reagan's repeal of Glass Steagal (anti trust laws) made the concept of too big to fail a reality.[/QUOTE]

    You can try and ride the blame Bush train to 4 more years of misery with Obama but I doubt it will work. Obama is not running against Bush. He also isn't running against Eric Cantor/John Boehnor. He will run against Romney and all polling and anecdotal evidence suggests he is likely to lose.

  5. #45
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,872
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4310984]You can try and ride the blame Bush train to 4 more years of misery with Obama but I doubt it will work. Obama is not running against Bush. He also isn't running against Eric Cantor/John Boehnor. He will run against Romney and all polling and anecdotal evidence suggests he is likely to lose.[/QUOTE]

    :yes:

    Angry Bit will be so much better around here than "haha, my party may be fuggin' up the country but at least it's my party" Bit...

  6. #46
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4311008]:yes:

    Angry Bit will be so much better around here than "haha, my party may be fuggin' up the country but at least it's my party" Bit...[/QUOTE]

    +1 Its better when there is at least some intellectual honesty injected in to a debate.

  7. #47
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4310837]W. Bush was in power when it happened, he gets the blame. It's not fair but that's how it works.

    It should also be noted Reagan's repeal of Glass Steagal (anti trust laws) made the concept of too big to fail a reality.[/QUOTE]

    Clinton signed the repeal not Reagan. The repeal was bipartisan.:eek:

  8. #48
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4310984] He will run against Romney and all polling and anecdotal evidence suggests he is likely to lose.[/QUOTE]

    The GOP base hates Romney. they like d-bags like Santorum. there is no enthusiasm for a Romney presidency. He's a GOP John kerry and trust me "anybody but" is not a winning strategy.

  9. #49
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,349
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4310938]??

    Unemployment numbers when Obama took office: 7.8%. Now? 8.6%
    Deficit when Obama took office: $438B - then a record Now? $1.3Trillion

    On what theory has Obama "slowly improved matters"?[/QUOTE]

    Please do not forget Obama put the wars on the books, something that wasn't done by GW.

  10. #50
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4311043]Clinton signed the repeal not Reagan. The repeal was bipartisan.:eek:[/QUOTE]

    Clinton shares blame, to be sure, but i was referring to 1986 anti-trust Reform laws

  11. #51
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,872
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4311058]He's a GOP John kerry and trust me "anybody but" is not a winning strategy.[/QUOTE]

    Obama won for two reasons...

    1) Collective group of voters who showed up to support the first black Presidential candidate...

    2) Independents voted "anybody but" (R)

    A GOP John Kerry... lol

    Once Romney wins the nomination the party will back him... And they will focus on Obama's presidency just as much so as they focus on Mitt Romney's track record, business and politics...

    Obama is going to run against Congress and the American people simply won't fall for it...

  12. #52
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4311058]The GOP base hates Romney. they like d-bags like Santorum. there is no enthusiasm for a Romney presidency. He's a GOP John kerry and trust me "anybody but" is not a winning strategy.[/QUOTE]

    Kerry was a far left liberal elitist. Romney is a center right candidate whose previous actions and history closely resembles the political tilt of the country. He has money backing him and will make a strong candidate. He lacks baggage as has been seen by the many attempts by his challengers to smear him. If you think that the base wont get fired up to get rid of Obama you are fooling yourself. This election will be won or lost on turnout and the independent vote.

    Obama has lost independents. His base is no longer maniacal in their support of him. His luster has worn off. His economic policies have been a failure. He will lose the election and deservedly so.

  13. #53
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4311134] This election will be won or lost on turnout and the independent vote.
    .[/QUOTE]

    the turnout in Iowa wasn't suggestive of an enthusiastic GOP. It was the same number of votes in 2008 more or less.

  14. #54
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4311204]the turnout in Iowa wasn't suggestive of an enthusiastic GOP. It was the same number of votes in 2008 more or less.[/QUOTE]

    You think the turnout for a primary is relevant? I don't. The GOP will be fired up and turn out to vote against Obama. Independents and disaffected Democrats will do the same.

    Obama has been hovering at 20% strongly approve. The Strongly disapprove numbers have been holding steady in the lower 40% range. He has an enthusiasm gap of -20% Plus. That's the facts. [url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll[/url]

    Obama's job approval numbers are the lowest of any first term president in modern times at this point in their reign. Worse than Carter, Clinton, Bush and everyone else. Its not looking good. Economy is sputtering along and will likely have a negative event hit us with the Euro Zone collapse that is scheduled for sometime next year. I hope I'm wrong about that part but it is looking inevitable. Regardless the numbers don't bode well for your guy.

  15. #55
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,649
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4308898][U][B]Republican or Out

    [/B][/U]Warfish (out on Romney/Social Conservative),[/QUOTE]

    Appreciate the effort you've put in Doggin, but I too would take issue at this description.

    I will vote for Ron Paul (R) or I will vote for a Third Party (L), and I am leaning towards the Third Party (Libertarian) option no matter who wins the (R) nomination.

    Being "out" on Romney (the almost assured (R) nominee) and "out" on Social Conservatives (Santorum, Bachman, Perry) makes my view of (R) somewhat clear, I think.

  16. #56
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [B]Another interesting Poll:[/B]

    Partisan Trends: Number of Democrats Falls to All-Time Low
    The number of Republicans in the country increased by a percentage point in December, while the number of Democrats fell back two points to the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports.


    During December, 35.4% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.3% in November and just below the high for the year of 35.6% reached in May.

    At the same time, just 32.7% of adults said they were Democrats, down from 34.9% in November. The previous low for Democrats was 33.0% in August of this year. .

    The number of voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties rose to 32.0% in December from 30.8% the month before.

    Rasmussen Reports tracks this information based on telephone interviews with approximately 15,000 adults per month and has been doing so since November 2002. The margin of error for the full sample is less than one percentage point, with a 95% level of confidence.

  17. #57
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4310728]yeah and the Democrats didn't get back into the WH for 12 years.



    I could give you facts and figures but you won't listen. [B]Statistically the economy is far better now than it was in early 2009 when Obama was sworn in[/B].[/QUOTE]

    Here is a very simple one to understand

    [URL="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth"]http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth[/URL]


    [IMG]http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=gdp cqoq&d1=20070101&d2=20120104[/IMG]

  18. #58
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4311395]Here is a very simple one to understand

    [URL="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth"]http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth[/URL]


    [IMG]http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=gdp cqoq&d1=20070101&d2=20120104[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    Here is what the Reagan recovery looked like on that chart:
    [IMG]http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=gdp%20cqoq&d1=19790101&d2=19880131[/IMG]

    Notice almost 2 years of straight 5%+ growth. Continued strength for 5-6 years in a row, all coming off a recession more severe than the one Obama inherited.

  19. #59
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Furthermore note that Obama's economy looks alot more like Carters than Reagan's. Carter inherited a recession as well (seems like most Presidents do for some reason???) The economy floundered for 4 years eventually leading in to another recession (perhaps next year?) Note some of the high growth rate numbers need to be adjusted for inflation which at that time was as high as 16%. A better chart would be Real GDP Growth versus the Nominal Growth Charts being shown here. You need to discount inflation for the chart to be relevant. I will look around for those charts.

    [IMG]http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=gdp%20cqoq&d1=19740101&d2=19800131[/IMG]
    Last edited by chiefst2000; 01-04-2012 at 03:12 PM.

  20. #60
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    The question I addressed was “proof” that the economy is better now than it was in 2009 when the Obama Administration took power. GDP Growth rate proves that.


    Your contention that the recession preceding Ronald Reagan was worse than the 2008 to 2009 recession is laughable. EVERY economist alive will tell you this was the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us