Cain Surges in Latest Gallup

[bcarson]

Herman Cain moved into a strong second place with the support of 18% of those Republicans who plan to vote. Mitt Romney still holds onto the lead with 20%. The biggest difference with Mr. Cain is that the more people hear him speak and find out about him, the more popular he gets. The opposite is true to some extent for all the other candidates.

gallup.com/poll/149990/Cain-Surges-Nearly-Ties-Romney-Lead-GOP-Preferences.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics

 

[bbarrick8383]

If dollars come with poll numbers he’s got a chance.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I find him a mixed bag.
I agree with him that blacks feel some sort of community obligation
to vote Democratic. I also agree that some of the protestors (Wall Street protestors)
are probably motivated by jealousy in part.

But his generalizations about the virtues of the rich
and telling unemployed people to blame THEMSELVES for their predicament,
are particularly despicable. “If you don’t have a job, blame yourself.”
How DARE he. I suffered like hell, even enduring a psychotic break,
looking for work for 2 and a half years. How DARE he.

I have never had much money, and I have never wanted a rich man’s Cadillac.
(By the way, they often drive Bentleys, not mere Cadillacs).
And his admiration of how (he thinks) most of the rich got their vast riches,
is not shared by the Spirit-inspired authors of Scripture, which paint
seeking vast riches as a form of godlessness and materialism.
It is not, of necessity, a “sin” to be or become wealthy, not at all.
But the process often involves a LOT of sin, of varying types and degrees,
including the sin of wanting to get ahead at all costs, including setting aside
your family, your spirituality, your charity, etc. Billionaires did not get where they
are by being proportionately very generous.
When the rich young man, who was a pretty darn good dude, asked Jesus what else he needed to do to be saved, Jesus told him to sell all he had and give the proceeds to the poor and come follow Him. He, the otherwise pretty nice Rich Young Man, turned away from Jesus and went away sad, because he loved his Riches more than the idea of following the son of God. Jesus said that, while not impossible (with God) for a rich man to be saved, in general it is easier for a Camel to go through the Eye of a Needle
than for a Rich Man to enter the Kingdom of God. He meant that,
and those of us Republicans (and despite my views modifications, I am still a Republican) who look to the Rich and trickle-down economics, etc., should really think twice about this in light of Jesus’s very clear words.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4

 

[bbarrick8383]

I believe Cain was referring to the protesters complaining about not getting free college and not getting a job handed to them simply because they went to college.

 

[Pork_Roll]

Cain doesn’t seem to have the ideal intellect with his 9-9-9 tax plan. Even if he’s president, he’ll keep us in a never ending war and lower taxes on the wealthy–further polarizing our country. Then we get another Obama and the cycle repeats itself and the middle class looses.

 

[bcarson]

The difference with Mr. Cain is that his is a true American success story. He didn’t inherit wealth or fame. He started at the bottom and and made his way up with sweat equity. So when he chastises the rabble who have nothing better to do than “occupy” city blocks, he comes across to me as being genuine.

I believe he would garner the support of many in this country who are sick of life-long politicians who have little or no real life experience.

And I would love to see him in a one-on-one debate with our current president.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

That’s an interesting thought.
I understand those protestors’ frustrations, especially after busting your fanny
for years in college, burning the midnight oil and studying like a maniac,
getting your degree with all the promises often attached to such things,
and then finding that the jobs just aren’t there, or employers want to pay you
as little as they can get away with in many cases.

I hear about how great it is that The Rich Create All the Jobs.
Well, many of the jobs work you to death to where you hurt and ache all over,
are stressed to the max and need psychiatric medications from all the work stress,
and they, while enormously wealthy and profitable, pay you as little as the Law
will let them get away with paying you. I have seen this personally over and over again.
And in the current economy, as bad as the job market is,
you can’t just “up and quit” such a job, because even though it is a living Hell,
you are grateful to God to have it until times improve because it’s better than starving to death or having to default on your financial obligations. But that doesn’t absolve the very stingy, wealthy employers of their serious guilt in the eyes of God for not paying you a live-able wage.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

By the way, having said the above,
let me clarify that I do NOT regard ALL employers
as “enormously wealthy and stingy.”
Some employers are very fair, especially small and mid-size businesses.
But in general, from what I have seen in my 31 years in the work force,
the larger and wealthier the corporation, the harder they try
to pay their workers the bare minimum that the Law will permit.
They will pay their pencil-pushers in suits, many of whom, in
practical terms, do very very little, rather nice salaries.
But those who do the real elbow-grease work,
without which the companies would COLLAPSE by the way,
those people they regard with a silent contempt and pay them very little.

I once had a company vice-president ridicule me because I knew
the cashiers at the local Burger King by their first names. He seemed to
think it would be beneath his dignity to get to know such grunts.

 

[Darryl1958]

]I find him a mixed bag.
I agree with him that blacks feel some sort of community obligation
to vote Democratic. I also agree that some of the protestors (Wall Street protestors)
are probably motivated by jealousy in part.

Yes.

But his generalizations about the virtues of the rich
and telling unemployed people to blame THEMSELVES for their predicament,
are particularly despicable. “If you don’t have a job, blame yourself.”
How DARE he. I suffered like hell, even enduring a psychotic break,
looking for work for 2 and a half years. How DARE he.

The reality of being unemployed is harsh, but what is harsher is to understand your fate is at the whim of others, and you have no say. To blame yourself is to believe that you have the ability to pull yourself out of the hole.
It is not one hundred percent true of course. often there are times that the hole is way to deep and things are outside of our ability to fix.

However, if one is always looking outside of oneself to blame others for the predicaments we find ourselves in, then that stifles any possibility that one might begin to look to his own abilities to change the situation.
More often than not, if change is ever going to come, it is going to come as a result of greater self-motivation.
Coming from the background that he does, I suspect that he says things such as this not out of indifference or contempt, but out of frustration and compassion for all the people he has known along the way who didn’t believe in themselves enough to pull themselves out of the holes that they found themselves in.
I recall the story that an old rig manager once told me about this Indian he grew up with, the smartest and most talented kid in the school. But there came a time when he didn’t carry through with his natural abilities, and when asked why his response was that “I am just an Indian”.

I have never had much money, and I have never wanted a rich man’s Cadillac.
(By the way, they often drive Bentleys, not mere Cadillacs).
And his admiration of how (he thinks) most of the rich got their vast riches,
is not shared by the Spirit-inspired authors of Scripture, which paint
seeking vast riches as a form of godlessness and materialism.

Well I wound’t go so far as to judge where he is along his own spiritual walk.

It is not, of necessity, a “sin” to be or become wealthy, not at all.
But the process often involves a LOT of sin, of varying types and degrees,
including the sin of wanting to get ahead at all costs, including setting aside
your family, your spirituality, your charity, etc. Billionaires did not get where they
are by being proportionately very generous.

Many rich people are indeed proportionately very generous. Bill Gates comes to mind, as do many people of great, but much lesser means, who are the ones paying the lions share of Catholic developments such as schools for example.

I don’t know if that is the case or not with Herman Cains, but I wouldn’t want to be judging him as someone has gotten ahead by stepping on the backs and heads of others who got in his way, without some compelling proof.

When the rich young man, who was a pretty darn good dude, asked Jesus what else he needed to do to be saved, Jesus told him to sell all he had and give the proceeds to the poor and come follow Him. He, the otherwise pretty nice Rich Young Man, turned away from Jesus and went away sad, because he loved his Riches more than the idea of following the son of God. Jesus said that, while not impossible (with God) for a rich man to be saved, in general it is easier for a Camel to go through the Eye of a Needle
than for a Rich Man to enter the Kingdom of God. He meant that,
and those of us Republicans (and despite my views modifications, I am still a Republican) who look to the Rich and trickle-down economics, etc., should really think twice about this in light of Jesus’s very clear words.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4

With great wealth comes great power. Many earnest rich young men feel guilt for their wealth too, and wonder if it would not be better to just renege on it.

For many the idea of being without wealth is absolutely frigthening and their wealth becomes in effect a great weight around their neck, pulling them down with the stress of where they would be without it. I tis not a blessing but a curse for them.

I an see a lot of that in the man who was in all matters most saintly, but was still sad and burdened down with life’s troubles all the same. It was the burden of wealth that was the source of these troubles though, and even Jesus’ sage advice could not get through.

Not all rich people are troubled like this. And many are good and kind and generous, just like the young men who encountered Jesus was. If these people give up their wealth out of a sense of religious guilt, that would mean the only people that had the wealth and the power that goes with wealth would be those more evil, and less inclined to care about anything except themselves and their own egos.

The world wouldn’t be a better place as a result. The overall message of the Old Testament was never that the rich needed to give up their wealth, but that they were in a position of great responsibility and that they had social responsibilities to their community too as a result of their wealth. Their wealth depends on every level with the community as a whole prospering in some way

 

[bbarrick8383]

By the way, having said the above,
let me clarify that I do NOT regard ALL employers
as “enormously wealthy and stingy.”
Some employers are very fair, especially small and mid-size businesses.
But in general, from what I have seen in my 31 years in the work force,
the larger and wealthier the corporation, the harder they try
to pay their workers the bare minimum that the Law will permit.
They will pay their pencil-pushers in suits, many of whom, in
practical terms, do very very little, rather nice salaries.
But those who do the real elbow-grease work,
without which the companies would COLLAPSE by the way,
those people they regard with a silent contempt and pay them very little.

I once had a company vice-president ridicule me because I knew
the cashiers at the local Burger King by their first names. He seemed to
think it would be beneath his dignity to get to know such grunts.

I’ve threatened to beat the living daylights out of two of my employers. One fired me and the other gave me a raise. Both blue collar labor jobs, one of them in construction. I have a college degree and have rarely used it. I’ll find a job regardless of pay and I will always be grateful for having a job, regarless of pay.

People need to get a backbone and learn how to live off the bare minimum. Ignore the wealthy, and live your life.

 

[Nimzovik]

Excuse me? How can Cain possibly be worse for Catholics than Pro - choice Obamma? Cain has said at least 85% of what I think. At least Cain, speaking from the heart, does not need a teleprompter.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**I’ve threatened to beat the living daylights out of two of my employers. One fired me and the other gave me a raise. Both blue collar labor jobs, one of them in construction. I have a college degree and have rarely used it. I’ll find a job regardless of pay and I will always be grateful for having a job, regarless of pay.

People need to get a backbone and learn how to live off the bare minimum. Ignore the wealthy, and live your life. **

LOL, I have never threatened to beat up any of my employers. What a hoot !! I guess they really ticked you off, eh?
I will always be grateful for having a job, but “regardless of pay” is not a reasonable or liveable option here in South Florida, especially when one has elderly parents that need help and other obligations that one incurred before being laid off (by a wealthy corporation that decided to to make it’s wealthy shareholders even MORE wealthy by firing thousands of loyal workers). I have never been “jealous” of the wealthy. They are targets of thieves in their fancy homes in Coral Gables and other well to do sections of Miami, of violent, home-invader thieves is what I mean. Also, I see no need nor have any desire whatsoever for a big luxurious car or some multi-room expensive house. Granted, such houses are pretty (and a beautiful wealthy neighborhood begins just across the avenue from my block, with HUGE and gorgeous expensive houses. But my lord, I could never take care of such a huge house, I would have to be hiring yardworkers, maids, etc., just to maintain the big place. Plus, I would feel LOST in such a big place. Why do I need such luxuries? I don’t. I do confess to enjoying a nice cologne every now and then (“Farenheit” by Christian Dior is my favorite), but other than that, I don’t want or need any luxuries.
Even so, however, I don’t agree that people ought to be learning to be happy with
“the bare minimum,” if by that you mean chintzy pay for very hard work. No, no, no.
A thousand times no.
If you work me on a high-stress job past the point of exhaustion,
then, whether you agree or not, you OWE me a decent living and a liveable wage.
This goes for all people who bust their tails on their jobs.
And if their employer CAN afford to pay them decently and refuses to do so,
then the State should step in and FORCE them to do what is right.
That is the whole idea behind the Minimum Wage.
I don’t like the idea of a “minimum wage” in strict principle (economically speaking), but since all people are sinners and that includes employers with money and power,
you have to force some of them to be decent to their workers. Depriving a worker of his wages or of a JUST livable wage, is a Sin that Cries to Heaven for Vengeance, like willful murder. Laissez-faire capitalists tend to forget that. And that is more a phenomenon among strict Calvinists, not Catholic theologians.
I don’t want to make $75,000 a year or anything like that, but I DO need to make enough to support myself, help my elderly parents, meet my financial obligations, and help provide to the church and to charities (such as Feeding South Florida, which used to be called Daily Bread Food Bank) to help people who are much worse off than I am, whether through their own fault or not.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

And I should add,
“having a backbone” does not, and ought not to mean,
letting people walk all over you because they can get away with it.
It is not a matter of backbone, to allow a well-to-do employer
to rip you off of your rightful wage. Some employers
even take AWAY what you have already been paid (for selling the item),
if a customer even months later RETURNS the item, thanks to
THEIR generous return policy, which generous policy is entirely paid for by YOU,
the hapless hard worker who busted your fanny selling the merchandise.
That’s not right. Unfortunately, it is perfectly legal.
It ought NOT be, but it IS. It is also extremely sinful, I believe.
I don’t want to offend any Native Americans,
but this sort of thing used to be called Indian-Giving.
It is thoroughly despicable.
And by the way, your Manager doesn’t lose one penny of HIS wages because of
returned merchandise, no, ONLY the hard working, tail busting sales people.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Many rich people are indeed proportionately very generous. Bill Gates comes to mind, as do many people of great, but much lesser means, who are the ones paying the lions share of Catholic developments such as schools for example.

I would say that SOME rich people are generous, and a FEW of THEM are
PROPORTIONATELY “very” generous. Many? No. Note, I am talking about PROPORTIONATE generosity. I got into a heated argument with a hardcore conservative on another thread about this very issue.
In a previous job, I was privy to the donations that the employees (executives and hourlies and managers and VPs) were giving, per pay period, to a popular national charity.
I knew what all these people made, and I knew what they GAVE to that, and other charities. In very, very many cases, the ones who made the HUGE salaries (and I’m talking hundreds of thousands a year and UP) gave proportionately speaking, extremely little to this charity. The hourlies proportionately gave much, much more of their paycheck to the charity. In other words, they gave enough to actually “miss it.”
Now, the ones with the HUGE salaries might give $1,000 check to the charity, but it was fully tax-deductible, and they made scads of money. So it’s a nice check, but not an amount they would be likely to miss. Proportionate to their income, it was very, very little. MUCH less, proportionately, than the hourly employees who were paid far, far, far less. But this “charity” rewarded ONLY the ones who gave the $1,000 checks. Every year, at “pledge” time, they took the wealthy employees out on a fancy Cruise, with fine entertainment, rich foods, the choicest wines and liquors, with music and dancing, photo ops with famous people and politicians, etc. Now, we didn’t give to get the reward, but those who gave proportionately much more got nothing more than a mere form-letter thank you from this charity. The wealthy got wined and dined, their photos taken, media exposure for their supposed generosity, etc. And that is just the way things are.
And that is the way things always will be. But those people who got wined and dined and treated to the celebrities and politicians and bands and rich foods and the Cruise, they gave proportionately far less than those hourly workers who proportionately gave MUCH more, but didn’t get the VIP or any other respectful treatment.
And Bill Gates?
Yes, he gives generously to many causes.
And much of his giving is to causes that Christians ought to abhor.
But let me clarify something:
Conservatives tend to support the Rich, even the very Rich.
But the Very Rich, themselves, generally, are NOT conservatives,
and DO NOT support conservative or Christian causes, not at all.
I live a block away from a very, very Wealthy neighborhood.
Are these folks conservatives? Oh Lord, NO !!!
Walk around the neighborhood, like I did during the 2008 elections.
ALL of the cars had OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT bumper stickers on them,
and all of the yards had “OBAMA '08” and specifically Anti-Republican yard signs
in nearly 100% of the yards. These very, very wealthy people are,
ironically enough, radical Liberals. And why not? The rich have MANY
loopholes in the income tax laws.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4

 

[earthbound]

Cain has never won an election. How is he electable?


The methodology of this “poll” is a bit odd.

sample of 1,064

Wow, what a huge sample!
Especially since they whittled this sample out of the 4000+ people they actually claim to have contacted.

So now please read this, the methodology of the poll:

2012 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION
Results are based on telephone interviews conducted October 3-7, 2011, on the Gallup Daily tracking survey,
with a random sample of –1,064—Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, aged 18+, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
For results based on the total sample of Republicans, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of error is ±4 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each daily sample of 1,000 national adults includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline numbers are chosen at random

Region could be easily used to weight responses. People who live in areas without easy access to online information would make perfect samples for the owners of dinosaur media to reinforce their agenda… Just sayin’

…among listed telephone numbers, cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, having an unlisted landline number, and cell phone mostly).
Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2010 Current Population Survey figures for the age 18+ non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

Samples are weighted under the guise of demographics. They admit this!


Conclusions:
During the polling period, Herman was receiving record high levels of publicity from the mass-media. Interesting isn’t it? If anything that has “surged” about the fed’s pizza man, it is his media adoration.
Check google trends if you don’t believe me.
google.com/trends?q=herman+cain&ctab=0&geo=all&date=mtd&sort=0

The pollsters specifically target regions/area codes.

The pollsters admit that they drop samples under the guise of “demographics”.

The pollsters do not specify how exactly they determine if one is Republican or not.
For all we know, they ask if the respondent likes or trusts fox news, if so then they are “Republican”, if not, they don’t get to vote in the poll.

Bottom line,
They claim to be calling at least 1000 people per day, for four days. So at least 4000 people are contacted, yet are only showing results for 1064 (who managed to answer the magic hidden question to the satisfaction of the pollsters owners).
So out of a supposed 4000 people only about 1000 are Republican leaning? Well I guess they are telling us flat out that according to their definition of “Republican leaning”, a Republican is not going to be elected.
Talk about filtering your sample!

 

[bbarrick8383]

LOL, I have never threatened to beat up any of my employers. What a hoot !! I guess they really ticked you off, eh?

One of them was the son of the company owner. He just graduated college and came back to run things for daddy. He pulled me aside and harshly told me I was not working hard enough and some other nonsense. I asked him if he would like to step outside and he refused. I’m my own union, I don’t need a negotiator.

The other was actually in Florida, I was working for a construction company down there when the owner got really angry and got in my face. He thought I was wasting time at the shop, and when I finished explaining to him that I was doing what the foreman told me to do and if he had a problem we could step outside. He shook my hand and later gave me a raise. A couple of them if I remember right…

 

[timotheos]

I don’t care about polls. I like Herman Cain. I think he’s legit. He has the strongest and most authentic leadership qualities of the lot of them, and common sense to boot.

I don’t care about his lack of political experience. We didn’t get into this bind because our presidents and legislators have suffered from a collective lack of political experience. If anything, they have had too much.

 

[bbarrick8383]

And I should add,
“having a backbone” does not, and ought not to mean,
letting people walk all over you because they can get away with it.
It is not a matter of backbone, to allow a well-to-do employer
to rip you off of your rightful wage. Some employers
even take AWAY what you have already been paid (for selling the item),
if a customer even months later RETURNS the item, thanks to
THEIR generous return policy, which generous policy is entirely paid for by YOU,
the hapless hard worker who busted your fanny selling the merchandise.
That’s not right. Unfortunately, it is perfectly legal.
It ought NOT be, but it IS. It is also extremely sinful, I believe.
I don’t want to offend any Native Americans,
but this sort of thing used to be called Indian-Giving.
It is thoroughly despicable.
And by the way, your Manager doesn’t lose one penny of HIS wages because of
returned merchandise, no, ONLY the hard working, tail busting sales people.

I don’t think you understand.

“Having a backbone” means you stand up for yourself and you do not let people run over you. I’m the last guy that want’s to fight anyone, and I don’t want to make it sound like I’m a violent person. But when a big boss is in your face, if you don’t stand for yourself you will fall for anything.

Maybe it’s a different mentality around here, I heard an oil field boss was hospitalized after two of his employees got fed up with him always threatening them. They may have lost their job, but he learned his lesson.

 

[CMatt25]

If dollars come with poll numbers he’s got a chance.

True but with so many states moving the schedule up and IA and NH perhaps beginning in December or early January now, it will certainly take the dollars. And irregardless of an earlier straw poll among the most active party activists in FL, it will take a ton of money for instance just to compete in a state like FL voting in January. The new schedule probably favors those already with the dough.

 

[mary_bobo]

Cain doesn’t seem to have the ideal intellect with his 9-9-9 tax plan. Even if he’s president, he’ll keep us in a never ending war and lower taxes on the wealthy–further polarizing our country. Then we get another Obama and the cycle repeats itself and the middle class looses.

Site a source for this assumptiion, please. With his accomplishments and education, I don’t think Cain takes a back seat to anyone, except maybe Newt. What is the ideal intellect, anyway?