Presidential Election Poll 10-2-2012

[Tampa_Dave]

SurveyUSA say 11% in Ohio have voted 59 - 39 Obama

Direct quote from the poll you referenced: “In an election for Ohio’s 18 vital electoral votes today, 10/09/12, one week after Buckeye voting began and 4 weeks till votes are counted, Barack Obama is at 45% to Mitt Romney’s 44%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for WCMH-TV, NBC4 in Columbus. Obama’s advantage is within the survey’s possible sources of error and may or may not be significant.”

 

[SalesianSDB]

I’m currently undecided between Gov. Gary Johnson and Mitt Romney.

I agree with Johnson on more issues than Romney and I don’t really like or trust Romney, but he has a better shot at winning.

Guess I’ll have to ask:
WWMRD??
What would Murray Rothbard do?

 

[Tampa_Dave]

I’m currently undecided between Gov. Gary Johnson and Mitt Romney.

I agree with Johnson on more issues than Romney and I don’t really like or trust Romney, but he has a better shot at winning.

Guess I’ll have to ask:
WWMRD??
What would Murray Rothbard do?

He would vote Romney.

 

[SalesianSDB]

He would vote Romney.

That’s what I think.

He endorsed HW Bush in 92 because he was marginally better than Clinton. He did the same thing during Nixon’s reelection supporting anyone but Nixon.

Yet in 88 he endorsed Ron Paul in his Libertarian Party run because Paul was a credible candidate and most LP nominees aren’t (Bob Barr?? Seriously??). Though you can make the argument that as a successful 2 term governor of a mostly Democrat state and a small business owner, Gary Johnson is a very credible candidate. Personally I think he has a better record than Romney.

So I’m stuck, there’s evidence for both sides of this.

And for those who don’t know, Murray Rothbard is the founder of modern libertarian thought.

 

[rlg94086]

And for those who don’t know, Murray Rothbard is the founder of modern libertarian thought.

Thanks. The majority of the electorate would probably recognize who he is as about as well as they would recognize who Gary Johnson is.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Thanks. The majority of the electorate would probably recognize who he is as about as well as they would recognize who Gary Johnson is.

The Governor of New Mexico with a brilliant economic record whom no has has ever heard of, unfortunately.

 

[rlg94086]

The Governor of New Mexico with a brilliant economic record whom no has has ever heard of, unfortunately.

New Mexico leans Obama. I wonder if he would garner enough support in that state to be a spoiler.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

New Mexico leans Obama. I wonder if he would garner enough support in that state to be a spoiler.

Gary Johnson, assuming he is on the ballot, will shave votes off Mitt. Probably enough to make a Perot-like difference.

 

[SalesianSDB]

Gary Johnson, assuming he is on the ballot, will shave votes off Mitt. Probably enough to make a Perot-like difference.

There are news stories I’ve seen that show he takes more support from Obama than Romney in some states.

Besides, if everyone who voted 3rd party in 08 voted McCain, Obama would still be president.

Johnson has better economic success than Romney and Obama and more executive experience than both. Unfortunately he isn’t given a chance. I have a feeling that if he were let into the debates he would not only win the debates but do well in the polls taking from both sides.

 

[rlg94086]

There are news stories I’ve seen that show he takes more support from Obama than Romney in some states.

Besides, if everyone who voted 3rd party in 08 voted McCain, Obama would still be president.

Johnson has better economic success than Romney and Obama and more executive experience than both. Unfortunately he isn’t given a chance. I have a feeling that if he were let into the debates he would not only win the debates but do well in the polls taking from both sides.

They require a candidate actually have a percentage of support in order to participate in the debates. Otherwise, you could have a complete line-up of people who are not worth hearing from.

How is Gary Johnson doing in the polls? No one has held him back from campaigning, running ads, etc.

 

[estesbob]

There are news stories I’ve seen that show he takes more support from Obama than Romney in some states.

Besides, if everyone who voted 3rd party in 08 voted McCain, Obama would still be president.

Johnson has better economic success than Romney and Obama and more executive experience than both. Unfortunately he isn’t given a chance. I have a feeling that if he were let into the debates he would not only win the debates but do well in the polls taking from both sides.

He was given the same chance to gain the nomination everyone else was. the people rejected him.

 

[SalesianSDB]

They require a candidate actually have a percentage of support in order to participate in the debates. Otherwise, you could have a complete line-up of people who are not worth hearing from.

How is Gary Johnson doing in the polls? No one has held him back from campaigning, running ads, etc.

His name isn’t included in most polls, so of course he can’t get the numbers. It’s a Catch 22 for rid party candidates because you need exposure to poll well and you also need money. Unfortunately, in order to poll well you need money and you only get money if you poll well. Everyone is only talking about two. If he was given more exposure he would do better.

Personally, I believe that anyone on the ballot in enough states to win should be allowed to debate.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Personally, I believe that anyone on the ballot in enough states to win should be allowed to debate.

I agree. The Dems and the GOP are sufficiently brothers under the skin to make sure that there are no viable third party candidates.

 

[estesbob]

These people have got to go:

Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Thursday that the “entire reason” the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans has “become the political topic it is” is because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talk about the attack.

STEPHANIE CUTTER: In terms of the politicization of this — you know, we are here at a debate, and I hope we get to talk about the debate — but the entire reason this has become the political topic it is, is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. It’s a big part of their stump speech. And it’s reckless and irresponsible what they’re doing.

BROOKE BALDWIN: But, Stephanie, this is national security. As we witnessed this revolution last year, we covered it–

CUTTER: It is absolutely national security–

BALDWIN: –it is absolutely pertinent. People in the American public absolutely have a right to get answers.

 

[_Abyssinia]

These people have got to go:

Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Thursday that the “entire reason” the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans has “become the political topic it is” is because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talk about the attack.

STEPHANIE CUTTER: In terms of the politicization of this — you know, we are here at a debate, and I hope we get to talk about the debate — but the entire reason this has become the political topic it is, is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. It’s a big part of their stump speech. And it’s reckless and irresponsible what they’re doing.

BROOKE BALDWIN: But, Stephanie, this is national security. As we witnessed this revolution last year, we covered it–

CUTTER: It is absolutely national security–

BALDWIN: –it is absolutely pertinent. People in the American public absolutely have a right to get answers.

youtube.com/watch?v=8WfkTfE5mkI

Hope Paul Ryan brings this up tonight

 

[estesbob]

New Obama Talking points-the Bengazi debacle is the fault of Republicans because they keep talking about it!

Piers Morgan, CNN: The really important horse that should be flogged is the behavior and the statements of those who are in positions of responsibility and we would assume knowledge. And it’s pretty unAmerican, pretty unAmerican to be putting up completely false statements before you know the facts, isn’t it?

Debbie Wasseerman Schultz, DNC chair: Piers, it is not okay for you to be saying that the administration was putting out completely false statements. They put out information that they had at the time based on the intelligence that they were given –

Piers Morgan: That turned out to be completely wrong.

Wasserman Schultz: Well that doesn’t mean it was false. It doesn’t mean that it was deliberate. It means that.

Morgan: What?! Now wait a minute. If you put out a false statement, then it’s false, it’s wrong. It’s both of those things.

Wasserman Schultz: But you’re suggesting that it’s … Piers, what you’re suggesting is that it was somehow deliberate. It was not deliberate. What they did was it was important to get information out that they had at the time. And they did that. And as they learned more information, they corrected the original information that they put out. But there was nothing sinister here. This was simply the president of the United States and the administration making sure that we did a careful investigation, gave the American people the information that they needed at the time that we had based on our best intelligence and then as more intelligence was gathered we gave the updated information. There is nothing sinister about that.

What’s terrible unfortunate though, is that you do – there’s no around these investigations that Republicans in Congress and Mitt Romney have left to go after the administration questioning whether or not there was any deliberate attempt to mislead. We should be closing ranks, working together to prevent this from happening again.

Morgan: Well the answer to that Debbie, is – the answer to that is to make sure that the original statements that were made are accurate.

 

[_Abyssinia]

In CO Republicans are leading Democrats in absentee requests by nearly 26,000 voters

Exclusive: PPP caught doing advocacy polling on race

 

[SamH]

These people have got to go:

Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Thursday that the “entire reason” the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans has “become the political topic it is” is because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talk about the attack.

Imagine if Bush said the “entire reason” the war in Iraq has “become the political topic it is” is because John Kerry and John Edwards talk about it.

 

[_Abyssinia]

New Obama Talking points-the Bengazi debacle is the fault of Republicans because they keep talking about it!

Piers Morgan, CNN: The really important horse that should be flogged is the behavior and the statements of those who are in positions of responsibility and we would assume knowledge. And it’s pretty unAmerican, pretty unAmerican to be putting up completely false statements before you know the facts, isn’t it?

Debbie Wasseerman Schultz, DNC chair: Piers, it is not okay for you to be saying that the administration was putting out completely false statements. They put out information that they had at the time based on the intelligence that they were given –

Piers Morgan: That turned out to be completely wrong.

Wasserman Schultz: Well that doesn’t mean it was false. It doesn’t mean that it was deliberate. It means that.

Morgan: What?! Now wait a minute. If you put out a false statement, then it’s false, it’s wrong. It’s both of those things.

Wasserman Schultz: But you’re suggesting that it’s … Piers, what you’re suggesting is that it was somehow deliberate. It was not deliberate. What they did was it was important to get information out that they had at the time. And they did that. And as they learned more information, they corrected the original information that they put out. But there was nothing sinister here. This was simply the president of the United States and the administration making sure that we did a careful investigation, gave the American people the information that they needed at the time that we had based on our best intelligence and then as more intelligence was gathered we gave the updated information. There is nothing sinister about that.

What’s terrible unfortunate though, is that you do – there’s no around these investigations that Republicans in Congress and Mitt Romney have left to go after the administration questioning whether or not there was any deliberate attempt to mislead. We should be closing ranks, working together to prevent this from happening again.

Morgan: Well the answer to that Debbie, is – the answer to that is to make sure that the original statements that were made are accurate.

Romney Campaign: Obama Administation ‘Continually Misled’ the Public

Andrea Saul, the Romney campaign’s national press secretary, just released a statement in response to the Obama campaign’s comments on the terrorist attack in Libya:

“President Obama’s campaign today said that Libya is only an issue because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. They’re wrong. The reason it is an issue is because, for the first time since 1979, an American ambassador was assassinated and President Obama’s foreign policy strategy of ‘leading from behind’ is failing. This administration has continually misled the American public about what happened in Benghazi and, rather than be truthful about the sequence of events, has instead skirted responsibility and dodged questions. The American people deserve straight answers about this tragic event and a president who can provide leadership, not excuses.”

 

[rlg94086]

I agree. The Dems and the GOP are sufficiently brothers under the skin to make sure that there are no viable third party candidates.

So, you think the pollsters have been bullied by the Democratic and Republican Party into not including the other candidates in their polls?