[OFFICIAL] USMB Post Debate Poll/Thursday 10-16

[Uncensored2008]

Am I an "Obamabot" in your opinion?

You're no Jillian or Jakematters, but you're left of center. A solid Obama supporter.

 

[Shelzin]

'Shock & Awe.' That's what Romney has done to the Obamabots. They truly believed he would be an easy push-over for their Dear Leader. Romney has shown them that he is an excellent speaker and debater. The Obamabots are now left bewildered and desperate.

Eh.. That sucks. You were one of the people that I would have expected not to say something stupid like that.

*sighs*

Ahh... Well... I've been wrong before. I'll deal.

it depends on where you satnd on the following...

Was the fast and furious hearings a witch hunt or was it congress trying to understand why the AG of the US retracted his statemnents of 8 months earlier and out out new statements that directly contradicted the first ones?

Is it a witch hunt or does congress have a good reason to want to know why the administration continually had its members blame the film as opposed to referring to it as a terorist attack in Libya...(fyi.....protesters storming a consulate and killing people is an act of terror......a branch of al-quade planning and executing an attack is a terrorist attack)

Obamabots dont want to know if Obama is doing something wrong....for they believe he is the perfect man...and will NEVER mislead Americans or congress......

So you tell me...are you an Obamabot?

No... I believe Obama would be just as bad as Willard.

 

[Shelzin]

Am I an "Obamabot" in your opinion?

You're no Jillian or Jakematters, but you're left of center. A solid Obama supporter.

I might be left of center. I disagree as I have never voted for a democrat, so I'm not sure how that can be true. But I obviously disagree with the Republican platform on various issues.

 

[paulitician]

Eh.. That sucks. You were one of the people that I would have expected not to say something stupid like that.

*sighs*

Ahh... Well... I've been wrong before. I'll deal.

it depends on where you satnd on the following...

Was the fast and furious hearings a witch hunt or was it congress trying to understand why the AG of the US retracted his statemnents of 8 months earlier and out out new statements that directly contradicted the first ones?

Is it a witch hunt or does congress have a good reason to want to know why the administration continually had its members blame the film as opposed to referring to it as a terorist attack in Libya...(fyi.....protesters storming a consulate and killing people is an act of terror......a branch of al-quade planning and executing an attack is a terrorist attack)

Obamabots dont want to know if Obama is doing something wrong....for they believe he is the perfect man...and will NEVER mislead Americans or congress......

So you tell me...are you an Obamabot?

No... I believe Obama would be just as bad as Willard.

I hear ya on that. But Obama has already been a disaster. Time for him to go.

 

[Shelzin]

Yeah, they really believed it would be a cakewalk. They just can't fathom that Romney is a very articulate & skilled Debater. They've gotten all their information from nutters at MSNBC & HuffPoop for so long. They were told Romney can't possibly win. So Election Day could be an incredibly big shock to them. I actually fear for their safety. What will they do? Stay tuned i guess.

Am I an "Obamabot" in your opinion?

No.

But I don't believe Willard is articulate or a skilled debater. I think he's just up against someone who... He shouldn't have to work for at all to beat. And yet he's struggling. I agree that it should have been cakewalk... But not for Obama... Why hasn't it been for Willard? What's wrong with Willard that he is having such trouble beating quite possibly the worst president in the history of this country? Well... 2nd worst. Pretty hard to beat Nixon. Edit: Going by a four year scale. Bushes 8 years against Obama's 4 ... Damn... Hard call. /Edit

This should not be a close race. Why is it? Is Obama really that good?

 

[paulitician]

Am I an "Obamabot" in your opinion?

No.

But I don't believe Willard is articulate or a skilled debater. I think he's just up against someone who... He shouldn't have to work for at all to beat. And yet he's struggling. I agree that it should have been cakewalk... But not for Obama... Why hasn't it been for Willard? What's wrong with Willard that he is having such trouble beating quite possibly the worst president in the history of this country? Well... 2nd worst. Pretty hard to beat Nixon.

This should not be a close race. Why is it? Is Obama really that good?

Well, we obviously see it quite differently. Most of the MSM works 24/7 to prop Obama up. The fact Romney is leading, is pretty surprising to me. It tells me Independents are beginning to break for Romney. And i do think the Obamabots vastly underestimated him. He's actually coming off as more of a leader. Obama had his shot, and he failed. It's as simple as that. His time is up.

 

[Foxfyre]

No.

But I don't believe Willard is articulate or a skilled debater. I think he's just up against someone who... He shouldn't have to work for at all to beat. And yet he's struggling. I agree that it should have been cakewalk... But not for Obama... Why hasn't it been for Willard? What's wrong with Willard that he is having such trouble beating quite possibly the worst president in the history of this country? Well... 2nd worst. Pretty hard to beat Nixon.

This should not be a close race. Why is it? Is Obama really that good?

Well, we obviously see it quite differently. Most of the MSM works 24/7 to prop Obama up. The fact Romney is leading, is pretty surprising to me. It tells me Independents are beginning to break for Romney. And i do think the Obamabots vastly underestimated him. He's actually coming off as more of a leader. Obama had his shot, and he failed. It's as simple as that. His time is up.

For sure. I think for somebody who had essentially zero name recognition coming into the process and who has been steadily and with no mercy (and mostly dishonestly) demonized by the Obamabots and who has to run not only against Obama and his supporters, but in spite of Obama's surrogate mainstream media, and because he is a regular guy without special rock star charisma, Romney has done fantastically well. In any normal year with these dynamics, a decent incumbant would normally be ahead 20 points or more in the polls.

The fact that it is so close only underscores how abysmally unsatisfactory Obama has been.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I might be left of center. I disagree as I have never voted for a democrat, so I'm not sure how that can be true. But I obviously disagree with the Republican platform on various issues.

You didn't vote for Obama last time, and won't this time? Really?

I find you more reasonable than most of the left here, and have told you this on several occasions.

 

[Shelzin]

No.

But I don't believe Willard is articulate or a skilled debater. I think he's just up against someone who... He shouldn't have to work for at all to beat. And yet he's struggling. I agree that it should have been cakewalk... But not for Obama... Why hasn't it been for Willard? What's wrong with Willard that he is having such trouble beating quite possibly the worst president in the history of this country? Well... 2nd worst. Pretty hard to beat Nixon.

This should not be a close race. Why is it? Is Obama really that good?

Well, we obviously see it quite differently. Most of the MSM works 24/7 to prop Obama up.

Maybe that is part of my problem. I don't listen to MSM in the traditional fashion. For the life of me I can't figure out how Willard wasn't beating Obama's ass right from the get go. Oh wait... Yes I can. I don't listen to MSM in the traditional fashion.

The fact Romney is leading, is pretty surprising to me.

I think that's sad. I think we both can agree that Obama is a shit president. But it's surprising that someone who all they really need to do is walk a straight line and say nothing stupid is leading against him? I'm sorry... It's sad.

It tells me Independents are beginning to break for Romney. And i do think the Obamabots vastly underestimated him.

*shrugs* I generally find little use for partisans on either the Dem or Repub side.

Obama had his shot, and he failed. It's as simple as that. His time is up.

I agree. But if the choice is Obama or Mitt only... There is no point in voting. Thank god there is another choice.

 

[Jarhead]

Eh.. That sucks. You were one of the people that I would have expected not to say something stupid like that.

*sighs*

Ahh... Well... I've been wrong before. I'll deal.

it depends on where you satnd on the following...

Was the fast and furious hearings a witch hunt or was it congress trying to understand why the AG of the US retracted his statemnents of 8 months earlier and out out new statements that directly contradicted the first ones?

Is it a witch hunt or does congress have a good reason to want to know why the administration continually had its members blame the film as opposed to referring to it as a terorist attack in Libya...(fyi.....protesters storming a consulate and killing people is an act of terror......a branch of al-quade planning and executing an attack is a terrorist attack)

Obamabots dont want to know if Obama is doing something wrong....for they believe he is the perfect man...and will NEVER mislead Americans or congress......

So you tell me...are you an Obamabot?

No... I believe Obama would be just as bad as Willard.

Not sure what that means.

You have seen Obama in action.

So what do you mean Obama would be just as bad as Romney? Did you mean it the other way around?

 

[Shelzin]

I might be left of center. I disagree as I have never voted for a democrat, so I'm not sure how that can be true. But I obviously disagree with the Republican platform on various issues.

You didn't vote for Obama last time, and won't this time? Really?

Why is that hard to believe?

I find you more reasonable than most of the left here, and have told you this on several occasions.

Thank you... But in all honesty it's a rare occurrence that I make much notice of people who agree with me. I'd rather be insulted and my opinions/ideas challenged than be agreed with and flattered.

Oop... I have to go consult... Make'n the money. later guys.

 

[Shelzin]

it depends on where you satnd on the following...

Was the fast and furious hearings a witch hunt or was it congress trying to understand why the AG of the US retracted his statemnents of 8 months earlier and out out new statements that directly contradicted the first ones?

Is it a witch hunt or does congress have a good reason to want to know why the administration continually had its members blame the film as opposed to referring to it as a terorist attack in Libya...(fyi.....protesters storming a consulate and killing people is an act of terror......a branch of al-quade planning and executing an attack is a terrorist attack)

Obamabots dont want to know if Obama is doing something wrong....for they believe he is the perfect man...and will NEVER mislead Americans or congress......

So you tell me...are you an Obamabot?

No... I believe Obama would be just as bad as Willard.

Not sure what that means.

You have seen Obama in action.

So what do you mean Obama would be just as bad as Romney? Did you mean it the other way around?

Interchangeable as far as I'm concearned... Got to shower... Go to go... Shut up and let me go!!! lol

 

[Jarhead]

Am I an "Obamabot" in your opinion?

No.

But I don't believe Willard is articulate or a skilled debater. I think he's just up against someone who... He shouldn't have to work for at all to beat. And yet he's struggling. I agree that it should have been cakewalk... But not for Obama... Why hasn't it been for Willard? What's wrong with Willard that he is having such trouble beating quite possibly the worst president in the history of this country? Well... 2nd worst. Pretty hard to beat Nixon. Edit: Going by a four year scale. Bushes 8 years against Obama's 4 ... Damn... Hard call. /Edit

This should not be a close race. Why is it? Is Obama really that good?

It really isnt hard to see why.

The attorney general of the United States admittedly lied to congress as it pertains to fast and furious......admitted when he retracted his first statements and submitted conflicting ones 8 moinths later.

Yet it was reported on the news as "The democratic party states a case that the fast and furious hearings are a witch hunt".

It is suggestive reporting like that, that can be deemed asw "accurate and true" but, in fact, completely misleading.

Look at what is out there now in the news....

"the transcript shows that Obama DID refer to the attack in Libya as an act of terror"....with editorials and commentaries making republicans as "naive" with poor comprehension skills...

Yet not mentioning anywahere that, yes, such would have been taken as Obama admitting it was an act of terror, but was completley clouded by Obama's appointees claiming otherwise for 2 weeks.

For the last 2 days, the media is having a field day discussing how Romeny is so out of touch that he refers to a group of qualified women as "a binder full".

It really sint rocket science.

 

[Shelzin]

No.

But I don't believe Willard is articulate or a skilled debater. I think he's just up against someone who... He shouldn't have to work for at all to beat. And yet he's struggling. I agree that it should have been cakewalk... But not for Obama... Why hasn't it been for Willard? What's wrong with Willard that he is having such trouble beating quite possibly the worst president in the history of this country? Well... 2nd worst. Pretty hard to beat Nixon. Edit: Going by a four year scale. Bushes 8 years against Obama's 4 ... Damn... Hard call. /Edit

This should not be a close race. Why is it? Is Obama really that good?

It really isnt hard to see why.

The attorney general of the United States admittedly lied to congress as it pertains to fast and furious......admitted when he retracted his first statements and submitted conflicting ones 8 moinths later.

Yet it was reported on the news as "The democratic party states a case that the fast and furious hearings are a witch hunt".

It is suggestive reporting like that, that can be deemed asw "accurate and true" but, in fact, completely misleading.

Look at what is out there now in the news....

"the transcript shows that Obama DID refer to the attack in Libya as an act of terror"....with editorials and commentaries making republicans as "naive" with poor comprehension skills...

Yet not mentioning anywahere that, yes, such would have been taken as Obama admitting it was an act of terror, but was completley clouded by Obama's appointees claiming otherwise for 2 weeks.

For the last 2 days, the media is having a field day discussing how Romeny is so out of touch that he refers to a group of qualified women as "a binder full".

It really sint rocket science.

So it's your opinion that there is nothing wrong with Willard. This is all the media's fault that they put him in a bad light, he doesn't actually have flaws?

 

[Dr.House]

Apparently the 2nd debate did not help Barry in the polls thus far... And it's obvious neither did Plugs Biden's performance...

Granted, there's only been one polling day after the 2nd debate, but with the daily trackers from yesterday's numbers Ras is +1 more, Gallup is +1 more, and IBD/TIPP is +2 more for Romney...

 

[Sarah G]

Apparently the 2nd debate did not help Barry in the polls thus far... And it's obvious neither did Plugs Biden's performance...

Granted, there's only been one polling day after the 2nd debate, but with the daily trackers from yesterday's numbers Ras is +1 more, Gallup is +1 more, and IBD/TIPP is +2 more for Romney...

They only update Real Clear anymore when it looks good for Repubs. I swear it hasn't been updated for at least a week there.

 

[Foxfyre]

But I don't believe Willard is articulate or a skilled debater. I think he's just up against someone who... He shouldn't have to work for at all to beat. And yet he's struggling. I agree that it should have been cakewalk... But not for Obama... Why hasn't it been for Willard? What's wrong with Willard that he is having such trouble beating quite possibly the worst president in the history of this country? Well... 2nd worst. Pretty hard to beat Nixon. Edit: Going by a four year scale. Bushes 8 years against Obama's 4 ... Damn... Hard call. /Edit

This should not be a close race. Why is it? Is Obama really that good?

It really isnt hard to see why.

The attorney general of the United States admittedly lied to congress as it pertains to fast and furious......admitted when he retracted his first statements and submitted conflicting ones 8 moinths later.

Yet it was reported on the news as "The democratic party states a case that the fast and furious hearings are a witch hunt".

It is suggestive reporting like that, that can be deemed asw "accurate and true" but, in fact, completely misleading.

Look at what is out there now in the news....

"the transcript shows that Obama DID refer to the attack in Libya as an act of terror"....with editorials and commentaries making republicans as "naive" with poor comprehension skills...

Yet not mentioning anywahere that, yes, such would have been taken as Obama admitting it was an act of terror, but was completley clouded by Obama's appointees claiming otherwise for 2 weeks.

For the last 2 days, the media is having a field day discussing how Romeny is so out of touch that he refers to a group of qualified women as "a binder full".

It really sint rocket science.

So it's your opinion that there is nothing wrong with Willard. This is all the media's fault that they put him in a bad light, he doesn't actually have flaws?

Of course he has flaws. There has been no perfect person who is without sin that has ever existed since Jesus of Nazareth, and non-Christians don't believe even he was perfect or without sin.

But Romney also has a very visible, transparent, and good track record to evaluate as to whether he is up to the job of being President. It has plenty of successes and just enough non successes to inform him about what doesn't work as well as what does work. And for his entire working career, he has surrounded himself with knowledgeable, competent, capable people. Any good manager knows his limitations and shores them up by the people he recruits.

Obama had no proven track record for much of anything when he was hired for the job, and his admirers didn't care. They liked the way he looked. They liked the speeches he made. And they liked the rose colored promises he laid out in front of them. Well, we now have three years and nine months experience with Obama and his track record sucks in almost every single category. Nobody with any sense of management would keep an even very high level employee who had not learned the job and become productive in three months, let alone three years and nine months.

 

[Shelzin]

Of course he has flaws. There has been no perfect person who is without sin that has ever existed since Jesus of Nazareth, and non-Christians don't believe even he was perfect or without sin.

I agree.

But Romney also has a very visible, transparent, and good track record to evaluate as to whether he is up to the job of being President.

Oh... My... I disagree. First and foremost I look for in any president is integrity. You know... No flip flops.

Obama had no proven track record for much of anything when he was hired for the job, and his admirers didn't care. They liked the way he looked. They liked the speeches he made. And they liked the rose colored promises he laid out in front of them. Well, we now have three years and nine months experience with Obama and his track record sucks in almost every single category. Nobody with any sense of management would keep an even very high level employee who had not learned the job and become productive in three months, let alone three years and nine months.

I agree. Obama is a shit president.

 

[Dr.House]

Apparently the 2nd debate did not help Barry in the polls thus far... And it's obvious neither did Plugs Biden's performance...

Granted, there's only been one polling day after the 2nd debate, but with the daily trackers from yesterday's numbers Ras is +1 more, Gallup is +1 more, and IBD/TIPP is +2 more for Romney...

They only update Real Clear anymore when it looks good for Repubs. I swear it hasn't been updated for at least a week there.

They update it often... I don't know what you're looking at, but the RCP is updated close to realtime... When new polls are released, they are added in to the average... I believe they are kept on for a week...

There are three daily trackers in the average now and the RCP avg is updated soon after they are released...

 

[GuyPinestra]

Funny the way the cons are tying the entire debate to a misinterpretation of the Libyan attack. Romney might have convinced those that were already convinced, but he convinced no one else.

Why aren't the righties wondering why there were "no women qualified" to work in the Governor's Cabinet? Why aren't any of you wondering why he let the little lady go home early to cook and clean and sew? What if a man wanted to leave early for the same reasons?

You must get all your info from MSLSD, Granny. Romney said they had a 'binder full of (qualified) women' whom they promptly went out and hired.

The election's a couple weeks off and Romney still refuses to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

As this has already been signed into law I'd say this is a moot point, no?

Why aren't the rightwingers wondering how Romney thinks he can get away with raising the debt by 8 TRILLION over the next 10 years?

I don't see where he has proposed that. More MSLSD, I presume?

At what point in the debate did Romney connect with the 47%? You know, seniors, soldiers, students, the working poor?

I think he connected to all of those groups, the only group still disconnected are the hardcore Leftists like yourself.

Why did Romney have to lie about the drilling and mining contracts?

He didn't. Production on Federal lands IS down.

Why didn't Romney answer the college kid's question about jobs?

His answer was no less specific than Obama's, they both shuffled off into talking points on it.

Why did Romney refuse to consider banning AK47s, insisting instead that anyone with kids should be forced to marry?

Banning AK's won't do a damned thing about gun violence, and it's a violation of our 2nd Amendment. Don't like it, AMEND it if you can.
And he never said a fucking word about forcing people to marry, you lying hack.

He lost. Big.

Only in the eyes of diehard, brain-dead Liberals.