ChrisWeigant.com

Obama Poll Watch -- October, 2012

[ Posted Thursday, November 1st, 2012 – 16:54 PDT ]

Obama Steadily Gains, But Is It Enough?

Welcome to an extremely abbreviated version of our monthly Obama Poll Watch column. The reason for such unexpected brevity is due to election season, of course, and being snowed under by everything else that's going on.

These charts, we strenuously remind everyone, are not connected to the election. Well, at best, only nebulously connected. Once again, these are the numbers for Barack Obama's average job approval as president, not a matchup of him as a candidate in any way.

Having said all of that, let's get right to the charts:

Obama Approval -- October 2012

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

October, 2012

October was debate month, and -- surprise! -- it didn't affect his job approval numbers much, if at all. In either direction, really. Obama's job approval rating hardly fluctuated at all throughout all three debates, continuing his trend upward but at a more modest rate.

Obama's average, for the month of October, was strong 49.4 percent, up 0.3 percent from last month's posting. This is significant, because it is the first time Obama has posted two consecutive months above 49.0 percent since January of 2010, at the very tail end of his "honeymoon" period. Even his "Bin Laden bounce" didn't last into the following month, even though it was higher than where Obama stands now.

The curious thing was that Obama's disapproval rating also ticked slightly upwards, to 47.8 percent, up 0.2 percent for the month. This is where the election shows an influence, because the number of "undecided" responses hit an astounding record low of only 2.8 percent (it's never been below 3.0 percent and has only fallen below 4.0 percent in the previous two months -- a more normal range is between 5.0 and 6.0 percent). People are getting off the sidelines, but they seem to be breaking slightly for Obama rather than against, at this point.

Obama finished the month "above water" by 1.6 percent, higher than he's seen since the Bin Laden bounce.

 

Overall Trends

The overall trend for Obama is still good, but not fantastic. First, let's take a look at the detail chart of the past year or so:

Obama Detail

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

Taken as a yearly period, Obama has had a very good previous 12 months. His approval rate is up a respectable 6.0 percent from where it stood in October of 2011. This is the best "year" that Obama's yet had as president, it bears mentioning.

But when pundits use the measure of job approval as a yardstick to try to measure chances for re-election, normally the bar is set at 50.0 percent. Above this, re-election is seen as a fairly sure thing. Below this, your chances decrease rapidly.

But Obama's was scraping that 50.0 ceiling at the end of the month, and if it weren't for a few outlier polls right before the end, would likely have at least topped it once in the daily averages. As it was, he ended the month at 49.8 percent average daily approval, which is pretty darn close to 50.0. He also ended the month on an upswing, but that was again due to the outlier dip he had just experienced.

Looking just as far ahead as election day, there are two things which could influence polling over the next few days: the unemployment number released tomorrow, and the public's reaction to Obama's response to Hurricane Sandy. The unemployment number could cause public opinion to quiver up or down, depending on what it is, but the Sandy response is a definite plus for the president, as he continues to do what Mitt Romney cannot currently do: look presidential in response to a crisis. This is no knock on Romney (I'm not saying Romney's not capable of it, in other words), merely pointing out that the trappings of office always help the incumbent in photo op situations.

So it's a pretty safe bet that Obama will hold onto the gains he's made in approval over the past three months, at least until election day. But he will be right on the edge, between 49.0 and 50.0 percent -- instead of in what's considered safe territory. This is a much better position than he's been in all year, but it remains to be seen whether it's enough or not.

Perversely, if Obama is defeated, his approval numbers will likely go up, as the American public, once the election is over, often gives an outgoing president a boost, in anticipation of the new guy coming in. So next month's trend will probably be more influenced by the election than any other factor.

One last time, we're going to take a look at the most interesting pair up between Obama's approval numbers and the past president he currently tracks closest to. At times throughout his term, Obama has matched Clinton, Reagan, and Carter; but as we near the finish line for campaign 2012, Obama's approval is almost exactly what George W. Bush held in 2004 at the same point:

Obama v. Bush

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

Bush's approval right before the 2004 election was 48.3, and his disapproval was 47.3. Obama's approval right now bests Bush's by 1.1 percent.

Which leads to our final thought: George W. Bush won re-election, even with polling in almost exactly the same territory Obama is now in. This is no guarantee, but it certainly is interesting.

 

[Obama Poll Watch Data:]

Sources And Methodology

ObamaPollWatch.com is an admittedly amateur effort, but we do try to stay professional when it comes to revealing our sources and methodology. All our source data comes from RealClearPolitics.com; specifically from their daily presidential approval ratings "poll of polls" graphic page. We take their daily numbers, log them, and then average each month's data into a single number -- which is then shown on our monthly charts here (a "poll of polls of polls," if you will...). You can read a much-more detailed explanation of our source data and methodology on our "About Obama Poll Watch" page, if you're interested.

Questions or comments? Use the Email Chris page to drop me a private note.

 

Column Archives

[Sep 12], [Aug 12], [Jul 12], [Jun 12], [May 12], [Apr 12], [Mar 12], [Feb 12], [Jan 12], [Dec 11], [Nov 11], [Oct 11], [Sep 11], [Aug 11], [Jul 11], [Jun 11], [May 11], [Apr 11], [Mar 11], [Feb 11], [Jan 11], [Dec 10], [Nov 10], [Oct 10], [Sep 10], [Aug 10], [Jul 10], [Jun 10], [May 10], [Apr 10], [Mar 10], [Feb 10], [Jan 10], [Dec 09], [Nov 09], [Oct 09], [Sep 09], [Aug 09], [Jul 09], [Jun 09], [May 09], [Apr 09], [Mar 09]

 

Obama's All-Time Statistics

Monthly
Highest Monthly Approval -- 2/09 -- 63.4%
Lowest Monthly Approval -- 10/11 -- 43.4%

Highest Monthly Disapproval -- 9/11, 10/11 -- 51.2%
Lowest Monthly Disapproval -- 1/09 -- 19.6%

Daily
Highest Daily Approval -- 2/15/09 -- 65.5%
Lowest Daily Approval -- 10/9/11 -- 42.0%

Highest Daily Disapproval -- 8/30/11 -- 53.2%
Lowest Daily Disapproval -- 1/29/09 -- 19.3%

 

Obama's Raw Monthly Data

[All-time high in bold, all-time low underlined.]

Month -- (Approval / Disapproval / Undecided)
10/12 -- 49.4 / 47.8 / 2.8
09/12 -- 49.1 / 47.6 / 3.3
08/12 -- 47.8 / 48.3 / 3.9
07/12 -- 47.2 / 48.1 / 4.7
06/12 -- 47.8 / 47.8 / 4.4
05/12 -- 48.1 / 47.8 / 4.1
04/12 -- 47.8 / 47.1 / 5.1
03/12 -- 47.7 / 47.2 / 5.1
02/12 -- 48.2 / 47.2 / 4.6
01/12 -- 46.3 / 48.3 / 5.4
12/11 -- 45.1 / 49.5 / 5.4
11/11 -- 44.4 / 50.2 / 5.4
10/11 -- 43.4 / 51.2 / 5.4
09/11 -- 43.5 / 51.2 / 5.3
08/11 -- 43.8 / 50.7 / 5.5
07/11 -- 46.2 / 47.8 / 6.0
06/11 -- 48.5 / 46.0 / 5.5
05/11 -- 51.4 / 43.1 / 5.5
04/11 -- 46.4 / 48.2 / 5.4
03/11 -- 48.1 / 46.4 / 5.5
02/11 -- 49.4 / 44.5 / 6.1
01/11 -- 48.5 / 45.7 / 5.8
12/10 -- 45.5 / 48.1 / 6.4
11/10 -- 45.5 / 49.0 / 5.5
10/10 -- 45.5 / 49.1 / 5.4
09/10 -- 45.7 / 49.7 / 4.6
08/10 -- 45.3 / 49.5 / 5.2
07/10 -- 46.6 / 47.4 / 6.0
06/10 -- 47.6 / 46.7 / 5.7
05/10 -- 48.1 / 45.5 / 6.4
04/10 -- 47.8 / 46.5 / 5.7
03/10 -- 48.1 / 46.4 / 5.5
02/10 -- 47.9 / 46.1 / 6.0
01/10 -- 49.2 / 45.3 / 5.5
12/09 -- 49.4 / 44.9 / 5.7
11/09 -- 51.1 / 43.5 / 5.4
10/09 -- 52.2 / 41.9 / 5.9
09/09 -- 52.7 / 42.0 / 5.3
08/09 -- 52.8 / 40.8 / 6.4
07/09 -- 56.4 / 38.1 / 5.5
06/09 -- 59.8 / 33.6 / 6.6
05/09 -- 61.4 / 31.6 / 7.0
04/09 -- 61.0 / 30.8 / 8.2
03/09 -- 60.9 / 29.9 / 9.2
02/09 -- 63.4 / 24.4 / 12.2
01/09 -- 63.1 / 19.6 / 17.3

 

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

48 Comments on “Obama Poll Watch -- October, 2012”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Obama Steadily Gains, But Is It Enough?

    Yes, it is!

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, these are the numbers for Barack Obama's average job approval as president, not a matchup of him as a candidate in any way.

    Only one ya could find that had good news, eh??? :D

    J/K I know you better than that.. :D

    Michale....

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.rgj.com/article/20121101/NEWS19/121101029/Republican-National-Committee-alleges-voting-machine-troubles-Nevada-other-swing-states?nclick_check=1

    Where's the Left's outcry over voting machine problems??? :D

    Don't get me wrong.. I have always maintained that any problem with electronic/computerized voting machines are 99.9% operator error..

    As an IT Hardware Tech of no small experience (if I do say so myself :D and I do) I can attest that most computer problems people have are of the I.D.Ten-T variety... :D

    I just wonder why we don't hear much from the LEFT over voter machine problems when they seem to FAVOR the Left??

    Things that make ya go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm :D

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CW,

    Bush's approval right before the 2004 election was 48.3

    This election is starting to look a lot like 2004: shaky economy, approval rating close to 49%, slightly behind in the national polls (although not any-more today) but winning the EC.

    I just wonder why we don't hear much from the LEFT over voter machine problems when they seem to FAVOR the Left?

    Ah it's the return of this imaginary guy you call 'the left' again. And in imagination world he doesn't care about voting machines and the integrity of the vote. I'd love to see this imaginary world...

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ah it's the return of this imaginary guy you call 'the left' again. And in imagination world he doesn't care about voting machines and the integrity of the vote. I'd love to see this imaginary world...

    You can be forgiven for your ignorance....

    "You mean to insult me? There is no dishonor in not knowing everything?"
    -SubCommander T'al, STAR TREK TOS, The Enterprise Incident

    :D

    .... because you weren't around here during the 2000 and 2004 elections. The Left was absolutely HYSTERICAL, screaming voter fraud and computer fraud at every turn...

    Michale.....

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:
  7. [7] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    I have some 'left leaning' blogs in my feed and I can tell you that the only place where this has gone unnoticed by the left is in Michale imaginary left world.

    In other poll news, I am surprised Ras moved to 'tied' today. I was expecting them to go R+1 today, move to tied probably on Sunday and then move to O+1/2 on Monday so they can at least pretend to be accurate...

  8. [8] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale you'll like this: https://www.motherjones.com/files/mojo-obama-conspiracy.png

    I think you are a little from each ;)

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other poll news, I am surprised Ras moved to 'tied' today. I was expecting them to go R+1 today, move to tied probably on Sunday and then move to O+1/2 on Monday so they can at least pretend to be accurate...

    The only "poll news" that will matter, my friend, are the "polls" on 7 Nov 2012...

    Did you see the OvR challenge I put forward to Weigantians??

    Maybe you want to get a piece of that action, eh?? :D

    "Well, in a few years, the Iotians may demand a piece of OUR action."
    Captain James T Kirk, STAR TREK TOS, A Piece Of The Action

    :D

    Michale.....

  10. [10] 
    michty6 wrote:

    What is the challenge?

  11. [11] 
    michty6 wrote:
  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Normally, the annual Weigantia Holiday Fund Drive has me putting up $0.50 for every post I make between Thanksgiving and New Years Eve. Several Weigantians have, in the past, pledged 100% matching funds donations..

    The challenge for the 4th Annual (5th???) Fund Drive is that, if Obama wins the election, I will be upping my per post from 50 cents to 1 dollar per post... :D

    If Romney wins, those who choose matching funds will pledge 200% matching funds donations..

    In the interests of full disclosure, a normal Fund Drive, I usually hit $250 to $300 worth of posts..

    Liz brought up an interesting notion.. Since, one way or another, there is likely to be donations in excess of $500, maybe CW will allow us to make payments on the donations, to kinda spread the pain out. :D

    That's pretty much the gist of the Great Obama/Romney/Weigantia challenge.. :D

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Do we get to choose the charity?

    I don't really understand your deal, it seems that if someone is matching 100% then under option 1 (O wins) they will pay more and under option 2 (R wins) they will pay more! Heads I win tails you lose kinda thing!

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do we get to choose the charity?

    The charity is pre-chosen...

    chrisweigant.com :D

    I don't really understand your deal, it seems that if someone is matching 100% then under option 1 (O wins) they will pay more and under option 2 (R wins) they will pay more! Heads I win tails you lose kinda thing!

    Yikes!!! Good point.. Never considered that..

    In the interests of fairness, those who choose matching funds will only have to match 50% of my total...

    Good catch...

    Michale....

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    The charity is pre-chosen...

    chrisweigant.com :D

    That should read:

    The "charity" is pre-chosen...

    chrisweigant.com :D

    My bust...

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Just saw this article about a CRS report showing that tax cuts on the wealthy don't work. The conclusions from the report mirror almost exactly what I wrote in my 'Trickle Down' article on here:

    The richest Americans are the least likely to spend extra money they get as a result of a tax cut, and are more likely to save it or invest it offshore. Those on the lower end of the economic spectrum, meanwhile, are the most likely to spend transfer payments they receive from the government.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/congressional-research-service_n_2059156.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

  17. [17] 
    akadjian wrote:

    In the interests of fairness, those who choose matching funds will only have to match 50% of my total.

    I think the math is a little wonky still but in the spirit of bipartisanship, I'll go on record for the fund drive as offering to match the first $300 in donations to help support CW's work no matter who wins.

    Best,
    -David

    p.s. BTW, Michty. I was quite surprised to see the economist endorse Obama as they seemed to solidly back Romney in the primary.

    http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one

    "For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says. That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive. And for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him."

  18. [18] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yeh strange few days: Christie praises Obama's leadership, Bloomberg endorses Obama, The Economist endorses Obama. It's like we're in some weird Bizarro World! But then I remember who the Republican candidate is and what the Republican party stands for today and it all makes sense again...

    Btw this is the same Economist that endorsed BUSH in 2000 and Dole in 96!

    And Bloomberg hasn't endorsed anyone ever before.

  19. [19] 
    michty6 wrote:
  20. [20] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I thought this was a particularly good endorsement, especially this section:

    It is vitally important that the Republican party be kept away from as much power as possible until the party regains its senses again. It is not just important to the advance of progressive goals, thought it is. It is not just important to maintain the modicum of social justice that it has taken eighty years to build into the institutions of our government, though it is. It is important, too, that that you vote for one of these men based on whom else, exactly, he owes. Who is it that's going to come with the fiddler to collect when you get what you've bargained for?
    Barack Obama owes more than I'd like him to owe to the Wall Street crowd. He probably at this point owes a little more than I'd like him to owe to the military. The rest he owes to the millions of people who elected him in 2008 — especially to those people whose enthusiasm I neither shared nor really understood — and he will owe them even more if they come out and pull his chestnuts out of the fire for him this time around. He may sell them out — and, yes, I understand if you wanted to add "again" to that statement — but they are not likely to revenge themselves against the country if he does and, even if they decided to, they don't have the power to do much but yell at the right buildings.
    On the other hand, Willard Romney owes even more to the Wall Street crowd, and he owes even more to the military, but he also owes everything he is politically to the snake-handlers and the Bible-bangers, to the Creationist morons and to the people who stalk doctors and glue their heads to the clinic doors, to the reckless plutocrats and to the vote-suppressors, to the Randian fantasts and libertarian fakers, to the closeted and not-so-closeted racists who have been so empowered by the party that has given them a home, to the enemies of science and to the enemies of reason, to the devil's bargain of obvious tactical deceit and to the devil's honoraria of dark, anonymous money, and, ultimately, to those shadowy places in himself wherein Romney sold out who he might actually be to his overweening ambition. It is a fearsome bill to come due for any man, let alone one as mendaciously malleable as the Republican nominee. Obama owes the disgruntled. Romney owes the crazy. And that makes all the difference.

    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/obama-endorsement-2012-14278423#ixzz2B5WeRohj

  21. [21] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Who is it that's going to come with the fiddler to collect when you get what you've bargained for?

    Well said ...

    Everyone should be asking this question. Who do both sides owe?

    For example, you can say that Barack Obama has taken campaign contributions from large donors and this is most likely true. However, what's left out of this equation is that an equal amount of his support has come from small donors.

    Obama owes both.

    This isn't so true with the Romney campaign. The vast majority of his support has come from wealthy donors with even more coming from outside SuperPACs.

    Romney owes only one group- the very wealthy.

    It's just amazing that this little piece of analysis is so often left out by our wonderful media.

    What you typically hear in our corporate media (which can publish anything so long as it doesn't offend potential advertisers) goes something more like this "Obama has wealthy donors!" and "Romney has wealthy donors!" therefore both sides do it and the two are equal.

    -David

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama owes both.

    Yet he ignores the middle class and the poor..

    Gas prices double.

    Median family income down..

    Obama simply doesn't know how to run a business...

    It's THAT simple...

    Michale.....

  23. [23] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yet he ignores the middle class and the poor..
    Gas prices double.
    Median family income down..

    Really? Name ONE - just ONE - Obama policy that contributed to any of these things or substantiates this rhetoric then you'll have a discussion...

  24. [24] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Btw median income is down and gas prices up all over the world (because of the worldwide great recession of 2008-2009). Is that Obama's fault too? This goes back to what I've talked about many times: Obama has actual things you can criticise them for but the GOP has no solutions to these so they resort to rhetoric and making stuff up (GM is going to move jobs to China!)

  25. [25] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Yet he ignores the middle class and the poor.

    Yes, let's elect Mitt Romney, that self-proclaimed champion of the middle class & poor!

    His solution to not give a shit about them will solve all of our problems!!!

    Buahahahahah. Sorry, Michale ... I just don't buy it.

    -David

  26. [26] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Btw me on this site on October 6th: anyone who follows this stuff (me) knew that analyst projections were for unemployment to be at 7.9% by election date... :)

  27. [27] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol Ras now out with Ohio tied, Michigan +5 Obama. Looks like the crawl back to reality to protect their credibility is happening!

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, let's elect Mitt Romney, that self-proclaimed champion of the middle class & poor!

    Why not??

    We believed Obama when he said there were no RED or BLUE states, just a UNITED States..

    Romney CAN'T be any worse than Obama...

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    michty6 wrote:

    We believed Obama when he said there were no RED or BLUE states, just a UNITED States

    I believe Romney when he says he doesn't give a crap about half the country.

  30. [30] 
    akadjian wrote:

    We believed Obama when he said there were no RED or BLUE states, just a UNITED States.

    And ... how is this not correct?

    It looks like this was exactly the case during Hurricane Sandy.

    -David

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    And ... how is this not correct?

    "I'll buy everyone in the room a beer.. Except for the guy holding the ROMNEY sign"
    -President Barack Obama

    That attitude has epitomized the Obama Presidency..

    If you are a donor, you get the world..

    If you donate to the Right, you get an IRS audit..

    Do you HONESTLY believe that Obama has united this country???

    Michale.....

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    It looks like this was exactly the case during Hurricane Sandy.

    Drivers Waiting 6 Hours For Gas in NYC...
    Tempers Rise in Wake of Storm...
    'They forgot about us'...
    CHUCK SCHUMER CONFRONTED: 'We Are Gonna Die!'
    CUOMO: 'No reason to panic'...
    Utility workers pelted with eggs...
    Misery...
    Mile-long lines, price hits $6...
    Residents Furious RED CROSS Offering Cookies & Hot Chocolate, Not Blankets Or Clothes...
    Two massive generators power NY media, not masses...
    Staten Islanders Plead for Help: 'We Need Food'...
    'Please don't leave us'...
    VIDEO: Stranded New Yorkers Defecating in Apartment Buildings...
    DIRE...

    Do you REALLY want to bring up Hurricane Sandy???

    Michale...

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? Name ONE - just ONE - Obama policy that contributed to any of these things or substantiates this rhetoric then you'll have a discussion...

    Obama's war on domestic oil production...

    Oh SNAP!! :D

    Michale....

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    OH, this is REALLY weird..

    CW, when I try to type a URL dealing with Non-Union recovery workers being denied access to Sandy recovery, the software sends it to NNL...

    Decatur Utilities crews home after issues with union
    http://tinyurl.com/axycnuy

    It's done it 4 times now...

    Weird...

    Anyway, that's another example of Obama's UNITED States...

    If you aren't Union, you don't exist...

    Your services are not required....

    Michale......

  35. [35] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I'll buy everyone in the room a beer.. Except for the guy holding the ROMNEY sign

    Lol seriously? You actually believe this was a serious statement not a joke??? You are lost.

    Do you REALLY want to bring up Hurricane Sandy??

    Of course. It was bad but Obama handled it excellently. On that there is no disagreement, even from Republicans.

    Obama's war on domestic oil production...
    Oh SNAP!! :D

    It amazes me that for months all we've heard is 'Obama can't run on his record!' or 'his record is so bad' yet you ask people to name things he has done that are bad and they have nothing. Empty rhetoric. This is a perfect example. When domestic oil production in America is at an 8 YEAR HIGH and reliance on foreign oil at a 16 YEAR LOW apparently Obama has a war on domestic oil lololol.

  36. [36] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Do you HONESTLY believe that Obama has united this country?

    I believe that many conservatives have no interest in a united country.

    Especially, many of those in Congress.

    Why do I believe this? Because they spent the last 4 years not doing anything but playing politics.

    If you donate to the Right, you get an IRS audit.

    Are you sure? I thought if you donated to the Right you were promised a tax break and a magic unicorn.

    Didn't you get your magic unicorn Michale?

    -David

  37. [37] 
    michty6 wrote:

    So today I developed my own election prediction model :)

    It turns out that NC is going to be a lot closer than I thought at first. There isn't a lot of recent polling there (only 4 polls in the last week), so I need more data though...

  38. [38] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Do you REALLY want to bring up Hurricane Sandy?

    Absolutely! In times of crisis, you want competent people around to handle things. Yunno, like Democrats.

    I mean look at all the crises just Obama has gotten us through ...

    - The financial crisis
    - The Iraq War
    - The Arab Spring

    And now Hurricane Sandy.

    Republicans on the other hand seem to cause crises through their misguided ideologies like trickle down economics and Cheney's 1% doctrine.

    If you ever get sick of the bad ideas over there, c'mon over to the liberal side. It's much funnier over here as well and not nearly as angry.

    :)
    -David

  39. [39] 
    michty6 wrote:
  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean look at all the crises just Obama has gotten us through ...

    - The financial crisis
    - The Iraq War
    - The Arab Spring

    SERIOUSLY!???

    We're NOT "through" the financial crisis...

    Iraq is descending into an Islamist state.

    Arab Spring??

    Have you forgotten Benghazi???

    If you ever get sick of the bad ideas over there, c'mon over to the liberal side. It's much funnier over here as well and not nearly as angry.

    Probably because ya'all simply ignore reality.. :D

    Michale.....

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    It amazes me that for months all we've heard is 'Obama can't run on his record!' or 'his record is so bad' yet you ask people to name things he has done that are bad and they have nothing. Empty rhetoric. This is a perfect example. When domestic oil production in America is at an 8 YEAR HIGH and reliance on foreign oil at a 16 YEAR LOW apparently Obama has a war on domestic oil lololol.

    Once again, reality intrudes on your fantasy..

    The advanced Oil Production in the EARLY part of the Obama years was due to BUSH's oil policies and programs...

    Obama has since totally negated these advances by having his EPA completely sidestep Congress and rule by fiat..

    As much as ya'all don't like to admit it, Obama is NOT an emperor....

    Michale.....

  42. [42] 
    akadjian wrote:

    As much as ya'all don't like to admit it, Obama is NOT an emperor.

    That's easy to admit. Obama is not an emperor.

    Now I'll leave you to your ranting ... it's time for beers.

    -David

  43. [43] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The advanced Oil Production in the EARLY part of the Obama years was due to BUSH's oil policies and programs...

    Obama has since totally negated these advances by having his EPA completely sidestep Congress and rule by fiat..

    Lololol oh yeh I forgot the Michale-golden-rule 'good stuff that happens under Obama is not his fault'. Seriously you are so blind to reality and sold by the rhetoric it amazes me. It's like oil production still isn't flying sky high in Michale-world thanks to Obama the evil emperor. Luckily for America (and the rest of the world) it seems there are enough people tuned into reality to stop America making a huge mistake this year.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's easy to admit. Obama is not an emperor.

    Then why are ya'all so blase' when he rules as one???

    Lololol oh yeh I forgot the Michale-golden-rule 'good stuff that happens under Obama is not his fault'. Seriously you are so blind to reality and sold by the rhetoric it amazes me. It's like oil production still isn't flying sky high in Michale-world thanks to Obama the evil emperor. Luckily for America (and the rest of the world) it seems there are enough people tuned into reality to stop America making a huge mistake this year.

    TRANSLATION: Ya got me on that one...

    :D

    Just for you, Michty... :D

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/barone-going-out-on-a-limb-romney-wins-handily/article/2512470#.UJS974bvDpU

    Remember my mantra on 7 Nov...

    POLLS.... DON'T.... MEAN.... SHIT.... :D

    Michale....

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe that many conservatives have no interest in a united country.

    Especially, many of those in Congress.

    Why do I believe this? Because they spent the last 4 years not doing anything but playing politics.

    Is there any evidence that liberals in Congress have NOT been playing politics??

    Nope..

    So why not call them out on it as well??? :D

    Michale....

  46. [46] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Is there any evidence that liberals in Congress have NOT been playing politics?

    Yes! The entire "grand bargain" ... Health care ... Bowles-Simpson ... the Iraq and Afghanistan wars ... education ... Obama reducing the size of government ... and on ... and on ... and on ... and on ...

    I would call them out on it, Michale, if it were true. But it isn't.

    Now there is plenty of evidence that conservatives are simply blocking everything.

    Mostly that they've just plain out said it.

    Mitch McConnell: "Our top political priority over the next 2 years should be to deny President Obama a second term."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gM-1HbK4qU

    These are your heroes, Michale. F*ck the country, f*ck everything, just un-elect Obama.

    Now I'm sorry if you don't like this and I'm sure you'll find some way to claim something different because you believe you're in a war against liberals and any lies are justified, but it just isn't true.

    -David

    p.s. Benghazi goes away after the election. It's almost gone now because it's been so thoroughly debunked. Notice that news organizations (other than Fox) are simply not reporting on it anymore.

    :)

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    p.s. Benghazi goes away after the election.

    Wanna bet???

    I wager that Benghazi will explode... Because after the election (having lost) Obama et al will have no reason to continue to stonewall...

    Let's put something on the line... :D

    As far as denying Obama a second term??

    Considering how bad Obama and the Democrats frak'ed things up, that's the BIGGEST Service to the country the GOP has EVER done.... :D

    Michale.....

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:
Comments for this article are closed.