Romney Takes Lead in Ohio as Obama Campaign Panics

And as always, Independents will decide this thing.

 

Exactly, and this guarantees Romney will win.

President Obama has a problem with independents. And it’s not a small problem.

In the last three releases of the tracking poll conducted by The Washington Post and ABC News, Obama has trailed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney among independent voters by between 16 and 20 percentage points.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...519162-211f-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_story.html

 

My bad; I got the start month wrong. Doesn't change the point that it was a Bush budget that was a third over before Obama even took office.

#1, no he couldn't. Only Congress can cut/increase spending.

#2, that would have been brilliant! Take a deep recession and make it a true depression!

Again, the middle of a recession (or weak recovery) is exactly the *wrong* time to slash government spending. You cut it back when the economy can take it.

And if we weren't paying for two wars and the Bush tax cuts, we'd have almost no deficit at all.

 

At least you have some honesty in you.
That's more than I can say for Iriemon.

That is exactly what Obama said, but it doesn't change the fact that Obama increased spending.

Obama could have cut defense or anything he wanted to as the democrats had control.

But he didn't.

 

It is my understanding that when ever you make a factual posting regarding data, you must post the source of your information. We can have a Moderator check for clarification...

 

The closer it gets to election day, the wider the Romney landslide becomes. They have to save their credibility at the polling agencies. Obama hasn't been ahead for more than a month. The first debate sealed the win and Benghazi nailed the coffin shut.

 

You really need to stop killing your own arguments in your own posts. This is too easy. The budget you referred to under the last year of President Bush was passed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, in a democrat controlled congress. They were holding the troops hostage to their social agenda to pile drive the budget. This bloat started because the democrats took control of congress in Jan 2007.

Man up? Not when you're chasing your tail!

 

Do I really need to explain this?

The president provides a budget to Congress. Technically it's just a suggestion, but as a matter of course the President's proposal usually forms the basis for that year's budget. Congress will tweak it, but the main outline usually remains intact.

The reason is fairly simple: Any spending bills must be signed by the President, so his approval is important. By mostly adopting his budget, Congress knows they'll be sending him bills that he will sign.

So it's fair to say that any given budget belongs to the president who proposed it and signed it into law, unless Congress passed it by overriding his veto.

For mid-year changes, the president has much less leverage. The entire funding of the government isn't at stake, just whatever initiative the president wants to pursue. He has some influence as head of his party, but it's really a rather hat-in-hand thing: he has to persuade Congress to authorize the spending change.

 

Didn't Obama present a budget that was shot down 0-99 in the Senate? Just saying...

 

Home . . . you mean back to Chicago?

He may want to pick up some Change of Address forms on his way back from the last campaign stop.

 

It would be kind of hard to hold him responsible for that, then.

Though now that I've looked it up, it appears part of the problem is that the GOP rewrote the budget resolution to remove key language.

 

How is he not accountable for something that got zero votes? What key language was removed? How exactly was the key language removed and allowed by a Democrat majority Senate to get to a vote? The Senate could have sent it back, not voted on it themselves...

 

You brought it up, so obviously you're more familiar with it than me. I assume you know the answers and are just trolling.

 

No, I don't know the answers, I hate reading through failed budget proposals, bad enough reading through the crap that is passed...

I was in fact talking about the process, and how or why it happened as it did. The GOP had very little to do with the failure of the Obama failed budget proposal.

 

But it is looking GREAT for the country.

 

LOL Skewed polls....

 

I am delighted that you think that. Please do continue.

 

Why yes. Yes they are.

 

Try not to worry your pretty little head over it.

 

Me too. Actually.

 

Yeah right, where exactly did you look it up?

They changed nothing in Obama's original budget before giving it an up or down vote. We wanted democrats to have to put their names to that piece of garbage, and nobody would.

 

Nothing but a bad attempt to spin your way out of being caught.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76418.html

It wasn't a real budget resolution. It contained no policy language, as is usually the case. It was a political stunt, and the Democrats refused to play along. Shocking.

Since Obama didn't submit the budget, and what was brought up for a vote was an empty folder, legislation-wise, it's a pretty lame thing to crow about.

 

O-o-o-kay.

 

Ok, you got me. I was bloviating a bit. My point I was trying to make is to let users know not to put too much emotion on individual stats. Can polls show accurate information about the decisions of a demographics? Yes, you are a correct, but depends on the sampling size and polling methods. But they will never be as accurate as election day nor can never be scientific equivalent just because such a huge sheer difference. I guess we can disagree but I do feel 10,000 samples does not equate to 120,000,000. Some of those polls in your article (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html) had +10 point difference in the polls, and the majority of those sample less then 2,000. 10+ in September during the Kerry / Bush campaign?! That's just waaay to lopsided and far to inaccurate. You have to ask yourself, would the difference during that campaign, would it have really been a 5-13% difference in the popular vote? Even at that time? I highly doubt that with such a polarized country.


And don't get me started on some of the loaded questions, polling and sampling should never have questions that trigger emotions or require someone to analyze the question. People have to remember not to put emotion and view polls in the totality of the information. I say, "look for trends, don't look for answers....except on election day"

No issue with your other points, I did only cite one poll. My point with that that there was information that wasn't clear during the Kerry / Bush campaign. The article you posted was more sound though and thanks for posting that.

I'm not against polling, I'm against cherry picking a data of less then 5,000 samples (for example) and equating that with an electorate of well over 100,000,000. I think they are good to see trends though in relation to the current time frame.