Obama '08?

Wasn't going to dignify your dumb-ass question with an answer. You're more stupid than I thought for one and 2, he won, for the last friggin time and You? You lost! You, Palin, McCain, McBush, McCheney and all of the other racist, greedy right-winged, draft dodgers! Satisfied?

i think the conservatives threw the election

the president that won in 2008 had to get out of iraq and deal with afghanistan and a horrible economy, add to that obama's healthcare that the country probably needs but can't afford and he's the perfect guy to throw into office and crucify

if the conservatives can come up with a great (or even reasonable candidate) they'll take the 2012 election in my opinion (the candidate might not have to be that great)

what happens from there, i have an idea, i think you guys might be in a bit of a one term presidential cycle for a bit, until both parties get their **** together, the economy improves etc....

Why don't YOU move on and all of you conseratives come up with a plan. You certainly blew it in 2008, are suffering from "sour grapes" syndrome and still can't get a clue!

i'm not a conservative, i'm not even an american, i'm only stating my opinions from an objective point of view

i don't follow any political party in canada, i vote by candidate and have voted for all three major political parties in provincial (state) and federal elections

federally i've voted liberal the last number of elections because our conservative party that used to be fairly moderate, got hijacked by a right wing group a few years back

if more people could look at politics from a more partisan attitude and not tow the party line, things might get accomplished

I'm American, and registered as an Independent. I vote for candidates of both parties, and don't have the monkey on my back to be one or the other. Some die-hards pick only the candidate of their party without considering anything else; I believe that's truly ignorant and foolish, but I know I'm in the minority (literally and figuratively).

hell i voted for the communist party provincially a few years ago, it was a forgone conclusion the conservative guy was gonna win, and the university kid that was running gave a pretty good go at the debates, so i figured, what the hell, he got less than 1% of the vote

After raygun and the two bushes I dont think the republicans can come up with a really good candidate. So i guess its 8 0r 12 years of screwed up, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer government. thank god im 74 and wont have to live through it!

You're definitely NOT alone! I am a Democrat who votes for the best candidate. I just can't find a Republican, I'd want to vote for.

Rove and Cheney were good puppeteers; They got druggie Bush to follow their lead on almost everything they wanted, including all those non-bid contracts to Halliburton; and they're still making money under Obama!

teeny, I am asking very very logical questions, which anyone should be able to answer honestly if they wish to do so. Maybe you just do not wish to tell us what you really think, I don't know? Maybe you are not proud of your beliefs? By the way, I think you owe an apology to all conservatives. I am a conservative and I did not dodge any draft, and I do not know any other conservative that dodged it, while I do know of a great many that did get drafted and did serve. If you wish to attack politician draft dodgers, perhaps you forgot to include Clinton? And also you may wish to be honest in your list, as Bush was not a draft dodger, in fact the accusations against Bush turned out to be forged documents, perhaps you forgot that? And to this day, the culprit has not been arrested for trying to alter a federal election, which is a felony, perhaps you did not know that either, because the mainstream media never reported fully on that, in fact Dan Rather was part of the effort to hijack a federal election by doing bogus reporting on that issue. Also, you may be unaware of the selective service granting deferments for various things, such as being married, going to college, having children, having critical occupations, things like that, none of which constitutes dodging the draft, so perhaps you need to read more about that issue to be more informed. And I don't think Sarah Palin was even 11 or 12 years old by the time Vietnam ended, so besides being a woman, she was too young to be drafted, so I think you may wish to apologize for calling her a draft dodger, don't ya think, teeny?

And teeny, here are the questions again, very very reasonable and straightforward question which anyone should be able to answer honestly with reasons that they should be able to be prepared to defend.

What I am trying to determine here is what you liberals here actually believe about Obama. Is it A or B, as I have described in the following. This is not a test, but it is an effort to get you to answer honestly, and then we can discuss the answers as to what they mean about you.

A. Obama's associations, past history, comments, change mantra, and so on and so forth, they all mean nothing at all, he is really a centrist and has no leanings toward radical socialism.

or

B. You think his associations, past history, comments, change mantra, etc. do indicate he has sympathies toward radical socialism, but since you have similar sympathies, you therefore endorse him and will continue to do so.


Further, let us assume for the sake of discussion that there is in fact indisputable evidence recognized by everyone that Obama has strong sympathies toward Marxism and perhaps would like to incorporate facets of that idealogy in the United States? Let us assume for the sake of discussion here that this has been determined to be the case almost for sure. Cyclops, would that bother you? On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being you would have absolutely no concern whatsoever, to perhaps 5 being moderately concerned, and a 10 would be hey, lets vote the man out next election this is very serious, I do not want someone in office with those beliefs, what number between 0 and 10 would you be? And teeny, what number would you be?

Yes, rjb, that Minus 19 is the lowest yet achieved by Obama, in fact I think he bested his old mark by 3 points? Although I am not sure, I think the previous best for Obama was Minus 16, which was yesterday, and although I can't swear to it, the 23% Strongly Approve seems lower than I have ever seen, although the site indicates it just matches the previous low.

Today is the second straight day that Obama’s Approval Index rating has fallen to a new low. Prior to the past two days, the Approval Index had never fallen below -15 during Obama’s time in office (see trends).

The 23% who Strongly Approve matches the lowest level of enthusiasm yet recorded. Just 41% of Democrats Strongly Approve while 69% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 21% Strongly Approve and 49% Strongly Disapprove.

Would you agree with the thesis that his decline in the polls is his own party? Due to the wars he inherited?
Many in the U.S. are war weary.

That question is too spacial for okie to understand.

are you implying that okie is spacial needs

That statement leaves me rather confused, djjd62, as I have always thought that parties were partisan, that is why parties exist, to promote a partisan agenda. For example, parties have platforms, they have beliefs and principles that they run on. I happen to think that is good, it helps the citizens determine what the candidates are running on, after all, candidates belong to parties for reasons, it isn't totally random or pure happenstance. I always have to shudder a bit when someone says they vote for the person, not the party, because I think that is very naive. Fact is, the first thing that a politician will experience once that politician is elected for the first time to go to Washington, as perhap a member of the House of Representatives, is they will be taken out behind the woodshed and told in no uncertain terms that they will support their party if they ever hope to gain any place on any committee or if they ever hope to be supported by their party when re-election comes up. I believe this is especially true for Democrats, but true to a lesser extent with Republicans because Repbulicans believe more in individualism rather than groupee behavior. Example was John McCain, who opposed many Republican issues during his time in Congress, and he will continue to do that, yet he was nominated as his party's candidate in the last election. Such would never never happen with the Democrats, in my opinion, never.

There are candidates that I prefer in the Republican Party, but I would never vote for a Democrat on the national stage anymore, because I believe that party to be the most corrupt party that I have ever witnessed in my entire lifetime, and I am way over a half century old now. I am not claiming there is no corruption in the Republican Party, there is, but most of the time those people are eventually kicked out of office, but not so with Democrats, the party will circle the wagons and defend them to the hilt, that has been proven over and over, including one of the most corrupt presidents ever, Bill Clinton. And we see now that there has been corruption with Obama, but not a word about it, none, but this is not surprising given the corrupt Chicago politics that he cut his teeth on. So far, it has all been swept under the rug, but if he had an R after his name, he would not have even gotten close to the Whitehouse.

sorry meant non partisan, obviously i'm spacial needs too

please don't confuse the okie...







please.

Yes, there is that aspect, but I think it is on all fronts, including the war, foreign policy, and a biggee is the economy. People are realizing Obama isn't making good decisons on the economy, and things like Cash for Clunkers are laughingstocks. I think it is not only his own party, but so-called independents he is also losing big time. Republicans never liked him much, never liked his policies, but even the Republicans I believe have rated him higher than now, any hope they might have held out for him has pretty much evaporated. I also think Obamacare is hurting him, because it isn't only Republicans, it is also Independents and Democrats that do not want this government takeover of health care. They either do not want it at all, or they they realize that even though they might want it, they know we can't pay for it.

Let's see what few notes I have left over from the Rasmussen poll...
Amongst folks aged 30 and under (likely voters) the Approval Index for President Obama is -2.
Amongst senior citizens, it is -29.
Cicerone argues that that is attributable to the health care debate. Could be. Probably is.
But I wonder if there isn't a shadow issue that some of us of a certain age think we see here: another Vietnam.

rjb, the obvious answer in my opinion is that Obama is a cultlike figure to younger people more than he is to the aged. Also, the educational system has indoctrinated, or "educated" the younger generation to think more politically correct, that somehow electing a black man for the sake of having a black president was somehow "cool," or something, and also younger people tend to be less bothered by socialistic or even communistic ideas, while older people remember the horrors of Stalin, etc. etc. Also, younger people are much more likely to buy into trendy things like "saving the earth," global warming, and all of that kind of stuff. Younger people have been taught political correctness, while older people are not swayed by that sort of emotional thinking all that much. I am not saying all of this by guessing, I know people that have college age kids that got caught up into Obama mania and all of that stuff, and I am aware of their reasons for it. And face it, such people are not inclined to give up on Obama yet, not when they have had so much emotional energy invested into the guy.

So my shorter answer would be that Obama is an outgrowth of pop culture, and pop culture has alot more influence on younger people than it does older people. Older people tend to see through it and are not fooled by it as much.