Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?

[katsung47]

Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?



.By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News 9/19/2012



In the twilight of President Barack Obama's first term, many polls, including a new Quinnipiac University tri-state survey of likely voters, show that most Americans say they are not better off than they were four years ago. But in those same polls, the president retains his edge over challenger Mitt Romney.



That's not normal, says Quinnipiac University pollster Peter A. Brown.



"Most times if voters think things haven't gone well, they say, 'Let's think of somebody else.' But at this point they're not saying that," Brown said. "Clearly they think [Obama] is more in tune with their lives."



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ars-obama-why-romney-154912983--election.html

 

[dogtowner]

the assumption here is that these polls are not manufactured toward that response. look elsewhere on this place to demonstrate that they are (as they have been for a generation or more).

 

[Openmind]

the assumption here is that these polls are not manufactured toward that response. look elsewhere on this place to demonstrate that they are (as they have been for a generation or more).

Funny how when the polls are not in your favor (or rather in the favor of your candidate) you try your best to discredit them. . .but you are more than happy to give credence to the Rasmussen polls when they show anything that suits your agenda (or rather that of the strawman the GOP elected to be the presidential candidate!).

I guess we only have a few more weeks to find out who really had it right all along! See you then!

 

[dogtowner]

Funny how when the polls are not in your favor (or rather in the favor of your candidate) you try your best to discredit them. . .!

referring to yourself again ?

 

[Openmind]

referring to yourself again ?

I am not the one denying Rasmussen's polls!

I take ALL polls with a grain of salt. . .but there is without any doubt a general trend in favor of Obama. . .or should I say against Romney?
Even many GOP leaders are distancing from the clown in order to not loose their senate or congressional seats, or their governership!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

And yet polls show Mitt gets Crushed...must suck for you guys...as bad as you bitch that it is ( and its better then 4 years ago) They still don't like you.

 

[Cruella]

Both sides will vote their party, but neither side can win without the independents. They are usually socially liberal and economically conservative. We'll see where their priorities are on Nov. 6.

 

[Little-Acorn]

What makes you think Romney is "struggling"?

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/thr...r-asking-46-more-dems-than-republicans.15859/

 

[katsung47]

I tell you Why. Because the US is controlled by the Feds. They control the media and election machine. They select the politicians to control the government. That's why even Clinton did a good job in his last term, Bush won the election. What the Feds needed was not a good economy, they need war and the Patriot Act. Several month after his election, 911 happened which satisfied what the Feds needed.



This time, Obama will give the Feds something Romney can't give. So you saw Romney is under the fire of media despite the life of Americans is worse off after four years reign of Obama.

 

[steveox]

In fact Romney isnt struggling hes getting stronger. Look at these polls!! Even California is turning against Obama because now gas prices is almost $5 a gallon in California

 

[katsung47]

In fact Romney isnt struggling hes getting stronger. Look at these polls!! Even California is turning against Obama because now gas prices is almost $5 a gallon in California

Most Americans say U.S. on wrong track: poll

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON | Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:21pm EDT


(Reuters) - Economic fears are weighing heavily on Americans, with a large majority saying the United States is on the wrong track and nearly half believing the worst is yet to come, a Reuters/Ipsos poll said on Wednesday.


The Reuters/Ipsos poll found 73 percent of Americans believe the United States is "off on the wrong track," and just one in five, 21 percent, think the country is headed in the right direction.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/10/us-usa-poll-idUSTRE7794EX20110810



If most people believe US is on wrong tracks, why do they still support Obama. That's Obama's track. But when the Feds need Obama, they would manipulate the media to convince people Obama will win, no matter how senseless it is.

 

[katsung47]

The real reason is the Feds need Obama's new Health care reform. There is nothing they care if people can benefit from it or not. They just want it to frame a target in their case with which they have created OKC bombing, 911 attack to get the Patriot Act.

You can see it from the surprise turn around of the Chief Justice Roberts.


726. The surprise turnaround of Chief Justice (7/4/2012)

On 6/28, Supreme Court issued a pass for Obama's Health care policy. What surprised people was Chief Justice Roberts sided with four liberal justices in voting 5-4 to declare the law's "individual mandate" constitutional.

Why did John Roberts, a Bush appointee who generally votes with his conservative colleagues, suddenly change his opinion to vote with the liberal? Just three months ago, he still opposed that "individual mandate" law.

Chief Justice Roberts: Can government require you to buy a cell phone?

Mar. 27, 2012 - Chief Justice Roberts asks the Solicitor General Verrilli if the government can require the purchase of cell phones for emergency services, just as the health-care law requires for health insurance.(The Washington Post)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ll-phone-042/2012/03/27/gIQA9kkreS_video.html

There are different theories about this mysterious turnaround. Mostly were from disinformation office of the Feds to cover up their puppet Roberts. None could solve the puzzle. I know why - the Feds want that "individual mandate" provision. When the Feds want to put Kat Sung under surveillance, they forced the law makers passing through the Patriot Act. (Through OKC bombing and 911 bombing) When the Feds want to restrict Kat Sung in US, they activate the TSA search, (blocking leaving from air flight) blocking the entering of Canada and Mexico; (by "Operation Fast and Furious") see "697. TSA search, Canada and Mexico (12/11/2011)". Now when they want Kat Sung to have a health insurance, they activate their proxy- John Roberts.

Six years ago when Roberts was selected as Chief Justice, I have written already,

"344. Roberts, a secret agent of D.O.J. (9/18/05)"

http://katsung47.yuku.com/topic/4/The-dark-side-of-the-USA?page=4

This case proves I was very, very accurate at that judgement.


I'll talk about why the Feds want that "individual mandate" provision.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?



.By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News 9/19/2012



In the twilight of President Barack Obama's first term, many polls, including a new Quinnipiac University tri-state survey of likely voters, show that most Americans say they are not better off than they were four years ago. But in those same polls, the president retains his edge over challenger Mitt Romney.



That's not normal, says Quinnipiac University pollster Peter A. Brown.



"Most times if voters think things haven't gone well, they say, 'Let's think of somebody else.' But at this point they're not saying that," Brown said. "Clearly they think [Obama] is more in tune with their lives."



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ars-obama-why-romney-154912983--election.html

because they are not...and Mitt is a worthless liar

 

[PLC1]

Lots of people are unhappy about the economic situation in t he USA.

What Romney has to do is convince the voters that he can improve it.

If he has been able to do that, he'll win next week. If he hasn't, then he'll lose.

 

[katsung47]

742. Re-election of Obama (10/24/2012)







About that Gallup poll: Is Romney really up by 7? And will Obama win the election anyway?





Posted by Ezra Klein on October 19, 2012





According to Real Clear Politics, Mitt Romney is, on average, up by one point in the polls. According to both Nate Silver and InTrade, President Obama has a better-than-60-percent chance of winning the election. I think it’s fair to say that the election is, for the moment, close.





But not according to Gallup. Their seven-day tracking poll shows Romney up by seven points — yes, seven — with likely voters. But he’s only up by one point with registered voters.





http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-by-7-and-will-obama-win-the-election-anyway/





The Gallup poll is just a gimmick to cheat people. This election is pre-decided. Obama will win his second term. It is not politics. It is a plot of the Feds. They need Obama’s Health Reform that they forced Chief Justice Roberts to change his mind in June to pass the “Healthcare Reform”. (see #726)



To keep Obama to stay in his seat, the Feds have to create an economic situation that favors him. Two months ago- in early September, we saw European bank chief Draghi said they would buy the bond with no limit. Why?







Draghi helps out Obama campaign



By Robin Harding in Washington September 6, 2012





Barack Obama’s chances of re-election as US president rose on Thursday and the words that did it were not his but Mario Draghi’s.







Long before Mr Obama stood up to accept the Democratic nomination in Charlotte, North Carolina, the head of the European Central Bank had sketched out a new plan to buy the bonds of troubled eurozone countries.





That will not move the polls; it will not move a single vote. But Mr Draghi has lowered the gravest of risks to Mr Obama: a pre-election meltdown in the eurozone that would have blown up banks, pulverised Wall Street, and routed a fragile US economy back into recession.



If that happened, it would not be Mr Obama’s fault, but he would get the blame. Just as the failure of Lehman Brothers doomed his rival John McCain in 2008, a eurozone implosion would create economic odds too great for Mr Obama to surmount.



http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/bc1cf132-f831-11e1-bec8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz261Uy9nmA



Within days, Federal Reserve Chief Bernanke announced another QE which would push up economy temporarily but hurt it in long term with inflation. The timing of issuing QE3 obviously helps Obama. Republican feels it immediately.









Fed risks political fallout from QE3





By Robin Harding and James Politi in Washington September 14, 2012





Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, duly opened fire on Friday after the Fed began an open-ended third round of quantitative easing (QE3), under which it will buy $40bn of mortgage-backed securities a month.





http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b7de9070-fe77-11e1-8028-00144feabdc0.html#axzz26Vualgix



QE3 will produce another housing bubble.







Marc Faber: Fed's QE forever is ludicrous; no country has become rich from consumption



Source: BI-ME , Author: Constantine Gardner Fri September 14, 2012



"Asset prices will go up and the money will flow to the Mayfair Economy," he said, defining the latter as an "economy of the rich people whose assets prices go up and whose net worth increases" without any trickle down benefit to the real economy.



What you have is a small economy that is booming and the majority of the economy is being damaged by QE, Faber explains.



Faber sees the Fed's monetary policies over the last 15 years as mainly responsible for the various asset bubbles (Nasdaq, real estate etc...) leading to the subprime crisis in 2007. "The money printers and the neo-Keynesians interventionists are responsible for the crisis, reckons Faber, and people should know this."



Dr Bernanke's attempt to boost growth and reduce unemployment will end up, according to Dr. Faber, in a fiscal Grand Canyon with never ending deficits, the majority of the economy being damaged, the man in the street facing higher prices and losing his job.



http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=59324&t=1&c=62&cg=4&mset=





Faber sees the Fed's monetary policies over the last 15 years responsible for the Nasdaq bubble and the following housing bubble. I talked about these two bubbles from #733 to #739. And the Federal Reserve now is going to create the third one at the purpose to help the Feds to remove the hot potatoes in their hands to the ordinary people.