Thread: Forecast Average Suggests Obama Re-Election Polly Vote averages three presidential el

Originally Posted by angryamerican

Polls are nice but Repubs have way to much time to slander Obama..Carter was a shoe in until Repubs worked a deal to keep the Iranian Hostages 444 days..

Dude, agreed on the "politics as usual" aspect of the GOP slamming a DNC President, but accusing the GOP of treason is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by Divine Wind

Dude, agreed on the "politics as usual" aspect of the GOP slamming a DNC President, but accusing the GOP of treason is ludicrous.

Ludicrious is a Rapper..

Irans President during the 1980 time period admits there was a deal struck, Abulhassan Banisadr. As did Gary Sick who was on the National Security council under Presidents Ford and Carter. Also funny how they were released 5 minutes after Reagan was sworn in.

Not to hard to figure out with a former CIA Director running as V.P that he would have maybe a bit of pull.

Originally Posted by angryamerican

Ludicrious is a Rapper...

I wouldn't know, but ludicrous means this:
lu·di·crous adj \ˈlü-də-krəs\
Definition of LUDICROUS
1: amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity
2: meriting derisive laughter or scorn as absurdly inept, false, or foolish

Originally Posted by angryamerican

Irans President during the 1980 time period admits there was a deal struck, Abulhassan Banisadr. As did Gary Sick who was on the National Security council under Presidents Ford and Carter. Also funny how they were released 5 minutes after Reagan was sworn in.

Not to hard to figure out with a former CIA Director running as V.P that he would have maybe a bit of pull.

Dude, striking a "deal" to release the hostages is not the same as stating "Repubs worked a deal to keep the Iranian Hostages 444 days..". Some facts would be nice. Do you have any to substantiate this treasonous accusation?

Originally Posted by jackalope

Thought of you when I saw this, @bonncaruso . I thought you might be interested in it :-).

It is interesting but only preliminary. Were it to be so, it would be the first time since 1916 that an incument won a leaner re-election that his first election, but the first time in history when both elections are under the same parameters: in 1916, it was a two man race. In 1912, it was a three man race. Assuming a two man race in 2012, then a leaner Obama win would be one for the record books.

But (I know, I sound like a broken Blue-Ray machine), statistically, the incumbent adds between 2%-4% to his winning percentage and 3%-7% to his winning margin: FDR 1936 over 1932, IKE 1956 over 1952, Clinton 1996 over 1992, Bush Jr. 2004 over 2000.....

Originally Posted by angryamerican

Polls are nice but Repubs have way to much time to slander Obama..Carter was a shoe in until Repubs worked a deal to keep the Iranian Hostages 444 days..

I expect them to make the Economy even worse just to win the election.

Obama is no Carter. Here the Republicans are fooling themselves. They have been fooling themselves the entire time. Obama has just about as much teflon coating him as Reagan did.

And yes, I think they are willing to screw the pooch on the economy if it helps their chances. I find it totally unamerican.