- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,964
Vote for Mitt Romney...the opponent thinks our success is not because of hardwrk
- Thread starter PinchandBurn
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,693
- Reaction score
- 3,684
See the source in the above image? Jeff Sessions republican staffers. Obviously completely unbiased.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,964
(Credit: CBS)
(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.
The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.
The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.
The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.
Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.
The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.
Federal budget records show the National Debt once topped 121% of GDP at the end of World War II. The Debt that year, 1946, was, by today's standards, a mere $270 billion dollars.
Mr. Obama doesn't mention the National Debt much, though he does want to be seen trying to reduce the annual budget deficit, though it's topped a trillion dollars for four years now.
As part of his "Win the Future" program, Mr. Obama called for "taking responsibility for our deficits, by cutting wasteful, excessive spending wherever we find it."
His latest budget projects a $1.3 trillion deficit this year declining to $901 billion in 2012, and then annual deficits in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion in the 10 years to come.
If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.
(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.
The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.
The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.
The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.
Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.
The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.
Federal budget records show the National Debt once topped 121% of GDP at the end of World War II. The Debt that year, 1946, was, by today's standards, a mere $270 billion dollars.
Mr. Obama doesn't mention the National Debt much, though he does want to be seen trying to reduce the annual budget deficit, though it's topped a trillion dollars for four years now.
As part of his "Win the Future" program, Mr. Obama called for "taking responsibility for our deficits, by cutting wasteful, excessive spending wherever we find it."
His latest budget projects a $1.3 trillion deficit this year declining to $901 billion in 2012, and then annual deficits in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion in the 10 years to come.
If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Messages
- 8,321
- Reaction score
- 9,326
And he'll still blame Bush II.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 373
- Reaction score
- 3
Whoops.
"Do we blame the kids for the Freudian slip?"
"Do we blame the kids for the Freudian slip?"
Paul Ryan rocked the house tonight. I liked how he didn't take cheap shots at Obama; rather, he provided a good argument that things were bad and they did not get any better. I thought it was pretty fair and didn't attack the President personally. Class act.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 15,392
- Reaction score
- 21,619
Yeah, could be. It's all theater though.
The jobs report Friday will tell us more about Obama's re-election odds than any of the speeches last week or this week.
I liked the speech; but, it turns out most the important parts were not true. Now I don't know how to vote. None of the them are intellectually honest. I like to listen to their arguments and listen for their proposed changes; however, how can I take any of it seriously when it's all based on false pretenses and mis-information? I don't have time to research every single statement they make to see if it's correct. Half the time the information is skewed towards one party or the other depending on what you read.
In fact, lots of the information is cherry picked to make one candidate look good and one look bad. In the end it all comes down to if Mommy and Daddy were conservative or democrat or our own dogmatic "gut reaction" as to where we ***think*** the country needs to go. Often times that is based on a core set of beliefs (read: subjective).
Basically, it seems like all I can do is vote based on my feelings because it's impossible to know the "facts" or the consequences of electing candidate A vs B.
By what objective measure can you or I say Obama is better or worse than Romney? It's impossible to be an objective voter with all the mis-information and the way they play on our bias'.
In fact, lots of the information is cherry picked to make one candidate look good and one look bad. In the end it all comes down to if Mommy and Daddy were conservative or democrat or our own dogmatic "gut reaction" as to where we ***think*** the country needs to go. Often times that is based on a core set of beliefs (read: subjective).
Basically, it seems like all I can do is vote based on my feelings because it's impossible to know the "facts" or the consequences of electing candidate A vs B.
By what objective measure can you or I say Obama is better or worse than Romney? It's impossible to be an objective voter with all the mis-information and the way they play on our bias'.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 15,392
- Reaction score
- 21,619
Who do you want on the Supreme Court? That's the main thing we know each candidate will do very differently.
Maybe the candidates have some subtle window-dressing differences in the tax scheme, or some broad and vague leadership regarding the kind of things government should do.
Let's face it, neither is going to balance the budget, fix the Middle East, end the war on drugs, push through the construction of 80 thorium power plants, find a big puddle of $25/barrel light sweet crude, bring about a return to sustainable 3-4% annual GDP growth, or save the polar bears.
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 753
A great quote that I saw today...
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it's dressed in overalls and looks like work" -Thomas Edison
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it's dressed in overalls and looks like work" -Thomas Edison
That's a good one... but what does it have to do with Romney or Obama?
I like quotes, though. Here is another.
In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.
and
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
~Theodore Roosevelt
I like quotes, though. Here is another.
In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.
and
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
~Theodore Roosevelt
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 753
.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2012
- Messages
- 270
- Reaction score
- 2
Anyone see this charade???
Not arguing for or against. Both parties are shills for private interests which too often are not in the best interests of the people. I just think it's telling about certain aspects of American politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG6qgSfaARE
Yeah, it was so obvious, that 2/3 majority. Soooo obvious.
Not arguing for or against. Both parties are shills for private interests which too often are not in the best interests of the people. I just think it's telling about certain aspects of American politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG6qgSfaARE
Yeah, it was so obvious, that 2/3 majority. Soooo obvious.
lol. That was hilarious. However, I would never expect non-Jews, like the man featured in the crowd to go along with something like that. Israel is brutal - there military behaves in ways that are very concerning - a standard below the morals that most US citizens would be comfortable with. I did some vacationing while on leave their and it's not as easy as "America and Israel good; Palestine evil." The truth is both Israel and Palestine are screwed up places that are only looking after their own interests and place little value on human life. .
But I agree. That whole thing was an appeal to conservative voters. Unfortunately for the DNC there were people educated in middle east matters in the crowd.
But I agree. That whole thing was an appeal to conservative voters. Unfortunately for the DNC there were people educated in middle east matters in the crowd.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2012
- Messages
- 270
- Reaction score
- 2
Yes. It's true that we have an increasingly educated public. Or, a more media educated public at least...... Mostly, this is because of access to alternative sources of information with the internet. When it was a handful of media corporations people were less well educated on such matters.
Interesting how now people are like, "yeah, they buckled to AIPAC and had to put Jerusalem back in as the "capital" ". Eventually, this will cause people to think harder about such matters.....
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 15,392
- Reaction score
- 21,619
+201,000 jobs in August
Up from +173,000 in July
It's definitely Obama's election to lose at this point. Barring a Lehman Brothers style economic catastrophe in the next 2 months, four more years.
Up from +173,000 in July
It's definitely Obama's election to lose at this point. Barring a Lehman Brothers style economic catastrophe in the next 2 months, four more years.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2004
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 3
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 15,392
- Reaction score
- 21,619
I want Romney to win, and I'll vote for him.
But he's going to lose unless something huge and fundamental changes.
Romney was behind two months ago, and he's just as far (if not further) behind now. He's behind in Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, and even Florida.
He's boned.
I wish it wasn't true, but something something wishes & horses something something.
ROMNEY AND PAUL WILL WIN!
It's written on the wall, pgg. The US is all about the republican ticket now. Obama cannot run on his record and the people are sick of it. Just watch - come this NOV we'll all be memeing Romney by burning money like it's nothin' while presiding over the US as President.
It's written on the wall, pgg. The US is all about the republican ticket now. Obama cannot run on his record and the people are sick of it. Just watch - come this NOV we'll all be memeing Romney by burning money like it's nothin' while presiding over the US as President.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 69
It's been Obama's election to lose since December when the republicans never put out decent candidate to run against him and took stands on dumb issues that isolated voters. Look at the primaries, most of those candidates were unelectable (gingrich, paul) and some of them were downright jokes (Cain). In the end they ended up with a candidate who is just not very likeable to the average american. He has been and always will be seen as a rich wall street guy running on corporate values. He inspires no one and his best quality is that he's not Obama. Romney was the best the GOP could do because it's really hard to unseat an incumbent and most of the top guys prolly decided to wait 4 years rather then attempt to fight an uphill battle even against a vulnerable incumbent.
I look forward to 4 years from now when republicans can put out a candidate who can stand on his/her own 2 feet and inspire independents instead of pandering to the base and running on a platform of "at least I'm not THAT guy"
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 15,392
- Reaction score
- 21,619
Hope springs eternal but poll data shows a very different picture in every swing state.
There's still 2 months to go, a lot can happen. Romney has a ton of money to spend on ads. But the data, and worse, the data trend is not encouraging.
Maybe, seems we heard that a lot in 2008 too.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2012
- Messages
- 270
- Reaction score
- 2
Haven't seen much of this in any of our state run media outlets, but then again I've sort of unplugged from the matrix a bit lately.....
http://www.thelocal.de/money/20120905-44775.html
According to the report's authors, the competitiveness rating of the US grew overall, but its spot on the list fell for the fourth year in a row. The reasons were cited as its "burgeoning macroeconomic vulnerabilities," and the institutional environment, "particularly the low public trust in politicians and a perceived lack of government efficiency."
I think the underlined is both understated as well as underappreciated. When people lose faith in their government it's a serious problem. I see no end in sight.... I'm not sure what can be done but massive overhauls need to be made.
http://www.thelocal.de/money/20120905-44775.html
According to the report's authors, the competitiveness rating of the US grew overall, but its spot on the list fell for the fourth year in a row. The reasons were cited as its "burgeoning macroeconomic vulnerabilities," and the institutional environment, "particularly the low public trust in politicians and a perceived lack of government efficiency."
I think the underlined is both understated as well as underappreciated. When people lose faith in their government it's a serious problem. I see no end in sight.... I'm not sure what can be done but massive overhauls need to be made.
I think we need sweeping majorities in all branches - either R or D to actually get some stuff done. Simpson-Bowls or the Ryan Plan: It doesn't matter. But something needs to be done.
If I were keeping score - I would say the R have screwed us bad these past couple years. They buried Simpson-Bowls and the "Grand Bargain" because of their dogma and let opportunities pass. They didn't have the presidential seat and should have worked with the D in the other branches to make concessions so something will pass. I identify as an R but I think that the R's elected screwed over the US the past few years for partisan goals.
If I were keeping score - I would say the R have screwed us bad these past couple years. They buried Simpson-Bowls and the "Grand Bargain" because of their dogma and let opportunities pass. They didn't have the presidential seat and should have worked with the D in the other branches to make concessions so something will pass. I identify as an R but I think that the R's elected screwed over the US the past few years for partisan goals.
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,527
- Reaction score
- 4,515
I got curious, so I read up on this index. This has to be the single worst designed ranking system since they came of with the BCS. Actually in many ways it resembles that great institution: subjective polls take precendence over hard data, there are over a hundred different variables in the equation which mostly make no sense, and the answer they come up with is asinine. The Swiss are the #1 most competitive economy in the world for 4 years running? And China barely makes the list? When was the last time we (or anyone) lost an industry to Swizterland? Didn't their economy grow less than 1% this year, and contract this last quarter? How in the world can the most competitive economy have negative growth? I mean, at least when the BCS calls a team the most competive in the nation they've generally won at least most of their games.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2012
- Messages
- 270
- Reaction score
- 2
All I can say is that you are not approaching your assessment in a very sophisticated way. Failing to see the reasons why China isn't ranked higher, and commenting on how nation's haven't "lost an industry to Switzerland" and therefore has no business being ranked #1 based upon the criteria studied, is well.... Whatever. We'll have to agree to disagree.
What bothers you most? That the U.S. isn't ranked #1??
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,964
The country will be far better off under Romney than 4 more years of Obama. That is what I believe and how I will vote.
You people don't understand the full ramifications of an Obama win this November. The last 4 years Obama has created massive new debt and more entitlements. This means taxes go up, the economy remains sluggish and the US enters into a recession. Obama isn't the solution to our problem because he is the problem
Romney is far from perfect but he knows how to balance a budget and compromise on issues. Two things Obama has never done.
You people don't understand the full ramifications of an Obama win this November. The last 4 years Obama has created massive new debt and more entitlements. This means taxes go up, the economy remains sluggish and the US enters into a recession. Obama isn't the solution to our problem because he is the problem
Romney is far from perfect but he knows how to balance a budget and compromise on issues. Two things Obama has never done.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 15,392
- Reaction score
- 21,619
Who exactly are you addressing?
I don't want Obama to win another term, but I can see the writing on the wall.
Current poll data & electoral map from fivethirtyeight.com (excellent site for statistical analysis of elections):
There's probably a bit of a temporary convention bump for Obama but the electoral map is telling:
Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, AND Florida all favor Obama right now, and they have all along.
I think we'd be better off with Romney and I'll vote for him, but I try very hard to see the world the way it really is, not the way I want it to be.
And Romney is losing.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,964
The media is biased against the GOP. This race is a dead heat right now. Regardless of who wins this election I won't be voting for Obama and I will be voting.
While I accept the USA I live in that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to elect leaders who adhere to the founding principle of this country: limited government
George W. let me Down in his fiscal policies. Even Clinton was more fiscally conservative than George W.
While I accept the USA I live in that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to elect leaders who adhere to the founding principle of this country: limited government
George W. let me Down in his fiscal policies. Even Clinton was more fiscally conservative than George W.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 15,392
- Reaction score
- 21,619
No, it's not.
Romney is losing in every swing state. He's not losing by much, but he's losing by more today than he was two months ago.
Obviously it's not over yet. The debates are still coming. Romney has a lot of money to spend. We've never really witnessed the full power of unrestrained superpacs, so it's anybody's guess what kind of effect they'll have in the final weeks.
There's still time for an October surprise or Lehman Brothers style event to occur and change the trajectory of this election. But that's not reassuring ... every day that goes by this election looks further out of reach, and I honestly don't know what Romney is going to do to close the gap.
To his credit, he hasn't gone full-******-desperate like McCain did.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,964
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 15,392
- Reaction score
- 21,619
I hope you're right, but I think counting on voter turnout is a loser's strategy.
Voter turnout was McCain's reason for picking Palin. Fire up the base! Get them to turn out!
There were strong shades of this strategy in selecting Ryan as his VP candidate. While he's certainly not alienating undecided voters in swing states the way Palin did (thankfully), I don't see much evidence that he's attracting them either.
Voter turnout was McCain's reason for picking Palin. Fire up the base! Get them to turn out!
There were strong shades of this strategy in selecting Ryan as his VP candidate. While he's certainly not alienating undecided voters in swing states the way Palin did (thankfully), I don't see much evidence that he's attracting them either.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 69
I never understand why so candidates pander to the base....it makes no strategic sense. These are guys that are gonna vote for you anyway because you closer to their ideals than the other guy so why pander to them? These candidates should be picking people that will bring in the center and swing voters who actually change the election.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2004
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 3
Yes, this election is all about voters turned out from the respective base and the battle of the swing States. Obama has created a situation that the country is so divided. It is a "battle" between the wealthy and the rest of the country.
People said they will vote for Obama bacause he is more "likable". 95% of African Americans said they still support and will vote for Mr. Obama. People actually believe he will not raise taxes on the middle calss because he said so. It is not going to happen because our debt is going off the roof. People no longer vote based on the President's records/performances.
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,527
- Reaction score
- 4,515
During the elction cycle your base is going to do one of three things:
1) Campaign/fundraise for you and then vote for you
2) Do nothing until election day and then vote for you
3) Watch Honey Boo boo.
They won't vote for the other guy, but if you don't interested them they won't volunteer the money and manpower that you need to get the independents to the polls. They might not even take the time to vote themselves.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,527
- Reaction score
- 4,515
His record is that he hasn't raised taxes on the middle class for the first four year of his presidency, and that relative our GDP he has been the smallest government spender since Eisenhower. His biggest movement on taxes was on the payroll tax (which disproportionately affects the true middle class) by cutting it and fighting to keep it cut despite heavy republican opposition. When you say he won't raise taxes 'because he said so' he has almost four years of keeping that promise to back up his claim.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 15,392
- Reaction score
- 21,619
I think most of it is leftover inertia from the primary, coupled with naive hope that high turnout can win the election.
Romney was forced to pander in the primary. That ridiculous circus with him, Newt, Cain, Donald ****ing Trump, that Yosemite Sam Texas clown Perry, I forget who else, was one long contest of who could lean further right without going too far.
Worse, it's not just the 'base' that's voting in the primary, it's the hardcore fringe whackadoodle GOP base that really gets out to vote in a primary. To even get to the general election Romney had to convince them (not moderates & independents) that he wasn't going to hold no truck with being reasonable with those pinko commie socialist Dem-rats.
Now, Romney can't figure out how to slowly back away from the crazies and be his usual center-right self again, for fear of his own ******ed base freaking out over flipflops.
Bottom line, it's the same **** as 2008. The Republican 'base' would rather lose over abortion-this and faith-that, than win on every other issue. And they're two months away from getting their wish.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2004
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 3
Sorry, not talking about the past 4 years. I would welcome a friendly wager with you that he will raise taxes on the middle class during the next term if he is reelected.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2004
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 3
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 15,392
- Reaction score
- 21,619
You sound like someone who voted for Cain or Newt in the Republican primary.
You have to see the world the way it is, not the way you want it to be, before you can change it.
Hi guys, I just wanted your thoughts on NPs doing colonoscopies. The link for the thread is below:
Here is thread
Here is thread
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 69
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 69
But the working hypothesis that the base won't turn out unless you energize them is just wrong. I myself am not part of a "base demographic" and I don't vote in most elections but every 4 years I make sure get my butt to the voting booth because we're gonna elect a president and I want my say. With all the media coverage around the election and political stuff on TVs, people will turn out to vote regardless of whether their candidate panders to the base or not for 2 reasons 1) they hate the other guy and 2) wanting to make a difference.
Like PGG said, until repub start campaigning on real issues the economy, lower taxes, less gov't and get away from supporting unpopular social issues that isolate them (gay marriage, abortion, whether god should be in the democratic platform) they will continue to lose because they can't attract the independent and swing voters
I feel like the GOP needs to also change their tone. Ever since Palin and the teaparty nonsense they have become more and more hysterical. Paul Ryan is a good example of how they should come across and the types of issues they need to focus on.
Palin, Bachmann, Trump, Cain etc. are examples of the wrong way to come across and the wrong issues to focus on.
Palin, Bachmann, Trump, Cain etc. are examples of the wrong way to come across and the wrong issues to focus on.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,380
- Reaction score
- 13
How do you figure in the practically guaranteed end of the Bush-era tax cuts? If you count them, either candidate will likely raise everyone's taxes.
After the tax cuts expire, I suspect whichever candidate wins will cut a deal with Congress to get part of it reinstated. The crux is who gets how much reinstated.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 711
- Reaction score
- 2
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,380
- Reaction score
- 13
Like say, putting one of them on the main ticket as vice president? Still 8 weeks out, but it seems like fewer people are betting on Mr. Romney and Congressman Ryan.
not all Repubs endorsed Paul Ryan. Newt the cheater was particularly critical of Ryan. So was nut-job rick perry and rick scott.
There are quite a few Repubs who weren't endorsing ryan
There are quite a few Repubs who weren't endorsing ryan
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,964
Compared with the survey taken before the convention, voters' assessments of Obama's job performance are essentially unchanged — and in vulnerable territory — with 48 percent approving and 50 percent disapproving. Also stubbornly unchanged is the negativity around his handling of the economy: Most voters — 53 percent — disapprove of his stewardship of the economy, and strongly negative views are almost twice as common as strongly positive ones.
For more than two years, a majority of voters have disapproved of Obama in this area. Those who disapprove overwhelmingly say it is because they think he is pursuing the wrong policies, not because his efforts need more time.
A plurality of voters, 43 percent, say the nation's economy has gotten worse since Obama took office, while fewer, 32 percent, say it has improved. The rest say it has stayed about the same. Those who see no improvement largely blame the president, although just 38 percent say they think things would be better now had Romney become president in 2009.
The rhetorically powerful "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" question was a centerpiece of the Republican convention, and in the poll, more voters say they are worse off, rather than better, under Obama. But unlike those who see no progress for the national economy, those who view themselves as no better off since Obama became president are divided on whether they blame him for the lack of improvement.
Overall, voters split evenly between Romney and Obama when it comes to supporting small businesses, but Romney has exploitable advantages here. He has said repeatedly that he knows more about building businesses than Obama, and voters agree. About two-thirds say Romney understands what it takes to create a successful small business, while there is a split verdict on Obama. By 53 percent to 35 percent, more say government programs do more to hamper than bolster small businesses.
Obama has hammered Romney for not explaining the details of his tax and budget proposals, and 61 percent of voters say the Republican has not done enough to lay out the policies he would enact. But for the incumbent, things are hardly positive here: Six in 10 Americans agree that Romney has not done enough to provide those details. But 49 percent also say Obama hasn't done enough to specify a second-term agenda.
The new poll shows an electorate more tuned into the campaign than it was two weeks ago, with enthusiasm and the solidity of voters' preferences reaching new highs for the cycle. More than six in 10 voters say they need no more information to make a choice, indicating a hardening of the battle lines, as well as the dwindling number of truly undecided or "movable" voters.
More than nine in 10 Obama supporters say they are enthusiastic, with 56 percent saying they are "very enthusiastic." Almost nine in 10 Romney backers say they are enthusiastic, with 46 percent saying they are strongly backing him.
Although Obama outpaces Romney when it comes to enthusiastic backers, he has fewer such supporters now than he did at this time four years ago. And younger people are notably less enthusiastic and less certain they will vote than they were in 2008.
For more than two years, a majority of voters have disapproved of Obama in this area. Those who disapprove overwhelmingly say it is because they think he is pursuing the wrong policies, not because his efforts need more time.
A plurality of voters, 43 percent, say the nation's economy has gotten worse since Obama took office, while fewer, 32 percent, say it has improved. The rest say it has stayed about the same. Those who see no improvement largely blame the president, although just 38 percent say they think things would be better now had Romney become president in 2009.
The rhetorically powerful "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" question was a centerpiece of the Republican convention, and in the poll, more voters say they are worse off, rather than better, under Obama. But unlike those who see no progress for the national economy, those who view themselves as no better off since Obama became president are divided on whether they blame him for the lack of improvement.
Overall, voters split evenly between Romney and Obama when it comes to supporting small businesses, but Romney has exploitable advantages here. He has said repeatedly that he knows more about building businesses than Obama, and voters agree. About two-thirds say Romney understands what it takes to create a successful small business, while there is a split verdict on Obama. By 53 percent to 35 percent, more say government programs do more to hamper than bolster small businesses.
Obama has hammered Romney for not explaining the details of his tax and budget proposals, and 61 percent of voters say the Republican has not done enough to lay out the policies he would enact. But for the incumbent, things are hardly positive here: Six in 10 Americans agree that Romney has not done enough to provide those details. But 49 percent also say Obama hasn't done enough to specify a second-term agenda.
The new poll shows an electorate more tuned into the campaign than it was two weeks ago, with enthusiasm and the solidity of voters' preferences reaching new highs for the cycle. More than six in 10 voters say they need no more information to make a choice, indicating a hardening of the battle lines, as well as the dwindling number of truly undecided or "movable" voters.
More than nine in 10 Obama supporters say they are enthusiastic, with 56 percent saying they are "very enthusiastic." Almost nine in 10 Romney backers say they are enthusiastic, with 46 percent saying they are strongly backing him.
Although Obama outpaces Romney when it comes to enthusiastic backers, he has fewer such supporters now than he did at this time four years ago. And younger people are notably less enthusiastic and less certain they will vote than they were in 2008.
Similar threads
