All of Obama's polling numbers are on the up-swing. What does it mean?

Click on image to enlarge
<<<  In 1994,  the Dems were more divided than Republicans,  and the Dems were pounded in the 1994 midterm elections.  In 2004,  the opposite was true,  with the GOP more the divided party,  and the GOP lost both the House and the Senate in a close midterm election cycle.  2014 a more divided and discouraged Democrat Party,  and the 2014 midterms ended in the worst drubbing for Democrats since the 1920's.  Demographics have meaning.  If the current Democrat divide continues,  the GOP will win the coming election (2016).  As things stand today,  at this moment in time,  I would argue that the GOP is favored to win back the presidency in 2016.

 What does the increased polling numbers for Hussein Obama,  really mean? 

 The short answer is this:  it means nothing.  He is,  by definition,  a lame duck President.  The under-reported story,  here,  is the fact that he has been a lame duck since March 23, 2010,  the day he signed ObamaCare into law.  Scandals (perhaps a dozen) and admitted lies have typified his tenure,  not to mention the two worst midterm election cycles in modern day American history.  

 The most recent midterms recorded 43% of registered Republicans and conservatives voting their preferences while a radically discouraged Democrat base stayed home.  Understand this:  the only reason 2014 voter turnout was as bad as was,  can be attributed to the fact that Democrats failed to get out of bed on November 4.  Think for just a moment,  at how idiotic is "their" excuse for losing the 2014 elections:  "The only reason we lost was because our people did not go to the polls.  So,  because they did not vote at all,  we will not count this election."  

 Kind of silly,  bordering on stupid,  no?  

 The Marxist Media will talk up Obama's new found popularity,  but,  in the end,  they are only doing this as a requisite for the 2016 presidential race.  If the Democrats appear to be the weaker of the two major parties in 2016,  that could effect Democrat voter turnout,  once again.  It is for certain that Hillary has zero charisma and will not be able to energized her party,  if,  in fact, such will be necessary.  And all that talk about the "new darling of the Left,  Elizabeth Warren?"  Well,  turns out she polls less popular than Joe Biden  . . .    12% to Biden's 14%.  

 And,  so,  the Big Cover-up is in the works.  The media will do all it can to pretend that the Democrats are not failing as a political choice,  when,  in fact,  they are at their weakest in more than 80 years.  

 Weak,  divided and without a vision,  such is the definition of the Progressive led,  Democrat Party,  today.  
at

4 comments:

  1. AnonymousJanuary 5, 2015 at 7:07 PM

    Mush above Bush's approval at the same point in presidency. Obama's RCP avg is -8 and on the rise. Bush's was -37 at this point.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_bush_first_term_job_approval.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John SmithsonJanuary 5, 2015 at 10:32 PM

      So what ??!! Bush's two midterms versus Obama's midterms prove Bush policies to be much preferable to the voting public. In fact, the 2002 and 2006 do not compare to the absolute disasters that were the 2010 and 2014 Obama years midterms.

      Here is a polling number, an empirical statement comparing Bush and Obama. In Bush's re-election bid, he picked up 12 million votes over his 2000 year bid. Obama lost 3.5 million votes comparing his re-election to his first term election. I don't care about polling data. I only care about voting data.

      Heck, in 2008, Obama was running 65% approval in the polls but only garnered a 53% vote total. . . . big difference between 65 fantasy points and 53 real time election points.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 5, 2015 at 10:50 PM

      Obama lifts us out of Bush's recession, approval on the rise, a bad midterm that everyone knows was due to the documented worst turnout in 70+ yrs

      Bush vs Obama = +29 Obama ... and rising. ah... hahahaqhahahaha!!!!!!

      Delete
    3. John SmithsonJanuary 6, 2015 at 8:46 AM

      If the recession had ended in 2010 as Obama said it would, you would have a point. But not after six freaking years. For starters, the recession as to jobs is far from over. Secondly, Market is booming because of "free" credit money, a gift from the taxpayer to the Street thanks to Obama and his lust to please Big Money. And, just to be clear, the worst turnout in 70 years is another way of saying "The worst asskicking inb 83 years." Because the takers in your party couldn't get out of bed long enough to go and vote is no excuse for the Dems historic loss. 43% of of the Conservative Nation turned out . . . . a LITTLE on the low side. The "worst turnout in 70+ years" is all on you, Jack. Finally, like I pointed out before, the only head to head poll I care about is the re-election comparison between the two men: Obama lost 3.5 million votes in 2012 while Mitt got 1 million more votes than McCain - a swing away from Obama of 4.5 million while Bush 2004, garnered 12 million more votes than in 2000, a difference between the two of 16.5 million freaking votes !!!!

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)