2012 Match-ups: Obama, Romney Tied at 45%; Obama 48%, Palin 42%

I wish the Conservatives would have supported Romney from the start. They wanted Rudy and they pushed the bigotry of Huckabee. McCain then came up the middle and then they rushed to Romney.

We needed a pragmatist in office after Bush and not an idealogue. Obama is an idealogue and he can't reason beyond his ideology.

You can't tell Obama Universal Health Care and big Government won't work in a global economy with cheap labor. This is just like you couldn't tell Bush about Iraq anjd spreading democracy in the middle east.

These people just want to feed their ideology and a pragmatist wants to do what's best for the country.

Here's some of the article:

If the 2012 presidential election were held today, President Obama and possible Republican nominee Mitt Romney would be all tied up at 45% each, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

The president, seeking a second four-year term, beats another potential GOP rival, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, by six points – 48% to 42%.

www.rasmussenreports.com...

reply to post by Matrix Rising


So much can and wil happen between now and 2012 that those numbers are arbitrary. It is fun speculation and nothing more,lol Obama hasn't even been in the White House over 250 days yet!

Double post......

[edit on 7/20/2009 by jkrog08]

Probably should point out that www.rasmussenreports.com is a Republican based pollster as well.

reply to post by jkrog08


It doesn't take a Genie or a crystal ball to see that Obama is an idealogue.

You can't tell Obama that Universal Health Care will not work in a global economy with cheap labor. We have over 11 trillion dollars in debt in a 13 trillion dollar economy.

Any numbers that say Universal Health Care will not work, Obama will not hear. It's the same way Bush could not hear anything that said Iraq was trouble. It's because they are idealogues.

Obama was the most liberal Senator in the Senate. He gave interviews calling the Constitution flawed because it restrained Government and it didn't talk about redistribution of wealth.

America didn't need an idealogue after Bush.

Romney's appeal will be that he's a pragmatist. This is one reason that I supported Romney.

The last thing we need is an idealogue because they can't reason past their ideology.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


That may be true(which in my opinion it is not) but that still doesn't change the fact that these "2012 polls" are completely pointless at this stage. Because many things will happen between now and 2012, that is a fact--what happens is anyone's guess, but things will happen that undoubtedly will change these polls, likely dramatically. The point is--No one really looks at these polls at this VERY early time in the new President's tenure. They should be taken with at least a grain of salt.

reply to post by jkrog08


It's not anyones guess what will happen. Obama told you what he wants to do.

He's gonna tax people to death and try to use Government to redistribute wealth. He wants big Government with strong Government control to bring about what he calls economic and social justice.

This will fail because the Government was not set up for this. It was set up to protect the God Given liberty of the individual, not run people's lives.

So it's obvious what Obama will do and it will not work. Blind Ideology never works.

This is what he said in 2001:

Seven years before Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

www.wnd.com...

You can listen to the radio interview here.
www.youtube.com...

The reason why Romney or any pragmatist will have trouble, will be because Conservatives will want an idealogue.

Obama will destroy the economy and Universal Health Care if enacted will not work. I just worry about my business and families well being and I hope America elects a pragmatist after Obama if there's a country to elect a President in.

It's very dangerous for anyone to say the Constitution is flawed because it doesn't fit their ideology. I can tell you Obama's Presidency will be a disaster because he can't think past his ideology.

The only thing that might stop Obama is if you get a Republican Congress in 2010.

Bill Clinton was a success because he had to triangulate. This meant he had to think past ideology. Hopefully this will happen in 2010 and hopefully Obama and the Democrats don't damage the country further before then with their blind ideology.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by Matrix Rising]

reply to post by Matrix Rising


LOL, I can see I am in the GOP ring here, I am not going to argue political ideologies with you, just thought I would point out that the poll you presented means nothing, nothing at all at the moment.

reply to post by damwel


All the pollsters and various polls, lean one way or another. Though Rasmussen may lean conservative, he was one to two polls that got the election results in '08 right.

I supported Romney in '08 and I'm glad to see that he is still getting support today. I hope that, unlike last year, people will be able to look past his being a Mormon and vote on the issues. Probably won't happen though because, all a politician has to say is, "hey! I'm Christian!" [*cough* Huckabee *cough*] and the Christians gobble that up faster than a dog can his dinner. Maybe if he continues to gain momentum, things'll be good.

It's interesting to me that Palin is so close to Obama, considering how hard the media tried to make her look dumb. I guess America was able to look through that though they didn't vote for McCain.

A lot can change between now and then though.

Honestly, I would never ever vote for Obama but I'm betting my money on the man winning again...Theres just something about that second term that always lets the current president just glide on in...especially when they do a crappy job.

There are still plenty of poor fools who love riding the Obama Express.

I dont believe Romney, Palin, or Obama are good choices...Frankly having one person in charge of so many people is honestly obscene...Especially when they are greedy, secret, dirty politicians like what we've been seeing for the last bunch of decades...Too much power these men have and it creates an imbalance which leads to a break in the way that the government operates and the way the people want it to operate.


Unless of course the elections are rigged and these candidates are pre-selected secretly (somewhat like Iran but not in such an obvious manner).

The government has a mind of its own- I sincerely doubt that whoever wins this next election isn't pre-selected already.

Besides...Republicans...? Democrats...? Whats the difference? They all suck equally.

[edit on 7/20/2009 by AceOfAces]

Whoever the republican nominee is, ill be screaming "WHERES THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE! YOUR FAKE! YOUR NOT ELIGIBLE."

Just cause.

What we really need is to have a decent third party candidate. Like Ron Paul or someone with at least some common sense.

Someone that doesn't look like a complete idiot or have to use a teleprompter to recite speeches.

Someone better. or none of the above.

[edit on 7/20/2009 by whatukno]