Rasmussen: Generic Republican Candidate leads Obama

myp · Jul 26, 2011

A generic presidential ballot conducted by Rasmussen Reports shows that currently a generic GOP candidate leads Obama 48% to 42%. The other ten percent voted for a third party or were undecided.

source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...lot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot

DodgeFB · Jul 27, 2011

myp said:
A generic presidential ballot conducted by Rasmussen Reports shows that currently a generic GOP candidate leads Obama 48% to 42%. The other ten percent voted for a third party or were undecided.

source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...lot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot

I sure hope that generic candidate shows up in time to save us. We need more than an suit full of ego in charge.

David · Jul 27, 2011

Well ya, any generic politician could beat Obama, the issue is that all of his current challengers are ether nobodies or idiots.

myp · Jul 27, 2011

David said:
Well ya, any generic politician could beat Obama, the issue is that all of his current challengers are ether nobodies or idiots.

Well I assume the people who voted knew who was in the primaries, but either way don't most politicians fall into those two categories (most into the second)?

strawberrycheesecake · Jul 27, 2011

i absolutely agree, its all the same whos president in the US.

DodgeFB · Jul 27, 2011

I knew it was bad, but we have a bumper crop of idiots in Washington now. Both sides. I am sick of hearing all the same "talking points" from both sides. All they know is blame someone else. If you ask one of them what was for lunch you may get, I can't believe the people on the other side eat cheese on their burgers.

myp · Jul 27, 2011

It is an interesting occurrence that time and time again in history this happens. Some of the idiocy is undoubtedly not actually idiocy, but doing what they feel is best for themselves (and maybe even what they feel is best for the country [I won't hold my breath on that one though

]). As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I wonder how much of the lunacy is really just a corruption by power.

The other major factor at play might be in the type of people we elect. I strongly feel that power does change people (not fundamentally, but just how they act with it and it could happen to anyone) but perhaps we also tend to elect a certain type of person. That one, I am not as sure of.

DodgeFB · Jul 27, 2011

myp said:
It is an interesting occurrence that time and time again in history this happens. Some of the idiocy is undoubtedly not actually idiocy, but doing what they feel is best for themselves (and maybe even what they feel is best for the country [I won't hold my breath on that one though ]). As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I wonder how much of the lunacy is really just a corruption by power.

The other major factor at play might be in the type of people we elect. I strongly feel that power does change people (not fundamentally, but just how they act with it and it could happen to anyone) but perhaps we also tend to elect a certain type of person. That one, I am not as sure of.

I now question why a decent person would want to go to Washington. I know I am getting old and crabby. But it seems like if they are not listening to the people that elected them , then who?

myp · Jul 27, 2011

DodgeFB said:
I now question why a decent person would want to go to Washington. I know I am getting old and crabby. But it seems like if they are not listening to the people that elected them , then who?

The people that have the real weight? The lobbyists, unfortunately.

DodgeFB · Jul 28, 2011

myp said:
The people that have the real weight? The lobbyists, unfortunately.

Which makes them no better than any other thief and double dealer.

myp · Jul 28, 2011

DodgeFB said:
Which makes them no better than any other thief and double dealer.

Eh... arguable. We all do what is best for us or what we believe in at the end of the day- that is all they are doing. It should be the government's duty to say "no, that only helps your small group and hurts the rest of the country"- unfortunately the money the small group presents is often enough to convince the politicians to change their minds.

Kyuubi · Jul 28, 2011

myp said:
It is an interesting occurrence that time and time again in history this happens. Some of the idiocy is undoubtedly not actually idiocy, but doing what they feel is best for themselves (and maybe even what they feel is best for the country [I won't hold my breath on that one though ]). As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I wonder how much of the lunacy is really just a corruption by power.

The other major factor at play might be in the type of people we elect. I strongly feel that power does change people (not fundamentally, but just how they act with it and it could happen to anyone) but perhaps we also tend to elect a certain type of person. That one, I am not as sure of.

Personally I look at the situation in the house and senate, and use that as a reason for why I hate both parties right now. One has a democrat majority, the other has a republican majority. One house passes, the other vetos because of partisan beliefs in policy, rather than seeking any meaningful compromise.

I personally wanted republicans to gain big in the mid terms to get rid of the supermajority situation with the democrats... I was hoping that the majorities would be more evenly distributed so that they were near equal in both houses. I'd say what we got right now isn't much better if there's anything about it that's better at all.

myp · Jul 28, 2011

Kyuubi said:
Personally I look at the situation in the house and senate, and use that as a reason for why I hate both parties right now. One has a democrat majority, the other has a republican majority. One house passes, the other vetos because of partisan beliefs in policy, rather than seeking any meaningful compromise.

I personally wanted republicans to gain big in the mid terms to get rid of the supermajority situation with the democrats... I was hoping that the majorities would be more evenly distributed so that they were near equal in both houses. I'd say what we got right now isn't much better if there's anything about it that's better at all.

I actually prefer a deadlock to an easy majority or agreement on both sides. Why? Because historically it is during those times that they have spent the least and arguably done the least damage.

David · Jul 28, 2011

myp said:
I actually prefer a deadlock to an easy majority or agreement on both sides. Why? Because historically it is during those times that they have spent the least and arguably done the least damage.

Alas every rule is proven by an exception.

DodgeFB · Jul 28, 2011

myp said:
I actually prefer a deadlock to an easy majority or agreement on both sides. Why? Because historically it is during those times that they have spent the least and arguably done the least damage.

Term Limits keeps coming into my thoughts more and more as this goes on.

Abbott Presley · Dec 11, 2020

Rasmussen: Generic Republican Candidate leads Obama

Similar threads