Obama tries to explain his failure in achieving more bipartisanship

It sounds to me like the people want a King.

 

Ah, is that some indication that Romney is going to win? You willing to bet that Rasmussen's report is an accurately predicting the outcome of the election enough to bet your posting privileges on this site?

Yeah, I didn't think so bigtexx...run along now...

 

Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster in the 2008 election. Sorry.

http://politicalvindication.com/who-were-the-most-accurate-presidential-pollsters/

 

I imagine all presidents are held to the same standard...You were obviously ok with Bush's outstanding absences from office...Obama hasn't come anywhere near that ridiculous amount of neglecting the American public. I think you'd agree this thread is irrelevant...thanks...

 

Yep, very accurate....

In 2010, Nate Silver of the New York Times blog FiveThirtyEight wrote the article “Is Rasmussen Reports biased?”, in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias.[57] However, by later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a "house effect".[58] He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model,[59] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering.[60] Silver also criticized Rasmussen for often only polling races months before the election, which prevented them from having polls just before the election that could be assessed for accuracy. He wrote that he was “looking at appropriate ways to punish pollsters” like Rasmussen in his pollster rating models who don’t poll in the final days before an election.[61] In June 2012, Silver wrote that "Rasmussen Reports, which has had Republican-leaning results in the past, does so again this year. However, the tendency is not very strong – a Republican lean of about 1.3 points."[62]

After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model.[63] He singled out as an example the Hawaii Senate race, in which Rasmussen, in a poll completed three weeks before the election, showed incumbent Daniel Inouye only 13 points ahead, whereas in actuality he won by a 53% margin[64] – a difference of 40 points from Rasmussen's poll, or "the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998".[63] Silver named Quinnipiac University Poll as the most accurate poll of the election cycle. However, according to RealClearPolitics, in the three Senate and gubernatorial toss-up races where both Rasmussen Reports and Quinnipiac polled, the Rasmussen Reports final poll was closer to the mark in every race.[65][66][67] Both Rasmussen and Quinnipiac projected that Republican candidates would do better than they actually did.[65][66][67] The two firms projected the same candidate to win every race but the Florida gubernatorial race, where Rasmussen correctly projected Rick Scott's victory, while Quinnipiac showed Alex Sink with the lead.[68]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports

 

That there interwebs machine is fun aint it?...

 

The 2010 elections are irrelevant -- we are talking about Presidential elections and Rasmussen owned it in 2008, as I said. #1 most accurate pollster in 2008. Sorry.

 

You're like a baby Romney or something. Anything that doesn't fit your story is irrelevant.

 

The only reaching that Clinton did thy got him impeached was reaching up an inter's skirt then perjuring himself over it.

 

This post somes up the idocy of the GOP's criticism of Obama throughout his entire term. they complain that he acts like a king but can't get anything done. it represents the fact that there is nothing he can do to make them happy because they are a bunch of partisan idiots.

as far as bush is concerned, its better to be clearing brush on your ranch and pretending to be a cowboy who was a cheerleader at andover.

 

Actually, that is yet another untruth. Bush claimed to give up golf for the troops (a sacrifice that many in the military scoffed at anyway), but was later filmed playing golf.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/16/bush-lied-about-giving-up_n_102138.html

There were stories at the time that Bush gave up golf ue to knee problems that surfaced at the same time. And Bush's "sacrifice" was all the more questionable when he was constantly seen riding his mountain bike throughout the rest of his presidency.

http://www.totalbike.com/news/article/874/

Personally, I don't have any problem with the President engaged in recreational activities while still performing his duties as President, but to make such a specious claim (and natch, for one of the right wing wackos to try to raise this as a criticism when it was so well reported that Bush essentially lied)... well, makes the criticism all the more inane.

 

What a warped society that somebody get tarnished for spending too much time with their family ...and not enough time working.

Regarding bipartisanship. I believe it was the republicans that force all their members to never compromise on taxes.

 

Sorry to inform you, but you're wrong.

2010 happened after 2008, so what's irrelevant are the polls conducted prior to being exposed for influencing your results. It's a matter of credibility.

If in 2008 Rasmussen was the most accurate poll in the history of pollsters, it would be irrelevant now. What is relevant is that they are known to tamper with results. Period.

 

Mitt Romney is the Christian leader this country needs!

 

That isn't what he was asking. He was challenging you to wager your posting privileges, which is your cue to run away.

 

Even a blind dog can find a bone every so often.

-Alexi Sayle

 

I disagree with this. The problem with Rasmussen is not that they are deliberately tampering with their results. The issue is their sampling method, which over counts Republicans. This may or may not be intentional in their model design, but there is no evidence of actual dishonesty.

 

That's funny on a couple of levels. Nice.

 

taxes?

It was the plan from the beginning, for everything.

Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan & Kevin McCarthy: Plot To Sabotage US Economy with Frank Luntz

On January 20, 2009 Republican Leaders in Congress literally plotted to sabotage and undermine U.S. Economy during President Obama's Inauguration.

In Robert Draper's book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives" Draper wrote that during a four hour, "invitation only" meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, the below listed Senior GOP Law Writers literally plotted to sabotage, undermine and destroy America's Economy.

The Guest List:
Frank Luntz - GOP Minister of Propaganda
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA),
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX),
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX),
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA),
Sen. Jim DeMint (SC-R),
Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ-R),
Sen. Tom Coburn (OK-R),
Sen. John Ensign (NV-R) and
Sen. Bob Corker (TN-R).

Non-lawmakers present Newt Gingrich

During the four hour meeting:
The senior GOP members plotted to bring Congress to a standstill regardless how much it would hurt the American Economy by pledging to obstruct and block President Obama on all legislation.

These Republican members of Congress were not simply airing their complaints regarding the other party's political platform for four long hours. No, these Republican Congressional Policymakers, who were elected to do 'the People's work' were literally plotting to sabotage, undermine and destroy the U.S. Economy.

 

Just when I thought you couldn't get any douchier....