Would it be illegal?
Poll
 | 5 votes (35.71%) | ||
| | 9 votes (64.28%) |
14 members have voted
February 29th, 2012 at 10:13:00 PM
permalink
Hypothetical question.
Inspired by the Forbes article Billionaire Sheldon Adelson Says He Might Give $100M To Newt Gingrich Or Other Republican and the story that Michael Jordan recently put his Chicago home on the market for $29 million.
' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/sptusnbaexperts/Outside-Michael-Jordans-29-million-estate.-Photo-via-Baird-and-Warner-John-S.-Eckert-Photography.jpg]
Listen to the question carefully. The question is not is it ethical, nor is the question "would he accept the offer", the question is it legal for Sheldon Adelson to offer Barack Obama the home of Michael Jordan for free if he opts to back out of the 2012 presidential race. If accepted, that would certainly improve the Republican probability of winning the election by much more than an advertising campaign.
IMHO Obama would not accept. But the question is, would it be legal?
As a side question, would it be possible for him to buy out Santorum with the offer of a good job and the chance to control a private think tank. Since Santorum is self employed, I would assume that is legal. The motivation would be to prevent him from muddying the water and confusing the voters.
Inspired by the Forbes article Billionaire Sheldon Adelson Says He Might Give $100M To Newt Gingrich Or Other Republican and the story that Michael Jordan recently put his Chicago home on the market for $29 million.
Listen to the question carefully. The question is not is it ethical, nor is the question "would he accept the offer", the question is it legal for Sheldon Adelson to offer Barack Obama the home of Michael Jordan for free if he opts to back out of the 2012 presidential race. If accepted, that would certainly improve the Republican probability of winning the election by much more than an advertising campaign.
IMHO Obama would not accept. But the question is, would it be legal?
As a side question, would it be possible for him to buy out Santorum with the offer of a good job and the chance to control a private think tank. Since Santorum is self employed, I would assume that is legal. The motivation would be to prevent him from muddying the water and confusing the voters.
February 29th, 2012 at 10:17:36 PM
permalink
Of course it would be legal.
What law would be broken?
What law would be broken?
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
February 29th, 2012 at 10:19:14 PM
permalink
Your title asks would it be illegal, your content asks would it be legal...
I voted incorrectly i think
I voted incorrectly i think
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
February 29th, 2012 at 11:29:46 PM
permalink
How would that not be a bribe?
18 USC §201: Bribery of Public Officials
18 USC §201: Bribery of Public Officials
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
February 29th, 2012 at 11:52:22 PM
permalink
White house lawyers use US code for toilet paper.
Read that document closely.
It really only covers acts of office and government influence.
Which line do you feels expressly forbids the gift?
Read that document closely.
It really only covers acts of office and government influence.
Which line do you feels expressly forbids the gift?
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
March 1st, 2012 at 12:09:53 AM
permalink
201(c)(B): receiving something of value for performing an official act, namely Michael Jordan's house for resigning the Presidency.
Unless you think Michael Jordan's house isn't something of value, or leaving office isn't an official act. See (a)(3).
Moreover, the bribe offer would be an inducement to break the Presidential Oath of Office. That reads "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States..."
Unless you think Michael Jordan's house isn't something of value, or leaving office isn't an official act. See (a)(3).
Moreover, the bribe offer would be an inducement to break the Presidential Oath of Office. That reads "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States..."
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
March 1st, 2012 at 1:06:48 AM
permalink
He did not say that it was for resigning.
He said it was for not running for election.
It is not part of his duty to the office to run again.
You have not supported your argument with a violation of the code.
Unless it was publicly executed during his term in office...hmmm
He said it was for not running for election.
It is not part of his duty to the office to run again.
You have not supported your argument with a violation of the code.
Unless it was publicly executed during his term in office...hmmm
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
March 1st, 2012 at 5:48:27 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremist201(c)(B): receiving something of value for performing an official act, namely Michael Jordan's house for resigning the Presidency.
Unless you think Michael Jordan's house isn't something of value, or leaving office isn't an official act. See (a)(3).
Not leaving the office, just not running for reelection. I don't see how it is an official act? If it is, then I am performing an official act right now (I am not running as well), which I am pretty sure am not.
I think, this is absolutely legal (but not voting, because, like WongBo, don't know which option to choose correctly), and in one form or another happens all the time (e.g., one candidate offering another to back out of the race in exchange for a post in his future administration, etc..).
I am not sure how Obama's not running would improve Republicans' chances though. Certainly, it should not be very hard for Democrats to find a whole bunch of candidates, that are much better than him. If anything, I would think that Obama's dropping out of the race would significantly reduce the chances of Republicans to win.
Quote: MathExtremist
Moreover, the bribe offer would be an inducement to break the Presidential Oath of Office. That reads "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States..."
Are you suggesting it is impossible for a president to resign without breaking his Oath?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
March 1st, 2012 at 5:52:33 AM
permalink
The republicans are not offering much thats for sure.
Mittens or the pope...
Mittens or the pope...
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
March 1st, 2012 at 7:52:58 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistHow would that not be a bribe?
18 USC §201: Bribery of Public Officials
Would not the Republican President pardon Obama? Think Richard Nixon LOL
March 1st, 2012 at 9:04:12 AM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanAre you suggesting it is impossible for a president to resign without breaking his Oath?
No, just suggesting that bribing him to do it is a bribe.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
March 1st, 2012 at 9:09:34 AM
permalink
Quote: WongBoUnless it was publicly executed during his term in office...hmmm
Well, there's no point in time where a sitting President could decide not to run for reelection that isn't during his term in office, except perhaps if he is incapacitated and the VP takes over. But now I'm just making bizarre speculations.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
March 1st, 2012 at 9:11:24 AM
permalink
Gerald Ford popped into my mind for some strange reason.
March 1st, 2012 at 9:51:02 AM
permalink
I know you said to ignore that part of the question, but I just find it humorous. Obama I'm sure would never accept that. He lives in a modest, architecturally historic house in Hyde Park. To switch to that modern monstrosity in I think Deerfield would just not be something that would motivate him. Anyway, isn't the White House nicer than that anyway ? :)
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
March 1st, 2012 at 9:54:30 AM
permalink
Not everything a sitting president does is an official act though. A decision of whether to run for an office or whether to resign as a President, is his decision as a private citizen, not an official act of a PresidentQuote: MathExtremistWell, there's no point in time where a sitting President could decide not to run for reelection that isn't during his term in office, except perhaps if he is incapacitated and the VP takes over. But now I'm just making bizarre speculations.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
March 1st, 2012 at 10:06:18 AM
permalink
The last sitting president not to run for re-election was Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968. His motivation was something of a matter of honor as he felt he had let the nation down and they would not stand for him running again (as showed in early primaries). Nowadays, I don't think you will see that happen ever again. The momentum boost of the office-holder is just too strong. Even well-known crummy president James E. Carter ran for re-election.Quote: weaselmanNot everything a sitting president does is an official act though. A decision of whether to run for an office or whether to resign as a President, is his decision as a private citizen, not an official act of a President
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
March 2nd, 2012 at 5:44:30 PM
permalink
On a semi-related note, I live in a Super Tuesday
state and I heard my first radio ad for New Gingrich
the other day.
The gist of it was that only Newt would be able
to hold his own in a debate with Obama.
state and I heard my first radio ad for New Gingrich
the other day.
The gist of it was that only Newt would be able
to hold his own in a debate with Obama.
There's emptiness behind their eyes
There's dust in all their hearts
They just want to steal us all and take us all apart
March 2nd, 2012 at 5:56:27 PM
permalink
Quote: teddysEven well-known crummy president James E. Carter ran for re-election.
A weak incumbent can run as a sacrificial offering to his party. He bears the brunt of defeat so another candidate won't be stained by it.
Besides, Jimmy was fending off rabid rabbits ;)
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
March 2nd, 2012 at 8:33:25 PM
permalink
Quote: teddysNowadays, I don't think you will see that happen ever again.
Prior to 1951 a President was not legally limited to 2 terms, so technically everyone from George Washington forward who did not run for a 3rd term did so willingly.
But, I challenge the assumption that LBJ was somehow more honorable. The incumbency is difficult to give up willingly (only 6 presidents have done so).
I think LBJ were afraid of losing. He only lived 4 more years so his health wasn't the best.
Truman was afraid of losing as well, and he knew that many people felt that he should keep the spirit of the 22nd amendment.
Calvin Coolidge lived another 3.8 years. He may have sensed that he should retire.
- Lyndon B. Johnson (1,886) Served the remaining 1 year, and two months of Kennedy's term, elected to a full term. Withdrew from the race early in the 1968 presidential primary.
- Harry S. Truman (2,840 days) Served the remaining 3 years, 9 months and 9 days of Franklin Roosevelt's fourth term, elected to a full term. Withdrew from the 1952 race after losing the New Hampshire primary, though eligible for a third term under terms of the 22nd Amendment, ratified during his term.
- Calvin Coolidge (2,041 days) Served the remaining 1 year, 7 months and 3 days of Harding's term, elected to a full term. Did not seek a second term.
- James Knox Polk (1,461 days)Served one full term. Did not seek a second term, keeping his campaign pledge..
- James Buchanan (1,461 days)Served one full term. Did not seek a second term. He was overwhelmed with the disintegrating country of 1860.
- Rutherford B. Hayes(1,461 days)Served one full term. Did not seek a second term, keeping his campaign pledge.
These presidents were not nominated by their party to run again.
- John Tyler Served the remaining 3 years, 11 months and 1 day of William H. Harrison's term. Denied renomination by the Whigs, Tyler flirted with the Liberty Party, but was persuaded not to run by the Democrats (his former party).
-
Andrew Johnson Served the remaining 3 years, 10 months and 21 days of Lincoln's second term. Sought the Democratic nomination in 1868, but was unsuccessful.
-
Chester A. Arthur Served the remaining 3 years, 5 months and 14 days of Garfield's term. Sought a full term, but was not nominated.
-
Millard Fillmore Served the remaining 2 years, 7 months and 24 days of Taylor's term. Sought the Whig nomination in 1852, but lost to Winfield Scott.
Four years later, ran again (as a Know Nothing) and came in third.
----------------------------
I agree that Obama would not accept any gift in exchange for not running. But it is still a private decision.
We learned in the Navy that it was cheaper to buy weapons from the Soviets and destroy them, then it was to build counter-defenses. In particular old weapons that couldn't easily be built again. It would be cheaper to buy out some of these candidates than to run against them. In particular, if you could buy out some of the Republican candidates like Gingrich or Santorum, it would clear up the race.
Buying them out doesn't mean to give them a house. You could give them a nice job with a million dollar salary.
March 3rd, 2012 at 10:18:13 AM
permalink
I believe it's legal. The decision to run for president is a private decision. Obama can make that choice, and factors outside of the presidency itself can make it happen, including a "gift" of a home upon the decision. Those factors could include a better job offer (not that I don't believe for a second that a president would ever quit their job, for anything!).
Obama's approval rating is up over 50% now, and with the economy making a recovery, albeit slow, and the Republicans not offering up a decent candidate (Santorum is too conservative, Mitt being portrayed as an ultrarich flip-flopper who isn't conservative enough, Newt a philanderer, and Ron Paul), I think at this point, barring scandal, Obama has a lock on the 2012 election. I just can't see any Dem flipping over to one of those three, and I think there's enough republicans out there who vehemently protest each one of the three candidates to flip their vote to Obama.
Obama's approval rating is up over 50% now, and with the economy making a recovery, albeit slow, and the Republicans not offering up a decent candidate (Santorum is too conservative, Mitt being portrayed as an ultrarich flip-flopper who isn't conservative enough, Newt a philanderer, and Ron Paul), I think at this point, barring scandal, Obama has a lock on the 2012 election. I just can't see any Dem flipping over to one of those three, and I think there's enough republicans out there who vehemently protest each one of the three candidates to flip their vote to Obama.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 3rd, 2012 at 10:24:55 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboI think at this point, barring scandal, Obama has a lock on the 2012 election..
You act like people vote with logic and analysis. Most
people vote with their emotions and you under estimate
how reviled Obama is even by members of his own
party. Never in my lifetime have I seen so many of the
Hollywood airheads jump ship on an incumbent Dem
president. If he's lost them, imagine how the general
public feels.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 3rd, 2012 at 10:41:27 AM
permalink
Yeah, 54% approve of him. Some Dems are disappointed with his results, but 54% approval probably will mean a win.
Bovada have the Dems at -220 now to win.
Bovada have the Dems at -220 now to win.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 3rd, 2012 at 1:37:10 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboYeah, 54% approve of him. Some Dems are disappointed with his results, but 54% approval probably will mean a win.
From Rasmussen today:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday
shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way
that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent
(41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14
And you think he has a 'lock' on the win with
those kind of poll numbers? If you think these
are good poll numbers, what must bad numbers
look like.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 3rd, 2012 at 2:04:06 PM
permalink
Bad numbers looked like Bush in 2008 (30% in March)
But seriously, Real Clear Politics has taken the average of the last six polls and said that his approval rating is 48.7% while his disapproval rating is 48.0%.
From Gallup.com, here are the trend numbers of presidents in reelection years -- their popularity ratings in March before reelection:
But seriously, Real Clear Politics has taken the average of the last six polls and said that his approval rating is 48.7% while his disapproval rating is 48.0%.
From Gallup.com, here are the trend numbers of presidents in reelection years -- their popularity ratings in March before reelection:
Quote: gallup.com
link here
Bush 2004 - 51%
Clinton 1996 - 53%
Bush 1992 - 41%
Reagan 1984 - 54%
Carter 1980 - 45%
Ford 1976 - 49%
Nixon 1972 - 55%
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 3rd, 2012 at 2:05:02 PM
permalink
I voted "legal" because there is not an attempt to influence a governing decision, etc.--just the decision to run again or not.
The President is doing relatively well in the polls right now while the Republicans bloody each other. The candidates don't look particularly strong right now but just four years ago a rather weak candidate rose to become President. No record, dubious friends and all, he ran a good campaign and convinced enough people to vote for him that he was elected.
The incumbent President was reviled by the public and the economy was headed in the wrong direction...all a recipe for a change in parties.
I wouldn't be too convinced that we have any idea who will win at this point. Republicans need to settle on a candidate. That candidate will then switch from attacking another Republican to a laser-like focus on the President's record. The President will do the same. All that will happen...but which way will gas prices go? the economy? the unemployment rate? It is a long, long way until November...
The President is doing relatively well in the polls right now while the Republicans bloody each other. The candidates don't look particularly strong right now but just four years ago a rather weak candidate rose to become President. No record, dubious friends and all, he ran a good campaign and convinced enough people to vote for him that he was elected.
The incumbent President was reviled by the public and the economy was headed in the wrong direction...all a recipe for a change in parties.
I wouldn't be too convinced that we have any idea who will win at this point. Republicans need to settle on a candidate. That candidate will then switch from attacking another Republican to a laser-like focus on the President's record. The President will do the same. All that will happen...but which way will gas prices go? the economy? the unemployment rate? It is a long, long way until November...
March 3rd, 2012 at 2:05:12 PM
permalink
If you can back that up with some polling company other than Rasmussen then I might pay attention to it. They are perpetual outliers when it comes to polling.Quote: EvenBobFrom Rasmussen today:
Is it legal to offer a person a gift to NOT to run for an office? I'm inclined to say Yes, it's perfectly legal.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
March 3rd, 2012 at 2:20:33 PM
permalink
I would state that there is nothing illegal about offerring Mr. Obama a job NOW if he chooses to resign the presidency. What law would be broken if a company said it would hire him if he resigned? None.
March 3rd, 2012 at 2:22:23 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboBad numbers looked like Bush in 2008 (30% in March)
Quote: gallup.com
link here
Bush 2004 - 51%
Clinton 1996 - 53%
Bush 1992 - 41%
Reagan 1984 - 54%
Carter 1980 - 45%
Ford 1976 - 49%
Nixon 1972 - 55%
Bush didn't run in 2008. I don't get your point. Gallup
says the latest poll has Obama at 45%, and the 3
who had numbers in the 40's in March before the
election all lost.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 3rd, 2012 at 2:30:48 PM
permalink
There is no point. I'm just showing data. I also believe that despite his numbers (which are on the upswing), he is favored to win. Is it a lock? No.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 3rd, 2012 at 2:34:43 PM
permalink
Really?Quote: EvenBobGallup says the latest poll has Obama at 45%
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
March 3rd, 2012 at 3:17:06 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboI also believe that despite his numbers (which are on the upswing), he is favored to win. Is it a lock? No.
You said "I think at this point, barring scandal, Obama has a lock on the 2012 election"
Now you say it isn't a lock. How can you even say he's favored to
win when every incumbent with numbers in the 40's since Nixon,
has lost? If anything, he's favored to lose, and lose big, just like
Carter and Bush and Ford did. If you've only got 54% of your
own party giving you strong favorables in an election year, something
is very very wrong.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 3rd, 2012 at 3:26:56 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboYeah, 54% approve of him. Some Dems are disappointed with his results, but 54% approval probably will mean a win.
Bovada have the Dems at -220 now to win.
Bob- if you think Obama will lose, it sounds like Bovada will give YOU odds, not the other way around! Boymimbo didn't list those odds, but the spread will probably give you a tad less than 2 to 1 for your money. If you REALLY believe Obama will lose, then why not make a tidy profit from it? I think the 2 -1 line is pretty fair.
March 3rd, 2012 at 3:39:01 PM
permalink
Its a fools errand to bet on an election till about a month
before it happens, and dumb to do it before there's
a nominee for the other party. Odds mean nothing at
this point.
before it happens, and dumb to do it before there's
a nominee for the other party. Odds mean nothing at
this point.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 3rd, 2012 at 5:38:45 PM
permalink
Perhaps you should have mentioned that instead of saying "Latest" but that's nit picking. He'll be at 45% or lower and also 50% and higher between now and November 6th. I'm curious as to why you chose to quote 5 day old data and call it "Latest" when there was fresh data available.Quote: EvenBobQuote: s2dbaker
It was 45% on Feb 28th, 5 days ago.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
March 3rd, 2012 at 5:59:06 PM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerI'm curious as to why you chose to quote 5 day old data and call it "Latest" when there was fresh data available.
Because its the latest weekly poll by Gallup, thats why.
The other one is a 3 day rolling poll. One is 45% and
the other is 46%. Is that a big difference to you?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 3rd, 2012 at 6:10:38 PM
permalink
That's fine but perhaps you could be a little more specific. You did say "Latest" without qualification and the "Latest" was the three day rolling number. I can't figure out where the 46% number that you quote comes from, the latest is 48%.Quote: EvenBobBecause its the latest weekly poll by Gallup, thats why.
The other one is a 3 day rolling poll. One is 45% and
the other is 46%. Is that a big difference to you?
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
March 3rd, 2012 at 6:29:36 PM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerlatest is 48%.
Thats a DAILY poll, they go up and down. The whole point
is Obama is in the 40's, like other incumbents who lost.
What difference does it make where in the 40's it is.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 3rd, 2012 at 6:47:01 PM
permalink
What if we take the offer one step further.
Suppose the offer is to Michele Obama, 'if your husband doesn't run for re-election you get the house'. This would certainly appear legal to me, but those of us who are married know the pressure it might create for the president.
Suppose the offer is to Michele Obama, 'if your husband doesn't run for re-election you get the house'. This would certainly appear legal to me, but those of us who are married know the pressure it might create for the president.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
March 3rd, 2012 at 6:50:26 PM
permalink
"Gallup pointed out that only three recent presidents averaged below 50% approval in the crucial January 20-April 19 quarter in the election year — Ford, Carter and Bush 41. None were re-elected."
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 3rd, 2012 at 6:59:45 PM
permalink
It doesn't matter. I just thought it strange that you would choose to label 5 day old data from Gallup as "Latest" when the actual "Latest" was three points higher. It's a fascinating study of human nature to me, that's all.Quote: EvenBobQuote: s2dbakerlatest is 48%.
Thats a DAILY poll, they go up and down. The whole point
is Obama is in the 40's, like other incumbents who lost.
What difference does it make where in the 40's it is.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
March 3rd, 2012 at 8:13:14 PM
permalink
Quote: s2dbaker
It's a fascinating study of human nature to me, that's all.
Whats fascinating is that any of this matters to you. Daily and 3 day
polls are useless. Obama's rating for 3 years in office is 49%. He just
loves those 40's, no matter the poll.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 3rd, 2012 at 8:26:15 PM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerIt doesn't matter. I just thought it strange that you would choose to label 5 day old data from Gallup as "Latest" when the actual "Latest" was three points higher. It's a fascinating study of human nature to me, that's all.
It's not the politics that fascinates me, it's you who fascinates me. You labeled data that was 5 days old as "Latest" from Gallup even though there was fresher data from Gallup. When I pointed it out, you could have just said, "oops, missed that, still in the 40's though" and been done with it but you chose to defend it. Then after I explicitly said that it doesn't matter, you responded in the very next post that you find it fascinating that it matters to me.Quote: EvenBobWhats fascinating is that any of this matters to you. Daily and 3 day
polls are useless. Obama's rating for 3 years in office is 49%. He just
loves those 40's, no matter the poll.
That is what's interesting to me. The politics is just the medium, it the psychosis that's of interest.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
March 3rd, 2012 at 8:30:08 PM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerQuote: s2dbakerIt doesn't matter. I just thought it strange that you would choose to label 5 day old data from Gallup as "Latest" when the actual "Latest" was three points higher. It's a fascinating study of human nature to me, that's all.
It's not the politics that fascinates me, it's you who fascinates me. You labeled data that was 5 days old as "Latest" from Gallup even though there was fresher data from Gallup. When I pointed it out, you could have just said, "oops, missed that, still in the 40's though" and been done with it but you chose to defend it. Then after I explicitly said that it doesn't matter, you responded in the very next post that you find it fascinating that it matters to me.Quote: EvenBobWhats fascinating is that any of this matters to you. Daily and 3 day
polls are useless. Obama's rating for 3 years in office is 49%. He just
loves those 40's, no matter the poll.
That is what's interesting to me. The politics is just the medium, it the psychosis that's of interest.[/
Really, DOCTOR ?
A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning.
March 3rd, 2012 at 8:36:13 PM
permalink
Perhaps "Neurosis" is the right diagnosis? Although psychosis is the hostess with the mostess.Quote: buzzpaffA severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning.
Sorry, it's my neurosis to rhyme things.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
March 3rd, 2012 at 9:37:36 PM
permalink
Actually, it's the approval ratings that really doesn't matter... polls today indicate that folks prefer Obama over Santorum and Romney at this point. And Romney's just widening the gap with his alienating comments, and although the hard-core Republicans love Santorum, he doesn't represent the core of the party. The strongly disapprove is the Republican vote no doubt. Gallop has 82% percent of Democrats approving of Obama; Republicans at 10%. So the election will be on party lines.
Yeah, unlike you Bob, I can look at numbers and change my mind. After looking at the numbers, there is no evidence to support Obama having a lock on the election. Obama, at -220 at Bovada, isn't a lock. Lots of things can happen between now and November. Obama can mess up a debate. Scandal could rock the Dems. But really, I think his campaign is deeply funded and his message has been clear.
I think Obama will win.
Yeah, unlike you Bob, I can look at numbers and change my mind. After looking at the numbers, there is no evidence to support Obama having a lock on the election. Obama, at -220 at Bovada, isn't a lock. Lots of things can happen between now and November. Obama can mess up a debate. Scandal could rock the Dems. But really, I think his campaign is deeply funded and his message has been clear.
I think Obama will win.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
