The easiest incumbent to beat since 1980

**NCRAVEN** · 05-12-2011, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

The methodology of the poll is sound. Look at it this way. If you did a random sampling of people and the sample came out 17% in favor of a political party would you dismiss it because in your mind it must be 50/50? The nation is not 50/50 and to try to create a sample that is 50/50 would be invalid. It would not be representative of the population but manipulated. It is basic research methods. Essentially that is what Goldberg is attacking. He wants the data to be manipulated to reflect an innaccurate representation of a 50/50 split. That is not a random sample. Anyone with a background in research methodology understands the flaw in his attack. It makes sense on a superficial level but he should be more concerned as to why a random sample came up impressively favoring Democrats....instead he tries to attack a methodology that is sound. It doesn't hold up. Do you really think the AP would publish a study if it was truly as flawed as Goldberg tries to suggest?
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

What does any of this have to do with the poll heavily favoring Dems and you taking that 60% of America approves of BHO?

Not question the methodology of the poll, simply stating it is not a balanced poll.

**AirFlacco** · 05-12-2011, 01:41 PM

The Rasmussen poll posted above shows OBY not with 60% of the vote
but 45% vs a wide field of GOP candidates and that number will come down
when a serious candidate emerges.

The CNN poll clearly states that Trump can beat him although OBY only
leads by 2% points. He can't get 45% vs Trump much less 60%.

Again, bogus polls and facts fresh out of Galen's ass.

**HoustonRaven** · 05-12-2011, 01:55 PM

It's naive and biased to assume Obama would not get a deserved bump in the polls. The average amongst the polls is around 6% which is very reasonable and deserved.

It's also naive and biased to think that AP is accurate with that poll. No, no poll is a 50/50 split but they are MUCH closer than a 17 point swing towards one philosophy / party. To look at the AP and say it's dead accurate is nothing but spin. Not to mention, the poll is now three days old -- a lifetime in polling.

Give it time and be patient. Tons of political lifetimes between now and the election. Things will level out when the public begins to remember that they can't put Osama bin Laden in their gas tanks.

**Galen Sevinne** · 05-12-2011, 02:17 PM

My original reply to Trap was mostly in the form of a joke since I found it rather funny that he starts a thread about the "easiest uncumbent to beat" the day Obama's numbers and the Democrats in Congress are the highest they have been in 2 years.

i wasn't expecting "Mr. NonPartisan" NC to get so bent but always time to deliver a lesson on objective thought to him.

**NCRAVEN** · 05-12-2011, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

My original reply to Trap was mostly in the form of a joke since I found it rather funny that he starts a thread about the "easiest uncumbent to beat" the day Obama's numbers and the Democrats in Congress are the highest they have been in 2 years.

No it was not. Your original reply was specifically about this poll.

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

Probably not the best day to post this garbage considering today's AP Poll has Obama with 60% approval:

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

i wasn't expecting "Mr. NonPartisan" NC to get so bent but always time to deliver a lesson on objective thought to him.

So now I got bent when all I did was point out your naivety?

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

It's naive and biased to assume Obama would not get a deserved bump in the polls. The average amongst the polls is around 6% which is very reasonable and deserved.

I don't see where anyone assumed Obama would not get a well deserved bump

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Give it time and be patient. Tons of political lifetimes between now and the election. Things will level out when the public begins to remember that they can't put Osama bin Laden in their gas tanks.

And don't forget he has an illegal ban on drilling in the gulf. When people remember or realize he could have lifted that which would have been a piece of "the silver bullet" to lower gas prices he says does not exist.

**HoustonRaven** · 05-12-2011, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

And don't forget he has an illegal ban on drilling in the gulf. When people remember or realize he could have lifted that which would have been a piece of "the silver bullet" to lower gas prices he says does not exist.

It's not illegal. The President, via his cabinet, can and does regulate oil production, drilling, etc. Been that way for about 4 decades now. It falls under the domain of the Secretary of the Interior.

It is, however, incredibly bone-headed on his part to keep the moratorium in place, especially when you consider over 70% of the population wants more drilling in the US.

**NCRAVEN** · 05-12-2011, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

It's not illegal. The President, via his cabinet, can and does regulate oil production, drilling, etc. Been that way for about 4 decades now. It falls under the domain of the Secretary of the Interior.

I wasn't stating they don't have the right to issue the moratorium.

You may remember better the I, but I thought/remember a judge issued an order saying the ban was unfounded and to lift it. If I remember correctly he/she issued the order twice.

Are you familiar with what I am referring to?

**HoustonRaven** · 05-12-2011, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

I wasn't stating they don't have the right to issue the moratorium.

You may remember better the I, but I thought/remember a judge issued an order saying the ban was unfounded and to lift it. If I remember correctly he/she issued the order twice.

Are you familiar with what I am referring to?

You are probably referring to this, but you need to read it carefully.

The judge did not say Obama does not have the power to halt drilling. He was saying he needed a cause to do so and that the spill was not a valid enough reason.

**NCRAVEN** · 05-12-2011, 05:19 PM

Did a little research, what I believe I was thinking about is how the have a moratorium on "deep water drilling" but are not approving applications on offshore drilling even if it is not in"deep water". It appears the judge said lift that ban on offshore drilling because it's not in"deep water" and since he is a federal judge it appears until a higher court over rules him he has that right. So, illegal ban may have been an inaccurate statement, but the BHO admin is defying a judges orders.

I could be wrong, but from what I read that is what I was thinking of.

**Galen Sevinne** · 05-12-2011, 05:21 PM

This is an old stale argument.

Conservative AEI Scholar: At 100 Percent Production, "We Probably Couldn't Produce Enough To Affect The World Price Of Oil." Ken Green, resident scholar with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told the New York Times: "'The world price is the world price,' Green said. 'Even if we were producing 100 percent of our oil,' he said, if prices increase because of a shortage in China or India, 'our price would go up to the same thing. We probably couldn't produce enough to affect the world price of oil,' Green added. 'People don't understand that.'" [NYTimes.com, 1/4/11]

http://politicalcorrection.org/factc...105100010#gas2

**NCRAVEN** · 05-12-2011, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

This is an old stale argument.

[I]Conservative AEI Scholar: At 100 Percent Production, "We Probably Couldn't Produce Enough To Affect The World Price Of Oil." Ken

We don't need to affect the world price of oil, just ours. If we drill for and produce oil for our country it will affect our prices.

**HoustonRaven** · 05-12-2011, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

This is an old stale argument.

Conservative AEI Scholar: At 100 Percent Production, "We Probably Couldn't Produce Enough To Affect The World Price Of Oil." Ken Green, resident scholar with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told the New York Times: "'The world price is the world price,' Green said. 'Even if we were producing 100 percent of our oil,' he said, if prices increase because of a shortage in China or India, 'our price would go up to the same thing. We probably couldn't produce enough to affect the world price of oil,' Green added. 'People don't understand that.'" [NYTimes.com, 1/4/11]

http://politicalcorrection.org/factc...105100010#gas2

Here is a list of his articles. Nowhere in them does he give that quote.

http://www.aei.org/scholar/112

Just the opposite -- he seems to be very supportive of the idea, is on the right side of the man made global warming nonsense, etc.

So either that hack site you posted is taking something he said out of context or you now support his global warming ideals.

Which is it?

I suspect he was speaking on world gas prices in relation to deep sea drilling. And he is correct, once oil enters the world market there is very little the US can dude to bring prices to bear.

That said, what the majority of folks are saying is make us very much like Brazil -- energy (oil) independent. Which means drilling our own oil, refine our own oil and sell our own oil in the US. That WILL bring prices way down. That's ECON 101 right there.