Even the Fox News Poll Shows Obama's Lead Growing: Is Romney Losing the Attack Ad War?

by Chris D Posted 2012/08/10 18:00:00

Related Topics: 2012 Election, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Fox News, Election Poll, Attack Ads

1,587 votes
Read all 2,729 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Mitt Romney is losing	929 votes	59%
	Mitt Romney will rebound	658 votes	41%

President Obama opened up a 9-point lead in the most recent Fox News poll. Looks like all the negative ads and character assassination tactics are working. Negative ads may be bad for the American political landscape, but they seem to be working for Obama, at least for now. Do you think Romney will lose the game of hardball -- or will he rebound and win just in time for the election?

FOXNEWS.COM reports:
The president would take 49 percent of the vote compared to Romney's 40 percent in a head-to-head matchup if the election were held today, the poll found.

+54

Add a comment above

Dave**Gay for Girls** 2012/08/10 18:59:19

Mitt Romney will rebound

+36
The Obama campaign is spending more than it's taking in on attack ads...Romney hasn't really begun to attack Obama and his campaign has plenty of cash on hand, September and October will see the onslaught against Obama begin and he'll be underfunded to respond.
>> See Replies

More polls by Chris D

M A 2012/08/11 03:25:52

Mitt Romney is losing

+2
romney brought a butter knife to a gun fight.

reply
chris.haynees 2012/08/11 03:24:13

Mitt Romney is losing

+3
Obama has been the predetermined winner for the last 4 years as fare as im concerned.

reply
aneed2know to chris.h... 2012/08/11 04:04:31

+1
can you believe the crap in this guy's posting, its Obama now who is being a character assassin, after all the crap Fox allowed to go unchecked by their on air personalities?

reply
chris.h... to aneed2know 2012/08/11 04:35:11

+1
They are all the same to me. Though Fox is blatant with their propaganda. To be honest I have lost all hope in our political system. I'm nether a supporter of Obama or Romney.

reply
Jackie to aneed2know 2012/08/11 04:39:11

Do you just hear what you want to hear and see what you want to see?? Did you not watch the news for 8 years while GWB was in office the DAILY character assassination of him via the media, the Dem's in office, every freakin' clueless celebrity disrespecting the President of the USA just be he was WHITE(lol) and a Republican?? Do you not watch MSNBC, or Current TV whose main objectives as a "news" organizations is ONLY to spew hate and lies towards the "other side". Are you that naive to think Americans haven't woken up to media bias in our country? I could give a rats ass about polls, back in 1980 the media had Carter up 10 points over Reagan back in 1980...my local media had Coakely trouncing over Brown "in the polls" before that special election for "Ted's Seat". The left has clearing lost touch with reality and think if they say it and print it..the American people are still dumb enough to believe it's the truth, so the sheep will follow....WRONG. You'd think the 2010 mid term elections would have woken up those Dem's in office to lean center(how the MAJORITY in our country are), nope, instead it only empowered them to double down and go even further left...using any means possible(lie, cheat, lie, cheat, lie ,cheat) to get Obama elected for a 2nd term.

reply
aneed2know to Jackie 2012/08/11 04:55:59

i knew i could not get any honesty good bye

reply
Jackie to aneed2know 2012/08/11 05:27:32

I did give you an HONEST factual answer. In your mind, is honesty for you ONLY when someone agrees with what you believe and have to say about it?? Go fact check the polls back in 1980 and fact check the polls before the election for "Ted's Seat"..both Republicans according to "polls" were LOSING big time. Take a day to just watch MSNBC and Current TV and their "news" programs and then tell me that they're "fair and balanced". On a side note..when you ask a friend for their opinion on an issue your having in your personal life, are you one of those type of friends who then get upset with them because their OPINION(you asked for) was not the "opinion" you wanted to hear??!!!

reply
Lordphoton999 *AFCL* 2012/08/11 03:16:50 (edited)

Mitt Romney will rebound

+3
They had Carter leading Reagan in the poll also, and look what happened? Reagan won with a landslide.

reply
T J to Lordpho... 2012/08/11 03:29:15

+1
Obama is no Carter, and Romney is no Reagan. The national polls don't tell the whole story, the state-by-state polls do.

reply
Lordpho... to T J 2012/08/11 03:30:58

+1
I only agree with you that Obama is no Carter, HE IS WORST!!!!!!!

reply
T J to Lordpho... 2012/08/11 03:39:30

+1
No, he isn't. But I do know this much, Obama and Carter would be better than Romney and W(orthless) Bush.

reply
Lordpho... to T J 2012/08/11 03:49:02

+1
Then you have to denied history

reply
T J to Lordpho... 2012/08/11 03:59:29

+1
"Deny history?" If you think Bush was any good, then it is you that denies history. Bottom line, I'll take Obama.

reply
Lordpho... to T J 2012/08/11 04:24:43

+1
Bush is better then Obama in many ways, 1st of all; Bush is not a habitual liar like your hero Obama, 2nd, we know about Bush his back ground and his family history, we know nothing about Obama.

reply
T J to Lordpho... 2012/08/11 23:57:37

So I guess lying about weapons of mass destrction is being honest, or claiming Saddam had something to do with 9/11 is okay? Or "Heck of a job Brownie?" Wow, you are delusional if you actually think that.

reply
Lordpho... to T J 2012/08/12 02:16:25

Hey dummy, GWB didn't lied about WMD, the whole world had the report that Saddam did had WMB, that card was played by Saddam himself, making the world think he had it, do some research before you show us how uninformed you are.
The UN had given Saddam one final chance for UN inspector to go in without restriction, Saddam turned it down, it was Saddam's own trickery that led to his downfall.

reply
T J to Lordpho... 2012/08/13 00:41:23

Hey jackass, there were no weapons of mass destruction. That was just an excuse Bush used so he could pick a fight with Iraq. Even Colin Powell admitted to it. Let's be honest, Bush used 9/11 to start a war with Iraq, and the fact that you think otherwise says more about you than it does me.

reply
Lordpho... to T J 2012/08/13 23:07:50

You're an ass, Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?

Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. The question of Iraq’s link to terrorism grew more urgent with Saddam’s suspected determination to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which Bush administration officials feared he might share with terrorists who could launch devastating attacks against the United States.

Has Iraq ever used weapons of mass destruction?

Yes. In the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, Iraqi troops repeatedly used poison gas, including mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin, against Iranian soldiers. Iranian officials have also accused Iraq of dropping mustard-gas bombs on Iranian villages. Human Rights Watch reports that Iraq frequently used nerve agents and mustard gas against Iraqi Kurds living in the country’s north. In March 1988, Saddam’s forces reportedly killed thousands of Iraqi Kurds in the town of Halabja with chemical weapons.

Will he give WMD to terrorist? I don't want to wait and find out after 9-11-2001

reply
T J to Lordpho... 2012/08/14 00:40:23
Lordpho... to T J 2012/08/14 03:28:42

You're such an Ahole, never in my time since I register on SH I'd called anyone that, but you really are an Ahole, you don't seems to think there were threats to Americans especially after 3000 people that were slaughter in NYC, you seems to think Saddam will never give any of his WMD to any terrorist organization to attack us, WMD that he have and used on his own people, you as a piece of crap that you are that you have no sense of reality.

reply
T J to Lordpho... 2012/08/14 16:12:36
Lordpho... to T J 2012/08/15 03:40:34

And you can be sure of that? the terror regime would never ever give WMD to crazy Jihadists to attack us? you are so sure of that after losing 3000 lives and billions of damages , you can guarantee that it'll never happened?

reply
T J to Lordpho... 2012/08/16 04:28:12

Can you guarantee it will? You're speculating. You're not giving me cold hard facts that Iraq was a serious threat. We can't make major decisions based on speculation, because if we do, it can backfire.

reply
Lordpho... to T J 2012/09/02 19:29:47

No one can predict the future but one can speculate base on the immediate circumstances before us and make decision, World trade center would still be standing and 3000 lives would been spared if we can foretold the future, the fact that the towers are no more speak loudly of what their intentions are and we have to be prepare.

reply
T J to Lordpho... 2012/09/02 22:01:05

Well, Richard Clarke did give Bush a memo called "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US." So Bush did have some warning. While I agree that we can't predict the future, I still don't believe with the information we have we should have invaded Iraq. There was no strong information for it.

reply
Lordpho... to T J 2012/09/03 03:04:34

Both of us have no idea what intel was giving, but the fact everyone in the congress including those anti-war congressmen voted for the war tells me there is something obvious in the Intel at the time, regardless if it was accurate at the time or not, the threat was real back then.

reply
T J to Lordpho... 2012/09/05 02:55:40

They were wrong to vote for the war then, and it's more prevalent now. That's all I have to say about this, I'm sick of talking about it. I'm done.

reply
Lordpho... to T J 2012/09/05 23:48:14

With the Intel that were giving, even the Left voted for war , it might be the wrong info looking back, but at the time, it was the right thing to do.

reply
Jackie to T J 2012/08/11 04:54:36

+1
ugh, does it ever get old for you people to keep on bashing GWB any opportunity you get? It's become silly. After 9/11(a terror plot years in making prior to Bush taking office), did you hear us saying "It's all Clinton's fault, Bush inherited his 8 years of not going after Bin Laden" over and over and over over again? NO, most fiscal Conservatives have respect for Clinton for going across the aisle as POTUS and working with Republicans to "end the era of big government". I'd put money on it that in the privacy of his voting booth, Clinton doesn't vote for Obama, just says he supports him because he's a Democrat. We need more Democrats like Joe Lieberman who WON'T stand by their "party line" when he knows they're WRONG.

reply
T J to Jackie 2012/08/12 00:01:04

Does it ever get old for you to keep apologizing for Bush and whining about Obama? All of your excuses for his failures are just sad. Also, if I can refresh your memory, Obama has bent over backwards trying to get Republicans to work with him, they've just outright refused. That's their problem, not Obama's. I feel really sorry for you.

reply
Jackie to T J 2012/08/12 04:32:56

Ok look, when Obama had the super majority in his first 2 years in office HE flat out refused to compromise AT ALL with the Republicans because "he won and elections have consequences". When his true agenda came to light with his policies and his NON-transparent Presidency, is when the American people after just 2 years had had enough, thus the Democrat house losing the majority and Scott Brown of MASSACHUSETTS winning "Ted's seat" that was a "given" that the Dem running would win because MA is a liberal state. The Republicans is office are outright refusing to work with Obama... because THEY are smart enough to know what Obama's intentions REALLY ARE, and they do listen to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, unlike Obama or the majority of Dem's in office. People like you "whine" about Bush, informed Americans speak the truth about Obama while providing FACTS. Your ilk dismisses our facts as "lies" only because that's your only defense ..because you do not KNOW the facts, only what you've been TOLD via getting your "facts" from the liberal media(ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Jon Stewart, Colbert, Current TV, and lastly MSNBC(lol). Bottom line is this..do you want a government that puts policies into place..i.e. reducing taxes and reducing the INSANE rules and regulations on businesses, so they ...

Ok look, when Obama had the super majority in his first 2 years in office HE flat out refused to compromise AT ALL with the Republicans because "he won and elections have consequences". When his true agenda came to light with his policies and his NON-transparent Presidency, is when the American people after just 2 years had had enough, thus the Democrat house losing the majority and Scott Brown of MASSACHUSETTS winning "Ted's seat" that was a "given" that the Dem running would win because MA is a liberal state. The Republicans is office are outright refusing to work with Obama... because THEY are smart enough to know what Obama's intentions REALLY ARE, and they do listen to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, unlike Obama or the majority of Dem's in office. People like you "whine" about Bush, informed Americans speak the truth about Obama while providing FACTS. Your ilk dismisses our facts as "lies" only because that's your only defense ..because you do not KNOW the facts, only what you've been TOLD via getting your "facts" from the liberal media(ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Jon Stewart, Colbert, Current TV, and lastly MSNBC(lol). Bottom line is this..do you want a government that puts policies into place..i.e. reducing taxes and reducing the INSANE rules and regulations on businesses, so they can again one day make their business profitable again to do business in the USA that will help our economy, ergo those businesses hiring the unemployed because their business is prospering, OR do you want a government in place that wants to continue to put more rules/regulations and tax those businesses EVEN MORE, so the government can continue to "fund" those who are unemployed?? Do you want to work, or do you want to just get a check every week from the government for NOT working?
(more)

reply
T J to Jackie 2012/08/13 01:00:13

I want a government that is not bought and sold to the highest bidder. I want a government that is accountable and holds businesses accountable when they screw people over. I want a government that doesn't fall into the failed and nonsensical strategy of Trickle Down. In essence, I want a government that knows when to intervene and when to stand out of the way. You may okay with Wall Street stealing money from people, but I'm not. Furthermore, I want a debate with someone who doesn't sound like Rush Limbaugh or Fox News parakeet. Someone who can be truly honest and look at faults of both sides. I want a debate with someone who doesn't continue to whine about the mythological "liberal media," when in reality the liberal media consists of MSNBC and Current. Jon Stewart is liberal, but he'll criticize the left as well. Colbert is just a jester. Finally, I want a debate with someone who isn't terribly smug about how much better they are than liberal. You are nothing more than a sheep. You accuse me of having no facts when you have yet to provide any yourself. I have no respect for you nor do I like you. You are one the worst debaters I've had the displeasure of talking to. Another reason you are full of crap is because on countless times, Obama has invited Republicans for dinner, ...

I want a government that is not bought and sold to the highest bidder. I want a government that is accountable and holds businesses accountable when they screw people over. I want a government that doesn't fall into the failed and nonsensical strategy of Trickle Down. In essence, I want a government that knows when to intervene and when to stand out of the way. You may okay with Wall Street stealing money from people, but I'm not. Furthermore, I want a debate with someone who doesn't sound like Rush Limbaugh or Fox News parakeet. Someone who can be truly honest and look at faults of both sides. I want a debate with someone who doesn't continue to whine about the mythological "liberal media," when in reality the liberal media consists of MSNBC and Current. Jon Stewart is liberal, but he'll criticize the left as well. Colbert is just a jester. Finally, I want a debate with someone who isn't terribly smug about how much better they are than liberal. You are nothing more than a sheep. You accuse me of having no facts when you have yet to provide any yourself. I have no respect for you nor do I like you. You are one the worst debaters I've had the displeasure of talking to. Another reason you are full of crap is because on countless times, Obama has invited Republicans for dinner, social hangouts, he's had discussion with them, he's even included ideas that Republicans usually like in his plans. In fact, 40% of the Stimulus Package were tax cuts. Obama's health care had ideas Republicans wanted when Clinton tried to get it, including mandates, so please spare me that nonsense.
(more)

reply
Jackie to T J 2012/08/13 05:09:58

Look, you're obviously not on this OPINION website in order to have a civil debate of sharing opposing views to "get informed". It's pretty clear that you're on an OPINION website like SH for one reason and one reason only..to keep on spewing the same ole same ole Obama mantra of "hope and change" and that the reason things haven't turned around in our economy IS STILL all Bush's fault blah blah blah.
This coming election boils down to this..do you want to rely on the government for your "paycheck", or do you want to WORK to EARN a real paycheck. You loons on the left have got your masses convinced ala slaves that they NEED the government/slave owners.

reply
T J to Jackie 2012/08/13 06:13:29

I just love how you continue to accuse me of things that you are doing yourself. You say I don't want a civil debate, and you're partially right. I don't want a civil debate with you because you are incapable of having one. You make ASSumptions and condemn people on the left. And you think you have me figured when you don't know me at all. You don't know what I do for a living, and you don't how I really am, but you just put me into this category like you do everyone else on the left and act as if you're better than us. Do you really think I sit around waiting for a check? Do you even know what is required of people who get welfare checks? It's so amazing how you get on your high horse and condemn people for blaming Bush while you blame Obama for everything. You are a joke. You want a civil debate, you want me to take you serious, stop passing judgment and ASSuming stuff about people. And another thing, if I wanted to "get informed," why the hell would I come to this site? I would go fto a news and information website, not a site like this with a bunch of people with opinions who defend it at all costs. People like you.

reply
Jackie to T J 2012/08/14 05:54:55 (edited)

You're delusional pal. You instigate fights on this website all the time with YOUR nasty comments/insults and replies to others simply because they disagree with YOUR political opinions, and then do what you do best, feign outrage at supposedly being "attacked" by the right saying so and so called you this or that hoping that someone believes it and they won't take the time to look into YOUR past on SH as a "tolerant" liberal. Just like how the left is having a field day trying to make fun of Romney for introducing Ryan as the next POTUS..thinking no one would remember or bring up Obama doing the same exact thing when HE introduced Joe Biden as his choice for VP. Because I know you won't take the time to watch the entire video because it's longer than the sound bytes you're use getting for your "news", go to the very end of the video where you'll hear an embolden Obama after a rousing speech praising his choice for VP and then Obama introducing Biden as the "next POTUS"

reply
T J to Jackie 2012/08/14 16:19:20

Um, Jackie, I could care less about a minor gaffe Romney made. I don't know how much I have to repeat myself, but I will again, I reflect the attitudes on this board. Also, I have actually had reasonable discussions on this board also (just none with you), but when someone trashes liberals, or use half-truths and outright lies, then I'm going to say something. Most of the time it is nasty, which I make no apologies for, but here's the thing, at least I'm honest about it. This isn't about other people or other liberals, so please stop putting me with everyone else, this is about me and you. My honesty about my nastiness, and your hypocrisy about yours. Let's be honest, you and I are the same.

reply
Politic... to Lordpho... 2012/08/11 04:03:47

+2
Carter gets on his knees every night to thank God for Obeyme. It finally got Carter away from the title of the worst American president ever.

reply
Lordpho... to Politic... 2012/08/11 04:26:01 (edited)

Oh yeah, a thanks for the support hehe, this Mcdonald clown think he knows history.

reply
Politic... to Lordpho... 2012/08/11 04:31:25

+1
That's one of the Obeyme follower traits ... "know it all" .... LOL

reply
Jackie to Lordpho... 2012/08/11 04:45:17