Monday, August 27, 2012

A Sock Full Of Popcorn Over Obama




My husband and I are always complaining that WE aren’t ever involved in any of the polling that we hear about on the news.

Well, the other day I answered the phone and someone on the other end requested my husband. I asked who was calling, lo and behold, it was someone polling for the Obama Administration. I handed the phone to my husband saying, “Oh you’ll want this call!”



According to my husband, the conversation went like so:



Pollster: Will you be voting for President Obama this election?

My Husband: There’s no way in hell.

Pollster: So I can put you down for Obama then?

My Husband: I said no way. As a matter of fact, I would vote for a sock full of popcorn before I voted for Obama.

Pollster: I don’t think you can vote for a sock full of popcorn.

My Husband: I’ll write it in.


I have no idea what the pollster actually marked considering he didn’t take the first NO my husband told him, which makes me totally suspect of the polls the media spews.

 I believe I’ll ignore the polls and wait until the night of the election to see who the winner will be and if it’s a sock full of popcorn, we’ll know my husband was the deciding vote.

15 comments:

  1. That sounds like a firm commitment to vote for Obama. I'm sure it will look that way in the polling results. Obama is currently suing Gallop for producing 'unfavorable' polling results, so you either mark down support for Obama or go to court if you're doing political polling...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LL, I wouldn't be surprised if the polling results were skewed. I don't trust them anymore either.

      Delete
  2. +1 on LL, and yeah, I'd vote for the popcorn too! It'd definitely be LESS damaging to our country!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NFO, I think I'm gonna go with Mickey Mouse. I hear he can vote as many times as he wants! ;-)

      Delete
    2. Old: In that light, consider the chair that Clint Eastwood debated.

      The chair has a much better employment record, as it has lost no jobs (compared to the 500,000 Obama lost). It is more fiscal responsible, as its budget is balanced. As opposed to Obama who keeps demanding $1 trillion more in new debt in his yearly budgets. The chair has nominated no incompetent racists to the Supreme Court, which gives it a better record than Obama.

      And unlike Romney, the chair has never flip-flopped.

      I'm voting for the chair.

      Delete
  3. I'd vote for that sock over Romney. A vote for Romney is a vote to extend the recession, IMO. If that pollster had called me I would have said "forward!" (yes, in other words).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. W-dervish: I "assumed" that most Liberals would want the chance to vote for the popcorn too, and that's why I wrote what I did in my picture.

      But, hey, when I get another pollster call, I'll ask if he'd rather have YOUR answer! ;-)

      Delete
    2. Obama sure did a good job of making the recession work with his job-destroying stimulus package.

      Delete
  4. Obama's policies increased unemployment by half a million. He wants us to vote for him to complete the job, which I suppose must mean another 500,000 jobs lost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. dmarks, he also wants us to vote for him to what, downgrade our credit rating some more? Or maybe double gasoline prices to five or six dollars per gallon? Or how about we not drill for all that natural gas we found and let our electricity prices "necessarily skyrocket" because THAT should help middle class Americans---you know, those people Obama says he wants to help so very much.

      Delete
  5. and yes, as you predicted, Obama's economic policy caused yet another downgrade.

    Obama and the middle class? You can tell what he thinks of the middle class, thinking back a couple of years ago when Obama did not want to renew Bush's tax package (which overwhelmingly benefited the middle class). The Republicans had to cajole him to do it. This time around, Obama's hostility to the middle class is even stronger, and it will be harder to renew the Bush tax cut package.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. dmarks, yep, I did predict it. That and gasoline prices. I'm not jumping for joy, that's for sure.

      Delete
    2. The Obama administration specifically announced that they wanted much higher gasoline prices.

      It's ridiculous. I hope Romney works to get them back below $1.50.

      Delete
  6. There used to be a middle class. 1955-1974.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Quite interesting, BB. A time during which there was a very tiny Black middle class (this was to soar in growth in the next decade due to Ronald Reagan's policies). No Latino middle class to speak of in 1955-1974: that is a recent phenomenon.

    And what do we have now? From Wikipedia, "Depending on class model used, the middle class may constitute anywhere from 25% to 66% of households."

    Well, that is a huge proportion. Roughly one-third, if you average it out. So yes, we have a middle class now, and a huge one.

    I know you are no kind of racist at all, but your statement might be more accurate if you said used to have a whites-only middle class before 1974.

    The glory years you seem to harken back to many times had their dark side, you seem to forget or not mention.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...