Political & Elections

longprime · Guru

RE: Polls and the media

john doe · Guru

You Mitt fans can complain about polls and predictions all you want, the election is over. It wouldn't make any difference who's president - within 10 years the **** is going to hit the fan.

pima · Guru

I could have told you Samurai that the military isn't lining up in droves for Obama, however, MR's problem is the fact that most military members and vets vote R, but according to news this election has seen less absentee ballots being sent out. Now this could be because as the news just stated the surges are over and they will be home for election day OR it could be that neither party has left them with apathy for both and will not vote.

Statistically it has always been 75% of the military view their selves as Republican.

JMPO, because of the economy and the DOD being hit with a hard budget cut I bet in the end they will come out and vote for MR because that is where they feel safer from all sides of their wallet. If the DOD budget does cut, they will need a job. If they get cut or get orders to move they will need to sell their home. That is before we even discuss their pay raises that have been tied to below the COL or frozen for the last 3 yrs. Many vets do go to Govt jobs as their 2nd career. If they are retired, their retirement pay has been held 1% below the COL and their GS jobs have not seen a raise in the Obama yrs. In essence, every yr their losing money.

I too saw the middle class poll, the problem is many of the middle class are working 2 jobs to make ends meet. Will they have the time to vote?

That is the thing the polls can ask people questions, and of course they will say they will vote, who would tell someone they wouldn't after yakking on the phone? The question is will they really come out?

I am not a Rush/Hannity/Levin fan, but I agree with what they are saying. These polls only motivate the R's to find the time to come out an vote. I think they want it more than the avg D., who is now luke warm re: Obama. Those 18-24 yr olds that came out in droves for O in 08 now have a different perspective because they are 10s of thousands in debt and finding it had to get a job.

It is about turn out.

catahoula · Guru

The Obama campaign had been hoping that veterans and their families — especially among the post-Sept. 11 generation that served in Iraq and Afghanistan — would be part of their path to victory: They’re a high turn-out demographic and concentrated in battleground states, with nearly 1 million each in North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia, and 1.6 million in Florida.

But recent polls make clear that the president’s campaign is losing the battle. Even as Obama leads in Colorado, Florida, Ohio and Virginia, Mitt Romney is up by double digits among veterans in those states. Nationwide, he’s got a commanding 20-percentage-point lead over Obama and has even overtaken the president with younger veterans.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81616.html#ixzz27RpOiKwK

------------------------

That first sentence is kind of a head-slapper but if you can convince yourself debt doesn't matter, at least not while you're in office, then counting on a group typically not very liberal doesn't seem that bizarre.

------------------------

In our latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll with middle-class families, which comprise about 54 percent of the total American electorate and usually split in their vote behavior between Republicans and Democrats, Romney holds a 14-point advantage (55 percent to 41 percent). Middle-class families are more inclined to believe the country is on the wrong track (34 percent right direction, 62 percent wrong track), are more likely to hold an unfavorable view of Obama (48 percent favorable, 51 percent unfavorable), and hold a more favorable view of Romney (51 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable) and Paul Ryan (46 percent favorable, 35 percent unfavorable) than the overall electorate. These middle-class families also hold a majority disapproval rating on the job Obama is doing as president (45 percent approve, 54 percent disapprove), and turn even more negative toward Obama on specific areas; the economy 56 percent disapprove; spending 61 percent disapprove; taxes, 53 percent disapprove; Medicare 48 percent disapprove; and even foreign policy 50 percent disapprove.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81584.html#ixzz27RrdXlm1

----------------------------------

A whole bunch of campaign dollars seem to have gurgled down the drain without any lasting effect.

-- Edited by catahoula on Monday 24th of September 2012 08:31:16 PM

winchester · Guru

According to a recent article by Jay Cost it is typical for polls in September to be all over the place.

It’s how “Dewey defeated Truman” in 1948. It’s how a blowout Richard Nixon victory in 1968 turned into a squeaker. It’s how Gerald Ford closed a 10-point gap and actually had a lead in the final Gallup poll in 1976.

It’s how a toss-up race between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan finished with a GOP blowout in 1980. It’s how Bill Clinton went from being up 9 in mid-September, 1992 to a tie with George H.W. Bush by the end of October.

It’s how George W. Bush went from being 10 points down in September 2000 to the 43rd president in January 2001. And it’s how the very same Bush “blew” the 11-point lead he enjoyed in late September 2004, defeating John Kerry by just 2 points.

Inside the Poll-ercoaster

"Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!"
- Bette Davis

catahoula · Guru

Messina, who drove from Chicago to Wisconsin to be with Obama on his first trip to a state that appears to have come into play when Paul Ryan was selected to be Romney's running mate, predicted that the national polling will get even closer, but that the president's lead will hold in key swing states.

"I think you will see a tightening in the national polls going forward," he said. "What I care way more about it Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc. In those states, I feel our pathways to victory are there. There are two different campaigns, one in the battlegrounds and one everywhere else. That's why the national polls aren't relevant to this campaign.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/messina-forget-the-tied-national-polls-were-win

Along with the expectation lowering, you might suspect the bulk of the published polling that's been pushed since the convention has a fatal flaw.

longprime · Guru

Mitt and Paul should stick to the Script. No, ad libbing. Going off script will come back Oct 3.

geeps20 · Senior Member

how about every incumbent above 42% has won....BO is at 47%

longprime · Guru

we don't have a mortgaged home. We are underwater for it. It's a mid 70's rancher. We haven't updated the interior save for one bath for a my senior inlaw's and ADA toilets with WASHLET bidet seats. We've had the house for 31 years. Exterior, windows, heating have been upgraded. But if we wanted to sell...kitchen needs work...... RENT

winchester · Guru

Through 2004 every incumbent who was above 50 percent at this point won, and every incumbent who was under 50 percent at this point lost.

As of today, Obama is under 50 percent.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-historically-speaking-obama-isnt-strong-shape_652813.html

winchester · Guru

Rasmussen headlines, September 21, 2012

46% Expect Romney, GOP To Cut Spending, Not So Sure on Taxes

Wisconsin: Obama 49%, Romney 46%

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll: Romney 46%, Obama 45%

SWING STATE DAILY TRACKING: Obama 46%, Romney 45%

Nevada: Obama 47%, Romney 45%

Iowa: Romney 47%, Obama 44%

47% Say Their Home is Worth More Than What They Owe

longprime · Guru

from the WeeklyStandard, that hit my Yahoo ... http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/conservatives-and-income-tax "Conservatives and Income Tax, a flawed talking point. ...." which references below

from thet NationalReview, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/198021/dissent-taxes/ramesh-ponnuru

" Keith Hennessey reports that “most ofthe increase since the mid-1990s in the number of people who owe no income taxes is the result of the child tax credit” that Republicans first introduced into the law and then expanded. It strikes me as at least plausible that parents are a relatively future-oriented segment of the electorate and that most of them are able to see that they will not be receiving child credits forever. It would be interesting to see whether parents as a group have become steadily more eager to see activism from the federal government over the last two decades. My guess is that the answer is no. If the prevailing conservative theory is correct, then conservatives are in a very bad spot. It suggests that conservatives, who have built electoral majorities in the past by cutting middle-class taxes, now need to reverse course and start raising them. Before embracing a theory that would have such perverse consequences, we ought to see if the theory has any evidence to back it up."

-- Edited by longprime on Friday 21st of September 2012 02:46:48 PM

pima · Guru

47% Say Their Home is Worth More Than What They Owe

LMAO. The avg homeowner sees their neighbors home up for sale and rationalize why their home is worth more. I have this and they don't. They don't understand the appraisal system.

Ignorance at its best!

-- Edited by pima on Friday 21st of September 2012 10:18:22 AM

winchester · Guru

Headlines, Rasmussen Daily Email
September 20, 2012

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll: Obama 47%, Romney 45%

SWING STATE DAILY TRACKING: Obama 47%, Romney 46%

66% Oppose Teacher Strikes During Union Negotiations

44% Fear Government Will Do Too Much to Help Economy, 44% Say Not Enough

35% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction

longprime · Guru

It's kinda hard to gauge the real sentiment when I'm staying with Mom all the time. I need some adult conversation.

Out here on the far west bank, we don't get much political ads except for the begging. Oregon turned from dark blue to light blue-IMO, we have a substantial LDS contingent.

It's gonna to be tight race. However, the turnaround on Latino immigration, the 47% , and his personal taxes, do not endear me to the R's or MR.

winchester · Guru

Swing State Daily Tracking: Obama 47%, Romney 46%
Rasmussen Reports
September 19, 2012

In the 11 swing states, President Obama earns 47% of the vote, and Mitt Romney is supported by 46%. Two percent (2%) are not sure, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

In 2008, Obama won these states by a combined margin of 53% to 46%, virtually identical to his national margin.

The race in the swing states remains neck-and-neck with Obama now edging ahead after four days of Romney in the lead. After modest post-convention bounces for both candidates, the race is now back to where it was at the beginning of the month.

When “leaners” are factored in, Obama receives 49% of the vote to Romney's 47%. Leaners are those who are initially uncommitted to the two leading candidates but lean towards one of them when asked a follow-up question.

Nationally, the race remains a toss-up in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

pima · Guru

I believe in the 7-11 poll. Coffee cups.

As for traditional polling, I agree the way the questions are worded has an impact on the results. Additionally in recent yrs many people have given up their land line phones, especially younger voters, thus it skews the polling data.

It is funny if you listen to the national news they are saying Obama has locked up VA, but when you listen to VA news they are saying that the fault in the WAPO poll was the data came from more Fairfax voters and due to that fact, Obama would have it all sewn up. Fairfax is the dem. stronghold county.

longprime · Guru

Winchester, they are not my original thoughts... Credit should go to Isaac Asimov (Robot-Foundation/PsychoHistory) and Harry S. Dent (Roaring 2000's).

I have a lot of problems with some of the more vocal Republicans- ie scientific thought, traditionalists, reactionary. I don't know where your stance lie, but becareful.

For instance: MR's business experience is in Hedge-Merger and Acquistion Funds. If Bain is a traditional fund, Bain was funded by other people who wanted to make more money but with more risk; A 2 and 20 company, controlling interest in any company, and stock. In the 80's, 90's, and early 00's everybody made money from hedge funds to retail mutual funds to banks and insurance companies. But in the late 00's, you had better know your stuff; From what we have seen on the Endowment thread on CC and the Great Recession players, very few know their stuff from sh*t.

winchester · Guru

I think hope and pima are on the right track with the chart, and the avoidance of things places like Mother Jones or Malkin as primary news sources. That kind of aggregate information is a better "thermometer" of the nation's general health than anecdotal evidence or this person or that family being better or worse off than four years ago.

I also think longprime's point is great. We should be mindful of the possibility of macro trends in demographics and the changes that technology brings. For example, at one point in our country's history there was a huge loss of jobs in certain professions, or industries, and those jobs have never come back and never will; like elevator operators or Buggy manufacturing (as in Horse and buggy). Fifty years from, will we be able to look back at today and see that that's part of what was happening in the 2010s.

catahoula · Guru

Agree with the conclusion it's what you know or what you work at that's determining whether you're sucking air or moving along.

The only positive outcome from the drought might be that they finally revisit the ethanol mandates and spend a little time discussing whether there's any long term gain to be had. My feelings are the negatives far outweigh positives but there's the odd position of the Iowa caucuses to consider and I'll guess changing that is going to be a lot like rooting out that last, fond of insectide roach in the house.

No experience in the housing market other than buying and selling several but gloomy explanations of the drop in foreclosures are around on the web. Downsizing - soon - makes a certain sense, anyway.

---------

To the thread topic---- I recall reading something within the last month or two on party identification... I think it was either Jay Cost or Sean Trende and Trende's the more likely... and he expressed the opinion that party id is extremely difficult to gauge. That sequence of poll questions and the wording can force a response as to the party id choice.

That said, I find it too much to swallow that the splits most the polls are using are anywhere near what the vote's going to be. There's a lot of people deluding themselves, if they think the re-election numbers for what we're currently giving the hairy eyeball to are going to be anything like they were for that redemptive cipher that ran a few years back.

-- Edited by catahoula on Wednesday 19th of September 2012 07:28:10 PM

-- Edited by catahoula on Wednesday 19th of September 2012 07:29:47 PM

pima · Guru

To me that is the thing. I am not someone that reads the crap from websites like Mother Jones or Michelle Malkin. They are slanted to one side, and their bias is evident. Reading, listening to just those that reinforce your position does no good IMPO.

I prefer to stay with the numbers to see how we are doing.

Housing prices are still below 10 yrs ago.

Foreclosures have reduced.
~~~~~Caveat I am a Realtor so I see it differently. 02-05 buyers were typically taking ARMS not fixed. ARMS can be 1, 3,5 or 7 yrs. Depending on the ARM the int rate can change by alot up to 5% points, some cap yr by yr, some could go full out the 1st change. What we saw in 08 was the 3 and 5 yrs ARMS change, this continued all the way through 12 with 7 yr ARMS. That is IMPO why foreclosures are lower. It is not the govt., it is they cleared through the ARMS.

Food prices are higher.
~~~~ Gas prices have risen, and next yr because of the drought, which Obama had no control over, food prices will rise even more.

Poverty is at an all time high.
~~~~ What is it 1 in 6 or 7? You have a less chance of giving birth to an autistic child than being classified at poverty level.

Food stamp recipients have doubled

Welfare program has changed requiring the work portion
~~~~ Here's a question I would love someone to answer. If that portion requiring working, what would be our unemployment rate. Maybe it is the cynic in me, but my feeling is by removing that requirement, it changed unemployment numbers. Less trying to enter the work force.

Healthcare I am still on the fence
~~~~ I have lived my adult life on the military health care system. I was fortunate to be a flier's wife, so we got the PRIMO healthcare in the military when he was AD, I was spoiled. Now as a retire we are just a number, and I can tell you, that because the pool is exploding, and paying docs less, I am shut out of docs because they are no longer accepting Tri-Care patients.
~ I will not judge until the system is fully up and running, let's see how the best docs operate their practice in this new world.
~~~~ I am against one of the health insurance issues. I am Catholic, most churches have schools attached to their parish. They hire teachers that are not of the same faith. However, I don't believe the employee was not forced to accept their offer. If they do, than you acknowledge it is a religious organization. They don't believe in contraception like the Pill, Norplant, Depo or Diaphragm. Don't demand that they pay for it. You took the job, you accepted this is your employers belief regarding your healthcare. Instead of buying a new skirt, or a pr of shoes, pay out of pocket BC pills, go to CVS and buy a box of condoms.

Do I give Obama credit for sending in the SEALS re: Osama. Heck, Yes!
~~~~ I don't think he is heartless, I think the lives of those SEALS weighed heavily on his mind when he gave the GO. However, giving the GO because you kept W's mission does not mean you got him and W didn't. It was the military intelligence that got him, be it under W or O.

My problem with Obama is he really believes in the redistribution of wealth. Said it back with Joe the Plumber and now with Letterman.
Bullet and I are going to be hit. We have lived in this home for 4 yrs. Part of our driveway is concrete, part is gravel. It is gravel because we are doing everything so our children don't have too much college debt. We don't have a deck or patio because our spare money goes to them. Our cars are old to many for the exact same reason. We haven't been on a vacation in yrs. We do not have 45"+ flat screen tvs...our family room tv is 36 in from 2000, our bedroom tv is 40 in from 2003. However, PBO believes I need to share my wealth. According to him we have money to share. Ironic because he lives in DC and forgot to place in the equation that COL in this area is not the same as Boone, NC or Cleveland, OH.

Yes, I know this was our choice to move here, but we moved here because that is where the job was offered. Bullet's salary in this area is not considered the "wealthy", but nationally it is.

Look at bus, she too was prior military, she probably makes the same amount as us, but she is in a different state where home prices are much less than DC. According to Obama we are equal in his financial equation.

Tell me how that is fair?

busdriver11 · Guru

"Housing prices? Foreclosures? Gas prices? Food prices? More people than ever on food stamps? Disability? Unemployment? Poverty at an all time high?

You can't have it both ways. Either we care about those who are doing worse or we don't. Some people want it both ways: Obama's America is doing just fine based on their "network," even rosier times just around the corner due to Obama's policies; on the other hand, those evil Republicans don't care about the increased numbers of poor and struggling people like Obama does.

Which is it?"

I think it is both. In his tenure, some of the rich have gotten richer, the poor have gotten poorer, and many people slid from the rich to the middle class,and from the upper middle class to the lower. If you are an investor and have loans, you are profiting from the market and the low interest rates. There are some businesses that are going to be profitable no matter whom the president is, and some industries (tech for example) that are very hot. It's not all or nothing, and the economy is very different based on the location. I don't think you can credit or blame Obama (much as I'd like to) for everything that has happened. And he certainly can't credit himself for every success, and blame others for every failure.

Then again, I think it's all crap and I'm pretty much exhausted from all the political spin. Unfortunately I think Obama is getting re-elected, and then we will see the full force of what his policies have wrought. All the things that you listed, my guess that they're going up.

winchester · Guru

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Mitt Romney has now taken the lead in the swing state of New Hampshire.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in New Hampshire shows Romney with 48% support to President Obama’s 45%. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided.

The headline of the following is an average, but it's the individual states that matter. Don't weight this headline too heavily, keep the final paragraph in mind:

Swing State Daily Tracking: Romney 47%, Obama 46%

The full Swing State tracking update offers Rasmussen Reader subscribers a combined view of the results from 11 key states won by President Obama in 2008 and thought to be competitive in 2012. The states collectively hold 146 Electoral College votes and include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

In the 11 swing states, Mitt Romney earns 47% of the vote, and the president is supported by 46%. Three percent (3%) are not sure, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

In 2008, Obama won these states by a combined margin of 53% to 46%, virtually identical to his national margin.

This is the fourth day in a row that Romney has posted a slight lead after the president’s convention bounce put him ahead for several days. The race in the swing states is now back to where it was at the beginning of the month.

When “leaners” are factored in, Romney receives 48% of the vote to Obama's 47%. Leaners are those who are initially uncommitted to the two leading candidates but lean towards one of them when asked a follow-up question.

The president’s Job Approval in the swing states is currently at 48%. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove. These figures include 29% who Strongly Approve and 41% who Strongly Disapprove.

These results are derived from tracking poll data collected for the seven days ending September 18, 2012. The sample includes approximately 1,300 Likely Voters, and the margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Rasmussen Reports issues our daily Swing State Tracking Poll to supplement, not replace, individual state polling. In Virginia and Ohio, Obama leads by a point. In Florida, the president is up two. Romney has edged back into the lead in Missouri, is up six in North Carolina and now has a two-point lead in Colorado. Rasmussen Reports will release new numbers out of New Hampshire later today.

longprime · Guru

IMO:

1. We are in a midst of a technological change.

2. We are in a transition phase of the Boomer Bubble to X, Y, and Millinimum Generations.

example: TIME, Sept 24, 2012. Money Special-Rental Nation. "Technology and austerity are making it less attractive to buy things. Welcome to the 'sharing' economy."

Both changes will greatly affect our economy and social fabric. Unemployement will gradually come down as we Boomers move out of the workforce. However the technological change will mitigate employment.

-- Edited by longprime on Wednesday 19th of September 2012 10:09:11 AM

hope · Guru

Right. We all have our economic story. Here's the economic story over the last four years for millions of Americans:

2 of 13

The unemployment rate surged to 10% in Obama's first year in office and has fallen gradually since then, landing at 8.2% as of June. Part of the decline has come as some Americans have gone back to work, but also because many workers have dropped out of the labor force.

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 19th of September 2012 07:46:47 AM

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 19th of September 2012 07:47:54 AM

hope · Guru

Housing prices? Foreclosures? Gas prices? Food prices? More people than ever on food stamps? Disability? Unemployment? Poverty at an all time high?

You can't have it both ways. Either we care about those who are doing worse or we don't. Some people want it both ways: Obama's America is doing just fine based on their "network," even rosier times just around the corner due to Obama's policies; on the other hand, those evil Republicans don't care about the increased numbers of poor and struggling people like Obama does.

Which is it?

My husband, a chemical process engineer at a major East coast company, was let go in November of 2009. Affecting our immediate family in ways we are just now beginning to realize. He was lucky to find a job (having to be completely retrained) halfway across the country. Many were not so lucky. Unemployment numbers have not recovered.

busdriver11 · Guru

Actually, I have to agree with jazzy about things improving over the last four years for people I know. For the most part, my family, friends and co-workers are doing better. People getting raises, promotions, opportunities, stock market improving, yet benefiting by low interest rates. Seems like those who had stable jobs with profitable companies are doing better. Most everyone I know works for a major company (or owns their own business), and is highly educated or has specialized training, tech, doctors, professors, lawyers, pilots. Kids seem to be doing pretty well too. Come to think of it, the only people I know who are struggling are some kids of friends who graduated with very unmarketable degrees, and a few senior citizens who would have been suffering no matter who was in charge. I'm not generalizing this to the general population at all, I think a lot of this has to do with occupation, company worked for and location. But when I hear how huge numbers of people are suffering and struggling to stay in the middle class, I honestly don't see that with my network. I see it when I travel around the country to the smaller towns, and hearing it from people on the internet.

longprime · Guru

I'm being very careful this time and not being passive. I'm more diversified and more skeptical too. AND we have only 48 days until election- most probably no more than 30 days to really project an outcome. Most of the retirement funds are now in protected annuities.

john doe · Guru

Its good to see people start moving into stocks - that's telling me it will soon be time to get out of stocks.

longprime · Guru

About 10 days ago, I had my/her retirement trading accounts in mostly cash, because I hate change. Now I am moving back into investments and risk. but only after I had the opportunity to protect our retirement these past 3 years.

New rental complex going up on 25 acres. Homes seems to be moving again. New small business-restuarants and brewers. Son has a job where he couldn't find one in 2008-Mar2009, even with a CMU double major and MSCS.(Microsoft gave him 3 internships in this period, Bangalore, Redmond, Germany, and conferences, but could not offer him a job confuse , and now probably wished they had because he has ME/Robotics/design training and his internships were in displays and apps disbelief ).

I wouldn't mind a R as President but if we have a R controlled Congress, I wouldn't trust them - remember most of the current Republican MOC are the same idiots we had in 2001, including Ryan.

longprime · Guru

We all have our family's economic stories.

Fortunately, USA is resilent to adapt. It has cost Americans a lot of money and pain. IMO we are, globally, undergoing a transformational shift. A shift on the order of the agarian to manufacturing, from the horse to automobile, from the outhouse to indoor toilets, from paper books & notebook paper to computers/tablets.

BTW, I have I pushed the concept, on this forum, of using a bidet washlet instead of TP? Another transformation. Free yourself from the tyranny of the shrinking and ever more expensive toilet roll. biggrin

-- Edited by longprime on Tuesday 18th of September 2012 11:32:07 PM

jazzy · Senior Member

Pima:

I'm sorry if I came off as too brusque. I am quite busy today, but I will put some time later or tomorrow into responding to your queries....lot of topics listed there.

Very quickly, though, things have definitely improved for us financially since Obama took office. Our stocks and mutual funds have recovered their value from the huge and terrifying losses four years ago and our neighborhood's housing values are coming back up somewhat. Home sales are noticably up in my area --- three Sold signs in the last month --- and there are a lot of restaurants and businesses with "now hiring" signs in their windows. Friends' kids who have graduated seem to have found jobs, though it took them awhile, and it's not their dream job. I have friends with businesses who are Republican, and they say business has improved considerably and they are buying a new car and moving to a more expensive neighborhood. Considering that their investments and their patio-furniture business were both tanking four years ago, they are better off (but they'll vote for Romney anyway for other reasons.)

My son in graduate school is better off because he doesn't have to pay for health insurance until he's 26 ---- saving him about $3,000 --- and another friend is way better off because her son, who has a life-threatening cancer costly to keep in remission, can also stay on his parents policy for a few more years, and will not have a pre-existing condition to prevent him from getting his own coverage down the road.

One of my acquaintances, a young couple in their 30s are better off now that they were able to renegotiate their mortgage on a townhouse that had lost a lot of its value. They got an amazing low rate, under 3 percent I think, and the banker commented at the closing, "say what you want about Obama, but you can thank him for this program" that allowed them to refinance.

Of course I have friends who are not happy --- I have quite a few Republican friends --- and seem to consider the "better off" question as not comparing to when the economy and stock market was tanking, but when it was booming toward the soon-to-be burst bubble. Granted, it doesn't feel better than before the recession hit. I don't tend to talk politics with my friends because we all feel pretty passionate about who we're going to vote for.....or against. And too much of this election passion could really hurt a friendship.....things can be said that would be regreted.

But given time, I will think through my answers to your questions and respond as though I were talking to one of my Republican friends. At least on the internet, one can talk without immediately picking up that head-shake vibe that someone is no longer listening, but just framing their own retort.

longprime · Guru

FOXNews, Judge Napitano (?) says that MR comes across as a MBA with a law degree-Too reasoned, and no fire.

Another part of my Toastmaster's humorous speech in characterizing speakers; One type of speaker stands at the podium, with hands gripping the sides of the lecturn. This type of speaker is podium fixed because his feet is stuck in the "stuff" he is throwing up; And by gripping the lecturn, he prevents himself from sinking forever in "It".

MR needs a big fart. Then he needs to light that fart. And blast himself into our hearts and minds with sincere passion. evileye Until he does, he only has nice teeth that only money can buy. biggrin

winchester · Guru

From Rasmussen

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Voters continue to view tax and spending cuts as beneficial to the economy even though they lack confidence in their elected leaders to follow through.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters think tax cuts help the economy. Just 16% believe tax cuts hurt the economy, while just as many (16%) say they have no impact. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

A plurality (48%) thinks decreases in government spending help the economy. Just half that many (25%) feel spending cuts hurt the economy. Eleven percent (11%) say they have no impact.

Conversely, just 26% of voters consider tax increases good for the economy. Forty-eight percent (48%) believe tax hikes hurt the economy, while 13% say they have no economic impact.

Twenty-three percent (23%) think spending increases help the economy, but 54% disagree and say they hurt the economy. Nine percent (9%) believe more government spending has no impact.

winchester · Guru

Oh, by the way....

In past presidential election years I have followed the Rasmussen polls, which turned out to be correct. As noted in previous posts, Rasmussen does a better job of correcting for some of the left leaning bias that naturally occurs in polls.

If Rasmussen starts to reflect the same sorts of things as the polls Jazzzy is pointing to then based on Rasmussen's track record I'll have to conced that Jazzy is probably right about most Americans views on Obama, but for Rasmussen leans more toward my perception than toward Jazzy's.

From Rasmussen:

September 18,
Colorado, Romney 47, Obama 45
81% think government aid recipients should be required to prove legal residency

September 17
Generic congressional ballot, 44 Republican, 43 Democrat
53% favor repeal of health care law
72% put freedom of speach ahead of not offending other cultures

September 14,
Virginia, Obama 49, Romney 48

September 13,
Missouri, Romney 48, Obama 45
Florida, Romney 45, Obama 43
Ohio, Obama 47, Romney 46

jazzy · Senior Member

W:

I could be wrong too. The debates haven't happened yet, and a lot will ride on turnout. I hope I'm not wrong, though, because I think Romney would be Bush-Cheney all over again in foreign policy and even worse domestically, with the Ayn Rand fanboy as VP. I wish the Republicans had nominated Huntsman and I'd feel okay about whoever won.

jazzy · Senior Member

I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you......if you want to read positives for Obama and his successes, it's not hard to find them with a little internet research. I'm only logging on between short bursts of time today.

winchester · Guru

Wincester, I think you're wrong about how the majority of Americans perceive Obama overall and in comparison with Romney and the polls are reflecting a very different opinion than what you have described.

I may indeed be wrong.

But as we know, the polls lean solidly to the left in terms of who gets asked the questions so they give a disproportionately left-leaning view of "how the majority of Americans perceive Obama," and we certainly know that your own personal opinion is even more distorted to the left which brings into question your own perception of how most Americans perceive Obama, and finally, we do know for a fact that the most recent polls which actually counted support my view.

I'll take my chances and stand by my prediction.

jazzy · Senior Member

I think what the majority of Americans want is a leader strong and self confident enough to resist the war-mongering pressure from the Bush-Cheney neocons that now have Romney wrapped around their little fingers.

I believe enough Americans have seen enough instances of strong and successful leadership from Obama, despite misteps and being too middle of the road, that they are not buying the Steve Urkel/Jimmy Carter "weak" meme the Republicans and conservative media have been harping since the first week he was in office. Note that I'm not talking about those of you who were never going to vote for him, now or in 2008, but the fence sitters and wobblers and disaffected Democrats.

People are sizing up Obama as compared to Romney --- that's the choice --- and they don't like MR's rash erroneous comments on a breaking crisis, his inability to state his own positions in an interview ---- whoops, the campaign has to say the day after, he has a different position on red lines for Iran and oops, he didn't mean to say that about pre-existing conditions --- his secretiveness about his taxes and his tax policies, his patrician cluelessness about 47 percent of the country.

He's a disaster of a candidate.

hope · Guru

jazzy - You'd better take a break from Daily Kos, Daily Beast and HuffPo. Take a look at Real Clear Politics.

Most recent polls are not so hot for PBO. He has not built on his convention bounce.

Ill post this again:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/sept-13-after-convention-bounce-holding-obamas-polls-to-a-higher-standard/

jazzy · Senior Member

Wincester, I think you're wrong about how the majority of Americans perceive Obama overall and in comparison with Romney and the polls are reflecting a very different opinion than what you have described.

hope · Guru

jazzy - Just put url in brackets at the beginning of the link and put /url in brackets at the end of the link.

geeps20 · Senior Member

"He's not playing for the country to win. He's playing for it to not lose, which is a sure fire way to guarantee a loss."

very well said...basically obama is a weak leader.. Not sure why any independent would vote for him again.

jazzy · Senior Member

Hope: I lost track of the way you can post the link and have it show up in blue so you can actually link instead of having it just sit there in black and white.

Tell me how and I'll post more links.

winchester · Guru

Personally, I think 2010 and the Walker recall are better bellweathers than current polls.

I could end up being totally wrong and the polls totally right.

And maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part.

But I get a real sense that something's different this time around. I feel there's a very strong undercurrent in the country of feeling fed up with the hat-in-hand, apologistic, we're no better than anyone else, mentality of Obama and his administration. He's not firmly standing FOR something. He's not representing. He's just....managing; muddling along; picking his way through the day-to-day "fire drills" that inevitably arise without any real overriding guiding principle(s) other than redistribution of wealth, power, prestige, strength, not just within this country among its citizens, but among all the countries. He's not playing for the country to win. He's playing for it to not lose, which is a sure fire way to guarantee a loss.

At any rate, I'm standing by my prediction that Romney wins in a walk. The fact that he actually stands for something, anything, will resonate with people better than Obama's essentially empty suit (or chair). And the fact that what he stands for is, among other things, American exceptionalism, will only help. People need to feel pride again. They need to feel like they can stand with their chins up and their chests out again, rather than in fear of "offending" somebody.

The 2010 voters and the Walker voters will come out in numbers. But for the time being they're just living their lives, waiting for election day.

pima · Guru

WaPO and Daily Best they are truly unbias!

hope · Guru

Thanks. It's helpful when you cite where you get your "compilations" from. I like to look at original articles. Posting the URL would be even more helpful.

jazzy · Senior Member

Hope:

The bottom of the quote paragraph notes that it comes from Ezra Klein at the WaPo. It was part of a compilation that ran under Andrew Sullivan's blog at the Daily Beast.

winchester · Guru

please explain how it effects the little guy...

I did, in my fourth sentence.

But I’ll elaborate.

Doing away with the electoral college would be like changing the format of the World Series in baseball so that the winner is determined by whoever scores the most runs over the course of a mandatory seven games.

One team could win the first game 7-0 and then lose the remaining six games 0-1 and then be crowned champion.

Without the electoral college the same sort of thing could happen in presidential elections, where the “innings” are the states. A win by a wide in a very small number of very high population areas could win the presidency. Look at the picture I posted below. Campaigns would have to venture no further than, say Los Angeles, San Francisco, Multnomah, King, cook, Wayne, Cuyahoga, Prince George’s, Philadelphia, Manhattan, and Broward counties, and could blow off the rest of the country.

Here’s some more, on how the electoral college protects the little guy:

Entrusting political power to imperfect human beings is rarely a safe idea. Such power tends to swell the head, corrupt the manner, afflict the soul and eventually make war on the neighbor of everyone who tastes of it.

This is just as true whether those who possess such power consist of the one, the few, or the many. It´s human nature. And human nature has never changed.
Because the America´s Founders understood this flaw in man they were just as wary of democracy, as they were of oligarchy and monarchy. …
Any form of "absolute power," will as the maxim declares, "tend to corrupt absolutely." Democracy is absolute power in the hands of the majority - a majority who will eventually, especially in times of moral decline, vote to themselves advantages over minorities.

By minority, the Founders meant almost anything. It could refer to the rich, the merchant, the small state, the immigrant, the unpopular religious sect or viewpoint, or a thousand other things.

But the Founders had a cure, a mixed republic, which ingeniously created various centers of powers, divisions of powers and modes of representation, with two objects in mind: Number one, to reach out and represent as many groups as possible (generally in broad sweeps); and number two, to make it extremely difficult for any one group to ever become a majority over all the others.

This is the genius of republicanism: to prevent the people from producing "a mandate" for government, but rather keep the government so locked up in gridlock that competing power centers will only come together on policies which are universally acceptable to all. (See Federalist 51) The electoral college was part of this plan, and it was a brilliant idea. https://sites.google.com/site/heavenlybanner/electoral-college/electoral-college-protecting-minority-rights

shouldn't every person's vote count the same, no matter they live?

No. See above and below. There’d be practically no need for anyone outside of the tall blue counties to vote at all.

As it is now, many many people do not vote because their state is already decided.

Getting rid of the electoral college would make this worse, not better. The counties with the tall blue columns would dictate their policies to the rest of us. There’d be no protective mechanism, no voice, for the “minority” in all the other counties in the country, red and blue alike. It would truly be a “tyranny of the majority,” which is exactly what our system was designed and intended to prevent.

geeps20 · Senior Member

Jazzy...national polls mean squat.,,very few states actually matter, and the ones that do are at a statistical dead heat(Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisc).

As I said before, it will all come down to Florida, winner take all.