Message Testing 'Outliers'
Emily Swanson | July 26, 2010
Topics: Outliers Feature
Lydia Saad extols the virtues of polling for those on both sides of the aisle.
Jay Cost argues that state party identification reflects the "stickiness" of historical identification rather than current voting patterns.
Stephanie Condon wonders if Liberals can match Republican enthusiasm in November.
Democracy Corps reports the results of their Netroots Nation straw poll.
Patrick Murray takes to task campaign pollsters and reporters who report their results.
By Emily Swanson | July 26, 2010 5:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments
I don't think there is much chance raising liberal enthusiasm by November. Obama launched a lawsuit against Arizona in an attempt to inflame hispanics and get them to come out and vote for democrats but that backfired big. His and all democrats support from hispanics is lower than any time of his presidency.
He is trying to start a race war to get the blacks fired up to come out and "kill those white cracker babies" (metaphorically, of course). That has failed after he acted like a complete moron with the Sherrod mess.
People still hate healthcare. The liberals are pissed because they didn't get socialized medicine - no matter how many times Obama and Reid tell them that they lied to the country about Obamacare and that it is just a path to socialized medicine.
And they are extremely disappointed because they got the most liberal president in history along with huge majorities in the house and senate and the corruption and stupidity in washington has gotten even worse than before.
They actually believed that Obama was their big black hope and he turned out to be nothing more than a dirty, lying, cheating, corrupt, vicious, inept, arrogant, mocking chicago politician.
Nope - there isn't much to get the liberals enthused. They know Obama doesn't have any political capital left and is just a lame duck from here on. He might still get reelected but if so, he will be the first six-year lame duck in history.
Posted on July 27, 2010 1:13 PM
Lots of intelligent insight there.
Posted on July 27, 2010 10:55 PM
"most liberal president in history "
Do you think Hillary Clinton would have been any better? No, I think you would have had a list for her too, probably longer.
Obama is basically the Clinton administration redux. 70% of the Obama administration served under Clinton.
LOL! I would say T.Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and LBJ were all more liberal than Obama.
You could even make a case that Eisenhower, JFK, and Nixon were about the same as Obama ideologically based on their actions.
Posted on July 27, 2010 11:02 PM
"He might still get reelected but if so, he will be the first six-year lame duck in history."
Heh, pretty sure that is a contradiction in terms.
Posted on July 28, 2010 8:39 AM
I would agree Aaron with FDR, Wilson and LBJ but not TR and Truman. And i don't think Eisenhower is as close to as liberal as Obama; JFK and Nixon too.
Posted on July 28, 2010 3:30 PM
Post a comment