Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

OH: 43% Portman, 39% Fisher (Rasmussen 6/29)

Topics: Ohio , poll

Rasmussen
6/29/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Ohio

2010 Senate
43% Portman (R), 39% Fisher (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Rob Portman: 48 / 22
Lee Fisher: 45 / 34

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 48 / 52 (chart)

 

Comments
Paleo:

Perfect evidence of rASS bias. Here's your "house effect" in action. PPP and Quinnipaic showed Fisher with a two-point lead. Republican Scotty shows Portman with a four-point. Right about the five point bias number I always factor in for his polls.

____________________

Crimsonite:

Remember, Quinnipiac uses a registered voters model so you should add a couple of points to the Repub, especially this year. And then a 6 point difference in spreads is well within the sum of PPP's and Rassmussen's margin of error, meaning it could be somewhere in the middle and both companies could still be accurate enough.

____________________

Sean Murphy:

Rasmussen also polls races more consistantly that other companies do.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Right. Quinn backs Rass' numbers so in reality Paleo, this confirms PPP's- A Democratic pollster, bias.

____________________

Paleo:

There's room for subjectivity in a likely voter screen, unlike with registered voters. Fodder for manipulation. And making apples to apples comparisons difficult.

____________________

melvin:

Rasmussen is really taking a chance of being labled an outliar,because the only major Senate race he have Democrats leading in is Calif.If the Democrats have more then 55 seats after the Midterms, nobody in his right mind is going to take the Rasmussen poll seriously anymore not even the Republicans.

____________________

Paleo:

"PPP's- A Democratic pollster, bias."

The pollster that was ahead of the curve, and nailed, the Massachusetts senate race?

____________________

Field Marshal:

Paleo,

I was joking. I mean, i could retort to your original post, Rasmussen, you mean the one who nailed the 2008 presidential election or the myriad of other election they got right.

____________________

Sean Murphy:

Really Melvin? So Rass polls for the Hawaii,New York(both),Oregon senate races don't count?

____________________

melvin:

Everytime Rasmussen see a Democrat leading in a State, he comes out the next day with a poll showing the Republican leading in the same State.Now is that strange to you?

____________________

Sean Murphy:

"Everytime Rasmussen see a Democrat leading in a State, he comes out the next day with a poll showing the Republican leading in the same State.Now is that strange to you?"

You obviously don't understand the science of polling and how different companies can have different samples of people and sample sizes can also be different. It's not like Rasmussen purposelly cooks the results of his polls.

____________________

melvin:

Sean Murphy i said the major Senate races.NYK,Oregon and Hawaii are solid Democrat

____________________

Paleo:

"It's not like Rasmussen purposelly cooks the results of his polls."

I wouldn't be too sure.

____________________

Paleo:

"Rasmussen, you mean the one who nailed the 2008 presidential election."


Actually, if you want to get technical, Opinion Research and Ispos nailed it.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

____________________

Mike E:

If you account for the Reich-mass-KKK-en effect this is 110% Dem, -10% Republican.

____________________

tjampel:

There's really nothing to argue about. Ras is coming in exactly where we'd expect it to, given that it has a likely voter screen and has a modest house effect.

Nate Silver notes that Ras' house effect, which was around 2.5 points in 2008 has climbed to 4.5 thus far this year. Add to that the uncertainty of statistics and these results are MOE with each other anyway, with Ras on the right side of it.

Ras may turn out to have the correct model here. I reiterate my disagreement with polling likely voters at this stage (because it does allow for an agenda to creep in) but I'm not accusing Ras or PPP of doing that.

If there were an election held tomorrow in OH I think it would be extremely close, and I wouldn't be shocked if Portman won, so...all the pollsters are bascially confirming each other, as I see it.

If Ras shows Portman's lead climbing to 12 next time and all the other pollsters are showing it dead even then I'd have issues with them, as I did when the initial post-primary KY poll came out. It was laughable and...all those who attacked it were correct in that instance.

____________________

melvin:

The guy works for Foxnews of course he makes up the numbers.Where do he get the money to come out with polls everyday?

____________________

melvin:

Obama was voted the 15th best President,Reagan was 17th now what do you right-wingers have to say about that.

____________________

Sean Murphy:

Melvin I call B.S. on those ratings. Obama hasn't done anything to deserve the 15 ranking he got but then again what can you expect from Academia?

____________________

Paleo:

It's ridiculous to rank Obama when he's only been in for a year and a half. This study is not great. What the hell is James Monroe doing in the top 10? As much as I didn't like Reagan and his policies, he should be higher than 17. He was a consequential president. Right around 10 is more like it.

The Harvard survey, which comes out less frequently, is far better. It usually has Lincoln, FDR and Washington as the top 3.

____________________

Field Marshal:

This is a great article about how Dems bond people to the government in order to gain indefinite voting support from them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janetdaley/7856396/Want-to-protect-the-poor-Then-give-them-jobs.html

Great passage:
If we learned anything from the terrible ideological crimes of the 20th century, it was that over-powerful states were dangerous: that even if they did not commit murder or enslave their own populations, their good intentions ended up producing perverse effects simply through the gross, insensitive interventions of central bureaucracy which could take no account of individual needs. Can anyone still believe that the largely catastrophic consequences of Big State solutions to poverty, to housing shortages, to unemployment, to educational disadvantage, have been pure coincidence?

____________________

Paleo:

"Where do he get the money to come out with polls everyday?"

That's the $1 million question. He got a cash transfusion in 2009.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061605090.html

But I suspect he gets funding from more partisan sources as well. Hopefully, this will come out in time.

____________________

melvin:

Obama passed a Healthcare bill,he is going to pass a Wallstreet bill,his adverage approval rating around the world is 75% compared to Bush 12% and Reagan 30%,and he also won the Nobel Peace Prize.But i do feel 18 months is not enough time to judge him,because if the United States remains in Afganistan past 2011 in my opinion Obama is going to be one of our worst Presidents up their with Bush.

____________________

Crimsonite:

Melvin,
First, those averages are so wrong for all 3 you mentioned. And second, you can't judge a president on actions that have yet to go into effect merely cause their momentous. As much as each side likes to say what will happen with the healthcare bill, we have no idea the exact results. So, if you're gonna judge him on those things at least wait till you see the results. As for what he has done such as the stimulus, you cannot call that a success because he knowingly lied about what it would do, and economists do not agree as he often tries to say that it has worked. So far, their is controversy in everything he's done. That is not worthy of 15th.

____________________

Paleo:

The Telegraph piece appears to be British-specific, but contains the usual right-wing strawmen, like this beaut:


"Are they actually prepared to go down fighting for the idea that the state is the source of social virtue and must be the answer to all of our civic problems?"

and a total ahistorical perspective relating to why these programs came in, how they have fostered the development of a middle class, and the conditions they sought to alieviate.

____________________

Mike E:

"The guy works for Foxnews of course he makes up the numbers."

But Fox news is the most centrist and balanced news outlet in the US. Why would he make up numbers if he works for fox? If he worked for MSNBC, ABC, CBS of CNN then you might have a point, except he would be skewing the data to make the dems look better.

____________________

melvin:

This is how i would have rated the Presidents"The best Presidents(1)FDR(2)Teddy Roosavelt(3)Lincoln.The worst Presidents(1)Bush.Jr(2)A.Johnson(3)Hoover.The most overrated Presidents(1)Jefferson(2)A.Jackson(3)Reagan.The most underrated Presidents(1)L.Johnson(2)Garfield(3)Wilson.This is how i would have rated the pres

____________________

lat:

Sheetmussen! I wonder if Scottie has sent his sheets to the laundry yet? He also needs to brush up on his cross burning.

____________________

Mike E:

Melvin. FDR at #1? Surley not? He made the depression way worse. Id put Reagan at #1 since he defeated the Soviet union and pulled the nation out of the Jimmy Carter hole. Bush Jr. the worst? LOL. This is the guy who won the war in Iraq despite the wimpy defeatism of Americans left wing. (Sure he not the best since he refused to secure our borders and wanted amnesty but, like FDR, his foreign policy was good, his domestic policy was bad).

____________________

Mike E:

"Obama passed a Healthcare bill"

That will be repealed and replaced by the next president.

____________________

Mike E:

@lat.

Are you talking about your boy Robert "sheets" Byrd who is now on display in DC and getting all kinds of kudos from the Dems.

____________________

melvin:

Reagan is overrated,for god sake the right-wingers wants to put him on the 50 dollar bill.Kennedy is overrated as well.

____________________

Stillow:

FM - That was a good article. That is the only way Dems retain any power is by making people totally dependant onthem....in exchange for votes they get scraps to live on.

____________________

Mike E:

Dammmmm, Rass just polled voters and found the reps more trusted than the dems on education, health care, the economy, social security, Iraq, taxes, abortion national security and immigration. The dems were up on govt. ethics but this is rass we are talking about.

____________________

Stillow:

As for the poll, its legit. Rass's LV model would be expected to give Portman a lead based on the enthusiasm gap and the overall feel of the elections this fall.

So despite Dems doing what they do best on this site and bitching about every poll and pollster that gives them results they don't like....this is probably pretty accurate.

____________________

melvin:

Mike when FDR took office the unemplyment rate was 24%,after only 2yrs as President he knocked it down to 11% and after he died the unemployment rate was 3%.As for Bush he is the only President in history to leave his sucessor 2 wars and a Recession" enough said.

____________________

Field Marshal:

That will be repealed and replaced by the next president.

I hope not. People need to learn about this issue. All they know is that insurance premiums are going up much faster than inflation. And they blame the insurance companies. They need to know why those premiums are going up. The biggest reason is the government, namely, Medicare.

Here's an article out today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100702/ap_on_bi_ge/us_med_er_crowding_8

Health overhaul may mean longer ER waits, crowding

_People without insurance aren't the ones filling up the nation's emergency rooms. Far from it. The uninsured are no more likely to use ERs than people with private insurance, perhaps because they're wary of huge bills.

_The biggest users of emergency rooms by far are Medicaid recipients. And the new health insurance law will increase their ranks by about 16 million. Medicaid is the state and federal program for low-income families and the disabled. And many family doctors limit the number of Medicaid patients they take because of low government reimbursements.

____________________

iVote:

Mike E-

Is your sense of reality really that skewed to think that Fox News is "centrist" and "balanced"? For your sake, I hope that you're kidding.

And Bush never "won" the war in Iraq. He threw us into an endless occupation, digging our country into a desert hell-hole that can't be escaped. I feel sorry for you if you actually believed in the message of that Mission Accomplished banner. With Iraq, Bush started something that he couldn't finish, unlike Obama, who actually finished the job on healthcare.

____________________

Mike E:

@Melvin.

FDR dragged out the great depression for 7 long years due to incompetent economic policy. Bush got us out of the clintoon recession and presided over the longest period of economic growth in US history. When Bush left office he had defeated Saddam and established a democracy in place of a dictatorship. He is the only president to win a war opposed by the defeatest democrat party. Nuff said.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Where is Shannon from Dallas and his spin of the economic situation? I would like to hear his analysis of today's jobs report release.

____________________

Stillow:

FM - What do you make of todays unemployment news? Not good at all. Things continue to worsen....despite the feds having spent hundreds of billions of dollars...so now not only do we have a nasty recession we are fighting, but we are digging ourselves deep into debt for no reason.

I saw Pelosi say unemployment checks are good stimulus. My freind, we are hheaded for a double dip and the dip is going to be worse....with mounting debt and anti business policies coming out of this administration, there is simply no path to recovery. Plus don't forget the coming huge tax increases starting next year............

Just keeps getting worse and worse, meanwhile Barry tee's off for another round.

____________________

Mike E:

@iVote.

Fox is most centrist. This was demonstrated in a study by the UCLA journalism school.

"And Bush never "won" the war in Iraq. "

You are too funny. It would be like me saying Hitler won WWII.

____________________

melvin:

Charlie Cook just said a wave is coming,the Democrats are going to lose over a 100 seats.The Republicans are going to be so dissapointed in heartbroken when they dont win back the House in November"They might jump out of windows.

____________________

Stillow:

FDR policies have been debated for decades. Half the economists think his programs helped, the other half think they prolonged the depression. I think its quite clear FDR made the depression worse and made it last longer. G'ment lacks the capacity to 'fix" the eocnomy. The private indsutry is fueled by profit and availability of capital. You do that by reducing the tax burdens on business and people which frees up capital which is then spent by consumers in the economy which provides profits to companies which in turn allows them to hire people to meet the demand.

That is why when taxes are cut, you see revenue increases to g'ment. You expand the tax base.

Obama is doing the oppositte as he is raising taxes and increasing debt spending thru his slush fund which is hampeirng economic reocvery. Much like FDE, Obama will prolong this recession assuming it does not turn into a depression...and barring a war similar to WW2 the only way out will be to engage in fiscally conservative ideas of reducing the tax burdens on people and imposing more business friendly policies and focus on pro growth strategy and not anti growth.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Lets not forget how FDR dragged into "endless occupation" of Europe and Asia. We still have hundreds of thousands of our troops there SEVENTY years later.

____________________

iVote:

@MikeE

You're the only person I've ever heard say that Bush actually won the war in Iraq. We're still fighting over there a year after he left office, yet somehow Bush won that war for us? Wow. Care to explain yourself?

____________________

Mike E:

"The Republicans are going to be so dissapointed in heartbroken when they dont win back the House in November"They might jump out of windows."

Im a republican and Id be OK with a slim dem majority. It would mean the republicans could fillibuster to block the most damaging of Obamas policies. Dems that cross party lines could also get the reps to win on a lot of the issues and as dems jump ship to escape the taint of Obama this will be more and more common. If the dems continue to control all 3 branches after November there will be no way for them to avoid blame for the failed policies of Obama. Dems will be pushed into the minority for generations.

____________________

melvin:

Did most Conservatives including Foxnews predict the unemployment rate would rise over 10% ,because only 13.000 private sector jobs was only suppose to be created? Yeah right.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Stillow,

Today's report was very bad. Yes, 83,000 private sector jobs were created. However, that means for every 2 new potential worker, only one got a job given that we need 150,000 new jobs just to break even with population growth.

Normally, at this point in a recovery, we are producing 300k-400k new jobs per month with quarterly GDP annualized around 7-8%. We are no where near this.

I'm sure the left wing mainstream media will focus on the fact that the unemployment rate dropped 0.2% to 9.5%. Of course, what they won't say is the only reason it dropped is 650,000 gave up looking and dropped out of the labor force. Maybe that's Obama's jobs plan, who knows?

The private sector is simply very reluctant to hire given the HUGE uncertainties that are coming out of Washington. People have no idea about the tax policy starting in just 6 months, they don't know how ObamaCare will hurt their business, they don't know if card check is coming, they don't know if cap and trade will increase their energy costs substantially, they don't know what kind of crazy regulation will be imposed tomorrow.

The market hates uncertainty. And all the market sees is uncertainty. The jobs report is basically the result of the economic neophyte in the White House.

____________________

Stillow:

iVote - Bush and the military won the major combat portion of the war. they toppled Saddam and removed him from power. The problem came with the post war management, dealing with terrorists elements, etc. Every war requires post management. But the main objective of removing Saddam was achived with high success....there was simply poor post war management.

____________________

iVote:

Okay, so 83,000 private jobs were created, and unemployment is now down to 9.5% from 9.7%. It's nothing miraculous, but it's a hell of a lot better than before and it's showing steady progress.

____________________

Field Marshal:

melvin,

Keeping the unemployment rate down by discouraging people so much they just give up is not something the dems should sponsor, though i hope they do. But given today's report, i think it will impossible for it to not go above 10%.

____________________

Stillow:

FM - That was the scary part to me was 650,000 people just gave up. That is a lot of people and see no hope of getting a job anytime soon. I fear we are in for very difficult times in the coming months and years.

____________________

Mike E:

"Wow. Care to explain yourself?"

It really needs an explanation?

OK, I'll assume you are not kidding.

1) Saddam is gone, never again to buid and use WMD.

2) Saddams dictatorship has been replaced by a democracy.

Thus our two major goals have been achieved, mission accomplished.

There is still violence, its a bad part of the world and Iraq is no worse than most countries in the region. Importantly the US training of Iraqis has really paied off, they are now one of the best militaries in the region and, as they stood up, the US have taken a more advisory role.

Consider this. In June 49 ISF died, less than one day of murders in the US. Iraqi civilians killed by al-Qaida and Iran were the third lowest since the liberation began about 70 month ago. Only 14 colation troops have died in 2010, more cops died in the US.

____________________

Stillow:

iVote - The rate went down because 650,000 people GAVE UP looking. That is a huge number and its frightening that so many americans in one month would see things as so bad they simply gave up looking for work. When they calcualte the rate those 650,000 who gave up are not counted as unemployed in the offical #. Many people on both sides will tell you the official # is very misleading on the way they calculate it.

____________________

melvin:

Statypolly i agree with you 100% its time for America to pull out of Germany,Korea,Japan.Iraq and Afghanistan.Did you know America will spend 650 billion dollars on Defense this year,the other Nations combined only spends 170 billion,now what do that tells you?

____________________

Paleo:

"If the dems continue to control all 3 branches after November there will be no way for them to avoid blame for the failed policies of Obama. Dems will be pushed into the minority for generations."

Generations? Sounds like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist in 2005. How quickly that changed.

Given the changing demographics, Republicans should be worried about that a lot more than Democrats.

I think things will be better in 2012. Which means even if the Dems lose the house this year, they could very well grab it back in 2012 as Obama is re-elected. The senate may be another matter. They will again have a lot of vulnerable seats up that year, and could very well lose the senate while they are retaking or keeping the house. Since they've let the Republicans get away with abusing the filibuster anyway, I don't know how much difference that would make.

____________________

Mike E:

" is now down to 9.5% from 9.7%"

Seriously? It went down because people are so discouraged by the disasterous Obama economy they are giving up even looking for work. The U6 unemployment rate (a more realistic measure, IMO) caused by Obama is 16.5%.

____________________

StatyPolly:

That Sienna presidential survey is a barrel of laughs.

How about

13. Domestic Accomplishments: Reagan 23, Obama 16. (well, they could be right in the long run, since BOBO will kill liberalism for a generation)

6. Handling of U.S. Economy: Reagan 21, Obama 17

18. Intelligence: Reagan 36, Obama 8 (Reagan 36th in a field of 43!? WHAT A DUMBASS!)

How about this one:

5. Court Appointments: Reagan 31, Obama 13

You can cut centrism with a knife. Hard to believe that people involved are willing to embarrass themselves like this.

____________________

melvin:

Ok tell me something Republicans? Back in April when the economy produced over 200.000 jobs the unemployment rate actually went up, because the Govt said people started back looking for work"Ok where was you guys then? You cant have it both ways Republicans.

____________________

Field Marshal:

How about:

8. Ability to compromise: Reagan 14, Obama 10

What has Obama compromised on? I can't name one thing! Meanwhile, Reagan had a Dem congress to work with and had to compromise on EVERYTHING.

That poll is a big joke, isn't it? I mean, its meant as satire. Right?

____________________

lat:

Stillow,

Relax buddy. I know Sharon Angle being 50/50 at best has you all messed up inside. It's ok.... breathe!

____________________

vincent106:

@lat

Isnt there someone you should be calling a racist somewhere?

____________________

Paleo:

"What has Obama compromised on? I can't name one thing!"

You can't compromise with people who are not willing to compromise. To the extent that Reagan compromised, it was only because he had a Democratic house. If Obama is faced with the same situation, the likelihood that he would have to compromise would increase.

Anyway, as I said, it's ridiculous for a presidential survey to include someone who's been in office for only a year and a half.

____________________

Mike E:

@Paleo.

"Sounds like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist in 2005. How quickly that changed."

Lets recap rrecent lib commentary.

THIS...

"“This was not just a change election, but a sea-change election,” Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, said during remarks at the National Press Club. “This is the end of the conservative era.”


“What you’re seeing in the nation is the emergence of a center-left majority,” Borosage continued. “We are witnessing the creation of a permanent progressive majority.” "

AND THIS...

"The conservative movement brought about by the Gingrich revolution has been crushed,” he said.


Greenberg pointed to exit polls conducted by his firm, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, showing that Democrats hold a significant edge over Republicans on the issues on which most voters based their decision on Election Day.


“Area after area people have tilted toward the progressive policy,” Greenberg said pointing specifically to the economy, the war in Iraq, energy and healthcare. “There has been a change in the way we think about society and the economy, and Democrats have a huge advantage.” "

AND THIS...

"Republican conservatives are fond of arguing that Obama is doomed to fail and that when he does, the American public will eagerly embrace the GOP in relief as it pitches its traditional message once again.

But this is a passive and even fantasy-world approach to political strategy. Obama and an awful lot of well-educated, ambitious and experienced people around him do not intend to fail."

Amazing what 2 years of disasterous progressive leadership will do aint it? Now Americans trust the reps more on the Economy, healthcare, social security, Iraq, Taxes, abortion, national security and immigration!

____________________

Mike E:

"Relax buddy. I know Sharon Angle being 50/50 at best has you all messed up inside. It's ok.... breathe!"

Errrrr, if by 50/50 you mean angle up by 7 then you have a good point!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/nevada/election_2010_nevada_senate

____________________

Paleo:

I stay away from making long-term predictions based on one election. However, I also believe that demography tends to be destiny. If that's the case, then the Republicans are in trouble regardless of what happens in this year's election. Democrats are strongest with young voters and "minority" voters. These will be the fastest growing members of the electorate in the years and decades to come. Latino voters alone will be in a position in the coming years to deliver a world of hurt to Republicans.

____________________

jmartin4s:

I don't see Lee Fisher winning this race this year. I think dems have a better chance of winning NC, MO, and KY. Lee Fisher is literally the worst candidate dems could have picked.

____________________

Mike E:

"Democrats are strongest with young voters and "minority" voters. These will be the fastest growing members of the electorate in the years and decades to come."


Kids grow up. I was a flaming environmentalist and liberal as a child. "Minorities" are not as reliable as dems think. Blacks are very socially conservative, the passage of prop 8 in CA was due in part to high black turnout resulting from Obama on the ticket in 08. Black churches joined the Church of Jesus Christ in supporting prop 8.

____________________

Mike E:

Further to the "yong voter" argument, the population pyramid in the US is slowly but surley turning upside down. Not good for progressives.

____________________

Paleo:

"Kids grow up. I was a flaming environmentalist and liberal as a child. "Minorities" are not as reliable as dems think. Blacks are very socially conservative, the passage of prop 8 in CA was due in part to high black turnout resulting from Obama on the ticket in 08. Black churches joined the Church of Jesus Christ in supporting prop 8."

In the 80s, Reagan tended to be strongest with young voters. So this "liberal at 20, conservative at 40" myth doesn't hold. And if you're counting on African-Americans to bail you out, be my guest.

____________________

Field Marshal:

You can't compromise with people who are not willing to compromise

EXACTLY! With the dems unwilling to compromise, Obama should not have received such a high mark.

____________________

Mike E:

"In the 80s, Reagan tended to be strongest with young voters. "

Whaaaat? But, but, I thought the young were reliable liberals. Since teen unemployment is the highest on record I think many younger Americans are wishing they could take back that vote for Obama.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Mike E,

You beat me to that post. I was going to say that i thought minority and young voters would vote democratic until the 22nd century at least! You mean voter preferences change? I never conceived that!

____________________

lat:

Field Marshall,

What's your definition of compromise? One who agrees that nobody making over a million dollars a year should pay taxes, in addition to one who attends church every Sunday?

____________________

Paleo:

Both of you miss the point. Young voters are not always liberal. And young voters who supported Reagan tended to stay conservative. Therefore, . . .

____________________

StatyPolly:

Great article all the way from 1984.

Reagan's popularity with the young was a one-time freak anomaly.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,955304,00.html

He just had something about his personality that really resonated with the youn'uns.

(I did say one-time anomaly, but we actually see something similar with Ron Paul)

Every other well-established, long-term, undisputed piece of data points to the fact that people move to the right as they age. Usually, up to retirement age, when they begin to rely on public support, although that particular trend has been recently broken.

____________________

Field Marshal:

lat,

My definition is seeking some sort of middle ground. However, the Dems' definition seems to be, this is the bill, you can add amendments if you like but this is it. You lost, tough nuts. Vote for it.

And then whine about the GOP being obstructionists.

No idea what you are talking about with the comment of the people making a million. Especially when those people pay the bulk of all income taxes. But thats probably more latisms that make zero sense except in lat's mind.

____________________

StatyPolly:

I gotta admit, it's kinda cute how the uber-lib Time Mag tried to explain away Reagan's popularity by blaming his winning personality rather than ideology, just to have it come back to bite libs in the azz a quarter century later.

Hehe

____________________

Paleo:

Reagan was always more popular than his policies. Poll after poll showed that. The American always tend to say (depending on thw wording) they are more ideologically conservative. But when you get down to specifics, they are far more progressive.

And who's biting who in the ass? As we speak, Democrats control two of the three branches of government. Righties make the most noise, but they've lost the last two national elections, and most of the special elections. I wouldn't start crowing based on noise and polls. You have to win at the ballot box first.

____________________

Mike E:

'Righties make the most noise, but they've lost the last two national elections, and most of the special elections.'

But since 1980 we have had 5 out of 8 presidential election go to the repubs and congress in rep control 10 out 15 times. Thank you Reagan.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"Reagan was always more popular than his policies. Poll after poll showed that."

Same goes for BOBO. No?

"And who's biting who in the ass?"

Time article is biting those in the azz who claim that the fact that people move right as they age is a myth. People who claim that since the current 18-30 group is lib, they will stay that way as they age. They always cite Reagan as example, since it's the only one they got. Time sayz that it was a one-time freak occurrence, and what's more, it was not even ideological, but personal.

____________________

Mike E:

"Where do he [Ras] get the money to come out with polls everyday?"

Axe deoderant, direct TV, Dish network. Those are the advertisements I remember from his website.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Every other well-established, long-term, undisputed piece of data points to the fact that people move to the right as they age."

We can go through this again, but I can find you at least a dozen studies that debunk this old saw. People are generally set in their ways by the time they reach their low 30s, according to some younger than that. Tons of sociological evidence backs that up in areas other than politics as well. Why do you think advertisers want to reach young people far more than older ones? Why do you think ads are so geared toward people between 15-30? Because that's when you lock in your preferences for foods, drinks, cars, toothpastes, etc...

____________________

lat:

Field Marshall,

I keep forgetting that only white evangelical Christians are the only "Real Americans". Everyone else is simply second rate.

____________________

Mike E:

@lat

@lat

"I keep forgetting that only white evangelical Christians are the only "Real Americans"."

Not true. Its about attitude and world view. African-American Allen West is a real American, African-American Obama is not, for example. White christian John Kerry is not and neither is white, self identified "ardent catholic" Nancy Pelosi. White Christian George W Bush is. Muslim American Army Spc. Omar M. Albrak is but Mormon Harry Reid is not. Are you getting this. Its complex but I think you could understand it.

____________________

Deweymaples:

"Not true. Its about attitude and world view. African-American Allen West is a real American, African-American Obama is not, for example. White christian John Kerry is not and neither is white, self identified "ardent catholic" Nancy Pelosi. White Christian George W Bush is. Muslim American Army Spc. Omar M. Albrak is but Mormon Harry Reid is not. Are you getting this. Its complex but I think you could understand it."

Get that shit out of here. Like, right the fuck now.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - You keep denying people tend to get more conservative as they age...Yes it was a clever saying by winston, but its also true. Advertisers focus on younger people because they are more gullable and easily drawn in. mcdonalds for examples targets kids...but not to many 60 year olds eat there as often as kids do. Or all those kids who grew up in the 70's and 80's would be at Mcdonalds all day long.

With youth comes wrecklessness...sort of a free spirit, no worries type of thinking. as you age you gain additional responsibilities in life, you get your first mortgage, you marry, you have kids and all those things are pressues away from your wreckless youth. They nudge you into a more stable conservative lifestyle where instead of figuring out which club your going to this weekend, you hauling the kids to soccer practice and buying groceries.

People's lives dramatically change as they age...the added responsibility I think makes on more conservative. When your in college and mom and dad are still paying most of your bills, or at least helping a great deal its easy to think more liberal....all that higher taxes is ok mumbo jumbo. Then when you actually get a real first job and take a look at your paycheck which was a net of $1800, but the gross is $1100 after your tax and benefit obligtions things change a bit and the argument against things like higher taxes make more sense to you. The conservative base is middle and upper middle class people...and that is as you age, you find the wreckless ways of your youth don't quite pay the mortgage and get your soccer shoes for the kids.

There's a lot more kids out there whosay they are liberal and have conservative parents than there are kids who are conservative, but have liberal parents. Thats because when your young all those responsiblilites life requires of you have not kicked in yet. as you age you soon figure out why mom and dad would say no hwen you wanted something from the store...what it means when they said something was to expesnive.

so on fiscal issues I don't think theres any question you become more conservative as you age, until you retire anyway. on social issues there is a good argument that can be made to say that yes, you can become set in your ways at a much earlier age....if your pro life at age 18 you will probably be that way at age 50 and vice versa....but fiscally, you tend to become more conservative with age.

____________________

Stillow:

gross and net reversed...cut me some slack, its late.

____________________

lat:

Mike,

As far as I am concerned evangelical christians are the most god awful, vile, disgusting human beings on earth and they are my biggest driving force in voting democratic. My wife is a jewish woman who grew up in South Carolina and was tormented daily for not recicting the lords prayer, was called a "christ killer" on a regular basis, was told that only "traitors" can't see the light for Jesus, etc. I happen to be Christian and believe or not I go to church sometimes. The people I just described who call themselves "good christians" have no idea what that term means.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Hey Stillow, I think Aaron makes a reasonable point about brand loyalty. I personally have stuck with the same toothpaste for decades. And speaking of mindless habits, certainly there are plenty of older adults who still enjoy them some good ole Mickey D's, wear Spiderman undies and watch Looney Tunes on Sat mornings. They are called Democrats.

____________________

tjampel:

totally @Mike E:

"African-American Allen West is a real American, African-American Obama is not, for example. White christian John Kerry is not and neither is white, self identified "ardent catholic" Nancy Pelosi. White Christian George W Bush is. Muslim American Army Spc. Omar M. Albrak is but Mormon Harry Reid is not."

Every one of the people listed above is a real American. Every attempt to say that only conservatives are real Americans, and that liberals are something other is an attack on millions of people who call this country their home and who are every bit as patriotic as you. It makes no difference what their ideology is. It doesn't even matter if their policies will ultimately help or harm the country. It only matters that they are loyal to this country, believe they're doing what's best for it, and would defend it if attacked. I'm as loyal to this country as you are and would defend it as readily as you, perhaps more so since I doubt you'd defend me as I'd defend you (since I'm not a real American according to you, based on my beliefs).

Calling a representative sample of liberal elected officials unamerican is, by extension saying the same thing of me. The only difference between me and Kerry or Obama in terms of how American or unamerican we are, based on your own criteria is that they have a greater say in how the country is run than I do.

I disagree with you on policy. I think the policies and politicians you support will harm this country if elected. You think the opposite. That's cool. I also think you're a real American. I would never even question that. You deny that status to me. You've accused me of treason as far as I'm concerned along with anyone else on my side of the political fence.

I welcome direct attacks from you on my ideology, on my reasoning process, on my support for certain candidates, on my citations, on my alleged lack of knowledge of statistical methodology, or anything else outside the realm of the personal. You crossed way over that line just now.

This is the ultimate uncivil act towards a wide swath of posters here...calling all of us unamerican or "not real Americans" (take your pick; they are analogous). I've sent your comments to the moderator. Let's see what they think.

BTW
In the past few months I've written two posts here calling out liberals, which is two more than some of the conservatives here have written in response to posts like this from their own ranks since they began posting on this site. I'm still waiting for any reaction to this post from them...not holding my breath. If they respond at all to this post I expect they'll tell me I'm getting all worked up about nothing (well, it's nothing to them because they're real Americans according to Mike E).

I'd also like to point out that, should any liberal say the same thing about the conservatives who post here I will ask the moderators to take the same action. Try me on that. Calling another poster unamerican isn't any different than calling someone's mother a whore.

Great job furthering intelligent and civil debate here, Mike E!

____________________

Mike E:

"As far as I am concerned evangelical christians are the most god awful, vile, disgusting human beings on earth and they are my biggest driving force in voting democratic."

Great job furthering intelligent and civil debate here, lat!

Liberals are infact the most god awful, vile, disgusting human beings on earth. From un-American, anti war, pro al-Qaida slime like john Kerry, Obama and Harry Reid to job destroying douch bags like Tim Geitner, to incompetent pro illegal boobs like Napolitano who betrayed her oath of office to defend the country.

____________________

Mike E:

@tjampel:

Don’t be such a prissy poopy pants. Read the thread in its entirety and see if my rant was anything other than a response in kind to liberal hate speech that has polluted pollster.com for a long time (I've lurked here a while).

"Every one of the people listed above is a real American. Every attempt to say that only conservatives are real Americans and that liberals are something other is an attack on millions of people who call this country their home and who are every bit as patriotic as you."

That is a sentiment I shared until about 2006-07. Until the liberal leader of the house called the liberation of Iraq "lost" just as the military was engaging in the heaviest fighting since the major combat operations phase and, incidentally, was winning the war. My realization that liberals are in fact un-American has only crystallized as they have moved to fail to protect their fellow citizens from what amounts to an invasion across the southern border, (worse they can’t stir themselves to defend their country but they can stir themselves to block individual states from defending themselves).

If the tame taunt of un-American hurts you (and it is even tame relative to the anti conservative comment right here at pollster) then check this out and you will see that "un-American" is hardly the deep insult that you feel has wounded you so grievously.

http://zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/

Polling in or near 2007-2008 indicated that ALMOST A PLURALITY of self identified liberals thought that the world would be better off if the United States lost the Iraq war. Those liberals who disagreed are not un-American (but they are making it increasingly hard for me to keep saying that). The rest are un-American, at best, actually they are scum. Your claim that they are patriotic is false. I would be hard pressed to piss on them if they were on fire. They are basically dead to me; I despise them and could care less about what they think.

____________________

Mike E:

Deweymaples:

"Get that shit out of here. Like, right the fuck now. "

Dude, (WTF), like totally, err what?

(Seriously, what the hell are you trying to say?)

____________________

tjampel:

Mike E:

Then I accept that you really meant what you said. I wanted to see give you the opportunity to clarify. You did a fine job.

You really think I and anyone like me (millions of Americans) are unpatriotic, disloyal and unamerican. And you would not answer the call of this country to defend them, and...you were kind enough to add....if any of us were on fire and you had the means to put it out you'd let us burn (your version of being a good samaritan, I guess). If you say "I don't know any of you personally....blah blah blah" then I say that we meet your stated criteria of unamerican, not a real American, etc. (we're liberals) so your comments about not even wanting to urinate on us to put out a fire apply.

As I see it this is proof that you're exactly what you're calling us out on. You don't believe in defending all Americans from being attacked, only the ones you like. I can't imagine a more unamerican attitude than that. Nice to know that the real patriotic soldiers who defend our country, if they're like you at least, will be looking to defend those most like themselves and letting the others be slaughtered. Ain't THAT American!

I've actually never encountered someone willing to say that right to my face. I don't think anyone like you should be posting here. Do you really believe that it's even potentially civil to tell me that you would not help save my life if I was on fire and you had plenty of water? If it's not civil do you care about the posting rules here?

____________________

lat:

Mike,

Please take your holier than though nonsense and shove it as far as it can go up your ass. I am ex military,fought in the first gulf war, and will criticize my country whenever I damn well please. That's my right as a patriot!

____________________

tjampel:

lat:

Mike,

Please take your holier than though nonsense and shove it as far as it can go up your ass. I am ex military,fought in the first gulf war, and will criticize my country whenever I damn well please. That's my right as a patriot!


Well put regarding what Mike E said!

For the Record (on what you said earlier):

I don't agree with you that evangelicals are despicable people. YES...many of the leaders of these sects are totally intolerant bigots ("God Hates Fags" Fred Phelps being a perfect example; he's the one that disrupted a casket delivery ceremony at Dover and caused great pain to the parents of the dead soldiers being transferred there by screaming that their sons deserved to die). Others like Jerry Falwell an Pat Robertson have said nice "Christian" things like "New Orleans' deserved Katrina for being too liberal/tolerant and that Haiti had it coming too for their clinging to Voodoo (or was that Billy Graham, I forget).

There are also millions of liberal or moderate evangelicals. Pew found that about 34% of self-described evangelicals identify with or lean towards the Democratic Party and 50% ID with or lean Republican. Even among Republican evangelicals there are probably plenty of kind and compassionate people. If their ideology differs from mine I can think of them as wrong or misguided, etc. but I've no reason to hate them.

I believe all of us here should avoid such blanket statements period. This is true even if the hateful things that the leaders of these movements have said and done is what has spurred both of us to actively oppose their agenda and their message of intolerance.

Yes, the right wing Evangelical movement is known to most of us through a small group of leaders, many of whom are hatemongers. They are its spokespeople. But they are not all or most evangelicals. Most are people just like us. Some are full of hate. Some are full of love. There are also (believe it or not) liberal evangelicals such as Jim Wallis, a self-described "progressive evangelical" and leader and editor of Sojourners Magazine.

I see no basis to hate or even dislike those who practice within those or any other religious traditions for that fact alone. Behavior is a totally different thing. Behaving intolerantly, physically attacking people, making bigoted statements and the like is another story. I think that making blanket statements about millions of people, whether they be liberals, conservatives, or Muslims or Evangelicals is wrong and counterproductive.

I think we should leave the hate to others. They look so much more comfortable wearing it.

BTW thank you for your service to this country. I feel bad...make that sickened that your patriotism and Kerry's and that of a whole host of others who served their country with honor have been so viciously attacked here.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Ah, Patriotism! Good topic. My favorite modern philosopher claims a fail-proof question for determining people's ideological profile:

WHERE DO YOUR RANK U.S. ON HISTORICAL SCALE OF NATIONS?

Don't recall the precise wording, but that's the basic idea. Conservatives always say US is the tops, moderates say somewhere in top ten, and liberals don't place US anywhere near the top.

There is no question that many on the left claim that US is one of the greatest forces of evil in the world and world would be better off if US did not exist at all. Polling shows that. Have you looked at that link Mike E posted? Shocking? Not really. Just another day at a liberal ideologue's office, I guess.

http://zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/

Conveniently, Gallup just released a poll on patriotism. That last table towards the bottom of first page is very telling. Like a charm, the older and the more conservative you get, the more patriotic.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141110/One-Three-Americans-Extremely-Patriotic.aspx

____________________

Mike E:

@tjample and lat

Dang, you are whiny little girls. Are you really trying to say that as liberals (like you) were scrambling to plant their lips on al-Qaida’s hairy azz that was NOT un-American, unpatriotic, wimpy BS of the first degree? WOW.

____________________

tjampel:

StatyPolly:

So you support what Mike E specifically said?

That ALL (not some or many) liberals are despicable, etc. that all those with liberal ideology are not real Americans, and that all liberals are "dead" to him. He'd be hard pressed pissing on one of them if they were burning to death.

When it comes to actually laying one's life on the line there are liberals who fight in our army, navy, and marines...side by side with conservatives. If you agree with Mike E you're calling them "not real Americans", calling them despicable, calling them "dead to you", and telling them you would not try to save them if they were in a life or death situation and you were able to provide life-saving help to them. If this is your position then I think it diminishes you in the same way as it does Mike E.

I assume you don't fully agree with Mike E but refuse to condemn even a single word spoken by him, for whatever reason. I hope I'm right. Every site has a Mike E; one is more than enough.

I condemn each and every American, liberal or conservative, who would refuse to pick up arms to defend this country from being attacked. I've yet to meet anyone from either side of the ideological spectrum who feels that way.... until I "met" Mike E, who apparently would object to being made to defend Vermont (at least large swaths of it). I'll proudly defend people in ID or AL or wherever because every American is worthy of being defended in life, liberty and property and, additionally having their right to speak and express conservative or liberal opinions protected. I wish Mike E shared this POV. I hope you do.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Puh-leeze, TJ.

Your fake outrages have worn thin by now. This is the fourth of fifth time I've seen you demand a conservative poster be banned from the site in the past few weeks. I and don't even read everything here. I am yet to see a conservative here demand that a liberal be banned. Not even once. Your continuous attempts to stifle free speech you disagree with is an un-American act in itself. Mike E already told you to "Read the thread in its entirety and see if my rant was anything other than a response in kind to liberal hate speech". There are daily anti-conservative hate posts here and I am yet to see you demand a single lib poster banned. You only issued a polite rebuke TODAY to a poster who called evangelical christians "the most god awful, vile, disgusting human beings on earth" to claim a higher ground for your next maniacal assault. Color me a cynic on that one. But I'll refrain from coloring you a Queen of Faux Indignations.

____________________

tjampel:

Mike E:

@tjample and lat

Dang, you are whiny little girls. Are you really trying to say that as liberals (like you) were scrambling to plant their lips on al-Qaida’s hairy azz that was NOT un-American, unpatriotic, wimpy BS of the first degree? WOW.


As one who lives in downtown NY and who literally watched the WTC burning from my window and who strongly supported W's decision to invade Afghanistan I just have to assume you're not referring to me personally. Based on everything else you've already said that requires a great leap of faith.

The one who al-Qaida should be most thankful to is "W", first for his failure to pursue Osama with a proper force, allowing them to escape from Tora Bora into Waziristan, and for then turning his attention to Iraq for the next 7 years, ignoring both Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan and allowing al-Qaida to regroup in Waziristan with minimal hindrance. There were fewer than 1000 CIA and US special forces in Afghanistan when Kabul fell to the Northern Alliance at the end of 2002. In fact one source states that there were only 314 special forces troops and about 110 CIA there. That was it. We contracted the rest of the work out to local warlords who we know are oh so reliable.

Obama has launched more predator drones against al-Qaida in Pakastan since he took office than during all the Bush years following his invasion of Iraq. Bush has always been more interested in taking out Sadaam than bringing bin-Laden to justice.

Most Democrats supported the initial incursion into Afghanistan, btw. This is one of the few times both parties had a common interest.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

I agree with Tjampel that what Mike E. has been saying is reprehensible. Basically he is saying you cannot be a liberal and be a patriot. What about Daniel Inouye who lost his arm in WWII? And that was when the U.S. government interned a lot of his people. He had every reason to not support America but he sacrificed for it.

I joined the national guard in late 2001 precisely BECAUSE of 9/11. I served 6 years and did two tours while my peers were drinking it up in college. I would DARE someone to tell me to my face that I don't love the USA. I lost a friend in 2006 who left a wife and two kids behind. Several other friends have injuries that will stay with them their whole lives. I just stopped agreeing with the republican vision for things.

The military was part of the reason I changed from being conservative to liberal. 1) because I saw that we're getting no benefits out of these wars that are worth the costs, and 2) the military gets single-payer health care and for me it worked great.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

@Tjampel

On a side note, though, I would just do my best to ignore Mike E, Country Club Repub, and the couple of other hopeless dittoheads we seem to have on here.

I tend to ignore some of the liberals on here. They are usually off topic.

Although I agree that Mike E.'s comments on this thread are beyond the pale and lower the level of discourse on this site. We don't want this to become like the yahoo comments section. His first comments were borderline, but later ones were definitely abusive as outlined by the comment policy:

"As such, we will not hesitate to delete comments that we consider abusive, profane, hateful or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable, and as we deem warranted, ban the commenters that post them. To underscore: Terms like "stupid," "moron," "retard," "dumbass," "loser" and the like qualify as abusive. Clear?"

@ Staty
Again, I tend to disregard the more strident liberals' posts on here. Their accusations of racism don't speak for me. I read their first sentence and if it's off topic, which they tend to be, I move on (somebody on here gave me that idea). So I may be missing where they are abusive, but if they are they should also be reported.


____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"That last table towards the bottom of first page is very telling. Like a charm, the older and the more conservative you get, the more patriotic."

That's not what the table shows. It shows that older people today consider themselves more patriotic. The age groupings are too broad to suggest linear movement corresponding with aging. There is only a span of 5 years to compare. The majority of people remained in their same groupings. The 60 yr-olds who are now 65 cannot possibly be responsible for a 20 point shift in "patriotism."

Funny, they're not the ones fighting in the wars. People aged 18-29 are, mostly.

Even gallup itself says that it's up to the respondant to gauge the difference between "very" and "extremely," which makes the whole thing meaningless.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"WHERE DO YOUR RANK U.S. ON HISTORICAL SCALE OF NATIONS?"

LOL! Compared to what? All human history?

The Umayyad Caliph Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz, or Umar II was probably the best ruler of the Umayyad dynasty. He reformed taxes, engaged in no major conquests and lifted a siege on Constantinople started by his predecessor. He was disdainful of luxury and gave many of his own wealth either to the treasury or the poor. He only ruled 4 years, but all the sources indicate that the people were extremely happy and well-off during those 4 years.

Hmmm what else...the Athenian city-states might have been decent places to live circa 400 BC, unless you were a slave. Although arguably a slave in ancient Greece was better off than a black slave in the U.S. circa 1850. But we don't really know for sure.

There were some city-states in Europe in the 18th century that had high standards of living and a lot of the political freedoms that the founding fathers would incorporate into the U.S. constitution. John Adams wrote an excellent catalogue of their stregnths and weaknesses.

Britain in the latter half of the 19th century...it was pretty well off. If you were middle class you enjoyed a very good standard of living and had a lot of rights.

But I don't really know what criteria to use to compare the U.S. to other nation-states, empires, city-states, kingdoms, tribes, etc... It's a stupid question.

____________________

lat:

You can all condemn my comments about evangelical christians all you want, but I stand behind what I said and will say it again until the cows come home. Tjampel you may be correct in that there may be some good people among this group, but I have yet to find any. It took my wife years to get over the abuse and intolerance she suffered growing up at the hands of these lunatics who again call themselves "good christians". They don't know the meaning of that term starting with tolerance of other faiths which as far as I am concerned is the first principle of being a "good christian".

____________________

lat:

Tjampel,

I appreciate the thanks for my military service, but it's not something I seek nor expect. Serving in the military only made me question my government more not less when I came home. With that said I went in with my eyes wide open and unlike my uncle (who was drafted into Vietnam) or my grandfather (WW2) I had a choice. Do I regret my choice? No, but I don't feel that I have a monopoly on patriotism simply because I served in the military.

____________________

tjampel:

StatyPolly:
Your attack on me is pretty funny. Like I'm the one making hate speeches. You don't direct a single word to Mike E, but twice go on the attack against liberals for being unpatriotic and/or me, personally.

I guess you approve of his comments, then, since you've definitely made efforts to comment on these series of posts and 100% of your disapproval has been directed against Mike E's targets. None against Mike E. You also refuse to have a dialog about the specific language used by Mike E. You claim that, to react negatively to it is "fake outrage". This is obviously not true. Liberals on this site, including myself, obviously, have expressed real outrage at these remarks.

You even criticize my criticisms of those on my side of the fence as not being tough enough; yet you've never criticized your own. So, let's see, I should be tougher on liberals, since I'm a liberal and you should remain silent when clear hate speech is posted by a conservative. That makes sense.

There is absolutely no right to free speech on this website, where that speech violates the terms of use. Nor should there be. It's a priate site. I can have a website about basket making and, if some bigot wants to come on the site and start talking about Jews and n______s, I can and should eliminate that person immediately. Same for this site. This site was specifically created to discuss polls and the rules of the site are clear regarding speech. Site admins should not and do not tolerate hate speech. Are you saying you want child molesters to be able to go on a website for preteens and talk about the joys of sex with an old pervert?

People who break site rules should be banned. Do you disagree? You think that you can come on an Internet site and laugh at the rules and mock them with your comments and there should be no consequences. I've requested that one other person be banned here in the last few weeks (Country Club Republican). I previously stated the FM should be banned after one of his comments.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Here's what Mike E actually posted:

"Those liberals who disagreed are not un-American (but they are making it increasingly hard for me to keep saying that). The rest are un-American, at best, actually they are scum. Your claim that they are patriotic is false. I would be hard pressed to piss on them if they were on fire. They are basically dead to me; I despise them and could care less about what they think."

So he never claimed that all liberals are un-American nor that he would not piss on all of them. He, in fact, would not piss on only some of them.

Case closed.

Seriously, Mike E is a poster in good faith. He posted in good faith. Meaning his real thoughts and feelings at the time. He was a baited into getting pissed off, and surely I've seen TJ and Aaron post in a pissed off mood. I've posted in a pissed off mood. Few frequent posters have not. It's to be expacted that people will occasionally be PO'd. As long as it's not a constant MO, and they don't cross the line. Mike E's post did not cross the line, IMO.

Country Club, on the other hand, is not a poster in good faith. Whatever his real ideology, he only posts to inflame. I don't care if he gets banned or not get banned. I would only suggest that brighter posters not engage with a cartoon character.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"It's a stupid question."

I think it was more like "Where do you rank US on a scale of greatness in all human history"

It's not just the standard of living or individual freedoms. The overall impact on humanity is also implied. Would the rest of the world be better off if US did not exist?

____________________

StatyPolly:

"The military was part of the reason I changed from being conservative to liberal. 1) because I saw that we're getting no benefits out of these wars that are worth the costs"

What is the cost of not going to war in Iraq? Surely there are some. Saddam was more than a minor nuisance, we would have to face him in one way or another.

Had we won in Iraq without a singe life being lost, and transformed it into a US friendly democracy, maybe even leading to moderating the entire region, like Bush had hoped, we'd be celebrating that war as one of our greatest achievements. RIGHT? So the dispute is only about strategy and tactic at this point.

BTW, from what I recall, military voters went for McCain over Obama by a 3 to 1 margin, and for Bush over Kerry in 04 by an even larger 4 to 1. For what it's worth.

____________________

lat:

"Military voters went for McCain 4 to 1" and that means exactly what?

____________________

seg:

Rasmussen critics:

I don't know if Rasmussen's likely voter screen assumes too many things that would favor Republicans. Neither do you or anyone else. "House effects" mean nada when some pollsters use Adults and others use RV or LV (PPP most of the time, and Rasmussen).

We all will find out in November. We also will all have a great big hint after 1 September when EVERY pollster switches to LVs from adult or RV. The average of LV has an excellent record of accuracy and the individual errors by pollsters have been typically modest (including Rasmussen's)

Although some of you tut-tut at using LV so "early," the one thing certain is that Adults and RV are typically highly misleading at any point. Besides, Gallup and others have repeatedly made the point that voter intentions generally change only moderately after February in an off year. They rarely change by much at all after June.

As Gallup and others have stated, the bump for Republicans from LV is typically 3-6%, and this year should be the largest on record. 2006 and 2008 were good years for demos, which was no surprise because of polls showing high demo enthusiasm. This time EVERY conceivable indicator points to a very large advantage in participation for Republicans in November. Charlie Cook has warned demos of "disaster" for several months now. More recently, Rothenberg has joined the chorus.

You would think that after ignoring the grossly obvious defects in those awesomely favorable R2000 polls, you guys would be a little more humble in judging a pollster whose results you like a lot less.

____________________

tjampel:

StatyPolly: We agree on two things:

1. I have posted in a pissed off mood, as in...yesterday. I regret getting angry.

2. Case is closed.

Hope you had a great Fourth.

____________________

tjampel:

seg:

Good post. I agree with most of what you said. I am still not sure likely voter screens should be used this far out even though what you say about voter intent and relative stability after June may be true.

While a mean reflects the averaging of many years of data it doesn't negate the possibility of statistically significant variance within any one election cycle. Events "on the ground" do directly affect voter enthusiasm.

There are many negative events currently pulling down Obama's numbers (and I'm not claiming that he doesn't deserve to be judged based on them). These things are all mutable. To the extent that they continue to exist going forward I'd fully agree that it's unlikely for the LV spread to change much if at all. If some of these negative factors do shift it might change the degree of enthusiasm found within both parties significantly.

My personal opinion is that enthusiasm will be pretty close to what it is now, with a slight uptick for Dems. They may possibly benefit from either of the following:

1. The economy improves and starts adding jobs again in significant numbers (not seeing any evidence of that happening based on this month's grim economic news). If it returns to April levels of private sector job creation and unemployment falls to 9% or so it may get more Dems out in November and assuage some of Republican and independent anger. It's just hard (if these things don't materialize) to run Ads telling people that Dem policies are working when there's so little to point to. 2% or 2.5% growth just won't have enough of an effect on job creation to do it.

2. HCR opposition falls significantly. It's in Republican's interest to keep the issue alive as a net negative for Dems. The challenge will be to do that in an environment where more popular parts of the bill (those which initially had at least some bipartisan support) kick in over the next few months (and none of the really expensive new stuff kicks in until 2014). If seniors get a check for $250 and don't see any difference in Medicare bnefits this year their level of anger (for Republicans and independents alike) will probably be less than it was in March and Dem voters will feel better about the bill their representatives probably supported.

I don't think the economy will improve enough to help Dems much. I do think HCR disapproval will continue a very slow erosion as we move into September. I think enthusiasm levels will be a little closer but not much as we hit November. That's why I tend to knock 2 points off Ras poll, but not 4. I lean closer to Ras than say Quin if they are say...6 points apart, but only slightly.

____________________

tjampel:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/04/military_poll_advance_041110w/

"Survey: Troops shift political parties

By Brendan McGarry - Staff writer, Navy Times
Posted : Monday Apr 12, 2010 20:26:05 EDT

Political party affiliation has fallen sharply among those wearing the uniform today, a new Military Times survey shows.

An exclusive survey of some 1,800 active-duty troops shows the percentage of self-identified Republicans has decreased by one-third since 2004, from 60 percent to 41 percent, while the percentage of self-identified independents has nearly doubled to 32 percent during the same period.

These career-oriented officers and mid-grade and senior enlisted members are still far more conservative than liberal, but they are less likely today to identify with the GOP, the survey shows.

Much of the shift appears to have occurred only very recently, with the percentage of troops identifying themselves as Republican dropping nine percentage points from 2008 to 2009 and the percentage of those calling themselves independents increasing 10 points over the same period.

Respondents are also more pessimistic about the mission in Afghanistan, more optimistic about Iraq and virtually divided about President Obama’s performance as commander in chief."

I'm not sure if active duty military came anywhere close to 4/1 for McCain. I'd like to see the poll on that. I'd think it was less than 2/1 and possibly even 3/2.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"military voters went for McCain over Obama by a 3 to 1 margin,"

You're probably referring to the officer corps. They are very conservative. Makes perfect sense since they tend to come from more middle class backgrounds, are more white and more male than the force as a whole. They are also much more likely to be lifers. The enlisted corps was split fairly evenly or maybe slightly toward Obama iirc.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"The overall impact on humanity is also implied. Would the rest of the world be better off if US did not exist?"

Overall impact? You're going to have to unpack that, because I think I'm missing something. Impact on whom? or what? European colonialism was directly and indirectly responsible for the annihilation of millions of Native Americans. The U.S. as an entity did not start that nor is it responsible for it but it did do its part in the plains & western U.S. in the 19th century. Was that a good or bad overall impact? Is the world better off without those cultures? The answer depends on your perspective.

The U.S. system of gov't was created based on the founders' interpretation of the best governments existing in the world at the time and in the past. They didn't innovate as much as they amalgamated. What innovation they did was the sheer scale they attempted it in. Most people did not believe representative democracy would work in a large nation.

So the ideas did not exist in a vacuum, ie: many were used in German city-states in the 17th century. Educated people throughout the world knew that, and many preferred that style of gov't although they had concerns about viability. The U.S. is not responsible for the ideas it enshrined, just for using them effectively and having the courage to actually try. Someone else would have done it at some point.

I could make an argument that Britain did more to promote democracy in the world, since most advanced democracies use the parliamentary system based on Britain's. The ones that use the U.S. style system are mostly dysfunctional democracies in Latin America.

____________________

lat:

Again I ask what does it matter what % of military members voted for whom?

____________________

lat:

I vehemently disagree with banning anyone from expressing their view points on this board and some thicker skin needs to be shown by some of you. Mike E's comments were lame, but he has every right to feel how he feels. We should be encouraging sharp debate not complaining about it.

____________________

seg:

tjampel:
Thank you for your response. Your points are well-taken.

I have been following politics too many years to dismiss any reasonably possible outcome. After all, 9-11 increased Bush's popularity enormously for awhile, and undoubtedly saved many Republican seats in 2002.

The 1994 election is what intrigues me. As I recall, unemployment was around 5.5% and the economy was growing after a recession that lasted just long enough to bump BushI out of office. Nevertheless, Clinton and the demos managed to commit a collective hari-kari. The promixate cause was the health care debate, but the deeper issue was more liberal policies than the 1990 election seemed to promise.

So here we are in 2010 with severe, intractable unemployment and massive, accelerating debt -- and a president who ran as a amorphous mix of conservative code-words and liberal postures. Now, several polls show that roughly 75% of the public sees him as the L-word. The Congress is almost as unpopular as in 1994, and for exactly the same reason, with an extra seasoning of sleezy power politics and ignoring public opinion.

One would think that the demos would be facing a 86-vote turn-around (43 vote minority), yet mostly likely it will be only 26-50 vote turnaround. I think the only reason they are not is the terrible stink left behind by our erstwhile "big-government conservatives."

Hence, if the Republicans could improve their odor by taking positive stances (not stopping unemployment checks, for pity's sake!), I think the demos would be the one-legged man in the ass-kicking contest this fall.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Thanks, TJ!

Hope you had a great holiday also!

____________________

StatyPolly:

"You're probably referring to the officer corps."

I must have been. I thought the numbers I saw before referred to all active duty members.

This article has about the same 3-1 in 08, and 4-1 in 04 numbers, but they're for what they call "professional core" (did they mean "coprs"?).

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/10/military_poll_100508w/

All veterans (I don't see any data for just the enlisted active duty group at a quick glance) did go for both Bush and McCain but by much smaller margins than those active duty officers corps.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Seg, there is definitely more to the massive national discontent than just bad economy.

This piece illustrates the point.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-05-27-poll_N.htm

Disagree with you on endless unemployment though. I am the opposite of Pelosi. Unemployment support after a certain point (2 years?) is one of the worst things you can do for jobs creation. The rule was 26 weeks and if you knew that, you could play by the rule. And I am not saying that most people who receive unemployment enjoy sitting on their butts, but if you're desperate, you put in a little extra effort. And not just finding a job, or accepting a lower paying job than you feel is your worth, but also creating jobs.

Panhandle. Collect recyclable bottles and cans. For one thing, if you put in the effort, you can make a lot more than the unemployment checks. But even more importantly, both of those are more dignified and economically stimulative occupations than collecting unemployment past a year. Be creative and hustle for your buck.

____________________

seg:

StatyPolly:
I think Republicans could have picked a better issue to draw the line on. They are handing demos a club to beat them with.

I would have demanded recission of all recent earmarks as a price for voting for it.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR