Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

PA: Toomey 45 Sestak 38 (Rasmussen 6/2)

Topics: Pennsylvania , poll

Rasmussen
6/2/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Pennsylvania

2010 Senate
45% Toomey, 38% Sestak (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Pat Toomey: 55 / 30
Joe Sestak: 49 / 40

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 48 / 52 (chart)
Gov. Rendell: 44 / 55 (chart)

 

Comments
Farleftandproud:

This poll is crap. If Blunt is only leading by 1 in Missouri, there is no way Toomey could be leading in PA. Perhaps Rasmussen only polled white people on this one today.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

If your voting record in PA is worse than senators from Texas and Oklahoma, there is something wrong.

____________________

Paleo:

Another partisan pollster had Sestak with a seven point lead in a poll two days ago:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/06/02/sestak_takes_early_lead.html

____________________

iVote:

A fairly large setback for Sestak, but the number of undecideds have also risen.

Some other points of interest: Obama's approval rating has gone up slightly in PA.

The number of people who favor the repeal of HCR has dropped 8 points in two weeks. It will be a non-issue by November.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Looks like Sestak, like Paul, are reverting back to their 'means' after they got post-primary win bounces.

Maybe the job bribes from the WH has hurt him.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

The deal making may hurt for a short time, but I don't think Joe Biden had anything to do with it. Biden next August, Sept and Oct can return to his home town working class turf and help insure "friends don't let friends vote for Pat Toomey".

____________________

Field Marshal:

What will hurt is if we cannot grow jobs. This mornings job report has to be viewed as a dissapointment. If it continues, and i hope it doesn't, November can even be worse than expected for the Dems.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

@iVote:

"The number of people who favor the repeal of HCR has dropped 8 points in two weeks. It will be a non-issue by November."

Nice try. You just made up that figure. Can't fault you for trying but can fault you for lying. Gee - only 60% of the country says Obama is an idiot and his bad bill should be thrown out.

Percentage supporting repeal of the healthcare destruction bill:

May 29 60%
May 23 63%
May 15 56%
May 10 56%
May 1 54%
Apr 25 58%
Apr 17 56%
Apr 11 58%
Apr 3 54%
Mar 28 54%
Mar 24 55%

Sestak might be permanently tarnished with Obama's illegal attempt to have him throw the election. Even though he didn't take the bribe, he's the one with the name recoginition that says, "Washington scandal - politics as usual".

____________________

Paleo:

There was absolutely nothing illegal about it. Only a moron or a partisan Republican would think that.

____________________

LordMike:

"Maybe the job bribes from the WH has hurt him. "

The only people that care about that garbage are in DC.

____________________

melvin:

Why wont Rasmussen come out with a poll on Illinois,it seems everytime a Democrat is involve in a controversy he immediatley comes out with a poll,but when a Republican is involve in a controversy he is very quiet.I bet if the Democrat was in hot water in Illinois Rasmussen would have came out with a poll the next day like he have done in Conn in Penn,so look for a poll on the Colorado Senate race today from Rasmussen.I know this guy like a book.

____________________

Paleo:

You're right, Melvin. Same with Brewer in Arizona.

____________________

Phillip Roth:

Oh I'm sure Rasmussen is making these numbers up since a Republican is up by 7 points in Pennsylvania.

____________________

Fred:

Toomey will win. People here in PA don't like Obama, and Sestek has voted along with every bill that Obama has supported. Sestek's "I'm not part of Washington.........i'm different" slogan will only last so long before people start looking at how similar to Obama he is. Toomey has this.

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

I don't think it hurts him at all. He didn't take part in any of the deal. This is another outlier even to one of his own polls. I don't see Toomey taking this seat. Santorum lost by a huge margin in 2006. He's even more conservative. Granted, it was a democrat tide in 2006 and they Casey's are a political dynasty just like the Carnahans in MO. I just don't see it. I think Sestak will do well in Northeastern PA too. Of course he will in Philly and Pittsburgh. Montgomery COunty has been trending more democratic in the last couple of years. The margin in this county will probably make the difference.

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

FM:

I totally agree with you. The Dems have to make the next couple of months about job creation. IF they don't, then they are going to lose several seats. This oil disaster isn't helping their cause either.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

@Paleo:

"There was absolutely nothing illegal about it."

That's what Nixon said about the coverup.

We can clear all of this up as soon as a special prosecutor is named. Laws were broken. Felonies were comitted. Someone has to be punished.

Obama signed an order forbidding the WH from offering jobs to congressman (he didn't specify paid jobs). Will Rahm Emanuel be fired for defying his boss's orders? Doesn't that mean that Rahm acted illegally? I mean besides comitting a felony by offering a bribe to influence an election.

Or is a presidential order as worthless as his opponents claim when he signed the phony order that pretends to prevent government funding for abortions?

So what's it going to be. Is Obama strong enough of a leader to enforce his own presidential order forbidding what they have admitted happened at least twice (who knows how many more there are), or is he just another lying weasel?

____________________

seg:

Joe Biden "working class turf"?

His father had a brief setback from his affluent middle class career, but Joe Biden pretended it was his life story, including lying that he came from "coal miners."

The liberal news media rarely fails to mention Biden without linking him to this "working class" affinity canard, despite several embarrassing debunkings.

Biden's working class turf is union bosses, and that is largely it. The man has been a serial prevaricator since at least being caught with massive plagiarism in college and probably long before. If he were a Republican, his lifting of Neal Kinnock's life history speech and speaking as if it were his speech and his life, he would have been laughed out of politics.

I am not completely unsympathetic to him as a man, I recall reading that he suffered a near fatal brain tumor years ago. I wonder if he suffered substantial, permanent cognitive damage from that. It does happen in such cases.

Biden really is a gaffe machine and appears to be truly poorly informed to boot. Each time I have heard him opine about the constitution he has mis-stated its words and organization hilariously. His comments on the middle east during his "debate" with Palin were astonishingly erroneous (he misidentified virtually every player), producing yet another cacooning by the MSM. If I am correct and he must step into the presidency for some reason, we are in for an interesting time.

And yes, dear liberals, polls of MSM have revealed reporters and editors to be overwhelming liberal and to vote overwhelmingly for liberal Democratics (as Obama pointed out himself "humorously" - "And you all voted for me."). They are every bit as unbiased and objective as the liberals commenters here.

Why can Republicans still win and why to pollsters generally find a wide devergence between the views of reporters and the public?
The fact that Republicans still manage to win a large minority of the time is attributable to the relative number of conservatives to liberals in the country. The MSM bias has affected the presidency less only because the President is so visible that it is easier for Republican candidates for president to be heard. In addition, the American public is somewhat adept in reading between the lines and knows to apply a mendacity discount to reports in the press.

Still, I say again that a level playing field in the MSM would reduce liberals to bit players.

By the way, I saw a surprising admission on Nate Silver's site the other day: Democrats overperform considering being out of step with those they represent because at election time they talk moderate/conservative and deny being liberal. Conservatives, they said, are more "honest" about their views, thereby ceding a portion of the middle to Democrats.

____________________

Phillip Roth:

Yeah I'm very suspicious of Pennsylvania and Republicans winning there....Critz wins the special election, Santorum loses big, Obama wins in '08, Kerry in '04, Gore in '00...it's a Democratic state. If Toomey indeed pulls this out, Republicans will have a fairly big night. If he doesn't I believe the GOP will pick up only 4 senate seats.

____________________

dpearl:

"What will hurt is if we cannot grow jobs. This mornings job report has to be viewed as a dissapointment. If it continues, and i hope it doesn't, November can even be worse than expected for the Dems."

Reports in the press certainly made it sound disappointing,

The weak news in the jobs report was the number of new private sector jobs increasing by only 41,000.

But the good news not reported much is the decrease of 343000 in the number of people working part time for economic reasons. That includes people who found a new full time job when they had a part time job and people who worked for companies that had cut their hours but now increased them back to full time.


____________________

iVote:

@hoosier_gary

Wow, you're not very bright, are you? You've proven that time and time again on this site.

1) Only in your twisted mind does the health care numbers reflect how Americans view the president's intellenge. "60 percent of the country says Obama is an idiot..."

Not even close, buddy. To the contrary:

"Please tell me whether you agree or disagree that Barack Obama has the personality and leadership qualities a President should have."

Yes/No: 65/35

(CNN/Opinion Research May 21-23 2010)

2) I have no clue where your wall of numbers is coming from, but obviously you don't realize that I'm talking about the healthcare numbers in Pennsylvania. After all, that is the state this senate poll is for.

per Rasmussen-

Favor/Oppose Repeal of HCR

May 22: 61/35
June 2: 56/38

That's an 8 point swing. What the hell am I lying about?

____________________

Paleo:

"Laws were broken. Felonies were comitted. Someone has to be punished."

Prosecutor, judge and jury, I see? You obviously no nothing about the law. And distinguishing between the law and politics. But keep making it up as you go along.

____________________

Paleo:

"Laws were broken. Felonies were comitted. Someone has to be punished."

Prosecutor, judge and jury, I see? You obviously know nothing about the law. And distinguishing between illegality and politics. But keep making it up as you go along.

____________________

Paleo:

There has been job growth in 6 out of the last 7 months. The stimulus has been responsible, directly or indirectly, for the addition of up to 2.8 million jobs. A job is a job whether public or private. Things are still not great, but they're headed in the right direction.

____________________

melvin:

Rasmussen poll is full of sh--t.Foxnews is working with this asshole.Its time the Democrats come out in attack this creep.its obvious this guy is only polling the far-right in center right people.

____________________

Xenobion:

High undecideds make it an outlier. Rasmussen has been polling this race for months, the fact they got so many undecideds compared to their other polls just shows a bad sample of people who have been under a rock for some time. They're probably all from Scranton lol.

____________________

RW:

can someone please get rid of this guy...?

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Seg,

Do you ever deal with anyone in your real life that is even a little bit liberal? Because it seems to me that if you did, you would have to hold back the impulse to hit them in the face, your contempt is so deep.

This MSM bias stuff is such b.s. It was originally John Birch Society nonsense and then Nixon used to complain about it. His aids later admitted they made it all up to deflect criticism, and Nixon was paranoid about enemies. Somehow the notion is now mainstream.

Study after study shows that the effect of MSM bias is minimal to non-existent (particularly in newspapers, TV news does have somewhat more noticeable bias, but it is usually a herd effect toward who they think will be the winner - you see this in TV sports coverage as well) Usually they show that the people who claim bias do so because they find no validation of their own bias. There was a good study that demonstrated this effect by testing reaction to network coverage of the 1982 Lebanon crisis.

It's well known journalists lean liberal. So what? Small business owners lean conservative. Is there something wrong with the coffee that I buy in the morning because the guy who owns the shop is a hardcore republican?

No one is influenced by the MSM that doesn't want to be influenced. For one, the demos that consume the most broadcast news were Obama's weakest demos. The ones that consume the least were Obama's strongest ones. Young people and minorities don't watch much network or cable news, nor do they read newspapers at the rate older white people do. Kind of throws off your theory.

____________________

RW:

melvin I mean...

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Seg,

Do you ever deal with anyone in your real life that is even a little bit liberal? Because I get the feeling that if you do, you would have to hold back the impulse to hit them in the face, your contempt is so deep.

This MSM bias stuff is such b.s. It was originally John Birch Society nonsense and then Nixon used to complain about it. His aids later admitted they made it all up to deflect criticism, and Nixon was paranoid about enemies. Somehow the notion is now mainstream. It's even more hilarious in that Nixon wasn't much of a conservative.

Study after study shows that the effect of MSM bias is minimal to non-existent (particularly in newspapers, TV news does have somewhat more noticeable bias, but it is usually a herd effect toward who they think will be the winner - you see this in TV sports coverage as well) Usually they show that the people who claim bias do so because they find no validation of their own bias. There was a good study that demonstrated this effect by testing reaction to network coverage of the 1982 Lebanon crisis.

It's well known journalists lean liberal. So what? Small business owners lean conservative. Is there something wrong with the coffee that I buy in the morning because the guy who owns the shop is a hardcore republican?

No one is influenced by the MSM that doesn't want to be influenced. For one, the demos that consume the most broadcast news were Obama's weakest demos. The ones that consume the least were Obama's strongest ones. Young people and minorities don't watch much network or cable news, nor do they read newspapers at the rate older white people do. Kind of throws off your theory.

____________________

Paleo:

I can't believe the righties are still pounding on the "liberal news media." They have a monopoly on talk radio. They have a cable news station, Faux, that is an adjunct of the Republican party. They have people like Murdoch, who own papers and local TV stations in key cities in the country. They have Clear Channel and Sinclair. Yet they still waive around that old chestnut, the liberal media.

And this stuff about reporters and editors, does not take into account publishers and owners, who ultimately call the shots. The truth is that, to a righty, any media that doesn't adopt their line is biased.

____________________

melvin:

Newsmax is buying Newsweek.Comcast is going to get rid of all liberals on the network.What the hell is going on.why is the far-right media is trying to take over all the media?its time to bring back the fairness doctrine ASAP.

____________________

williame123:

@Fred

"People here in PA don't like Obama"

...and yet he won it by double digits despite an intense effort there by McCain and Caribou Barbie. Elections are not abstract. They are about choices.

____________________

seg:

"Swallowing camels and straining at gnats."

Such quibbling. Any trivial swing that favors Democrats is pounced upon and paraded about like the old-time bloody sheet after the wedding night. The fact that you know it is pig's blood is conveniently forgotten.

Even relatively large unhappy developments are scoffed at as the product of bias or the stupidity of the electorate. Better yet, they indicate that Obama is ACTUALLY doing well because he has so much adversity that depresses his numbers. We should add 10 pts to account for that!

The vote in November will be what it will be. In the great majority of cases, Republicans have come back from huge deficients; democrats have rarely needed to. That makes this one especially interesting. Is it regression to the mean, or is it the result of events?

It is my belief that the Democrats' super-majority is the problem. It is extremely unlikely that they will retain it in November. Historically, Republicans have dominated when the split is nearly even in either direction. True, they don't have many Southern Democrats to help them these days, but they will not need them.

So, Democrats will lose their nominal free hand and both sides will have to compromise. If Republicans clear the Democrat's clock, the newly elected will be acutely conscious that the wind will not be at their back 2 years later. Hopefully, that means at least some Republicans and Democrats will see the point in careful legislation that actually helps the country and the monstrosities we have seen lately will not be seen again for awhile.

Who knows, maybe they will get together and massively reform medical reform and prevent the looming disaster it represents. I can dream, can't I?

____________________

Field Marshal:

I can't believe the righties are still pounding on the "liberal news media." They have a monopoly on talk radio. They have a cable news station, Faux, that is an adjunct of the Republican party. They have people like Murdoch, who own papers and local TV stations in key cities in the country. They have Clear Channel and Sinclair. Yet they still waive around that old chestnut, the liberal media.

LOL. Wow... just wow. 15- 1 is the liberal to conservative ratio of mainstream media journalists. Yeah, no bias there. Maybe in fantasyland.

There has been job growth in 6 out of the last 7 months. The stimulus has been responsible, directly or indirectly, for the addition of up to 2.8 million jobs. A job is a job whether public or private. Things are still not great, but they're headed in the right direction.

And if you believe that, i have some VALUABLE Enron stock i'd like to sell you.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Of course having your name as one of top stories in the news, associated with a corruption scandal, day after day hurts.

Like my grandpa used to say "don't ever get robbed, kid. Cuz people will say - there goes that kid that got robbed.. or he robbed somebody.. or something like that"

Sestak may not have done anything illegal or unethical, but being on Fox all day long ain't helping. Lots of people in PA watch Fox.

____________________

HookedOnPolls:

"A job is a job whether public or private."

Not really since it takes private jobs that are taxed to pay for public ones.

DUH!!!

Or do you really want to go into deeper debt?

____________________

Stillow:

FM - That's right. The jobs report is horrible. 40,000 private sector jobs...the census driving everything right now...and some of those jobs are being counted two or three times. Bad news. Markets are reacting.

The debt is dragging us down. I assume they plan on borrowing the money to pay for all these g'ment jobs.

Not good, not good at all with the report today. In fact, it scares the hell out of me moving forward.

____________________

williame123:

@Field Marshal

"And if you believe that, i have some VALUABLE Enron stock i'd like to sell you."

Let me guess, $20 from the pocket of an Army General or a CIA agent doesn't have the same purchasing power as $20 from the pocket of a Deli cashier. LOL.

I guess that is why Republican Congressman and Senators berate themselves every morning for not having "real jobs." Hahaha.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Looks like Comcast is making the right move tossing Jeff Zucker. Word is that MSNBC will no longer be the propaganda arm of the Democratic party and Obama. Good riddance!

____________________

Paleo:

""A job is a job whether public or private."

Not really since it takes private jobs that are taxed to pay for public ones.

DUH!!!"

It does not "take private jobs." You have no idea what you're talking about.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Let me guess, $20 from the pocket of an Army General or a CIA agent doesn't have the same purchasing power as $20 from the pocket of a Deli cashier. LOL.

William, this is basic economics. You cannot create public wealth out of thin air. The $20 from the CIA agent or govt employee comes from taxpayers, it isn't created. The $20 from the cashier was earned through private enterprise.

This is why Democrats shouldn't be in charge of our economy. They think government can create jobs and personal wealth. Let me clue you in on this, they can't.

____________________

Stillow:

williame123 - You have to have money from taxes which come from private sector jobs to pay for public sector jobs. While public employees pay taxes, they don't pay anywhere near what their salary is. So in a report liek today where 95 percent of the jobs are being created by g'ment....that just inflates our problems right now. G'ment is growing and going more into debt doing this.

And we hav enot even had the big tax increases coming next year hit yet. Obama's spending is killing us and you libs cheer it.

Remember liberals, it takes private jobs to pay for public jobs....

____________________

Paleo:

"The debt is dragging us down. I assume they plan on borrowing the money to pay for all these g'ment jobs."

Yes, with unemployment near 10%, let's worry about the budget deficit, Herbert Hoover. And you didn't hear these right-wingers whining about the deficit when Reagan and W. exploded it.

____________________

MikeyA:

Did we suddenly expand our military and CIA by 400,000 jobs?

That's what I'm taking from Willame123's post and since I work in the federal gov't I can tell you the jobs that have been "saved" on the gov't side is more giving raises to burearucrats who do very little and whine that they're not compensated enough.

____________________

Paleo:

"And we hav enot even had the big tax increases coming next year hit yet. Obama's spending is killing us and you libs cheer it.

Remember liberals, it takes private jobs to pay for public jobs...."

Uh . . . duh. And when the private sector is not creating those jobs?

Obama's spending is what took the economy out of the ditch the Republicans drove it into.

"Analysts said that the figures for May showed how important government spending has been in supporting the domestic economy.

“Without the government, the total number of payrolls would have barely increased by enough to cover population growth,” said Guy LeBas, the chief fixed-income strategist for Janney Montgomery Scott, in a research note.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/business/economy/05jobs.html?hp

As for the tax increases, the legislation that will be passed will increase it for the wealthy, as the top tax rates when Clinton took office go back into effect.

____________________

HookedOnPolls:

Paleo's solution to eliminating unemployment: Give everyone a government job.

____________________

Stillow:

Paleo - Typical liberal. Who ares about the deficits or the impact they have o nthe economy. Sheeeesh. Hell, lets just lobby Obama to send a check to everyone for a million bucks...lets just stack on to the debt.

We are headed for big trouble, probably a double dip and its being driven by g'ment debt. Liberals do not seem to understand the connection between deficits and the general economy.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Stillow,

Exactly right. And when Bush was implementing Keynesian spending with big deficits, the libies had all their panties in a wad complaining about it.

Now that Obama has done what Bush did to the third power, they are okay with it. How do you spell HYPROCRISY?

____________________

Paleo:

"Typical liberal. Who ares about the deficits or the impact they have o nthe economy. Sheeeesh. Hell, lets just lobby Obama to send a check to everyone for a million bucks...lets just stack on to the debt.

We are headed for big trouble, probably a double dip and its being driven by g'ment debt. Liberals do not seem to understand the connection between deficits and the general economy."

How ironic from the party that gave us the deficits of the 1980s and 2000s.

Progressives do understand the connection. Let me make it real simple for you. When the economy is bad, running a deficit stimulates the economy by picking up the slack the private sector is not delivering. Jobs created by that stimulus have a multiplier effect on the whole economy.


____________________

Field Marshal:

How ironic from the party that gave us the deficits of the 1980s and 2000s.

There is a difference between deficits with no GDP growth and deficits when there is substantial growth like during the time periods you suggest.

A better barometer is the GDP/Federal Debt ratio which was stable during those periods.

____________________

Paleo:

"Bush was implementing Keynesian spending with big deficits, the libies had all their panties in a wad complaining about it."

Ugh. Tax cuts is not "Keynesian spending." And the economy was not in the shape it was then as it was at the end of his administration. Anyway, I don't get all out joint about deficits the way some on the right and the left do.

____________________

Stillow:

Paleo - Ya they do have a multiplier affect. they make things that much worse. We'r enot paying for these g'ment jobs. Obama has already given us by far the biggest deficit in history. His stimulus was a monster failure. He's increasing spending everywhere...he is about to let a huge tax increase go into affect next year. Everything he is doing is anti business and anti growth.

He's putting more and more future burden on the private economy and the private economy knows it. at some point, this bill has to be paid...and the weatlh to pay it will have to come fro mthe private sector. Its creating a stalling effect on the economy.

Obama's pro debt policies and anti business policies are killing us.

With all the money he has spent, with all the debt he has added in order to "help" the economy, its done nothing, but add to the burden of the private sector. If g'ment wants to stimulate, then reduce the tax burden on business to free up private capital to be spent on investment and hiring.

Obama is taking us right into the crosshairs of a double dip...and its being fueled by a debt bubble that is going to burst.

With his anti private sector policies and with the new taxes coming, a perfect storm is brewing for disaster.

____________________

Paleo:

Look, you folks were saying the stimulus failed before it was even passed. You reached a partisan conclusion and no facts, such as these, will change your mind:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/cbo-stimulus-put-up-to-34m-to-work-in-first-quarter.php

So, there's no point in continuing the discussion.

P.S. When he took over, the patient was near death because of your policies. Rather than "killing" it, he saved the patient and led it to recovery. If he starts worrying about the deficit now, the patient may fall back into a coma because it has not fully healed.

____________________

seg:

Aaron_in_TX
"Do you ever deal with anyone in your real life that is even a little bit liberal? Because I get the feeling that if you do, you would have to hold back the impulse to hit them in the face, your contempt is so deep."

Response: In fact, I deal with quite a few liberals almost every day. I get along with them just fine. My experience in life is that liberals are often mushier thinkers but are no more likely to be jerks than conservatives. I much prefer to argue with liberals about politics because there is no argument without a difference in opinion, and I have little use for hair-splitting.

I can think of only a few people I have known personally that I feel anything like contempt for (e.g., wife-beating, child abuse, abusive lying). I have no idea what their politics were and didn't care.

I don't even despise politicians. In fact, I probably have more respect for politicians as a group than you do. It is a difficult job that the media makes almost impossible. The need to solicit campaign contributions and campaign workers makes it almost impossible to avoid at least the appearance of corruption. Finally, we are all subject to temptation, and politicians (and sports heroes) face far more temptation than many of us can handle. I would not like to be tested the same way.

In my liberal days I had contempt for Jesse Helms, but I gradually discovered that as an individual he was apparently a very nice man. (I lived not too far from him).

These days, it does not surprise me at all that a politican I disagree with can be a very caring and well-meaning individual. I don't have to dislike you to disagree vehemently with your policies and disagreeing with your politics does not make me despise you.

I am impatient with structurally flawed arguments and with lazy adsorption of opinion. I think it is sad if you read only what you agree with. I read Huffington Post, DailyKOS, Daily Beast, Klatchy, Mead, Silver, Politico, RCP, Cato, Steve Sailer, New Geography, Comment, National Review, Wall Street Journal, and NYT almost every day. I read a wide variety of books on history, economics, and political science. In none do I avoid those I disagree with.

"This MSM bias stuff is such b.s. It was originally John Birch Society nonsense and then Nixon used to complain about it...."

Response: I very much disagree. Your historical analysis is inadequate, to say the least, but that is a discussion for another time.

I have been both liberal and conservative and still some of each on many issues. For example, I would gladly ban cigarettes and handguns, and in my libertarian muse I support prison reform and abolishing the prohibition of currently illegal drugs (I am a teetotaler but I recognize catastrophic failure when I see it).

Please take any random NPR report on politics, change "Republican" or "conservative" to Democrat or liberal, then report back to us. I would be interested in an honest assessment of how it felt to you.

"It's even more hilarious in that Nixon wasn't much of a conservative."

Response: almost any conservative will tell you that. Nixon created OSHA and EPA (they were not forced upon him), instituted wage and price controls, and had insufficient regard for our institutions. Sounds like a liberal to me.

"Study after study shows that the effect of MSM bias is minimal to non-existent (particularly in newspapers, TV news does have somewhat more noticeable bias, but it is usually a herd effect toward who they think will be the winner"

Response: The studies you are thinking of were probably among the many done by MSM and journalism schools of themselves or their products. The pronounced themselves unbiased. Gosh!

However, several different research studies have surveyed journalists on their stands on baskets of issues and who they have voted for. The baskets of issues sometimes were the same ones used to assess the prevalence of consevatives and liberals in the voting population. All have found that over 85% of journalists in large newspapers and in the network media are strongly liberal.

Winners: I guess you believe that MSM was just backing winners when they were REALLY slow to report on the fleecing of the Boys and Girls Club to finance Air America and were really slow to report on Edward's lies (both were on conservative blogs for MONTHS before they were reluctantly repeated on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN).

Gosh, why don't I remember the MSM jumping on the bandwagon for BushI against Dukakis (and his mythical "MA miracle") or Reagan against Mondale? Both beat their Democratic opponents much worse than Obama beat McCain. It must be MY partisan perceptions. Come to think of it, I supported Mondale against Reagan (I cringe now remembering that), and I appreciated the help for Mondale at the time, little good that it did him. Many of those that campaigned with me for McGovern expressed their gratitude to "Uncle Walter" for doing "all that he could do for us."

And I suppose I dreamed that Cronkite revealed in his memoirs that he had always cheered for the liberal democrat in every single election as a broadcaster.

Okay, is there any harm in this bias, you ask?
Yes: (1)The public distrusts the press, and rightly so; (2) MSM is withering in front of our eyes, and distrust is part of the reason; (3) the public does not receive all of the information it needs to make the best decisions; and (4) much needed debate is debased by unanswered memes hammered on by the MSM.

The greatest problem with a biased MSM is not the spin they put on the news; it is the news that is omitted or downplayed because it hurts liberal democrats. I do not want conservatives to get coddled the same way. I want the light shining on them all.

I DO NOT want a Republican press or a liberal press or a homogenized mix of the two. I want healthy debate and the free flow of information. Therefore, I want a diverse press and network news. I don't care if there is a MSNBC if there is a Fox and a bunch of diverse others. What I don't like is Fox versus CNN, ABC, NBC, NBC, etc.

I DO NOT want to see liberal views wiped out, defeated forever, or even temporarily. I want to see conservatives, liberals, libertarians, communists, socialists, etc. all arguing and letting the public decide who to back.

I have enormous faith is the wisdom of the American people. Even when I have disagreed with their choices, I have seen that it was at worst a necessary mistake that teaches us things we need to know. I think Obama is such a mistake and that the public is learning a great deal.

____________________

Paleo:

"All have found that over 85% of journalists in large newspapers and in the network media are strongly liberal."

And what are the views of the publishers and owners who have the final say? Right. You won't hear the righties dealing with that.

"Looks like Comcast is making the right move tossing Jeff Zucker. Word is that MSNBC will no longer be the propaganda arm of the Democratic party and Obama."

Comcast, owned by right-winger Ed Snider. MSNBC, owned by GE, which gave us Ronald Reagan. Who says irony is dead?

____________________

StatyPolly:

Decent for a public school kid, Seg.

But I think I just saw that horse move. So..

Aaron, you really marginalize yourself as a debater here with your MSM views. Conservatives believe in liberal MSM "MYTH".

Aaron, you ever watch FOX News Channel on tv? It's a myth that they're conservative. I find them straight down the middle centrists. Most major media outlets sound liberal to my and every conservative ear, the same way FSN sounds conservative to you.

Why did the nation elected 5 GOP prez's in last 8 tries? Cons outnumber Libs 2 to 1. That means GOP prez should have been elected 8 times in last 8 tries.

Same goes for your assertion about mist news consumers being older, yet favoring conservative politics. Yeah, they may vote 60% conservative, but it could have been 80% if MSM was balanced.

Another point that Seg already mentioned in an earlier thread, is that it's not just the news media that sets the tone. Ever heard of Hollywood? Seen "Avatar"? Watch MTV? Even commercials. Listen to top 40 music? Yeah, the news consumers are older, but what about the rest of it? It is all MSM. It is very liberal and it permeates throughout culture. Young minds are indoctrinated daily and hourly. I have two teenage kids and I know how and where they get their views of the world. Forget news.

How is this for an example?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcLEfMhTkHs&feature=player_embedded

____________________

Paleo:

"you ever watch FOX News Channel on tv? It's a myth that they're conservative. I find them straight down the middle centrists."

ROTFL!


"Why did the nation elected 5 GOP prez's in last 8 tries? Cons outnumber Libs 2 to 1. That means GOP prez should have been elected 8 times in last 8 tries."

Maybe because there are people who are called moderates? And, since Gore won the popular vote, it's 4 out of 8.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Rasmussen is back to tweaking their likely voter models. We'll see if the registered voter polls move as much. If they don't, then we can put the issue to rest because it will have been proven that RASMUSSEN is CRAP, and TURNING NEWS CYCLES FOR THE REPUBLICANS.

____________________

tjampel:

According to Ras only 38% of stories about Obama were positive last week. That's Ras' analysis, not someone on the left, who'd tell you that maybe 25% were really positive.

If the MSM is really center-left or left you'd expect a far higher percentage of stories to be favorable to the President. Center left people overwhelmingly like the President and support him.

Most of what I see coming from the MSN, from my perspective, is center to center-right, and moving rightwards. The NY Times is far more likely to go after liberal Dems these days than 30 years ago, when it was going after Nixon every day. CNN doesn't have an overall liberal bias that I can see. It tries to have no bias and that results in boring journalism, frankly...it's lame and losing money because of that. Politico seems to have more stories critical of Obama and Dems than of Repubs. I've been keeping tabs on them for the past week just to see, and it bears this out. WaPo has moved right in the past 10 years, even if they have a few liberals still blogging and writing for them (like Ezra Klein).

MSNBC has a clear left bias. Fox, a rightward tilt. Of the two MSNBC is the more trustworthy, in terms of its presentation of both news and commentary because, generally, it backs its stories up better than Fox. On Fox personalities basically entertain rather than dig into news stories.

Rachel Maddow does do research and much of it is unimpeachable; her show exposes lies and spin and hypocrisy, and also spends hours exploring stories that other media ignore. It recently went to Louisiana and spent almost the entire show out on the bayous with fishermen and local forest rangers discussion the ecosystems there and the impact of the spill....it just happens to go after Republicans and not Dems, generally. Even there many personalities on MSNBC have gone after Obama for a whole host of things, including his handling of the spill, his failure to push a public option for HCR, etc.

Olberman is...Olberman; he drives me crazy sometimes and does tend to go off on rants like the worst of the Conservatives. Those can be embarrassing. His show is still far more fact-based than ...say...Beck, who's a complete moron, conspiracy theorist, and crazy who's treatment of facts is: "I don't need no stinkin facts". Take yesterday when Beck said no other network showed footage of the Israeli langing on the flotilla; in fact, all the other networks showed this clip. He just lied.

Fox also mis-states party affiliations of politicians in trouble (R gets changed to Dem), promotes protests, lies about coverage, a la Beck (we were the only ones to cover the tea party protests...etc), has serious news reporters joking about bumping off Obama, etc., cuts away from live events which don't further its agenda, etc. MSNBC doesn't do these things, no matter how biased its commentators and hosts are.

Sheppard Scott is an exception on Fox.

____________________

Field Marshal:

And, since Gore won the popular vote, it's 4 out of 8.

Paleo, surely you know we do not elect presidents on popular vote. I think people learn that in third grade.

____________________

seg:

StatyPoly:
Thank you for noticing my post.

Aaron:
Commenting here is more and more looking like a complete waste of time because it does not seem to lead to the in-depth exchanges I would like to see.

If I am hurting liberals feelings here, I will hold back on the sarcasm if it will encourage those kind of exchanges. I had thought I avoided name calling and personal attacks better than most, but I will plead guilty to snark.

On the other hand, I think ideas are powerful things and that there are visions that lead to dystopia. If you are promoting a vision, you should be able to defend it on its merits and on its advantages over the status quo. However, it is not only the right but the duty and pleasure for others to carp about every flaw and raise every plausible reason to put on the brakes or undo the changes you have accomplished. That is the heart and soul of democratic politics.

It is said the every child wants to be an only child in some dark corner of their hearts. I am not sure that is true, but it is true that most of us do not want to be challenged and would prefer to silence their critics than answer them. That natural tendency is a grave threat to society when those in power give in to temptation to misuse the power of the state.

Somehow liberalism has morphed from concern about liberty (freedom from excessive power of the state over individuals) to an almost religious faith in the power and benevolence of government.

I have to question what these liberals really want. Is it "social justice"? The Jim Crow laws were LAWS and were the product of the Progressive movement (as was Prohibition - there is an excellent new book out on that). A progressive president, Woodrow Wilson, an explicit and nearly rabid racist, was a staunch proponent of these laws and was a vigorous supporter of the progressives' eugenics movement, which had the explicit goal of improving the white race by reducing the number of blacks and making miscengation more difficult (hence the Jim Crow laws).

My goal is not to rehash well-known historical events but to ask you to think: why are you certain that no progressive president in the future will be similar to Wilson? For that matter, what if a conservative racist government wins a super majority some day?

Will you do as liberals did on civil liberties and war and go silent if the racist is a democrat? Will it matter what you say if it is a conservative government? You have seen that anti-Mexican immigration plays very well in national polls. Are you sure no government will come to power on that basis? Will it be too late to oppose federal power then?

Are you so naive that you think that whites will shortly go out of power and a liberal utopia will follow? Racial conflict increases with mixing and the size of the "minority" population. Mexico is completely dominated by the 10% who are white. Brazil and Puerto Rico are dominated by whites. In most black African countries, one tribe dominates all other tribes. The rioters in France were typically black or dark-skinned Arabs who are segregated in suburban ghettos surrounding lily white cities.

Do you think Americans are superior to the peoples of those countries and would not succumb to those conflicts (again)? Do you really and truly believe that only white southerners are or will become racists?

Again, what if racists capture government in the future, as they have before? What if they are not the conservatives you falsely accuse but the real thing? What could they NOT do with the powers of an intrusive government in their hands?

In the long run, wouldn't blacks and Mexicans be better off in a country with a limited federal government that has less power to intrude, order, or destroy their lives?

Please think through this and respond with more than rants and platitudes. Then perhaps we can move on to another cherished and possibly illusory benefit to a powerful government.

____________________

tjampel:

According to Ras only 38% of stories about Obama were positive last week. That's Ras' analysis, not someone on the left, who'd tell you that maybe 25% were really positive.

If the MSM is really center-left or left you'd expect fawning coverage of the President, as Center left people overwhelmingly like and support him.

Most of what I see coming from the MSN, from my perspective, is center and moving rightwards. The NY Times is far more likely to go after liberal Dems these days than 30 years ago, when it was going after Nixon every day. CNN doesn't have an overall liberal bias, any more, that I can see. It tries to have no bias and that results in boring journalism, frankly...it's lame and losing money because of that. Politico seems to have more stories critical of Obama and Dems than of Repubs. I've been keeping tabs on them for the past week just to see, and it bears this out. WaPo has moved right in the past 10 years, even if they have a few liberals still blogging and writing for them (like Ezra Klein).

MSNBC has a clear left bias. Fox, a rightward tilt. Of the two MSNBC is the more trustworthy, in terms of its presentation of both news and commentary because, generally, it backs its stories up better than Fox. On Fox personalities basically entertain rather than dig into news stories.

Rachel Maddow does do research and much of it is unimpeachable; her show exposes lies and spin and hypocrisy, and also spends hours exploring stories that other media ignore. It recently went to Louisiana and spent almost the entire show out on the bayous with fishermen and local forest rangers discussion the ecosystems there and the impact of the spill....it just happens to go after Republicans and not Dems, generally. Even there many personalities on MSNBC have gone after Obama for a whole host of things, including his handling of the spill, his failure to push a public option for HCR, etc.

Olberman is...Olberman; he drives me crazy sometimes and does tend to go off on rants like the worst of the Conservatives. Those can be embarrassing. His show is still far more fact-based than ...say...Beck, who's a complete moron, conspiracy theorist, and loon who's treatment of facts is: "We don't need no stinkin facts". Take yesterday when Beck said no other network showed footage of the Israeli langing on the flotilla; in fact, all the other networks showed this clip. He just lied.

Fox also mis-states party affiliations of politicians in trouble (R gets changed to Dem), promotes protests, lies about coverage, a la Beck (we were the only ones to cover the tea party protests...etc), has serious news reporters joking about bumping off Obama, etc., cuts away from live events which don't further its agenda, etc. MSNBC doesn't do these things, no matter how biased its commentators and hosts are.

Sheppard Scott is an exception on Fox.

Talk radio is wayyyy right.

Smaller newspapers are mainly right

There are conservative dailies in many major markets.

It's a matter of perspective. What I consider to be center, you will consider to be left. What you consider to be center may look like fire-breathing tea-party wing-nutia to me. We can discuss issues, It's far harder to agree on ground conditions like these. I say that's blue; you say it's green. No way to reconcile.

____________________

Paleo:

"And, since Gore won the popular vote, it's 4 out of 8.

Paleo, surely you know we do not elect presidents on popular vote. I think people learn that in third grade."

The poster was making the point regarding how conservatives outnumber liberals in the general electorate. When they do those polls, they don't do them by state. They do them by the country as a whole. That's why I referred to the number of the general electorate of 2000.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Therefore, I want a diverse press and network news. I don't care if there is a MSNBC if there is a Fox and a bunch of diverse others. What I don't like is Fox versus CNN, ABC, NBC, NBC, etc."

It is not diverse. You have a right wing network and a center-left collection of networks.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

@ seg

re: your 3:12 post

Before I respond, could you clarify what post of mine that post was in response to? A lot of what you're talking about is race and I didn't mention race in this thread.

I would disagree with your characterization of the progressive movement. That is a complex subject. TR was also a progressive and his racial views were less racist than Wilson's. Wilson was a southerner, most progressives were not. That distinction is crucial and influenced his beliefs.

____________________

djneedle83:

Sestak is only down 7 under the Teabagger turnout model. I like the aggregate of these results in comparison to the likely turnout model.

This race will be won in Philly and the suburbs. You can expect Obama to visit this area multiple times from October through November. Sestak should be able to win by 4%-7% once the dust settles on both the candidates.

____________________

seg:

Aaron:
Minor point: Wilson was re-elected with the enthusiastic support of Democrats.

Major point: I am asking you to do a thought experiment. Simply imagine a truly loathsome party achieving a super-majority some day (please don't make the inane evasion of claiming that Bush already did that). Imagine that they have a secret or a loudly proclaimed racist agenda. Imagine that they have all of the power of Obama's federal government at their disposal.

They would also have the benefit of the left's victories in building a machinery for racial discrimination (while calling it something else) and having color blindness re-labeled as "racism."

Would you suddenly find yourself arguing for state's rights and limited powers of government? Would you rue the days that you supported government takeovers of much of the economy? Or would you go silent the way liberals have as Obama retains the worst of Bush on civil liberties and wages war in an even worse way (drone attacks)?

I hope you would re-read deToqueville and the Constitution and start a classical liberal group. I hope you would have the humility to name it the "Tea-baggers." Liberals certainly would owe penance to today's Tea Partiers.

If you think all of this is simply a conservative paranoid fantasy, you cannot have read much history. If nothing else, ask a Russian Jew about those fantastic Kossacks. Or do you think Americans are so morally superior that nothing like that could happen here? If so, ask an old Southern black about those fantastic "Jim Crow" laws.

But wait, only white Southerners can be racists, so there is nothing to worry about.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Minor point: Wilson was re-elected with the enthusiastic support of Democrats."

Yes, and 1916 was one of the closest elections ever electorally. Wilson was one of two lucky democrats to win in a republican era where they won 12/16 elections. He had the democratic base, plus the benefit of TR splitting the republican vote 1912. He was progressive enough to get some of the TR supporters to vote for him in 1916. CA and NH were decided by less than 1%; they would have swung the election to Hughes.

As for your thought experiment... you're asking me to accept some premises I don't agree with to even start.

"the left's victories in building a machinery for racial discrimination (while calling it something else) and having color blindness re-labeled as "racism.""

This is quite a bit to unpack. The premise here is that democrats purposefully divide people by race. I don't think the racial distribution of the vote is due to any democratic party efforts. I think the people themselves gauge who they feel is on their side and democrats are the beneficiary of that. They just get out the vote, they didn't manipulate it or shape opinion. You said you worked on campaigns. So have I...you can't change people's minds, you can only motivate supporters.

"would you go silent the way liberals have as Obama retains the worst of Bush on civil liberties and wages war in an even worse way (drone attacks)?"

I agree there is some tacit acceptance by both sides when "their guy" wins. OK, well, where were the tea partiers during the Bush years? And where will the tea partiers be if Romney, Daniels, Thune, Gingrich, Palin, Pawlenty or whoever gets elected in 2012 or 2016 after Obama? I think the tea parties will decline markedly if republicans take either house of congress and disappear if republicans regain the presidency. Similar to how anti-war protests declined after 2006 and essentially disappeared after 2008. Obama even got a peace prize amidst an escalation of Afghanistan and civilian deaths due to drone attacks. I didn't agree with that, but understood the real reason for it was to give a middle finger to Bush.

"Liberals certainly would owe penance to today's Tea Partiers."

Tea partiers owe penance to the Young Americans for Freedom.

"I hope you would re-read de Toqueville"

I've read it several times. His own motivations and audience back in France needs to be kept in mind when reading it.

"If you think all of this is simply a conservative paranoid fantasy, you cannot have read much history."

I teach history at a CC, have two degrees in it and am working on a PhD; I've read quite a bit. Admittedly my area of expertise and most of my original research is about the 17th century and particularly colonial New England so I will confess to not knowing everything.

"do you think Americans are so morally superior that nothing like that could happen here?"

In general, I would never doubt man's ability to be inhumane to other men, Americans included. Although I think America has refrained from some of the worst humanitarian abuses that have occurred, it has its fair share.

I see what you're trying to get me to do, which is admit that limited government is necessary. Although I never said it wasn't.

You seem to be envisioning a dystopic future where blacks/hispanics become a majority and start doing to whites what whites did to them in the past. I find that unlikely.

____________________



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