8/7/08; 500 LV, 4.5%
Obama 49, McCain 44
(July: Obama 51, McCain 41)*
Sen: Harkin (D-i) 60, Reed (R) 36
(July: Harkin 55, Reed 37)
* Numbers now reflect those with leaners
Why is it Congress has one of the lowest approval ratings in the history of poll taking, yet incumbants on both sides get re-elected nearly everytime.....amazing. Its like you hate spinach, yet you eat it for dessert every night...........
Posted on August 11, 2008 3:55 PM
if this is in fact truly true, then you have the
reason right there for obama's getting blocked: you vote what you know. that translates to the dirty word:experience.
you have in effect made an observation that bodes well for mccain. correcto?
now that you realize you said this inadvertently, you'd better back track on that
theory and come up with something else.
maybe your data is wrong? that would certainly be a more hopeful indicator for your guy. it is obama, isn't it?
i cant keep track anymore who's who on this site except for VOICE 99 who got blocked.
btw: they haven't sock puppeted themselves to
grapevine66 or something like?
Posted on August 11, 2008 4:13 PM
I'm against Obama....not really for McCain though. But I cannot vote for Obama....he ould be horrible for this country.
Posted on August 11, 2008 4:24 PM
@Stillow You are in good company, with your Obama sentiments, my own take is that McCain is far more dangerous. It seems he wants to have another cold war, or worse!
The election will again be decided on who gets their supporters to actually vote! I think on the positives this time over the negs, can't see the Evangelicals holding up for the GOP this time.
Posted on August 11, 2008 4:31 PM
In political science classes on american politics, they say that the reasons incumbents keep getting re-elected is because of the advantages that come with the office, such as free radio and tv air time, free mailing services provided by government, and a lock on influence in campaign business donations from their respective states.So approval ratings mean next to nothing.
Posted on August 11, 2008 4:32 PM
Both parties have done a wonderful job of gerrymandering districts in ways to protect incumbents. So they get that advantage, along with fund-raising advantages, high name recognition, etc. There has to be a very pronounced "throw the bums out" mentality for people to start losing jobs. Voters will tell you they think Congress is doing poorly, but they still love all the pork and attention their own representative helps get the locals.
Just look at the percentage of House incumbents re-elected in recent history, according to FEC numbers.
2006 - 89%
2004 - 91%
2002 - 88%
I think the 2000 rate was up around 96-98%
It's just plain hard to beat an incumbent.
Posted on August 11, 2008 4:57 PM
Incumbents in office also mean power and ability to deliver the goods (often times "pork") for their state. Freshmen congressmen have very little pull.
I am sure Pollster will soon post the Presidential race poll, but here it is from http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election
Obama 46%--McCain 41% without leaners
Obama 49%--McCain 44% with leaners
Last month (July)...Obama 51%--McCain 41% with leaners. Obama's lead has been cut in half.
Posted on August 11, 2008 5:06 PM
obama's pork rating was three times higher than hillary's.
take a look at this:
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has released a list of $740 million in earmark requests he made in the past three years (more like 18 months since he's been stumping for a year), and it includes $1 million for the hospital where his wife Michelle is a vice president.
The request for $1 million for the University of Chicago Medical Center was to help pay for construction of a new pavilion.
talk about bringing home the bacon and frying it up in the pan.
Posted on August 11, 2008 5:07 PM
Clarification to pollster data above...
July Iowa poll--
Without leaners: Obama 48 McCain 38
With leaners: Obama 51 McCain 41
August Iowa poll--
Without leaners: Obama 46 McCain 41
With leaners: Obama 49 McCain 44
Posted on August 11, 2008 5:16 PM
Do you get the faxes directly from the RNC, or do you just regurgitate this stuff as it is read to you by Fox? Here's the write-up on that earmark, and all of Obama's earmarks are listed on his site for all to see:
Obama Requested $1 Million For Construction Of A New Hospital Pavilion At The University Of Chicago. In 2006, Obama requested that the University of Chicago receive $1 million to support its Construction of New Hospital Pavilion. For more than 75 years, the University of Chicago Hospitals (UCH) has provided state of the art medical care on the South Side of Chicago. UCH is one of the largest Medicaid providers in Illinois, and it provided more than $90 million in uncompensated care for Medicare and Medicaid patients this past year. To continue providing the best care for patients from all walks of life, UCH is proceeding with the construction of a new 600,000 square foot facility that will ensure their ability to provide the best care for patients well into the future. Funding will go towards assisting the construction and equipping a new hospital pavilion that will increase the Hospitals' clinical capacity by over one-third. [Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, 4/7/06]
Posted on August 11, 2008 5:17 PM
Bottom line McCain does not do earmarks. Obama does.
The Hospital that got Obama's earmark promoted Michelle and doubled her salary to >$300K.
This info is not RNC talking points or Fox News.. it is public info.
Posted on August 11, 2008 5:25 PM
Keep in mind there is a psychological principle at work regarding Congress' poor ratings and the ease with which incumbents are re-elected: People might not like Congress but they tend to like their Congressman.
I've seen the same thing with many consumer studies: people tend to like the person handling their account at a company much better than the company itself.
Posted on August 11, 2008 5:31 PM
It would be difficult for me to vote for either McCain or Obama. I actually like Hillary better than both of them. I think that she has enough guts and common sense to do well. However, she isn't running,Obama and McCain are. Obama's base is a big turn off for me. These people think that they are Europeans or something.Most have no conservatism at all. I don't like the thoughts of the leadership of this country being in their hands. I really don't know about McCain. We are both war veterans. I might sit this one out.
Posted on August 11, 2008 5:35 PM
Politicians handing out earmarks? When did this happen? I've never heard of this. I just can't imagine they would earmark money for speical intrests or pet projects....no no no, our politicans are are comprised of the most moral, most honest people possible.
They all waste our money....racking up a 10 trillion debt didn't just happen.....its all waste corruption and greed, both sides!
Term limits please!
Posted on August 11, 2008 5:48 PM
You do know that Clinton and Obama voted together more then 95% of the time right? Oh, and that Clinton endorsed Obama? Oh, and that she's speaking on Tuesday of the Dem Convention? Oh, and that she has spoken strongly about the need for a Democratic President.
I'm guessing you aren't really a former Clinton-ite. But nice try :) McCain points for effort!!
Funny... Clinton and McCain also voted the same on several issues including the Bush/Cheney energy Big Oil giveaway bill. They voted NO, and Obama voted YES. Maybe one needs to look closer at the actual votes.
Posted on August 11, 2008 5:57 PM
In 2007, Obama had approved $91 million in earmarks which places him in the bottom 1/4 of all senators. Clinton, Nicki's favorite, received $340 million in earmarks placing her in the top 10% of all senators. McCain is one of 5 senators that swears off earmarks entirely.
While I don't like earmarks due to their misuse, I do not take issue at one senator getting $91 million's worth in just one year.
To put this into perspective, Ted Stevens secured $200 million for just one bridge to a sparsely populated island (among many other undisclosed earmarks).
There's a difference between port-barrel spending and earmarks.
Posted on August 11, 2008 6:02 PM
I think its all wrong....that's my money they are spending.
Posted on August 11, 2008 6:19 PM
hey brambster: I DO regurgitate!!!
thx for the concern, more pepcid i guess.
obama blew past 90 million in the first 18 months. hillary had 8 years under her belt. you do the math.
obama was more than 1/4 hers. let's all do the math:
8 years into 340 million equals (approx) 42 million /year.
obama? at that rate obama would have assigned
almost double that much.
parse your heart out babe, but your guy speaketh from forked tongue.
Posted on August 11, 2008 6:28 PM
I am against earmarks because of antics like Stevens. No reason for juniors to follow suit just because that is the way it has always been done.
I can understand some states feeling deserving of earmarks, because they pay significantly more in federal taxes than they get back (New York being one of them) whereas other states get more back than paid in (Alaska among the worst offenders.) Maybe if we kept more money in the states, then there would be fewer "justifications" for wanting return on their dollar, and maybe the state projects would be more appropriate rather than special "pork" projects.
Posted on August 11, 2008 6:34 PM
@boskop & Nicki
No, those were 2007 figures only. Would you like some fries with that propaganda?
And to Nicki, Michelle Obama didn't just get a raise, she received a promotion. I'm sure you don't take issue with women receiving promotions do you? I'm sure they were careful to promote her with good cause and an appropriate salary. Michelle seems like a very bright and capable woman to me.
Posted on August 11, 2008 6:49 PM
You seriously don't have a problem with 91M in earmarks? Or earmarks in general? I am sure Woodstock was a fine event, but do we need a museum paid for by the tax payers?
Somone should doa study and total up al lthe earmarks for the last 30 years and see what the figure is.
Posted on August 11, 2008 6:56 PM
My electoral math has Obama needing to win Iowa. This poll at Obama +5 is consistent with 538 projection at Obama +6.1
Posted on August 11, 2008 7:10 PM
Earmarks are a necessary function of our federal government to fund projects that are not broadly recognized and are brought to the attention of one's federal government representative.
With that said, earmarks are clearly abused. They become either sources of pork-barrel spending where one powerful official funnels a disproportionate and unnecessary amount of money to a district or state for questionable causes, and/or are used as paybacks to influential supporters.
Historically this has been done often at the 11th hour by sneaking in provisions to completely unassociated with the earmarks. Now at least the rules require disclosure with the passing of the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007. This at least provides for some accountability even though this is largely left to the press to do, but it's better than having to dig into massive bills for what they are and then guessing about who put them there.
I do respect McCain for his stance against pork, and I wish there was even more transparency for earmarks in general, but to paint Obama as an abuser of earmarks is laughable.
Posted on August 11, 2008 7:31 PM
hmmm, well we can respectfully disagree on this one. I'd like to see them totally removed. Money sent back to the states instead...or better yet back to my pocket. But, this one is a genuine disagreement and we can leave it at that.
Posted on August 11, 2008 7:47 PM
Earmarks, even with abuse, is a tiny, tiny fraction of government spending. Tiny. All wasted money is bad of course, and earmarks should no doubt be much more limited, and made completely transparent.
As far as getting money back into your pocket, I would much rather prefer to get a $10,000 refund for my part of paying for Iraq. I would like another $10,000 plus interest reduced in my part of the nation's debt for giving a massive tax cut to people making over $1 million a year. Obama's 2007 earmarks only cost me about 75 cents.
Posted on August 11, 2008 7:57 PM
@Stillow: The better question is: why are the Bush administration and the Republicans blamed for everything (and admittedly, they do deserve a lot), when the democrats have had control of both houses for over two years now, and except for yapping, neither them nor their leader and Obama supporter Nancy Pelosi do anything.
5$ gas and everything else has to do just as much with them.
Posted on August 11, 2008 8:26 PM
That does not make sense. People who make over $1 million/year still pay more tax than middle income. It is not like they got a free pass. The "massive tax cut" reduced everybody's taxes.
And to "brambster"... I specifically stated that Michelle got a promotion AND a pay raise. The issue is that this promotion was in the same temporal zone as the "earmark" for the hospital. The timing stinks and such should always be questioned. It is called "appearance of fairness." Just like I question Elaine Chao appointment to Department of Labor because she is Mitch McConnell's wife. Or Neal Bush's company being designated as a preferred/no-bid contractor for NCLB funded programs. None of them "appear" to have gotten the work solely on their own merits but rather on who they were related to. They may all be qualified, but one can only wonder if there were more qualified people for those jobs/contracts.
Posted on August 11, 2008 8:31 PM
Yes... I had high hopes for Pelosi and the House Democrats with their initial agenda, but it looks like they soon settled into the comfort of not taking the initiative. Pelosi just last week with George Stephanpolis whined (literally) that it is useless to do anything because Bush does not want it? Hey, what? At least George pressed her on that issue, but she still had no good replies. She should have just admitted she is playing politics and promoting her new book as well as Representative Chester Hill (Texas) for VP. Chester Hill? I never heard of him until that interview. How looney is that?
Posted on August 11, 2008 8:37 PM
I don't think that you read my blog entry correctly. Clinton at least has some starch in her pants and a at least some backbone.
Posted on August 11, 2008 10:02 PM
Careful, I work for a small business owner and get compensated well, but in executive meetings he has already told many of us that staff will need to be reduced if payroll taxes go up and the cap is removed....he is one of those guysmaking over a million bucks a year and he creates a lot of jobs thru investing that money back into his business. If you start taxing heavily those people, they will have less investment capital....which translated into fewer jobs....Its been proven that when you cut taxes on everybody, you actually generate more revenue to the g'ment because employment rises, so more people are paying into the system. Start taxing the wealthy to a painful level and they will retract, which means less job producers will be investing there money. While taxing the rich sounds good on the cover, it just doesn't work, it never has.
Posted on August 12, 2008 12:48 AM
You should probably hear it direct from the horse's (surrogate's) mouth:
You must have a great boss. When times were tough with my business, I was the last person to get paid. Sounds like your boss wants to still make millions and could care less about the well being of his employees if it comes to a choice of making a small bit less himself or laying someone off. Obama won't raise payroll taxes, and an independant study of his plan shows that 80% of people would get a bigger tax break under Obama's plan than under McCain's plan, and the only people that would pay more in tax would be those making more than $250,000 per year.
If you want to spread FUD, go over to www.JohnMcCain.com where people won't call you out for spreading it.
Posted on August 12, 2008 7:55 AM
Its been proven that when you cut taxes on everybody, you actually generate more revenue to the g'ment because employment rises
Does that include the Clinton years?
Unemployment in November 1992 - 7.4%
Unemployment in November 2000 - 3.9%
Current unemployment 5.7%
Now I'm not gonna sit here and say high taxes are a good thing. I'm not an economist and won't pretend I totally understand economic theory. But I'm just gonna say that the above numbers do sort of poke a hole in the idea that cutting taxes automatically bolsters the economy.
Posted on August 12, 2008 10:52 AM
It is not simple tax or no tax. Obama wants to raise taxes to pay for new/expanded programs. He never talks about balancing the budget or paying down the federal deficit. Even the Iraq expenditures he says should end and be transferred for use in new/expanded programs. Obama has proposed NO fiscal restraint policy.
And that is where President Clinton made the choice to prioritize federal fiscal health. And that is why Hillary emphasized that fixing the current fiscal mess was the FIRST step to fixing social security.
Posted on August 12, 2008 11:37 AM
There ya go again, the left thinking with there hearts instead of their brains. The business owner takes all the risk, invests his own money into the business, you start taxing them, that means they have less money to invest and create jobs....its actaully a super simple concept to grasp....but its just a difference betweenthe right and the left, who is better off with the money, the people or the g'ment....I think its fine if "you" want to punitively punish their success by over taxation, just e prepared to fund a welfare state.
Posted on August 12, 2008 11:39 AM
I find it amusing that someone who owns a small business as brambster claims would support more taxation. Apparently, he has no aspirations of growing and entering that "higher" income group.
As owner, being the last to be paid or not all? Well, then time for a new business plan. Great meeting legal obligations to pay employees, bills, and taxes, but a small business will eventually fail if the owner does not benefit. And that is the bottom line.
Posted on August 12, 2008 12:33 PM
LOL at all the delusional Republicans on this site.
The fact that McCain is still trailing in Iowa is a BAD thing for Republicans, not a good thing.
All Obama has to do to win the election is hold all the Kerry states and win Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada.
2004 IOWA: Republicans +3,000 in registrations
2008 IOWA: Republicans -92,000 in registrations and getting worse weekly.
2004 NEVADA: Republicans +3,000 in registrations
2008 NEVADA: Republicans -75,000 in registrations and getting worse weekly.
2004: NEW MEXICO: Democrats 45%, Republicans 34%
2008 NEW MEXICO: Democrats 50%, Republicans 33%
Need I say more?
Posted on August 12, 2008 3:05 PM
funny how even with the tax cuts given there have still been job losses and the level of investment has not improved and we still are recording large deficits. yes it is true that if you still have congress spending you are gonna have problems keeping the deficit down.but the fact is the tax cuts have had no real impact on revenue. if it did we wouldnt have needed a $600 stimulus check to boost the economy for a few months.
Posted on August 12, 2008 3:46 PM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
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.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
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