Pollster.com

Go Lou Dobbs! Way to permanently alienate hispanic voters!

Ha, what a joke. Maybe he'll get Sarah Palin for VP. Most likely he'll just take votes away from the R candidate.

Carville's gift to Obama.

One last poll in the fifties.

Obama has taken a hit big time this week. New lows with both Rasmussen and Gallup.

Aaron,

Be careful what you wish for. If you remember about 18 months ago, when i had just begun posting here, i said Go Obama! No one would vote for this guy. And look where we are today- regretting every minute of it.

Regretting what? If Napoleon and Barbie had been elected, unemployment would at least 25% and we'd be out in the streets selling apples for a nickel.

"Regretting what? If Napoleon and Barbie had been elected, unemployment would at least 25% and we'd be out in the streets selling apples for a nickel."

Keep drinking the Kool-aid!

Obama will soon be polling in the late thirties.

By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — As the debate over a health care bill enters a critical stage, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds Americans inclined to oppose congressional passage of the legislation this year.
The survey, taken Friday through Sunday, finds 42% against a bill, 35% in support of it. Despite nearly a year of presidential speeches, congressional hearings and TV ad campaigns by interest groups, more than one in five still doesn't have a strong opinion.

Nice, substantive reply. You obviously have no clue what would have happened if the government hadn't intervened to stop the collapse of the economy. The only ones drinking Kool-Aid are the one who think cutting taxes and waiting for a market-based correction will solve our economic problems.

IMO....if the Dems fail to pass a bill Obama will ahng out in the high 40's until another event comes along to raise or lower it...if the Dems do pass a bill Obama will drop to the low 40's and the Dems will get slaughtered in 2010. NJ and VA already sent a message to Dems that the Indy's are not happy with the hard left crap. So what do they do? Go further left. Dems cannot win if the Indy's break 2 to 1 in favor of the GOP like they did this year.

"Nice, substantive reply. You obviously have no clue what would have happened if the government hadn't intervened to stop the collapse of the economy. The only ones drinking Kool-Aid are the one who think cutting taxes and waiting for a market-based correction will solve our economic problems."

And who did the "intervening" into that economy. I believe it was Bush, Paulson and Bernanke who are responsible for the TARP, TALF and P-PIPP programs. Name one thing that Obama and his administration has done since January other than continue those programs.

Napoleon Complex:

That is not true. We know what the impact would have been if g'ment would have cut taxes and not engaged in big bogus g'ment spending sprees. It would have led us to a recovery as Reagan showed us when he inherited a recession, which by hte numbers was worse than the one Obama inherited......so we do know wha tht eresult would have been....my guess is Obama's overspending will lead us to a double dip recession. In fact he has already dropped a few lingering words of a double dip that may hit.

Reagan and Bush I caused at least two other recessions during their terms (that's why Bush I was voted out) and left us with massive deficits in current dollars. If you look at the economic history of this country during the late 1800's you see one boom and bust cycle after the other. That's what these policies lead to. Wild speculation and risk taking and then a collapse.

The economy grows from the bottom up and not from the top down. Sustainable growth comes from regulated risk taking, not wild speculation which occurs when Republicans are in control.

Did anyone read this in the poll?

Democracy Corps: Frequency Questionnaire, November 12-16, 2009
© 2009 Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, All Rights Reserved. November, 2009
6
Q.20 Thinking in political terms, would you say that you are Conservative, Moderate, or Liberal?
Likely Drop-Off
Total Voters Voters
Liberal .............................................................................19 19 22
Moderate.........................................................................32 31 32
Conservative ...................................................................44 45 40
(Don't know/refused) ........................................................5 4 7

Rush was just talking about this question a minute ago

"Be careful what you wish for. If you remember about 18 months ago, when i had just begun posting here, i said Go Obama!"

I doubt a third party led by Lou Dobbs could win, particularly when his votes would pull from the republican. He would get very few minority votes. There is way too much fodder available from his TV show to showcase his demonization of hispanics. He harped on illegal immigration to the point of obsession and unseemliness.

Napoleon Complex:

Mild recessions totally normal and necessary for a healthy economy to thrive and continue to grow. There is no economic model that exists today that doesn't include normal recessions as part of its architecture. We know how to end a severe recession from what Reagan did....Obama is doing hte oppositte so it will have the oppositte effect.

Aaron_in_TX:

Shhhhh, between you and me, most hispanics in this country also oppose illegal immigration and want a orderly process to be available...not mass chaos.

People self describe themselves conservative lol that's rich. Then why the f$#% aren't Republicans winning elections and everyone voting in conservatives? Why you ask? Because 1) conservatism is relative, 2) people don't eat the entire cake (meaning they are only conservative on only a few issues), and 3) liberal and moderates have been propagated to be bad things. I'm pretty conservative in certain respects to my friends that are flamming hippies.

Secondly, about McCain and the Economy. He didn't know jack. The guy had absolutely no idea how to do anything with the economy so what would he have done? He probably would have done EXACTLY what Bush did and continue to institute the bailout through stimulus packages. People talk about Obama and the employment rate but what would have been the employment rate if our entire Car Industry and Banking Industry tanked? LOL

ARG has Obama over 50%

Stillow,
Reagan ended inflation. He made the recession much worse. When he took over in Jan 1981, unemployment was 7.5% exactly what it was in Jan 1977. Unemployment did not get below 7.5 until the Spring or 1984.

Effectively it is the FED that will control how we see unemployment as anyone who's taken an intermediate macroeconomics class will tell you that monetary policy will treat inflation and unemployment inversely. Meaning inflation is pretty much low at the expense of a high unemployment rate. We've been doing the same monetary policy since Regan under Volcker at the FED. In my opinion the President can do little to effect monetary policy and really change inflation or unemployment. Its only that spending like the stimulus changes the market for our dollars that shakes up our monetary policy but there is no sign that drastic changes in how our currency is bought and sold on the open market would change this.

X,

Monetary policy is not independent of fiscal policy as much as the current lawmakers would like it to be. It is the fiscal policy that will undermine the monetary policy and likely be the determinant whether we get out of the unemployment situation fast or slowly.

That is true but most fiscal policy for the past 30 years has been tax breaks which in no way help our monetary policy. Fiscal policy really only pulls the value of the greenback and effects trade effectually. Otherwise we've pretty independently been running deficits since WWII to have a negative trade gap as a consuming country.

Right, and the implementation of uncertain future fiscal policy in order to return those deficits to manageable levels will come in the form of higher taxation at EXACTLY the wrong time for a V shape recovery to take hold.

We have the Bush tax cuts expiring next year along with potentially cap and trade taxes, health care taxes, a wall street tax, higher state income taxes, some sin tax spreading (like on soda) and the possibility of consumption taxes (VAT) that are all fiscally driven and will be the primary driver of whether we see unemployment fall back at any significant pace.

The Reagan tax cuts in '82 did a good job of stimulating the economy because permanent tax cuts have a multiplier effect of 3 while government spending has a multiplier effect of zero. It was the same thing for 2001-2002 recession and the bush tax cuts. While that recession was not nearly as bad as this one, it was clearly mitigated by monetary AND fiscal policy as opposed to this time around.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not you own facts. Reagan ran up deficits more than any other President previous to him. He spent his way out of the recession of 82-83 just like Obama is doing now. The only difference is Reagan spent our money on guns and Obama is spending on butter and infrastructure.

Anectodally, when Bush 2 began running his outrageous deficits, his Sec of Treasury at the time asked for a meeting with W to express his concern. W, unwilling to listen to opposing views sent him to talk to Cheney. Cheney's reply according to Bob Woodward was "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Look it up and think out of the box for a second.

@ Field Marshal,
When you cite stats like "permanent tax cuts have an economic multiplier of 3 while government spending has a multiplier of 0," do all the rest of us a favor and cite which econ text you pulled it out of.

I would really like to look it up to see if it is peer reviewed, science-based theory or just made up BS.

If you can't cite a source, I understand.

"I would really like to look it up to see if it is peer reviewed, science-based theory or just made up BS."

Wong, you shouldn't be spouting that apostasy... ;)

Tax cuts create wealth. Tax cuts stimulate demand. Come on, these are self-evident truths....

Read Gallup's article today about where Obama has lost support. His drop in approval rating comes almost exclusively from whites, but he still maintains a 39% approval from whites overall. He has a 91% approval among balcks and a 70% approval among hispanics. If we fast forward to 2012 and use these exact #'s and we assume that the projections are correct and non-whites will make up at least 30% of the electorate this would translate into a 10-12 point victory for Obama. This is what I am talking about in terms of demographic changes being such a huge advantage long term for the democrats. It is now conceivable that Obama would only need to get 31-33% of white voters in order to win in 2012 (which would put him in Walter Mondale territory in terms of support from whites). Earth to the GOP- wake up to this reality and do something about it.

@Aaron
The Field Marshal(and Stillow)can be insightful when discussing the variables of public opinion.

When it comes to economic theory... Not so much.

@lat
Compelling argument. Sounds like you have been reading Ruy Teixeira.

lat

You and your demographics. Are you telling me that no matter how big a failure BO is blacks and hispanics will vote for him in the same numbers? I will suggest that a persons skin color does not stop them from recognizing incompetence.

Why would you want the GOP to wake up and do something different. According to you their stance insures Dem victories.

So if the GOP suddenly becomes pro abortion and pro gay marriage lat might vote for them? Hey, I bet you will have candidates lining up to take that deal. If I embrace liberal ideas I can get the lat vote!

Sorry lat, conservatives are not going to just throw in the towel and give libs everything they want. It just aint the way things work.

BO's recent dip in approval has to be health care related. With the house passing a bill and the senate ready to debate one, people are realizing Dems have the votes to do this on their own. And the prospect of that is something a lot of people are afraid of. No one believes the libs are going to stop with passing health care. Part two will be to tweak the numbers so we end up with single payer govt provided health care.

Why should I be allowed to live my life the way I want to when the govt can make better decisions on my behalf than I can make on my own? That is what this debate is really about and people know it.

BigMike,

Once again conservative hypocrisy at it's finest. Last time I checked the definition of a conservative was not to have governemnt intervention. It's amazing how when it comes to regulating a woman's body or telling people who they can or can't love all of a sudden government intervention is acceptable and demanded. You talk about not wanting us "libs" (which I am not one by the way) to tell people how to live? What do you call interfering in marriage or sticking your hands inside a womb? When it suits you to have the government get involved in our lives then it's ok because it serves your purposes.

It great to see that so many people are now discovering that they are conservative. Question number 20 of this poll proves conservative out number libs 45/19. The Obama administration has caused a serious awakening. I thank Obama for that.

As I read all of the post here for nearly two years I have noticed a common theme among libs.
Most libs are more interested in their own personal issues like abortion, gays,entitlements, etc. while their country is being destroyed. Their selfish arrogance is irresponsible and child like.

Each day brings new scandals to light light, healthcare scam, cap n tax, and most recently CLIMATE GATE (congressional investigation forthcoming).

Conservative take back of gov is on its way at light speed, as all the polls are starting to scream at us.

Fellow conservatives don't worry, just sit back and enjoy this ride, it gonna be a lot of fun.

@Wong:

Those numbers that i cited come directly from Keynes book The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Required reading when you get a masters of economics along with Smith and Friedman.

The problem with tax cuts are that need to be perceived to be permanent which is why tax rebates do not work and amount to the same as government spending- a multiplier of zero.

However, Keynes argued for a more flexible fiscal budget, one that would be able to cut drastically during boom times in order to fund surpluses that could be used to offset deficits during recessions.

Government spending, while it has no multiplier effect, still helps the economy in the short-term by creating a floor to the economic contraction. However, it does come at the expense of long term growth as it pushes up interest rates and creates a ceiling on 'boom times'. This was the conclusion of many of Keynes arguments to creating a more sustainable and smooth growth in the economy.

Did i answer you question?

lat

I pretty much stay out of other peoples wombs. You are missing the point entirely. Lots of people are pro-life. They can make the same argument that they are not conservative, they might even be liberal, but they just can't go along with killing babies. Even you would admit govt intervention is always ok to prevent murder. We just differ over what constitutes murder. And Roe v Wade is not going away w/o a const amendment.

The point was don't expect either party to throw out their core beliefs just to win elections and especially just to win a few votes.

@Stillow

Yeah, but you guys are 2 and 0 for total economic collapses in the past 80 years, so history tells us to avoid your way of thinking. All Ronnie did was spend billions on worthless weapons systems and military hardware (that we’re still paying for) while cutting taxes for his rich constituency. Either way it’s government spending.