Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Generic Ballot (Gallup, Rasmussen 8/9-15)

Topics: National , poll

National

Gallup
8/9-15/10; 1,600 registered voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Gallup release)

2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
50% Republican, 43% Democrat (chart)


Rasmussen
8/9-15/10; 3,500 likely voters, 2% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
48% Republican, 36% Democrat (chart)

 

Comments
Gtfan4ever:

Ras and Gallup bashing in 3...2...1...

____________________

gabe:

Can we say devastating numbers? This is a horrid position for Democrats to be in and now Gallup has recorded three straight weeks of Republican dominance on the ballot. Seems like the battle lines are hardening. With partisans now lining up behind their nominees it comes down to the independent vote and voter enthusiasm. The GOP leads big in both.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Here in Colorado, the local news has been harping on the fact that the GOP primary voters came out much more ardently. CO could be used as a great illustration since both the GOP and the Dems had a tight primary contest.

CO has a very slight Dem registration edge, less than 2%, but 23% more republican primary votes were cast. That is HUGE and shows the enthusiasm gap.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

If these polls are accurate and the voters allow issues like a mosque on ground zero, and regulating big industry as "going in the wrong direction" the voters will regret it terribly.

____________________

rdw4potus:

50% R? Holy Crap!! And that's BEFORE the Big O blessed the Ground Zero Mosque.

It's bad when you make Jimmy Carter look competent, right?

____________________

Field Marshal:

Obama opened his big mouth again without thinking (he acted stupidly). Why would he get involved in the mosque issue? Its lose-lose for him. First off, he misrepresented the whole thing saying the group has a right to build there. Duh! No one is saying they don't have a right to build there. Then, he comes out the next day and contradicts himself and makes himself look like a fool. (I know, redundant).

Mike Lupica had a great column today about it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/16/2010-08-16_families_not_mike__bam_should_have_the_final_say.html

____________________

Farleftandproud:

No, this reminds me more of Harry Truman. A lot of great leaders are critisized for making contreversial decisions while they are leading. Truman was not considered a great president in the late 40's and 50's and Truman in 1946 lost about 60 seats in the midterms. He had to work across party lines, and candidates from his own party also turned away from him at times.

Last I looked in the history books of the ranking of presidents, Truman ranked in the to 10 or 15 best presidents ever.

Our nation goes to extremes, and 2002 was the last election where both parties did well. 04 was a disappointment for Democrats, and 2006 and 2008 were slaughters for the GOP, and I am sure after the Damage to our country if the GOP does take back congress, nothing will be accomplished.

I predict that teachers, unions, and other people from the left will be very angry if the GOP wins governors seats. Layoffs will get worse, outsourcing will get worse, and states like Michigan and Ohio, will not improve much, if at all. I bet their economies will get worse, because Obama won't be able to spend stimulus money on it, and you'll see an economy in these places which will only get worse. People will likely be moving away.

What goes around comes around; GOP policies failed in the 80's, they failed with Contract with America, and they were so bad under Bush, that it will take probably a decade for us to undo the damage and get a country out of debt.

____________________

vincent106:

November is going to absolutely vicious for the dumbocrats! 78 days until our country is restored!

____________________

sjt22:

First off, he misrepresented the whole thing saying the group has a right to build there

How is this a misrepresentation? They have the right, he said they did. Seems pretty straightforward.

Then, he comes out the next day and contradicts himself and makes himself look like a fool

Mike Lupica? That hack is the writer you wanna invoke?

____________________

sjt22:

November is going to absolutely vicious for the dumbocrats! 78 days until our country is restored!

Restored? Restored to what? Is your memory so bad that you can't remember the horror show that resulted when Republicans were in power?

The saddest part is that you probably believe the whole "take back our country" tea party BS. You really think that if the Republicans get back in power they're going to do anything you really want? You really think they'll do anything that might displease their corporate masters, the ones who pay for their campaigns and own them lock, stock and barrel? What a sad surprise you're in for.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

They do have the right to build there, but Obama can't make the decision that New Yorkers should make for themselves. Charlie Crist, backed up Obama's decision, and Crist isn't a radical socialist. I think this issue will backfire on the GOP eventually.

I think Democratic candidates unless they are asked should keep quiet about this issue unless they are running for office near New York city or new York state or NJ.

____________________

sjt22:

Then, he comes out the next day and contradicts himself and makes himself look like a fool

Again, wrong. He said they had the right to do it. Its his job to hold up the constitutional rights of American citizens, whether its popular or not.

Since Republicans seem to be all gung ho for 9/11 again, will they finally get aboard and stop blocking the bill to pay for medical care for first responders? I won't hold my breath...

____________________

dpearl:

"Duh! No one is saying they don't have a right to build there."

FM: Actually about a third of the population is saying just that according to polls that separate that aspect out. Roughly another third says they have the right to build there but it is not appropriate, and a third say they have the right to build there and it is appropriate.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Yes, the GOP did block the bill for the first responders and if they want to make this a campaign issue, they should go b ack and tell the Democrats that they will support the first responders bill and apologize for being so inhumane.

I predict that NYC and Northern NJ voters have not let Obama's ground zero statements affect their vote. Maybe in a few areas, but I predict it is people who probably already had lost hope in Obama, that this is one more reason to not like him.

____________________

Stillow:

sjt22 - You do understand congress has just as much power over the economy as the president does right? The economy did not start to tank til after Dems took over. Look at how many jobs were lost once Dems took over congress. Congress has enormous power to influence what the president does to the eocnomy. Take the laste 90's when Gingrich balanced the budgets. did you know Clinton never once submitted a balanced budget to Congress? the GOP balanced the budget and made Clinton go along with it. So congress is not jut some inncoent quiet player...they have tons of power over what happens i nthe eocnomy by way of spending, tax policy, etc.

____________________

StatyPolly:

His comments on Friday made it crystal clear that he supported the mosque.

His comments on Saturday made it crystal clear that he was against the mosque.

No denying.

That's why on Sunday, deputy Press Secretary had to clarify.

____________________

Mogando669:

"I think this issue will backfire on the GOP eventually."

yup.... an issue in which the GOP takes 7-3 side of public opinion is totally going to backfire.


"Its his job to hold up the constitutional rights of American citizens, whether its popular or not."

actually that's the job of the Courts. He already forgot Chapter 1 of US Govt of Executive vs. Legislative vs. Judicial. He's in charge of running the country not intrepreting the Constitution. He's no longer a law professor.

The funniest part is his claim that he's not there to comment on local projects, but yet that's exactly what he did. Now that Hamas has also endorsed the mosque project, i guess it's always great to be on the 3-7 side of public opinion and on the right side of Hamas's opinion.

____________________

nick283:

Who on Earth thinks this Mosque is appropriate. It's just like it wouldnt be appropriate to build a German community center at Auschwitz or a Japanese community center at Pearl Harbor. The Muslims that want to do this are doing it to stick it in the face of all other Americans. There is no other reason they would continue doing this when so many people think its wrong and incredibly offensive.

____________________

Field Marshal:

How is this a misrepresentation? They have the right, he said they did. Seems pretty straightforward.

Its a misrepresentation since people aren't saying they don't have a right to build there. They are just saying they shouldn't. And if the goal of the mosque is really to bring about peace and harmony, then wouldn't they accomplish that better by moving it given that 2/3rds of the country are against this project?

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Running against Bush's policies will not stop regardless of the midterms. You stick to your story long enough, and people learn the hard way it sometimes can get through.

____________________

IdahoMulato:

@vincent106:
"November is going to absolutely vicious for the dumbocrats! 78 days until our country is restored!"

Really? I was thinking that the country is restored when Obama is finally removed from office via the ballot box or other means as espoused by the right wing lunatic fringe in many blogging sites including yahoo comments sections.

____________________

John1:

@farleft

Obama and the Democrats would be dumb to run on bashing Bush again. The fox poll recently showed 71% think the onus is on them now to fix the issues, not whine about inehriting a problem.

____________________

vincent106:

"Really? I was thinking that the country is restored when Obama is finally removed from office via the ballot box or other means as espoused by the right wing lunatic fringe in many blogging sites including yahoo comments sections."

The country will be restored when the far left crackpots aren't allowed to pass destructive bills at-will any longer. That comes in 78 days. Without congress Obama is completely marginalized.

____________________

dpearl:

"did you know Clinton never once submitted a balanced budget to Congress?"

Stillow: You have posted this comment several times but it appears to be false as far as I can see. For example, where do you find that the Clinton budgets sent to congress for FY 1999, 2000, and 2001 did not show surpluses?

____________________

nick283:

dpearl. I think the point is that they were projected surpluses. Projection never came true because the internet bubble started deflating in early 2000

____________________

dpearl:

But I believe the projections did come true and the surpluses were even greater than forecast.

____________________

Richard Wood:

Farleft,

You are a smart guy blinded by your love of liberalism. Can't you see that the majority of the country objects to President Obama the way you objected to President Bush. President Obama has governed over and over against the will of the people. I am sure you call it standing on principle because that is what I called it when President Bush's party got thumped.

The morning of Nov 3 is going to hurt you. The Repubs will take the House easily and have 47 or 48 Senators with Crisp and Nelson often siding with the right.

I know it hurts but President Obama is a sinking ship. His only hope is to lose Congress have gridlock. When government is in gridlock the people flourish.

____________________

Field Marshal:

The only way clinton hd surpluses in the 90's was by borrowing from the SS trust 'fund'. i.e. using the surplus in the program for general fund expenditures. It was a phantom surplus but the closest time we have truly come to surpluses since Andrew Jackson. Sad.

____________________

melvin:

Please Democrats don't worry, because the GOP don't have the numbers..Its all about the Minority vote,the reason the GOP won over 52 seats back in 1994 was, because the Minority vote was only 10%,and 2006 the Minority vote was 20% that's why the Democrats won over 30 seats..The Democrats got 43% of the White vote in 2006,in 1994,but the difference was the the Minority vote was double that of 1994....The GOP have to get over 62% of the White vote to gain over 40 seats,its just that simple..Am predicting the Democrats is going to get around 40% of the White vote,which would give the GOP only 27 seats..Back in 1966 the Dems got 46% of the White vote in the Midterms in still lost over 50 seats,because the Minority vote was only 2%. The democrats got more White votes in 1966 then they did in 2006..they lost over 50 seats in 1966,but won over 30 seats in 2006,you go in figure that out?...The big difference is again was the Minority vote...So its not about this generic poll anymore,because the Demographics has changed tremendously...If the Minority vote was only going to be 10% like it was back in 1994,it would mean the GOP will probably win over 70 seats this year, and if the Minority vote was only going to be 3% like it was back in 1966,it would mean the GOP would win over 100 seats very easily..AP is reporting the Minority vote is going to be 22%,which means the GOP have to get over 62% of the White vote to reach 40 seats.

____________________

nick283:

Melvin, the difference could also be where the two parties started. the democrats had 295 seats going into 1966. They had 12 more seats after the 1966 election than they did after the 2006 election. So, they won bigger in 1966 than 2006...

____________________

nick283:

Melvin, you also don't seem to realize that thanks to interpretations of the voting rights act, most minorities (particularly blacks) live in districts that are already pretty solidly democrat. You look at the seats that are expected to change hands and most of them are pretty white.

____________________

Publius:

Field Marshal and Stillow:

You both make me chuckle. Everything is the Democrats' fault. There was no surplus. The economy only began tanking once the Democrats had power in the Congress. I'm not even going to debate such one-sided blindness because it's not worth the keystrokes.

Richard Wood:

I agree with most of what you say, but I don't think we'll have gridlock. If the Republicans take the House their radical ideas will be exposed. It will be the best thing for Obama and will lead to his reelection.

____________________

AlanSnipes:

Republicans again depend on ignorance. Clinton balanced the budget and produced surpluses. In 1993 not 1 Republican voted for his five year budget program, only Democrats did, which is why they should get ALL the credit for the economic prosperity of the nineties.
Since the days of Reagan the record is clear, the Republicans have done something about the deficit EVERYTIME they have been in office :THEY MADE IT BIGGER DUH!

____________________

AlanSnipes:

@STATYPOLLY:

I just figured out why you use your name.
You must be a parrot because you only parrot what the Republicans are saying, never bothering with facts.
Do you want a cracker?

____________________

ObamaisMarxistFilth:

Farleftandproud:

"I am sure after the Damage to our country if the GOP does take back congress, nothing will be accomplished...."

Absolutely! We wouldn't want to go back to the 4.5% unemployment levels we had when the Dems took over Congress in 2006! Or even the 6.5% level of November 2008. That would be TERRIBLE!!

I predict that teachers, unions, and other people from the left will be very angry if the GOP wins governors seats.

Awwww...the drinkers at the public trough will be upset. Screw 'em. Time to make the people who pay their inflated salaries happy. Chris Christie is blazing the trail and you'll see many following in his path.

"Layoffs will get worse, outsourcing will get worse, and states like Michigan and Ohio, will not improve much, if at all...."

Yeah. Because the economy of Michigan has fared SO WELL under Democrat leadership. Right.

Actually, there is a large group that HAS benefited from Democrat stewardship of Michigan...

The residents of Tennessee, Texas and other Sun Belt states. THANKS, MICHIGAN!

OIMF

____________________

AlanSnipes:

@ Stillow:
I constanly have to straighten you out on facts.
The Democrats took over Congress and all of the sudden the economy tanked, therefore it is the Democrats fault, of course in your ignorant mind the Republican policies the previous years had NOTHING to do with it.
What policies did the Democrats impose in 2007 over the veto of George Bush that made the economy tank?
Stop being stupid!
Name One!

____________________

seg:

Mosque:
Liberals, some day you will cringe when you think about your support for a Wahabist mosque anywhere, much less at the site of a Wahabist attack in 9-11.

Read about the Wahabists and their history (see WWII, for example). Read their views on Shiites, non-Muslims, women, homosexuals, etc., and tell us why you would support the Nazis of Islam.

My Shiite students fear and hate Wahabists, as do many non-Wahabist Sunnis.

The Cordoba temple will cost $100M, which will be Saudi Wahabist money. "Cordoba" is the Islamic capital of Spain, a country once Islamic and now not. Conversion from Islam is one of the vilest sins imaginable to Wahabists. Hence, restoring "Cordoba" as an Islamic capital is one of the holiest of missions. Why would they name it that?

You should read literature from these places, as I have. It is unimaginable vitrolic hatred of decadent Americans, satanic Jews, disgusting homosexuals, loose women, etc.

I ask again: why would you support these people even by acquiesence? Suppose real fascists in this country were supported by mega billionaires around the world. Would you proclaim their freedom to free speech and stand by, or would you do everything in your power to defeat them?

____________________

seg:

Surfs up!

____________________

AlanSnipes:

seg: Are you aware that there is a Mosque INSIDE the PENTAGON !

Horrors! What are you proposing to do about that one?

____________________

gabe:

We can all argue whether Dems keeping control of Congress is a good idea or not but at the end of the day Democrats are going to get shellacked come November. Liberals can say what they want but the causes are plain to see. A unpopular HC bill, scandals, trillions spent and 9.5% unemployment, the list goes on and on. At the end of the day Dems brought themselves to this and all I can say is good riddance. The GOP may not be perfect but they are far better than our current Congress.

____________________

Publius:

gabe:

Nobody likes the Congress they have and that's been true since 1789.

____________________

dpearl:

"...some day you will cringe when you think about your support for a Wahabist mosque anywhere, much less at the site of a Wahabist attack in 9-11."

SEG: I am perplexed as to why you assume that the people behind the Park 51 Islamic Center proposal are part of the Wahabist sect. The vast preponderance of public information on the topic suggests the opposite.

____________________

Bigmike:

Ah, the debate over the 90's economy once again. Politicians has very little to do with it. In 90 very few people had home computers or home entertainment systems. By 2000 a vast majority had a computer and whatever the current version of Nintendo was. So the credit goes to.....

Donkey Kong

Gotta agree with FM that BO should have kept his mouth shut on the ground zero mosque. There was nothing he could say that wouldn't cost him one way or the other. But that is the one thing that BO don't know, how to keep his mouth shut.

gabe is right on the money. The Dems, between the WH and Congress, have hurt themselves a bunch. An unpopular helath care bill. Financial reform that we won't know if it accomplished anything until the next economic downturn. Massive deficits. A non-stimulating stimulus. And that nonexistant focus on jobs.

____________________

Stillow:

alansnipes - You make this way to easy and fun. Dems took over in Jan 2007, shortly thereafter eveyrthing started to tank. Ya know, right when B. Frank was C. Dodd were telling everyoent hings are great and housing was strong. I'd try andexplain my poitn again, but soemthing tells me you would still not get it.

Hmmmm, hahahaah, thinking about it, in another thread you were saying Bush was to blame for the recession in March of 2001 and Clinton's policies had nothing to do with it. Remember that when you were arging that Clinton did hand Bush a bad economy...it didn't gointo recession til Bush was in office....

Trying to have your cake and eat it too?

The point is a president and congress are euqally influentail when it comes to the ecomnomy. One branch cannot do anything without the appoval of the other branch. gingrich balanced budgets and passed popular reforms like wlefare reform, forcing Cointon to go along. Did you know Bush actaully tried "twice" to my knowledge to reform the CRA, Freddie and Fannie, but dems blocked him both times.....continuing to tell us that they needed no reform and the the current lending practices were perfectly peachy!

The housing the bubble was the direct result of liberal intervention in the lending business, there was nothing Bush could do about that since Dems blocked both efforts to reform them. the credit bubble was also not Bush's fault as it started in the mid 90's and finally swelled up and popped. Bush's failure was with spending. His tax cuts madde the 2001 recession oe of the lightest and easiest to reocver from...his tax cuts also helped fight off the affects of 9/11. His primary failure was to much spending on things like perscription drug plans, etc.

He spent to much on entitlements and provoded weak exit strategy for our involvment in iraq and afgahn. Much like Barry, w simply could not control his spending...and it helps fuel a recession. Right now the bubble that is forming is the work of both W and Barry. Barry though has accelerated what W was doing which was spending money we do not have. Barry has perosnally added nearly 3 trillion in debt and has projected spending deficits over 1 trillion for the next 5 years.

W and Barry are dumb and dumber. Their spending policies are exactly the same, they just spend deficit money on different agenda items, that is the only difference. The only place I give Bush any credit at all was he did try reforming the CRA, but was beat back by Dems...and the CRA directly caused the housing bubble to form and then pop.

The current bubble forming now is g'ment debt. We are packing debt on in boat loads and along with it higher and higher intrest payments that soon will exceed our ability to pay without either 1. severely cutting the budget or 2. dramatically raising taxes on people who are already barely surviving paycheck to paycheck.

W and Barry should be put on a deserted island together and left there. We need a president who can control spending and understands that you must live within your means....

____________________

JMSTiger:

If Gallup is showing Republicans up 7% in the generic ballot in late October, expect a massive tidal wave. Maybe a loss of 50+ seats in the House and even a crackpot like Sharron Angle getting into the U.S. Senate. I don't think I have ever seen the GOP at 50% in a Gallup generic ballot. I think that a clear majority of American voters simply don't want either party to have complete control of the Federal government and they feel it is time to put a check on Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Barring a massive international incident, I see no way the Democrats don't get wiped out in November.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Mosque:
Liberals, some day you will cringe when you think about your support for a Wahabist mosque anywhere, much less at the site of a Wahbist attack in 9-11."

For one, it’s not on Ground Zero. The Freedom Tower is on One World Trade Center and a memorial will be on Two World Trade Center. It’s going to be the tallest building in the western hemisphere. Is that not enough of a tribute? The cultural center is on the site of a Burlington Coat Factory.

Second, the Cordoba house is not a wahabi mosque. This is a cultural center initiated by the American Society for Muslim Advancement. ASMA is not an organization Wahabists would approve of, since they say things on their website like this:

“We believe all human beings are created equal. We are guided by compassion and mercy to work in collaboration with others for the common good to create just and peaceful societies.”

WTF, wahabists believe most muslims are infidels, let alone other religions. They don’t want to “work in collaboration” with anybody.

Or this: “We build a cohesive, global movement of Muslim women that will reclaim women’s rights in Islam, enabling them to make dignified choices and fully participate in creating just and flourishing societies.”

http://www.asmasociety.org/home/

Wahabists don’t believe women have any kind of role like that. They don’t want women to speak, let alone have a say in society.

The planned cultural cultural center is going to have a swimming pool, a gym, and a performing arts center. It’s going to be a place where you have to pay a membership to utilize the facilities. Wahabists dislike exhibitions of wealth and reject secular culture. WTF, a performing arts center? Are women going to be on stage? A wahabist would want to kill these people.

If public opinion succeeds in pressuring them to change their plans it is tyranny of the majority at its worst. Some of the rhetoric is downright disgraceful. Ie: “They have the right to build it, but they shouldn’t build it there.” Neither should they build mosques in Tennessee, Wisconsin, or California, since communities in those states are upset about proposed muslim places of worship in their towns.

Oh, we believe in freedom of religion, we just want *them* to practice their religion *somewhere else.* I see the “separate but equal” principle is alive and well.

The last few days have caused me to really lose some faith in America. I can't believe the bigotry going on toward Muslims. This is exactly what bin Laden and other Wahabists WANT! They want Muslims to be convinced western society and Islam are incompatible. We’re doing a good job of encouraging that view.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - I read the guy behind the mosque refuses to condem Hamas as a terrorist group. And since a fellow terrorist group killed 3,000 americans two blocks away, do you see how that might be offensive to most americans?

Plus I saw some guy say he planned on building a gay strip club across the street from this proposed mosque and the guy behind the mosque said that would "not be sensitive to the needs of muslims"........so what the hell? Its ok for him to build his mosque next door to a burial ground of americans killed by terrorists, but building the gay strip club would not be sensitive?

I said before, the law is on the side of mosque, but the spirit of the law is not. He claims to want to bring people together, yet refuses to understand the sensitivities involved here and why so many americans might find it objectionable for a man who refuses to condemn hamas to build a mosque next door to ground zero.

Is it not you liberals who always talk about nuance in the law.

I also read the funding for this project has not been divulged. Is that true?

It is common for muslim radicals to erect mosques and other symbols on the sites of what they perceive as "victories"....and for this guy refusing to condem groups like hamas makes me a little weary of his objectives here.

Places like TN and WI didn't have 3,000 people murdered by muslim extremeists....so spare us the straw man.

Its also humerous you libs now hide behidn the constittuion, a document which you routinely spit on as your logic for your beleifs here. You have no problem putting that document aside in thins like gun control or HCR, but whem muslims are invovled, well then, its the greatest thing ever.

It has nothing to do with a mosque going up. If it were Sept. 10, 2001 no one woudl have a problem right now with this...but the fact is 3,000 people were murdered in cold blood by a radical bunch of islamic terrorists....and now some guy wants to erect a mosue two blocks away who refuses to condemn islamic terror groups like Hamas. and you libs sit there and wonder why 70 percent of the country things this might be a bad idea.

So spare us all the bleeding heart crap about bigotry toward muslims....if you guys have such a narrow view of this issue, then that is your fault. You guys are so dependant on seeing bigotry in EVERYTHING you lack the common sense understanding of why so many people find this to be a bad idea.

Should we also allow some neo nazi group refusing to condemn the actions of Tim Mcvay to build a "community center" next to the OK city bombing site?

Why is it you liberals are so quick to defend this mosque being proposed by a guy refusing to condem terror groups...yet you spend so much time, energy and money going after groups like the Boy Scouts from using parks, etc?

Your priorities are so screwed up and your beliefs so out of the mainstream its insane. You sit around wondering why no one else agrees with you, then talk about how stupid and bigoted everyone else is for not agreeing with your view.

So I am sure you libs will be all in favor of the neo nazi's building their center in Ok city next door to the old federal building right? Don't whine to me about neo nazi's being a hate group, because that is a matter of opinion afterall...

Its sick that you libs support a man who refuses to condemn muslim terrorist groups like hamas.......while the same guy says putting in a gay strip club would not be sensittive to the needs of muslims. How about being sensittive to the families of 3,000 dead americans?

Geeeeeez, its no freaking wonder you libs make up a whopping 20 percent of the country. The lakc of common sensse is amazing.

____________________

StatyPolly:

You are completely wrong about the mosque, Aaron.

Even if it started with good intentions, it now has become a provocation. And every Muslim and otherwise knows it. Why do they reject moving to another site? Reject Gov. Patterson's offer to find another location near by. And now Hamas endorses it. Why do they insist on this location?

____________________

StatyPolly:

I am all for smart diplomacy, but don't consider giving your lunch money to a bully, day after day, just to avoid your ass kicked a smart and effective diplomacy.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"You are completely wrong about the mosque, Aaron
Even if it started with good intentions, it now has become a provocation. "

It's not ground zero, the freedom tower is on ground zero. How many times do I have to say that? There are already at least 8 islamic centers or mosques within a 2 mile radius according to Google maps, including one 4 blocks away that pre-dates the WTC.

Muslim people died on 9/11 too. These muslims are NOT the terrorists. This is like equating catholics in Boston for the IRA and saying they can't build near an Anglican church in Boston as a result.

____________________

Stillow:

"Aaron_in_TX:
These muslims are NOT the terrorists"

No, just hte people wanting to build the mosque do nto condemn muslim terrorist groups like Hamas. Hmmmmmm, any ideas why?

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"So I am sure you libs will be all in favor of the neo nazi's building their center in Ok city next door to the old federal building right?"

These muslims are not the TERROISTS!

To make an analogy like that equates all muslims with the hijackers.

____________________

Stillow:

"Aaron_in_TX:
These muslims are not the TERROISTS!"

Again I will say, no, they just refuse to condemn muslim terrorist groups like hamas. And yet you sit and wonder why so many americans might have a problem with a group who refuses to condemn muslim terror groups building a mosque next door to a site where 3,000 americans were killed by a muslim terrorist group........ya its a real brain twister this one.

____________________

John:

"Again I will say, no, they just refuse to condemn muslim terrorist groups like hamas."

I assume you are talking about Imam Rauf who refused to say whether he agreed with the US state department designation of Hamas as a terrorist orginisation, saying that, "....I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy." While not a view I agree with, it seems he is more of a pacifist than anything else, (Actually he seems to be of the Sufi tradition not Wahhabi) http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100803/us_time/08599200843200.

Incidentally the UK and Australia only designated the military wing (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades) of Hamas as a terrorist orginisation and India, Norway and Russia have not designated any part of them as terrorist orginisation.

On a side note the US government never did designate the IRA as a terrorist orginisation, but happily, in 2008, finally took Nelson Mandela off the terrorist list. As the saying goes, 'one mans terrorist....

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I can see that all the righties are excited about this poll, but what you don't understand is that the far right motivates the far left. If you had rational candidates like Kay Huchinson or Richard Lugar or even Saxby Chambliss, Progressives might only be saying "we disagree" but with the crazies like Sharron Angle, it is motivating as many people to run target them as support them. In the long run the Michelle Bachman's, and Rand Paul's of the world, may be in safe districts, but they could seriously harm the GOP in general. Their extremism would likely make Obama have to fight back, and I am sure that their radical agenda of repealing HCR and supporting repealing the 14th ammendment and sensationalizing 9/11 when it comes to building a mosque but denying funds to the families of the first responders, this will make things worse.

____________________

Field Marshal:

@Farleft
I can see that all the righties are excited about this poll, but what you don't understand is that the far right motivates the far left.

That didn't seem to happen here in Colorado. In fact, even with a far-lefty Romanoff on the ballot, it wasn't enough to energize the base anywhere near the GOPers were.

In the long run the Michelle Bachman's, and Rand Paul's of the world, may be in safe districts, but they could seriously harm the GOP in general.

You mean the same way that the crazies like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and Dodd have done to the Democratic party in a mere 3 years?


@Publius
I'm not even going to debate such one-sided blindness because it's not worth the keystrokes.

Who said it was all the Dems' fault? Not I. Clearly you see what you want to see and your retort of 'not even going to debate such one-sided blindness' is funny. When have you ever even attempted to debate rationally without one-sided blindness.

I agree with most of what you say, but I don't think we'll have gridlock. If the Republicans take the House their radical ideas will be exposed. It will be the best thing for Obama and will lead to his reelection.

Radical ideas? I guess they would be considered radical to an extremist like yourself who agrees with Pelosi, Reid and Obama's agenda. Luckily, a majority of the rest of the country has awoken to their fanatical agenda.

How would it not be gridlock? One party would control the WH and another congress. OMG, the Dems may actually have to compromise! Oh, the horror!

@Aaron and Stillow

What are you people doing posting at 3am??

____________________

Paleo:

Lousy numbers anyway you slice it. Clearly, the house is in jeopardy, but there's still a ways to go. Hopefully, Democrats, young people and minorities will become more motivated to vote as November nears. It is up to Obama and Biden, wherever he is, to motivate them.

____________________

Paleo:

"The inclination to go from the particular to the general -- to blame a people for the acts of a few -- is what has always fueled pogroms and race riots. History shows that it is a natural tendency and it will literally run riot if not controlled. It is the solemn obligation of elected leaders to restrain such an urge -- to be moral as well as political leaders."


ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/16/AR2010081603169.html

____________________

Mike E:

Its funny how all the liberals who would have left 30 million mainly Arab Muslims in Iraq under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam are so quick to throw about charges of racism and intolerance regarding the ground zero mosque.

____________________

AlanSnipes:

@Stillow:
Since I work for a living, I don't have all day to point out the mistakes in your response to my post. It is right wing dogma to blame Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for the financial crises, even though they NEVER had the power to do anything, their efforts were thwarted in the Republican Congress. I asked you to specify one law that the Democrats passed in Congress when they took over in 2007 and that George Bush signed that resulted in the financial crisis. You produced no answer because there are none.
Any law, if it was passed would have been passed late in 2007 or later and would have not even been in effect when the financial crisis started. Things and economic conditions take time to build up. It didn't magically happen starting in 2007 (That is if I accept your premise, which I don't).
So, again, typical right winger who takes NO responsibility for what you voted for. Nothing is ever the fault of the right when they are in power, yet they whine and whine about people taking personal responsibility for their actions. By the way, when Bill Clinton left office, unemployment was 4.2%. When he came into office it was 7.1% A small recession in the beginning of 2001 was a normal, natural slow down, not the bottom falling out as it did in 2008.
Again, you produced no answer to what laws the Democratic congress passed that President Bush signed that led to the financial crisis. In other words, the lack of oversight, the tax cuts, the wars that were not paid for were in place when the Democrats took over Congress in 2007 and noe of that was unfortunately repealed.

____________________

Paleo:

"Its funny how all the liberals who would have left 30 million mainly Arab Muslims in Iraq under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam are so quick to throw about charges of racism and intolerance regarding the ground zero mosque."

No, what's funny is that you think there is some sort of comparison between the two. And that you apparently think it's the U.S.'s obligation and duty to invade every country with a brutal dictatorship. There are a lot of those in the world. Would I like to see them overthrown? Yes. Would I go to war over them? No.

____________________

AlanSnipes:

@Stillow: More Facts:
Investing InsightsCommunity Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis
Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 29, 2008
Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).

Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.

Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt. (Barry Ritholtz had an excellent and more comprehensive survey of how Washington contributed to the crisis in this week’s Barron’s.)

There’s plenty more good reading on the CRA and the subprime crisis out in the blogosphere. Ellen Seidman, who headed the Office of Thrift Supervision in the late 90s, has written several fact-filled posts about the CRA controversey, including one just last week. University of Oregon professor and economist Mark Thoma has also defended the CRA on his blog. I also learned something from a post back in April by Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, which ends with this ditty:


It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders

____________________

Paleo:

AlanSnipes, what you don't understand is that history began on January 20, 2009. The Republicans did not have the white house for the previous 8 years, and congress for most of that time. And their tax cutting for the wealthy and laissez-faire approach to the financial markets were not the rule for those 8 years.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Alan,

For every economist that says the CRA didn't have any cause in the financial crisis, there is one that says it did. Cherry picking will not serve your cause. But think about it using actual common sense (i know, thats anathema to liberals). The act pressured banks to lend to minority and low-income borrowers to by homes. The financial crisis was in large-part due to too many people borrowing money they couldn't pay back. 2 plus 2 does equal four no matter what liberals preach.

And blaming Bush or Obama for the financial crisis is just dumb. To think that government has the power to materially affect the entire economy is giving it way too much credence. Government is slow, dumb, and grossly inefficient.

Secondly, do you blame the president for the problems in the economy. A president who doesn't have any power to pass laws, change fiscal policy, change monetary policy, or alter consumer behavior.

Its absurd but it gives the feeble minded someone, an icon, to blame. Be it the president, congress, cutting taxes (which i find the most laughable), or some piece of legislation.

____________________

AlanSnipes:

Field Marshall and Stillow: More Facts

Stephen Henn told listeners that free market conservatives "believe" that the financial crisis is attributable to the close government relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Actually, it is extremely unlikely that free market conservatives actually "believe" this assertion because it is so obviously not true.

Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector. They lost market share in the years 2002-2007, as the volume of private issue mortgage backed securities exploded.

In short, while Fannie and Freddie were completely irresponsible in their lending practices, the claim that they were responsible for the financial disaster is absurd on its face -- kind of like the claim that the earth is flat. Free market conservatives know that the claim that Fannie and Freddie were responsible is ridiculous. They just say it because they know that news outlets like Market Place will treat it as a serious proposition and thereby muddy the waters in the mind of the public.

It is bad enough that Market Place repeats such an outlandish claim without giving its listeners any background information. It should not pass along the additional misinformation that conservatives actually believe such nonsense.

--Dean Baker

Just because you can find people who say otherwise does not mean that both sides are equal. One side deals in facts, the other in parroting right wing dogma in order to avoid the people and policies that were really responsible for the crisis.
hint; It wasn't the liberals, they had no power to avoid the mistakes of the Bush administration.

Again, you avoid RESPONSIBILITY.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector.

79% of all loans from 2000 through 2008 were made or guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or through the CRA program. Who were they trailing?

They were not solely responsible for the disaster. There were many parties responsible including Wall Street investment banks over-leveraging as well as individuals who wanted to buy more than they could handle.

Just because you can find people who say otherwise does not mean that both sides are equal. One side deals in facts, the other in parroting right wing dogma in order to avoid the people and policies that were really responsible for the crisis.
hint; It wasn't the liberals, they had no power to avoid the mistakes of the Bush administration.

Laughable and stupid. You are choosing your side because YOU want to avoid responsibility. FACT is that the GOP and Bush wanted to reign in Fannie and Freddie but were blocked by Frank and other Dems. FACT is both sides are to blame. Saying it wasn't the liberals and whining about who is to blame is childish and idiotic.

____________________

Stillow:

FM - You took all my fun away. When liberal like alan blame W, they always say, look what an evil guy, he cut taxes. As though cutting taxes is a bad thing. Its the opinion of many his tax cuts helped get us out of the recession in 2001 quickly and with less pain. The tech bubble was just the first phase of what has been a growing problem for many years.

The credit binge starting i nthe mid 90's, wall street greed, personal greed, poltiical corruptness and greed all play a role in the current situation. The CRA is at the heart of the entire mess. Banks knew they could make these bad loans that no one could ever repay because g'ment was there telling them they'd buy up the paper with tax dollars.

Reagan's recession was a real bad one too, but his tax policy helped get us out of it...by cutting taxes and getting needed capital into the system. Are libs like alan going to tell us liberal policies in the late 70's are what collapsed the economy back then? Gave us glorious 21 percent intrest rates, out of control inflation, etc. Its easy to blame the guy sitting in the WH at the time, but as was stated earlier, presidents have little control over the real eocnomy. They can affect it somewhat via tax policy, etc....but its typicall when g'ment tries to step in and "manage" the economy like they did with the CRA that things get crazy.

We had pretty low unemployment for most of W's term in office, despite starting out with a recession and the adverse affects from 9/11. The housing bubble has been building for years and W cannot be balmed....again, he did afterall try twice to reform freddie and fannie to try and possibly prevent the pop. Wall street has been engaging in its creepy stuff for years....going back to the 90's where big corps like Worldcom and Enron were cooking the #'s. So again, you cannot balme W for that.

We are in the era of bubbles, pump and dump. Where W really screwed up was with the spending. Barry has accelerated that spending to unsustainable levels....and is doing really severe long term damage.

I think the $64,000 question is who is going to bail the federal g'ment out when the debt bubble pops? and it will, its inevitible. We are racking up debt at record levels....and all the spending done by Barry sinc ehe took over has done nothing to solv eour problems. Unemployment is high, HC costs are still going up. G'ment simply lacks the capacity to "manage" the economy the way it thinksit can....therefore it is only amplifying the problems. If they owuld balance the budget and cut taxes on producers and businesses we could crawl out of this thing. But instead they just spend money that we don't have on slush fund rpojects which do nothing to stimulate the real economy. Plus with taxes going up next year they will be taking needed capital out of the system so g'ment can spend it on much more important things like union bailouts, etc.

The economy is far to complex for g'ment to manage....the g'ment can barely manage its own infrastructure, let alone a multi trillion dollar economy. G'ment is to big, to slow and to inefficient to be putting its nose into the economy and trying to control it. Things like the CRA directly caused, or at best was a major factor in the current recession. Recessions are normal and healthy things, but bubbles are not. The tech bubble, the hosuing bubble, these are just small potatoes of what is to come when the bubble of all bubbles pops, DEBT!

People my age will probably be ok unless inflation just takes everything we have built over the years....but for my kids, it will be a different story. They have so many obligations now put on them they will not be able to crawl out from under the weight of the debt they owe and the intrest assoicated with that debt. My generation was able to accumulate a lot of wealth because of the system we grew up in, free market opporutnities, etc....my kids will inherit what I have when I die, but with this anti-capitalist mindset g'ment has these days, the next generation will not be able to achieve the level of wealth my generation did. G'ment will take it from them and has taken it from them before they have even earned it.

Sacrifise the future to serve the present. Big g'ment and liberal economic theory about g'ment management will harm this country more than anyone realizes.

____________________

CompCon:

"I asked you to specify one law that the Democrats passed in Congress when they took over in 2007 and that George Bush signed that resulted in the financial crisis."

It's called a budget. Take a look at the stock market. It started down on the day that the moron, Pelosi announced the democrat budget with $3 trillion in tax increases.

People thought that the republicans and Bush were out of control with spending and deficits and replaced them with democrats. They doubled the deficits the first year, tripled the second, and quadrupled the third.

Frank and Dodd were the two biggest factors in the morgtage meltdown because they were in charge beginning in 2007. Dodd took bribes and Frank became boyfriend to the head of Fannie Mae. They should be in prison for the way they screwed this country.

____________________

Paleo:

"It's called a budget. Take a look at the stock market. It started down on the day that the moron, Pelosi announced the democrat budget with $3 trillion in tax increases.

People thought that the republicans and Bush were out of control with spending and deficits and replaced them with democrats. They doubled the deficits the first year, tripled the second, and quadrupled the third."

The house budget did not pass.

Thank goodness for the budget deficits, otherwise we'd be looking at a second Great Depression. Which is what we would have had had we kept on following right-wing policies.

____________________

CompCon:

AlanSnipes:

"It wasn't the liberals, they had no power to avoid the mistakes of the Bush administration."

That is so incredibly stupid I'm not sure why I am even replying. Bush publicly warned Pelosi's democrat congress 17 times that there was a looming mortgage crisis. The democrats controlled both congress and the senate. For you to say they had no power shows what a partisan moron hack you are.

____________________



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