Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: National Survey (PPP 7/9-12)

Topics: National , poll

Public Policy Pollng (D)
7/9-12/10; 667 registered voters, 3.8% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)

National

2012 President
47% Huckabee, 45% Obama
46% Palin, 46% Obama
46% Gingrich, 45% Obama
44% Obama, 36% Brewer
46% Romney, 43% Obama

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 45 / 52 (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Mike Huckabee: 37 / 28 (chart)
Sarah Palin: 37 / 52 (chart)
Newt Gingrich: 32 / 42
Jan Brewer: 17 / 20
Mitt Romney: 32 / 33 (chart)

 

Comments
Xenobion:

Heee heee hooo hooo ha ha...

Doesn't even make sense given the provided Favorable/Unfavorable on this poll.

Lets put all the drama in this thread today... :)

____________________

iVote:

This sample only voted for Obama 46/45 in 2008, which is way off base from what actually happened. Seriously, what is PPP thinking?

____________________

melvin:

This is great news for the Democrats.Now i know Newt and Palin is going to run in 2012 when they see these numbers.I am praying for Newt or Palin to get the Republican nomination in 2012.This is the Republicans worse nightmare.

____________________

Huda:

hahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, PPP outdoing itself in the entertaining camp.

____________________

iVote:

Not only that, but we have a TIME poll just released that has Palin losing to Obama by 21 points, and now this one's saying she's tied?

____________________

real_american:

It makes perfect sense when you look at Obama's approval. Only 45% approve of Obama. He polls between 44% to 46% against all candidates.

People disapprove of him so strongly that they will vote for someone with a low favorable instead of him.

And this disaster for democrats comes from a democrat pollster. Ouch and double ouch.

____________________

melvin:

Where is Roomney? The GOP will not nominate a Moderate in 2012" which means they is going to get killed in the General, because i don't see a Right-Winger getting no more then 20% of the Minority vote.

____________________

melvin:

Obama will not be the Democratic nominee in 2012,even though he will pass more bills then any President since FDR.

____________________

StatyPolly:

At this point, I think Palin is running (I have not thought so for the past year) and I think she's gonna be tough to beat in the primary.

As far the general against BO goes, more likely than not it'll be a referendum on him. Palin will need to rehabilitate her image somewhat, and I already see a few early signs of that happening.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Obama will not be the Democratic nominee in 2012,even though he will pass more bills then any President since FDR.

Exactly, which is why people don't like him.

____________________

seg:

iVote:
"This sample only voted for Obama 46/45 in 2008, which is way off base from what actually happened."

The respondents are now too ashamed to admit they voted for him.

____________________

sjt22:

@ FM

Ya, people sure hated that FDR. Only reelected him 3 times, what a shmuck.

____________________

sjt22:

Anyone who honestly thinks Sarah Palin would beat Obama in an election for President is insane. By all means, nominate her. Give her your money, your support, your votes. I'll be using your tears to water my garden in November 2012.

____________________

Field Marshal:

sjt22,

I was more talking about the part where melvin says he was passing more bills than anyone since FDR yet his approval is going down. Not really about FDR. Sorry for the confusion.

And don't get me started on FDR. I still think he's top 5 worst presidents. If getting re-elected means they are liked, then Bush II was a well-liked president, surely better than the dozens of presidents that didn't get re-elected.

____________________

Stillow:

So its not just Rass, now Dems are eating their own in PPP. This poll is probably right, Your seeing the vote AGAINST Obama here and not necessarily for say Huck. Barry at 45/46 peak here which is about where his overall approval is sitting.

____________________

Stillow:

For some reason pollster did not put it o nthis page, but in the details Romney beats Barry 46-43.

____________________

vincent106:

@sjt22

I said the same thing about Obama 3 years ago. I would say to myself there is no way the american public would be so dumb to vote for someone who had no experience, sat in a racist church for 20 years, was farther left than anyone in the senate, and had been a senator for all of 2 years. But I guess I was wrong too. If obama can be president, than anyone can be president including palin and or my pet goldfish.

____________________

RussTC3:

Oh, PPP. You've done it again.

Here are just four problems with the poll:

1) 2008 vote: Obama +1. 2008 was actually Obama +7.

2) Male/Female: 51/49 Male (Male +2). 2008 was actually 47/53 Female (Female +6).

3) Conservative / Liberal split: +24 Conservative (43/19). 2008 was actually +12 Conservative (34/22).

4) Age 18-44 / Age 45+ split: -25 (37/62). 2008 was actually -6 (47/53).

____________________

Stillow:

vincent106 - with the current crop of politicans on both sides to choose from, your goldfish may have a chance if he can raise money.

____________________

Stillow:

RussTC3 - I saw those too....but the party id is 39D,34R,27I....about right. And also 9 percent say they voted for some else or don't remember. Probably most of those are Barry voters who no longer want to admit they voted for him.

____________________

iVote:

@RussTC3

Thanks for pointing that out. It was obvious this poll was off base just by looking at the 2008 vote, but breaking it down farther like you did shows even deeper discrepancies.

Why is PPP focused more on making headlines than being accurate? I know they've gotta pay the bills somehow, but damn.

____________________

obamalover:

Would love to run Willie Horton like adds against Huckabee. That would be too easy.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I saw a poll that had Palin behind Obama by 20 and Gingrich, has never polled any better than 7 behind Obama. Huckabee, is popular because of his tv program, but he has had opportunities on Fox to open his mouth with many contreversial statements.

I would love to see any of these candidates run in 2012 against Obama. That would give me a sigh of relief, because campaigning against them would be a lot more fun, and easier.

Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty or Scott Brown on the other hand would be more of a challenge for the Dems.

If the GOP stays radical and nominates someone like these three, it will be awsome. Don't forget Gingrich did the same thing as John Edwards, leaving his wife who was dying of cancer. Putting gingrich on the ballot for the GOP would be like Edwards running for governor of NC.

____________________

real_american:

Has anyone seen the poll I heard about this morning on the radio that James Carville took that shows that 55% of the country says that Obama is a socialist?

That same poll shows republicans with a 6 point lead on the generic ballot.

And that's from another democratic pollster.

But there are still a few liberal media moguls out there (Time for one) making numbers up. Stick with those if these make you squeamish.

By the way, Gallup has Obama at a record low of 44% again today with a 48% disapproval. Rasmussen has him higher at 45% approval.

____________________

obamalover:

Just so you guys know, down here in Texas people love Palin and would vote for her in a heart beat in the primaries.

____________________

Stillow:

farleft - hahahahaah, if the GOP stays radical. I love this stuff from you. all Barry needs to do is keep doing doing what he's doing and by election 2012 he will be the luckiest guy on Earth to get 40 percent of the vote.

____________________

RussTC3:

Do yourself a favor and just ignore any and all daily tracking polls.

Far too volatile to be considered even somewhat accurate.

I'm perfectly fine with just averaging the live-only polls. They've proven to be the most accurate and least volatile.

____________________

Stillow:

Palin is not going to run. She has found her groove as a right wing bomb thrower. She is best used as a counter-measure to left wing bomb throwers.....and slo to fundraise for other candidates. She will not run, but I think she is more than happy to take the collective hate from the left and have it targeted at her, because it leaves other GOPers out of the scope of hate fro mthe left.

We also assume barry will be the nominee. I have this feeling that if the GOP wins one or both houses Hillary reisngs next year and announces she will challenge him. With Barry moving from scandal to scandal, polls like this shwoing him struggle agaisnt potential challengers and his overall lack of leadership, I tell you, Hillary is keeping her options open.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Expecting 2008 demographics to show up in 2012 is not realistic.

08 was unprecedented in many ways (including, for example, tons of first and only time voters), and 2012 electorate will be vastly different.

____________________

Stillow:

RussTC3:

I'm perfectly fine with just averaging the live-only polls. They've proven to be the most accurate and least volatile.
----
Not so. Autoamted dialing vs live has no clear winner. in NJ for example last year robo polling outperformed live itnerviews....Corzine would always do much beteer in live interviews.

With live interviews the bias of the caller can come into play and his/her tone of voice. Your less likely to be honest when talking to someone than if your talking to a machine with no bias.

I agree looking at one day of a daily tracker is useless, but the weekly and monthly averages of the daily trackers are good tools to hlep make sense of all the data.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"Has anyone seen the poll I heard about this morning on the radio that James Carville took that shows that 55% of the country says that Obama is a socialist?"

This one:

http://www.democracycorps.com/wp-content/files/dcor062210fq6.web_.pdf

Q50. Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all.

A socialist......32 23 16 23

____________________

RussTC3:

Stillow
Topline, yes, not internals though.

Rasmussen and PPP were waaaaayyy off in measuring the approval/disapproval of the key players (including the President). That was backed up via the exit polls.

The live-only polls may not have performed as accurately as the automated ones, but they did a much better job at measuring approval.

That tells me one thing: Automated pollsters did a better job at manipulating the data (or weighting, however you want to call it) to get results closer to reality.

Of course they also had their misses (NY-23 in particular for PPP).

Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick to the average of this formula: Live - Internet - Automated = x.

____________________

obamalover:

@Stillow

Palin as an effective counter measure? LOL! Maybe she would be if she could get out of her own way. What universe do you live in? Palin has just barely enough brain cells to breath.

At this point I would be surprised if Palin did not run. All her actions thus far (visiting primary states etc.) suggest she is running. Sorry to burst your bubble there buddy.

And if you think the Republicans have anything more than a 5% chance of taking over the Senate you are living in a dream world. All the teabagger candidates dashed any hopes of that pipe dream coming to fruition.

As for the House I would say there is a 55/45 chance of Dems maintaining control, which is sort of ironic since it is the Senate that has been so dysfunctional.

____________________

Stillow:

RussTC3: - We agree. I want them all averaged and want al lthe data. I may have misunderstood your first comment on it. But I think we agree that each model is useful....and no model or pollster can get every race, they all miss some regardless of model, etc. it just is what it is.

____________________

Stillow:

OL - I hope your here in Nov so I can remind you of his prediction you make. Palin is a good bomb thrower, both sides need them....and she raises a boatload of money and draws huge crowds. You may hate her as a person, that is your deal, but she is effective in her own way.

____________________

obamalover:

@Stillow

Yes she is good at raising money (and making money), but she is not a good bomb thrower. Most of her "bombs" are more likely to blow up in her face. You are horribly deluded if you think she is effective at all out side of the teabagger base.

____________________

saywhat90:

"Expecting 2008 demographics to show up in 2012 is not realistic." Statepolly

Wouldn't the same apply to using 2010 demographics for 2012. I mean it is a two year difference in both cases.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"since it is the Senate that has been so dysfunctional"

Pffft. Beautiful logic there. Only 36% of Senate is up for re-election this year. 18 Dem seats and 18 GOP. Had all 100 seats been up, GOP'd probably take it like 60-40. As is, GOP will probably win 25 of the 36 seats that are up.

There is an interesting trend developing in the Senate races. RCP has it as 48 safe Dem, 42 safe or pretty safe GOP and 10 true tossups.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_elections_senate_map.html

What's happened in the past month or so is some of the formerly "safe" GOP races like NV or FL have now tightened up, but on the other hand a few of the safe Dem seats also got very close. Like CA WI WA. All ten tossups are within about 2% margin. I think if the generic ballot moves 2-3% by Nov, that could be enough to sweep 8-9 of those tossups into the GOP column. Not that the reverse could not be true also.

____________________

williame123:

@Field Marshal

"Exactly, which is why people don't like him."

Why didn't people like Reagan in '82 and Clinton in '94 but loved H. W. Bush in '90? Also, which of the 3 was not re-elected.

____________________

StatyPolly:

saywhat?

I was comparing 2008 and 2012. Both are presidential election years. Mid-term elections like 2010 automatically have a different demographic built in. Lower turnout, etc..

____________________

seg:

Willie Horton
I assume everyone knows that Al Gore used the Willie Horton issue against Dukakis. Since black votes are critical in dem primaries, seemed like a stupid issue for Gore. Maybe that is why he lost to Dukakis, aside from the latter's effectiveness in selling the mythical "MASS miracle" to mis-informed demos.

As is sometimes the case, an issue that failed with a group of partisans succeeded with the nation.

____________________

dpearl:

"I assume everyone knows that Al Gore used the Willie Horton issue against Dukakis."
SEG: That isn't really true. Gore only made general remarks about the Massachusetts furlough program during a debate with Dukakis. He never mention Willie Horton at all.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Expecting 2008 demographics to show up in 2012 is not realistic."

Why? Some semblance of the 2008 electorate will probably show up. 2008 was not really a dramatic shift in itself, just a general stregnthening of Kerry's 2004 demographics, which was pretty similar to Gore's 2000 demographics. Not unprecedented by any means.

People made a lot out of the young voters, hispanics, and blacks, but there really weren't dramatic shifts there, just some changes in their share of the electorate. The racail trends are still in place and have been since 1988. I've said that on here a million times. First-time voters have been democratic since 1996 and trended moreso each successive election. Those 1996 and 2000 first time voters were the same liberal millenials in 2004 and 2008. An 18 year old in 1996 was born in 1978. Who are they? Oh yeah, those 30-yr olds who suppported Obama in 2008.

The problem with interpretation was not 2008, but 2004. What was unprecedented was a republican getting over 40% of the hispanic vote. Never happened before and didn't happen after. Republicans waaaayyy overinterpreted that election. Weakest EC performance of an incumbent president ever. They somehow saw a permanent majority when one state would have swung the election.

Think about it. A republican has not gotten over 286 EVs since 1992, while democrats haven't gone under 250 in the same period. Republicans have gotten less than 200 EVs in 3 of the last 5.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I like the idea by someone wrote that Palin should be chairman of the RNC. She's great at drawing crowds and fundraisers and Steele seems to be inept.

She would be similar to Howard Dean is a far-left blowhard. She could be something very similar with a little tweaking.

I still think the Senate is a long-shot but not in 2012. I think the GOP picks up 5 in 2010 and probably another 3 or 4 in 2012 and possibly takes it back then. The dems just have too many red state senators from the 2006 election. And so- called centrists like Nelson and Landrieu, who both will probably get primaried, that voted for ObamaCare and other far-left legislative items that they cannot run from.

____________________

Mike E:

Any suicidal Dems on out there, how about amending your will so that I get your stash of weed.

____________________

seg:

Damn those rightwing PPP fanatics! Damn that rightwing fanatic, Carville!

Why do all of these people want to lie about the popularity of Obama and liberal democrats?

I think liberals ought to get together and do a liberals' poll (maybe R2000 could supervise?).

I suggest the following LV filter:
reads KOS, Daily Beast, and Huffington daily
sees people as a blight on Gaia
admires Chavez, Castro, Che, Cheech and Chong
considers all whites to be likely racists, especially if white, themselves

Finally, I think the rest of the country is just not smart enough or caring enough to deserve our liberals. We rudely walk faster when they start to tell us all of our faults, and we do not take our Castor Oil with a good attitude.

Liberals should revolt at this ingratitude. Why not emulate Galt in Ayn Rand and set up a society in some uninhabited land and run it for liberals by liberals with liberal principles? They could tax and subsidize each other to great prosperity!

Liberals might learn something from the experience, and the rest of us could use a break.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

Comparing Dean to Palin is a joke. Dean is an MD, and Palin can't even spell 'MD'. LOL!

____________________

Field Marshal:

You're right OL, Dean is a Major D1ckhead!

____________________

Publius:

I think that the conservatives should be careful what they wish for. If the Republicans take over the House, so what? Do you think they'll be able to get anything substantial done on their terms? They will have to compromise and Obama will look more Presidential and decisive. It did wonders for Clinton when Newt was strutting all over DC and it will make the Republicans look ineffective and churlish.

I don't understand why conservatives believe that the country will lurch so far to the right that Palin or Gingrich will become a legitimate candidate. This is the era of the emerging moderates. Look at Scott Brown (he stopped Health Care and the Financial Bill, right?) and the moderates from Maine. More of them will get elected.

Many of the House Democrats were recruited and elected because they rejected the left on guns and choice. These are not flaming liberals and neither is Obama.

Far right conservatives, your time is coming to an end. You might have a good November, but we really do need to actually fix the mess that Republicans have gotten us into.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

ooooo, good comeback [sarcasm]

____________________

Stillow:

OL - You seem to have a very unhealthy hate for Palin. I know libs are very very very very sensitive creatures, but this hate is unhealthy for you as a liberal.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Aaron, good points on EV's. But President is a sample of one. Pretty small. We all know that Presidential elections are as much about personality contest as anything else. Teeth, height and hair:-)

I'll give you a bigger, more reliable sample. How about the House. Dems completely dominated the House since what? 1940's? 30's? Dems had 3 to 1 seat advantage at times. Huge majorities into 70's and 80's. Until 1994. GOP won the House six times in a row. Sure, Dems got control for the past four years, but I pretty sure that's about to change.

And of course, polling of ideology shows a nice and steady movement towards conservatism for the last two decades.

The past 18 months certainly didn't do the liberal cause any long term favors either.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"This is the era of the emerging moderates. Look at Scott Brown"

I agree, there probably will be lots more moderate Repubs getting elected in deep blue areas of the country.

OTOH, Dem moderates in blue areas, GOP moderates in red areas, and both in purple areas don't have much of chance of winning primaries.

____________________

obamalover:

@Stillow

It is not hate; she is just too easy to make fun of.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Seg,

Castro and Castor in the same post?

Confusing..

____________________

nick283:

This isn't surprising. Obama has the problem a lot of democrats have these days. Only about 45% of people can stomach voting for them. The hate for Palin, Bachmann etc is largely motivated by some sort of weird prejudice. They can't stand successful outspoken conservative women. These are the same people who call Laura Ingraham an idiot despite her incredibly strong academic credentials.

____________________

Publius:

@StatyPolly

Many Democratic moderates are already acting like Republicans, which is not a bad thing. I would support more moderate candidates of either party because I think that would ensure the best results for the reform of Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements.

Obama is clearly more moderate than conservatives give him credit for.

____________________

Publius:

@nick283

"They can't stand successful outspoken conservative women."

Not at all true. I don't like their ideas, their methods or what they stand for. Their platforms are simplistic and unrealistic. I also think that they believe that if you don't agree with them then you're not a true American. That sort of blind nationalism is destructive.

I also don't agree with far right conservative men either, if that makes you feel better.

____________________

seg:

Aaron_in_TX:
I think you are wrong about the turnout in November, but we will see.

I do agree that this could be the last hurrah for Republicans. At some point, we must naturalize our millions of illegal immigrants. Even if Republicans sponsored the measure and rammed it through, the new citizens would vote for democrats for several reasons:
(1) welfare for a substantial fraction (it is not an issue presently only because they do not qualify),
(2) willingness to accept Spanish as an alternative to English,
(3) free medical care and social security for their aging parents, who may be down south currently but will be literally "grandfathered" into it, and
(4) "affirmative action" set asides.

In the long run, Hispanics will become traditional Republicans as they become more prosperous, but that may take a generation. In the meantime, the Republicans will have to become more accepting of welfare costs of all kinds.

As an aside, I state my feeling that so-called affirmative action must be radically revised before it becomes politically impossible. As Obama claimed to believe, it should be based solely on parental income. It is crucial that this be done before naturalizing our millions of illegal immigrants.

____________________

nick283:

Publius - the vitriol and sexually degrading comments directed toward Sarah Palin and her daughters are disgusting. That kind of commentary is simply not tolerated in polite society when directed toward men or liberal women. There is something wrong here. I am not accusing you directly, and i am sure there are plenty of people who have legitimate disagreements with her, but the people who reflexively call her or Michelle Bachmann stupid... the people who refer to Palin as moosehunter barbie or a slutty stewardess... yeah i have a problem with them.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"there probably will be lots more moderate Repubs"

Moderates were largely the ones who lost in 2006 and 2008 - Chafee, Shays, etc..

Arguably moderate republicans are more beneficial for people like me than they are for conservatives. A mod does not want to upset the basic structure of our programs as they stand and is likely to not want to do things like outlaw abortion completely.

The coservative democrats are mostly "conservative" on social issues, guns, etc... whereas a moderate republican might not care about those issues.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"Obama is clearly more moderate than conservatives give him credit for."

Well 55% of adults in a respected Dem poll think he is a socialist. So, it's more than just conservatives. There were other polls recently that regarded him as as too liberal.

HC, stimulus, and the burning desire to expand the reach and scope of federal government do not paint him as a moderate.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"55% of adults in a respected Dem poll think he is a socialist."

They wouldn't know what a socialist is.

To quote Jon Stewart, "if Obama's a socialist, he's dyslexic."

A socialist would never condone the corporate welfare of bailout/stimulus politics or the HCR bill.

____________________

seg:

StatyPolly:
Damn! I burned up a week's worth of my modest supply of cleverness and humor, and nobody knows what Castor Oil was ?

I am seriously dating myself, I guess.

____________________

StatyPolly:

I was just kidding, Seg. I know about Castor Oil.

My great-grandpa read me a book about it once. He told me he found that book in his grandpa's attic when he was a kid.

____________________

seg:

dpearl:
Horton not used by Gore. I remember hearing at the time that he did, but I can't say that I recall hearing it, myself. I will take your word for it, though I wonder how you would prove the absence of a statement other than 3rd party denials.

The point is nearly the same, though. Everyone in the region knew of the case. It had been tremendously sensationalized because it involved a black felon and a white couple.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"it should be based solely on parental income."

Is it not? Didn't the supreme court invalidate quotas as a university admission policy a long time ago?

Minorities are the ones more likely to have low parental income.

"Hispanics will become traditional Republicans as they become more prosperous,"

Well, they haven't as long as they've been here. Who knows what they will become 2-3 generations down the road - mixed race, etc.. is something that was not a factor before.

If previous immigrant groups are any guide, it will take several decades for them to stop supporting the party that advocated for them early on. It took 50+ years for the Irish/German/Slavic immigrants and their descendents to change their political leanings. It's taken 40 years for the Cubans to stop supporting republicans so strongly.

"In the meantime, the Republicans will have to become more accepting "

I do think the republicans will start changing their rhetoric in the years ahead.

I think if you examine the anti-immigrant rhetoric from the 1840s-50s, or the 1890s-1920s, you'll find much of the same sentiments. Overusing services, taking jobs, etc... it was the same stuff. The only difference now is that the word "illegal" is attached. It was "legal" then but it didn't make people approve of them.

I guarantee if these people were coming here legally (they can't - you can only do that if you have money or connections) the rhetoric would not be that much different.

The wave is mostly over though. Illegal crossing have plummeted since the recession started and there's fewer jobs.

____________________

jack:

I think Pollster.com should look into the possibility that either PPP or Time fabricated their poll today, because both are among registered voters and one has Palin tied with Obama and Time has Obama up by 20% or so.

____________________

dpearl:

SEG: The Wikipedia article on Willie Horton has some discussion of this. Also, here's a piece by conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby on the topic:

http://cache.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/The_real_meaning_of_Willie_Horton+.shtml

I think the point is much different since Gore was not describing anything about the race of any criminals furloughed (just questioning whether such programs should be instituted for federal crimes) and the debate where he brought it up was in New York, not Massachusetts.

____________________

Paleo:

Difference between the Time poll and PPP: Those 15 year boys answering the phones and pushing the buttons have the hots for Palin.

____________________

seg:

Publius:
Being careful what you wish for is always a good idea. Being grateful for what you have is an even better one.

As to your point: I have said much the same thing. Whoever in power is going to have to clean up the mess Obama is creating, which was added to the solid foundation created by Bush and by Clinton before him. Come to think of it, Washington probably screwed up, too.

Seriously, this blame is wonderful. There is so much to go around that we never run out of ammunition.

The truth is (I happen to have my own stash of it handy here) that we have seen the train coming, yet we squabble about getting off of the tracks. We do that because we built our house right on top of them and we have to decide whose fault that was before we jump out of the way.

The question is, what do we do? Give me a good solution that you show the guts to implement, and I will vote for your team.

Obama, in my nearly humble opinion, is f***** up completely, so far. Somehow, digging the debt hole deeper and wider is not getting rid of the hole, though it does help him keep that great muscle tone.

The only two people I see that give me any confidence that they would dive in and make things better are Mitch Daniels and Bobby Jindal. Well, Christie would, but his NJ abrasiveness would not play well nationally.

Of course, Mitch Daniels comes up to Obama's navel, so he could not be elected. Jindal, though, is a comer. Unlike Obama, he actually has a solid record of accomplishment at every stage of his career. Obama has written two books about himself.

All over Europe countries are having to get their house in order. The crucial thing they all agree on is that welfare, medical care, and public employment must be cut back drastically. Our problem and its solution are the same.

We would have to raise taxes by 40% to balance Obama's budget. That CANNOT happen through income taxes because it would throw us into a real depression, which would actually make our fiscal situation worse. It must be primarily by reduction of expenditures.

Do you think Obama is going to support that? No way. Are Republicans stupid enough and fuzzy headed enough to pass massive tax increases? No way.

So we will stay on the tracks and yell at each other for awhile longer.


____________________

Field Marshal:

They can't stand successful outspoken conservative women. These are the same people who call Laura Ingraham an idiot despite her incredibly strong academic credentials.


I would say the same about ivy league conservative men. Look at the way the denigrate Bush's intelligence yet hold up Obama's as some sort of prodigious achievement.

____________________

Paleo:

"which was added to the solid foundation created by Bush and by Clinton before him."

Clinton? Clinton left office with budget surpluses. Which Bush promptly ended with his tax cuts. Republicans and their crocodile deficit tears.

____________________

Paleo:

"Look at the way the denigrate Bush's intelligence yet hold up Obama's as some sort of prodigious achievement."

Because Bush's father and his father before him were alumnis, perhaps? It's good to be a legacy.

____________________

Publius:

So many people to respond to.

@nick283

I agree that sexist comments from all parts of the political spectrum are disgusting and uninformed. Making brutal fun of other people's beliefs is unfortunately part of the culture.

@Staty Polly

Asking an opinion is one thing, and I agree that the word "socialist" has lost all meaning in today's environment, but facts are another. He is factually a moderate. If he were a liberal he would have fought for a public option and supported Lincoln on derivatives. her has tried to work with stonewallers who have no ideas of their own and has split the difference on most issues. That's a moderate. But I suppose if you're way over to the right, even a moderate looks like Lenin.

@seg

Poll after poll has shown us contradictory public opinion on how to fix the problems. People want the government to help with jobs, but they don't want to spend money on unemployment. They want lower taxes, but more services. They want cheap gas and coal, but a cleaner environment.

I'm not as worried about the debt (as many Republicans felt about 5 years ago. Perhaps they only like their debt) as I am about saving whatever jobs we can and stimulating the economy. As the economy grows more taxes will help with the debt. Trying to rein in spending in a severe recession is madness. I know we disagree.

@All

I am now going to take my tablespoon of Castor Oil and go for a swim. If I cut myself, I think I have some iodine in the medicine cabinet.

____________________

seg:

Aaron_in_TX:
Come now, surely you know that admissions committees simply changed a few labels, changed their descriptions of their criteria, and maintained the same practices.

There was a study out just a few days ago (it didn't occur to me to log it somewhere) that showed average SATs at colleges by race and group.

As has been shown elsewhere many times, the differences were profound. I will point out that Asians suffered the worst negative discrimination, as shown by far higher SAT scores than other groups. Since not all Asians score at super high levels, that suggests that being merely above the college's average was not good enough for Asians to be admitted, especially in the elite schools. I have seen anecdotal evidence of that in Asian kids I know who were 4.0, 1550 SAT, volunteer everywhere, and led everything, but still were not accepted into elite schools. Asians are the Jews of the 1940s and 1950s.

Other studies have shown that American blacks in these schools were likely to be at least middle class, yet still averaged 150 or more points lower than whites or Asians in the same schools. I have read several articles by black authors over the years that pointed out that affirmative action helps only the most affluent blacks and does nothing whatsoever for poor blacks, yet whites assume both groups benefit from positive discrimation. Thomas Sowell and others have argued that black students commonly occupy the lowest quartile in college grades and fail far more often than whites because they are placed in environments were they are not competitive. They would have been competitive and better off if they had gone to lower tier schools based on their actual SATs and GPAs. Blacks with the same SATs and GPAs as whites generally do about as well.

This article did not discuss that issue, instead focusing on the effect of poverty if you were white. Basically, being poor reduced your chances of acceptance dramatically if you were a white applicant. For the same SAT scores, poor whites were much less likely to be accepted than affluent whites. The authors speculated that poor blacks provided a "two-fer," giving credit for both minority and poor, while poor whites only gave credit for poor. Apparently creds for black were vastly more important than poor since poor whites are represented far less proportionately than blacks.

They speculated that colleges felt no positive incentive to admit poor whites but did feel a disincentive: keeping their costs down. Not admitting poor whites, who account for roughly half of all poor people, was a handy way to reduce costs while pretending that "need is not a factor."

Furthermore, they also found that many things were strong negative factors for whites who had applied. For the same SAT score, being a member of 4-H or FFA reduced your chances dramatically. Being from a rural area sharply reduced your chances. Coming from the south sharply reduced your chances, if you were white.

If you liberals want to understand the resilence of Palin's support among the white working class and non-professional middle class, you might consider that these groups are NOT stupid. They know very well that big city liberals often despise and deride those in "fly-over" country. They know that their unemployment, their bank's failure, their small businesses barely even merit lip service from national democrats.

Most likely Palin will never come close to the Republican nomination, but her clout among less affluent whites means that the winner will have to negotiate with her.

____________________

Mike:

Here's two predictions:

1. Things will get much worse for Obama before they get better.

2. They can get better again real fast.

After the midterm elections of 1982 and 1994 respectively, Reagan and Clinton were running about 15 points behind Mondale and Dole. Not 3 points, 15 points. And they got reelected anyhow.

The same could happen with Obama (depending of course on the economy).

____________________



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