Pollster.com

+7 to the GOP on the LV generic. Another nail in the coffin for Pelosi and Co.

Yay! Somewhere between 1/5 and 1/4 of the country is nuts.

But, then again, somewhere between 1/5 and 1/4 of the countyr thinks that 9/11 was an inside job.

Emily: that link to the Time release doesn't work.

Obama moves down three relative to their last poll. Even Time cant hide the decline anymore.

Time still have a magazine or have they also sold themselves for a buck?

Thanks CompCon, should be working now.

Yep, I'm enjoying the "Recovery Summer": The GOP recovering their lost congressional seats...hehe

This and other recent generic ballot polls are very dreary for Congressional DEMS. At this moment the House would most assuredly flip to GOP Control. Luckily for DEMS the election is not today but in about 11 weeks.

The public is just now starting to really focus on the elections. The GOP will keep drumming the message of "no jobs, massive spending, deficits", etc. The DEMS will attempt to make the elections turn on local issues and on making the GOP an unacceptable alternative.

What is certain is there will be very substantial GOP gains in the House. There will be tightening in the generic polls going to election day especially after the DEMS start using their large financial advantage. But I am not sure they will win enough to get the next 39 seats they will needs to take control.

So out of 1000 randomly sampled people, 91% are registered to vote. And out of those who are registered, just under 91% are likely voters. Isn't that what they are telling us?

Unless I am way off base, those numbers are much higher than historical registration and voter turnout numbers, expecially in a mid term election.

did anyone else notice today on Gallup, Obama is down to 41/52 for a freaking NEGATIVE 11 net-approval ?

i wonder how much his mosque comments play into it. but either way he kinda screwed up on his mosque comments. that's what happens when a guy so tailored to prepared speeches on the prompter makes an impromptu statement.

and we all know in this country - it's the first comment that counts. no amount of "clarifications" will fix your initial screw-ups. leadership is about knowing the right thing to stay on first try, not thinking out loud. a few more of these gaffes and we might see the Senate being in play too.

Good to know that the crazy quilt of America is as crazy as ever.

"Unless I am way off base, those numbers are much higher than historical registration and voter turnout numbers, expecially in a mid term election.'

Good point Bigmike - I think the problem is that they let the respondents self identify as "likely voters". Since most people don't want to admit to being unlikely to vote, this is really not comparable to other LV polls we look at that are based on models of actual voting behavior.

The Hispanics turned out in record numbers in Wash on Tues,,,Murray got 84pct of the Hispanic vote,which was 3pct of the vote,up from 1pct 6yrs ago.

The GOP better pay attention to those numbers in WH,because it could mean bad news for the GOP in CA,ILL,NEV,FL,COL,TX,,84pct of the latino vote could set back the GOP bigtime in Nov.

The Media is ignoring the numbers the Hispanics gave Murray on Tues...If the latinos give any Dem 84pct of they're vote,its going to push them over the top...6yrs ago Murray only got 62pct of the vote

In 2006 the latinos gave the Dems 69pct of they're vote,and they was 6pct of the vote. If the Dems get 80pct in Nov,the GOP is not going to come close to 40 seats.

Melvin: I don't think you understand how the House works. Hispanics can vote their little hearts out in November, but if they're all in the same heavily minority districts, it really won't have that big of an effect on things.

In by the way Rossi only recieved 8pct of the latino vote..That 14th admendment talk did alot of damage,just like the Obama talk on the Mosque

Come Tues,if the latinos gives Crist,and Meeks over 66pct of they're vote combined it means the GOP cant win FL in 2012.If Cubans wasnt in Fl,Crist in Meeks will gt over 80pct combined together.

Still peddling the same teleprompter argument from 2008. Lame...

Generic votes on a national basis have no relevance at all, particularly in light of a recent poll that showed that GOP candidates were winning by some 35 points in the South, where they already have just about all of the seats in districts that don't have African-American majorities.

Eliminate that, and also discount the huge margin (+20) the Dems have in the northeast and you have an electorate in the rest of the country that would be about +4-6 Democratic.

All told, that might translate into 18-20 seats for the GOP, since they'll pick up a couple of "at the margin" seats.

Also, you could use "likely voter" screens all you want, but when you have "actual voters" as you did this past Tuesday in WA, in its top 2 primary format, you can get a good look at Congressional results.

Obviously, on the Senate side, it became no contest when Murray slaughtered Rossi by some 15-16 points, by the time the rest of the votes are counted.

On the Congressional races, 8 of the 9 seats there will remain the same. One Democratic seat (an open one) is close, but the Democratic candidate has about a +3 edge going into the general. Odds are it will stay the same, so when "actual voters" vote, as opposed to those that pollsters think are "likely voters," there does not appear to be any change in the WA Congressional delegation.

All this Murray "slaughtering" Rossi talk is ridiculous. You realize that the GOP had more than one candidate in the race right?

I can't believe some of these comments I'm reading (and hearing on TV) relating to the President's stance on the Cordoba House (and in general).

Why the hell should anyone care about the "political cost" of the President's stance?

America was founded on religious freedom. We don't as a government, or a people, block something from happening simply on the grounds that we don't agree.

It doesn't matter what you or I feel about it personally. It is a constitutional right and one that should be supported regardless of the amount of opposition against it.

Believe me. The President doesn't give a **** about a so-called political hit because of his comments. You represent everyone as President. You support EVERYONE'S constitutional rights.

This isn't a freaking game. There's no winner or loser.

Unbelievable.

@Dave: Murray absolutely slaughtered Rossi, even though there were of course 1 or 2 other serious Republicans in the race. Look at the polling beforehand. It showed Murray leading Rossi by 4-6%, with Didier at about 10 and Akers at about 4.

Final results are not yet in, but all estimates are that Murray beat Rossi by about 16% (she's already +13 on existing results, with two thirds of the still uncounted ballots coming from counties where she had huge pluralities, particularly King County).

So why isn't that a total wipeout? In fact, Didier himself, who got 12%, said he might not even endorse Rossi. So just where is Rossi going to pick up 20 points????

Rossi was talked into running, because the GOP regulars thought he could compete head to head against Murray. This was a head to head race and he got totally trounced. Face it, it was a slaughter.

On the generic ballot chart page did anyone notice YouGov went from +6D to even? They were about the last one's showing the Dems ahead.

Rossi has been slaughered 2 times against a very unpopular governor. What makes him a viable candidate against a popular Senator?

I'd say put Rossi out to stud since he's seen better days but I think he's be more useful at the glue factory.

But it wasn't a head to head race though. You had conservatives splitting their votes 3 ways, while Murray was the only serious contender on the Democratic side. It boils down to at least 48% of voters preferring someone other than Patty Murray. And that someone was a conservative.

I second your thought Dave. The facts speak for themselves. Whether someone is a liberal or conservative, you cannot dispute stone cold facts like this.

Regarding the mosque issue, I believe it was StatyPolly or Stillow or someone else who said that they opposed it being built because they felt like it was a slap in the face to the families of 9/11 victims. They said that if the families didn't have a problem with it, then they wouldn't have a problem with it either.

Well, Ted Olson, whose wife died on 9/11, was on TV yesterday saying that the President was right about the mosque. He said what a lot of us have been saying: that people of all religions have the right to build places of worship where they choose. I admire Ted Olson for standing up for equality even after the pain of losing someone on 9/11.

Watch for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHEydwKu6-s&feature=ytn:mptnews

Will StatyPolly or whoever posted that on here amend their position now that a family member has spoken out in favor?

"Rossi has been slaughered 2 times against a very unpopular governor."

Slaughtered?

"In the November 2 election, over 2.8 million votes were cast for Governor. After the initial vote count, Rossi led Democrat Christine Gregoire by 261 votes.[21] Washington State law required a recount because of the small margin. After the second count, Rossi again led, but by a smaller margin of 42 votes. After a third count, done by hand, Gregoire took a 129 vote lead (expanded to a 133 vote lead after Justice Bridges' decision threw out 4 votes for Rossi).

King County's election department was sued by the Rossi campaign for its handling of ballots, including untracked use of a "ballot-on-demand" printing machine.[23] Even before the election date, the U.S. Department of Justice threatened to sue Washington State for failing to mail military ballots overseas, generally assumed to be Republican votes.[24]

Republican leaders in Washington claimed there were enough disputed votes to change the outcome of the election and sued. On May 25, 2005 the judge hearing the lawsuit ruled that the Party did not provide enough evidence that the disputed votes were ineligible, or for whom they were cast, to enable the court to overturn the election.[25]

Rossi did not appeal to the state Supreme Court;[26] Gregoire was declared governor, by a margin of 133 votes."

ivote,

Stillow is on medical leave, and I did not say it was because of 9/11 families. There were a number of other 9/11 families that came out in support of building there from the beginning.

Not to disrespect people who lost family members on 9/11, but I view all Americans to be a 9/11 family, since must of us suffered from that act.

Can any supporters find an excuse why the people behind the "intercultural healing center" or whatever they call it, refused to even meet with Gov. Patterson who was trying to find an alternate location near by?

In the beginning I thought it was just an unfortunate but innocent choice of location by the imam, but now he has me completely convinced that it was quite purposeful.

Here is a little polling done right, old skool style:

“Last year, Obama gave you goose bumps, but I don’t think you’re going to see that this year,’’ said Alex McCluskey, co-owner of the Locker Room, who sold more than 4,000 “I vacationed with Obama’’ T-shirts last year. But so far this year, he said, his hot item is T-shirts of former President Bush asking, “Miss me yet?’’

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/08/18/vineyard_buzzes_less_for_obamas_second_visit/

Oh, do we miss you yet? The answer's simple, George: F*CK NO.

Mosque:
If evangelicals had wanted to build a $100M mega church on the same site, do you suppose any liberals would have said that it was inappropriate and insensitive?

Also, the imam has not "ruled out" funding from Saudi Arabia or Iran. Hah! I will make a prediction for you: the money will be provided by Wahabbists in Saudia Arabia. Who else has $100M? Once the building has been completed, the "moderate" Imam will invite in NYT reporters, Obama, etc. and make moderate speeches. Once the "useful idiots" have left, typical Wahabbist anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, anti-female literature will be passed around to the faithful.

Why am I sure the imam's moderation is fake? Because of what he has refused to condemn. If he is bankrolled by Wahabbist .. well, let's just say they use their money to accomplish their goals, none of which involve moderation. We will know for sure when the money rolls in. If it comes from Saudi Arabia, then the imam is yet another plant.

Why would they bother to fake moderation? Simple: when a play has worked 10 times in a row, why not go for 11? These people are intelligent and are sanctioned by Allah to lie to us infidels. Faking moderation is an easy play to call when your opponents are so eager to fake themselves out.

It has happened several times before in Europe and the US. Remember Alawaki (sp?), the celebrated "moderate" imam in the US who was spiritual advisor to several would be bombers and to our own Major Hasan? He is the one Obama has (illegally) ordered the military to kill in any way possible. Remember the Eygptian moderate who was flown around the world to make speeches by our very own State Dept until the Israelis turned over compelling evidence that he was a plant? So now the State Dept is flying the latest moderal imam around the world. Makes you wonder about the State Dept.

It is one thing to grant rights to your own citizens. It is another to allow foreigners who have sworn to their god to destroy you into your home. Note that "Cordoba" is equivalent to "next year in Jersuleum." An especially cherished intermediate goal of fanatical Muslims is to "take back" Spain and restore Cordoba as its capital. You see, one of the greatest sins in the Wahabbist view is to stop being a Muslim. That is anathema for an individual or a country, in this case, Spain.

I have never understood why so many liberals who are so hostile to Christians fall all over themselves to support Muslims, including fanatically anti-western Muslims. Can any of you explain it to me?

I have many Muslim friends and colleagues. I will gladly fight for their rights and have done so on two very memorable occasions. However, the moderate Muslims I know fear and hate Wahabbists and cannot understand why we let them operate freely in this country. Shiites, by the way, are high on their list of those to be eliminated.

@Seg
"why am I sure the imam's moderation is fake? Because of what he has refused to condemn"

What exactly has he refused to condemn that would lead you to be 'sure' that he is not a moderate? He appears to be a Sufi, normally regarded as moderate denomination.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599200843200

"We will know for sure when the money rolls in. If it comes from Saudi Arabia, then the imam is yet another plant."

Are you contending that any group or company that has Saudi money invested in it, is a 'plant' or 'extemeist'?, if so I would look to banks such as citigroup.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/MarketTalk/story?id=5398191&page=1

As to name Cordoba, it was widely regarded as a place of scholarly enlightenment in medieval Europe, do you not think that is why they choose the name? or perhaps that in Cordoba, Christians and Muslims lived together without violence? Why on earth, if their intentions were some sort of secret malicious conspiracy, would they openly name the project something you think represents what their secret plan is?!

"I have never understood why so many liberals who are so hostile to Christians fall all over themselves to support Muslims, including fanatically anti-western Muslims. Can any of you explain it to me?"

A double strawman. Impressive. It has nothing to do with hostility or support. It has to do with the right to equal protection of the law.

More likely....................................................... 26%
Less likely ....................................................... 40%
Doesn't make a difference either way ............. 34%

these numbers are from PPP today. more / less likely in Illinois to vote for a candidate endorsed by President Obama.

Majority supports Obama's plan to eliminate Bush's tax cuts for high income taxpayers:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/115123-poll-majority-wants-tax-cuts-eliminated-for-wealthy-extended-for-others

Seg:
This post contains no logic and a lot of supposition. If your own student passed this in to you what grade would it receive? (let's say it was written about something completely different and non-controversial...just the logic of it is what I am looking at).

There are many rich Saudis that are conservative and pro-West. The Bushes knew a lot of them; one of them is a major owner of News Corp (Fox News' parent company. There are several Republican donors who have contributed millions to the party who are Muslim (not sure how long that will last after this), for example the Hasan Family Foundation.

The leader of the group wishing to build, as you know, has worked as an envoy for Bush in the Middle East to show how we have religious tolerance and freedom here in the US. That's a laugh now that every 2 bit mosque project in the country seems to be coming under attack, the latest some place in KY as well as TN, of course. Where's the "hallowed ground" there or...as one Congressional Republican (Mack-Bono) put it "hollowed ground"; great way to refer to ground zero, eh?

The failure to condemn something preemptively doesn't express an intention to participate in it.

As for the "evils" of Islamic religions...they're no different than the Judeo-Christian dogma they were derived from.

Anti-gay?
The Muslim religion, like many Judeo Christian ones, is anti-gay; there's no difference as they all derive from a common root. Gays are all going to hell of one form or another according to orthodox religious dogma. We've made progress not because of religious dogma but because of the gay political movement.

Anti-semetic?
The leader of this particular group wishing to build the Mosque has stated "I am a Jew" when referring to his religion's historical roots (this was done in the context of a eulogy for a Jewish journalist killed by terrorists way before this controversy arose). As you know Moses and Jesus are both prophets according to the Koran. That said most Muslims here oppose what Israel has done with regard to its neighbors; I doubt your own Muslim friends support Israel's position vis a vis Palestine. It would be a first for me if you tell me they do. I too know Muslims; they are all peaceful people and they do not support Israel's positions yet generally support a 2 state solution (they support a solution where Israel's existence is assured, that is).

There are definitely Muslims who are anti-Semitic and, as Jew, there are as many Jews who dislike Muslims solely because they are Muslim.

There are many Christian ministers, priests, etc. who argue that a woman's place is in the home and who speak out against equality in the workplace, etc Muslim doctrine definitely espouses this view, generally, with more fundamentalist Muslims being more hard-line in this regard. However, there are many Muslim women who run businesses and some who have run countries too....Pakistan being one example where a woman has led the country. Are we going to oppose the building of places of worship for Christian fundamentalists who don't think women should go out and work?

I think an important interview to read on the Park 51 Islamic Cultural Center story is the one with Sharif el-Gamal, the CEO of SoHo Properties who owns the property where this is to be built. Note that the interview was back when this was a local rather then a national story. The interview may be found at
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2010/07/qa-with-sharif-el-gamal-about.html

Please respond to what I say, not to a version you find easier to put down. I was very clear that my concerns are with Wahabistics, not Muslims, in general.

I ask again: If an evangelical group were building a mega church on the same site, how many liberals here would have said that it was an "insensitive" choice?

If they were building such a church in Germany very near the site of a death camp and the great majority of Jews were opposed, how many liberals would defend their right to build where they wished? How many would say it was an insensitive choice? How many would say the Jews who objected were bigots?

If your honest anwer to those questions is that you would have spoken out as strongly for the Christians, then you have my apology. If not, why?

I consider the Wahabbists to be a hate group dedicated to our destruction, not to mention the destruction of Shiites, Jews, gays, etc. I base this both on personal encounters, discussions with many Muslims over the years, and reading about this group since 9-11.

I also repeat that Muslim hate groups are not dolts like the KKK and other home-grown hate groups. They are intelligent, and they know how to play our system. The first principle is camoflauge and misdirection. In short they use "moderate" front groups and spokespeople.

I believe that in time the truth will out. Follow the money.

"concerns are with Wahabistics, not Muslims, in general."

I don't know why you associate Imam Rauf with Wahabists. A strict Wahabist would want to kill him for his collaboration with the infidels. He worked for the Bush administration and participates in these interfaith councils people like the Dalai Lama also participate in. He's a pacifist and has condemned terrorist violence. What more do you want?

"If an evangelical group were building a mega church on the same site, how many liberals here would have said that it was an "insensitive" choice?"

There ARE such things in Manhattan already, although they are more liberal ie: Redeemer Presbyterian. There are also a number of mosques. I have no problem with a place of worship being built anywhere if it is in line with zoning laws and doesn't harm the neighbors in any way. There is a mega-church not far from where I live...I don't particularly like the thing but what right do I have to say it can't be there?

"The first principle is camoflauge and misdirection. In short they use "moderate" front groups and spokespeople."

If Imam Rauf is a front for these people then they are freaking geniuses, because he preaches exactly the kind of tolerance, accommodation, and pacifism they hate.

Using that logic, I could say any particular Christian sect is a front for the KKK.

"If they were building such a church in Germany very near the site of a death camp and the great majority of Jews were opposed, how many liberals would defend their right to build where they wished? How many would say it was an insensitive choice?"

Insensitivity is in the eye of the beholder. Unless the church in that hypothetical was associated with the Nazi party directly I don't see what the problem would be. The modern Lutheran church, for example, has nothing to do with Ludwig Muller and took great pains to disassociate themselves with him afterward. I would hope Jewish groups would be sophisticated enough to acknowledge that. Besides, Hitler had a complicated relationship with both Protestant and Catholic churches in Germany and moved more and more toward secularism after taking power.

The issue I hear is that Imam Rauf will not denounce Hamas, which he has a specific reason for, which is staying out of mideast politics. He HAS condemned terrorist violence, so I don't see the problem there. There is a difference between the militant arm of Hamas and its political component, and a lot of countries' intelligence agencies don't list the political arm as a terrorist organization.

Militant muslims could similarly ask him, "why don't you denounce Yisrael Beitanu or Likud?"

And after Hamas, who else should he condemn? Ahmedinejad? Qaddafi? Mubarak? Erdogan? He says he doesn't want to be pigeonholed when it comes to mid east politics.

Denouncing Hamas is a political trick. If I were him I wouldn't do it either because saying it would be meaningless; his detractors would find an unlimited list of people/organizations to denounce because you can use 6 degrees of separation to tie him to anyone. I'm not sure why republicans are so big on this loyalty oath b.s and it just speaks to their misunderstanding and distrust of Islam more generally.

I am a pretty strong believer in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and its amazing vision - I have carried a copy in my wallet for 35 years and read it often (a habit I picked up from the late Senator Ervin who chaired the Senate Watergate hearings). Sometimes there are constitutional clashes that make people uncomfortable and this is one, but I can honestly say that I would come down on the side of freedom of religion every time.

On the other hand, I remember being very upset when the American Nazi party marched in the village of Skokie, Illinois (which has a large Jewish population - including, at the time, a large number of Holocaust survivors) back in 1977 and 1978. The ACLU defended their right to march and I defended it as well - but I must admit that I stopped giving money to the ACLU from then on.

Note - please don't interpret the above to mean that I equate the people behind the Park 51 Islamic Center with Nazis in any way. What I have read in the way of interviews and speeches by them makes me think just the opposite. However, I do think back to how I felt about that march on Skokie when I try to understand how some feel about this issue now.

Mosque:
I thank the several responses, which were all to the point and well-reasoned.

In response to you, I will walk back what I have said to a point. I will accept that this Imam is really and truly a moderate. I will accept that his group should be accepted as what they claim until proven otherwise.

If he or his organization takes Saudi money or staffs with Saudi Wahabists, he is either a fake (as others have been) or a dupe.

I will also clarify a point: my concern is not religious. I believe in the marketplace of ideas, including religious ideas. If a religion can't hold its own, tough weinees.

My concern is national security. Wahabist mosques have been and no doubt ARE being used as front organizations for terrorists. Wahabist mosques around the world teach hatred of the west (esp US), Jews, gays, etc. They are cancers in Europe, Pakistan, and in the US. The Saudi government and individual princes are funding Wahabists mosques throughout the world.

We do not seem to be picking up on these until it is too late. When we do, we take no action until it is too late. Major Hasan showed that the US Military had been treating Muslims with kid gloves, overlooking rank incompetence and multiple instances of comments that would have not been accepted from any other officer (certainly not in my long ago experience). This country has a dismal history of being slow off the mark in dealing with foreign threats (and stupidly persistent when we finally get geared up). The CIA, particularly, has an impressive history of being dead wrong and/or asleep at the wheel.

I hope our national security apparatus is infiltrating mosques supported by the Wahabists. I am afraid they are not for the same reasons the army ignored the giant red flags from Major Hasan.

I think Obama is right to want to seek peace with Islam. However, I think he should speak softly but spy on them vigorously. I am concerned that he also sets an expectation from his security system that they should not treat any Muslim groups in the US as threats.

Seg:

I have no right to interfere with any group building any religious edifice so long as it's for the purpose of practicing religion. So...Megachurch is fine in NYC. In fact it's kind of strange that we don't have one. It might help with our economy too :-). I'm quite religious; I practice every day for an hour or so, sometimes 2-3hours depending on the day.

I know the concentration camp issue from a number of years ago. I've read about that. I was ambivalent back then, leaning towards thinking they should build it if it's important for them to be there. I didn't see it as somehow denigrating Jews.

I'm personally ambivalent about the mosque because it has terrible optics for many and brings pain to others. This is something I lived through as well. I watched one of the WTC towers burning from my living room window; I walked in the debris at ground zero not long after the attack, I smelled the stench of death and destruction (literally) for many weeks. I felt like our country was under attack in a way that those who didn't share the experiences of my fellow New Yorkers could not possibly feel. I was overjoyed when Bush sent troops to Afghanistan, etc....

But, when it comes down to defending the rights of both groups to build...Christian, Muslim, whatever, I am firmly committed to the language of the US Constitution. As a citizen, voter, and lawyer what right to I have to depart from it? It's the law of the land. It's absolute.

New York City has no right whatsoever to discriminate against this group. Christians had every right to build next to the mass graves of Jews in Auschwitz or anywhere else.

Nor would I protest this decision either, since I can't know the minds of the people building the memorial/mosque, etc. I don't know their intention. It might be a purely religious one and not the one you ascribe based on tenuous connections and supposition.

You have grave doubts about Rauf; I only know that Bush has no such doubts; he used him as an envoy as I mentioned. Of course anyone can spend 10 years speaking like a moderate and then having a secret socialist or nazi or Wahabist etc. agenda....anything's possible; I know that News Corp's biggest outside investor is a Saudi who IS apparently associated with Wahabists or is one himself. There's no outrage about this. No one cares that someone who wants to push the agenda you mentioned has some control over Fox's programming.

You point to bad influences behind this Mosque project. If that's so then tell me which mosques do you approve of, given how many of them are financed, given who supports them financially, given who the clerics are, given the political beliefs of many who attend them? Which ones get your seal of approval? If the answer is that they all have bad people associated with them then this seems akin to saying that Muslims are inferior people or just bad people. I refuse to say that Islam is any worse or better than any other religion.

My religion calls upon its practitioners to have profound respect for all other religious traditions and not to mock or denigrate any of them.