Comment from OMG!
Time November 4, 2009 at 9:40 pm

The cages are rattling:))

Comment from geoff
Time November 4, 2009 at 9:44 pm

Hmm. Apparently, according to the Washington Post/ABC News, “Less than one in five voters (19 percent) expressed confidence in Republicans’ ability to make the right decisions for America’s future while a whopping 79 percent lacked that confidence.” Donald doesn’t disappoint.

Comment from SayWhat?
Time November 4, 2009 at 9:53 pm

Geoff

I am not sure where they get their polls from, but Rasmussen puts the Repubs ahead on several key indicators:
http://www.rasmussenreports.co....._on_issues

economic issues to 49% (repub) to 35% (Dem)
The GOP also holds a 54% to 31% advantage on national security issues
50% to 31% lead on the handling of the war in Iraq.
On ethics, none seem to hold sway “thirty-three percent (33%) trust Republicans more while 29% have more confidence in Democrats”
health care, voters now give the edge to Republicans 46% to 40%.
On taxes, Republicans are now ahead of Democrats 50% to 35%,
Republicans are down to a seven-point lead on immigration
Voters trust Republicans more on Social Security by a 45% to 37%
Republicans lead on the issue of education 43% to 38%

but, here is the kicker:

But 73% of GOP voters nationwide think Republicans in Congress have lost touch with their voting base.

Comment from geoff
Time November 4, 2009 at 10:02 pm

SayWhat: dunno. I guess they phoned people.
More here: http://voices.washingtonpost.c.....thing.html

Comment from geoff
Time November 4, 2009 at 10:08 pm

SayWhat: Less comment, more article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....9101902502
SayWhat: or the numbers here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....9101902502

Comment from SayWhat?
Time November 5, 2009 at 12:13 am

From the footnotes:
Washington Times/ABC poll: 1004 voters sampled
Rasmussen: 4 samplings of 1000 voters each (4000 voters). Both taken at the same time.

I tend to believe the rasmussen polls more than polls generated by media outlets.

Comment from geoff
Time November 5, 2009 at 8:03 am

SayWhat: I’d never heard of Rasmussen before, so I wouldn’t know. Interestingly, the ABC thing had records going back a few years, so you can follow the trends, and they seem consistent: it’s not as if they pulled the numbers out of a hat.

Comment from drhill
Time November 5, 2009 at 4:17 pm

to me one hilarious point is that >>>Corzine, who also had the advantage of having the full support of the White House and President Obama<<<< after the race Obamas folks were claiming he wasn\’t even watching the elections or concerned about them…strange that he would campaign then remain indifferent, but hey - if one smells imminent defeat - I suppose it would be the only face saving alternative ( even if it is a lie).

Comment from SayWhat?
Time November 5, 2009 at 6:47 pm

Rasmussen is the top pollster in the US, and is often reference by all the major news networks, the AP, and others. It is a non-partisan (or rather bi-partisan) polling organization. It is generally regarded well in all circles, both democratic and republican as being a fair, impartial and for not having an agenda.

And I am not saying the pulled the numbers from any hat or other orafice. Simply that they did not do enough sampling. However I will state that news run opinion polls tend to be skewed to the agenda of the media that is sponsoring it (take a look at many of the “opinion” polls by other agencies, and even by ABC. The questions are often leading, so that only one conclusion can be reached and still seem reasonable. )

About the only opinion polls i count on… are the actual results of elections.

Comment from geoff
Time November 5, 2009 at 7:12 pm

Saywhat: I’d always heard of Gallup; more recently Zogby, and Pew with an annual international poll.

Comment from SayWhat?
Time November 5, 2009 at 8:00 pm

Hmm. from one blog (polling the pollsters) it appears that rasmussen is just above zogby in reliablity…. meaning they are at the bottom. AP however is near the top (mind you this was last years, before a couple of the scandalous accuasations broke about misleading questions). This might require a bit more research. I still tend to believe non - media associated polls above the media, but then again, we are being inundated with accusations of media bias.

Comment from geoff
Time November 5, 2009 at 8:18 pm

SayWhat: yeah; all too often it seems that they report what the people who pay them want to hear. I’d just never heard of them, that’s all.

Comment from Cal
Time November 5, 2009 at 8:58 pm

It looks like reality is blowing up all the myths Democrats have held to over the past year.

They _thought_ they had a mandate to do whatever they wanted. They were wrong.
They _thought_ the Republican party was shrinking as fast as the value of the US dollar. They were wrong.
They _thought_ Americans going to townhalls and Tea Parties were just a small minority of angry white conservatives. They were wrong.
They _thought_ they could “teach the world to sing the praises of ‘Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm.’” They were wrong.
Now they think they’re still going to shove government-run health care and the cap and tax schemes down our throats. And they are WRONG again!
Perhaps they’ll think twice about retaining their majority status next year. At least they’d be right–for once.

The figures at the bottom of Lambro’s article will only get larger and the mood of the country will only get darker and by election day in 2010, we’ll find out just how much “change” this small handful of “teabagging rednecks” can bring back to America.

Comment from geoff
Time November 5, 2009 at 9:09 pm

Oh, you want numbers, Cal? Seems GM & Ford just posted their first profits in… how many years? Seems like maybe “Cash for clunkers” was a bit of a success.
Also seems that 7 were just killed at some army base in Texas.

Comment from Art W.
Time November 5, 2009 at 9:36 pm

Geoff: “Seems like maybe “Cash for clunkers” was a bit of a success.”

For the car companies (especially in Japan and Korea), yes. But I have trouble calling a program that spent $24K per car in taxpayer dollars a “success”. Obama probably could have just bought each of cars sold from the program outright and probably spent less.

Comment from geoff
Time November 5, 2009 at 9:43 pm

Art: possibly Japan & Korea also benefited. But, as I said, GM & Ford posted their first profits in ages. And, uh… where do you get the $24K figure? I saw $2000-4500 per rebate.

Comment from SayWhat?
Time November 5, 2009 at 9:53 pm

Probably from an edmunds.com study:

“Edmunds.com analyzed the plummeting auto sales in the United States market during September and concluded that the program generated only 125,000 additional automobile sales over and above what would have been purchased by consumers anyway. Edmunds.com then calculated the cost of each new car by dividing the program’s $3 billion funding by 125,000 cars and found the cost to be $24,000 for each additional car sold. The average purchase price of a new car under the program was only $25,000, according to Edmunds.”

Additionally, Ford has been posting profits since 2006 when they cut their work force a year earlier. They were the only automaker that had the funds to withstand the recession and still have cash left, partly because of selling off assets and slashing workforce ealier. The amount of profit however has been small. And, Ford is the only automaker that didn’t take any money from the government.

Comment from Art W.
Time November 5, 2009 at 9:58 pm

Geoff: “And, uh… where do you get the $24K figure? I saw $2000-4500 per rebate.”

I got that from CNN/Money . . . not sure I believe the assumptions made - but it made for a good retort to your post. LOL.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/2...../index.htm

http://www.ntu.org/main/press......g_name=NTU

Comment from Art W.
Time November 5, 2009 at 10:00 pm

Saywhat? :”Probably from an edmunds.com study”

Bingo! It was in CNN/Money. Boy, can’t pull the wool over your eyes. LOL.

Comment from geoff
Time November 5, 2009 at 10:10 pm

Ah: OK. But the economic benefits of having workers keep their jobs (& hence buying things), or the gains from buying more fuel efficient vehicles (wasn’t that one of the reasons so many Japanese & Korean models sold?) or just plain safer, newer cars, that wasn’t factored in at all?
Anyway, I can’t remember where I saw the car sales figures. Does say Chrysler was down (why would Fiat be so dumb as to buy into that clunker?), so I could be wrong.

Comment from Art W.
Time November 5, 2009 at 10:41 pm

Geoff: “OK. But the economic benefits of having workers keep their jobs (& hence buying things), or the gains from buying more fuel efficient vehicles (wasn’t that one of the reasons so many Japanese & Korean models sold?) or just plain safer, newer cars, that wasn’t factored in at all?”

The two or three week shot in the arm was not the cure. Ford was a major benefactor, but they were already in half-way decent shape before the clunker deal (at least they needed no taxpayer bail-out money). Fuel efficiency? Yea, I guess so - my wife and I took the opportunity to purchase a new vehicle and offload our Crown Vic - even though we were not elegible for the clunker cash. It definitely spurred sales outside the clunker plan (so maybe I should believe the assumptions in the Edmunds findings).

Comment from SayWhat?
Time November 5, 2009 at 11:12 pm

I heard a report this morning.. that a lot of the “cash for clunker” cars were updated to …. cars that were only mildly more fuel efficent. This prompted a response from an official that it must be a “snafu” in the paperwork and that they needed to go back to the dealers to double check. . .

Comment from Art W.
Time November 5, 2009 at 11:24 pm

SayWhat?: “I heard a report this morning.. that a lot of the “cash for clunker” cars were updated to …. cars that were only mildly more fuel efficent.”

This is true . . . to get the tax-payer cash, the car you were purchasing only needed to get around 4 miles per gallon better fuel economy.

http://content.usatoday.com/co.....-pickups/1

“Here is something many people did NOT realise . . . the rebate is TAXABLE.

Some of the drivers that bought new cars through cash for clunkers are learning that it wasn’t quite the deal they hoped for.

Keloland Television: But many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer’s office windows. That’s because the government’s rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable.

“They didn’t realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don’t realize that. So they’re not happy and kind of surprised when they find that out,” Nelson said.

http://www.businessinsider.com.....xed-2009-8

Comment from Cal
Time November 6, 2009 at 8:55 pm

Cash for clunkers artificially boosted sales by enticing people to either trade-in early or buy a new car they’ll have trouble paying for. It was a one-time welfare payment payed for with other people’s money and did nothing to spur the economy overall. It left a vacuum the next month as new car sales dropped off. It also left the ”evil” owners holding the bag as the government struggled to get the cash out for the clunkers. Folks, that’s exactly what your health care’s gonna look like if you give it to the feds. Red tape, hassles, waiting lists, denials, and other snafus.

Comment from Change Is Just Change
Time November 8, 2009 at 9:32 pm

Cal: \"It looks like reality is blowing up all the myths Democrats have held to over the past year.
They _thought_ they had a mandate to do whatever they wanted. They were wrong.\"

Wasn\’t that what Bush thought, too? I seem to recall something along the lines of \"the people voted me in, so therefore they agree with everything I do\" or some such rubbish. Really, they thought that since the repubs did it, they could, too (in the political world, two wrongs make a right — or at least an overlooked wrong, apparently). I have seem that line of [non-]reasoning many times from rabid followers of both sides.

\"They _thought_ the Republican party was shrinking as fast as the value of the US dollar. They were wrong.\"

Were they? I just assumed they were shrinking, too. But then, given the assinine idea of voting for the [possibly] lesser of two evils is the norm (the \"throwing your vote away\" garbage, rather than voting for the best choice regardless of the probability of being able to win — isn\’t the latter what voting is SUPPOSED to be?), I guess most voters that aren\’t mindlessly following whichever flag will be mindlessly ping-ponging back and forth between the two as the ones they just voted in behave despicably (though thoroughly predictably). What progress… NOT.

\"Now they think they’re still going to shove government-run health care and the cap and tax schemes down our throats. And they are WRONG again!\"

Wouldn\’t it be wiser to wait until AFTER said legislation is defeated before proclaiming that?
Regardless of what the majority may want (assuming the majority even KNOWS what it wants), they can enact whatever legislation they like while they still hold office. They may react to the polls, but that doesn\’t necessarily mean that they won\’t pass these in some form (and the awful truth is that legislation weakened in an attempt to appease all [perceived] sides will probably be worse than whatever disaster the undiluted form would\’ve taken: more regulations (and thus, expense) with less real positive effect, for example).

Personally, I don\’t much like the idea of whatever grotesque monstrosity they\’ll fashion, but I\’m not going to pretend that there\’s no chance it will get to live.

\"Perhaps they’ll think twice about retaining their majority status next year. At least they’d be right–for once.\"

We\’ll see. The dems have quite a majority, and these polls indicate a possible 2 seat shift either way. Even if they lose two seats, it won\’t hurt them that much (in fact, it will help them: the whining about how the repubs are making things difficult for them would be marginally less preposterous).

I say we have a revolution and get rid of ALL the scumbags… I mean, politicians… get rid of the red and blue parties and replace it with one \"party\" encompassing all candidates in which the members believe whatever they believe (i.e., not actually a party at all. Chorus: OMG! You mean the voter would have to actually vote based on their proposed policies/stances rather than blindly following or reacting? NOOO!!!) — of course, that would mean less voter turn out (chorus: No flag to mindlessly follow and hate the opposing flag? That\’s no fun!) and less control (who do you think benefits the most from this absurd party system? Hint: it isn\’t the general public). Maybe then people would pay attention BEFORE they vote (very little that the dems have done is at all surprising, considering their ideologies and statements, so why are people that voted them in surprised?).

If you think large corporations crushing the little guy is a bad thing (which most people do), why would you want your politics run that way (i.e., the two-party system)?

Comment from Cal
Time November 13, 2009 at 7:58 pm

Change is Just Change: I read your post carefully and had a very hard time following your thought process. After Bush won re-election he did say he had won some political capital and planned to spend it. Otherwise, no, Republicans didn’t think they could do “anything they wanted.” We’ve debated the decision to go into Iraq around here so much I don’t usually even respond to the typical liberal comments. Bush chose Social Security reform and was roundly slapped down by Democrats and special interest. It’s on the verge of financial failure but is in much better shape than Medicare which is a hydrogen bomb waiting to explode in terms of unfunded liabilities. So I have no idea what “anything” means to you.

Democrats have passed TARP2, the “stimulus” bill, cap and trade, and now healthcare reform (at least in the House) under the guise of a “crisis.” They have moved faster than any administration in history for two reasons: 1. They believed they’d won a mandate for “change” which gave them a green light 2. They knew they’d have to get major legislation through quickly before the public had to digest and react to what they were doing.

Obama’s goal is to “fundamentally transform America.” He is a committed socialist, an anti-capitalist, a radical thinker from the far Left fringe of society as evidenced by both his past associations and the team he has surrounded himself with. I think the strong reaction to his policies took him by surprise and he’s now aware he has an even more limited timeframe to implement his agenda. Americans don’t like far Left government. We are still a center-right country with traditional values which is very much at odds with Obama’s values.

As to a “revolution” to get rid of all the scum bags, this sounds great but as I told Fencerider who also wants to “throw all the bums out” we have a constitution that mandates we elect citizens from congressionally determined districts. That in turn means that if Barney Frank had to go work for a living, his district would send in a clone (or clown—same difference.) We’d get mirror images of the “bums” we kick out because we tend to vote for those who represent what we believe. And America is extremely polarized both Left and Right. Only the squishy middle bends and sways with each election. They went for Reagan and for Obama. The difference is they’re having a huge case of buyer’s remorse with Carter/Obama part deaux. All but the far Left understands you can’t spend your way to prosperity or create jobs by raising taxes and implementing policies unfriendly to business. FDR tried it and failed. Carter tried it and failed. Obama’s trying it and failing. So yes, they _thought_ they had a mandate. They were wrong.