Monday, October 08, 2012
Polls For Monday, October 8th
A ton of new polls today and they make the election look even more muddy.
The two Gallup polls should be noted first as the one that is the tie is from the three days after the debate whole the one that shows the president 5 points ahead is a 7 day tracking poll.
I'm still stunned that both Rasmussen and Gallup have the president's approval rating above 50 percent. That makes no sense at considering the poor debate performance.
The battleground states look like they are still hanging in there for the president. Iowa, in particular, has been solid Obama for awhile now and with the latest being a Rasmussen poll, it's like more like +4 or +5 Obama because they don't figure in cel phone users.
The Pew Research Poll really shows the effects of the debate and the enthusiasm gap. The key to a decisive victory for the president is to get out the vote. He does that and he wins just be sheer demographics.
More Senate polls that show how it's nearly hopeless that the GOP is going to take back the Senate.
Sunday, October 07, 2012
Polls For Sunday, October 7th
I Stand Corrected
I originally thought this was Mitt Romney getting a shoeshine but, thanks to Guard Duck, I was wrong. Romney is actually getting wanded by TSA, according to Snopes. I stand corrected, once again.
I'm still waiting, though, for admissions of fault on this one, however. I wonder how much longer I'm going to have to wait...
Saturday, October 06, 2012
Polls For Saturday Oct 6th
So, these are the first real post debate polls and they make no sense to me. After the president's poor performance on Wednesday night, I expected Gallup to be dead even and Rasmussen to have Romney up by 4 (recall that Rasmussen does not poll cel phone users so their numbers and they sample more GOP so their numbers skew Republican).
Moreover, the approval rating for both Gallup and Rasmussen is still at 50 percent. I don't get it after how much he sucked at the debate.
The Biggest Loophole of All
The Romney campaign seems to be completely baffled by people who keep asking them which loopholes they're going to close when they reduce taxes. The standard answer is, "We'll figure that out once we're elected. We'll consult closely with Congress and the American people."
Why do they dodge and weave on this particular issue, when they're quite specific about equally touchy issues? Like, say, health care and Obama's requirement that employers pay for contraception, two things that Romney and Ryan have pledged they will make go away on "day one." (Day one would be an awfully busy day for them.)
Now, nearly every Republican in Congress has taken the pledge to never raise taxes, and that pledge also includes removing loopholes that would result in tax increases. Romney gladly signed on to that.
So, I don't believe for an instant that any Republican would dare go against Grover Norquist on this issue, especially when he and his ilk have already forced many Republicans, like Dick Lugar (Dick Lugar!), into retirement when they were found insufficiently conservative.
But there's a very good reason why they won't answer the loophole question: they know it just doesn't matter. Romney's plan will eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends—the way wealthy people like Romney earn almost all their income. Under his own tax plan Romney's tax rate would be cut almost zero because nearly all of his $14 million income was in capital gains.
Romney's plan is one big lie: the biggest loophole of all is having a different tax rate on capital gains and dividends in the first place.
Why do they dodge and weave on this particular issue, when they're quite specific about equally touchy issues? Like, say, health care and Obama's requirement that employers pay for contraception, two things that Romney and Ryan have pledged they will make go away on "day one." (Day one would be an awfully busy day for them.)
Now, nearly every Republican in Congress has taken the pledge to never raise taxes, and that pledge also includes removing loopholes that would result in tax increases. Romney gladly signed on to that.
So, I don't believe for an instant that any Republican would dare go against Grover Norquist on this issue, especially when he and his ilk have already forced many Republicans, like Dick Lugar (Dick Lugar!), into retirement when they were found insufficiently conservative.
But there's a very good reason why they won't answer the loophole question: they know it just doesn't matter. Romney's plan will eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends—the way wealthy people like Romney earn almost all their income. Under his own tax plan Romney's tax rate would be cut almost zero because nearly all of his $14 million income was in capital gains.
Romney's plan is one big lie: the biggest loophole of all is having a different tax rate on capital gains and dividends in the first place.
The "October Surprise"
Many Republicans are absolutely certain that the jobs report released yesterday is politically motivated. It showed that the unemployment rate dipped to 7.8%, the first it's been below 8% for the first time since Obama took office.
But if you look at what the numbers are saying, it's completely in line with what's been happening for the last year or two, it's in line with the traditional seasonal uptick in September, and it's completely consistent with the large ups and downs that we've historically had from month to month.
For example, in October, 1992 the unemployment rate dipped to 7.3% from 7.6%. This was George H. W. Bush's "October Surprise" when he was running against Bill Clinton.
And this report is consistent with other evidence, notably in real estate, which had been depressed for a long time but has begun to pick up slowly in many areas around the country in recent months. Anecdotally, one realtor told me a year that housing sales were way up, especially in high-end homes. And I know another person who just started selling real estate and is already doing well.
Housing is a prime mover in the economy because it begins a long chain of other purchases that inevitably occur when people move into new homes. That's one reason why things tanked so badly when housing collapsed five years ago.
In addition, a lot of older workers are leaving the job market: the baby boom is starting to retire -- someone born in 1945 is now 67. That's going to drive unemployment numbers down more and more each year, though many baby-boomers won't be able to retire because they lost their nest eggs when the financial markets torpedoed the economy with their hare-brained schemes.
Finally, much of the increase in the recent report is in part-time jobs. Companies have long been moving away from hiring full-time employees and instead part-time employees and contractors to avoid having to pay benefits such as health insurance.
But instead of making these rational arguments, the kind of arguments Democrats make when a statistical blip doesn't square with what they like to see, we saw Jack Welch tweet: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers."
Why resort to logic, historical trends and statistics when you can instead claim corruption and fraud?
But if you look at what the numbers are saying, it's completely in line with what's been happening for the last year or two, it's in line with the traditional seasonal uptick in September, and it's completely consistent with the large ups and downs that we've historically had from month to month.
For example, in October, 1992 the unemployment rate dipped to 7.3% from 7.6%. This was George H. W. Bush's "October Surprise" when he was running against Bill Clinton.
And this report is consistent with other evidence, notably in real estate, which had been depressed for a long time but has begun to pick up slowly in many areas around the country in recent months. Anecdotally, one realtor told me a year that housing sales were way up, especially in high-end homes. And I know another person who just started selling real estate and is already doing well.
Housing is a prime mover in the economy because it begins a long chain of other purchases that inevitably occur when people move into new homes. That's one reason why things tanked so badly when housing collapsed five years ago.
In addition, a lot of older workers are leaving the job market: the baby boom is starting to retire -- someone born in 1945 is now 67. That's going to drive unemployment numbers down more and more each year, though many baby-boomers won't be able to retire because they lost their nest eggs when the financial markets torpedoed the economy with their hare-brained schemes.
Finally, much of the increase in the recent report is in part-time jobs. Companies have long been moving away from hiring full-time employees and instead part-time employees and contractors to avoid having to pay benefits such as health insurance.
But instead of making these rational arguments, the kind of arguments Democrats make when a statistical blip doesn't square with what they like to see, we saw Jack Welch tweet: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers."
Why resort to logic, historical trends and statistics when you can instead claim corruption and fraud?
Friday, October 05, 2012
Polls For Friday October 5th
Most Welcome News
The US Department of Labor announced today that the unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent in September, the lowest since President Obama took office. This is great news for the US economy.
In a sign of stronger growth, August and July payroll numbers were revised up—August payrolls rose
142,000 compared with the initially reported 96,000, and July was up 181,000 versus an earlier estimate of 141,000.
You know it must be good news for the president when even Matt Drudge has this on his front page. He certainly needs it after his poor performance on Wednesday night. This report (along with Mitt Romney's admission of being completely wrong about the 47 percent comment) is going to mitigate whatever damage there may be over the president's listless showing at the debate.
Of course, there might not be any fallout. The undecided voters don't really seem to care about the theater of the debate. The various interviews and surveys conducted since the debate show continued frustration with both candidates over the dearth of specifics. And both President Reagan and President George W. Bush had truly awful first debates and came back with better second and third ones.
This news on unemployment means that we can officially say that the president is a job creator and his policies have turned this country around from disaster towards a direction of a stronger economy.
In a sign of stronger growth, August and July payroll numbers were revised up—August payrolls rose
142,000 compared with the initially reported 96,000, and July was up 181,000 versus an earlier estimate of 141,000.
You know it must be good news for the president when even Matt Drudge has this on his front page. He certainly needs it after his poor performance on Wednesday night. This report (along with Mitt Romney's admission of being completely wrong about the 47 percent comment) is going to mitigate whatever damage there may be over the president's listless showing at the debate.
Of course, there might not be any fallout. The undecided voters don't really seem to care about the theater of the debate. The various interviews and surveys conducted since the debate show continued frustration with both candidates over the dearth of specifics. And both President Reagan and President George W. Bush had truly awful first debates and came back with better second and third ones.
This news on unemployment means that we can officially say that the president is a job creator and his policies have turned this country around from disaster towards a direction of a stronger economy.
OK...wait...Huh?
Less than 24 hours after his strong debate performance, he goes on Fox News and says this?
Well, clearly in a campaign, with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you're going to say something that doesn't come out right. In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong.
WTF?!!??
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that he said this and it shows some real integrity but didn't he get the memo that if you are going to be the leader of the Right in this country that you need to be unmoved by facts, undeterred by new information and see compromise as a weakness?
I think we may need to add on fourth "new" to Nikto's New New New Mitt Romney. This latest model has now chucked the conservative base and the Tea Party right out the fucking window. Apparently, the wealthy elite who believe in "Makers and Takers" as well.
I figured he'd wait at least a few days to enjoy his victory before fucking it up for himself but not even one miserable day?
Sheesh....
Well, clearly in a campaign, with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you're going to say something that doesn't come out right. In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong.
WTF?!!??
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that he said this and it shows some real integrity but didn't he get the memo that if you are going to be the leader of the Right in this country that you need to be unmoved by facts, undeterred by new information and see compromise as a weakness?
I think we may need to add on fourth "new" to Nikto's New New New Mitt Romney. This latest model has now chucked the conservative base and the Tea Party right out the fucking window. Apparently, the wealthy elite who believe in "Makers and Takers" as well.
I figured he'd wait at least a few days to enjoy his victory before fucking it up for himself but not even one miserable day?
Sheesh....
Thursday, October 04, 2012
Post Debate Poll
Here's that CBS poll that everyone has been talking about taken right after the debate.
In the moments following the candidates' performances on the University of Denver stage, 46 percent of voters gave the economy-centric debate to Romney, 22 percent said they believed the president was the winner, and 32 percent called it a tie. More good news for the GOP nominee: 56 percent of those polled said they viewed Romney in a better light after watching the debate. Eleven percent said their opinion of him dropped, and 32 percent cited no change in opinion.
54 percent of the people said they thought the president won or it was a tie? Obviously, Romney won so what's the deal here? Remember, these are uncommitted voters and it seems to me that they aren't swayed by the types of arguments that both the right and the left think they will be swayed by.
In the moments following the candidates' performances on the University of Denver stage, 46 percent of voters gave the economy-centric debate to Romney, 22 percent said they believed the president was the winner, and 32 percent called it a tie. More good news for the GOP nominee: 56 percent of those polled said they viewed Romney in a better light after watching the debate. Eleven percent said their opinion of him dropped, and 32 percent cited no change in opinion.
54 percent of the people said they thought the president won or it was a tie? Obviously, Romney won so what's the deal here? Remember, these are uncommitted voters and it seems to me that they aren't swayed by the types of arguments that both the right and the left think they will be swayed by.
Polls For Thursday, October 4th
Here are today's polls, taken obviously before the debate last night. Take a look at Gallup's approval rating. The last time the president saw a number this high was August of 2009! This is even higher than Gallup's reading immediately following the death of Osama bin Laden (May of 2011). He still maintains a 4 point lead nationally in the general.
Well, he's going to need it come the weekend when we start seeing the post debate polls. Obviously, he's going to drop but by how much? Keep your eye on Ohio.
Well, he's going to need it come the weekend when we start seeing the post debate polls. Obviously, he's going to drop but by how much? Keep your eye on Ohio.
More Post Mortem on the Debate
I find it very interesting that the "liberal" media has been so critical of the president since the conclusion of the debate. Why is that? Are they angry that he didn't do his part to make it like a WWE wrestling match?
Moreover, there seems to be a disconnect between the undecided voters and the media's continued ripping of the president. As I flipped around last night checking out each network's coverage of those undecided focus groups, the individual voters interviewed seemed unfazed by the media's take. Their central concern seemed to be that neither candidate was giving them enough information to make a decision. It will be interesting to see how this shows up in the polls.
Here's a graphic that shows how little persuadable voters are interested in the debates.
In addition, none of them reacted well to any hint of negativity which makes the president's strategy last night now seem very wise. Of course, I'm still trying to figure out why he didn't want to be there last night. What was going on? Obviously, the first thought is a negative one: he's aloof, non caring, and an elitist snob. But what if it was something else? Did he have a fight with his wife? Something going on with his daughters? Some other sort of bad news? He's only human after all. We may never know.
A female friend of mine commented on my FB status today on the debate with the following.
I always wonder how the president runs the country and then has to find time to prepare for a debate. Obama looked so tired last night. Not his best debate for sure.
Women love the president and may ultimately be his saving grace from this poor showing with their sympathy.
Another good thing that came out of last night was the "newly discovered" Obama speech from 2007 is now ancient history. The Right can now spend the next few days pouncing on the president for his bad debate performance.
I also disagree with nearly everyone in the media when they say that Mitt's only awkward moment was the Big Bird comment. It wasn't awkward at all and was actually funny. Mentions of Big Bird have gone up 800,000% on Facebook today which shows you just how interested in the substance of the issues the general populace is these days.
Some other notes from around the inter-webs...
Governor Romney didn’t win the election last night, he just stopped losing it. That may not last; the road to the election is still very long and we are more likely than not to see momentum shift back and forth some more. (Walter Russell Mead)
If you watched it without sound – or, even better, if you didn’t speak English, so you could hear the sound but couldn’t understand the words – I have to believe Romney won by a mile. But if you didn’t watch the debate, and read the transcript, what you’d see is the following. When Romney attacked, Obama generally had a policy response – some more persuasive than others, but the response was generally policy-related. When Obama attacked, Romney would generally deny that he took the position that was being attacked. Romney’s palpable zest for the debate made him look like a guy ready to take charge, and the President’s demeanor suggested some willingness to let him do so. But his refusal to stand his ground on anything – and the marked contrast with the President in that regard – made him sound like a snake-oil salesman. (Noah Millman)
I’m not particularly concerned with who won the debate, although if I were forced to declare a winner, I’d say Romney did. What I am concerned with was the poor quality of the debate. There was plenty of talk about the working poor and the unemployed, but they were used mostly as props. The crucial issue for the next four years is how to make economic growth work for everyone, how to get people back to work, and how to find and deploy the resources necessary to make our systems function well. I heard a lot more discussion of Dodd-Frank and Simpson-Bowles on Wednesday night than I did on those topics.(Daniel Gross)
Moreover, there seems to be a disconnect between the undecided voters and the media's continued ripping of the president. As I flipped around last night checking out each network's coverage of those undecided focus groups, the individual voters interviewed seemed unfazed by the media's take. Their central concern seemed to be that neither candidate was giving them enough information to make a decision. It will be interesting to see how this shows up in the polls.
Here's a graphic that shows how little persuadable voters are interested in the debates.
In addition, none of them reacted well to any hint of negativity which makes the president's strategy last night now seem very wise. Of course, I'm still trying to figure out why he didn't want to be there last night. What was going on? Obviously, the first thought is a negative one: he's aloof, non caring, and an elitist snob. But what if it was something else? Did he have a fight with his wife? Something going on with his daughters? Some other sort of bad news? He's only human after all. We may never know.
A female friend of mine commented on my FB status today on the debate with the following.
I always wonder how the president runs the country and then has to find time to prepare for a debate. Obama looked so tired last night. Not his best debate for sure.
Women love the president and may ultimately be his saving grace from this poor showing with their sympathy.
Another good thing that came out of last night was the "newly discovered" Obama speech from 2007 is now ancient history. The Right can now spend the next few days pouncing on the president for his bad debate performance.
I also disagree with nearly everyone in the media when they say that Mitt's only awkward moment was the Big Bird comment. It wasn't awkward at all and was actually funny. Mentions of Big Bird have gone up 800,000% on Facebook today which shows you just how interested in the substance of the issues the general populace is these days.
Some other notes from around the inter-webs...
Governor Romney didn’t win the election last night, he just stopped losing it. That may not last; the road to the election is still very long and we are more likely than not to see momentum shift back and forth some more. (Walter Russell Mead)
If you watched it without sound – or, even better, if you didn’t speak English, so you could hear the sound but couldn’t understand the words – I have to believe Romney won by a mile. But if you didn’t watch the debate, and read the transcript, what you’d see is the following. When Romney attacked, Obama generally had a policy response – some more persuasive than others, but the response was generally policy-related. When Obama attacked, Romney would generally deny that he took the position that was being attacked. Romney’s palpable zest for the debate made him look like a guy ready to take charge, and the President’s demeanor suggested some willingness to let him do so. But his refusal to stand his ground on anything – and the marked contrast with the President in that regard – made him sound like a snake-oil salesman. (Noah Millman)
I’m not particularly concerned with who won the debate, although if I were forced to declare a winner, I’d say Romney did. What I am concerned with was the poor quality of the debate. There was plenty of talk about the working poor and the unemployed, but they were used mostly as props. The crucial issue for the next four years is how to make economic growth work for everyone, how to get people back to work, and how to find and deploy the resources necessary to make our systems function well. I heard a lot more discussion of Dodd-Frank and Simpson-Bowles on Wednesday night than I did on those topics.(Daniel Gross)
The New, New, New Mitt Romney
Last night's debate saw the debut of the new, new, new Mitt Romney. The one who's reasonable and forceful, and isn't going to going to lower taxes on the wealthy, but is going to implement a generic but unspecified plan to make everything wonderful.
Not the new, new Mitt Romney from last summer, who scoffs at those losers in the 47% with his billionaire buds and has a horse in the equestrian competition at the Olympics.
And yet still not the new Mitt Romney, who ran for governor of Massachusetts, the one who supports abortion rights and health care for all.
And certainly not the old Mitt Romney, the one who closed steel mills, fired employees, took away their health care and let their wives die of cancer.
The new, new, new Mitt Romney doesn't seem to be a bad guy. The problem is, if you elect the new, new, new Mitt Romney, you won't get the new, new, new Mitt Romney. You'll get Todd Akin, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, Grover Norquist and all the rest of the Republican Party. The same Republican Party that still wants to reduce corporate and capital gains taxes to zero, voucherize Medicare, make abortion and birth control all but impossible to get, invade every country in the Middle East where protesters burn American flags, and who thinks Bibi Netanyahu should be appointed Secretary of State.
If we had the Republican Party that we had 25 or 30 years ago, you could vote for the new, new, new Mitt Romney with a clear conscience. There were plenty of reasonable people in the Republican Party. But now Grover Norquist and rabid Tea Party ideologues have driven them all out of politics like they did to Dick Lugar (Dick Lugar!).
If the new, new, new Mitt Romney is elected, he will simply shake the Etch a Sketch yet again, and the new, new, new, new Mitt Romney will tell us that he never promised us all those things he said in the debate. He'll say he was just spitballing in front of investors, and now that all the financial details have been worked out it seems that the new, new Mitt Romney who sneered at the 47% was right all along.
Not the new, new Mitt Romney from last summer, who scoffs at those losers in the 47% with his billionaire buds and has a horse in the equestrian competition at the Olympics.
And yet still not the new Mitt Romney, who ran for governor of Massachusetts, the one who supports abortion rights and health care for all.
And certainly not the old Mitt Romney, the one who closed steel mills, fired employees, took away their health care and let their wives die of cancer.
The new, new, new Mitt Romney doesn't seem to be a bad guy. The problem is, if you elect the new, new, new Mitt Romney, you won't get the new, new, new Mitt Romney. You'll get Todd Akin, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, Grover Norquist and all the rest of the Republican Party. The same Republican Party that still wants to reduce corporate and capital gains taxes to zero, voucherize Medicare, make abortion and birth control all but impossible to get, invade every country in the Middle East where protesters burn American flags, and who thinks Bibi Netanyahu should be appointed Secretary of State.
If we had the Republican Party that we had 25 or 30 years ago, you could vote for the new, new, new Mitt Romney with a clear conscience. There were plenty of reasonable people in the Republican Party. But now Grover Norquist and rabid Tea Party ideologues have driven them all out of politics like they did to Dick Lugar (Dick Lugar!).
If the new, new, new Mitt Romney is elected, he will simply shake the Etch a Sketch yet again, and the new, new, new, new Mitt Romney will tell us that he never promised us all those things he said in the debate. He'll say he was just spitballing in front of investors, and now that all the financial details have been worked out it seems that the new, new Mitt Romney who sneered at the 47% was right all along.
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
Post Debate Thoughts
Mitt Romney did a good job tonight in the debate against the president and, man oh man, did he need it. If he had made one or two serious errors, it would have been all over.
Instead, he rose to the occasion and became the Mitt Romney that I had thought had vanished and been replaced by an android built by the right wing blogsphere. We saw this in his latest ad in which he is talking directly to the camera about the middle class. Mitt Romney, The Moderate, is back.
He spent the entire night talking about how he would help the middle class, keep Medicare and Social Security, and focus on education. Of course, he had to do all these things after the 47 percent remark. If you want to win the presidency, you have to win the middle and he was very congenial as opposed to being the red meat attack dog that we have seen for the last two years. In many ways, he essentially lopped off the far right from the campaign and...dare I say it?...shook the Etch-E-Sketch. I have to wonder...what is the base going to think about this?
The president seemed off his game tonight and I have to wonder why. Was he tired? Is there some sort of foreign policy crisis brewing that we don't know about? In many ways, this debate performance reminded me of President Bush's first debate against John Kerry (with Romney reminding me of Kerry as well) in 2004. He just didn't do a good job. The main thing I didn't like is he kept looking down, smiling and taking notes. He should've looked more often at Romney.
What's ironic about this is that the president's continued call for Romney to explain his specifics on things like what loopholes he would get rid of went unanswered. I was shocked that Jim Lehrer didn't to after this as well. Honestly, everyone seemed very nice and friendly....even down to the families getting together at the conclusions and chatting for a minute. I have to admit, it was kind of a nice break from all the ugliness.
I guess the group that I'm most PO'd at right now is the left wing pundits in the media. They are fit to be tied that the president didn't attack, attack, ATTACK!!! They have been whining all night about how he didn't mention the 47 percent and rub his nose in it. I don't think that would've worked at all and made him look less presidential. All of the undecided voters watching the debate on CNN reacted VERY negatively to any negative attacks.
In some ways, this is how the president is in a real bind. He can't be the attack dog that he needed to be to put Romney away for good but if he tries to rise above it all, he looks like he doesn't care which is essentially what happened tonight. I mean, we are talking about theater, after all:)
Of course, you could almost smell this in the air, right? The bullied and beaten up candidate..by his own hand and a rabid voting bloc...now...rising to the occasion and rising again...like the phoenix! The media just love this shit, right? We all knew that they would do this to keep people excited about the election. Well, in a few days, we'll see what the impact on the polls will be and we'll have a more accurate picture of the effect of this debate. If the CNN post debate interview with undecided Colorado voters is any indication, nothing will change. 8 flipped over to Obama and 8 flipped over to Romney!
In the final analysis, I don't think he's been bloodied enough in this election and he needed this kick in the teeth to avoid being complacent and resting on his lead in the swing states. It's certainly going to be an interesting rest of the week!
Or not.
Instead, he rose to the occasion and became the Mitt Romney that I had thought had vanished and been replaced by an android built by the right wing blogsphere. We saw this in his latest ad in which he is talking directly to the camera about the middle class. Mitt Romney, The Moderate, is back.
He spent the entire night talking about how he would help the middle class, keep Medicare and Social Security, and focus on education. Of course, he had to do all these things after the 47 percent remark. If you want to win the presidency, you have to win the middle and he was very congenial as opposed to being the red meat attack dog that we have seen for the last two years. In many ways, he essentially lopped off the far right from the campaign and...dare I say it?...shook the Etch-E-Sketch. I have to wonder...what is the base going to think about this?
The president seemed off his game tonight and I have to wonder why. Was he tired? Is there some sort of foreign policy crisis brewing that we don't know about? In many ways, this debate performance reminded me of President Bush's first debate against John Kerry (with Romney reminding me of Kerry as well) in 2004. He just didn't do a good job. The main thing I didn't like is he kept looking down, smiling and taking notes. He should've looked more often at Romney.
What's ironic about this is that the president's continued call for Romney to explain his specifics on things like what loopholes he would get rid of went unanswered. I was shocked that Jim Lehrer didn't to after this as well. Honestly, everyone seemed very nice and friendly....even down to the families getting together at the conclusions and chatting for a minute. I have to admit, it was kind of a nice break from all the ugliness.
I guess the group that I'm most PO'd at right now is the left wing pundits in the media. They are fit to be tied that the president didn't attack, attack, ATTACK!!! They have been whining all night about how he didn't mention the 47 percent and rub his nose in it. I don't think that would've worked at all and made him look less presidential. All of the undecided voters watching the debate on CNN reacted VERY negatively to any negative attacks.
In some ways, this is how the president is in a real bind. He can't be the attack dog that he needed to be to put Romney away for good but if he tries to rise above it all, he looks like he doesn't care which is essentially what happened tonight. I mean, we are talking about theater, after all:)
Of course, you could almost smell this in the air, right? The bullied and beaten up candidate..by his own hand and a rabid voting bloc...now...rising to the occasion and rising again...like the phoenix! The media just love this shit, right? We all knew that they would do this to keep people excited about the election. Well, in a few days, we'll see what the impact on the polls will be and we'll have a more accurate picture of the effect of this debate. If the CNN post debate interview with undecided Colorado voters is any indication, nothing will change. 8 flipped over to Obama and 8 flipped over to Romney!
In the final analysis, I don't think he's been bloodied enough in this election and he needed this kick in the teeth to avoid being complacent and resting on his lead in the swing states. It's certainly going to be an interesting rest of the week!
Or not.
Polls For Wednesday Oct 3rd
Couple things to note here on the day of the first debate. Ohio looks like it's gone for Romney. We have yet another poll in which the president is up in the high single digits. How can Romney get to 270 without it? He'd have to take all of the remaining swing states (one of which is now Missouri thanks to Todd Akin) and bring Wisconsin back to his side as well. It just doesn't seem very likely.
The NBC poll, btw, did not oversample Democrats.
Rasmussen has the president up 2 points while Gallup has him up 4 overall. Remember that Rasmussen does not poll cel phone users so the president's lead is likely wider than 2 points as many young people have cel phones but no land line.
At this point, the Senate is all but gone for the GOP. Quite a difference from just a few months ago when I predicted that the Democrats would be lucky to get a tie at 50-50. If the election were held today, I'd say the Democrats would net a +1 or a +2.
The same, however, can't be said for the House. The overly optimistic predictions that the Democrats will take back the House are silly. At this point, I'd say they'll net +15, putting the spread at 227 GOP-208 Democrat.
Deep Inside The Bubble
To give you an idea of how incredibly fictional the world is that the Right has created, take a look at this.
It is illegal for private citizens to own guns for selfdefense in eight states, and the number is growing with increasing Democratic control of state legislatures and governorships.
The excerpt above is from a letter sent "back in time" from 2012 to 2008 letting all the folks know exactly what would happen in the president's first term. Here are some other predictions..
then in May 2010, Al-Qaida operatives from Syria and Iran poured into Iraq and completely overwhelmed the Iraqi security forces. A Taliban-like oppression has taken over in Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of “American sympathizers” have been labeled as traitors, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. The number put to death may soon reach the millions.
Since 2009, terrorist bombs have exploded in two large and two small U.S. cities, killing hundreds, and the entire country is fearful, for no place seems safe. President Obama in each case has vowed “to pursue and arrest and prosecute those responsible,” but no arrests have been made.
President Obama directed U.S. intelligence services to cease all wiretapping of alleged terrorist phone calls unless they first obtained a warrant for each case. Terrorists captured overseas, instead of being tried in military tribunals, are given full trials in the U.S. court system, and they have to be allowed access to a number of government secrets to prepare their defense.
What a strange world they live in...it's almost as if they are unmoved by facts, undeterred by new information, and have a hostile fear of progress..hmm...
I wonder how many of these predictions will simply be carried over to 2016. Oh wait, didn't they make a film about that? That would be the one where the companion book says the following...
Ann's sexual adventuring may seem a little surprising in view of the fact that she was a large woman who kept getting larger.
And they wonder why they are losing this election...
It is illegal for private citizens to own guns for selfdefense in eight states, and the number is growing with increasing Democratic control of state legislatures and governorships.
The excerpt above is from a letter sent "back in time" from 2012 to 2008 letting all the folks know exactly what would happen in the president's first term. Here are some other predictions..
then in May 2010, Al-Qaida operatives from Syria and Iran poured into Iraq and completely overwhelmed the Iraqi security forces. A Taliban-like oppression has taken over in Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of “American sympathizers” have been labeled as traitors, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. The number put to death may soon reach the millions.
Since 2009, terrorist bombs have exploded in two large and two small U.S. cities, killing hundreds, and the entire country is fearful, for no place seems safe. President Obama in each case has vowed “to pursue and arrest and prosecute those responsible,” but no arrests have been made.
President Obama directed U.S. intelligence services to cease all wiretapping of alleged terrorist phone calls unless they first obtained a warrant for each case. Terrorists captured overseas, instead of being tried in military tribunals, are given full trials in the U.S. court system, and they have to be allowed access to a number of government secrets to prepare their defense.
What a strange world they live in...it's almost as if they are unmoved by facts, undeterred by new information, and have a hostile fear of progress..hmm...
I wonder how many of these predictions will simply be carried over to 2016. Oh wait, didn't they make a film about that? That would be the one where the companion book says the following...
Ann's sexual adventuring may seem a little surprising in view of the fact that she was a large woman who kept getting larger.
And they wonder why they are losing this election...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)