K2mn:

Elections are emotional knee jerk affairs at best. The percentage of voters who vote on an intellectual and informed basis is quite low versus the number who vote on a unintellectual and poorly informed basis. Some on the right will come back and say but then that means Obama won the Presidency based on a majority of unintellectual and uninformed votes. I might not argue with that but if we then agree (myself and those on the right) it would then preclude that any elected offical is elected by a majority of unintellectual and uninformed voters. The question then becomes, will those on the right agree (and admit) that the same applies to those republicans elected including any and all past and future republcian Presidents?

I agree, CA.

You're saying that's how President Obama got elected in the first place, right?

C

A, Tuscaloosa, AL

K2mn:

Elections are emotional knee jerk affairs at best. The percentage of voters who vote on an intellectual and informed basis is quite low versus the number who vote on a unintellectual and poorly informed basis. Some on the right will come back and say but then that means Obama won the Presidency based on a majority of unintellectual and uninformed votes. I might not argue with that but if we then agree (myself and those on the right) it would then preclude that any elected offical is elected by a majority of unintellectual and uninformed voters. The question then becomes, will those on the right agree (and admit) that the same applies to those republicans elected including any and all past and future republcian Presidents?

You're really selling the American voter short. I guess all the voters can't have Ph.D's like you, but I would expect that are greater percentage of voters know the details of the candidates and the issues when they vote then people that don't have that level of information.

Of course Mixed Bag. The majority of people who voted for Obama did so on emotion and less on a strong intellectual study of the issues and party positions at hand. I have no problem saying this Now, are you willing to admit this also applies to those republicans elected, past and future?

JoAnnaSmith:

I said the majority of voters cast their votes using emotion and knee jerk reactions and not on an intellectuakl sudy and evaluation of the issues at hand. I did not say all the voters. If 49% of the voters vote based on intellectual and well informed basis, and 51% vote on an emotional and unintellectual poorly informed basis, then a majority of voters cast their vote based on an emotional unintellectual and porly informed basis. The figures above are provided as an example and may be slightly different but I stick with my opinion that the majority of voters cast their vote based on emotion and knee jerk decisions. It does not take one with a PHD to recognize that.

Yes...and yes, CA.

But seriously...

Do you remember the 2008 campaign video produced by the Black Eyed Peas' Will.I.Am, with its long parade of celebrities religiously chanting "O bah ma, O bah ma, O bah ma..."?

That excavated a new low in mindless emotionalism in a Presidential campaign.

Can you bear to watch it today, CA?

I hope we never, ever see a repeat of that...

Now Mix Bag. You are not taking me there. We have agreement on my previous comment (opinion) that a majority of voters vote based on an emotional and poorly informed basis. We can discuss the Obama chants another day, just as we can discuss the cheering GW Bush received from those on the right when he stood on that air craft carrier announcing victory in Iraq.

To the next battle then, CA...

Only a koolaid drinking liberal would even attempt to put your statement in some figment of reality. We want our country back and desire a future for this coutnry free from liberal's overspending ways.

"We want our country back?" What does that even mean? Did you "want your country back" when a Republican President was getting us involved in two wars, only one that could remotely be justified, increasing revenue to the wealthy to the deficit of everyone else, and causing us to be distrusted by our allies? Do you think that only Republicans or right wing nuts have any right to claim citizenship in this country, and the rest of us who think differently (and less myopically) than you do have no right to determine our future? Do you take your Social Security check each month with the thought that as long as you get yours, you simply do not care about anyone else and their needs?

If so, I feel very sorry for you. And by the way, the Kool Aid thing got old long ago. It was clever the first time someone said it, and now it is just pedestrian. If you want to be taken seriously, do get off the cliches.

Feisty - only 1000 calls. How many people live in America?? You just can't trust any poll out there that only calls 1000 people - and that means all of the polls.

Actually, the numbers could have been even worse for President Obama.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll consisted of a sampling of 1000 adults.

The President does less well in polling where the respondents are registered or likely voters. (Pollster.com-National Job Approval: Pres. Barack Obama))

So...look at the bright side, First Readers!

Hi Elise!

Funny you brought that up as I was thinking about that on my way home last night (BAD traffic due to extremely severe weather here in Chi-town)! But anyway... I was like seriously? 1000 people now represent 300 million? LOL

"...he lied to us..he didn't...so I will vote for anyone but him!"

Does this mean Keep itN Real that you would vote for say, Joe the Plumber if he were to run against Obama.?

actually, President Obama said he'd end the war and get out of IRAQ.... not afghanistan. And he is on schedule for doing that.

and you are probably right, when we leave, it will go back to their traditional tribal ways....

Keep it Real - he said he would end IRAQ war not Afghanistan.

Obama said he'd be 'as careful getting out as we were reckless getting in'

He's pretty much done that ... We really can't leave Iraq in chaos ... You break it you fix it

Likewise with the Afghans ..the problem there is the 'leader' put in charge by Bush ... That may have3 been another mistake .... why select a person whose brother is a drug dealer ?? That's the George Washing of the Afghans ?? ..... He seems a little like Adolpho 'the Big A' Calero, the George Washington of Miami Beach ...Imagine naming your kid Adolph in the aftermath of WWII

And you think the a Republican President will end the war?

Seriously?

Our best hope to bring the troops home in less than 10 years is President Obama.

That is why General McChrystal was forced to resign. He wants to stay in Afghanistan 10 years and the President said he had 2 years to turn it around and we will start withdrawing in 2011 regardless.

If you've got it...spin it.

Did you find a directing sign, on the straight and narrow highway ... ?

Would you mind a reflecting sign, just let it shine within your mind

And show you the colors that are real ...

Perhaps the reason the republicans are encouraged may be that after the 2008 elections the democrats held a lead that was probably in excess of the margin of error cubed, and, therefore, it was the conventional wisdom that it would take the republicans many election cycles to close the gap and become competitive once again.

However, it's a long way to November and a lot can and will happen between now and then to raise and lower each party's fortunes many times leading up to election day. The interesting question may welll be how much of the damages done to either party's chances will be self-inflicted?

You're mean, JoAnna-

Bear in mind, I'm not faulting the substance of your remarks...your aim is true.

But the tone...?

Oh my.

Mixed Bag

You're mean, JoAnna-

Bear in mind, I'm not faulting the substance of your remarks...your aim is true.

But the tone...?

Oh my.

Yeah, perhaps you're right. But sometimes, most times, to get a donkey's attention, you need to give them a swift smack between the eyes with a 2x4. Even then some of them still don't get it.

JoAnna,

Could not agree more!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, I'd say they've gotten quite a bit done. You might not agree with the philosophy of some of those accomplishments, but they did get done.

JoAnnaSmith must have either a very short memory, or no memory at all.

Agreed, Tim. The Conservative mantra right now is "The Democrats haven't gotten anything done and their Socialist agenda is destroying the country." Which is it? Are they doing nothing or destroying the country with rampant Socialism. In reality it's neither, but that doesn't fit the narrative.

I doubt the thought ever crossed your mind that the reason democrats have had difficulty getting some things done is the Senate GOPers there who absolutely refuse to do anything to solve this country's problems out of pure spite. It isn't ideological differences, it is distain for the President and the country. Despite that, democrats have passed major legislation and President Obama signed it; the democrats can stand proud. The GOPers filibuster everything from the nominees to unemployment insurance for those THE GOP put out of work. If voters are stupid enough to put those who caused this mess back in charge, then they deserve what the future holds--status quo 20th century thinking where the United States becomes just another civilized country.

CA, Tuscaloosa is right; too many vote knee-jerk reaction and about the only thing the understand is the word tax cuts and what's in it for me. Too many are brainwashed by the likes of Limbaugh and Beck who feed them a steady diet of fear, distrust and hate but neither Beck or Limbaugh care one bit about what happens to anyone but them nor do they care about this country. If they did, they'd be pitching ideas about making it better instead of pitching falsehoods; they are not patriotic Americans, they are self-serving men who take advantage of the gullible and make big bucks doing it.

Welp, looks as though it's time for our guys to take a couple years off like yours did. Don't worry, we won't act like quite the asshats that you did while we're in the minority. Not much sense in yelling and hollering and shouting down congressmen at town halls and sending death threats to them when they do something we don't like, but don't worry... we can refuse to participate too.

It's always easier to be in the majority. Now all I have to do is piss and moan about John Boehner and Mitch McConnell all day and offer absolutely no suggestions whatsoever about the way going forward.

The next couple of years will be much more fun, right, MB? Joanna?

Anyone?

-clears throat-

Let me get some early practice in...

No.

No.

No.

Authoritative enough? Should I wear some sort of ornamental attire while I'm saying it? Like a Tricorn hat with a tea bag hanging from it?

No!

No!

Yup, this is easy...

Actually Michael, if you were capable of an honest look in a mirror at the last eight years, you would see that your behavior and that of all your liberal friends was absolutely atrocious and you know it. Everything I know about how you treat and (dis)respect a president, I learned from all of you including, but not limited to...Protests, inappropriate signs, violence, threats and complete lack of respect. Typical, hypocrisy...you can dish it out but can't take it when others follow the same rules you established. You would be ashamed and discussed at the behavior of the dems if we took a look back and played a game of tit for tat. Maybe next time there is a republican president you might want to consider leading by example and walking the talk to show us how its suppose to be done. Until then I will treat your president EXACTLY as you treated mine.

Over the last 8 years, I engaged in no protests of any sort, nor did I engage in any sort of rhetoric against President Bush. He made decisions I disagreed with and a few that I agreed with. Like the VAST majority of the American populace, (over 90%), I fully supported the decision to engage our troops in Afghanistan. I did not agree with the decision to go into Iraw, especially as the preponderence of the evidence revealed over the years that the reasons we went there did not turn out to be true. But I did not complain about it. I only advocated completing the mission there as swiftly as possible. I alson did not complain about the SC's decision regarding the Florida recount, because their decision was made according to the rule of law.

As I do now, I advocated for policy decisions I support and debate against policy decisions I oppose. I supported John Kerry in 2004 and did campaign work for him in New Mexico, but I did not complain about the result. That was the way the people voted. I supported Barack Obama in 2008, but did not do any campaign work for him because I was in the middle of moving to Portland, Oregon, from which I have since returned. I know on a personal level that the economic situation is vastly superior in July, 2010 than it was during the Fall of 2008 and the spring of 2010 because the job I was supposed to have when I made the cross country move was pulled due the the economic collapse and I was unable to find a job the entire time I was there. To make the long story short, I lost everything. All of my savings. About 90% of my possessions. Eventually I was forced to return to the southeast, where after 9 months, I finally found a job again.

A stimulus job that has since been rolled over into a permanent position.

Throughout that entire experience, I did not personally blame President Bush. In fact, I believe the last action he took in office probably succeeded in preventing the damage from the collapse from being much worse than it turned out to be. Ironically, this action is now what you and yours are now using as your rationale for voting people who voted for it out of office. Be that as it may.

I can look in the mirror every night and know that my behavior, while not always beyond reproach, is both ethical and civil. I don't care what experiences you have had with other liberal bloggers. I do care that you choose to paint every single person on the other side of the aisle with the same brush, including me without knowing a thing about me. I regularly engage with people on the right who are willing to engage me in a civil manner. If you behave like a thug to me, I will respond to you like you are a thug. If you behave like an ass, I will treat you like one. If you wish to discuss the issue in a responsible manner like an adult and not like you are 10 years old in the schoolyard, I will discuss the issues with you.

Are there any more assumptions or generalizations you'd like to make about me?

And as far as what I advocate for the next Republican president, I do not advocate treating the man or woman in an uncivil manner. I do not recommend threatening his legislators or engaging in screaming sessions. I do not recommend that we form militias and arming ourselves to the teeth for fear that the government is coming.

I simply advocate politely and firmly saying, "No."

To the entire agenda. To every vote. To every appointment that he or she tries to make. To every procedural vote brought before the senate. And to every attempt to engage us to try to move the opposition's agenda forward.

You and yours have had the opportunity for two years to attempt to engage with us regarding the problems this country faces and you have chosen to refuse to do so. Well, if you want tit for tat, that is exactly what I advocate.

No engagement whatsoever.

Just the word, 'no.'

Thanks, Michael

You've made me feel better about opposing most of President Obama's policy agenda.

Not all...most.

Michael

Your post I responded to said "Don't worry, we won't act like quite the asshats that you did while we're in the minority." Your use of the word "We" can only mean you have a turd in your pocket or you meant your party and you..."WE" Your party has already demonstrated how they will behave when in the minority and your right it won't be "quite like" us, rather it will most certainly exceed all levels of human decency. There is much talk about the vitrioland division in this country. The unrelenting hatred started with your "WE" when Kerry lost the election and it has escalated ever since. Escalated right up to the day that Obama was inaugurated, Rahm flipped off President Bush (on national TV) as he left the stage. Your liberal media of course hid that from you as they hid and continue to hide all your mirrors so you don't have to look at yourselfs and see the truth. So now I salute your president EXACTLY in the manner in which you and your party "WE" taught me.

MB:

Somehow I doubt that you were racked with guilt over opposing the president's agenda before I said anything. So I further doubt that my indication that I would support my representation in congress refusing to engage with your representation at all is the straw that broke the camel's back and now you feel completely justified in doing so. You own your own behavior. If you felt that it was somehow incorrect in constantly opposing things like an appointment that was held up for 18 months and then was finally confirmed 90-0, then you've had those 18 months to indicate to your legislators that it might be a good idea to allow the government to function on at least the most basic level.

But you didn't.

It was more or less a game for you and yours. Like I said in an earlier post, you've had the opportunity to engage with us. In fact, on a micro level, you and yours have had opportunities to engage with me in very specific ways over the last two days and refused to do so except in the nastiest of ways.

In the past 2 days, when attempting to have rational conversations with those on the right, NJ has accused me of 'resorting to hyperbole' when I was discussing very specific details about a relatively obscure facility and disagreed with her conclusion about it. Steve accused me of being 'ignorant' and told me he 'didn't care whether I lived or died' when I asked him what the right's legislative agenda would be if you did gain power and told him that it would be bad if you suddenly put millions of people out of work when millions are already out of work. You yourself accused me of trying to act like a 'constitutional lawyer' when I discussed the legal, rather than the vaguely political implications of the lawsuits coming against Arizona. And now Paul here, who has apparently never read any of my posts, first makes assumptions about my personal behavior, (read his post), then refuses to acknowledge much of anything I said in response.

All of this is fine. All of you are free to interact or refuse to engage in whatever way you wish. However, realize that every one of these things in the past 2 days alone are nothing more than examples of the right wing refusing to engage the left wing unless it is to try to make the left fit into the preconceived notion of what you wish it to be or complete dismissal if the engagement does not go the way you wanted it to go.

So do not be surprised, after completely dismissing us for 2 years, after demonstrating, as Farley and ITM do on a daily basis that it is not just the president or the policies that you and yours despise, but ALL of us who have liberal leanings as well, that we would reach the point where we would reciprocate the behavior and refuse to engage with you. And do it in the very same legislative way that you have opted to do it with us.

All of you, even the supposedly reasonable ones among you, have demonstrated that you simply have no desire at all to engage in debate. Yesterday you basically told me, 'we can have reasonable discussions about what you want after we get what we want.' And I told you then that I would not be averse to meeting you halfway in that manner. However, even that really would not be good enough.

You and yours really have no intention of EVER engaging with us except in the most transitory of ways and only if it results in you getting exactly what you want when you want it.

And as I said, all of that is fine. Your behavior is your own . But behavior has consequences. Like I said to Steve yesterday, you and yours are rapidly LOSING people like me, who have always been willing to try to find practical solutions where everyone has input. But if you have no interest in that, then neither do I.

And you and yours will find out after November that there are a lot more of people like me than there used to be. People you have irrevocably lost through your behavior over the last 18 months.

People who you will probably never get back.

JoAnna Smith

2 wars that weren't paid for, an attempt to privatize Social Security and put in the stock market, deregulating the banks and energy industry, Medicare Part-D, also wasn't paid for, and Energy policy done behind closed doors that no can get info on. Yep Obama really sucking campared to the last adminstration and the job they did.

Jesus. Would you like a hot towel? Or maybe a Valium?

Wow-

Feeling better still, Michael.

Hard to believe you could get so much wrong in just one post.

It was exhausting reading it, much less rebutting it, point by point.

If I thought it was worth it...I would.

It isn't...I won't.

Michael,

Excellent posts and well said. I find it rather comical that, after literally nailing it right on the nose, both Chucky and Mixed Nuts heads exploded and they cannot even form a lucid response. Well done!

Isn't it funny how you can literally spell out EXACTLY what is wrong with a position and provide a totally supported and viable extrapolation and people that purport to be intelligent and engaged get that glassy eyed look and come back with something so ridiculously responsive as "Jesus. Would you like a hot towel? Or maybe a Valium?"

Seriously echo chamber-ites, are you really that lost that you would follow your "leaders" over the cliff and drown in the ocean rather than engage in reasoned discussion and compromise with people that may see things differently than you, but are also motivated by what is BEST FOR AMERICA? When will you finally wake up and understand that your side will not ALWAYS be in power. If the best you all can do when not in power is say no, obstruct the basic functioning of the government we ALL depend on to some degree, how can you possible represent that you are working for the betterment of the country? Or is a country with a dysfunctional government that has NO ability to accomplish our routine and most basic business your idea of the future of America. Because if it is, I relish the mid-terms and 2012 election cycles...

I am not entirely sure what you find so 'wrong' about my sentiments here. After all, you have been telling us for the last year and a half that you want your country back. Well, this is nothing more than acceptance that that is what is going to happen. You're contemptuous of people who experienced the desire for hope and change... so much so that you turned them into a punchline, right?

Well, by definition, if hope and change are the wrong things to feel, then the correct things to feel are obviously pessimism and disillusionment.

You and yours have amply demonstrated that the correct response to forcing legislative inaction is not to punish those who engage in it, but to reward the philosophy by giving them more electoral victories.

These are not things that are historical in scope or futuristic in scope. You and yours are actively engaging in these philosophies at this very moment. And none of you argued that these behaviors are right. You only argued that they are justified. Paul argued that they are justified due to things he has experienced in the past. You argued that you feel justified because of things that potentially could happen in the future.

This is the country that you want. About 90% of the things that I have historically posted have dealt with the need to reduce partisan bickering and solve problems. But if the right wing has no interest in doing that at all, then the exercise is pointless. At a certain point, any reasonable person can get punched in the face only so many times before the realization has to hit that these people don't have any interest in doing anything other than punching me in the face.

So if we are basically consigned to eternal hostility and conflict, I think it would be a little ridiculous for me to approach from the standpoint that my side should lose.

This is the country that you demanded. Welcome to it.

How odd that you would object to partisan bickering, Michael...

Of all people.

All right, I'll ask you this and I imagine that I'll get the same silence I got from another right wing poster who tried to call me out in the same way.

Name the thread and the post where I have engaged in a bunch of blindly partisan bickering.

I object to thugs who masquerade their thuggery as partisanship. However if someone wants to discuss anything with me on a rational level, I am perfectly willing to do so. Disagreement is not partisanship if the people disagreeing can provide rational arguments for their points of view. However, if someone is doing nothing but asserting opinion, insulting people, and denigrating people, they usually get about one chance at that with me before I respond in kind.

No one is required to put up with that sort of behavior from anyone else and if someone starts to engage in it toward me, I will call them on it.

You got it! That's why these kinds of polls are pretty much worthless. If they called 1000 people and 700 were republicans, it most likely will have an impact on the result.

As a former public opinion interviewer for the Los Angeles Times Poll, Jody, I have to stick up for the national polling organizations.

If you take a look at the final projections of the major polling outfits for the 2008 presidential election, you would be astonished at the accuracy of their predictions...based on interviews with less than 1000 likely voters.

Obama's actual margin of victory was 7.3%

Four of the nation's polling organizations predicted an Obama victory by 7% with a sample of less than 1000 likely voters.

Twelve of the nation's polling organizations predicted Obama's victory within 2 percentage points...with samples of between 800 and 2600 likely voters.

That's pretty darn good, I'd say.

This information is readily accessable at RealClearPolitics.com.

Explaining the math necessary to get good poll results to this crowd is impossible, MB. I know-I've tried.

Assomeone who excelled at econ stat, I've tried explain weighting, the difference between 'adults', registered voters, and likely voters. All I can say is, it's a good thing they no longer burn witches, orI'd be a goner.

All they understand is that any poll that shows that a majority think that Obama is the messiah, they believe in-any that show that people have caught on that he is in over his head, must be wrong.

You are talking to people who could not pass high school algebra-let alone statistics. Save your fingers.

Extremely well thought out, RGILES, and I want you to know that I pay careful attention to what you write. I am an ex-Republican too. I was a Republican when they were fiscally conservative, but socially libertarian. I agree with you that Nixon did much to start the slide of the Republican Party, one only has to watch Pat Buchanan on TV to be reminded of the Southern strategy that they employed. The evil done by the "Christian" Coalition to that party and to the country is immeasurable. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Phyllis Shafly, all have contributed to the malaise of the party and the current political climate. We need two well functioning political parties in this country. One that provides leadership because it is elected to do so, one that acts as the loyal opposition. If you have one party sitting on its hands and doing nothing but obstruct, the country and people are harmed. I don't know why this is so much about scoring political points instead of moving country forward, and I don't know how it it is changed. Be interesting to find out if anyone can.

Rgiles and Newday,

Very well thought out. Keep your opinions coming it is refreshing to see the point of view from those who sat on the other side of the aisle when it is presented in the form that you two did. No insulting rhetoric.

Thanks, US NAVY Disabled Vet, Retired! I enjoy reading what you write too.

Terrific post. Thanks for expressing it.

newdaydawning-so now we have a fiscally profligate social conservative president, and you expect to have everyone celebrate?

I will take a fiscally conservative social conservative any day of the week-at least I will keep my own money in my pocket. Would I prefer a fiscal conservative, social libertarian? you bet your life.

That's why I'm backing Mitch Daniels. It remains to be seen if you put your vote where your mouth is.

Great Posts. As I was telling a friend on FB earlier, it is alright to have differences of opinion, but there is no need to demonize the opposition. Sadly, too often I see some that just are unable to face actual facts, listen only to opinion from a single source and claim it as The Truth, and refuse to listen to other points of view. Differences of opinion can be a great help in getting to a way forward as everybody brings their own experiences to the table and more solutions can be thus formulated.

That being said, I am also disgusted at the way the Repubs have been comporting themselves, after thoroughly messing so very many things up, nearly breaking this Nation's Bank, Economy and Ecology through rampant deregulation and now blaming all of THEIR excesses on the present administration...and refusing to come to the table in an honest, helpful fashion in order to repair the damages done. It does take many different viewpoints to be able to put together any meaningful fix, and while it is ok to disagree, it is Not ok to constantly try to sabotage the sitting administration. The Dems certainly did not do that during the Bush years, they TRIED to be the 'Loyal Opposition', but were closed out of anything of real substance, lied to and manipulated and told that it was Un-American and Treason to disagree with the President. Now HOW are those same people acting now?? Not only do they disagree, but tell him that he is lying, to his face, they REFUSE to act together with the Dems to get us out of the hole that they dug us , and pat each other on the back while trying to convince the rest of us that they really are looking out for us.

The problem is that the public can very well see for itself, even when the Media (bought and paid for by the same corporations that give nearly unlimited support to the Repubs) keeps trying to spin it as Pres. Obama's fault, that the actual Problems that we are facing all came about BECAUSE of those same Republicans that keep screaming their death panel deceits and the rest of the garbage that has been completely debunked. The People are actually smarter than that in general. Yes, as above posters have said, much voting is done on the basis of emotion, which is being heavily influenced by How and What the media are reporting..or Not reporting.

If more people slowed down a minute or three and really looked at the facts and figures available, it is clear that the Repubs sold us down the river, and are intentionally trying to make sure that we stay ignorant, mad and Still sold down the river. Pres. Obama has been working diligently for the People, not for the Corporations. There are things that his admin has done, or not done, that I disagree with strongly: for one he should have had the entire previous Admin up for war crimes charges for starting the Iraq war on false pretenses, for the torture that went on, for the FISA crimes, and for ALLOWING the 911 attack to happen so they could attack Iraq in the first place, let alone the looting of the treasury and the wanton disregard of our Constitution....in short, for Treason against the Constitution and the Body of the United States. The way the Repubs are acting now is an extension of that same treasonous activity: they are refusing to do their sworn duty as members of the Government, trying to obstruct EVERYTHING that this present Admin is trying to accomplish. Perhaps the rest of the Repubs are scared that THEY would be up on charges as well...

America is watching, however, and we were fooled by the Bush Admin before, yet we voted them out of office. The way that the Repubs are acting now, they will make further losses in this year's mid-term elections AND most likely not make any gains in '12 since America sees them as not only beholden to the Big Corporation Dollar over the People, but also because they have done NOTHING. Barton's comments and Apology only serve to show America that the Dems are correct, that the Party of No has NOthing to offer ordinary Americans other than debt and despair and bondage to their Corporate overlords.

What is needed is for some actually principled Repubs to break with their colleagues and actually start working WITH the Dems to bring some relief to this Nation, to help heal the damages done by decades of hollow Ideology and deceit, from both sides of the aisle, in order to make EVERYONE more secure financially, health wise and start to restore the Environment rather than to kowtow to the corporate greed machine.

If the Uber-Wealthy would just realize that they would profit even more if America, overall, was wealthier (like the poor and so called middle class actually had enough to spend on their products). Corporations and Big Business overall has been cutting it's own throat by always cutting costs to pad their outrageous bottom line. If they actually paid workers enough to raise a family on a single wage then there would be that much more money that could be spent on their products. Presently, too many already wealthy people make money only to put it into the stock market, which is nothing more than gambling unless you have a ton of stock already and can manipulate the market by timing your sell and buy orders. That stock actually does NOTHING to help the man trying to pay his mortgage and feed his family, it just makes the obscenely wealthy even wealthier, while taking money out of circulation.

Fixing the problems that are weighing America down will take work, hard work, from both sides of the aisle, however, if the Repubs Don't start working together with the Dems they are going to find themselves with even less power and unable to make a comeback as NOBODY but the ignorant extreme right and the monied people that control them will trust them in office at all. In that case the Dems will have an unbeatable, un-filibusterable majority and that is actually not good for America either. Honest, Rational debate and discussion, without the screaming ideologists and Corporate apologists or obstructionists, is absolutely necessary for a balanced government.

I have my hopes, but am not going to hold my breath for this one. The Repubs just don't get the idea that that once you have dug yourself into a hole, you have to stop shoveling or you just get buried deeper and deeper. At this point I really wonder how much daylight they can perceive through that little hole way, way above them.

Someday, you may want to educate us NJNB as to how you turned into such a bitter and unhappy person. I am sure that there must be a story behind it. That you define President Obama the way that you do is your problem,not mine, nor do I agree with you. So don't tell me how I must vote to please you. You are not the most educated person that posts here, I find you to be terribly banal. Honestly, I rarely waste my time reading what you post, since it is the same song, verse one thousand. Deal with your own unhappiness on your own time.

Here here, finally, a Republican who tells as it is.

Touche',

Polls in my opinion most often are designed to get a paticular response. People get a lot of money to create polling quetions that are geared to bolster their position. Also, look at the source of the poll to get a hint of how is may be leaning to begin with.

The one and only time I was 'polled', the pollster promptly hung up when I agreed with the position of the Obama Administration... You can bet my answer was never counted.

Well said. I agree about the polls and the irrelevance of the analyses by those who discuss them. We are awash in polls and at this stage, they are meaningless. Of course people are more negative, it's been an awful couple years and it will be another one before we really turn the corner. Reagan's numbers were no better yet to hear the commentary, one would think Pres Obama is the only one. Well, look at the pile of garbage he inherited and think about how much more difficult his presidency is compared to every president since FDR.

I worked as a pollster for a few months and I can tell you for a fact, most of those polls, particularly political ones, are terribly slanted towards certain answers and often have certain quotas for respondent types. I quit that job because I could not stomach the garbage I was required to say. Sometimes the polls are not even about the answers to the questions, but to give a biased account of "facts" couched in a way designed to make people react in a certain way. I have NO trust in polls whatsoever as I have SEEN them manipulated and used to manipulate the public opinion.

Don't trust the polls, trust what you can dig up on your own without the Big Money Media filtering your information, hard as that is to do these days, it can still be done, there ARE honest reporters out there that do not have a political axe to grind, but you will not find many of them at Faux, WSJ, (or for that matter ANY 'news' service owned or operated by the Rupert Media Colossus or their subsidiaries.)

I like your truefillness, absolutely no reasons to let obama take this country further down while all the time crying I inherited this mess.yes please keep playing golf.

Spin Sarah all SPIN. Figures do not lie but liers figure. Never more true than in politics. The US Soccer team is undefeated. While true, it did not say that there were 2 ties and only 1 win. Go USA Soccer.

Sara-you need to look at the polling trends for the last ten election years-which you can find at the polling report.com. That will explain why the trendlooksgood for the republicans.

Look back to 1994, then to 2002, and 2006-all mid-term years. That will tell you the full story.

This is going to be a bloodbath for Dems.

Hey No Joe,

While you are correct that in the past, the party not in power has historically done very well in mid-terms, perhaps I need to remind you of one of the mantras of your Wall Street buddies?

"Past results are not an indicator of future performance. Read prospectus carefully before investing."

That is actually pretty good advice as last I checked, in 1994, 2002, and 2006, there was not a volcano of oil spewing into the Gulf and we did not have members of Congress apologizing to the company responsible for the catastrophe. Me thinks this mid-term election cycle might just not go as the Republicans are expecting/hoping...

yes-yes it is

It is in this case, because there are a great deal more registered Democrats in the nation than registered Republicans.

For Republicans to have a preference edge at all, considering the Democrats' built-in advantage in registration, this is not good news for Democrats.

In this particular poll for instance, the sample had a 45%-36% Democrat-Republican preference edge; also by a 40% to 33% margin, respondents said they voted for President Obama over Senator McCain.

Those numbers make the 2% quite significant, indeed.

I suspect that's why First Read isn't trying to sugar-coat the findings.

It's hard to put a positive spin for President Obama and Congressional Democrats on the findings of this poll, Auntie.

Ride a painted pony, let the spinning wheel spin ....

Auntie ~ The answer is no, despite what Bag Boy says. It's well within the margin of error, which was 3.1 percent.

Catch a painted pony on the spinning wheel ride ...

Anna Molly-

As I understood it (again, you're aware of my comprehension issues), Auntie was referring to the 45-43% preference for a GOP controlled Congress...not to the poll's margin of error.

Even if you added the entire 3.1% m.o.e to the Democratic number, this would still be bad for Democrats, given the poll's demographics as I outlined them.

On an unrelated note, I preferred the cover of Laura Nyro's "And When I Die", to "Spinning Wheel".

Love,

MB

Ditto, that. And I'll let you figure out which. Comprehension problems or not, I suspect that's not above your paygrade.

Please, pelosi has done nothing but lie to the people, the swamp is overflowing not being drained,she wants to spend the taxpayers money like it was monopoly money,comeon 18,500 dollars a month for one of her offices because she says she needs more room, that is taxpayers money , and we have to tighten our belts. can anyone condone such spending for an office,one office and lets not forget how she has to fly everywhere .I think she is the swamp and she wants to pull all of us in with her.

Like it or not, Pat, this mid-term is going to be a referendum on Obama.

He is going to lose,badly, because you cannot push an agenda that people do not want down their throats, and not pay the price for it. Ask Bill Clinton, who had the brains to learn from his referendum in '94.

People have realized who we elected-an incompetent who relishes the perks of the office, who has no clue what it really takes to do the job. He blames his predecessor for every problem, shoves through pie in the sky solutions to problems that have the effect of exacerbating them, and has no clue that his priorities are hopelessly screwed up. (How else do you explain his private concert with paul McCartney, while the oil was spewing in the Gulf?)

He never should have been elected. Period. Lord knows, I agree with the left that if Obama failed, we all failed. I just wish that I had been wrong about the fact that he was doomed to fail.

PAT:

I have the same nightmare about John Boehner! He is so incompetent!

As bad as things were under Bush at least the elevation of Pelosi was a good thing. Boehner in charge of anything would be a disaster. He and Eric Cnator always sound like they are so uninformed it is hard to imagine either of them in a leadership role.

mabe we will get lucky, obama may show up for these demwit nomonies and they will loose to the reps. for sure.