E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFor the bustling industry comprised of political pundits, pollsters, strategists and scribes, the weeks before Election Day are a flurry of predictions about who will win the nation’s most competitive races.
When there’s plentiful public polling and stable national trends to base their assumptions upon, their prognostications are usually more or less close to the mark. But politics is unpredictable, and pollsters use different methods to determine who’s up and who’s down. Every once in a while, they get it wrong.
The famous erroneous 1948 “Dewey defeats Truman” banner headline in the first edition of the Chicago Tribune was the result of polls and conventional wisdom that turned out to be dramatically off base. After Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley’s unanticipated loss in the 1982 California governors’ race, many blamed racial bias undetected in public opinion polls. After Barack Obama’s dramatic win in the Iowa caucuses in 2008, the media’s overwhelming assumption that he would continue his march to victory days later in New Hampshire was due to polling. Those assumptions were shattered when Hillary Clinton wound up winning -- prompting weeks of media navel-gazing and questions of "how did we get it so wrong?"
In this midterm cycle, new poll results have hit political reporters’ e-mail inboxes at a fast and furious pace. But a quick look at the wide disparities between different polls of the same races indicates that they can’t all be right. Four recent public polls in the tight Nevada Senate race show Senate Majority leader Harry Reid everywhere from down four points to up three. Much-discussed “tightening” in the Pennsylvania Senate race two weeks ago gave way to another wide lead for Republican Pat Toomey days later.
Part of the reason for the disparity between the results, says Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, is because every polling company has its own method to determine which voters are “likely” to turn out.
“Some of the measures that people use to determine whether someone’s a likely voter sometimes have no relationship whatsoever to whether people actually do turn out or not,” Mellman said.
His example: Some pollsters use voters’ self-reported “enthusiasm” as an indicator of which voters are most likely to make it to the polls. But even though it seems like fired-up voters should be the most reliable ones, there isn’t always an exact correlation. Voters who are lukewarm at best about their candidates may still feel an obligation to cast a ballot; passionate citizens who are contacted by pollsters in mid-October may ultimately procrastinate when Election Day comes.
Another reason for variation is that some polls, especially those that use automated recordings rather than live questioners, cannot legally contact cell phone users. That means that many pollsters are limited to contacting landline users, who are likely to be older and less transient.
(The NBC News political unit, like many other major news organizations, does not use automated interactive voice response (IVR) polls in determining its race ratings. There are a plethora of such surveys, in part because IVR polls can cost as little as 10 percent of the cost of a live-interview poll.)
Additionally, survey information that is collected in the course of a single night tends to be biased towards what Mellman calls “the easy-to-reach” – voters who are more likely to be home in the evenings to answer the phone. “People that are harder to reach are much more likely to vote for Democratic candidates,” Mellman argues. “If you just look at the people you get on the first dial, you have a sample that looks much more favorable towards Republican candidates.”
While there are many different public polls of statewide gubernatorial and Senate races, there are far fewer widely-released surveys of House contests. Campaigns conduct internal polls that often offer fairly accurate snapshots of races, but they generally only release them to the media if the numbers are good for their candidate.
“You’ve got a lot of House polls that are selectively cherry-picked for the press,” says David Wasserman, who tracks House races for the Cook Political Report. That makes the states of individual races much more difficult for voters to wrap their heads around, he said.
He added that midterm elections, because they don’t have the reliably high turnout of election years with a presidential race at the top of the ticket, can be more prone to surprises.
“Smaller electorates are more difficult to predict,” said Wasserman, whose latest rankings show a whopping 100 competitive House races, including 50 tossups.
Still, although individual races may be difficult to gauge, most pundits agree that Republicans are poised to take control of the House but that the 10 seats they would need to take the Senate are likely out of reach.
And there’s one thing that’s for sure.
“Democrats will have a tough night,” said NBC’s Chuck Todd. “It's how tough that is the unknown.”
Leave a Comment:
The only real poll that matters is the one tallied at the end of this day. Get out and Vote! it is your country, your state, your future, and your money!
Haha. Wow, the Democratic left wing liberal media sure is out in force today. Keep the propaganda up, MSNBC, we are wise to your ways now. You'll have to cheat to win, not that the left isn;t below (or above) it.
Democrats are urging their people to get out the vote.
Republicans and Independents do need need to be encouraged, prodded, poked or cajoled into voting. We will be there in massive numbers to repudiate the policies of Barack Obama.
Obama WILL be politically NEUTERED !
Republicans Congress or President ALWAYS spend more than Democrats, ALWAYS create less jobs, and ALWAYS increase the deficits by more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
or in pictorial terms:
http://i55.tinypic.com/e84ll1.png
Obama has also net lowered taxes for more than 97% in the country and signed 15 difference corporate and small business tax cuts.
So on the merits, and based on what the pundits have told us that taxes, spending and deficit are the biggest concern today, given the record and right information, the Dems should be better than pundits proclaim tomorrow. We will not go back to the 2000-2008 era.
And it is the President that proposes almost all spending initiatives passed by Congress (TARP- Oct 2008, Auto bailout Dec 2008, $2.5trillion tax cuts-2001 to 2003, Unfunded Prescription drug bill - 2005, Cheney Energy bill, 2005 before record Exxon profit and $5 gas, Wars - Afganistan 2001 and Iraq 2003), hence the clear correlation by President's party to spending and deficits.
When you can't produce facts, lie. The Dems want to eliminate the "Tax break for the rich." as they call it. My wife and I got $750 from Bush's tax cuts, a mortgage payment, and we ain't rich. The Dems will raise taxes as they always do and the Republicans will reduce unemployment from 18 months back to 6 months just when some of us need to keep the 18 month extension and neither seem to know how to create jobs. Republics /Democrat what a crappy choice.
If you think the Teabag Party is a "choice", think again. Wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the GOP.
That's true but it's how the media is twisting words and facts to give the edge to people like reid who need to be voted out.
Nice slant there J. You forget about the 800 billion stimulus, the 100 billion environmental promise, the 400 million to Hamas, the continuation of the Afghanistan war, etc.... Credit card "reform" may not have cost the govt very much, but it cost us plenty. And the constant flying all over the country for campaigning. the tax cuts, in all likelyhood be extended and even if they don't include the "rich" it's still going to add to the deficit. And dont forget, the actual cost of the health care bill hasn't been determined yet).
Obama had the ability to edit the 2009 budget proposed by Bush but didn't bother to do it and it had a 1.4 trillion deficit. The 2010 budget is set to have about $1.5 - 1.7 trillion deficit. The national debt increased by about 5 trillion during 2000-2008, and will inclease an additional 4 trillion between 08 and 12 unless something changes.
And sure, I paid less taxes this year. My take home pay was about 13 cents higher for two weeks. I guess that means I can go get the new car I always wanted right? Oh, never mind, that 13 cents was eaten up by the higher taxes I had to pay for gas.
Notice I did not refute what you said about how republican presidents and congress spend more than they get. I only added to it so that you understand that the dems do it too. Both parties are two sides of the same coin and both are equally at fault for getting us to where we are today. This is what happens when people who can't even balance a checkbook are in control of the country's finances.
Look at the people you are choosing and not the party they belong to. My ballot is more libertarian than either dem or repub, but I have dem and repub votes cast too.
I'm so sick of hearing the sheep baaaa out the Party Line "The Repblicans give tax cuts to billionares" (Curtis Mulkey).
I not for giving tax cuts to just the rich, but neither was Bush:
It's suspected that some random and still unknown student of T. Davis, Professor of Accounting and & Chair Division of Accounting and Business Law said, and I quote:
"Suppose that every day, ten people go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth person (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten people drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four people were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six people – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get their 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth person and the sixth person would each end up being paid to drink their beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth guy, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, they began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill.
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."
End Quote.
Rorschach-558483
You are right, I should have been clearer. I don't like the Tea folks either. I don't like any current political party. They all are the party of "Me". "What's best for me and my party. 'F' the rest of the country." Congress just voted themselves a raise and said screw the retirees, no increases. This is a horrible thought, but I wish on 9-11 that the first and only plane that got to it's target was the one headed for congress.
One more clarification and proof that the middle class isn't paying a greater portion of thier income to taxes using information from:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in11si.xls
Using this data from the IRS, you can use the average income per bracket, and then compare that to the Average Tax paid in by people in that Bracket AFTER DEDUCTIONS. That works out like this:
No adjusted gross income 0.0%
$1 under $5,000 6.1%
$5,000 under $10,000 2.7%
$10,000 under $15,000 2.9%
$15,000 under $20,000 3.8%
$20,000 under $25,000 5.2%
$25,000 under $30,000 6.2%
$30,000 under $40,000 6.8%
$40,000 under $50,000 7.5%
$50,000 under $75,000 8.4%
$75,000 under $100,000 9.2%
$100,000 under $200,000 11.3%
$200,000 under $500,000 16.0%
$500,000 under $1,000,000 21.8%
$1,000,000 under $1,500,000 24.0%
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000 24.6%
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000 21.1%
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000 21.9%
$10,000,000 or more 31.2%
This clearly shows that people making under $100,000 per year are only actually paying less than 9.2% of there income in as Federal Taxes. While on the other hand the rich are paying over 20%, and the ultra rich are paying 30% or higher.
The Rich pay a higher amount in taxes, period. In fact 74.5% of all adjusted income taxes collected are paid by those making 100,000 or more. And 52.0% of all adjusted income taxes collected are paid by those making 200,000 or more.
The fact is the rich are paying the majority of the taxes. I've shown proof, where's yours?
Skiddy,
After the 2000 elections and your boy "W" you have absolutely no room to talk about "Stealing of Elections"
We can barely live off of the amount of money we earn every week it is time for more of an equal distribution of wealth among Americans.
It's time that we give the power back to the people and although it has been ugly over the past two years the people have been regaining their power back from corporations and individuals at the top. It is time that America get back to the basics.
Where is the American Citizens wealth?
It is being hoarded by corporations who are not allowing individuals to get involved in business opportunities by setting up policies and rules that keep them out of the runnings.
One example of this is the fact that in order to function affectively as a business many business owners need to utilize merchant accounts. They cannot really borrow money for the account but use it for transactions involving their customers. But, in order to get a merchant account one has to have a credit score of 620 or more. they ussually charge interest rates of around 4-8%. But if you have a credit score of less than 620 they will charge yo an interest rate of around 30% or more. This is for every transaction that comes through their system. so if a company brings in 20,000 for the month the bank will earn $6000 of that companys' profits.
That is stealing and it is not right to allow bank this type of authority that prevents innovation by those on the bottom.
I'm tired of the tricks and games that these companies play in order to make money. It is time that we have ethical standards across this country so that individuals aren't taken advantage of.
Or else this system has not really benefitted me hardly at all and if I continue to take the burden of all the weight that is being placed on me what the heck is the use to continue to keep moving forward. This system hasn't really even benefited the majority of people around me the majority of them can barely live either.
Then when you try to start a business you have to go through the crooks who want 1/3 of your earnings.
Wells Fargo you suck!!!!
I posted this late yeasterday but I don't think many read it. My two cents on land line only polling:
Pollsters don't directly correct for the landline only effect. They correct for the demographic differences between their sample (people with landlines) and the the population (likely voters). This means they decreases the amount of weighting for over represented demographic groups and increases the weighting for under represented demographic groups.
What this doesn't address is differences between landline voters and cell phone only voters that are independent of other demographic characteristics.
If we could somehow poll all voters of the same age, race and income level (or whatever other demographic categories pollsters use) and split them into two groups: landline and cell phone only. If there were no real differences between how the two groups responded to the polls, then we could be confident that the fact the a poll is landline only does not make it inaccurate.
But what if there were significant difference between these two groups? That would mean that not having a landline would be a statistically significant indicator of your response to a poll independentof other demographic characteristics. That would mean that the pollsters methods of correcting for landline only polls are not acurate and all the polls we are seeing are misleading.
The Democratic Party owned media tries to compare the scientific polls of today with 1948? That is desperation. Rasmussen is never wrong and always errs on the side of safety. The Dems Left wing agenda is being refuted and so are its super partisan leaders. If will be hilarious to see Obama grovel and change positions every 20 minutes in order to save his job. Biden is going to be kicked to the curb and Hillary will be brought up from the basement to be his running mate for 2012-it is the only chance he has. Only time will tell if the Republicans will self-destruct as they did with Frist and Hastert and if a charismatic Leader can come to the forefront to challenge Obama/Clinton.
Sybersean - which would you rather be?
The guy making $15,000 a year breaking your back on crappy jobs with no benefits, or the guy making $150 million a year and having to pay more than your fair share of taxes?
Of course, you have to account for what our federal taxes pay for - and the bulk is for our military, and 90% of our military's actions have nothing to do with "protecting americas freedom" and has everything to do with exploiting other nations resources. YOu think we are in Iraq because we hated how mean saddam was to them? or because they have the 2nd largest (possibly largest) oil fields? YOu think we are in Afghanistan because they offered Bin Laden a place to train terrorists (unlike florida that offered aviation schools that trained the terrorists to crash into our buildings) or because they are sitting on trillions in untapped resources?
Look, im not going to deny that things like medicare and other social programs dont benefit the poor - but to say it benefits them MORE than the rich is an overstatement too. What exactly, do you think keeps poor people from rising up together and storming rich peoples gates? Its not the police. It's the fact that their minimal needs are met - so they are content.
Hey, id all be for a capitalist society that could actually provide jobs for everyone, so that we all could chip in rather than a great number of people having to live below the poverty line and needing help - but capitalism doesnt exist to create job, it exists to create wealthy people. PERIOD.
So, as long as thats the reality of capitalism, those with the most benefit greatly by having those with the least kept in check with paltry social programs.
Sure, as you say the rich can just pick up their ball and go to another nation.
But, which nation is that where they and their wealth will be protected and allowed to grow? Show me that nation? Explain to me why the top tier taxes - historically prior to 1980 (and excluding the period around the great depression - which led to the GD i might add) where taxes were on the top tier were lower than 70% and the rich picked up their ball and left for greener pastures?
Besides, if they dont like chipping in to create the greatest society via creating jobs - as we were sold by Ronny Reagan via the trickle down theory...(and we are at extremely low top tier tax rates) cutting them even more isnt going to make a difference. They arent investing in job creation, they are investing in high stakes gambling for faster greater returns...we all lose.
heck, id be all for a flat tax rate with ZERO loopholes - but there's a reason why the greedy amongst us dont want that, witht he current loopholes...they arent paying the actual rates you posted. They are most often paying a lower percentage than the rest of us - even if their total bill is more (given more money to tax).
Sybrsean, love the comparison to people paying a tab.
The part where they ultra rich pay 30% is something I hear about quite often on talk radio (only right wing though - go figure). Lots of analysts are guests on their shows and there is data regarding that it should be at 29.2%. The alternative + laws like NAFTA & China trade = what we have now with overseas laborors getting the jobs & those still lucky enough to have jobs to purchase those goods (yay! We got $40 DVD players!?), well that $$ goes to the overseas laborors as well.
This was all expected and warned, but was written off as "fear mongering" from the right during Clintons first term. Ironic that now that it was proven correct, so many on the left want to blame those laws directly on Republicans alone. Clinton made it his crowning achievement.
Skidmark,
The Dems don't have to cheat to win, they just have to turn out the voters. If you read or watched anything other than FOX you would have noticed registered voter polls show Dems well ahead of Republicans. It is the expected to vote numbers that favor Republicans. Hate and bigotry have turned out to be really good voter motivators on the right! Surprise, surprise!
Peel you sound like a serf in a kingdom.
What you don't see is that you have every facilty and every opportunity in this country to become your own Lord and Master. No one, no nothing is is preventing you from becoming rich except you.
There is no rich elite King holding you down. That's a fairy tale.
Here is the purpose of the Government as stated in the Constitution :
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Many of you have a righteous cause "promote the general welfare", BUT you cannot do it at the sacrifice of "securing blessings of liberty". This is where you err and socialism is wrong.
Nice analogy Sybrsean but you're an idiot!
The super wealthy only pay a total of 15% on their income while the middle pays 23-34% I guess you never did taxes or have never been or known anyone super wealthy. They don't take salary they take capitol gains at 15% duhhhhh
Okay for your beer
The three richest pay $5.00
The next three pay $10.00
The next two pay $25.00
The next pays $5.00
And the last is invited by the one paying $25.00 for a free beer.
Now the get a $20.00 break and the top two each get back $9.00
The next two $0.50
The next four $0.25
You really need to go back to school and take a few math classes. It's really not rocket science that the super wealthy increased their income in the last four years by over 550% while the middle class had an income decrease of over 20% duhhh again!
In the meantime the tax breaks for the wealthy are being financed by borrowing money to pay for them. The money is coming from China and the Saudis and somehow you think that's good. Even Ronald Reagan's chief economic architect said, "The tax cuts for the wealthy are not affordable now and they weren't when they were made. It was a great mistake on the Bush administrations part and a gross miscalculation."
Get up a smell the coffee sometime!
Jessica, the bulk of spending isn't on the Military it's on social programs: (Read the bold below)
Social Security's future problems are predictable, even if their exact timing is uncertain. As millions of baby boomers approach retirement, the program's annual cash surplus will shrink and then disappear. Then, Social Security will not be able to pay full benefits from its payroll and other tax revenues. It will need to consume ever-growing amounts of general revenue dollars to meet its obligations--money that now pays for everything from environmental programs to highway construction to defense. Eventually, either benefits will have to be slashed or the rest of the government will have to shrink to accommodate Social Security.
The exact timing of this crunch is less important than its inevitability. Whether Social Security begins to spend more on paying benefits than it receives in taxes in 2017 or 2018 or any other specific year means much less than what these deficits will mean to our economy. Our children may be faced with the choice of paying retirement benefits to their parents or paying for programs that help their own children. That future is coming, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.
The reason that Social Security's deficits are inevitable is fairly simple. Demographics are more predictable than most events. Millions of baby boomers will begin to retire in 2008, when those born in 1946 reach Social Security's early retirement age of 62. From then until 2025, every year will see another crop of baby boomers reach the 62 year-old threshold. Because the baby boomers have not produced enough children to replace themselves, the number of taxpaying workers will shrink.
Demographic trends do not change rapidly. It takes about 25 years to grow a new taxpayer. We can estimate with surprising accuracy how many people born in a particular year will live to reach retirement. The retirees of 2070 were all born in 2003, and we can see and count them today.
This is critical, because a retiree's Social Security benefits are actually paid from the taxes of those who are still working. The program's finances are based on the relationship between the number of workers paying taxes and the number of retirees receiving benefits.
Back in 1950, as the baby boom was just getting started, each retiree's benefit was divided among 16 workers. Taxes could be kept low. Today, that number has dropped to 3.3 workers per retiree, and by 2025, it will reach--and remain at--about two workers per retiree. Each married couple will have to pay, in addition to their own family's expenses, Social Security retirement benefits for one retiree. In order to pay promised benefits, either taxes of some kind must rise or other government services must be cut.
This future is coming with steady speed. Social Security's annual cash surpluses will begin to fall in 2008, the same year that the first baby boomers reach early retirement age. Over roughly the next 10 years, those Social Security surpluses, about $100 billion a year at their peak, will continue to shrink and then disappear completely. Without those surpluses to reduce the size of the federal deficit, Congress will have to raise taxes to bring in billions of dollars of new revenues, cut programs, or let annual deficits climb.
And then the real problems hit. Somewhere around 2017, on top of replacing Social Security's $100 billion annual surplus, Congress will have to find billions more so that Social Security can pay all of the benefits that it has promised. Within about five years, that additional money will reach $100 billion a year (not counting inflation). From there, the annual demands will reach first $200 billion a year, and soon $300 billion a year.
Then there is Medicare. Together, Social Security and Medicare will consume an estimated 60 percent of income taxes collected by 2040. What's left would have to finance the entire rest of the government.
Without reform, Social Security's future is inevitable, like it or not. We can either prepare now, or dither about what year it will happen.
This Socialistic construct had basis in morality, but was created in the face of Liberty. (Freedom of Choice). Had this been constructed originally as more of a mandatory savings by Americans for retirement in individual personal accounts, this situation outlined above wouldn't be the predicament we are in now.
Sure you don't want to end your kind hearted moralistic social program, but the bubble is coming and frankly the blame for it lands squarely on your shoulders.
I for one don't want any more of your social engineering. I've saved for my retirement.
Squidword you need to re-read post 1.10 where I PROVE YOU WRONG. I provided proof from the IRS, you're just spouting vapor your party line brainwashed you with.
P.S. I've reported you for making personal attacks.
Sybr I know you're not wealthy because if you were you would know the wealthy don't pay income tax they pay capitol gains tax for the most part which is 15% up to 1,000,000,000,000,000.00 Get it yet? duhhhh
sybr the only thing you have proved is that you're mathematically challenged!
Have a great day!
You can keep calling me stupid, but your the one making an ass out of yourself becuase you can't read. The effective tax rates shown in post 1.10 ARE AFTER ALL DEDUCTIONS.
Are You Awake yet?
The 2010 fiscal year ended on Sept 30!
The defiicit was down $200 billion compared to Bush's last budget!
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg911.htm
ARE YOU AWAKE YET?
I absolutely agree Union Baby. No matter where your political leanings fall you should go vote for your favorite candidate. If you don't vote then you should have no right to complain when the government doesn't do what you want!
Jessica, the portion of the analogy that speaks about rich going over seas I think pertains more to Corporations. (Remember I didn't write "Beer Economic" supposedly a student of Econmics did). As far as showing my assumption is correct:
As stated in the below article by the former CEO of Intel "(The effective U.S. corporate income tax is 35 percent, far over the industrialized-nation average of 18.2 percent.)". Now where would a conglomerate want to be based? Certainly not here. It's just not good for business. But what happens when hypothetically PetroChina, or Toyota find out that the US cut the corporate taxes to say 10-15%? We get growth, and jobs and increased tax revenues because of the influx of business. Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20014563-38.html
Skiddy, considering Bush bought the White House - both elections, you should probably just be quiet.
That's right. Fellow Tea Party Patriots. Do not take the polls for granted. They mean nothing if you don't deliver your vote to begin cleaning up the Progressive mess of the past four years. WE THE PEOPLE are in charge. NEVER AGAIN allow your representatives to disrespect you. Never again allow a Progressive agenda to gain as much foot as this one has. Because progressiveness isn't "progress." It's "bondage" for the average hard working American.
msnbc, with only 12% of the people watching is still trying to cover up the inevitable. GOP will win the House and possibly the Senate. Later they will win the White House and the messiah will have to return to being just a citizen. What a great day that will be for America when we throw off the socialist bands of tyranny and return to the country our forefathers envisioned.
Comparing now to 1948 is just plain stupid. Uh, buddy, the polling process has improved a little.
I spent the day working the telephones in my district yesterday. Ninety percent of the lanline numbers that I called did not answer. People screen their calls, if they don't recognize the number, they don't answer. So, my question is, how are the pollsters getting people to answer their phones? Where do they get their information? I never trust the polls.
UnionBaby
Right on. I NEVER listen to polls.
The pollsters were predicting that Prop 8 would lose.
At one point while watching the live returns (LA Vote or the Secretary of State's Office) that evening, I said Prop 8 will PASS.
It did.
I am hoping that the same will be true today and that Meg Whitman will trounce Jerry Brown.
J Richter - you just FAILED Civics 101.
A president's responsibility is to collect spending needs from all agencies into a budget and determines how that what he thinks should be spend according to his policies and needs. He sends that to Congress.
The House of Representatives Congress then writes the actual budget considering the requests of the president. And adjusts according to what they want to do. When the budget passes it is sent to the Senate which re-hashes the entire budget according to what they think or are willing to do.
When the House and Senate versions are different they go to conference and the budget gets adjusted - again until BOTH Houses approve the budget.
That budget goes to the President and becomes Law when he signs it. If the President vetoes the budget like Clinton (1995 the last president to do so) 2/3's of the House AND Senate must vote to override.
In 1995 Republicans did not have veto proof majorities and failed to override Clinton's veto. Gingerich thought he would pull a fast one and did not send even bridge bill through the system (All spending bills originates in the House - per the US Constitution).
When Fiscal year 1996 started on October 1, 1995 with no budget agreement or bridge bill - Clinton closed all non-essential government offices. Why? A President has no authority to spend one dime without approval of Congress.
There are 17 posts between yours and when I started this one that failed to flag your flagrant distortion of the facts. This is an embarrasing indictment of our education and political system.
Now, take and your chart and add who controlled what house and by what majority over those same years. You will find four things
I had a brother-in-law sent me the same chart you posted the link to only really dolled up. I scanned added who controlled congress. He didn't talk or send any more half baked crap to me for two years!
Having the WHOLE story makes a BIG DIFFERENCE.
Jessica, you said
"The guy making $15,000 a year breaking your back on crappy jobs with no benefits, or the guy making $150 million a year and having to pay more than your fair share of taxes?"
"id all be for a capitalist society that could actually provide jobs for everyone"
"those with the most benefit greatly by having those with the least kept in check with paltry social programs"
A capitalist society rewards hard work, motivation, perseverance and innovation. It doesn’t guarantee a job for everyone because frankly not everyone is willing to work. If you want a society that provides jobs for everyone, check out Russia and Venezuela.
Every American has the opportunity to become wealthy, that is the fundamental difference between our country and almost every other country in the world. You don’t see that opportunity in Russia or Venezuela.
I came from poverty, worked 3 jobs and put myself through school for the opportunities that I have now. I’m not wealthy, I make just above the median income for my area. But I worked hard and have been successful because I was motivated by the opportunities this country offers. If others don’t want to work as hard, that’s fine. But they shouldn’t be handed things because they don’t want to work. Call me mean, call me insensitive, call me whatever you want. We are all not guaranteed an easy path, but you have the same opportunities for success that I have had. Look at our President. He is a minority that came from a middle class background and went on to become the most powerful person in the world. If you think that could happen in any other society other than a capitalist one, you are sadly mistaken.
I think you are not understanding the whole story Which Party Spends. Perhaps you should change your screen name to Which Party I Think Spends!
The Federal Fiscal Budget of 2009 began on October 1, 2008 and did not include a number of spending bills that Obama requested and recieved starting in January 2009.
Added to the numbers you see were the GM & Chrysler bailout, make work pay tax credits, cash for Clunkers, and the 787 Billion in Obama's Stimulus Package. The only program that really functioned - but hasn't been paid back yet is the 50 Billion for the GM and Chrysler bailout.
Typically if Congress or presidents never cut the budget they take office under, they usually concentrate on the next fiscal budget they must deliver to Congress in March. Obama in effect added to what Bush really spent. BTW Obama voted for TARP and Two of Bush's budgets. He bears part of the responsiblity in those two years of deficits.
WhichPartySpends – Your comments are disingenuous at best. First of all, the 2009 numbers you quote from the article are actual numbers, not the budget that Bush laid out. Obama was in office for over 8 months of the year and responsible for the actual numbers during that time. So blaming Bush for Obama overspending in 2009 is laughable. Secondly, you must have missed the following section in the article.
“The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) had outlays of just $9.0 billion in FY 2010, which was $25.9 billion or 74 percent below previous estimates from July 2010. Aid to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was $52.6 billion in FY 2010 – $16.4 billion or 24 percent less than the most recent forecast. This played a large part in reducing the deficit, which as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) fell to 8.9 percent, down from 10.0 percent of GDP in FY 2009.”
Basically Bush’s TARP program was paid back more quickly than expected and Fannie and Freddie gave out less loans than previously forecast because the housing market is still in shambles. THAT IS WHAT REDUCED THE DEFICIT.
So I ask, what did Obama’s Administration actually do to reduce the deficit?
Luckily based on polling, most voters are awake this election.
Sybrsean:
First off nobody is giving these stiffs a price break because they don't tip.
Second, assuming it's happy hour and the beers are two bucks each, the tenth guy gets 47 beers and the other nine share three beers between them.He should get the crap beat out of him the first day.
Son - Even though your expanding beyond the scope of the metaphor "they split the COST of the beer like thier taxes, not the actual beer", I'll redress your altered metaphor called "but the rich have all the beer" with this:
As I continue to hear it from the socialists "The Rich are oppressing us, we should pillage their wealth".
I gotta wonder... How exactly are you directly oppressed? What billionaire is actually preventing you from earning a living? What billionaire is making sure your new invention, your sales, your new service, is squashed so that you don't have the same opportunity in this country to make the money he made, that he earned with his hard work and or ingenuity?
No, what's really happening here is that the socialists really are the party of "Green". It's just not the party of environmentally "green", rather it’s the "green “of envy.
And in that envy, your morals (which are sound "Help the Poor") are subverted into STEALING to pay for your good works. That's wrong and you can't see it. You can't see that you want to legislate your own brand of morality to the detriment of Liberty arguably the most important principal on which this country is founded.
Listen: Peel said it directly "We can barely live off of the amount of money we earn every week it is time for more of an equal distribution of wealth among Americans."
He understand he "earns" money, so atleast that's a plus, but he (I assume like you) still wants to STEAL from others to make things "Even". That's not right. No one is ENTITLED to wealth in this country. This country stands for Liberty not Socialism.
so•cial•ism
–noun[soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
col•lec•tiv•ism
noun \kÉ-Ëlek-ti-Ëvi-zÉm\
Definition of COLLECTIVISM
2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity
lib•er•ty
noun \ˈli-bər-tē\
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
Ron Paul
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Thomas Jefferson
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Abraham Lincoln
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
John F. Kennedy
Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.
John Adams
Liberty has never come from Government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.
Woodrow Wilson
Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
Alexis de Tocqueville
Give me liberty or give me death.
Patrick Henry
This isn’t a Kingdom. One Monarch isn’t tyrannically controlling all the wealth, in fact many of the wealthy are probably employing you and giving you a decent wage. Most of those wealthy are contributing to charities or public works projects, disaster aid, medical research, etc.. Why is it you think their success should be penalized and stolen from them? Didn’t they earn it?
No, it’s only because you think your Big Brother Socialistic Government needs to morally decide how that money is spent. For you only the masses moral dictatorship over the individuals liberty and morals should prevail. Sorry I’m not your cattle to be herded under you own moral agenda. I can make my own moral choices without infringing on your personal liberty.
Wow check out the censorship. Great job community. Let me know when the book burning starts.
I waded deep into these comments just for the fun of it. I was going to vote anyhow, but no matter which party or candidates you favor, you can read through here find yourself being insulted more times in a minute than when you were the snot-nosed kid with the buckteeth on the school-bus. Now if that doesn't get you fired up about going out to vote for your candidates, I don't know what does!
This country is so ripe for a multi-party system similar to those in western European countries. By only having 2 parties, we've effectively eliminated any opportunities for voices to be heard that might deviate from the party's centrist messages. Plus, it is far more equitable for the candidate who gets the most votes to be required to form coalitions with smaller parties. That way, a lot more compromises must be made to include those minority viewpoints. Allowing only two parties is naive and ridiculous.
I was equating the beer to property.The wealthiest 5% own 95% of the property of which the country is composed, so to my mind they should pay 95%of the operating expenses.
LOL.....aaahahahahahaha! That makes sense to me.
I am praying that the Democrats vote in full force to keep the Republicans out of control.......We had 8 yars of them, and we can't afford to let them drive the bus again. Vote Democrat!!!
I voted Republican because we've had four years of democrat control of the Congress and our national debt just keeps getting bigger and bigger with no apparent democrat effort to control spending.
That and the fact that I don't care for neo-Marxism.
Actually the Dems won the house in 2006. So Pelosi has had her way for the last 4 years. How's that Hope and Change working for you???
MAC in OK, I'm with you. Not being Religious, I don't pray, but no one can clean up eight years of Economic ignorance in 21 Months, give the people a fighting chance. If they haven't made a segnificant difference by 2012, Vote them all out. We need to resist the desire for "instant gratification",( it just don't happen like that out here in the "Real World".....
regardless of what names we call the political parties the bottom line is.
THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE. THAT IS TOMORROWS HEADLINES
Actually, Curtis, Queen Nancy and Prince Reid have been in control 4 years. That's who needs to go.
To: Handgunner; "That and the fact that I don't care for neo-Marxism."
Ah!! Finally the truth rises to the surface,( not that it wasn't obvious from the first Paragraph). Where was your concern for the "NATIONAL DEBT" when "DUBYA" was giving "Tax Cuts To Billionaires",( off Budget),( on the NATIONAL CREDIT CARD) AND Starting TWO WAR'S, Again,( OFF Budget),(on the NATIONAL CREDIT CARD)??? Not a Peep, NOW when the only way to save our ECONOMY is to SPEND MONEY to CREATE JOBS, so that people have MONEY TO SPEND, all of a sudden you get "Conservative Religion", give me a break.
Curtis Mulkey
The unemployment rate in2006 4.8% And somewhere around 165,000 new jobs were created. Then the dems took over and now we are around 10% unemployment and we are losing jobs at a crazy rate. We now have the most polarizing president ever , even the dems(just like me) are trying to get away from him. Lets look at the facts vote with head not heart maybe I'll try the dems again in two years.
Clinton was a good president but he passed a recession on to Bush and Bush fixed that. So it,s not always what the liberal media tells you . THINK FOR YOURSELVES PEOPLE.
yeah so they can slowly whittle away the private sector and keep money at a dead end when entrepreneurs cannot flow the money back into the system and the govt jobs do not flow the money well back into the system well becasue people still cannot afford services which is the engine driving a nation without a tremendous amount of manufacturing smaller everyday useful items people actually buy regularly. So while China grows a middle class we are left here again with homes that cannot be worked on without progress, as we only pay bills just to live. thankful for that but then there is no motion economically which makes millions happy and capitalism feeds millions.
Actually, all the democratic admin has done the past two years is fix the problem that was delivered them (a recession trending towards depression - unprecendented -6.4% GDP drop a quarter!, -787,000 jobs lost a month and actually increasing every month on Jan 2009, 11 bank failures a day, financial system falling off a cliff, 3 huge institutions consecutively failing, housing market collapse, already passed bailout).
And the prior two years of Democratic congress under Republican President was spent fixing six straight years of abuse during which a clear surplus was turned into deficit (according to CBO), $2.5 trillion of taxes was passed that obviously just increased the debt and stagnated the middle class hence growing no demand which focussing more on producers or supply in a trickle down approach that has clearly failed, two wars (one completely discredited), an 2005 energy policy that soon gave birth to $4.50 gas and the greatest single filing of any company in the world by Exxon. The President's agenda is more indicative of how congress goes: http://i55.tinypic.com/e84ll1.png and we've already started reducing the rate of our deficit growth for this first time this year in ten years and we need to give this admin more time. The same things were said of the Clinton admin the first few years until they delivered a prosperous time and reducing deficits.
you should need to take a basic economics course before being allowed to vote. what people are not failing to realize is that the economy is CYCLICAL! Bush didn't fix the recession any more than FDR did. The invisible hand of economics will move the economy up and down. FDR's New Deal is proof that even the most extensive government envolvement in the economy will not fix a depression. FDR's policies may have slowed the bleeding, but WWII is what brought our country back. In terms of the economy, everyone needs to quit blaming, whining, and crying, and just wait it out like adults.
Do you really think - if you are honest with yourself - that the economy went in the tank in December 2007 (when the recession began) because Democrats had the House for 11-1/2 months? They faced a GOP president, a GOP Senate, and lacked enough majority in the House to do much of anything.
Think otherwise? When gas was at $4+gallon, there were tankers full of oil, sitting out in the ocean waiting for speculators to push prices even higher. Republicans looked the other way, because they were - and ARE - the property of the spec market. Phil Gramm handed deregulated commodities to the speculators on a silver platter. So, to make YOU feel "better", what did they do? Printed bumper stickers. "Drill here, drill now, pay less".
The oil drilled domestically does not stay in the US. It goes on the global market. It will NOT help you at the pump. We are net EXPORTERS of petroleum. Look it up.
The crash was the result of too many years of anti-regulatory environment that allowed Wall Street and the financial sector to do whatever they wanted. It was going to end. You voted for it. People seem to have absolutely no ability to think beyond the end of their noses, or the last snappy soundbite they heard. The economy is a whole lot more complicated than that and it doesn't turn on a dime.
I do wish that the GOP had held onto Congress and the White House in 2008. Right now, you'd be hating them passionately and putting the blame squarely where it belongs - on the people whose policies got us to this place.
"Hope and Change" didn't work out for me at all - I voted a straight Republican ticket today.
I'm not for either party (I think they are both dysfunctional). But let's be clear; The real difference between the two main parties is the answer to this question: Are the things you believe the Federal Government should be doing obtained through Freedom of choice, or though Socialism.
so·cial·ism
[soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
–noun
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
col·lec·tiv·ism
noun \kÉ-Ëlek-ti-Ëvi-zÉm\
Definition of COLLECTIVISM
1: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity
Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
Alexis de Tocqueville
Wrong again liberal. Nancy and Harry along with Barney and Dodd had controll for 2 of Bush's 8. Since that moment, the economy has suffered.
Facts suck don't they?
What do you mean Mac? The Dem's have had control of Congress since what 06? Just about when this WHOLE mess started.
First time in my voting life that I voted for a candidate based on a party and not because of my feelings toward the politician themselves.
Voted all R's......I'm sick of the penny "change" in my pocket.
So just out of curiosity, what exactly are the republicans going to do to fix this mess once elected?
I have a hunch - banks are sitting on trillions, anyone think they are going to loosey goosey credit card lending again? How many college kids are going to get $2000-5000 credit cards? How many 20-50 year olds already struggling since credit got cut off to them arent going to praise the heavens when they get that notice in the mail that suddenly says "surprise, your limit was increased by an additional $10,000"
Let's face it, we the people (90 + % of us) dont have any money to spend...the rich have all our money. Without extra money in the peoples pockets, they wont be spending...without spending, no one will hire.
That isnt a fix to the ailing economy, just more of the same.
watch your mail, watch your credit cards...lets see how accurate I am.
time 4truth
Ummm, Clinton left Bush a SURPLUS!
Debt was 5.9 trillion when Clinton left office.
Debt was 12 trillion when Bush left office.
So Bush added more to the debt than ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS IN US HISTORY!
This is common knowledge. Welcome to 2010.
Ugh. I'm so sick of rude liberals using the death of thousands of civilians on 9/11 as a political talking point to bash Bush. It's disgusting.
GOP President that asked for the same things Obama asked for and the right wing media was all up in arms about? Stimulous being the big one.
House: 235(D) 54.3% - 198(R) 45.7%
Senate: 50(D) 50.5% - 49(R) 49.5%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress
How do you get "GOP Senate" from that?
When you have some facts, let me know. All you have is spin.
Keep praying. We Tea Party patriots are taking nothing for granted. We will get our vote out.
And when the dust settles, O'Bama will have to wake up and listen if he has any hope in 2012. Which means less spending for the next two years and O'Bama having to take a more "Pro business" posture. If he moves right, then we Tea Party Patriots have won and more people will go back to work.
Yes, but those eight years have been like heaven compared to the last eighteen months. By the way, are you praying to allah? hurrah for the demise of the democraps.
Thanks for the chuckle Handgunner - re: the fact that you do not care for Neo Marxism.
I do not care for it either! I voted for Fiorina and Whitman.
I did vote for some Democrats but they are state offices that will not affect the national picture, and I liked the candidates.
I hate to break it to you Obama lovers BUT OBAMA IS NO BILL CLINTON.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice. I will never vote for Obama. He IS NOT Bill Clinton.
I miss Bill.
I like Karen - she's a straight shooter.
And after 4 years of Pelosi, and two years of Obama.
I'll take the ditch over going over a cliff.
Thank you for voting the way you did in California. Here's hoping there are mny more common sense Californians as well.
Rorsharch - be honest with yourself.
The democrats had 1 1/2 years to put a stop to the making and trading of bad loans. They did nothing to stop the practices.
This should be no surprise - they are the same bunch that 2003 led the charge against regulators who warned of loans failing at too high of a rate and that regulators did not know where loans were going or look at what loans were being sold to private investors. They stonewalled action in the house and senate for 4 years. They received quarterly testimony from Bernanke and Paulsen that loans were overvalued and there were more bad loans than any one knew. Then incredulously, after the crash Barney has the audacity to say "we didn't know'? It's all Bush's fault - Bush, Paulsen, and Bernanke never told them?
Have Freddie and Fannie been fixed? NO. Barney was doing the soft shoe saying a couple of months ago admitting that there still is a problem. Is that a surprise? Every financial legislation did NOTHING to reign in Freddie and Fannie.
You can a patsy or a shill if you want - but most of us out here in the real world are having a lot to say about these sins today.
You are all crazy!! I hope we get what you have voted for. Don't complain when the republicans do EXACTLY what they shared they would do. Oh wait... They didn't say. They ran from all cameras and wouldn't make any comments so we have no idea what they stand for. We will all see... Thanks for making 2012 a great year for democratics.
Which party spends - Surplus according to the White House OMB, not the US Treasury - the keeper of the checkbook and actual National Debt Record. The years with the "surpluses" increase the federal Debt 130 billion in 1999 and 18 Billion in 2000.
You may truely believe what you right, but there a plenty of people out the that dig into what people post and can flush out the errors.
I actually was working in the financial services industry when our now-defunct company made the decision to dive head-first into the subprime market.
There was a letter, by email, from the CEO to all employees explaining the decision. There was no forcing to it. We weren't subject to CRE, and Fannie/Freddie were not involved in any way. They wanted in because they were seeing business slip away to competitors who were already making garbage loans and they wanted a big chunk of the subprime market for themselves.
Fanny and Freddie had NOTHING to do with it - and I was close enough to the situation at the time to know what our CEO said about it. As I said, the email went to all employees. There was money to be made and we wanted it.
It wasn't long after that, that we ended up becoming the largest bank failure in US history. My job ended as a result.
I know better than the Fannie/Freddie smoke screen, so don't try selling that bulls#!t to me.
The other point worth covering here is the fact that the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate until the inauguration of the new Congress in January 2007. How could Dodd and Frank, members of the minority, block the scrutiny of Fannie & Freddie by the GOP-chaired committees. It is pure revisionism, which only works when you're ignorant or willfully blind.
Obviously the right-wing media voices: Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly & Co have been peddling the blame-Fannie/Freddie and CRA story. It's easy to see who repeats it and where they get their information. What's sad is that these people are either so lazy, so single-minded or so damned gullible that they eat that crap up without so much as a second of questioning.
The truth is out there. You just have to look past Fox to find it.
WaMu and We Don't Lose Deals to Income!
Those are the words that were printed on a large banner that hung above the cubicles at Ameriquest Mortgage in Sacramento, California, according to an ex-employee of the now defunct sub-prime mortgage banking lender that was shut down by Citigroup in 2007. Long Beach Mortgage, ACC's wholesale lender, would later be bought by Washington Mutual.
Ameriquest, an originator of sub-prime mortgages owned by ACC Capital Holdings, was responsible for $50 billion in sub-prime loans in 2004 alone, roughly ten percent of the sub-prime loans made that year.
Back then, sub-prime loans could be sold at a premium, meaning that if you sold a $500,000 loan to Wall Street, you could expect to get $520,000, the extra $20,000 referred to as "service release premium". And that's on top of the points and fees that Ameriquest charged the borrower to get the loan, in this example let's say three points or $15,000. That's $35,000 to put together the paperwork needed to process a loan and then dump it on… let's say, Lehman Bros. or Citibank… or JPMorgan… or whomever.
Can you do that math? They made $35,000 on a $500,000 loan… so on $50 billion in loans, they would have made $3.5 BILLION. And that, as they say, is darn good money.
It's no wonder that Ameriquest boasted that they were the sort that didn't let a tiny, little, insignificant thing like a borrower's INCOME get in the way of originating a loan.
This recession has been coming for quite a while. People who could not afford living in houses bought them because it was "the American Dream." The rest of us bought goods manufactured by the poor of Southeast Asia, China, and Latin America because people that made them were paid less.
Good Morning Carrie Dann Glad to see that I'm not the only early bird around. Thank you for giving everybody a place to start this morning. I think that mainly with polls and as many variations as we see nowdays the up shot of the whole deal will be the same as the San Fran folks will tell you this morning. "That's why we play the games" Guess we'll all know for sure here in the near future.
Good Morning IR:
Yesterday I made some predictions. Sure hope I'm wrong. Weather is generally good which should increase voter turnout. Be prepared to stay up late tonight 'cause there will be some really close races. Take care my friend
Good morning my Indiana friend. Looking down the page the page I see the Yahoo's are already about. Me I think I'll do like Truman and go on to bed tonight and get up Wednesday and see what happened.
polls were very unscientific back then. no comparison. waste of space article.
Say what? The math behind the statistical analysis has not changed since Newton invented calculus. Like dah! Another Ferris Bueller.
#4: That's what I was thinking, too! Gotta go now & cancel out a few voters-lol. (Hubby & I ) lol
Statistical analysis hasn't changed, but the ability to reach deeper into the samples has in this digital age.
Yes, but the statistics part only comes up after you've collected the data. You can run all the statistics you like, but if your data isn't representative (and the science of collecting representative samples has skyrocketed in the last few decades), the statistics will be wrong.
Ifs just a kid when I heard this on the radio. My family was in a uproar. You can say one thing about our President. He may have made a few mistakes, but he didn't gridlock like the Republicans did. Pt Obama is at leastdoing something. Dewey looked like he was winning looking so sharp as a tack getting off that train all dressed up, but ths didn't happen We went to the show to see this! I hope the Republicans won't stay in a dazed gridlock like Sen. Coburg is doing starving the Haitians by blocking funds to feed and medicate them while they are dying. I hope if the Republicans win they don't starve us to death either. This is just a test not a poll
patricia:
1.) "You can say one thing about our President. He may have made a few mistakes, but he didn't gridlock like the Republicans did. Pt Obama is at leastdoing something."
A. All the Pres. can effectively do is to veto bills, not cause nor defeat gridlock.
2.) "I hope the Republicans won't stay in a dazed gridlock....."
B. How can a minority party cause "gridlock" when both houses of Congress & the President are the opposing party?
And yes, I just barely remember the Dewey/Truman thing & it WAS an uproar.
1. Democrats' super-majority didn't last very long - not long enough. Once that was gone, the GOP could tie up anything they wanted.
2. The real key to forcing gridlock by the minority party is public relations. The GOP's ability to spread lies and distortions -- FOX, Limbaugh, Drudge, etc -- is unparalleled in American history. No one knows this, or uses it, more effectively than Karl Rove. He's done it for decades.
3. The Astroturf Teabag Party was one more tool in the minority party's arsenal. The Teabags have two components: one, the far-right extreme conservatives, and two - the naive, uninformed, gullible and frightened people who can't or won't look beyond the soundbites and bumper stickers. Easy prey, easily led. The GOP knows this and exploited those people shamelessly. No? Two words: "death panels".
If we had really had "gridlock" the past two years, the only difference would be that $3 trillion would not have been stolen from taxpayers and wasted on nothing.
And all else would be the same.
Don't agree? Welllllllllll, then tell me specifically what have you, personaly benefited from the $3 trillion thrown away? (And please keep in mind that the $3 trillion must be paid for by you and me.)
The only way for American citizens to be safe is complete gridlock.
How am I - and how are YOU - better off as a result of that stimulus (which, let me point out, was begun by Bush and BEGGED for by Boehner)? Like THIS:
In late September 2008, when the United States financial system was in freefall, Boehner took to the well of the House and tearfully begged the Republican caucus to support the Bush bank bailout of Wall Street and the “too big to fail” banks, officially known as the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008″:
Here's how we're better off, you and me and everybody else.
1. If the financial sector has fallen further, every credible economist in the country agrees that we'd have been in a full-scale depression.
2. A full-scale depression would have put MANY more people out of work.
3. Let GM and ChryCo fail? OK, what about the MANY businesses whose livelihood depends on GM and ChryCo as customers? And what about the people who work for those supplier companies?
Would you people please think beyond the soundbite? Boehner did, in Sept 2008. Then it became more profitably, politically, to flip-flop.
Rorsch, your entire debate hinges on the assumption of "jobs saved" (an immeasurable number). Boehner pushing for something the Democrats also wanted just disproves the whole "party of no" thing. Note that the # of people who voted for Bush ended up much higher than his approval rating once he started these non conservative practices that even Dem controlled Congress & Senate couldn't say no to.
"every credible economist" who just so happens to agree with your viewpoint is a bit of padding your theory, doncha think? Those "credible" economists are the ones who keep reporting "unexpected" events that the conservatives were called "fear mongerers" for even mentioning before they happened.
I'm not Republican, I liked what Democrats USED to be, but being in the middle gives you a perspective of seeing how crazy it is to blindly follow one of the parties when neither has fixed any of the issues we're all crazy about in the public. Jobs are still flowing over the borders along with our $$ just like Lou Dobbs claimed would happen in his "outsourcing America" crusade.
If the left wanted my vote today, they shouldn't have gone all psycho on me and called me horrific names just because I didn't agree with Obama. I'm no racist, I'm no sexist, I don't want people to die, etc. Tomorrow the school yard bullies will be wondering why nobody wants to hang out with them on the playground.
"flip-flop" didn't begin in 2008 with Republicans. Nice try on spinning "I voted for it before I voted against it" type campaigns from the left. In 2008, it became evident that listening to your constituents was the only way to keep 2010 from being your last year in office.
V bevis: You ask how the minority party can cause gridlock?
The word is "filibuster" ... The repubs used the filibuster a record number of times. Amazing how the minority party CAN gridlock. Hope the Dems do it back to them, if the repubs get back in power. After crying about "up and down" votes, the Repubs deserve filibuster pie in the FACE!
Actually the Democrats taught Republicans how to filibuster back during the first Bush years. If gridlock means less government spending for the next two years, so be it. Business will look upon it favorably and jobs will be created in a more "pro business" atmosphere.
From last night . . .
Hey, ITM, it looks like you are a bit misinformed. Not surprising. Now apologize for calling me a liar . . . in fact, you've called me a liar more than once and haven't ever been right. You owe me, ITM. Big time.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/7270654.html
Neo-Marxism is better than Neo-Fascism headstompers.
Nah. Both suck. I think a revolution is the only thing that will take corporations that are the real power brokers out of DC.
I am back a day early.....
First everyone Vote.
I might not agree with you politically, but i want to win fair and square.
don't want to hear any whining. so if you dont get out and vote you only have yourself to blame...
Ditto.
Vote.
regardless of the polls. here is the headline
politicians elected today and the citizens get the same $hit they had last week.
nothing but a do noting political system regardless of the party in charge.
we continue to be screwed by this political system meant to represent us.
Every time there is a switch from Democrat control to Republican control the stock market gets a quick spike. I'm predicting a surge in hiring (non seasonal) as well, but it'll be a couple of months before those #s are available to verify.
Just the "feel" that there is no longer full control by the party that isn't business friendly (and actually is more business demonizing) will probably put a nice little spike in the economy. The silence from the left on what they planned on doing after this election & how much it was going to cost was deafening and scared the crap out of employers.
Who, exactly, will they be hiring? Speaking from personal experience the men of my family had their worst bouts of unemployment when Republicans were in charge.
The reason that the polls were so incorrect in the Trumam-Dewy election is that polling was stopped a couple of days before the election. If polling took place like they do now, the dramatic trend for Truman would have been detected.
I doubt it. These days polling databases are way to small for accurate assessment. That's done to get instant answers ... like fast food ... we have to have it now. A Big Mac poll. If it was so accurate then why not predict a winning Lotto numbers or the Kentucky Derby winner. Bleh ... total miss use of math.
MSNBC is a joke. Why not have an article" If we all wish together we can pull this off" or "Cry and Pout till you get what you want". The polls are wrong, things are gonna be a whole worse for the Dems than the predict. Turn out the lights , the party is over. Tried, failed, move over.
If a joke then go watch Fox News and listen to your Hitler Youth music.
That's what makes the people vote against the Dems, their demeaning of the Repubs and Tea Party. Capt. Cliff., you should go back and read your Stalin and Hitler toasting the Pact of Steel.
Sure worked for the Republicans, effective 1/21/01.
Capt Cliff, still showing the intollerant and ugly side of the left I see. Ever notice how the # of immature comments from the left vastly outnumbers from the right on newsvine? Do you think that's going to convince undecided voters to vote for your guy? I think not. If you represent the left, you represent the uneducated who votes based on lies & extremist propaganda like "hitler supporter" type claims. I bet you stood behind the candidate who claimed his opponent was a witch..lol.
We will never be able to convince you anyway. You think you can just say whatever you want and we should take it. The only thing we want to hear from repubs is what you will do when you return to office??? That is all anyone care about. We won, you won conversations are over. Tell us what your people are going to do IF they make it to office. Saying "no" to the president every time is going to give us the victory in 2012.
We'll just have to see how many felons, dead people, and illegals the Democrats get out today to determine the outcome of close races to determine how bad it will be for the Progressive Socialist agenda.
Dan G,
You got one thing wrong, felons usually vote republican and somehow are entrusted by them with Cabinet positions.
The last time I'll say it- a vote for either republican/democrat will get you the same ongoing BS that has put us in this position. Vote for 3rd party candidates (the tp isn't a 3rd party- they're radical republicans). The 2 major parties are 2 sides of the same coin. Remove the problem causers from power and put in new people not associated with them. Reps and Dems are pre-owned and it isn't by "We, the People". Corporations and special interest groups already own the Dems and Reps so invest in 3rd parties with your votes so you can have a say too. It is the ONLY way to break up this power/money scheme that the 2 major parties are running- divide and conquer, you know.
Dan: You're thinking Chicago, aren't you Dan? lol. You forgot their eternal mantra of "Vote early & vote often."
And let's see how many cops the GOP can send to the polling places for "security" which works well to intimidate minority voters. Slime.
Cops intimidate minority voters at the voting booth? I guess that fear mongering during the AZ debate backfired for the Dems.
The only minorities who should fear the cops are the ones planning on doing something illegal to justify being asked for identification and background checks. That applies to white criminals as well though.
Honestly I think this is just a weak attempt to divert attention away from the recorded evidence that the left was doing this with Black Panther members and that the Dem controlled gov't refused to investigate.
Allen 96 etc:
The only Jews who feared the Gestapo were the ones who planned on being Jewish. And as for the "new' Black Panthers"... where ARE they? They exist only in YOUR head.
I will say, however, I was in Vietnam from May 68 to May 69. Johnson out, Nixon in... there WAS NO DIFFERENCE to the men and women in the field...
But, the Dems actually became the party of peace but only after Nixon lied to everybody about having a "secret plan" to end the war. Give me the Dems any day over the torturing, illegally wiretapping lying us into Iraq Republicans. Against deficits? But FOR your deficit causing tax cut for the Rich??? Imagine that. Oh; and thanks for the ENRON rape of the country, Repubs. All YOUR friends got rich, everybody else got it in the back door w/o lube.
No thank you very much.
@Max G. So minorities fear the police because police are out to get them? You keep telling yourself that. I'll keep believeing it has to do with the continued disrespect that the most vocal amongst the black and hispanic community show for the law and for those charged with it's enforcement. A very large percentage of police and emergency service workers are of black or hispanic origins and yet you still fear "the Man." You ARE the Man man. Stop sitting in your basement reliving your glory days in Vietnam smoking reefer and hating the government and get out into the light of day. This country is completly integrated for anyone willing to put the time and effort into participating. Voting is power and as long as anyone regardless of color refuses to participate they have no voice.
BTW Mr. Revisionist history it was Lyndon Banes Johnson that started the actual combat role of the US and kept us in Vietnam so that he could grow rich off of his stake in Jeep, it was JFK that started our major push towards that war, and it was Nixon who firmly deescalated it. Your bias is showing.
The polls don't show the numbers from cell phone users! Hah! Got a land line?
Not many of us do anymore!
Actually they did, 1/5 of the calls were cell
go back to NPR
We need the New Black Panthers to control this election for us democrats with their billy clubs. It's not like they will get in trouble or anything. Holder has their back *fist bump*
You're not fooling a soul here.
As an African American, I resent your impersonating and portraying us in this manner.
Sound's like a KKK wing-nut to me.
If you have a monitored home security system such as ADT you need a land line for it to work. Lots of people are being caught off guard by switching to all cell phones.
Oh, so Holder didn't drop the case against the New Black Panthers caught on video with billy clubs outside a voting center. My bad!
Not true. New systems today can use cellular modules for dial-out. Plus if you us VoIP such as vonage the phone connection can connect into the phone converter (though not 100% supported). There is also internet based monitoring with dial-out from a central "command" center.
MLE you do realize the "NEW BLACK PANTHER PARTY" consists of 3 people don't you?And if you want you can see that actually happened under Bush's watch and his justice department found nothing wrong with it.
And if you really want to do research look into which political party has been punished by the FEC in recent years for voter fraud and intimidation.Big hint it's not the Dems.
Sci Believer: show me one picture of a New Black Panther with a billie club.
Where is it? I double blue dog democrat dare you!
I'll be waiting. And waiting. Now, no fair putting on blackface and getting out your little league bat and taking your own picture in the mirror. Cheaters never prosper.... oh. wait a minute... I forgot about Fla. 2000.
Sciencebeliever
Bush did start proceedings on the Black Panther intimidation. But Holder and the racist Justice department has been shown that they will NOT prosecute minority voter intimidation, but will on the majority.
Racist?
Yes.
Racist???
When probably half of the registered GOP voters in the South are racists, and the majority of the tea party you want to play the racist card.
AND at the very least the Black Panthers stood for a just cause, where as the Tea Party stands for nothing more than stupidity.
The Church Lady Republicans are going to be crying in their milk and cookies tonight!
I'm chilling the champagne....
why , u still got to live your self righteous moral liberal ways. aint got time for freedom drinking and galavanting when u r constantly judging everyone elses judging.
Angel Avenger I think you already started drinking
Today marks the rebirth of the true democratic party and it doesn't include the likes of obama and ugly nancy.
"I'm chilling the champagne...."
You mean you're firing up the crack pipe. Or maybe some blow like your messiah does.
Congratulations San Francisco Giants!!!!!
I was given an inside poll yesterday; I won't say who the candidate is, but the last I heard he was 4 points ahead in the polls (as of Friday). Yet the poll I saw yesterday said he was going to lose by 5. I walked away teary eyed, sick to my stomach. I hope he wins. I had assumed he was going to for many weeks now. Need to GOTV.
Have a great day everybody. Keep smiling.
Why won't you say who the candidate is? And why were YOU given an inside poll? I am not sure I believe you.
GoUDA, Pat works on democratic campaigns. All candidates do their own polling-what they release to the media is the best case scenario. For example, if their pollster has a margin of error of plus or minus five per cent, and the poll shows that the candidates are tied, they will report that their candidate is ahead by five. It is for this reason that realclearpolitics does not report party polls in the last few weeks before an election.
The people who work the campaigns do see the inside polling, and know the results. They concentrate on certain districts to GOTV, as that can effect their margins, if it is close. I suspect that Pat is working certain districts in order to bump up turn out for this candidate, whoever it might be.
I have seen Pat on this board for a while. We disagree vehemently on politics, but I would consider the post truthful.
Thanks no joe, no bo, nj. I was not familiar with his position. I do, however, trust your judgement as I have been reading your posts for months. That being said, I hope his democrat loses.
To Pat: I apologize for doubting you.
what goes around comes around. democrats didnt care to listen to what we wanted. now its our turn to tell them that we dont care what they want now. its our turn to wield power over them and now they know how helpless we felt when they were ramming dangerous bills down our throats.
So, the Democrats will be totally out of power, controlling only the White House and Senate? Huh.
We have to vote Democrats out to see what the Republicans can do. No time to spend reading about the issues. We know better. Where's my cartoonishly large gavel? Oh yeah I'm supposed to be claiming opponents are witches too. Almost forgot, "we won, get over it.". Don't you dare start voting "no" either you remaining Democrats or I'll call you names and claim you're obstructing progress for the 30% who agree with us!
I think that about sums up the last 2 yrs.
LOL re the cartoonishly large gavel - it was a symbol of her manhood.
MSNBC? Are you going to cheerlead and continue to write puff pieces like this for conservatives, like you've done for your puppet masters for the past 4 years, after they're in power tomorrow? I think we all know the answer is NO! Shills!
I guess we read what we want to read. In fact, the article doesn't lean towards Democrats or Republicans, it's really just about how polls are sometimes wrong. It could mean that Joe Miller might win after all!
...or not.
msnbc, cnn, NPR, Fox - they are all slanted. if you don;t think they are then you agree with their slant that's all.
You wish NBC!
Nice try NBC. Keep stretching.. That may have been back in the 40's, but not now.
The entire political process in the USA is a cruel joke.
We've been so badly screwed, especially so by the bush-cheney era of gop-control, and also the democrats lack of even cooperating within their own party -- that, no matter what happens next, there is only one thing to be certain of -- more gridlock, more of nothing happening to make things better for anyone other than the ultra-wealthy.
If your approached by a pollster: Lie
In one of Margaret Thatchers election victories the press/pols were convinced she had lost, even up to the close of polls, she won by a landslide.
Oh and the UK #3 religion is Jedi, so the same apparently applies to the cencus
As an independent voter (and thinker) I always love to watch the media 'make news'. First they play one side and the crowd runs like lemmings over to that side. Then the media plays the other side and the crowd runs like lemmings over to the other side. Finally, when the end results are obvious the media plays the "Wait! Wait!" card.
"Rremember that anomaly that happened half a century ago? Well, it could very well happen again!"
I know I will piss off a lot of the dyed in the wool dem's here when I say this but I'm happy with the pub's taking the house because history shows that when one side gets all the power the other digs in it's heels and doesn't play. When Clinton was the president things went very well when the pub's were in majority.
Today the dem's have had the ball and couldn't get it together enough to really get what was asked for. There was constant stabbing each other in the back and non-agreement among them. Now we have a HC system with no teeth, for example.
Furthermore, I like our president but he dropped the ball completely when he picked HC over the economy. If he had put as much energy into getting the economy rolling again we would be in better shape today. Not perfect! Not recovered! But certainly moving faster than we are. That would have instilled confidence of the people in our then new president and given him the political capital to pass HC and many other things.
The experts in DC should have known this. If they did know it then they were greedy and if they didn't know it then they were incompetent. Whatever the case, the dem's have made this bed. Pub's were azzholes, no doubt about it but they weren't in power and if it were the other way around I would be saying the same thing about the pub's.
M.Fisher,
Good post, but what makes you think the republicans would have cooperated with the democrats on the economy issue? You don't need to be the party in power to bring things to a halt. All I've seen from the republicans since the last election has been one action after another to stop the president and democrats from succeeding at doing ANYTHING worthwhile, and all the while engaging in an intense anti-Obama propaganda campaign much of which was based on barely concealed racism (Osambo eh?) and the never-ending fear and smear campaign, not to mention every other propaganda technique ever invented. I think that the hostile and angry air of today's politics and election can pretty fairly be laid at the door of the republicans. No, the democrats aren't saints in this either, but they are nowhere near the level of the republican party. It is shameful that this is true, but the tactics of the republicans since the last election can rightly and easily be compared to those of the 1920s and 1930s NSDAP (Nazis) and Germany.
My cure is to vote for strictly 3rd parties for every office and get rid of both major parties. One doesn't care about the needy and the other is incompetent to administer reasonable help, and neither of them is worthy of being in charge of the Treasury. Neither hold themselves responsible to the American citizen, but only to the special interests and corporations who fund their activities. The first step in our National recovery will need to be dumping both major parties for smaller 3rd parties who will be responsive and responsible to the citizenry.
Democrats could have passed anything they wanted and didn't - clear majority! They chose to spend our tax dollars redistributing $$ to unions and creating more federal jobs than ever before!
I will only vote for candidates, regardless of party, that "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"
Can't read all bold on this computer. It just makes it look blurry.
When bill lost the House in '94, he no long could spend as he wanted.
Remember when Congress shut down the Government and stopped the Democrats from spending? That's why we had a surplus. Along with cheap oil from helping the Saudi's and Kuwait. That's why we had "good years" in the later 90's. Not because of what bill did.
It was also bill (Along with Phil Gramm and a few Republican's) that changed it so the regulations on banks was changed so Credit Default Swaps were not regulated.
And that will bring everything down.
Get out and VOTE today Democrats.
Yes, please vote. And if you vote Rep, try to vote for the person, not the party. I would like to see what this administration will do in the next two years.
allot are and not for dem's.....they have done a crap job....facts are facts!
Why do you only think that applies to Republican candidates? Voting against one party and for another is how the crooks in office now got there.
With the exception of one school board seat I can proudly say I voted a straight Democratic ticket.
Now I just have to go and vote for my grandfathers as I know they would have wanted me too. One grandfather always voted Democrat, and the other will roll in his grave as he will be voting Democratic for the first time.
CRASH THE TEA PARTY, VOTE DEMOCRATIC!!!
Way to funny to kick back and watch, Republicans have been claiming a huge victory for over a year, But when it comes down to election day,,,,,,,It's pretty much a 50/50 shot. Most polls or designed to slant one way or the other but at times it gets totally ridiculas. I was just reading in the other thread and found this paragraph, Do you notice a "small" problem with the GOP winning in a few of these races?? Maybe like the fact that Republicans DO NOT even have anyone in them???? For this to happen, the GOP must win its sure bets (North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana); the two contests where it has the slight edge (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin); the toss ups (Illinois, Colorado, Nevada); two of these four races (California, Connecticut, Washington state, West Virginia);
How can a poll say Republicans are going to win an election they do not even have a candidate in??
the Dem's still have all the gangsters that cheat on elections.....its a national travesty that this goes on......I hope if the repub's get power and one of the things they address is this election stealing the low life liberals do!!!!!......this is a disgrace and goes against everything a free society represents.......shame on you low lifes.........hope most go to jail and get whats coming to them in the night.
Which ones?
If it's true, it was a bad poll questionaire. Have you ever been polled? It's not a fill-in-the-blank. It's a "do you agree with *insert choices here*".