Ten point swing, House trending back to Dems

#52
#52
therealUT said:
While open, it was still a seat that had to be defended.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That is true but in most cases especially in the Senate it's harder to defeat an incumbent.

For example, do you think Scott Brown would have beat Ted Kennedy? I don't.
 
#53
#53
therealUT said:
I don't know the specifics, but I was under the impression that that was not a statewide vote.

If it was, it still doesnot mean too much. The battle for that Senate seat will draw a lot of nationwide interest and campaign money.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Not sure of the specifics either, I thought it was statewide?

Either way, I am not entirely convinced the three ring circus up there was much loved by the people of the state and they will be the ones voting.

I wouldn't bet you either way on this one.
 
#54
#54
Point is, the supposed tidal wave of revolt against Obama represented by the midterms last year has been reduced to a ripple. I think its clear the GOP came in and went kind of crazy and then really bit off more than they could chew with the Ryan plan, which is now being shoved up their collective keester.
 
#55
#55
lawgator1 said:
Point is, the supposed tidal wave of revolt against Obama represented by the midterms last year has been reduced to a ripple. I think its clear the GOP came in and went kind of crazy and then really bit off more than they could chew with the Ryan plan, which is now being shoved up their collective keester.
Click to expand...

he's getting a bump because of bin laden. let's not act like it's anything but temporary. the ryan plan polled VERY well btw.
 
#56
#56
lawgator1 said:
Point is, the supposed tidal wave of revolt against Obama represented by the midterms last year has been reduced to a ripple. I think its clear the GOP came in and went kind of crazy and then really bit off more than they could chew with the Ryan plan, which is now being shoved up their collective keester.
Click to expand...

Still a tidal wave. $4 gasoline, 9% unemployment, still shoving Barrycare down our throats, still refusing to do anything serious about illegal immigration. Every dem in America running for any office should have Barry's policies tagged to them.
 
#58
#58
droski said:
he's getting a bump because of bin laden. let's not act like it's anything but temporary. the ryan plan polled VERY well btw.
Click to expand...


At first. And when people did not understand its individual components.

When people are asked about it after being told of, or questioned about, its individual components, the numbers fall of precipitously.

Ryan Plan Doesn’t Poll Well (and Bad Numbers for Obama as well)

The way the question is asked is critical.

Misleading Polls and the Ryan Plan | The Weekly Standard



But the results are in the pudding. With contested races now tilting significantly to the Dems, and the basis for that being ads touting what Ryan plan will do to seniors while it gives enormous tax breaks to the wealthy, you are just ignoring the facts if you don't think there has been a substantial shift in overall public sentiment.

Not saying it means Obama is as good as reelected. Not saying it can't shift back again.

Just saying that the realities of the Ryan plan are pretty ugly for average middle class person who would join Medicare 2022 or beyond and that's difficult to swallow in the face of more tax breaks for the wealthiest.
 
#59
#59
"tax breaks for the wealthy"

glad to know LG receives his talking points directly from the DNC
 
#60
#60
volfanjustin said:
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports



Rasmussen today.
Click to expand...


I wonder about that poll. Toggle the trend link. They have 3,4, and 5 point swings from one day to the next, and that's even without correlation to a particular news event. Very odd.

A sampling, from wikipedia:
Criticism

[edit] New York Times

In 2010, Nate Silver of the New York Times wrote the article “Is Rasmussen Reports biased?”, in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias. [22]. However, by later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a 'house effect.'[23] He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model,[24] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering. [25] Silver also criticized Rasmussen for often only polling races months before the election, which prevented them from having polls just before the election which could be assessed for accuracy. In response, he wrote that he was “looking appropriate ways to punish pollsters” like Rasmussen who don’t poll in the final days before an election. [26]
After Election night that year, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model. [27] He singled out as an example the Hawaii Senate Race, which Rasmussen showed the incumbent 13 points ahead, where he in actuality won by 53[28] - a difference of 40 points, or "the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEightÂ’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998."[27]
[edit] Other

TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group".[29] According to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who co-developed Pollster.com,[30] “He [Rasmussen] polls less favorably for Democrats, and that’s why he’s become a lightning rod." Franklin also said: "It’s clear that his results are typically more Republican than the other person’s results.”[31]
The Center For Public Integrity has claimed that Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[32] The Washington Post reported "... the Bush reelection campaign used a feature on his site that allowed customers to program their own polls. Rasmussen asserted that he never wrote any of the questions or assisted Republicans in any way..." The do-it-yourself polling service is used by Democrats as well as Republicans today through a company that licenses RasmussenÂ’s methodology.
Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[33][34] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[35] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party -- he says jump and they say how high.'"[34]
 
#61
#61
It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the president's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. It is also important to check the details of question wording when comparing approval ratings from different firms.
Click to expand...

In December 2009, a full 11 months before Election Day. A Democratic strategist concluded that if the Rasmussen Reports Generic Congressional Ballot data was accurate, Republicans would gain 62 seats in the House during the 2010 elections. Other polls at the time suggested the Democrats would retain a comfortable majority. The Republicans gained 63 seats in the 2010 elections.
Click to expand...

In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased with the stability of our results. On every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign, our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead attracting more than 50% of the vote.
Click to expand...

In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports polling projected that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. We were the only firm to project both candidates' totals within half a percentage point by (see our 2004 results).
Click to expand...

And the poll that shows him with a 60% approval had dems over polled by 17%.
 
#62
#62
lawgator1 said:
At first. And when people did not understand its individual components.

When people are asked about it after being told of, or questioned about, its individual components, the numbers fall of precipitously.

Ryan Plan Doesn’t Poll Well (and Bad Numbers for Obama as well)

The way the question is asked is critical.

Misleading Polls and the Ryan Plan | The Weekly Standard



But the results are in the pudding. With contested races now tilting significantly to the Dems, and the basis for that being ads touting what Ryan plan will do to seniors while it gives enormous tax breaks to the wealthy, you are just ignoring the facts if you don't think there has been a substantial shift in overall public sentiment.

Not saying it means Obama is as good as reelected. Not saying it can't shift back again.

Just saying that the realities of the Ryan plan are pretty ugly for average middle class person who would join Medicare 2022 or beyond and that's difficult to swallow in the face of more tax breaks for the wealthiest.
Click to expand...

i seem to remember you arguing after obama got elected that there was a substantial shift in the overall public and the republicans had to go left if they were going to survive. howd that argument work out for you?
 
#63
#63
droski said:
i seem to remember you arguing after obama got elected that there was a substantial shift in the overall public and the republicans had to go left if they were going to survive. howd that argument work out for you?
Click to expand...


I don't think I said it quite like that. Rather, if memory serves, I think that the changing face of the country means that, on the whole, over time, we will change from a center-right country to a center-left country. There will be some serious growing pains and a general change in how we approach policies, economics, etc.

Obama got elected and the far right went ballistic claiming that Obama, Pelosi and Reid = flat out socialism. They motivated their base and whipped themselves into a frenzy. Won a major victory in November.

They got in there, and much like the Newt revolution almost 20 years ago drank too much of their own koolaid and started throwing out these lofty, but politically impossible, statements of the how they were going to change the world by changing the flow of money back to the way it was, which was from the have a little's to the have a lots, cutting off the have nots as much as possible.

The have a littles are the great majority of folks. And they are now seeing through the lofty rhetoric and that the people they got lured into voting for to stop Obama are going to give their super rich buddies more money while they delay retirement for another few years, have to pay thousands out of their own pocket for health care they think they are owed, and that their social security is going to be cut to pay for it.

It is a sad fact that the have a littles haven't saved. We can argue why that is until the cows come home. Regardless of the reason, they have always counted on these programs to take care of them.

They will sacrifice some, in the name of the common good, and for future generations. But, they aren't too keen on that if at the same time they have to give something up the multi-millionaires and the billionaires are going to end up with even more.

You keep wanting to debate the objective merit of the philosophical fairness of the system. I agree it totally sucks in terms of what it rewards and what it penalizes. Goody for us.

In the meantime, most people don't give a crap and only pay attention when they are told they are getting a lot less come 65 whilst the people on the top of the hill will end up with a bunch more.

It simply isn't politically palatable.
 
#64
#64
If you are right LG... then we are most definitely in decline and likely to become Greece or worse within 30 years. That "center-left" country you are hoping for will bankrupt us.

Your whole last post is bunk. Have Dems convinced many "have a littles" that they don't have more because of the dirty rich? Yes. Is it true? No. Their opportunity to have more is completely dependent on having the rights and freedoms established by our founders... the very same economic and property rights being destroyed by the left as they try to "redistribute" from the "rich" to everyone else.
 
#65
#65
sjt18 said:
If you are right LG... then we are most definitely in decline and likely to become Greece or worse within 30 years. That "center-left" country you are hoping for will bankrupt us.

Your whole last post is bunk. Have Dems convinced many "have a littles" that they don't have more because of the dirty rich? Yes. Is it true? No. Their opportunity to have more is completely dependent on having the rights and freedoms established by our founders... the very same economic and property rights being destroyed by the left as they try to "redistribute" from the "rich" to everyone else.
Click to expand...

While I don't buy the idea that the rich are evil, it is undeniable that the wage gap between management and workers has greatly widened over the last few years. That is where some of the resentment is born. It is hard to justify multi-million dollar bonuses when workers' wages have been stagnant or people are being laid off right and left. It is a cycle. See the Guilded Age. This led to the rise of unionism. The stagnant wages and corporate wages being disproportinately higher also was a factor in creating the Great Depression. It's in our history. It will cycle through again.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#66
#66
JayVols said:
While I don't buy the idea that the rich are evil, it is undeniable that the wage gap between management and workers has greatly widened over the years. That is where some of the resentment is born. It is hard to justify multi-million dollar bonuses when workers' wages
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I just became management... I don't really see the gap. :-/ Maybe I need to go to a corporation to see it... f that noise.
 
#68
#68
they are running bigger corps and have to put their names on the line. More responsibility = more money
 
#69
#69
utvolpj said:
they are running bigger corps and have to put their names on the line. More responsibility = more money
Click to expand...

Sorry, man. I don't buy that especially when workers are being laid off. Everyone puts something on the line. I guess I believe in some measure of shared sacrifice.

The difference between a boss and a leader is 1. You do what a boss tells you to because you have to. 2. You do what a leader says because you want to. The best leaders I have encountered share sacrifice.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#70
#70
JayVols said:
Upper management, not lower to middle management.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It's pretty much all the same at my store. There isn't much separation between store owner and employees, or managers and employees. If only everyone ran a store like he does.
 
#71
#71
JayVols said:
Sorry, man. I don't buy that especially when workers are being laid off. Everyone puts something on the line. I guess I believe in some measure of shared sacrifice.
Click to expand...

they have a responsibility to their shareholders so cost cutting is something the big guys have to do. I've seen it at mine and I understand why it's being done. Plus with new regulations the regular worker does not have the skin in the game that the c-level guys do
 
#72
#72
Wish they could say, "eff the shareholders, I'm looking out for my employees." But that's not how it works. Driven by greed.

I don't really understand the stock market, though...
 
#73
#73
utvolpj said:
they have a responsibility to their shareholders so cost cutting is something the big guys have to do. I've seen it at mine and I understand why it's being done. Plus with new regulations the regular worker does not have the skin in the game that the c-level guys do
Click to expand...

I understand cuts are needed sometimes. Some of the cuts could come from upper management wages/bonuses also. There is an argument to be made that fewer people would be effected by those type of cuts. (I'm not not naive enought to think that will be the choice for cuts.) If their main focus is the stock share price, those cuts could raise revenue as well. Maybe I'm an idealist, but many workers put a lot on the line in relative terms. Maybe different things, but on the lib nonetheless.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#74
#74
lawgator1 said:
Can't post link via mobile (or at least I can't), but CNN poll shows Dems lead GOP 50-46 in how people would vote in Congressional districts. Prior to midterms in '10, GOP led 53-47.

If economy improves and GOP continues to stumble and send mixed messages on deficit, Dems may well re-take the House. Hope Boehner hasn't unpacked everything.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

:) Don't count on it.
 
#75
#75
VOLatile said:
Wish they could say, "eff the shareholders, I'm looking out for my employees." But that's not how it works. Driven by greed.

I don't really understand the stock market, though...
Click to expand...

Shareholders are needed to raise capital. However, there could be more balance as to priorities.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top