Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 26, 2014, 02:08:15 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 161
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: PPP: National environment getting better for Dems on: March 13, 2014, 01:54:24 pm
It's when Republicans get to know who the Koch family is that the GOP will have trouble.
The Dems have their own Koch: Soros.

The Koch family is beginning to remind me of the Medici family in Florence -- huge patrons of the arts and sciences, but political thugs.

Let the Koch family get its way, and America becomes a Republic in Name Only. 

I wouldn't go that far, but it's true that they're corrupting the democratic system beyond anything we've seen before.

From 2006 to 2011, the top 5 Unions spent 1.4 Billion on political activities.

The $20,000,000 the Koch brothers spend is a drop in the bucket compared to big labour

Political Expenditures - 2006 to 2011

SERVICE EMPLOYEES- $320,174,659
STATE COUNTY & MUNI EMPLS AFL-CIO - $316,958,887
AFL-CIO -$282,401,199
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASN IND - $238,948,778
TEACHERS AFL-CIO -$138,087,803
SERVICE EMPLOYEE - $105,069,027

http://online.wsj.com/news/interactive/LABOR20120710?ref=SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: March 13, 2014, 01:33:45 pm
Remember, they're using a Fox News poll that's essentially spam, like that CBS poll late last year.

Thats why you always use the oldest rule in poll analysis.....

"Throw put the high and the low and average the rest...."

Gallup                                41   54    -13
Rasmussen Reports           45   54    -9
The Economist/YouGov       42   56    -14
Bloomberg                          48   48    Tie
CNN/Opinion Research       43   53    -10
PPP (D)                               43   51    -8
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl        41   54    -13
FOX News                            38   54    -16
ABC News/Wash Post          46   52    -6

Which leaves:

The Economist/YouGov       42   56    -14
Gallup                                41   54    -13
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl        41   54    -13
CNN/Opinion Research       43   53    -10
Rasmussen Reports           45   54    -9
PPP (D)                               43   51    -8
ABC News/Wash Post          46   52    -6

Average:                          43     53.4

It is odd to see NBC and ABC so far apart, they usually agree pretty closely
3  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: March 13, 2014, 12:37:14 pm
I am not really seeing any major changes actually....

I am a bit surprised the WSJ/NBC and ABC/WASHPOST disagree as much as they do, those are both excellent polls and they (almost always) very closely agree....

March 13th, 2014

RCP Average      43.0   52.9    -9.9
Huffington Post   42.9   52.2    -9.3

February 13th, 2014

RCP Average      43.0   52.6    -9.6
Huffington Post        42.7 52.3 -9.6

IE - exactly the same in the Huff Po model
Gain of 0.6% in RCP average (throw out Bloomberg and he is actually down)

 
Current Polling

Gallup         41   54    -13
Rasmussen Reports   45   54    -9
The Economist/YouGov   42   56    -14
Bloomberg      48   48    Tie
CNN/Opinion Research   43   53    -10
PPP (D)   3/6 - 3/9   43   51    -8
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   41   54    -13
FOX News      38   54    -16
ABC News/Wash Post   46   52    -6

Polls This Month versus last Month



Gallup

Gallup   3/10 - 3/12   1500 A   41   54   -13
Gallup   2/10 - 2/12   1500 A   39   51   -12

Net Change - Obama +1

Rasmussen Reports

Rasmussen Reports   3/10 - 3/12   1500 LV   45   54   -9
Rasmussen Reports   2/10 - 2/12   1500 LV   44   55   -11

Obama +2


ABC News/Wash Post   2/27 - 3/2   RV   46   52   -6
ABC News/Wash Post   1/20 - 1/23   RV   45   52   -7

Net change +1 Obama

FOX News   3/2 - 3/4   1002 RV   38   54   -16
FOX News   2/9 - 2/11   1006 RV   42   53   -11

Net change -5 Obama

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   3/5 - 3/9   1000 A   41   54   -13
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   1/22 - 1/25   800 A   43   51   -8

Net Change - 5 obama


The Economist/YouGov   3/8 - 3/10   714 RV   42   56   -14
The Economist/YouGov   3/1 - 3/3   710 RV   42   55   -13
The Economist/YouGov   2/22 - 2/24   710 RV   43   55   -12
The Economist/YouGov   2/15 - 2/17   723 RV   42   56   -14
The Economist/YouGov   2/8 - 2/10   716 RV   42   56   -14

No real changes
4  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: UAE Islamic affairs authority reaffirms fatwa on Muslims travelling to Mars on: March 10, 2014, 04:20:11 pm

“Based on the texts, it is not permissible.... if life is not possible there and the expectation of death is more than the possibility of life, due to this action exposing one to self-destruction,” the committee answered.


I was not aware of the suicide bomber exemption in the Koran.....
5  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain recall ambassadors from Qatar on: March 10, 2014, 04:16:59 pm
In Qatar there is a law saying you can't make workers work in temperatures above 44 celsius, so amazingly enough it never "officially" goes above 44 C. - It might be 43.8 C at 7 am in the moring, and then never "officially" rises for the rest of the day...

Lots of foreign workers die in Qatar, the 2022 decision is really hard to understand, unless FIFA is some bribe driven corrupt organization like the IOC.... oh wait never mind my last comment....
6  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Kim Jong Un "elected" with 100% of the vote on: March 10, 2014, 04:04:44 pm
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/10/nkorea-election/6247491/

They're going overboard... Hitler wasn't elected with 100% of the vote, Saddam wasn't elected with 100% of the vote, electing a  dictator (or anyone else) with 100% of the vote makes the country in question weaker.

Actually Hitler was (approximately) elected/appointed in a legitimate election.

In the July 1932 German elections Hitler's  National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi) party won 230 out of 608 seats in the German REichstag, and were the largest party.

The two non-democratic parties (The Nazis and the Communists - who refused to work together, or with anybody else for that matter) between them held an absolute majority so the Reichstad was non-functional and no stable government could be formed.

President Hindenburg (Who had indeed be legitimately elected when he defeated Hitler in the 1932 elections) appointed Hitler Reich Chancellor at the head of a cabinet including only a minority of Nazi ministers on January 30th, 1933.

Needless to say, things go rather less democratic in German going forward......

NOTE: - In the german system the President was elected from all the people and has some "head of state" functions such as constituting a government within the Reichstag.  Hitler was appointed to a position more or less like Prime Minister in the British system

7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Senate Democrats reject justice department nominee Debo Adegbile on: March 10, 2014, 03:20:48 pm
Harry can you imagine the headlines if Casey really supported this guy?

Who cares? No one will remember this in 2018 either way...

Casey is constantly looking over his shoulder in fear. He thinks Pennsylvania is Mississippi. Wink

Actually, other than Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is a lot like Arkansas....
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Would any of these black conservatives appeal to black voters if they ran in '16 on: March 10, 2014, 03:04:27 pm
If these following black conservatives and tea party activists ran in 2016, can they appeal to black voters? Can they give the Democrats a scare of their lives?

1.Dr. Ben Carson
2.Activist Deneen Borelli
3.Fox News host Charles Payne
4.Radio show host Larry Elder
5.Tea party activist David Webb
6.Columnist Thomas Sowell


The visceral hatred of black conservatives by democrats is astonishing to me, but it is real and immune to change.



9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: CPAC straw poll: Paul 31% Cruz 11% Carson 9% Christie 8% Walker 7% Santorum 7% on: March 10, 2014, 03:00:12 pm


I want to like Rand Paul, not quite sure I am there yet, but I am interested.

Rubio is clearly at the end of his 15 minutes of fame.

Cruz is, well, scary actually.


10  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Senate Democrats reject justice department nominee Debo Adegbile on: March 08, 2014, 12:16:18 pm
Disgusting. How dare the head of the DOJ civil right's division have spent his career defending peoples' civil rights!

AMENDMENT VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


The Government has been busy shredding the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th 9th, and 10th amendments for years, why not add the 6th in there as well?
11  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: CNN to end 'Piers Morgan Live' on: March 08, 2014, 12:09:49 pm
When will CNN have a conservative host?

Back in the 80s CNN was actually considered (at least by a few on the left) to have a conservative bias in that they tended to present the actual facts and not place the facts in the appropriate perspective.

In was not until the 90s that CNN began to stand for Clinton News Network"
12  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: CNN to end 'Piers Morgan Live' on: March 08, 2014, 12:03:20 pm
Quote
There have been times when the CNN host Piers Morgan didn’t seem to like America very much — and American audiences have been more than willing to return the favor. Three years after taking over for Larry King, Mr. Morgan has seen the ratings for “Piers Morgan Live” hit some new lows, drawing a fraction of viewers compared with competitors at Fox News and MSNBC.

It’s been an unhappy collision between a British television personality who refuses to assimilate — the only football he cares about is round and his lectures on guns were rife with contempt — and a CNN audience that is intrinsically provincial. After all, the people who tune into a cable news network are, by their nature, deeply interested in America.

CNN’s president, Jeffrey Zucker, has other problems, but none bigger than Mr. Morgan and his plum 9 p.m. time slot. Mr. Morgan said last week that he and Mr. Zucker had been talking about the show’s failure to connect and had decided to pull the plug, probably in March.
New York Times

'Tis a shame.  Regardless of whether you agreed with his politics, the man was likeable and engaging with the people he interviewed.  Much better than Larry King, I'd say.

CNN was groundbreaking in 1980... It was raw, reliable, unbiased, and they had an obvious mission to get the story first and fast and right.

Fast forward to 2014... why does CNN exist?

Piers Morgan has been a disaster, because he has tried to make far too many shows about what Piers Morgan thinks rather than exploring the views of his guest.

Anderson Cooper is likable, and can be funny, and given that he doesn't make my skin crawl is a clear step up from Morgan.
13  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Will a Democrat ever win in a 1972 or 1984 scale landslide? on: March 07, 2014, 02:08:04 pm
Will a Democratic candidate ever have a 49 state landslide similar to Nixon in '72 or Reagan in '84?

In 2008 Obama won 52.86% of the popular vote, and the electoral college by 365/178 - and this was after 8 years of GWBush... it is difficult to imagine a more favorable environment to the Dems than 2008.

Forever is a very long time, but under the current highly divided political dynamic I think the 49 state blowouts like Reagan had in 1984 are hard to imagine barring some truly horrid scandal.
14  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Alan Grayson's Wife Files for Divorce, Claims Abuse on: March 07, 2014, 02:01:59 pm
Innocent until proven guilty, but only confirms what we knew - Alan Grayson is an asshole.

If he is innocent, how does this confirm him being an asshole?

Because he thinks he's guilty.

I am sure Democrats will hold Mr. Grayson accountable, just like they did Bill Clinton, Jessie Jackson, John Edwards, and other public figures.
15  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: March 07, 2014, 01:59:13 pm
unless the media were to turn upon him, and that is deeply unlikely.

Uh.

They've turned upon him since 2008.

Yup you're right.  My God MSMBC has just turn into a GOP lapdog... kinda sickening isn't it?
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: March 06, 2014, 11:36:04 pm
He's -4 on ABC but -16 on Fox. They can't both be right.

Gallup                                       41   55    -14
Rasmussen Reports                       46   53    -7
FOX News                               38   54    -16
The Economist/YouGov               42   55    -13
ABC News/Wash Post               46   52    -6
CBS News/NY Times                       41   51    -10

Approval... anywhere from 38 to 46...   pretty wide range
Disapproval .... from 51 to 55....

In a Presidents second term "job approval" polling gets pretty murky.  In the first term "Job Approval" is a pretty darn good proxy for "Will ya vote for him again?" in a second term it is less clear.

Obama is in the "unpopular" range (ie 40-45%) but still hanging in above the "toxic" range (below 40%)

FWIW the Huffington Post model (Basically a declining weight least squares fit) has Obama about -9 (52 to 43) which looks about right to my eye.

Obama has a base,  he is unlikely to ever drop below 40% unless the media were to turn upon him, and that is deeply unlikely.

17  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: March 04, 2014, 10:14:56 am

Ever since Scott Rasmussen got kicked out of his own company left to pursue other options, that poll has been very, very erratic.

To have Obama's approval go from minus 11 (44/55 on Feb 14th) to plus 5 (52/47 on Feb 24th) and then back down to minus 9 (45/54 o March 4) is just clearly in wild contrast with reality. 

Unless I somehow missed that Obama cured cancer one week , followed by being outed as a child molester the next week, presidential approval simply does not change that fast.

Rasmussen reports methodology was never all that transparent to begin with, and since Scott has left, it has if anything gotten worse.
18  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: December 17, 2013, 07:23:55 pm
ABC says 43/55
NBC/WSJ says 43/54

In the whole mix of polls these are the two I trust the most, and they happen to agree with each other.

Of the 12 polls in todays RCP average 9 have Obama in the 41 to 43 range, with two above and one below.

Pretty hard to argue that his approval rating is not in the 42 (ish) range....
19  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: December 17, 2013, 07:15:31 pm
Another interesting little tidbit: Respondents in the Illinois poll said they voted for Obama by 9. Actually he won the state by 17. So they greatly oversampled Republicans.

The "who did you vote for in the last election" question absolutely sucks in a poll.

According to all polling done in the later part of 1974, for example, McGovern actually "won" in 1972 if you asked folks who they voted for...
20  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Steve Stockman's sadistic hellhole of a campaign HQ gets shut down by city on: November 20, 2013, 02:49:44 pm
Of the 435 seats in the House, maybe, and this might even be a stretch, there are 75 that could be considered "competitive".

The GOP has about 200 seats that are pretty much invulnerable, the dems have about 170 or so.

This is why we have the vast bulk of the House, on both sides, is pandering to the whacky bird crazy factions of their own party and so few running in the political centre.
21  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: November 20, 2013, 02:29:16 pm

But this is the same CBS that produced that discredited Benghazi report a few weeks back, so who's surprised?


Remember when CBS had a news division?
22  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: November 20, 2013, 02:24:39 pm
One poll is, well... one poll....

I still like the "old school" rule on polls... toss out the high and the low and average the rest.....

CBS News                       37   57    -20
Gallup                               40   53    -13
Rasmussen Reports               43   56    -13
The Economist/YouGov       42   56    -14
ABC News/Wash Post          41   56    -15
FOX News                       40   55    -15
Quinnipiac                       39   54    -15
National Journal               38   55    -17
Pew Research                       39   56    -17



The Economist/YouGov       42   56    -14
ABC News/Wash Post          41   56    -15
FOX News                       40   55    -15
Gallup                               40   53    -13
Quinnipiac                       39   54    -15
National Journal               38   55    -17
Pew Research                       39   56    -17
Average                               39.9     55.0  -15.1

Average what is left an Job approval is about 40 / 55 or so
23  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: November 20, 2013, 11:37:22 am
According to the internals for the CBS poll, they interviewed 281 Republicans, 299 Democrats, and 430 others. That's a mighty GOP-leaning sample.

They weighed that sample back to

23.7% GOP,
29.3 Democrat
48.0% Independant.

+5.6 to the Dem side is "reasonable" IMHO, especially with so many independants, The variousl polling firms handle party ID so very differently that poll to poll comparisons tend not to have a lot of actual value.

The party ID question has never worked really well, and it works even less well right now with both parties being held in contempt by the electorate.
24  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: HHS in 2010: 40-67% of those with individual insurance won't be able to keep it on: November 20, 2013, 11:31:24 am
ObamaCare forcing insurance companies to drop certain types of plans is, to paraphrase Bill Gates "A feature, not a bug" in the design.

ObamaCare allows into the risk pool a large number of very expensive to insure people - folks with pre-existing conditions, the very sick, etc...  For some to pay less, others have to pay more... this is just the fiscal reality of the thing.

The proposed "fix" to ObamaCare simply speeds up the "negative selection" death spiral that is the heart of ObamaCare.

The goal of ObamaCare is to obliterate private health insurance so by default "single payer" is all that is left standing -  and forcing folks out of low cost plans they actually wish to buy of their own free will into higher cost plans that have the effect of providing a defacto subsidy to other higher risk/higher cost enrollees in just simply a fiscally unavoidable consequence of extending coverage.
25  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Who was the most bipartisan U.S. President? on: November 20, 2013, 11:22:18 am
In the modern era, I think Ike gets the nod.

Mind you , back in the 50s the gap between the two parties was fairly small by todays standards.   There was also diversity within each party - a north eastern republican was likely more liberal than a southern democrat, just as an example...  It seems like ancient history now but the GOP as a party was actually more in favour of civail rights than the democrats.  In 1964 a higher % of the GOP in Congress voted from the civil rights act than did the Democrats.

Clinton accepted reality after HilaryCare got him slaughtered in 1994, and that was actually a period of approximately bipartisan and reality based governance.

Ford was "bipartisan" for the same reason, he was so crippled politically by Nixon he had little choice.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 161


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines