Obama Losing Independents - 2010 In Play

[drsmith1072]

You didnt see it because you weren't looking. There was plenty of discussion. Republicans also don't air their dirty laundry in public.

What a load of BS. I see it when it occurs. BTW can you answer my questions or is spin all you have to offer??

BTW how do they vote a majority of the time?? I know ron paul added earmarks and then votes against the legislation so he can claim he against earmarks while taking the money that they give him but how often did they vote against their own party when republicans had the majority and the WH??

I dont know. Were any of them unanimous? No. You got research voting records of all senators and representatives for 8 years and come back with a report.
You are grasping at straws because your point has been disproven. Take it somewhere else.

Oh so you want me to do your work for you?? You chimed in attacked me, said that I didn't see it and that it existed now prove it. Oh and I put my actual question that you glossed over in bold type so you can read it and you only have to worry about the years that republicans had the majority and the WH.
BTW if you didn't know then how can you honestly chime in telling me that I am wrong?? Seems to me that you have exposed a credibility issue that you might have.

BTW what has been disproven?? You chiming and saying "you're wrong because I say so" does not prove or disprove anything other than the FACT that you don't know the meaning of the word "disproven." LOL

 

[Meister]

So your argument is based on YOUR assumptions and nothing REAL. Thanks for explaining what I already knew. LOL

Oh brother....and you are who???? lol
Go drink some more of your orange flavored Kool-Aid

LOL funny, but I am not the one spewing propaganda as if was actually worth anything. That would be YOU. So it seems that you have already drank the kool-aid. LOL

Fact is that your argument is based on your assumptions and you have offered nothing REAL to prove it and despite that FACT you attack others because they disagree with your OPINIONS. Thanks for clearing that up. LOL

Yeah right...coming from who???? LOL Oh yeah, just another partisan hack with an opinion. You call it propoganda, call it a potato if you want. But, there is truth to what I stated, and only a partisan would deny it...but feel free. LOL

 

[Sinatra]

Interesting write-up in the Washington Examiner noting the clear trend of Independent voters away from Obama - the single largest voting group in the country...

Excerpt:

Independent voters are turning away from President Obama and his fellow Democrats in droves. And if they can't find a way to get them back, the party could be in deep trouble for 2010 and beyond.

Independents gave Obama the White House last year with a vote for pragmatic competence. They have been repaid with partisanship and dithering. And unlike liberals who Obama has quickly re-energized after their summer doldrums, independents are devilishly hard to win back once they lose faith.

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the Rolls-Royce of public surveys, showed that for the first time, independents disapproved of the president's performance, 46 percent to 41 percent...

Now, Obama is ignoring the desperate-sounding pleas of his hand-picked commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for more troops.

We hear that Obama is waiting to see what happens next before deciding to continue with his own strategy of an Afghan surge. His team is reading a book about how the Kennedy administration was led astray by the military and holding a series of meetings about the way forward.

A flip-flop on what Obama called a "war of necessity" just last might well send the independents to the exits for good.


Independents desert Obama, putting 2010 in play | Washington Examiner

,,,

 

[drsmith1072]

Oh brother....and you are who???? lol
Go drink some more of your orange flavored Kool-Aid

LOL funny, but I am not the one spewing propaganda as if was actually worth anything. That would be YOU. So it seems that you have already drank the kool-aid. LOL

Fact is that your argument is based on your assumptions and you have offered nothing REAL to prove it and despite that FACT you attack others because they disagree with your OPINIONS. Thanks for clearing that up. LOL

Yeah right...coming from who???? LOL Oh yeah, just another partisan hack with an opinion.

That is what you are. Thanks for the admission.

You call it propoganda, call it a potato if you want.

I call it what it is and until you can offer something real to substantiate your OPINIONS then propaganda presented by a partisan hack troll who avoids debate at every opportunity is all they shall remain. LOL If you want to act like a troll then you'll get treated like a troll.

But, there is truth to what I stated, and only a partisan would deny it...but feel free. LOL

And yet you can't offer any proof to substantiate your OPINIONS. tsk tsk tsk. Believe what you want to but just realize that merely believing it doesn't make it true and only a partisan hack would try to claim that his opinions that he can't prove are true. LOL

 

[Sinatra]

Interesting write-up in the Washington Examiner noting the clear trend of Independent voters away from Obama - the single largest voting group in the country...

Excerpt:

Independent voters are turning away from President Obama and his fellow Democrats in droves. And if they can't find a way to get them back, the party could be in deep trouble for 2010 and beyond.

Independents gave Obama the White House last year with a vote for pragmatic competence. They have been repaid with partisanship and dithering. And unlike liberals who Obama has quickly re-energized after their summer doldrums, independents are devilishly hard to win back once they lose faith.

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the Rolls-Royce of public surveys, showed that for the first time, independents disapproved of the president's performance, 46 percent to 41 percent...

Now, Obama is ignoring the desperate-sounding pleas of his hand-picked commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for more troops.

We hear that Obama is waiting to see what happens next before deciding to continue with his own strategy of an Afghan surge. His team is reading a book about how the Kennedy administration was led astray by the military and holding a series of meetings about the way forward.

A flip-flop on what Obama called a "war of necessity" just last might well send the independents to the exits for good.


Independents desert Obama, putting 2010 in play | Washington Examiner

,,,

...

 

[Polk]

I'm still waiting to see what the republicans will hold up as an alternative.

Right now, they have no message and no candidates who can appeal to those independent voters. Running the same platform that lost the last two elections is not the answer

Yep. Rovian tactics and fear aren't likely to bring Independents around, and without them, you lose.

If the GOP can find a message to turn independents back to their side, they'll win. Unfortunately, striking the same tone as talk radio isn't that message.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. It's often times enough the opposition to be "not the other guy".

 

[The Rabbi]

What a load of BS. I see it when it occurs. BTW can you answer my questions or is spin all you have to offer??

BTW how do they vote a majority of the time?? I know ron paul added earmarks and then votes against the legislation so he can claim he against earmarks while taking the money that they give him but how often did they vote against their own party when republicans had the majority and the WH??

I dont know. Were any of them unanimous? No. You got research voting records of all senators and representatives for 8 years and come back with a report.
You are grasping at straws because your point has been disproven. Take it somewhere else.

Oh so you want me to do your work for you?? You chimed in attacked me, said that I didn't see it and that it existed now prove it. Oh and I put my actual question that you glossed over in bold type so you can read it and you only have to worry about the years that republicans had the majority and the WH.
BTW if you didn't know then how can you honestly chime in telling me that I am wrong?? Seems to me that you have exposed a credibility issue that you might have.

BTW what has been disproven?? You chiming and saying "you're wrong because I say so" does not prove or disprove anything other than the FACT that you don't know the meaning of the word "disproven." LOL

No, I want YOU to do your work.
You posited that all Republicans think the same way. I listed several Republicans who could only be described as having divergent views.
You then weren't satisfied with that and demanded to know how they voted. I am not going to waste more time on a debate that's already won satisfying your last-ditch efforts. So you go and do it.
And I think your credibility--if not your sanity--is at issue here.

 

[Polk]

Upcoming 2009 New Jersey Governor races sees Republican up 7 points over Democrat incumbent.

Corzine is cut the gap in half in the last month or so. Additionally, winning a third term has historically been hard.

2010 Iowa Senate race sees Republican up by 26% over Democrat challenger.

An incumbent Republican who has seen his support dropping like a rock. This race is shaping up to be his closest since his first race for the seat.

2010 Colorado Senate race sees Republican up by nearly 10% over Democrat challenger.

Sees a Republican with a nine-point lead. Against the other two Republicans in the race, the polls are within the margin of error.

2010 Connecticut Senate race sees long time incumbent Chris Dodd down over points to his Republican challengers.

Dodd trails Simmons inside the margin and consistently outpolls any other potential Republican nominee.

 

[Polk]

The GOP could in theory win a few seats. I'm pretty certain they'll bust up the philibuster proof Senate. They could take the House. If they do, it'll be because Reid and Pelosi screwed the pooch in the last two years. It certainly won't be based on new ideas.

Even if they win in 2010 at the Congressional level, they're screwed in 2012 for the Presidential Race. The GOP doesn't have a viable candidate for the office and if they're holding the House and Senate, what exactly will they have in 2012 for ammo?

If it turns out to be '94 again, I'll be fine with that. Clinton was re-elected 2 years later, and Obama is looking at an easy walk himself. America did fine with a Democrat in the Oval Office and Republicans in the Congress. Best 6 years in recent history hands down.

If we got another Clinton-like 2nd term that would be ok - as Clinton was governing as a conservative Democrat at that time...

Obama is no Clinton. Reality check.

You're right. Obama is even more willing to cave to the Republicans than Clinton was, which I didn't think was possible.

 

[Meister]

The funniest thing of all is that republicans are trying to claim that obama is losing independents this far out from an election as if it means anything and have offerered opinions in a failed attempt to substantiate their claims when their own favorite poll (rassmussen) shows no such shift. Yet the righties still ramble on letting no facts or counter arguments stand in the way of their rants. LOL

a troll who asks for facts, but doesn't bring any to the table himself. That is a hypocritical troll. Show us Quack...don't just talk the talk.

July 18, 2009, Among those not affiliated with either major party, 43% Strongly Disapprove.

August 23, 2009, Strongly Disapprove along with 49% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Sept. 14, 2009, those not affiliated with either major party, 43% offer a positive assessment and 56% give a negative review.
Demographic Notes - Barack Obama Approval Index - Rasmussen Reports™

LOL

 

[The Rabbi]

If we got another Clinton-like 2nd term that would be ok - as Clinton was governing as a conservative Democrat at that time...

Obama is no Clinton. Reality check.

You're right. Obama is even more willing to cave to the Republicans than Clinton was, which I didn't think was possible.

Obama has caved to the Republicans? How did I miss that.
No, Obama has alienated the Republicans every chance he has had. His last meeting with GOP leadership I believe was in Feb. Remember him telling one rep that the reason they should vote for his stimulus plan over their (excellent) objections was "because I won"??
No, Obama caves to the leftwing of his own party. Over and over again.

 

[Sinatra]

Obama is no Clinton. Reality check.

You're right. Obama is even more willing to cave to the Republicans than Clinton was, which I didn't think was possible.

Obama has caved to the Republicans? How did I miss that.
No, Obama has alienated the Republicans every chance he has had. His last meeting with GOP leadership I believe was in Feb. Remember him telling one rep that the reason they should vote for his stimulus plan over their (excellent) objections was "because I won"??
No, Obama caves to the leftwing of his own party. Over and over again.

Or he actually to the left of the leftwing of his own party...

 

[NYcarbineer]

That article claims this looks like 1994?

Clinton was around 40% approval in 1994. The Democrats in Congress had a 29% approval rating in Jul. 1994.

Obama is currently at 51% and the Democratic Congress is currently at 36%.

 

[Polk]

Obama is no Clinton. Reality check.

You're right. Obama is even more willing to cave to the Republicans than Clinton was, which I didn't think was possible.

Obama has caved to the Republicans? How did I miss that.
No, Obama has alienated the Republicans every chance he has had. His last meeting with GOP leadership I believe was in Feb. Remember him telling one rep that the reason they should vote for his stimulus plan over their (excellent) objections was "because I won"??
No, Obama caves to the leftwing of his own party. Over and over again.

1. That wasn't how it went down. He made that comment after the GOP leadership came in the room and started making demands. He was perfectly correct to point out that his party won, and therefore the opposition had to negotiate with him, not coming in like a bunch of thugs.

2. The only objection the Republicans had was that they wanted more tax cuts. Obama gave in to them on that (even though doing so was not sound policy), and yet they all voted against the bill.

 

[Polk]

That article claims this looks like 1994?

Clinton was around 40% approval in 1994. The Democrats in Congress had a 29% approval rating in Jul. 1994.

Obama is currently at 51% and the Democratic Congress is currently at 36%.

Also, I wonder what the approval for congressional Republicans was in 1994.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow. I guess revisionism starts even before the history books are written.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Either the GOP gets on board the Bama express for reform, or the Pubs will get run over in the election next year.

 

[Sinatra]

That article claims this looks like 1994?

Clinton was around 40% approval in 1994. The Democrats in Congress had a 29% approval rating in Jul. 1994.

Obama is currently at 51% and the Democratic Congress is currently at 36%.

Actually the parallels are sound - given Obama's trending continues in this pattern.

Excerpts from a CBS story that ads insight to the issue...


Sixteen years ago, views of the U.S. health care system were very negative -- much as they are now. Nine in ten Americans felt the U.S. health care system needed fundamental changes or to be completely rebuilt. At the time, many thought the system was headed for a financial crisis.

Mr. Clinton's approval rating rose in the initial weeks after the speech, but that didn't last either. In that early October poll, his overall job approval rating rose to 48 percent, but by mid-October, a CBS News Poll found it had fallen back to where it was before the speech – 43 percent. Views of Mr. Clinton's handling of health care experienced a similar short-lived uptick after the speech, with a subsequent return to pre-speech levels.

Back to the health care debate in 2009. Much of the public still views health care as needing fundamental change or to be completely rebuilt, and Americans express concerns about the quality of care and the cost of reform.

And as in 1993, Americans in 2009 aren't clear what the reform proposals being discussed would mean for them. A CBS News Poll conducted at the end of August found two thirds of Americans saying they don't understand the proposals being discussed by members of Congress, and by two to one, Americans did not think Mr. Obama had clearly explained his plans for health care reform.

The public's approval of how Mr. Obama is handling health care fell six points between July and August, and now more Americans disapprove (47 percent) than approve (40 percent).

___


Clinton's 1993 Health Care Speech Had Little Impact - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

 

[The Rabbi]

Either the GOP gets on board the Bama express for reform, or the Pubs will get run over in the election next year.

They did. That's why McCain got shellacked in the election.

 

[rightwinger]

Either the GOP gets on board the Bama express for reform, or the Pubs will get run over in the election next year.

They did. That's why McCain got shellacked in the election.

As much as the party now throws him under the bus, John McCain was the best candidate by far the republicans had to offer in 2008.

What is even more significant, McCain was a better candidate than anyone the republicans have to offer in 2012.

Now I know you are going to ridicule and post cute emoticons....but my only response is, if you have someone better than McCain....name him!