Obama Losing Independents

[Listening]

Keep telling yourself that before you go to sleep and your nightmares of a free world may end.

Telling myself what ?

That the polls say Obama is losing indes ?

You've got data to dispute that ?

If you don't know the left/right positiioning of the independents they sampled, the number is meaningless.

Some polls discuss this, some don't.

However, that you made the claim without some kind of support certainly does not make it so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Telling myself what ?

That the polls say Obama is losing indes ?

You've got data to dispute that ?

If you don't know the left/right positiioning of the independents they sampled, the number is meaningless.

Some polls discuss this, some don't.

However, that you made the claim without some kind of support certainly does not make it so.

If someone says to you 'I'm an independent',

is he liberal, moderate, or conservative?

 

[Listening]

If you don't know the left/right positiioning of the independents they sampled, the number is meaningless.

Some polls discuss this, some don't.

However, that you made the claim without some kind of support certainly does not make it so.

If someone says to you 'I'm an independent',

is he liberal, moderate, or conservative?

uh...he is an independent.

 

[Shelzin]

I hope you continue to believe that.

Hope is the denial of reality.

But this is what I found on what you have addressed. This is from 7/18/12

Obama leads Mitt Romney by 49 to 44 percent, a dip from the solid 14-point lead he'd had earlier in the year when PPP polled the state in April.

When former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is included in the poll, Obama leads Romney by 42 to 38 percent. Johnson, who pulls 13 percent support, is running on the Libertarian Party ticket.

If you have something else I'd be happy to read it.

 

[Shelzin]

Some polls discuss this, some don't.

However, that you made the claim without some kind of support certainly does not make it so.

If someone says to you 'I'm an independent',

is he liberal, moderate, or conservative?

uh...he is an independent.

ROFL... The answer does seem rather self evident doesn't it?

 

[Oldstyle]

If you don't know the left/right positiioning of the independents they sampled, the number is meaningless.

Some polls discuss this, some don't.

However, that you made the claim without some kind of support certainly does not make it so.

If someone says to you 'I'm an independent',

is he liberal, moderate, or conservative?

One of the more interesting things that has taken place over the past three years is the number of people who have abandoned their Democratic Party affiliation to declare themselves "independents". At this point, I believe it's upwards of 300,000 people. Now I would have to think that most of those newly minted independents lean towards the liberal side of the equation but their choice to leave the Democratic Party tells me that they are nowhere close to as far left as Barry, Harry and Nancy are and that they are unhappy with the direction their country was being taken by those three. It is THAT demographic that Barack Obama must win back in order to retain the Presidency and I don't think he's going to do so with the negative campaign that he is running against Romney.

 

[Shelzin]

Some polls discuss this, some don't.

However, that you made the claim without some kind of support certainly does not make it so.

If someone says to you 'I'm an independent',

is he liberal, moderate, or conservative?

One of the more interesting things that has taken place over the past three years is the number of people who have abandoned their Democratic Party affiliation to declare themselves "independents". At this point, I believe it's upwards of 300,000 people. Now I would have to think that most of those newly minted independents lean towards the liberal side of the equation but their choice to leave the Democratic Party tells me that they are nowhere close to as far left as Barry, Harry and Nancy are and that they are unhappy with the direction their country was being taken by those three. It is THAT demographic that Barack Obama must win back in order to retain the Presidency and I don't think he's going to do so with the negative campaign that he is running against Romney.

I think your numbers are messed up but I do agree that the negative campaign won't work.

For either Mitt or Obama. I *think* Obama will be smart enough to tone down the negatives. But I have never seen anything but negative from Mitt... So... *shrugs* Maybe he will, maybe he won't.

 

[Oldstyle]

Why do you think my numbers are "messed up"? Feel free to correct me if you'd like...I was simply repeating something that I believe I read in USA Today about a month ago. I found it fascinating that so many more Democrats were becoming Independents and as a whole Republicans were not.

As for Obama toning down the negatives? If he does THAT then wouldn't he have to run on his record? Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, Shel...but if I'm Barack Obama's campaign manager the LAST thing I want to do is emphasize my candidates record on the economy and jobs. Just saying...

 

[OODA_Loop]

Oh yes he is.

I work a host of with trades, labor and construction people all day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Romney can win this, and we need to reach the centrists and the independents of the left and right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some polls discuss this, some don't.

However, that you made the claim without some kind of support certainly does not make it so.

If someone says to you 'I'm an independent',

is he liberal, moderate, or conservative?

uh...he is an independent.

So, as I said already, unless you know the actual political leanings of the independents the poll is meaningless.

They could be 80% conservatives, or 80% liberals. They only polled 27% GOP in that poll, but still got middle of the road numbers, so in all likelihood the independents leaned to the right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do you think my numbers are "messed up"? Feel free to correct me if you'd like...I was simply repeating something that I believe I read in USA Today about a month ago. I found it fascinating that so many more Democrats were becoming Independents and as a whole Republicans were not.

As for Obama toning down the negatives? If he does THAT then wouldn't he have to run on his record? Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, Shel...but if I'm Barack Obama's campaign manager the LAST thing I want to do is emphasize my candidates record on the economy and jobs. Just saying...

If the GOP/conservatives are so keen on running on the economy, why did they spend a week talking about Fast and Furious, and then this past week going off on some manufactured misquote of the president?

 

[NYcarbineer]

obama is losing democrats to Gary Johnson.

Obama and Romney lost the same percentage of voters with Johnson in the NM poll.

 

[Shelzin]

Why do you think my numbers are "messed up"? Feel free to correct me if you'd like...I was simply repeating something that I believe I read in USA Today about a month ago. I found it fascinating that so many more Democrats were becoming Independents and as a whole Republicans were not.

I think the mistake you are making is that there was a much larger fraction of the republican party that was already independent. So while the democrats lost more independents than the republicans did in a short given time frame, I would suggest the republicans already lost them to the likes of Ron Paul back when they were having the first debates.

As for Obama toning down the negatives? If he does THAT then wouldn't he have to run on his record?

No... Not really. Instead of slamming Mitt at any given chance for taxes or whatever... He'll start explaining what he stands for, and what Mitt stands for on policies.

Um... Let me give you an example.

Obama wants to cut taxes for the middle class right? Mitt does too. But Mitt won't do JUST the middle class he want it across the board. Obama wins no matter what happens there so long as the tax cuts don't go to the rich as well.

Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, Shel...but if I'm Barack Obama's campaign manager the LAST thing I want to do is emphasize my candidates record on the economy and jobs. Just saying...

I agree. He'll make it out to be a rich man vs the guy next door. He'll be saying "This is what I want to do to help you neighbor" and "This is what the rich man wants to do"

With all that said... It should be Ron Paul running against Obama... Ron would have won. *shrugs*

 

[Shelzin]

Romney can win this, and we need to reach the centrists and the independents of the left and right.

I agree. He could win... But he's not going to do the things that he has to in order to do it. My opinion.

 

[Oldstyle]

Why do you think my numbers are "messed up"? Feel free to correct me if you'd like...I was simply repeating something that I believe I read in USA Today about a month ago. I found it fascinating that so many more Democrats were becoming Independents and as a whole Republicans were not.

I think the mistake you are making is that there was a much larger fraction of the republican party that was already independent. So while the democrats lost more independents than the republicans did in a short given time frame, I would suggest the republicans already lost them to the likes of Ron Paul back when they were having the first debates.

As for Obama toning down the negatives? If he does THAT then wouldn't he have to run on his record?

No... Not really. Instead of slamming Mitt at any given chance for taxes or whatever... He'll start explaining what he stands for, and what Mitt stands for on policies.

Um... Let me give you an example.

Obama wants to cut taxes for the middle class right? Mitt does too. But Mitt won't do JUST the middle class he want it across the board. Obama wins no matter what happens there so long as the tax cuts don't go to the rich as well.

Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, Shel...but if I'm Barack Obama's campaign manager the LAST thing I want to do is emphasize my candidates record on the economy and jobs. Just saying...

I agree. He'll make it out to be a rich man vs the guy next door. He'll be saying "This is what I want to do to help you neighbor" and "This is what the rich man wants to do"

With all that said... It should be Ron Paul running against Obama... Ron would have won. *shrugs*

What the article in USA Today was remarking on, Shelzin was that the Democratic Party was losing hundreds of thousands of voters who had changed their party "affiliation" from Democratic to independent while the same wasn't happening to the Republican Party. I have no idea where you've come up with the idea that because Ron Paul ran in the Republican primary that his supporters somehow became independents. Ron Paul is a Republican. Many of his supporters are Libertarians but someone calling themselves a Libertarian is NOT the same as calling themselves independents. If you'd like to show me some statistics that back up your claim that many Republicans have left the party to become independents I'd be genuinely interested in seeing that because quite frankly...I haven't witnessed that and I'm very active in Republican politics.

As for Barack Obama "winning" by asking for the Bush Tax cuts to be continued for the Middle Class while ending them for those making over $200,000? What's amusing is that someone with rudimentary math skills and a break down of who makes what in this country would quickly point out to you that even if ALL of the money of the wealthiest Americans was taken by the government it STILL wouldn't come close to solving our budget deficit. So what are we being sold by the Obama Administration as a "solution"? Quite obviously it's nothing more than a ploy to get reelected.

What's also amusing is that according to Keynesian economic theory (which Obama's economic team has touted all along as the solution to our economic woes) you don't raise taxes in a weak economy because it further weakens economic growth. THAT is the reason Christina Romer came out and stated almost a year ago that she didn't favor raising anybody's taxes in this economy. So has the economy changed since Romer made that statement? Has Keynesian theory changed? Since the answer to both of those questions is no...then why is President Obama calling for tax increases that he KNOWS goes counter to the very economic principles that progressive economic policy is based upon? The answer to that question is quite obvious...he's doing so because he thinks he can dupe the American people into voting for him again by pitting the haves against the have-nots and promising the have-nots that he can give them freebies and the cost will be picked up by the haves. The fact is...he didn't let the Bush Tax Cuts expire when he had Democratic control of the House and the Senate. Why? Because he knew that doing so would harm the economy and he would get the blame for doing so. So what's changed since 2010? Ah...Republicans now control the House and Obama KNOWS that he doesn't have a prayer of getting those tax increases pushed through. So he's proposing something THAT HE DIDN'T DO WHEN HE COULD HAVE...KNOWING THAT HE'LL NEVER HAVE TO PAY THE POLITICAL PRICE FOR THOSE TAX INCREASES HARMING ECONOMIC GROWTH!!!

THAT is the "plan" that the man you support is giving us, Shelzin...it's pure smoke and mirrors with no basis in sound economic policy and with ZERO chance of helping the millions of people currently suffering through the longest period of sustained unemployment since the Great Depression. That's the guy that YOU'RE going to step into a voting booth and try and send back for a second term.

 

[Shelzin]

Why do you think my numbers are "messed up"? Feel free to correct me if you'd like...I was simply repeating something that I believe I read in USA Today about a month ago. I found it fascinating that so many more Democrats were becoming Independents and as a whole Republicans were not.

I think the mistake you are making is that there was a much larger fraction of the republican party that was already independent. So while the democrats lost more independents than the republicans did in a short given time frame, I would suggest the republicans already lost them to the likes of Ron Paul back when they were having the first debates.


No... Not really. Instead of slamming Mitt at any given chance for taxes or whatever... He'll start explaining what he stands for, and what Mitt stands for on policies.

Um... Let me give you an example.

Obama wants to cut taxes for the middle class right? Mitt does too. But Mitt won't do JUST the middle class he want it across the board. Obama wins no matter what happens there so long as the tax cuts don't go to the rich as well.

Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, Shel...but if I'm Barack Obama's campaign manager the LAST thing I want to do is emphasize my candidates record on the economy and jobs. Just saying...

I agree. He'll make it out to be a rich man vs the guy next door. He'll be saying "This is what I want to do to help you neighbor" and "This is what the rich man wants to do"

With all that said... It should be Ron Paul running against Obama... Ron would have won. *shrugs*

What the article in USA Today was remarking on, Shelzin was that the Democratic Party was losing hundreds of thousands of voters who had changed their party "affiliation" from Democratic to independent while the same wasn't happening to the Republican Party.

I haven't seen any evidence of that.

I have no idea where you've come up with the idea that because Ron Paul ran in the Republican primary that his supporters somehow became independents.

I'm saying that a lot of the support that the republican party had in the past was from independents. And that there are more democrats than republicans. Without the independents republicans simply can't win.

Ron Paul is a Republican. Many of his supporters are Libertarians but someone calling themselves a Libertarian is NOT the same as calling themselves independents.

I agree with everything you just said. Although Libertarians also fall into the trap of "lesser of two evils" and also tend to vote more republican than democrat based on less taxes and the belief that welfare is bad. I don't think the standard of "lesser of two evils" mindset is going to be as near a factor this go around.

If you'd like to show me some statistics that back up your claim that many Republicans have left the party to become independents I'd be genuinely interested in seeing that because quite frankly...I haven't witnessed that and I'm very active in Republican politics.

I wish I could... As far as I know there are no statistics on independents. No good ones at least. I could throw links at you for sure, but honestly I wouldn't put much stock in them if you had shown me the same links... So I'm just not going to insult you like that.

But again... I'm not saying republicans have left the party, I'm saying that the majority of independents have traditionally supported the republican party until Obama came around. And I just don't see that happening this election.

Oh.. And I have a brother who is in the republican party here in Iowa. *shrugs* I'm not sure that means a whole lot.

As for Barack Obama "winning" by asking for the Bush Tax cuts to be continued for the Middle Class while ending them for those making over $200,000? What's amusing is that someone with rudimentary math skills and a break down of who makes what in this country would quickly point out to you that even if ALL of the money of the wealthiest Americans was taken by the government it STILL wouldn't come close to solving our budget deficit. So what are we being sold by the Obama Administration as a "solution"? Quite obviously it's nothing more than a ploy to get reelected.

That's true. And... Not to be a prick about it but most people are idiots. Individuals can be smart... But as a whole the human race is a bunch of retarded tribal monkeys. I mean shit... Proof: "I like to fire people" & "You didn't build that"...

What's also amusing is that according to Keynesian economic theory (which Obama's economic team has touted all along as the solution to our economic woes) you don't raise taxes in a weak economy because it further weakens economic growth. THAT is the reason Christina Romer came out and stated almost a year ago that she didn't favor raising anybody's taxes in this economy. So has the economy changed since Romer made that statement? Has Keynesian theory changed? Since the answer to both of those questions is no...then why is President Obama calling for tax increases that he KNOWS goes counter to the very economic principles that progressive economic policy is based upon? The answer to that question is quite obvious...he's doing so because he thinks he can dupe the American people into voting for him again by pitting the haves against the have-nots and promising the have-nots that he can give them freebies and the cost will be picked up by the haves. The fact is...he didn't let the Bush Tax Cuts expire when he had Democratic control of the House and the Senate. Why? Because he knew that doing so would harm the economy and he would get the blame for doing so. So what's changed since 2010? Ah...Republicans now control the House and Obama KNOWS that he doesn't have a prayer of getting those tax increases pushed through. So he's proposing something THAT HE DIDN'T DO WHEN HE COULD HAVE...KNOWING THAT HE'LL NEVER HAVE TO PAY THE POLITICAL PRICE FOR THOSE TAX INCREASES HARMING ECONOMIC GROWTH!!!

Wow... Tell you what.. take all of that and just put it in this one sentence.

Taxing the rich isn't really doing anything than taxing the poor.
Explanation:
Every business model has a certain percentage of profit that the company wants to make. More taxes is nothing more than a business expense. It will raise the price of goods.

THAT is the "plan" that the man you support is giving us, Shelzin

Whoa there buddy... Just who the **** do you think I support? Because I think Mitt isn't good for the country then obviously I'm supporting Obama? That sir would be incorrect. They are both shit as far as I'm concerned.

...it's pure smoke and mirrors with no basis in sound economic policy and with ZERO chance of helping the millions of people currently suffering through the longest period of sustained unemployment since the Great Depression. That's the guy that YOU'RE going to step into a voting booth and try and send back for a second term.

Because I won't vote for Mitt? I disagree. I think it's your fault for supporting the wrong republican candidate. You should have supported Ron Paul.

 

[Papageorgio]

What's telling to me is how many people out there are moving from the Democratic Party and declaring themselves to be Independents. If memory serves me it's something staggering...like 300,000 over the past few years. THAT should be a concern if you're a progressive because it signals that a large "chunk" of your party didn't buy into the progressive agenda and wants to go a different way.

and yet every time I tell people I used to be a Democrat and they moved to far to the left for me, They call me a liar.

lol

Liar!

 

[Oldstyle]

I think the mistake you are making is that there was a much larger fraction of the republican party that was already independent. So while the democrats lost more independents than the republicans did in a short given time frame, I would suggest the republicans already lost them to the likes of Ron Paul back when they were having the first debates.


No... Not really. Instead of slamming Mitt at any given chance for taxes or whatever... He'll start explaining what he stands for, and what Mitt stands for on policies.

Um... Let me give you an example.

Obama wants to cut taxes for the middle class right? Mitt does too. But Mitt won't do JUST the middle class he want it across the board. Obama wins no matter what happens there so long as the tax cuts don't go to the rich as well.


I agree. He'll make it out to be a rich man vs the guy next door. He'll be saying "This is what I want to do to help you neighbor" and "This is what the rich man wants to do"

With all that said... It should be Ron Paul running against Obama... Ron would have won. *shrugs*

What the article in USA Today was remarking on, Shelzin was that the Democratic Party was losing hundreds of thousands of voters who had changed their party "affiliation" from Democratic to independent while the same wasn't happening to the Republican Party.

I haven't seen any evidence of that.


I'm saying that a lot of the support that the republican party had in the past was from independents. And that there are more democrats than republicans. Without the independents republicans simply can't win.


I agree with everything you just said. Although Libertarians also fall into the trap of "lesser of two evils" and also tend to vote more republican than democrat based on less taxes and the belief that welfare is bad. I don't think the standard of "lesser of two evils" mindset is going to be as near a factor this go around.


I wish I could... As far as I know there are no statistics on independents. No good ones at least. I could throw links at you for sure, but honestly I wouldn't put much stock in them if you had shown me the same links... So I'm just not going to insult you like that.

But again... I'm not saying republicans have left the party, I'm saying that the majority of independents have traditionally supported the republican party until Obama came around. And I just don't see that happening this election.

Oh.. And I have a brother who is in the republican party here in Iowa. *shrugs* I'm not sure that means a whole lot.


That's true. And... Not to be a prick about it but most people are idiots. Individuals can be smart... But as a whole the human race is a bunch of retarded tribal monkeys. I mean shit... Proof: "I like to fire people" & "You didn't build that"...


Wow... Tell you what.. take all of that and just put it in this one sentence.

Taxing the rich isn't really doing anything than taxing the poor.
Explanation:
Every business model has a certain percentage of profit that the company wants to make. More taxes is nothing more than a business expense. It will raise the price of goods.

THAT is the "plan" that the man you support is giving us, Shelzin

Whoa there buddy... Just who the **** do you think I support? Because I think Mitt isn't good for the country then obviously I'm supporting Obama? That sir would be incorrect. They are both shit as far as I'm concerned.

...it's pure smoke and mirrors with no basis in sound economic policy and with ZERO chance of helping the millions of people currently suffering through the longest period of sustained unemployment since the Great Depression. That's the guy that YOU'RE going to step into a voting booth and try and send back for a second term.

Because I won't vote for Mitt? I disagree. I think it's your fault for supporting the wrong republican candidate. You should have supported Ron Paul.

Let's be honest with each other...we have two choices at this point...Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Ron Paul isn't even in the equation anymore nor has he been for a long...long time. So you are going to be standing in that voting booth come this Fall (I'm assuming that you are going to vote and hoping that IS the case) deciding between the two. What I'd like you (and others) to consider is what each man brings to the table to deal with the economic situation we find ourselves in. In Barack Obama we would have someone with scant executive experience...little to no business experience and a demonstrated inability to build a political coalition to work towards a solution to our economic problems. In Mitt Romney on the other hand you've got someone with a great deal of executive experience...a great deal of business experience and he was the Republican Governor of a predominantly Democratic State which demonstrates the ability to work across the aisle.

The choice for me is rather simple. All this nonsense about Bain, Swiss bank accounts and dogs on the tops of cars? All inconsequential. I would probably enjoy playing a round of golf and having a few beers with Obama over Romney. Does that mean I think he should be President? No....because what I care about is competence.

 

[HUGGY]

Keep telling yourself that before you go to sleep and your nightmares of a free world may end.

Telling myself what ?

That the polls say Obama is losing indes ?

You've got data to dispute that ?

Here is some data for ya. It's July. In November nobody is going to think back to July and ask themselves how they would have voted then.

Polls mean NOTHING in July.