Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Gallup Poll: Democrats Blow 9% Generic Ballot Lead - Now Trail Republicans by 5%!

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,877
    Post Thanks / Like

    Gallup Poll: Democrats Blow 9% Generic Ballot Lead - Now Trail Republicans by 5%!

    [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/110263/Battle-Congress-Suddenly-Looks-Competitive.aspx[/url]

    Which is a 14% shift away from Democrats among LIKELY voters! :usaflag:

    Republicans - 50%
    Democrats - 45%

    "If these numbers are sustained through Election Day -- a big if -- Republicans could be expected to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives." :eek:

    "Now that the symbolic leadership of the party is shifting away from Bush and toward the suddenly popular Republican presidential ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin, things may be changing. This shrinks Bush's shadow over the Republicans, [B]revealing more of the Democrats' own shadow stemming from high disapproval of Congress.[/B] The key question is how much of this is temporary because of the tremendous bounce in support for the Republicans on many dimensions coming right off of their convention. The degree to which the Republican bounce is sustained, rather than dissipates, in the weeks ahead will determine whether the 2008 race for Congress could in fact be highly competitive, rather than a Democratic sweep."

    Warning: These poll numbers are pre-Sarah Palin television interview where Palin couldn't correctly identify what subject George Bush received his Doctorate in, or whatever it was, that few voters outside of computer blogs seem to care about! But I believe it does factor in Barack Obama's VP selection, Senator Joe Biden, this week telling a crowd that perhaps Obama should have selected Hillary Clinton as his VP running mate, as well as Biden asking a wheelchair bound person to stand up and take a bow. :confused:

    What's interesting is that political pundits cite the Republican bounce due to their convention. Their 'convention' was seriously cut short because of Hurricane Gustov!

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    what's the with flag and the wink?

    ah well... but what does Gallup consider "likely voters?"... because as your link shows, McZombie still trails among registered voters... and you're going to see an unprecedented galvanizing of minority voters this November, whether you like it or not, most of whom may have never voted before, and almost ALL of whom will be avoiding McWarhawk. ... somehow, i seriously doubt Gallop considers first-timers "likely voters."

    also, your link doesn't even focus on the "likely voter" tally... it leads with the Congressional tally...

    regardless, your state and my state are in the bag for Obama... so McGeriatric enthusiasts might wanna consider moving to a swing state to make a difference.
    Last edited by Press_Coverage; 09-13-2008 at 04:28 AM.

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,877
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2747455]what's the with flag and the wink?

    ah well... but what does Gallup consider "likely voters?"... because as your link shows, McZombie still trails among registered voters... and you're going to see an unprecedented galvanizing of minority voters this November, whether you like it or not, most of whom may have never voted before, and almost ALL of whom will be avoiding McWarhawk. ... somehow, i seriously doubt Gallop considers first-timers "likely voters."

    also, your link doesn't even focus on the "likely voter" tally... it leads with the Congressional tally...

    regardless, your state and my state are in the bag for Obama... so McGeriatric enthusiasts might wanna consider moving to a swing state to make a difference.[/QUOTE]

    Uh,.....never mind! :sunny:

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    If these numbers are accurate it really makes one wonder about the state of our electorate. What exactly have the Republicans done to cause this change? Was their convention illuminating? All there was was a bunch of attack dogs letting loose lies, smears, and fear mongering with all the same sh*t that have f*cked up this country for the last 8 years. What exactly new have they come up with except to put new faces on the same sh*t?

    To me what is most illuminating is the recent poll that said that 51% believe that John McCain will lower your taxes while Obama will raise it. Of course this is only true of less then 1% of the population. Obama will actually lower taxes on 95% of the population. The Republicans repeat this charge so much that our very ignorant electorate actually believes it. Reminds me of the poll that showed that most believed a connection between Iraq and 9/11, when even Bush finally was admitting there wasn't. Republicans have such an affective lie machine and the majority buy it hook line and sinker.

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,877
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2747568]What exactly have the Republicans done to cause this change?[/QUOTE]

    I honestly don't think it says anything about the Republicans. That's why I titled it 'Democrats Blow 9% Generic Ballot Lead'.

    It illustrates how bad the Democrats are.

    :jets18

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2747568]If these numbers are accurate it really makes one wonder about the state of our electorate. What exactly have the Republicans done to cause this change? Was their convention illuminating? All there was was a bunch of attack dogs letting loose lies, smears, and fear mongering with all the same sh*t that have f*cked up this country for the last 8 years. What exactly new have they come up with except to put new faces on the same sh*t?

    To me what is most illuminating is the recent poll that said that 51% believe that John McCain will lower your taxes while Obama will raise it. Of course this is only true of less then 1% of the population. Obama will actually lower taxes on 95% of the population. The Republicans repeat this charge so much that our very ignorant electorate actually believes it. Reminds me of the poll that showed that most believed a connection between Iraq and 9/11, when even Bush finally was admitting there wasn't. Republicans have such an affective lie machine and the majority buy it hook line and sinker.[/QUOTE]


    You think cap gains taxes impacts 5% of the population? You really are clue less. Obama has floated so many tax plans out that to believe he knows what he is going to do is a huge stretch. The idea that he can do what he promised by cutting taxes on 95% of the taxpayers is another puff of smoke up the electorates backside. Maybe the electorate isn't as dumb as some of us believe?
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 09-13-2008 at 11:09 AM.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2747654]You think cap gains taxes impacts 5% of the population? You really are clue less. Obama has floated so many tax plans out that to believe he knows what he is going to do is a huge stretch. The idea that he can do what he promised by cutting taxes on 95% of the taxpayers is another puff of smoke up the electorated backside. Maybe the electorate isn't as dumb as some of us believe?[/QUOTE]

    Obama isn't gonna raise capital gains... he said he would consider it but those around him say it's unlikely... and considering all the money he's taken from wall st it's even more unlikely

    and FWIW McCain isn't gonna be able to cut taxes, not even for the super rich

    they are both operating from a position of campaign promises

    no matter who wins they will have to raise taxes in the harsh light of 09 budget

    even McCain

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2747659]Obama isn't gonna raise capital gains... he said he would consider it but those around him say it's unlikely... and considering all the money he's taken from wall st it's even more unlikely

    and FWIW McCain isn't gonna be able to cut taxes, not even for the super rich

    they are both operating from a position of campaign promises

    no matter who wins they will have to raise taxes in the harsh light of 09 budget

    even McCain[/QUOTE]

    So when Obama in the debates called for an 80% increase in everyones cap gains it was simply red meat for the left wing of the Democratic party who voted in the primaries? Why should we believe his handlers and not him?

    Neither one of them can raise taxes while the economy is stagnant.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 09-13-2008 at 11:14 AM.

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,877
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2747664]So when Obama in the debates called for an 80% increase in everyones cap gains it was simply red meat for the left wing of the Democratic party who voted in the primaries? Why should we believe his handlers and not him?[/QUOTE]

    Not to worry. Mitt Romney (R), who has experience managing billions of dollars will probably be happy to eviscerate Obama re: his tax & economic policies.

    Then, perhaps Mitt will be Treasury Secretary in the McCain administration.

  10. #10
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,962
    Post Thanks / Like
    Look at me! I use a lot of exclamation points! What I have to say must be factual and relevant!

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2747654]You think cap gains taxes impacts 5% of the population? You really are clue less. Obama has floated so many tax plans out that to believe he knows what he is going to do is a huge stretch. The idea that he can do what he promised by cutting taxes on 95% of the taxpayers is another puff of smoke up the electorates backside. Maybe the electorate isn't as dumb as some of us believe?[/QUOTE]
    Well you are making a very big assumption on the electorate - that is that they can explain the capital gains tax policies of the 2 parties.

    Whether it is a smokescreen or not the fact checkers out there have all said that Obama's plan cuts taxes on more people then McCains plan does.

    Obviously the facts do not get in the way of what most people think in making their electoral choices.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2748027]Well you are making a very big assumption on the electorate - that is that they can explain the capital gains tax policies of the 2 parties.

    Whether it is a smokescreen or not the fact checkers out there have all said that Obama's plan cuts taxes on more people then McCains plan does.

    Obviously the facts do not get in the way of what most people think in making their electoral choices.[/QUOTE]

    The fact-checkers are wrong. The fact-checkers exclude relevant data, like Obama's plan to raise certain taxes. They examine his "proposed" tax plan as if it will get enacted 100% like he says, in a vaccum, without any regard to his plan to raise social security taxes, capital gains and div taxes, estate taxes and payroll taxes, corporate tax rates and taxes rates for small businesses larger than a mere $250k. Or, it is part of the spin. It is nonsense done to provide the illusion of "support."

    Neither Obama nor McCain are going to lower taxes, they don't believe in it.

    I don't know if these numbers are accurate or not, but your perplexity at them is yet another illustration of what people in both parties often don't seem to understand. Disapproval of A is not equal to approval of B, even if only A and B exist. This is true even if disapproval of A is intense and substantial. It is not merely enough to get the electorate to hate Bush or the GOP, or to hate Obama or the Dems. You also have to make a case for why you are better. If that case isn't made, then you may see disconnects between polls like this and election results. When generic polls for congress had Dems way out in front, it did not mean the electorate "approved" of Dems. It only meant they [I]preferred them to the GOP[/I]. There is an important difference there, Queensie. Absolute ratings of the Dem Congress were in the teens, at the same time they led in generic Congress polls. Meaning, the electorate thought that the Dems s*ck, but that the GOP s*cked more. There is an opening there, for the GOP. Consider if the same generic Dem Congress perference existed when absolute approvals of the Dem Congress were in the 90's, tnot the teens; there would be much less of an opportunity for the GOP, as those polls would corroborate and support an inference that the electorate not only preferred Dems, [I]but approved of them,[/I] making it harder for the GOP to make inroads. That they are both very "disapproved" you can see swings like this because it suggests that the intenseity of the preference isn't very high, even if it is 15% or so. It is volatile, in other words....which is good news for you, because it can swing back again shortly. It suggests that you placed topo much of a reliance on these polls, as they didn't represent what you thought they represented.

    Do you see the distinction? It also was evident in 2004 when fewer than 50% approved of Bush's job as President, yet more than 50% voted for him. Disapproval does not mean "will vote against."
    Last edited by jets5ever; 09-13-2008 at 04:51 PM.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    9,930
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2748061]The fact-checkers are wrong. The fact-checkers exclude relevant data, like Obama's plan to raise certain taxes. They examine his "proposed" tax plan as if it will get enacted 100% like he says, in a vaccum, without any regard to his plan to raise social security taxes, capital gains and div taxes, estate taxes and payroll taxes, corporate tax rates and taxes rates for small businesses larger than a mere $250k. Or, it is part of the spin. It is nonsense done to provide the illusion of "support."

    Neither Obama nor McCain are going to lower taxes, they don't believe in it.

    I don't know if these numbers are accurate or not, but your perplexity at them is yet another illustration of what people in both parties often don't seem to understand. Disapproval of A is not equal to approval of B, even if only A and B exist. This is true even if disapproval of A is intense and substantial. It is not merely enough to get the electorate to hate Bush or the GOP, or to hate Obama or the Dems. You also have to make a case for why you are better. If that case isn't made, then you may see disconnects between polls like this and election results. When generic polls for congress had Dems way out in front, it did not mean the electorate "approved" of Dems. It only meant they [I]preferred them to the GOP[/I]. There is an important difference there, Queensie. Absolute ratings of the Dem Congress were in the teens, at the same time they led in generic Congress polls. Meaning, the electorate thought that the Dems s*ck, but that the GOP s*cked more. There is an opening there, for the GOP. Consider if the same generic Dem Congress perference existed when absolute approvals of the Dem Congress were in the 90's, tnot the teens; there would be much less of an opportunity for the GOP, as those polls would corroborate and support an inference that the electorate not only preferred Dems, [I]but approved of them,[/I] making it harder for the GOP to make inroads. That they are both very "disapproved" you can see swings like this because it suggests that the intenseity of the preference isn't very high, even if it is 15% or so. It is volatile, in other words....which is good news for you, because it can swing back again shortly. It suggests that you placed topo much of a reliance on these polls, as they didn't represent what you thought they represented.

    Do you see the distinction? It also was evident in 2004 when fewer than 50% approved of Bush's job as President, yet more than 50% voted for him. Disapproval does not mean "will vote against."[/QUOTE]


    The Biltmores and your post(s) rule. Thanks.

  14. #14
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2747455]you're going to see an unprecedented galvanizing of minority voters this November.....most of whom may have never voted before, and almost ALL of whom will be avoiding McWarhawk.[/QUOTE]

    Are you saying you agree with our resident Democratic Obama supporters then, that his RACE has nothing to do with his popularity, his winning the primary, and his (likely IMO) winning the election?

  15. #15
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2748061]Disapproval of A is not equal to approval of B, even if only A and B exist.[/QUOTE]

    Excellent point.

  16. #16
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,877
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2747659]Obama isn't gonna raise capital gains... he said he would consider it but those around him say it's unlikely... and considering all the money he's taken from wall st it's even more unlikely.[/QUOTE]

    So I guess Obama really doesn't have a tax or economic policy. Or is he just voting 'Present' instead of offering economic plans?

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    31,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=AlbanyJet;2748195] Or is he just voting 'Present' instead of offering economic plans?[/QUOTE]

    Will you please educate yourself on this topic. Seriously for your sake read something.
    Last edited by Tyler Durden; 09-13-2008 at 06:49 PM.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2747455]

    ah well... but what does Gallup consider "likely voters?"... because as your link shows, McZombie still trails among registered voters... and you're going to see an unprecedented galvanizing of minority voters this November, whether you like it or not, most of whom may have never voted before, and almost ALL of whom will be avoiding McWarhawk. ... somehow, i seriously doubt Gallop considers first-timers "likely voters."

    [/QUOTE]

    Yup those minority voters will be lock step with Obama because we all know minority voters are smarter than everyone else.

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,877
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2748196]Will you please educate yourself on this topic. Seriously for your sake read something.[/QUOTE]

    My initial impression of voting 'Present' means that you couldn't make up your mind to vote 'Yes' or 'No' but you decided to vote 'Present' so you could tell your constituents that at least you didn't call in sick that day.

    First hit in google regarding voting 'Present' in the Illinois State Legislature below. What am I missing? Seriously!!

    [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html[/url]

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    31,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=AlbanyJet;2748220]My initial impression of voting 'Present' means that you couldn't make up your mind to vote 'Yes' or 'No' but you decided to vote 'Present' so you could tell your constituents that at least you didn't call in sick that day.

    First hit in google regarding voting 'Present' in the Illinois State Legislature below. What am I missing? Seriously!!

    [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html[/url][/QUOTE]

    Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04
    [QUOTE]Anyone Who Thinks A Present Vote Is A "Duck" Doesn't Understand How the Process Works. "There is a presumption, if one is not familiar with the mechanics of the General Assembly, that a present vote is a "duck." Pam Sutherland, the CEO and President of Illinois Planned Parenthood said of [this] Hull argument: "I think it's not well-based…I think it's somebody who doesn't understand how the legislative process works." [/QUOTE]

    Chicago Tribune, Zorn, 3/9/04
    [QUOTE]"'Criticizing Obama on the basis of 'present' votes indicates you don't have a great understanding of the process,' said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence." [/QUOTE]

    Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04
    [QUOTE]Voting Present in the State Legislature is Used as A Signal to the Other Party, Not As a Way to Duck the Issue. "An aspect of Obama's State Senate voting record that is drawing attention is his "present" votes. A present vote is a third option to an up or down "yes" or "no" that is used with great frequency in the Illinois General Assembly. It has many varied and nuanced meanings that, in the context of the actual bills, border on boring. It's most important use is as a signal – to the other party, to the governor, to the sponsor -- to show a willingness to compromise on the issue if not the exact bill, to show disapproval for one aspect of the bill, to question the constitutionality of the bill, to strengthen the bill. [/QUOTE]

    AP, 9/9/04
    [QUOTE]Obama Would Vote 'Present' On Unconstitutional Bills, Saying He Tried To Resist Bad Votes That Make Good Politics. The AP reported, "Obama says his 'present' votes often come on bills that he believes are unconstitutional. 'I have tried to not succumb to the temptation of voting on bad laws just because it makes for good politics,' Obama said." [/QUOTE]

    State Journal-Register, 2/27/03
    [QUOTE]Senators Would Vote Present If They Had 'Unresolved Worries.' The State Journal-Register reported, "Sen. George Shadid, the Edwards Democrat who is pushing the legislation, promised Senate Education Committee members that he wouldn't move ahead with Senate Bill 368 'unless I can get a good consensus.'…Four committee members cited unresolved worries when they voted 'present' on the measure, which passed 7-0."[/QUOTE]
    Last edited by Tyler Durden; 09-13-2008 at 07:13 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us