Remember back to the campaign? I know, it feels like ages ago. But one of the things we all learned back then is that one really needs to look the preponderance of the polling data to get some idea of where the numbers are headed. The margins of error on individual polls -- margins which are in fact much larger than the ones the pollsters report officially -- are generally too large to be terribly useful unto themselves.
So far, there have been three sets of polling on health care conducted since Barack Obama's big speech last Wednesday:
-- Rasmussen finds an 7-point bump in support for health care reform -- from 44 percent in a poll conducted last Tuesday and Wednesday (essentially all the interviews were completed before the President's speech began) to 51 percent support based on polling conducted over the weekend.
-- ABC/WaPo, on the other hand, identifies just a 1-point improvement in support for the President's plan versus a poll conducted about a month ago (although their "strongly oppose" number has decreased by 4 points, and their "strongly support" number has increased by 3 points.)
-- CBS/NYT re-sampled their panel from 8/27 and 8/28 and found a 12-point increase in approval for Obama on health care after his speech; this is not the same thing as asking whether people whether they support or oppose his health care plan, although the numbers have generally tracked one another fairly closely.
The first thing to notice is that each of these polls has a different jumping-off off point. Rasmussen has begun tracking the health care numbers daily; CBS's previous poll was about two weeks old, and ABC's previous poll was about a month old. So these polls are not necessarily contradictory if Obama's health care numbers had declined from mid-August -- when ABC last polled the issue -- until the night before his speech. On the other hand, it's not clear that Obama's numbers were in decline over that period -- most of the damage seems to have been done in July and early August.
If we simply take the three polls at face value and average them together (6.7 points), they in fact point toward a statistically strong likelihood of a bounce. Concluding that there is no bounce on the basis of the ABC poll, as some smart commentators appear to have done, while ignoring the other polling, is not objective, plainly put. There should, however, be plenty more data out before the end of the week to help settle any arguments.
The real question, of course, is not whether there's been a bounce, but how long-lasting its effects might be. Bounces usually dissipate. That's why we call them bounces; they go up and they go down. If Obama's health care polling is back in the low 40s by early next week, well then, who cares if there had been a bounce -- it's entirely an academic question. I'm not yet prepared to render a prediction on this subject, although for a variety of reasons -- basically, the GOP having used up a lot of its firepower coupled with Obama having underachieved his overall approval ratings on health care reform -- I think the bounce (if there is one) is more likely to have "oomph" than it usually does.
9.14.2009
A Bounce? Yes. A Game-Changer? We'll See.
by Nate Silver @ 10:37 AM...see also bounces, health care, obama
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

59 comments
For an alternative take, Hot Air has some great summary findings on the recent Washington Post poll:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/14/poll-obama-speech-no-game-changer/
It's not looking good for the Obama plan.
Hey Nate, how about a sweet, nuanced 538.com take on intrade’s current likelihood of passage of a “comprehensive government-run health care plan by 12/31/09”?
Why is it below 20% nowadays? Is it truly dead?
Also, cap and trade is in the 39’s too.
Wow hotair.com really is just hot air!!
Anyhoo, I think how the issue goes forward really depends on what happens next. I think its fair to say that more than a poll bump what Obama was after was a momentum shifter, to really get momentum into passing the legislation. I get the feeling that Obama at least could care less how popular the bill is when it passes, rather he wants an effective bill that is going to be popular down the road. I wonder if Obama really cares how the issue plays with the public at the moment, except for the fact that people will be lobbying there congressional representatives. But then those whose minds are changeable aren't going ot be contacting there representatives as much. So the odd change in per centage points in a poll is going to matter very little.
What matters is what the likes of Mary Landrieu or Evan Bayh are saying.
Indeed it is, conservatroll.
Health Care Plan Gets Bump After Obama Speech
Support for President Obama's health care reform plan "continues to grow following the president's speech to Congress last Wednesday night. It has now risen to the highest level yet measured, and, for the first time, shows a slight uptick in support among Republicans and voters not affiliated with either party," according to a new RASMUSSEN Reports poll.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/09/14/health_care_plan_gets_bump_after_obama_speech.html
And that's Raspublican, AKA the FReeptards and FOX Propaganda Nutwork's pollster of choice.
Interesting that Walker would point to a website called “Hot Air”.
Perhaps there is a God.
:o) :o) :o)
Nate, with three polls citing numbers that are all over the map, I think it’s safe to conclude that none of them reflect the real mood and opinions of the country.
For a long while leading up to the Civil War, southern politicians went around the country making rabid speeches about how their rights were being trampled upon, how unfair the North was regarding attitudes toward their “peculiar institution” (i.e. slavery). Congress wasn’t spared these tirades either. The North pretty much went about its business, and foreign observers concluded that the North wasn’t much interested in its own prerogatives. Finally a flashpoint was reached, and that was when South Carolina threatened to seize Fort Sumter by force.
Then all across the North there people were heard from who had hitherto kept silent on the great questions that the South was stirring up, and complaining about and crying about everywhere. And once the South started the war by firing on ships that were sent to provision Fort Sumter, the North exploded in rage. Volunteers across the country rushed to join the Army, to put an end, once and for all, to the South’s flippant disregard for the Constitution, the federal government, and the rights of her sister states.
I suspect a similar eruption is brewing nowadays. Sooner or later the great mass of sensible Americans will rise up to slap down the birthers, tea-baggers, liars, Minutemen, whiners and crybabies on the right. The average American tends to ignore kooks, but only up until the kook arms himself and begins threatening to destroy the social contract by which we all live in this country. The GOP is headed down that same road of self-destruction.
wv paliss: Sarah Palin with the air being let out of her.
Hey Nate, how about a sweet, nuanced 538.com take on intrade’s current likelihood of passage of a “comprehensive government-run health care plan by 12/31/09”?
Why is it below 20% nowadays? Is it truly dead?
That bet is for the public option specifically, not for the health care plan as a whole. A health care reform bill with co-ops and a public option trigger would not qualify under that bet, nor would an expansion of Medicaid to cover everyone, nor would a public option that was not offered in all 50 states. And I believe passing it under reconciliation would make it too late for the bet, or at least bring it close.
It probably does mean the public option is all but dead right now, though, without reconciliation. There would have to be some significant defections among the Blue Dogs or the Republicans, and it doesn't seem like they're ready to go there.
I think the president has been successful in rallying his Democratic base with his recent speeches. He may have also been successful in garnering some more independent voters for his health care efforts.
He hasn’t been successful in changing the ‘ground game’, though. There still exist huge disagreements among Senate and House Democrats regarding the various provisions in the various bills. Will a public option be in the bill? Will it not? Will there be a trigger? Will liberals tolerate exclusive provisions against illegal aliens receiving coverage? Will they rebel against abortive coverage restrictions? How will this be paid for? What will the CBO say about the emerging bills? Will there be individual mandates?
All of these questions are still out there and have not been resolved.
Despite Obama’s speeches, his propensity to “vote present” and not define legislation specifics and make hard calls, is helping to keep this whole endeavor a big, sloppy, and ultimately futile, mess.
Can I getta a wah-wah? What liberals agree with me?
Despite Obama’s speeches, his propensity to “vote present” and not define legislation specifics and make hard calls, is helping to keep this whole endeavor a big, sloppy, and ultimately futile, mess.
Can I getta a wah-wah? What liberals agree with me?
I know this is going to seem weird, but in the Democratic party, Congressmen don't just do whatever the President wants them to just because they're in the same party.
Obama cannot define legislative specifics, nor can he "vote present", because he is no longer a member of Congress.
Again no, the game changer was last November when Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States of America! :) truly historic and was reported by most of the media, even fixed. ;)
Yes it's true, he's president for another 3+ er 7+ years, meaning another 2/3/4 Supreme Court nominations.
Yea, that was a game changer, as Reps have been whining, astro turf protesting and wanting to secede ever since ...
carry on
Hey, Walker!
It [Obama's healthcare plan] has now risen to the highest level yet measured, and, for the first time, shows a slight uptick in support among Republicans and voters not affiliated with either party," according to a new RASMUSSEN Reports poll.
Not that I take anything Scotty the FReeptard polls seriously anymore, whether good or bad. But I know teabaggers like yourself do.
There goes Shiloh again…still living on the quickly dissipating fumes of November 4th, 2008…
For him (or her?) events have not progressed one iota under the Great Canopied Dome of
History…
Maybe Shiloh can be Exhibit Item #1 in 538.com’s Museum Of Political Relics?
Carry on, indeed. Carry on…to November of 2008! When dreams were still possible and Obama wasn’t the greatest squanderer of political capital in history.
Snowe and Collins are now firmly in the Grassley camp, THEY BLEW IT.
Good news for Dems, if they're smart enough to realise it and move ahead on reform on their own and take full credit once it reaches the president's desk, is the Grand Obstructionist Party aren't using Grassley and Enzi to do their dirty work anymore, they've reached the bottom with the corrupt Maine twins, who are clearly negotiating in bad faith.
At the same time, the White House has been reinforcing the message of a public option
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/14/781689/-The-Week-Ahead-in-Healthcare-Reform
President Obama: I think one of the options should be a public insurance option. Let me clear. It would only be an option, nobody would be forced to choose it. No one with insurance affected by it. But what it would do is provide more choice and more competition. It would keep pressure on private insurers to keep the policies affordable, to treat their customers better. I mean think about it. It's the same way the public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students. That doesn't inhibit private colleges and universities from thriving out there. The same should be true on the health car e front. Minnesota, I have said I'm open to different ideas on how to set this up, but I'm not going to back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage we're going to provide you a choice."
Did you see that reaction to the words "I think one of the options should be a public insurance option"? There's little question that a great deal of enthusiasm on the part of the Democratic base relies on policy. So maybe it's sinking in with the White House that the public option is really popular. On Face the Nation yesterday, Axelrod reiterated it's necessity in stronger terms than he yet has:
Senior White House adviser David Axelrod said President Obama is "not willing to accept" that a so-called public option "is not going to be in the final package" of health-care legislation on "Face the Nation" Sunday.
"He continues to believe it's a good idea," Axelrod told CBS News Chief Washington correspondent and "Face the Nation" anchor Bob Schieffer about a government-funded alternative to private health insurance. "He continues to advocate it, and I'm not willing to accept that it's not going to be in the final package."
Axelrod said the president "believes that it will add an element of competition where there is none in some places in this country where there's a monopolistic situation with insurance companies."
Walker, your post totally concentrated on me, btw, I'm truly honored, and not the reality it was conveying for the party of No!
Please, I beseech you, do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself! Personal attacks have no place at 538. I crack myself up! ;)
take care and give my regards to Missy.
p.s. was smilin' election night and nothing has changed, Yes We Can! and thanx for caring enough to reply ...
There goes Shiloh again…still living on the quickly dissipating fumes of November 4th, 2008…
When dreams were still possible and Obama wasn’t the greatest squanderer of political capital in history
Bush went from 98% approval rating to the mid-twenties during his administration. Are you willing to put some money on your assertion that Obama has already experienced this kind of swing? Heck, I'll even let you completely change your argument and claim that he WILL experience such a swing at some point.
I love how "history" for you and all Republicans doesn't seem to go beyond November of 2008 anymore. George WHO?! Big deficits BAD, Medicare GOOD!
Persuter, to be accurate, Bush Job Approval at 29%, Lowest of His Administration
"The range of job approval ratings for the entire Bush administration has been extraordinary, from 90% in September 2001 to the current (July) 29%, a change of 61 percentage points."
Gallup had Bush at 25% job approval in Oct. 2008 and at 69% job disapproval in June 2008 the highest in Gallup polling history.
Never misunderestimate the Bushes! ;)
Nate:
Do you know how long it took the bounce from the Clinton health care speech to Congress to dissipate? That would appear to be a pretty good basis against which the measure the Obama bounce.
As to the Rasmussen numbers...
1) There was no bounce in the days following the speech. The delayed bounce occurred during weekend polling. Weekend polling often oversamples Dems, so it will be interesting to see if this bounce holds up during the work week.
2) The intensity is still overwhelmingly against.
I can proudly say that health care reform bill is going to be pass by end of this year. No if or but.
Nate,
I'd love to see a piece on the mentality of aberrational voters.
i.e. black conservatives, ultra wealthy liberals, ect.
My take: There has been a decent amount of ground gained as a result of President Obama's "home run" speech on health care. Advantage: Democrats, slightly (thanks to Joe Wilson). Liberals and progresssives now need to dig in for the end game. Count on the GOPers and rightwingnuts doing so.
All eyes are once again on the Senate, where a compromise plan of some kind will eventually be offered up. It will generally look like whatever Olympia Snow wants it to look like - no public option but co-ops instead.
Then the House will pass a plan that includes a strong public option.
Next, reconciliation will produce a plan that includes a "trigger".
All this will take until November. Therefore, a plan will pass before the end of the year.
And THEN the public option will become a major political football leading up to the election. If the Dems "win", the public option will pass next year. If the Repubs "win", it may still happen, but only if the "trigger" gets pulled.
Oops! Forgot to say that I believe the speech WAS a game changer, for the reasons stated above. Before the speech, health care was in deep trouble.
@Bart:
Other than your opinion is there any reason you say that weekend polling oversamples dems? I mean if anything polling in general undersamples dems as they have more cell phones (as dems have strong support among young voters) etc.
Russ said...
@Bart: Other than your opinion is there any reason you say that weekend polling oversamples dems? I mean if anything polling in general undersamples dems as they have more cell phones (as dems have strong support among young voters) etc.
The theory as I understand it is that GOP voters are more likely to be married with kids and out of the house when pollsters call during the weekend.
Likely voter models can compensate for this with a proper weighting of Dems and GOP. Rasmussen's likely voter model is one of the best in the business so I am unsure whether the weekend effect is at work here. I just find the delayed bounce to be a bit strange.
Bart just makes stuff up, come on, why engage him in conversation like he's going to be anything but dishonest. yeah, all single Dems do is stay in the house and answer polls during the weekend. That's kind of like me saying that the reason the GOP tends to be over sampled during the week is because us Dems have jobs but Republicans tend to be home more due to their government subsidized lifestyles of SSI and Medicare. It may not have any back up, but hey, why not. And even at its worst, everything has been relatively close to 50/50 as far as for and against (just leaving off undecided's), so guess what, ties should go to the people WHO GOT ELECTED. Why the heck do we even contemplate giving the win to the party voted out, it's absurd. Brilliant strategy, lets go with the 50% who couldn't sell their ideas to the electorate just to be safe.
Nate:
Do you know how long it took the bounce from the Clinton health care speech to Congress to dissipate? That would appear to be a pretty good basis against which the measure the Obama bounce.
Nate's way ahead of you. Looks like it took about a month, although the numbers continued to improve after the bounce came down. The way the polling numbers had moved around prior to the speech, however, are totally different in Obama and Clinton's case, so they're tough to compare.
The theory as I understand it is that GOP voters are more likely to be married with kids and out of the house when pollsters call during the weekend.
That may just be one of the dumbest "theories" I have ever heard. Geeze, who came up with that one? Bill O'Reilly?
"Hey Nate, how about a sweet, nuanced 538.com take on intrade’s current likelihood of passage of a “comprehensive government-run health care plan by 12/31/09”?
Why is it below 20% nowadays? Is it truly dead?"
Jeez, whoever's betting FOR the passage of this is in trouble, because I don't believe anybody ever proposed government-run healthcare.
"The theory as I understand it is that GOP voters are more likely to be married with kids and out of the house when pollsters call during the weekend."
*cough* bull crap *cough*
Just go back on the Rassmussen daily polling and show us the Monday morning spike on Obama's numbers. Surely you'll find a trend right?
And I'm not talking about a 2 week trend either. I want to see some significant numbers supporting your theory.
liberal_defender_of_freedom said...
BD: "The theory as I understand it is that GOP voters are more likely to be married with kids and out of the house when pollsters call during the weekend."
Just go back on the Rassmussen daily polling and show us the Monday morning spike on Obama's numbers. Surely you'll find a trend right?
Rolling polls do not work that way. In order to even out the statistical noise, Rasmussen offers a rolling average over the prior three days of polling. Check back towards the Thursday or Friday for workweek polling.
I think the 'weekend is a better time for polling for Democrats' theory is a bit rubbish anyway. Surely its the kind of people with fewer restrictions on there lifestyle (like say a family) who are more likely to be out during a weekend? Say visiting friends, or going to the game or whatever. Familial responsibilities tend to keep families at home for long stretches of the weekend surely??
More Republican misstruths it seems to me.
More Republican misstruths it seems to me.
What an irrelevant throwaway line...spend 10 seconds and simply acknowledge there have been numerous Democratic mistruths, and I'll give you an ounce of credibility. Otherwise, more partisan homerisms...
markymark, that is crazytalk. Everyone knows that having kids frees up all sorts of time for travel and going out on the town.
Marky Mark:
You apparently are not married with kids. My brother and his wife are out continuously with the kids during the weekends and are next to impossible to reach. Soccer, football, delayed birthday parties, etc, etc.
The theory has some common sense credibility, but like most polling theories, has rarely been actually tested.
BTW, polling theories are hardly limited to the GOP. Remember the cell phone theory: Young folks are Dems, young folks carry cell phones, pollsters miss cell phones, thus pollsters undercount Dems.
Nate -
Did you read the article accompanying the Poll in the WaPo.com [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/13/AR2009091302962.html?hpid=topnews]?
The Headline read "Poll: Opposition High but Easing/New Washington Post-ABC News survey shows more support if public option is dropped." This sounds like support for the Public Option is in bad shape, which I thought odd after the warm reception President Obama's speech received.
But when one consults the article deep down in the 9th paragraph of the story [a strange place to bury actual figures on an article about polling numbers] one finds that the Public Option is supported by 55% of those polled [+/- 3%]. The last I looked that was a majority. If memory serves me President Obama won the popular vote with 57% and that was called a 'decisive victory,' so how does 2 points difference make something a liability when even factoring in the +/- it would still be a majority.
The article goes to great lenghts to tell you that opposition to Health Care Reform drops when the Public Option is removed. This is true but what the Post doesn't mention is that so does support for Health Care Reform. It goes from a majority of 55% to at best a dead heat at 50%. I think any decrease in opposition is far outweighed by the decrease in support. The opposition is still in the minority if the Public Option is included so why should it matter. Maybe I'm being biased but I don't see how removing the Public Option is the good thing this article is pretending it is. What I do know this is a blatantly disingenuousness article.
Many Democratic-leaning voters stick around the house (and are thus more available to take phone calls there) because they are waiting on the next welfare check, delivery of food stamps, or meals on wheels.
They'd be giving up too many handouts to stay away from the house for very long. Conservatives are more likely to be out earning a paycheck, spending it and stimulating the economy, or otherwise out and about donating time, energy, and resources to help the needy and make the world a better place.
For the record, I think Meals on Wheels is a terrific program. I also think the food stamp program and welfare have been and are beneficial to a limited degree.
But all of them have been misused and abused by millions of self-serving lazy-asses.
Mule Rider:
I'm just curious, is there documentation of such excesses? I am sure there are a few examples, but I'm not sure its as widespread as you think.
Of course, I don't think conservatives are more likely to be working. Someone should look this up, I'd be willing to bet that the unemployment rate among republicans is higher.
Shouldn't conservatives be home studying how to defeat the gay agenda, make sure the legislature bans that new sex act you heard about on HBO after the kids went to bed, and keep marriage between one man and his God-ordained property?
What an irrelevant throwaway line...spend 10 seconds and simply acknowledge there have been numerous Democratic mistruths, and I'll give you an ounce of credibility. Otherwise, more partisan homerisms...
lol, I love how Mule doesn't even bother pretending that it's actually true, he just yells about how sometimes Democrats say untrue things too so apparently we're not allowed to point it out. :P
But all of them have been misused and abused by millions of self-serving lazy-asses.
And what? You go to a casino, there's people trying to cheat at cards, you go to a hospital, there's people trying to scam pharmaceuticals, you go to a supermarket, there's cashiers with their hands in the tills, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Any place that money changes hands, people are going to try to get a piece. Is this seriously a surprise to you?
Hey, Richard, no offense but you just fed the troll. The whole purpose of posting something like this is to get someone to rise to the bait. Then off the troll goes, derailing the subject of the thread - which is the troll's actual purpose.
So. Back on the subject of this thread.
Nate says that he thinks the bounce is more likely to be long-lasting than normal. In part, he bases this on polls which indicate "...Obama having underachieved his overall approval ratings on health care reform...".
From the thread "Closing the Gap on Health Care", Nate clarifies what he means by that statement:
"The assumption I think we can make is the following: the most persuadable voters on health care -- the lowest-hanging fruit -- are people who still approve of the President but feel lukewarmly (or worse) toward his health care bill. Obama still has a lot of credibility with these people, and health care has become so central to his mission that it would seem that one or another of these things has to give: either their questions about health care will lead them to become disillusioned with Obama in general, or the health care numbers are due to bounce back."
In other words, President Obama has some serious coat-tails in the Democratic Party. And this is what may well keep the bounce on health care going longer than typical.
It also may give some additional support to the "public option". And that should be very welcome news indeed.
Someone should look this up, I'd be willing to bet that the unemployment rate among republicans is higher.
Really? If Internet bets were real, I'd definitely take that bet. :) Republicans definitely have a much smaller percentage of families with household income below the poverty line.
dre7861 said...
The Headline read "Poll: Opposition High but Easing/New Washington Post-ABC News survey shows more support if public option is dropped."
The term "public option" is a marketing term that has no commonly understood meaning. Thus, polling on this term is next to useless because respondents have widely differing views of what the term means.
After having read the Obamacare legislation, I know it means a plan designed to put private health insurance alternatives out of business and leave us with a Canadian style single payer system.
Others who have not read the legislation and who get their information from the President think it is an innocuous competition to someone else's evil health insurance that does not affect them. However, if you asked these folks for details on how it would work, they have no idea because the President never actually bothered to tell them.
Still others who have not read the legislation think that the public option would be limited to the uninsured and does not affect them. Sort of like Medicaid.
Thus, these "public option" hypos the Dem media are really a means to produce results that influence pubic opinion and are not meant to accurately measure public opinion.
The only question with any merit currently being asked is whether the respondent supports the President's health care plan as they understand it. Very likely a majority of respondents could not accurately describe what is in the actual legislation, but the poll would measure political support or the lack thereof for Obamacare.
You cannot accurately poll public support for the actual elements of Obamacare without asking about a half dozen questions concerning the actual legislation. However, no pollster apparently wants to actually take the time to read the legislation and generate pertinent questions.
Too bad. If the actual legislation was placed into questions, I have no doubt less than a third of respondents would support most elements.
Shouldn't conservatives be home studying how to defeat the gay agenda, make sure the legislature bans that new sex act you heard about on HBO after the kids went to bed, and keep marriage between one man and his God-ordained property?
Total non-sequitur as a follow-up to my comment about the abuse of federal handouts, but I'll bite. Regarding the "gay agenda," I have no problem with two (or more) consenting adults enjoying the exact same rights and privileges that an opposite-sex, heterosexual couple enjoy. This goes for taxation, property rights, power of attorney, inheritance, the whole nine yeards. I think it should be overtly classified as either "same-sex partnership/union", a "civil partnership/union", or a "domestic partnership/union" just because I'm a stickler for not using the same word ("marriage") for several different arrangements that clearly aren't the "same" (that being one person representing each of the opposite sexes). Anyway, my only fight against the "gay agenda" is that I in no way want myself or those of my family (specifically my kids or other dependants who may wind up under my care at some point and looking to me for guidance) to be at the mercy of a bully pulpit trying to force or coerce me into accepting homosexual behavior as okay. There's nothing in our Constitutional freedoms that says I have to accept anything anyone else believes in is okay, which goes for homosexual behavior right down to putting mayonnaise on a hot dog (didn't realize that could be construed as a double entendre to make fun of the broader topic at hand until I typed it out, so I apologize).
Personally, my Christian beliefs tell me that there is nothing wrong with a homosexual orientation. It's the acts that are sin. But, it's a sin no different than any other and is forgivable. I'm also taught that it's not for me to judge or tell people how they should live and that ultimately it's up to me to hate the sin but love the sinner...ergo, I'm not going to argue for legislate what people do in their spare time (sexually speaking), but I don't want to be forced to listen to the idea that it's right/proper/okay.
Moving on.
The rest of your question is simply over-the-top sarcastic rhetoric, so it doesn't really apply or deserve anything more than a token response. I don't have HBO and rarely watch what I do have, which is just basic programming that I can get with my digital antenna. And I hardly think of women as "God-ordained" property. The Bible makes it pretty clear they are our equal, and I'm probably the last person you'll find displaying any male chauvinism.
But don't let my reply get in the way of your projections, proxy arguments, and false accusations.
lol, I love how Mule doesn't even bother pretending that it's actually true, he just yells about how sometimes Democrats say untrue things too so apparently we're not allowed to point it out. :P
I really don't get this response. Again, it seems like a non-sequitur to the point I was making. Personally, it's just refreshing to not be such a homer and/or blind partisan for one side or the other. And it has nothing to do with me acting like you shouldn't be allowed to point it out. It's the way you point it out that gets me, because you do it in a way that almost always consists of a "It's 100% them and never us" theme filled with hypocrisy and a bogus grip on reality. What's the old saying about not thinking your shit stinks? Yeah, something along those lines...
And what? You go to a casino, there's people trying to cheat at cards, you go to a hospital, there's people trying to scam pharmaceuticals, you go to a supermarket, there's cashiers with their hands in the tills, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Any place that money changes hands, people are going to try to get a piece. Is this seriously a surprise to you?
And if we were talking about cheating in those forums and the damage that was doing to society or how it may impact polling, then I'll discuss it and give my opinion of its relevance and/or impact. That's not the case here, though. A few comments were made about the availability of Dems and Reps on the weekend, and I admittedly made a rather crude suggestion - based loosely on reality - that you're more likely to find Dem voters at home on the weekend because they're less likely to be working and more likely to be at home waiting on a check or some other handout.
Again, when cheating at blackjack, getting a fake prescription, or the night manager at Kroger skimming a few $20s off the bottom when he/she closes the register are part of what I'm trying to discuss, I'll gladly do so.
These polls are interesting in an abstract sort of way, but we all know that they have absolutely nothing to do with what's going to happen with health care, right? We're not having a national public referendum.
The entire issue will be decided by a handful of senators trying to second-guess how swing voters in Indiana, Kansas, Maine and a few other states will feel a year from now, balanced against the need for campaign contributions from the health industry and the potential gains from playing ball with the President and the Senate majority. The negotiations in progress really haven't changed since spring, and none of the summer's drama is likely to make any difference.
As for how all this will affect Obama and the Democrats in elections to come, we have no idea until we see what gets passed.
What gets me is that there are something like 150 Republican points in these bills and it never seems to be enough. At some point, Obama is going to have to say, 'look gang I need a bill out of the Senate NOW'.
Seems like the tort reform resonated pretty well with the conservative side of the aisle. I don't know what that would look like but maybe that will appease them.
Game changer? If it isn't, then Obama is likely a one term president. One thing he shouldn't do is stop talking about it like Clinton did after his impassioned speeech back in the early nineties.
MuleRider don't like no DonkeyGaper buttsex...read it da Bible, thou shall not buttfuck? Whatchu talking 'bout, DonkeyGaper, you don't like no man butt humpin'?
Where's Bob Dole's Viagra when you need it?
Is it ok for man/woman buttsex in the Bible? It's all the rage, so it must be blessed by da Almighty, where's day Richard Roberts, a hidin' away in his 900 foot Jayzus down in Tulsa, watchin' dat Internet Buttsex Abomination.
And, what are your thoughts on the Promise Keeper's aerial photo from 1997? Where dat Bill McCartney coach who don't like no buttfuckers either?
Any insights on the quote from the National Park Service Ranger on crowd size... Try to get his name spelled right!
After having read the Obamacare legislation, I know it means a plan designed to put private health insurance alternatives out of business and leave us with a Canadian style single payer system.
Translation: I've read the talking points from the insurance lobby off the Freeptard or Drudge site and am accurately demonstrating what a tool I am.
Insurance companies are not going to be put out of business but they are going to have to learn to operate differently from the fat cat ways to which they've become accustomed to. That means they'll actually have to watch their spending and stop paying their executives millions in bonuses to keep screwing us over.
Bart:
[i]After having read the Obamacare legislation, I know it means a plan designed to put private health insurance alternatives out of business and leave us with a Canadian style single payer system.[/i]
Really? What legislation did you read? Please do reference me to a section number! The CBO estimates that only 3-5% of Americans will take the public option, that leaves the rest on private insurance that just faces competition and therefore would face lower price increases. What are you talking about?
Bart DePalma -
To address your response to my post you go at great lenghts about the overwhelming need of the American People to put the needs of the giant Insurance Companies over their own health and well-being and the health and well-being of their loved ones. If the Big Insurance Companies go out of business because of a Public Option, which is very much a legitimate term if you had bother to read the legislation, it will be of their own doing. The Insurance Companies know the gig is up on the deceit and frankly they have a choice to start acting responsibly or be driven out of business. That's the rules of a free market. Forgive me if I don't cry any tears for Big Insurance.
But to be frank, I don't why I even bother to address your remarks. After I believe you were the poster who tried to say that the Tea Bagger March on DC this weekend was such a huge success and you posted a link to prove your point. The problem is your link went to a picture that was President Obama's Inauguration. That really destroys your credibility!
dre7861 said...
re: BDP
That really destroys your credibility!
~~~~~~~~~~
This, of course, assumes BDP had any credibility to begin with.
just sayin'
A little of Obama's uptick may have to do with people being disgusted with how the Republicans in the audience reacted to his speech, topped off by Wilson calling him a liar. I think a majority of Americans believe in being fair and decent--just saw the poll that showed 68% opposed what Wilson did.
New CNN poll: 85% say Wilson's actions were inappropriate.
Nate:
It appears that the Rasmussen weekend polling you cited was an outlier based upon an off day on Saturday 9/12. Look at the figures before and after Saturday was added.
The Saturday data fell off from today's rolling average and support for Obamacare among likely voters collapsed to pre-speech levels - 45% approving, 52% disapproving.
Perhaps Saturday was simply an outlier, perhaps the theory of weekend over count of Dems was at work or maybe enough news about the 9/12 March on Washington got through the Dem media to influence the polling.
In any case, there does not appear to be any appreciable bounce.
I love how Bart tries SO hard, every thread. It's adorable. (To be fair, Porridge just shrieks some apocalyptic soapboxery each time, so there's that.)
Reconciliation. Say it, spell it, sleep it, dream it, and wait for it. Obama and the rest of the D's will not pay any measurable political price for any action they take via reconciliation, especially around holiday time when the squishy center of the electorate, the changeable minds, tune politics out. Reconciliation is the easy way out, and what pol doesn't like that!
Peace
Just John said...
Reconciliation. Say it, spell it, sleep it, dream it, and wait for it. Obama and the rest of the D's will not pay any measurable political price for any action they take via reconciliation, especially around holiday time when the squishy center of the electorate, the changeable minds, tune politics out. Reconciliation is the easy way out, and what pol doesn't like that!
Dude, right now the Dems cannot muster a majority to pass any bill with the public option in either the House or the Senate.
In the Senate, the RINOs have bailed and 15 Dems are on record against the public option.
In the House, there is not a single GOP vote for Obamacare and 44 Dems are on record against the public option.
Unless they have the votes to pass the bill coming out of reconciliation, the Senate is not going to agree to a reconciliation end around because the GOP will grind every other piece of business to a halt for the foreseeable future.
Bart DePalma said...
because the GOP will grind every other piece of business to a halt for the foreseeable future.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BDP, how'd that work out for newt and his sheep when they stopped the gov't when Clinton was president.
and please don't mention the party of No! anymore as they are part of the problem and not the solution as per usual, but at least they have no power anymore to violate the constitution. Reps are totally insignificant! as are you BDP.
today's political question class: Why is controlling the House sooo damn important. Becauuuuuse they have subpoena power! which ultimately caused criminals nixon and agnew to resign in disgrace!
I digress, fond memories ...
and yes JJ, BDP is somewhat adorable. ;)
With Obama's approval now back up above his win % of 53, (he's now at 55% approval) I'd like to see a new set of Senate race rankings based on Dem momentum against Obama's detractors (Wilson, teapartiers, et al). Further, it'd be useful to have this month's senate rankings in the wake of Republican Gov candidate Nunn's murder of his girlfriend as it relates to the KY senate race in particular. The Dem/GOP trend in KY and nationally, in effect.
-Jeff
I'm mildly amused by the fact that in the polling report Bart was so kind to link us to, the advertisement at the very top of the page is an advertisement from Joe Wilson's campaign.
(Yes, I know, ad servers and all that. It's just funny in a ha-ha way.)
I would like to ask, though - Nate, can you get crosstabs/internals of the polling done? I'm of multiple minds when I'm reading Ras's writeup - six points from day-to-day seems huge in a tracking poll, but is it just a daily poll, or is it an actual tracking poll that averages over multiple days?
Just a little technical suggestion: When you create links with words adjacent to one another, you probably don't get as many redirects as you would if you separated them by conjunctions or commas.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment