Although I'm fairly bullish on Sarah Palin's prospects of winning the Republican nomination, I also subscribe to the conventional wisdom that, were she to be the nominee, she would have an awfully tough time against Barack Obama in 2012. Could she beat Obama? Of course; politics is a world of probabilities, not certainties. But she'd likely cut Obama quite a lot of slack.
Matthew Dowd, the chief strategist for George W. Bush's well-run 2004 re-election campaign, makes the opposite case in today's Washington Post. Unfortunately, I don't think Dowd's arguments are very sound. He writes:
First, Gallup polls over the past 60 years show that no president with an approval rating under 47 percent has won reelection, and no president with an approval rating above 51 percent has lost reelection. (George W. Bush's approval rating in the weeks before the 2004 election hovered around 50 percent.) The 2012 election will be primarily about our current president and whether voters are satisfied with the country's direction.
Who the Republican candidate is, and his or her qualifications and abilities, will matter only if Obama's approval rating is between 47 and 51 percent going into the fall of 2012. Interestingly, in the latest Gallup poll Obama's approval rating was at a precarious 49 percent.Dowd makes it sound like the numbers he cites -- 47 percent and 51 percent -- are hard-and-fast rules. In fact, he seems to have chosen them arbitrarily, and the dataset he's using is not very robust. Here, indeed, is that data: the last approval rating issued by Gallup prior to each incumbent President's re-election date.

One major annoyance is that, until about 1980, Gallup for whatever reason ceased conducting approval polling about six months in advance of the election, meaning that most of these numbers are not very fresh. If we do look at the entire dataset, we find an incumbent getting re-elected with a 39 percent approval rating -- Harry Truman in 1948. Dowd conveniently defines this out of his sample by limiting his analysis to "polls over the past 60 years", the election in question being 61 years old.
It would probably be better to focus only on those elections since 1980, when Gallup began printing approval numbers after Labor Day of the election year. If we look at those elections -- the five cases highlighted in boldface -- then the Dowd Rule would have to be redefined as "no president with an approval rating under 38 percent has won reelection, and no president with an approval rating above 47 percent has lost reelection". That makes his argument considerably less compelling. But it's also what the data actually says.
It would be foolish, however, to come to any conclusions based on this evidence, since we're still talking about only five data points, most of which are not very relevant. Most incumbent elections are not very close -- the incumbent either cruises to victory or gets crushed -- and so there just aren't that many instructive cases in the range that we care about, which practically speaking means when the President's approval rating is somewhere in the 40s.
A better approach might be to look at Obama's polling against Sarah Palin. There have been 11 Palin versus Obama polls that have come out this year -- 8 by Public Policy Polling and one each from Rasmussen, Clarus, and Marist. Those polls showed Obama approval ranging from 49 percent to 55 percent -- not far from Dowd's sweet spot -- but Obama defeating Palin by margins ranging from 6 points to 23.
If we make a scatterplot of these polls, we can extrapolate backward to get an estimate of where Obama's approval rating would need to be in order to bring Palin into a tie with him; the answer is about 43 percent.

If we do the same thing with Mitt Romney's numbers, on the other hand, we get a breakeven point of 46 percent:

So, one way to look at this is that Palin gives Obama an approval rating bonus of about 3 points: if Obama can defeat a Generic Republican with an approval rating of X, he can defeat Palin with an approval rating of X-3.
Caveats abound, of course -- this conclusion too is based on some fairly limited evidence. But if you told me that Obama's Gallup approval rating was 45 percent on Election Eve 2012 and that his opponent was Sarah Palin, I'd put my money on Obama and feel pretty good about it. And if Obama's approval ratings were instead in the 47-51 range that Dowd specifies, I'd give Palin very long odds of defeating the incumbent.

170 comments
First!
I read the Dowd article this morning and was a bit skeptical of the methodology - nice to have my suspicions confirmed by Nate's analysis!
The danger is Obama will fall so much is that anyone could beat him. I'm predicting he'll fall below 40% in Rasmussen before the end of the year, which means about 44-45% in Gallup.
As a Democrat, I'm really getting concerned about Obama's competence.
And I'm hoping some primary opponents will emerge.
45% would be around Ronald Reagan's approval number at about the same time. An approval like that right now is not unusual. And why even mention an opinion poll as lacking in credibility as Rasmussen? Mike, why as a Democrat would you want primary opponents? The last two presidents that lost, Carter and Bush Sr., had strong primary opponents.
I'm sorry, how are you getting your extrapolations? Are they simple linear regressions of the scatterplot? If so, those data are going to give you a crappy fit; they are tightly clustered around a single point, and various regressions would give you a similar error with VASTLY different intercepts.
I doubt Obama's approval will be much lower than the mid 40s by the time 2012 rolls around. The economy will have turned the corner by then, and that (plus wars) are the primary drivers of approval (and, while Afghanistan could look worse, I don't see us still being there if it is).
Obama beats most any GOP opponent in 2012 with those numbers. Palin, of course, is a turkey of a different color. The numbers this far out say she's 3 points worse than the Mitt-ster. I think she starts there, and ends up 8 points worse than a generic Rep when all is said and done.
Sorry, I forgot to add, why make this thread to begin with? We've already had so many threads about Palin. Whatever can be said about her appeal and electability has already been said there. More Palin threads at this point serve no purpose other than to encourage trolling.
Nate:
How about we trust history, then.
NO losing VP candidate has come back to win the presidency the following cycle. EVER.
And no losing VP candidate has even won the presidency PERIOD with 1 exception.
And Sarah Palin is no FDR. And it took someone of HIS limitless gifts 12 years to accomplish the feat.
Losing VP candidates are just that - LOSERS. And almost always have been - 100% of the time.
Shouldn't 1968 be included? Johnson had planned to run for re-election, after all.
Also interesting would be how many of these Presidents who were re-elected ever polled below 50%, if we are going to invoke one Gallup poll of 49% for Obama. Presumably it is something like all of them.
Good grief.
Next up: "Is Carrie Prejean a Threat to Barbara Boxer's Senate Seat?"...complete with charts, polls and statistical extrapolations!
I'm with Inkan. Palin threads need to be boycotted without mercy. Let's do it for the children.
if Obama lost a reelection bid to Palin, we all might as well close up shop. The American Experiment will have failed.
(The only plausible way i could see this happening is with a credible well funded and moderate third party candidate in the race, say Bloomberg)
Jeez, Nate. You sure have been throwing a lot of red meat out here lately. It's kinda fun, I guess. Drives the trolls insane.
"And why even mention an opinion poll as lacking in credibility as Rasmussen?"
LOL
Election 2009: Some Winners, Losers
By Mickey Kaus
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/11/03/election-2009-some-winners-losers.aspx
Winner: Robopolls. Rasmussen's final poll, showing a 46-43-8 Christie win, was pretty damn accurate. Polls using conventional human operators tended to show Corzine ahead. They were wrong.** ... If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the presitigous N.Y.Times, go with Rasmussen! ...
@mikelow1885
I'm really getting concerned about Obama's competence.
And I'm thinking you're setting the bar unrealistically high for a guy who has had the office for less than a year and had a large , stinking dump left on his desk by the previous dude.
Try not to turn into a concern troll.
I think Obama is doing amazingly well, for what it matters. He is handling a very complex situation very well, as cleaning up Bush' mess is more than full time and he is handling healthcare and a couple wars. What do you want him to do? What else could realistically be expected? He is kicking Bush and Clinton's hind end for first year accomplishments.
Obama's healthcare initiative is progressing more than any previous Democratic president since LBJ. If his healthcare legislation passes - actually quite a possibly - expect the democratic base to be more energized. In addition, if the war and the economy gets better in the next three years - which I think it will - Obama's approval will be back even higher. I have firm confidence in Obama's abilities.
greatone, I said "opinion poll", not "election poll".
There's no reason to trust that "Mike" actually is a Democrat, or at least, not a troll. Or any of us, barring evidence.
That said, Obama is competent, and a hell of a lot more so than any president since Nixon. He's on the verge of completing health care, AND once-in a generation banking reform, already prevented a depression, Lily-Ledbetter, closing a war and prevented the prospective escalating of the other. His actual point-by-point accomplishments are on par with the most successful presidents of the 20th century.
Trolly McMike can say whatever he wants, but reality doesn't afford that he's entitled to his own facts.
Ah yes, another Palin thread.
Nate, your analysis includes only a handful of polls asking populations with large percentages of non-voting respondents a horse race question when Obama's approval rating was 10 points higher and Palin's approval rating about 5-10 points lower than it is today. In short, it is fun, but meaningless.
Among likely voters, Rasmussen Reports has Obama's job approval continuing to slide into the lower 40s (a slide of around 35% since January) with a -15% intensity deficit. Only about a quarter of voters still enthusiastically approve of The One. Approval of Obama's policies has cratered even lower than his personal approval.
Mr. Obama's cult of personality, centrist political image and market crash that put him couple points above 50% in 2008 will be gone in 2012. Thus the question becomes whether the economy can save Obama?
Private economists are predicting sub par recovery growth of around 3% and over 9% unemployment through 2010. The economy will not be saving the Dem Congress.
Reagan recovered from a more serious recession when his tax reforms kicked in and created between 5-10% annualized GDP growth each quarter starting in 1Q of 1983 and employment surged to make all the new goods and services. Can you identify the source(s) of similar growth in 2011 and 2012? No? Then, it does not appear that the economy will save Obama in 2012.
Thus, the question becomes whether the GOP could nominate anyone, nevertheless a political rock star like Palin, who could lose to Obama in 2012?
I ran through some historical stats and I found some stunning info regarding Palin that might prove to be her downfall when it comes to becoming President.
Of course, correlation doesn't always = causation so do with it what you want.
The Obama presidency is literally falling apart before our eyes.
No seriously, it is.
I think a major staff shuffle will be announced soon.
The oddest thing is how quiet Sec. Clinton has been recently. She is the stealth secretary of state.
What makes anybody think Sarah Palin seriously wants to run for President?
Notice I did NOT say that Palin doesn't want to BE president, I said "run" for President.
Running for President is a horrible, grinding, thankless task. Nobody without a horrible fixation can possibly endure the endless hours raising money and sitting in coffee houses in Salem New Hampshire talking to retirees.
Palin doesn't want to RUN for President, she wants to be crowned like a beauty pageant winner AS President.
But, all evidence is that she has less endurance than Fred Thompson -- quitting half-way through her term in order to write a book and go around the country whining endlessly against all the TERRIBLE PEOPLE who were MEAN to her and got in her way is not a great way to be taken seriously!
She would be beaten like a gong, which is not great for your career either. The wing-nuts would be better served by keeping Sarah on the sidelines for another 4 years in hopes that she could either become a serious candidate by 2016, or else a right-wing critic who will discipline the Republican ranks.
I think a large part of the Republican establishment would sit on their hands if she won the nomination.
That's because it would be a TAKEOVER from the right-wing rather like the George McGovern takeover from the left in 1972. McGovern's victory was NOT well received by the party big-wigs and union bosses -- some of whom endorsed Nixon, and more of whom sat on their hands.
The Republican establishment could just sit out the election, let Obama win, and then sweep back in and seize back the party a la the "Democratic Leadership Council."
The argument would be that "the conservative movement has gone too far. We need a moderate like Bush who can appeal to independents and conservative Democrats." (Bush would probably look pretty good to Republicans in retrospect by 2016 after two straight defeats).
Bart DePalma shamelessly relies on only one polling source to try to spread his lie that Obama's approval rating is collapsing: Rasmussen, which as I said has no credibility in opinion polls. And he keeps spreading the nonsense that a cult of personality exists, even as he keeps insisting on a personality cult for Sarah Palin with all the viciousness of a Cultural Revolutionist.
Economic trends indicate the start of a recovery right now. The unemployment rate will be 9% in 2010? That means the rate will be improving from the current rate.
Like I said, there have been so many Palin threads that in new ones, nothing but the same old rhetoric gets regurgitated. These new Palin threads serve no purpose but to provide a platform from which right wing trolls can spew their fearmongering rhetoric just like jihadists in a courtroom.
@Bart, you are showing you do not understand that correlation does not mean causation. First of all, the "tax reforms" were in 86, only tax cuts in 81. There is no evidence to show that the tax cuts had anything to do with the recovery since (a)teh recession started in 82 (after the tax cuts), (b) the recovery was set to occur more or less no matter what given normal recessions, (c) the oil shock ending had far more to do with recovery, and (d) real wages declined under Reagan. Also of course, Reagan tripled the debt, his tax reform screwed up the AMT, which is causing serious problems for many today, and recovery under Reagan was slower and worse than before and after his terms.
Good for your, Paul, for pointing out how Reagan tripled the deficit. Let's see the right wing trolls try to push the meme about Obama running a deficit when Reagan had to triple the deficit to pull off his recovery.
Walker, the Obama administration is only coming apart in your own lying eyes.
bareared - when you get pantsed on the day you forgot to wear undies
Bart DePalma said...
Ah yes, another Palin thread.
Ah yes, Bart shows up with another rehash of his ingenuine misdirection and outright lies.
Reagan the Clueless Economist, the the prototype of Borrow and Spend that 43rd's WH modeled itself after.
@mikelow1885:
As a Democrat, I'm really getting concerned about Obama's competence. And I'm hoping some primary opponents will emerge.
You are either totally ignorant or a lying troll. I'm betting the latter. But just for the sake of argument...just what exactly has you so "concerned" about the President's competence? From a Democrat's perspective, how does he look incompetent?
Cugel,
Palin is winning 85/10 of Republicans in the last PPP(D) poll.
The last election strongly suggests that Obama will never get more than the customary 10% of crossover support.
It's not just Obama either. Republicans vote for the Republican, Democrats vote for the Democrat.
Creigh Deeds actually won a greater percentage of Democrats than Obama won in Virginia. The difference was turnout (Deeds also ran way ahead of Kerry in terms of support from black voters).
I think a better question is what is the lowest percentage of whites does Obama need to win in 2012 to get re-elected? He won 43% in 2008 but Gallup now has him at 39% approval among this group. Quinnipiac has him at 41% approval and Rasmussen has him at 37% approval with whites.
If Obama were to win 40% of whites in 2012, I think he'd need probably to win over 70% of Hispanics to get to 50%.
Most recent polls show Obama's approval in the mid 50's. He runs a little low in Fox and Quinnipiac, consistently. www.pollingreport.com. Right there for anyone to see.
He's been president for less than eleven months.
He came in at the beginning of a recession.
Those are all facts. Facts. Interpret them as you will.
I've noted before that Obama's popularity has spiked when the public sees more of him. Again, fact - description of past poll movements.
mikelow1885 said -
As a Democrat, I'm really getting concerned about Obama's competence.
And I'm hoping some primary opponents will emerge.
You are either a right wing troll claiming to be a "Democrat", or the type of person who panics and makes bad decisions whenever there is a temporary setback. You could be both. Both types of people are fairly common.
You are a Democrat, but you want a primary challenge of a sitting president, because his approval rating isn't high in every poll, eleven months into his first term, during an inherited recession???? Bwahahahaha.
I'm being polite. I'm not going to get into the use of the word "competence" a code word.
Am I crazy about Obama? No. As a typical centrist Democrat, he's far too incrementalist, cautious, and respectful of the status quo.
But he's certainly as competent and capable as any president I've seen in my lifetime.
Well, if Obama and the Democrats go through with their plan to push through big cuts to Social Security and Medicare, then not only will Palin win in 2012, she'll win in a 40+ state landslide. And if such a disaster does come to pass, it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of "centrists" than the ones we have in the White House right now.
It's official - Sonia Sotomayor aside, Bush's third term has arrived.
The Democratic party has no reason to exist anymore. It stands for nothing.
This is yet another attempt by the right to use spurious pattern-matching (in this case apparently fabricated) to predict what is going to happen in the future.
One of Gingrich’s biggest political campaigning points was to hammer incessantly on themes of your opponent’s failures and shortcomings, no matter how valid they are. The MSM, toadies as most of them are, will eventually pick up and analyze even the most absurd of them, then they will gradually become part of the way the opponent is viewed by the voting public. John Kerry wasn’t defeated because he was a bad man, he was defeated because he had no plan for counteracting or undermining the vicious cheap shots thrown at him by the Bush campaign. He just stood there in the headlights, blinking, then eventually launched on a cool-headed campaign to try and defend himself logically. Trouble is nobody was listening. If someone throws a punch at you, and you respond by putting out a thesis paper expounding the theory of non-violence, you’ve lost the battle.
So Rasmussen, Matthew Dowd, Sarah Palin and all the winger creeps on this site (Fifi, Pete Twit, Brian De ’Publican, Walker etc.) will constantly, again and again, to the point of nausea, hammer the same silly predictions over and over.
Bart's asinine post just above underscores my point. When logic and facts fail you, scream bullshit!
And to all the assholes here who accuse anyone who criticizes Obama from the left of being a closet Republican - let me ask you one simple question.
I am tasked with convincing people to vote for Democrats in 2010. Two years after Barack Obama won big on messages of "hope" and "change." Especially the latter.
What's my sales pitch? What, exactly, has changed?
No serious conservative gives 2 shits about Sarah Palin. I agree with David Brooks (She's a joke, a future talk-show host).
That having been said, the Repubs throw up a good candidate, Obama is history. And good riddance to bad leadership. Love how he is fiddling with cap and trade and health care when jobs are crumbling. Everything that was bad, he has made worse. Even things he could have left alone, like GTMO.
@Bart DePalma,
Nate, your analysis includes only a handful of polls asking populations with large percentages of non-voting respondents a horse race question when Obama's approval rating was 10 points higher and Palin's approval rating about 5-10 points lower than it is today. In short, it is fun, but meaningless.
Gee, I wonder whether this might have something to do with why Nate said, "Caveats abound, of course -- this conclusion too is based on some fairly limited evidence."
Among likely voters, Rasmussen Reports has Obama's job approval continuing to slide into the lower 40s....
Yes, among "likely voters" and only counting the ones that "strongly" approve or disapprove. Rasmussen's likely model seems to have been fairly accurate in NJ...an off-off-year election with an incredibly unpopular Democratic incumbent governor. For 2010 it's at least halfway arguable that the electorate really could be just +1D ...but for 2012 that's insanity. Look for their likely voter model to get real at some point or for their polls to be wildly off-base.
Reagan recovered from a more serious recession when his tax reforms kicked in...
Wrong and wrong. I notice you habitually claim the '82 recession was worse than the '08 one; could you please provide any kind of source for that at all? Nobody believes that...because it's not even close to arguably true. And then this bit about his tax reforms fixing everything. Even leaving alone PaulK's good point that the major reforms didn't happen until long after the recession was over, the bigger issue is that Reagan's "recovery" wasn't very good. His job-growth numbers were worse than any Democratic postwar President...even Carter. In fact, if you take out the millions of (debt-financed) Federal government jobs Reagan added, his job-growth was negative. Negative...over an 8-year window. Gee, those tax cuts worked out great...
Oh, also the annualized GDP growth you cite is totally, completely, utterly false. Reagan's GDP growth was more like 3%, not "5-10%" (what kind of estimate is that anyway? A 100% range!? Please.) Compared to other Presidents (postwar) that's far below average. The idea that Reagan's term was some sort of economic miracle might just be the most mind-boggling of all the winger myths out there.
So, in summation, once again everything you said was wrong. If you want to push crap like this, you should get a job on talk radio. Praying five times a day to the Reagan taxcut religion and making up fake numbers to support it just isn't ever going to fly here.
The Democratic party has no reason to exist anymore. It stands for nothing.
The sky is falling!!!
Two years after Barack Obama won big on messages of "hope" and "change." Especially the latter.
What's my sales pitch? What, exactly, has changed?
Well, apparently the rate of time passing. It's been 11 months friend, not 2 years.
You should really start focusing on the fact that Obama's strategies are long term. I'd bet you the entirety of our defecit that Obama never expected anyone to try and base their sales pitch on where things were in Nov 09.
harold…
Well said.
Burt…
If you honestly believe that Obama’s proposed cuts to Medicare will be harmful to anyone but the private insurance companies then you either need better eyeglasses or a better brain.
The cuts the president has proposed are only to reduce the insurers compensation from the current 114% standard set by law. Why should they get this unnecessary windfall, that is outside what the system calls for? Even someone as stupid as you are can figure that out, but you have to make the attempt. Since you don’t bother to make the attempt, anyone who calls you a Republican or a troll or a just plain idiot is right on the money.
Lehman…
Um—just where are the Republicans going to find this “good candidate”? Last I heard fairy godmothers are in short supply.
Pragmatus - Wow, you're a moron. Next time try actually understanding what I'm talking about before replying. I'm talking about the Democrats forming a commission to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, and Obama's support of that idea.
President Barack Obama, under pressure over the ballooning U.S. budget deficit, said on Wednesday he is preparing to launch an effort to rein in the escalating costs of the Social Security retirement fund and other popular government programs.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Obama said a new commission may be needed to examine reforms for addressing the deficit and the huge programs that contribute to the flow of red ink.
"I think we're in a position to be able to, either at the end of this year or early next year, start laying out a broader picture about how we are going to handle entitlements in a serious way," Obama said.
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to figure out that this means big cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
You should really start focusing on the fact that Obama's strategies are long term. I'd bet you the entirety of our defecit that Obama never expected anyone to try and base their sales pitch on where things were in Nov 09.
All right, let's break it down and look for differences between the parties.
On health care, the Republicans did nothing for eight years. But the Democrats are about to make the situation WORSE by forcing people to buy overpriced junk insurance with no meaningful cost containment.
The Republicans got a lot of help from the Democrats for their wars. And the Democrats now want to escalate one of them, despite their being no clear-cut goal or mission (not to mention the cost).
The Republicans neglected Main Street and threw money at Wall Street. The Democrats neglected Main Street and threw money at Wall Street.
The Republicans ignored the constitution with their indefinite detention policies. The Democrats ignored the constitution with their indefinite detention policies.
But somehow this is all going to get better next year? I'd appreciate it if you could tell me exactly how, because as things stand right now, if someone asks me why they should vote for a Democrat next year, I have NOTHING to sell.
Burt…
This is the quote from Obama—
“ ‘I think we’re in a position to be able to, either at the end of this year or early next year, start laying out a broader picture about how we are going to handle entitlements in a serious way,’ Obama said.”
The article writer was the one who made the leap to “cuts” in Social Security. Obama said nothing about “cuts”. You’re trying to make a wingnutter’s point and, as they always do, are relying on lies and distortion to make it.
Social Security could be made solvent forever by making the top earners pay the same percentage into the system as low-wage earners do. As of now, for every dollar you earn more than 104,000, you don’t pay a dime in FICA taxes. Eliminate that ridiculous ceiling, which protects the rich at the expense of the solvency of the entire system, and you eliminate all its problems.
@Burt
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to figure out that this means big cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
Really? It sounds to me like he plans simply to address the fact that Soc Sec and Medicare are going to run out of money. After all, that's what he said.
Soc Sec, for instance, can be fixed easily - by eliminating the regressive cap on payroll taxes for people who earn over 100 K. Not a dime in benefit cuts.
Wait until we see the proposals.
Oh, wait. You'll complain no matter what the proposal is. And try to spin it as a "benefit cut" because that's the sort of lie wingnuts tell.
Oh, and by the way, don't try allofasudden to make the right wing look like the defenders of Soc Sec and Medicare. No one's going to buy that insanity
Burt…
You have nothing to sell in any case. Go over to GOP.org. They love people who exhibit just your brand of empty-headedness.
Burt, since you see no difference between Dems and Repubs, I trust you'll be voting for the incumbents, or staying home, or voting for some third-party candidate. Any of those will be fine.
Yeah, quotes like this:
With public opinion polls showing people are nervous about the size of the deficit, Obama added, "I am very worried about federal spending."
...give me so much confidence that your interpretations are right. Especially given that the people pushing this commission are the same people who have been pushing for Social Security "reform" and pushing the false talking points about it being unsustainable.
But, I'm sure it'll all turn out fine.
So, then, I guess that's a "no" on having any reasons to vote for Democrats next year.
Oh, and by the way, there's also this quote from Obama, on the Social Security commission:
"Probably what you end up having to do in terms of structural reforms realistically is you probably have to set up some sort of commission or mechanism that reports back with the prospect of maybe locking in a pledge for action, post-election," he told The Washington Post. "Everything is going to have to be on the table."
Funny how he wasn't willing to put everything on the table for health care reform (single-payer advocates could go to hell as far as he was concerned), but he is here. Says a lot about his priorities, really.
@Pragmatus, "you don’t pay a dime in FICA taxes." -- Social security was setup to be an insurance policy for retirement. You are supposed to put in premiums so you can collect money at the end. It is not intended to be a tax nor a soak the rich scheme. Its reason for being was because (a) people were no longer staying at one company for life, (b) many companies underfunded pensions, stole from them, or invested poorly, so left retirees with nothing, (c) when a company went bankrupt, the pension was not protected.
GayIthacan said...
Nate:
How about we trust history, then.
NO losing VP candidate has come back to win the presidency the following cycle. EVER.
Of course, no black president has ever won re-election, either.
I don't think Palin will pull it off, but you'd be nuts to ignore this major variable in Obama's election/re-election that doesn't exist in all the historical data.
@PaulK
The reasons you describe for Soc Sec sound a like like the current environment. Which is, of course, why we have to make sure the program remains solvent - because this is exactly the purpose you're saying it was intended for.
@Burt
I don't know if many people here are going to try to provide you with reasons to re-elect Obama. You're not going to vote for him anyway, right?
Or, let me ask you that question a different way - what sort of conditions / reasons / policies would you find convincing? What would convince you that voting to re-elect President Obama is a good idea?
But somehow this is all going to get better next year? I'd appreciate it if you could tell me exactly how, because as things stand right now
Obviously, I cannot predict the future, and niether can you. What I said though, was:
You should really start focusing on the fact that Obama's strategies are long term. I'd bet you the entirety of our defecit that Obama never expected anyone to try and base their sales pitch on where things were in Nov 09.
If you look at the way Obama ran his campaign, designed his blueprint for change, etc, there is ample evidence that the man is not concerned with 24 hour or even 240 hour news cycles. What he's concerned with (and rightly so) are the long term effects. I guarantee you he's looking at 2010, and he's not sweating it either, because he's got almost a year before people who are actually undecided are going to start deciding.
Nov 09 is irrelevant. Saying that things look terrible for Nov 10 in Nov 09 is like saying things look great for the twin towers in Nov 01 in Nov 00. It's just too far away to be making predictions.
That said, I believe theres about a 95% likelyhood that come Oct 10, Obama will be sitting pretty, and so will most of the downstream races. Long term thinking tends to obviate the noise of short term measurement, and he has a history of being good at it.
I really think you'd do yourself a lot of good to stop paying attention to politics and just chill out for a few months. Not that that's easy for someone who cares as much as you clearly do (I get pretty agitated myself at times).
Burt…
You have completely outed yourself here today. As usual, it only takes a little frustration and the concern-troll mask falls away and reveals a plain old troll. Don’t give me that crap about being “tasked with convincing people to vote for Democrats in 2010”. If you truly see that as your job, please stay home for the next twelve months.
PaulK…
Thanks for making my point. If Social Security is like insurance, then when it is in jeopardy of insolvency then the premiums are increased. In this case, payments into the system are leveled out, so that rich and poor alike pay an equal percentage of their income as “premiums”.
Pragmatus - Your inability to provide any reasons to vote for Democrats has been duly noted. Calling me a troll doesn't change the fact that we are looking at Bush's third term.
Shrinkers:
Or, let me ask you that question a different way - what sort of conditions / reasons / policies would you find convincing? What would convince you that voting to re-elect President Obama is a good idea?
I would say that, as an absolute minimum, Obama would need to start respecting the constitution (no more "the government always wins" tiered system of "justice"), get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan (where we are accomplishing absolutely nothing and wasting lives and money), and pledge to (and follow through if necessary) veto any health care reform bill that does not, at a minimum, contain a strong, robust public option.
If Obama did just those things, I would vote for him in 2012. Whether I would donate to and work for his campaign again is another matter, but that would be enough to get him my vote, at least.
PaulK…
Also, you pay federal taxes that support the Interstate highway system. Now I’m going to guess that you haven’t traveled over more than perhaps a percent or two of the entire system over your life. So why should you pay for the entire system? If your highway taxes come to $500 a year, by your logic you should only pay $5 or less.
The reason you can’t do that is that the highway system is part of the social contract that exists in this country, and being a citizen requires upholding your part of that bargain. The social contract means you pay to support the police department even if you never call the police, the fire department even if you never have a fire, the schools even if you have no children, the Border Patrol even if you never venture more than five miles from your home, the Army even if you don’t care what happens in Afghanistan, and gas for the presidential limousine even if you don’t like who’s holding that office.
Please don’t give me any crap about poor rich people having to pay more in Social Security taxes, if the alternative is cutting benefits to people who barely get by on SS payments as it is.
If this aspect of the American social contract disgusts you, you can always take your business elsewhere. (But not Europe—you’d die of apoplexy there with a week.)
To the various Reagan haters:
Assume that Reagan was an amiable dunce and his policies were ineffective. Even so, the facts remain that Reagan recovered from his recession induced low approval ratings to win reelection because economic growth rocketed for nearly two years and employment for over a year prior to the 1984 election. Reagan ran and won on Morning in America. If you can see the economic basis for similar growth in 2011 and 2012, feel free to provide it.
Note: Raising government spending, regulation and taxes does not create economic growth, so spare me the Obamacare will pull us out of the recession spiel.
HOFFMAN COCEDED [AGAIN] in NY-23
and announces he will not challenge the results since he lost ground in the absenttee ballot counting...
as for Rasmussen 'opinion polling'
this was all reviewed last summer & fall:
- RR national polls over-sample the RED states which allows Scott to skew his results to better fit his meme
- a national poll has very little impact on electoral politics
run up a BIG margin in certain states or a RED region = no impact on the local races or EV in the other 3 regions
CW and regional/state polls show that the southern & RED McCain states are heavily CON = anti-BHO, but that does not mean the DEMs have lost their electoral edge in the other regions & BLUE/purple states
RR is just another example of how stats can easily be manipulated
NY-23 was a prime example proving this is a regional impact fwiw [likewise the CA-10 race] which were federal elections
for evidence, check out the R2000 data for the past year as graphed by REGIONAL approval [under the 'FAVORABLES BY GEOGRAPHY' tab]
at: http://www.dailykos.com/weeklytrends
NOTE: NE net approval has held very steady & HIGH; MIDWEST + WEST have declined slightly but remain in a good mid-range; only the SOUTH net approval has completely collapsed
so RR simply skews their polling to over-sample the south to 'prove' Scott's partisan agenda that BHO approval has plummetted
@Burt:
And to all the assholes here who accuse anyone who criticizes Obama from the left of being a closet Republican - let me ask you one simple question.
I am tasked with convincing people to vote for Democrats in 2010. Two years after Barack Obama won big on messages of "hope" and "change." Especially the latter.
What's my sales pitch? What, exactly, has changed?
I'm glad you asked. Here is a partial list of things that have changed:
1)Passed a stimulus act that pulled us back from the brink of an honest-to-God Great Depression II.
2)Passed the Ledbetter act that corrected an unbelievable injustice in employment discrimination law.
3)Pulled more concessions from Iran than Bush got in 8 years of senseless sabre-rattling.
4)Increased the minimum wage, sorely needed by the workers in this country who currently have lower real wages than they did in 1970, even as our GDP has grown 18-fold.
5)Made it to the homestretch on the healthcare reform we've been trying to pass for 40 years.
6)Set a real timetable for getting out of Iraq.
7)Oversaw the killing of Al-Qaeda's top man in Pakistan and a host of other terrorist leaders.
8)Finally reworked our military budget from an ancient and ineffective cold-war focus to a high-tech-focused counterinsurgency tool...something Bush never even touched, even as his "war on terror" rhetoric reached a fever pitch.
9)Managed just enough threats against the banks that they've started repaying the TARP money Bush paid out.
10)Started the process of re-regulating the banking/insurance/investment industry for the first real time since the 1930's.
11)Begun placing Guantanamo prisoners elsewhere in preparation for closing the base.
12)Got the politics and pressure out of the Department of Justice.
13)Denounced torture and rescinded the absurd legal theories that allowed it.
14)Threaded the needle on unrest in Iran.
15)Dramatically modernized White House communications and technology, improving the flow of information to the public.
16)Started over 2500 highway projects, with bidding so fierce that the costs are below expectations and should allow even more projects than expected.
17)Created a $2500 tuition tax credit to help shore up our woeful debt burden on families.
18)Reworked our student loan programs to great improvement.
19)Created and started execution of a plan to save the auto industry. (All you people screaming about 10.2% unemployment should stop and think what it would be if GM and Chrysler had been allowed to fail as prescribed by conservative economics.)
20)Stabilized Pakistan with $5B in aid.
21)Expanded SCHIP to provide healthcare coverage to an additional 4 million children.
22)Created the Office of Urban Policy and reversed Bush cuts to inner-city anti-gang/anti-gun policies, policies experts say are instrumental in reducing crime.
23)Added over 2 million acres of Federally-protected wilderness.
24)Dramatically improved America's image abroad.
25)Quit using signing statements to legislate from the executive branch.
I have, of course, mentioned most of this before. And that's the funny part. Because when I went to find my old post to let you in on the news, I found that the last time I posted it...it was in response to you. So, which is it? Do you think that none of these things matter? Or are you just trolling?
With unemployment to be no better than 9.7% nrxt year, how low can Obama go?
I do think there is a racial component to this; if he was white, his approval would be about 3-5% higher. However, he's in danger of entering the Bush zone next year unless there's a jobs miracle.
@Burt -
I would say that, as an absolute minimum, Obama would need to start respecting the constitution (no more "the government always wins" tiered system of "justice"),
So, the fact that the 9/11 conspirators will be tried using Federal courts rather than military kangaroo courts should be helpful. His promise to close Gitmo should be helpful - note that the time limit he set (a year) isn't up yet, and the Republicants are dragging their feet as much as they can. For any other policy changes, he's already altered FOIA requests (there is a presumption that the files should be released, instead of Bush's presumption that they should not be). And the Justice Dept is undergoing an analysis, so we'll have to see what other suggestions and policy changes there will be, but he's off to a good start.
get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan (where we are accomplishing absolutely nothing and wasting lives and money),
We are exiting Iraq, and certainly will have combat troops out by 2012. Obama never pledged to be out of Afghanistan - he said all along that he thought this was a war that should be fought, so if you voted for him expecting otherwise, then that's certainly a problem for you - but it is consistent with everything Obama has pledged to date. Again, though, his new Afghanistan policy will be released shortly, so let's take this up again then.
and pledge to (and follow through if necessary) veto any health care reform bill that does not, at a minimum, contain a strong, robust public option.
And again, Obama never did say a public option of any sort was necessary in a health care reform bill he'd sign. If you have yourself tied to a specific form of a health care bill, again, that might be a problem for you - but certainly what is going to be achieved is something that would have been unbelievable only 2 years ago, and is a stupendous achievement compared to the nothing we get from Republicants and the nothing they want us to have.
So, in general, it sounds like you want him to do some things he never promised to do, and are unwilling to give him the time needed to do the things he said he would do. Let's re-convene in summer of 2012 and see how things look then.
Burt…
Holy f*ckin’ Moses! What in blue blazes does this mean??
“I would say that, as an absolute minimum, Obama would need to start respecting the constitution (no more ‘the government always wins’ tiered system of ‘justice’)…”
Examples please!
Hunter Cook…
Bravo!
wv muncestr:: Grandparent of Eddie Munster
Burt said...
And to all the assholes here who accuse anyone who criticizes Obama from the left of being a closet Republican - let me ask you one simple question.
I am tasked with convincing people to vote for Democrats in 2010. Two years after Barack Obama won big on messages of "hope" and "change." Especially the latter.
What's my sales pitch? What, exactly, has changed?
The government runs some of the nation's largest banks.
The government owns and runs GM and Chrysler.
The government raised discretionary spending 20%.
The government created an S-Chip enttilement.
The government spend $800 billion to give you a small amount of money in your paycheck if you are lucky enough to have a job, extended unemployment benefits and created or saved the jobs of thousands of loyal Dem government employees.
The EPA has made a finding that CO2 causes global warming which it plans to use to limit our use of and raise the price of the fossil fuels we use.
The government has either enacted or failed to enact Obamacare, which will outlaw your current insurance, empower the government to set the terms and price of private insurance, will impose a wide array of taxes and may or may not offer government health insurance.
The government has enacted or is planning to enact a carbon cap and tax scheme that the White House estimates will raise the costs of good and services $1700 for each family.
I agree that this is a less than attractive list of accomplishments to bring to the voters in 2010, but please do not insult our intelligence by claiming that Obama and the Dems have not brought change.
PALIN IS IN FL !!!
the local news is on & wondering how come the crowds were not so large this year - compared to last year in both the Villages & Orlando
yeah, they estimated thqat at most a couple thousand turned out for the book signing - but that was very disappointing since there was no crush like in 2008 when she drew like 20,000 in the Villages/Ocala
also that so few folks camped out in advance for several over-hyped event today in central FL
seems sorta a let-down that Sarah didn't even get close to a million in sales with all the hype in overdrive
especially since Bill Clinton's first week book sales kicked her bony arse big time - and that was despite Oprah & the MSM in overdrive pushing ROGUE 24/7 for weeks now... plus the heavily discounted price on the book
one could buy Palin's booklet for as little as $9 this week when it was released [cheap]
I do not recall deep discounting of Clinton's book [My Life] when it was released, and it still retails for $25
more value for your money perhaps ???
Hunter L. Cook said...
BD: Among likely voters, Rasmussen Reports has Obama's job approval continuing to slide into the lower 40s....
Yes, among "likely voters" and only counting the ones that "strongly" approve or disapprove. Rasmussen's likely model seems to have been fairly accurate in NJ...an off-off-year election with an incredibly unpopular Democratic incumbent governor. For 2010 it's at least halfway arguable that the electorate really could be just +1D ...but for 2012 that's insanity. Look for their likely voter model to get real at some point or for their polls to be wildly off-base.
Huh? The Rasmussen likely voter model is Dem +4-5% with a ton of Indis. In fact, Ramussen has been adding Dems for the past couple months. Obama is facing a conservative rebellion that is far larger than Rasmussen's percentage of GOP likely voters.
I notice you habitually claim the '82 recession was worse than the '08 one; could you please provide any kind of source for that at all?
Unemployment, interest rate and inflation were all higher, the latter two being far higher. I purchased my first car during this recession at 19% interest. Current unemployment is just reaching where it was during the 1983 recovery period.
Oh, also the annualized GDP growth you cite is totally, completely, utterly false. Reagan's GDP growth was more like 3%, not "5-10%"...
Here is the quarterly annualized growth rate for the United States. http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=427
DCM,
Do you want to make a comparison between a book signing and a campaign rally?
Check out the comparison in book signing crowds between Palin, Obama, Clinton, and Clinton. You know who'll come out last in that comparison.
Nobody is outselling the Big Dog, not even Obama once he leaves office. In fact, I doubt he'd beat Palin's first week sales considering who's in his base (not the types that would pay money for books, I'm saying this as nicely as possible). Palin's sales from one book will probably beat Obama's sales from all three of his books.
It's unbelievable that some people here still believe that Rasmussen is cooking numbers or that Obama is in the mid-50s.
Gallup, Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, PPP(D), Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, and now....Democracy Corps (D) have Obama under 50% with likely voters (48/46 approval/disapproval).
You guys have nothing to worry about though. ARG still has Obama over 50%!
@Bart
You lying bag of shit. Setting aside your clear history, that you still try to avoid, a sampling out of your latest whirlwind of fabrication:
The government owns and runs GM and Chrysler.
They do have a temporary majority and minority positions, repectively, in these companies, due to their position as creditors when the companies went bankcrupt. But they clearly do NOT run them, certainly no where near what those positions would suggest by any private ownership of similar percentages.
DCM:
Clinton's My Life sold 50,000 copies on the first day, while Palin sold 200,000 on opening day and 700,000 in the first week. Time will tell how many books she eventually sells.
However, Clinton did receive a bigger advance of $15 million compared to Palin's $1.25 million.
We haven't even talked about the state-by-state numbers that PPP(D), SurveyUSA, and Rasmussen have been churning out for Obama (Quinnipiac shows him at 51% with all registered voters in New Jersey).
And guess what, Fox News/Opinion Dynamics has no history of being right-leaning in terms of approval/disapproval for Obama according to......Nate Silver.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/question-order-may-bias-fox-news-health.html
"The first instinct that most of the liberals in the audience will have simply this: well, it's a Fox poll, so of course it's biased. The reality is a little bit more complicated, however. Fox News's pollster, Opinion Dynamics, generally hasn't shown much evidence of a Republican-leaning "house effect". Take a look, for example, at their Obama approval numbers. Since the beginning of Obama's term, they have shown, on average, 58 percent of registered voters approving the President versus 32 percent disapproval. This is, if anything, generous to Obama, as the average non-Fox polls has shown 57 percent approval and 37 percent disapproval over this interval."
You guys just make it too easy, heh heh. I'll acknowledge though that there's no substantial difference between 48% and 50% and much of this talk about falling approval ratings is just symbolism.
Dwight:
The federal government owns nearly 2/3 of GM and a bit less than a third of Chrysler after giving a majority share to the UAW. However, the government rather than the UAW exercises all the powers normally granted to the majority shareholder including appointing all the members of Chrysler and GM boards, setting Chrysler and GM salaries (the executive salaries by fiat and the worker's salaries in the new contract it imposed), and determining what each car maker will be allowed to manufacture. Obama fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner for failing to offer a plan to build the "green cars" the President desired.
Obama runs every facet of government motors that matters.
Going for the Bigger Lie, Bart? You lying bag of shit.
1) Rick Wagoner was canned for riding GM down into the ground and failing to deliver on some sort of serious plan to restructure. Bankcruptcy is usually is really hard on job security of the guy in charge during the spiral down.
2) GM continues, to this day, their marketing that does NOT stress "green cars".
3) There is no evidence of "Obama runs every facet of government moters that matters"...because he doesn't.
@Bart DePalma
Obama runs every facet of government motors that matters.
Well, not Obama personally. I don't think even you would claim that.
But - Good! There is no way in hell the people who are running GM and Chrysler now can do a worse job than they guys who were there before. :)
But anyway, the gummint has bailed out big US companies before - always with the same tired screams of "Socialism!" from the right. And somehow, that dadgum gummint keeps turning things around and giving the companies back to shareholders, and somehow the world keeps not ending.
Give it up, Bart. It's a stoopid argument you're having with history and even with the definition of words. You've already lost.
All of this is somewhat moot until we look at favorability ratings by state so electoral vote could be included. This would allow us to factor in the baseline support for Obama.
BDP:
I know I shouldn't feed you, but I will.
I have no inclination of providing evidence that Obama's policies will turn the economy around, because I don't believe presidents can do a whole heck of a lot on that. However, I will quote the Federal Reserve from earlier today: "Although economic activity is likely to remain weak for a time, the Committee anticipates that policy actions to stabilize financial markets and institutions, fiscal and monetary stimulus, and market forces will support a strengthening of economic growth and a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization in a context of price stability." Or, in a Reuters piece on the economic numbers recently released, they quoted this expert: '"We are still on the right path and a double-dip (recession) is not on the cards," said Jonathan Basile, an economist at Credit Suisse in New York.'
Thus, a reasonable person could very easily come to the conclusion that the economy will be better in fall 2012 than it is in fall 2009, since that is what "experts"--who should know more about the economy than you or any of us--think.
Note: it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a point to you if you assume that the point cannot be proven. You challenge liberals to prove something to you, then simply state that the traditional tools of liberal economists don't work and the tools of the great god Reagan always do, then say that people cannot use a liberal argument to persuade you. So, if we don't adopt the bias you have, we can't convince you? Then, why, pray tell, did you ask for someone to correct you?
Oh, right, my bad.
DNFTT!
shrinkers said...
Well, not Obama personally. I don't think even you would claim that.
What? He just did. His response to people calling him on his made up shit is to Lie Bigger. It is what he does. It's who he's decided to be, a lying bag of shit.
Examples please!
Glenn Greenwald covers it in detail here. In summary, the policy that Obama and Hodler have set out with regard to Guantanamo detainees guarantees that the government always wins and they stay in prison no matter what. If the government has enough evidence to convict them in a civilian court, they go there for the publicity. If they don't have enough evidence for that, they try them at a military commission. If they don't have enough evidence even for that, they simply keep them locked up without charges forever.
These people will stay in prison no matter what, and that has already been determined in advance of their trials (if they even get them). Due process of law? What's that?
@Burt and @Shrinkers, the point is that just getting rid of the SS cap is not a proper solution. Raising it is what is normally done. We could fix the debt by raising taxes to 60% by that logic.
My point is that the wealthier are not underpaying. They are paying a fair share given the expected return. So, raising the cap a bit is reasonable, removing it would mean grossly overpaying.
As to the federal highway system, you are wrong. Most of that is paid for using use taxes, especially on gasoline. So, it is fairly measured per use in a generalized sense (but only somewhat since larger states pay in way more than they get back). In general, taxes are often way more than the use granted back to the individual; that is, the wealthy do not generally enjoy more benefits from the government, but that is taxes. My point is that SS is not a tax; you are paying in premiums for a pension, so is supposed to be fair.
Burt…
When you shake your head from side to side, does it sound like a pebble rolling around inside a basketball?
While the author of the link you posted certainly has his panties in a twist, most people can (and do) understand the distinction between trying, in federal courts, terrorists who committed murder on American soil (9/11), and trying, in military tribunals, terrorists who murdered American military personnel overseas (the Cole bombing).
I suppose you thought the Bush idea was better—just leave them wherever they are, and when you’re not torturing them just forget about them?
What would you do about KSM and the Cole-bomber? Now, be specific, and you’re going to have to be consistent too.
PaulK…
All you have done is semantically reconstruct the problems of funding Social Security to make it sound as if taxing everybody who contributes at the same rate would be grossly unfair to the rich.
It is no more unfair than paying property taxes (which I have for forty years, and gladly) although I have no children, no ever had any.
Once again I will mention the social contract. If you don’t like living under such a cruel, despotic system that requires you to pay taxes or fees for something you don’t immediately use, you are welcome to move elsewhere. Why don’t you?
The apologists for the rich make me sick. Why don’t you just pay your fair share, and stop being such a fucking candyass crybaby?
Hunter,
Don't forget #26:
Approved request to fire on Somali pirates in what a retired Marine Corps four star General called "a textbook operation".
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/22/obama-okd-2-seal-teams-for-pirates/print/
CO Liberal…
I’ll bet Burt will argue that the Somali pirate operation was just another example of Obama’s “ ‘the government always wins’ tiered system of ‘justice’ ”.
I have my doubts about Palin leading a GOP ticket in 2012.
The RNC no doubt sees her as politically useful. They undoubtedly also understand just how unpopular she is with independents. It is difficult for me to imagine the RNC allowing her to head the ticket unless it becomes apparent that there are no candidates available who could conceivably win.
A Palin headed ticket would be at best a 'Fuck you' ticket, aimed not at winning but at augmenting the ability of GOP Congressional candidates to get into the House.
If she did win, it would be a disaster for the GOP. She would discredit the party in ways Bush couldn't even dream of. Knowing this, they probably view Palin's candidacy the same way they saw the 1991 Louisiana Gubernatorial election. They had no problem with Duke, so long as he stood no chance of winning. Once he advanced to the runoff, and it became clear that he could win, the RNC chair decided that David Duke wasn't going to be the Republican Governor of anything. The national organization began to actively undermine their own candidate, realizing that a Duke win would mean national embarrassment for the Party, in ways from which it is doubtful they could have recovered from for decades to follow.
The same would likely happen if Palin won the primary and then ran up poll numbers high enough to indicate a possible November victory. I woudl anticipate an 'October surprise' coming from unknown sources clearly not associated with the Obama campaign.
Wow, looks like Nate is fixated with Sarah. Could it be love?
Looks like the economy ain't going anywhere in 2010 - that means a House controlled by the GOP (with or without a few Blue Dog defections). That means nothing gets done in 2011 and 2012. I'm willing to bet that if that happens any Republican EXCEPT SARAH PALIN gives Obama a real run for the presidency in 2012. If it's palin his odds improve significantly. She's a moron and a quitter and America knows that.
Good post Nate, it certainly makes sense that, at this point in time, Obama would have to be more unpopular for Palin than for romney to win....
However, your analysis conveniently omits the Ford loss at 45% approval in 1976. Similarly to what you critique about Dowd (cutting off his data set at 1 year before the outlier for his theory, Truman approval), you cut off your data set at 1980 - one election after the 1976 election which cuts against your theory
As the data sits now, you're right re Palin worse chance than Romney - however, a lot of the data set you use was made when Palin was in her deepest trench popularity wise - and in recent days she's bounced back some.
I still think it will be a dark horse who will emerge, and then have a better change of defeating obama than either palin or romney. Perhaps Obama under 50% would have trouble with one of these three:
Mitch Daniels, popular governor of Indiana
David Petreaus, who needs no introduction
Michelle Bachmann - i know she's got a lot of disquieting tape, but she's very smart, ex-lawyer, mother of a ton of kids - could be Palin without the baggage.
BDP
as usual, you are cooking your stats to fit your own narrative
for instance, Palin's publisher required all the book tour shops to PURCHASE in advance a minimum of 2500 copies or no Sarah + added in all the pre-oders to inflate her 'sale' + heavily discounted the price of the booklet [and published it as a paperback upon releaser WITH LARGE PRINT {roflol}] to pad her stats
yet still couldn't come close to Bill Clinton's first week sales 700K vs 900K
all the sizzle but where is the steak ???
but my main point was that NATIONAL opinion polls FAIL epically to distinguish the regional metrics beneath the lede
yes, BHO approval #'s have tanked in the southern/RED states that McCain carried
BUT within the #'s one finds that in the NE BHO is still extremely 'approved', and he is still solid in the Midwest & West so the electoral calculus does NOT indicate a rising RED wave
what it shows is that the southern/RED states are growing increasing partisan & deep crimson
however, someone like Rasmussen bends the stats to try to imply that there is a general disapproval spread evenly across the country - and simply put, that is not true [OK, it is a LIE]
I showed you evidence to back my side - you show nuttin' but disregard for the truth
you live in a CON spin zone, very tragic imho
WV - fribula
created or saved the jobs of thousands of loyal Dem government employees.
Bart, you are the height of inanity. Or maybe insanity. One of those.
What show was Nate on today on MSNBC?
Geoff…
“Michelle Bachmann - could be Palin without the baggage.”
She wouldn’t have Palin’s baggage, but she’d have plenty of her own. I would bet she’d do no better than Palin would as the GOP 2012 nominee.
DCM is a total joke:
Here's what your friends at TPM has to say about Obama's approval in different states:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/obamas-approval-in-the-states-the-honeymoon-is-over-were-back-to-the-campaign.php
Check out those numbers in New Jersey (51% according to Quinnipiac), Wisconsin (47% according to PPP(D)), Iowa (49% according to Silver's girl Ann Selzer), Ohio, Missouri, etc.
Even Talking Points Memo doesn't buy DCM's spin.
Bachmann is a overly religious loony creationist & proud homophobe who wants to insert church into state matters...
imho I call that BAGGAGE - only to far right-wing deranged CONs could that be considered as a required accessory...
@Pragmatus
Thank you. I don't need to answer PaulK's absurd points about taxes.
I'm pretty well-to-do. I make enough that some of my income is not subject to FICA. But I have children and grandchildren. I want Social Security to be there for them.
And even if I didn't - I live in this nation. I'm a part of it. The costs to society to have impoverished seniors are greater than the costs to me to pay a little more into FICA.
And putting that aside - I object to ever single new goddam B1 bomber. I object to paying a single f**king penny for the Secret Service protection for Bush II or Cheney (they're both wealthy enough to buy their own goddam security). But you know what? I'm a US citizen. Some of my taxes go to this stuff.
If someone doesn't like representative government, they can move elsewhere. This is my country - love it or leave it.
Conservative blowhards - Why do you hate America? I mean that seriously. I want an answer. It is NOT a rhetorical question.
DCM:
No one claimed that Obama is uniformly disapproved of across the county. Obama most certainly is still popular in solid Blue states and is reaching the level of being loathed in solid Red states, However, when his disapproval among likely voters is 7 points higher than his approval, Obama is trailing and not "solid" in all the battleground states where elections are decided. For example, Obama won CO a year ago, but tanked in the approval polls here during the summer.
Robert:
Every time they talk about jobs created or saved, Obama and his administration first and foremost talk about state government jobs - generally teachers, but in reality bureaucrats. The only growth area in the jobs market is government employees. Do the math.
Bart, nowhere in that math does "loyal Dem government employees" make an appearance.
BTW, you're talking to one of those evil government bureaucrats right now, so maybe you should back up your inanity with some proof that we're all, or even a majority, dems.
(Hint: we're not!)
What Shygitz said - that's a terrible set of data points to be doing any sort of regression on, Nate.
Pragmatus said...
Geoff…
“Michelle Bachmann - could be Palin without the baggage.”
She wouldn’t have Palin’s baggage, but she’d have plenty of her own. I would bet she’d do no better than Palin would as the GOP 2012 nominee.
November 24, 2009 9:25 PM
Well, I'd advise viewing some longer clips of Bachmann and compare that to what you already know of Palin.
Bachmann is pretty smart and got a law degree. I'll take that over Palin any day.
The key variable is the soccer mom vote that she could take from Obam, as soccer moms even at this early date are having second thoughts about Obama.
Obama never really had suburban men, and certainly doesn't now.
All else being equal, suburban vote will decide 2012, and right now those voters are trending away from Democrats and Obama, mainly in disgust over spending and big government, along with a side of the stupid KSM civilian trial decision.
Its only going to get worse re unemployment for many months, maybe a year - and by then, Obama's brand of presiding over high unemployment will be seared into the minds of millions of Americans. Quite a fertile field for a competent 2012 GOP candidate to till - look how much the stock market crash helped Obama last year.
Good post Nate, it certainly makes sense that, at this point in time, Obama would have to be more unpopular for Palin than for romney to win....
However, your analysis conveniently omits the Ford loss at 45% approval in 1976. Similarly to what you critique about Dowd (cutting off his data set at 1 year before the outlier for his theory, Truman approval), you cut off your data set at 1980 - one election after the 1976 election which cuts against your theory
As the data sits now, you're right re Palin worse chance than Romney - however, a lot of the data set you use was made when Palin was in her deepest trench popularity wise - and in recent days she's bounced back some.
I still think it will be a dark horse who will emerge, and then have a better change of defeating obama than either palin or romney. Perhaps Obama under 50% would have trouble with one of these three:
Mitch Daniels, popular governor of Indiana
David Petreaus, who needs no introduction
Michelle Bachmann - i know she's got a lot of disquieting tape, but she's very smart, ex-lawyer, mother of a ton of kids - could be Palin without the baggage.
November 24, 2009 8:54 PM
Delete
Blogger DCM in FL said...
BDP
as usual, you are cooking your stats to fit your own narrative
for instance, Palin's publisher required all the book tour shops to PURCHASE in advance a minimum of 2500 copies or no Sarah + added in all the pre-oders to inflate her 'sale' + heavily discounted the price of the booklet [and published it as a paperback upon releaser WITH LARGE PRINT {roflol}] to pad her stats
yet still couldn't come close to Bill Clinton's first week sales 700K vs 900K
all the sizzle but where is the steak ???
AMAZING.
You do realize that you managed to attack Palin, even tho you stated, accurately, that Palin's book is NUMBER TWO of all American politicians in the first week, trailing ONLY a two-term American President.
That's the data behind your snarking about steak and sizzle?
Really?
I thought this was a smart lefty blog.
Tell me, smart lefty, how many books did Pelosi sell in the first week? 10,000? less?
Hillary only did 300,000. Hillary!
She beat Hillary by 400,000 in the first week.
And you snark.
Lefty genius at work.
BDP
actually, I can almost agree with your last post regarding 'approval' - and that may be a first !!!
except - yes you & others have been more than implying that BHO's disapprovals are a sign of a national 'wave' [sorry, but you have been gloating ad nauseum that this is the case imho]
the RED states always have loathed BHO, and even more so now than ever [no real surprise]
BUT further 'evidence' to support my analysis that it is regional is in the new PPP results:
"On our national survey in June Obama had an 82% approval rating with Democrats. Now it's 83%.
He had a 46% approval rating with independents. Now it's 47%.
No real change on either of those fronts.
>>> But with Republicans he's dropped from an 18% mark to just 10%. That shift is what put his approval rating below 50% -- he's gone from a small amount of crossover support to a very small amount of crossover supports."
at: http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/when-talking-about-decline-in-barack.html
and since the GOP base is heavily concentrated in the southern/RED states, the decline is concentrated there.
as for the purple states, 50% is the same old, same old basically at this point. the calculus is in the EV #'s, not in a generic or national poll which has little [if any] direct bearing on electoral results...
same as Franklin showed yesterday:
"But support for Obama has not plummeted among independents, and that needs to be clarified before it becomes erroneous conventional wisdom... Claims of abandonment of Obama by independents (or lib-Dems or con-Dems) are substantially exaggerated over the past three months. Significant decline from May through August, yes indeed among Inds and Reps, but that trend halted in August."
at: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/obama_and_indepedents.php
GEOFF
your defense of Palin is priceless - lol
seriously, with all the hype, that is the best you could do ???
sorta like your prediction for NY-23 [HOFF WILL WIN BIG]
how did that one go ???
bet you bought 'Going Rogue' in the paperback with the BIG PRINT
I mean, IF she had to cut the advance sales price to a WalMart level of $9 @ Amazon to inflate sales in the first week...
did Hill or Bill or BHO have to resort to that pathetic deep discount tactic - or publish for their sheeple in paperback with LARGE PRINT at first release ???
hhhmmm... just sayin'
Geoff…
All you guys can do is predict disaster for Democrats. Doesn’t matter if the argument is sound or a complete fart in the wind—you just keep hammering and hammering on it.
If you think Michelle Bachmann would do better than Sarah Palin I hope you’re putting your money where your mouth is. She’s a long shot, so you’ll have to work your tail off to get the funds raised and her name bruited about so voters will know who the hell she is, and the RNC needs to be aware of what a good candidate she would be (they don’t think so, as of right now).
For me I think the voting public would view the difference between Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann as equivalent to the difference between, oh, say, Ferdinand Marcos and Francisco Franco.
Bush Beat Kerry and look at what Bush's approval was at at the time. Obama beating Palin would be without question. He could lose to a Romney or even Huckabee potentially though.
- Jake Yenor
Just to add more crazy to the asylum, the Tea Party is actually planning a national convention for February, with both Bachmann and Palin in prominent roles (the former as keynote and the latter as chair).
Now, if that keeps going what you could have is Mittens winning the GOP nomination but Palin on some goofy Perot-esque Tea Party platform where she does no real campaigning (because as noted above that takes hard work) but gets to keep spewing platitudes on TV and in redneck centerpieces. Still, she'd probably get 20-30% of the popular vote in the states the Tea Party nuts manage to get a line on the ballot. In other words, they crush each other and Obama waltzes to a second term.
On the book sales, for what its worth, Amazon never sold Bill or Hillary's books for 70% off list during the first week, and no left wing magazine threw it in as a promotional giveaway (like Newsmax did with Palin). No one knows what the actual advance to Palin was - 1.25 million is all she reported to Alaska - but at the retail prices most copies are going for, the middlemen are eating any hope of direct profit for a variety of reasons. The interesting question will be whether it has any staying power after a first week in which just about everyone who is discussed in it came out and blasted it as make believe and all the die hards have had ample opportunity to get it at rock bottom prices.
DCM in FL said...
GEOFF
your defense of Palin is priceless - lol
seriously, with all the hype, that is the best you could do ???
sorta like your prediction for NY-23 [HOFF WILL WIN BIG]
how did that one go ???
bet you bought 'Going Rogue' in the paperback with the BIG PRINT
I mean, IF she had to cut the advance sales price to a WalMart level of $9 @ Amazon to inflate sales in the first week...
did Hill or Bill or BHO have to resort to that pathetic deep discount tactic - or publish for their sheeple in paperback with LARGE PRINT at first release ???
hhhmmm... just sayin'
November 24, 2009 10:16 PM
So no answer at all to the fact that Palin = #2 fastest selling politician book of all time?
Smart lefty strikes again.
As for Hoff, you must be mixing me up with someone else, I didn't predict a Hoff win here or anywhere.
As for Palin, I think she doesn't have what it takes to be President - same as Obama, sadly for the country. I wouldn't buy either one of their books on a bet.
:)
Berkeley Bear in Illinois said...
Just to add more crazy to the asylum, the Tea Party is actually planning a national convention for February, with both Bachmann and Palin in prominent roles (the former as keynote and the latter as chair).
Now, if that keeps going what you could have is Mittens winning the GOP nomination but Palin on some goofy Perot-esque Tea Party platform where she does no real campaigning (because as noted above that takes hard work) but gets to keep spewing platitudes on TV and in redneck centerpieces. Still, she'd probably get 20-30% of the popular vote in the states the Tea Party nuts manage to get a line on the ballot. In other words, they crush each other and Obama waltzes to a second term.
On the book sales, for what its worth, Amazon never sold Bill or Hillary's books for 70% off list during the first week, and no left wing magazine threw it in as a promotional giveaway (like Newsmax did with Palin). No one knows what the actual advance to Palin was - 1.25 million is all she reported to Alaska - but at the retail prices most copies are going for, the middlemen are eating any hope of direct profit for a variety of reasons. The interesting question will be whether it has any staying power after a first week in which just about everyone who is discussed in it came out and blasted it as make believe and all the die hards have had ample opportunity to get it at rock bottom prices.
November 24, 2009 10:39 PM
NOW those are some legitimate points.
Re Tea Party douches -
I hope, as I am not a supporter of Obama, that the scenario you outline does not occur. But, it is plausible, and probably the best chance Obama has to win absent a Palin GOP nomination or the repealing of the laws of economics between now and 2012.
Re Palin's book sales -
You do realize you're arguing that Palin has done a better job of building a book rollout with her supporters than Hillary or Bill did?
Just more compliments for Palin if you look at that fact objectively.
Again, I'm not a Palin fan, but the media rollout has been well orchestrated.
So you discount Palin 100 or 200k for the boost she got that hillary supposedly didnt - Palin still is above Hillary's numbers substantially.
Face it, lefties, its been a successful first week and media rollout, as much as you all hate the woman, reality is reality.
700k books is 700k books.
How about the leftist hero Pelosi? How'd her rollout go? The FIRST WOMAN SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE v. UNEMPLOYED EX GOVERNOR
2700 in a week. So Palin won over Pelosi SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND to TWENTY SEVEN HUNDRED.
OUCH.
Go on and take a hit off that schadenfreude pipe. You know you want to.
The most powerful woman in the history of American politics is suffering a humiliating defeat at the nation’s bookstores, sales figures show.
In her first week at market, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sold just 2,737 copies of her book KNOW YOUR POWER, according to NIELSEN BOOKSCAN.
The DOUBLEDAY release was launched with a full media push, featuring high profile interviews on TODAYTHEVIEWTHISWEEK…
Don’t forget folks that the second most published book in the world is—Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book of Poetry and Self-Justifying Bullshit.
The most powerful woman in the history of American politics is suffering a humiliating defeat at the nation’s bookstores, sales figures show.
Seriously? Ya'll have nothing better to argue about than who sold more books?
GEOFF
BB in IL addresses how inflated palin's book 'sales' are above so i will not repeat [as you are wont to do btw]
BB in IL - did you know that the publisher is so desperate to push the apprearance of sales [including in PAPERBACK fer crissakes] that they will allow one to 'browse' through the book online for free
at: http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061939891&HCHP=Sidebar_2_palin_111609
gawd, I tried, I really really did - but it is so poorly constructed & revisionist that it is impossible to read without laffing out LOUD...
clearly not written or even probably edited by Sarah imho - or else she is dumb as a rock
a complete 'ghost right' [pun intended]
for a chance to cash in NOW for that advance - the real reason Palin quit her real job in AK since it would have been yet another ethical issue if she had cashed in while supposedly governor
and what is with the cover of ROGUE ??? WTF - and she complained about the Newsweek photo being sexist ???
such a complete hypocrite - that cover is aimed directly at the GMILF crowd who adores her...
GEOFF will probably claim it is empowering rather than a cheap sex tease cover - I mean that zipper could just be...
Geoff…
Calm down. You’ve got yourself all worked up into sudden-stroke territory over nothing.
If you think that Sarah Palin is a more popular figure than Bill Clinton was, please, by all means, spread the word. There could be no finer gift to progressives (or anybody, really) than a Sarah Palin for President grassroots movement.
QUOTE directly from Going Rogue as available for browsing online:
pg 408
"By the way, she was content to return to Alaska after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn't let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda know better." [Dewey Whetsell]
Sarah Palin chose to include THIS in her own booklet !!! [sorry, it does a disservice to real authors to call this hacked farse a 'book']
Pragmatus said...
Geoff…
Calm down. You’ve got yourself all worked up into sudden-stroke territory over nothing.
If you think that Sarah Palin is a more popular figure than Bill Clinton was, please, by all means, spread the word. There could be no finer gift to progressives (or anybody, really) than a Sarah Palin for President grassroots movement.
November 24, 2009 10:55 PM
MORE EVIDENCE that leftists cannot respond to argument, instead always resorting to distortion (i said three times that palin was #2 behind bill and in front of hillary re books, i never said palin is more popular than bill clinton) and ad hominem.
I guess "smart lefties" can only invent strawmen arguments to attack instead of actually dealing with the facts.
Congrats, you represent smart lefties everywhere so well.
Oh, My Gods.
No one is seriously considering Bachmann for any national position, right?
She is totally insane. Even more off the edge than Palin. Not even a shred of reason has penetrated that hair.
Seriously - talk about Bachmann is a joke, right? I live in the next district over - she is a total nutcase, I mean certifiable. Seriously.
Pragmatus said...
Geoff…
Calm down. You’ve got yourself all worked up into sudden-stroke territory over nothing.
If you think that Sarah Palin is a more popular figure than Bill Clinton was, please, by all means, spread the word. There could be no finer gift to progressives (or anybody, really) than a Sarah Palin for President grassroots movement.
November 24, 2009 10:55 PM
MORE EVIDENCE that leftists cannot respond to argument, instead always resorting to distortion (i said three times that palin was #2 behind bill and in front of hillary re books, i never said palin is more popular than bill clinton) and ad hominem.
I guess "smart lefties" can only invent strawmen arguments to attack instead of actually dealing with the facts.
Congrats, you represent smart lefties everywhere so well.
November 24, 2009 11:04 PM
shrinkers said...
Oh, My Gods.
No one is seriously considering Bachmann for any national position, right?
She is totally insane. Even more off the edge than Palin. Not even a shred of reason has penetrated that hair.
Seriously - talk about Bachmann is a joke, right? I live in the next district over - she is a total nutcase, I mean certifiable. Seriously.
November 24, 2009 11:04 PM
SO everyone who disagrees with your hard left ideology is a "total nutcase"?
Y'all "smart lefties" sure are an intolerant bunch for all the preaching about tolerance.
GEOFF
thanks for the DOUBLE & QUADRUPLE posting of everything...
looking for bonus points by rerpeating everything multiple times ?
looking for bonus points by rerpeating everything multiple times ?
or OCD perhaps... explains alot actually
cut & paster at work trolling
Seriously - talk about Bachmann is a joke, right? I live in the next district over - she is a total nutcase, I mean certifiable. Seriously.
November 24, 2009 11:04 PM
SO everyone who disagrees with your hard left ideology is a "total nutcase"?
Your reading comprehension is less than stellar. Shrinkers only called Bachmann a joke, which is a far cry from "everyone who disagrees with your hard left ideology". You're really just embarrassing yourself with this crap.
@Geoff
SO everyone who disagrees with your hard left ideology is a "total nutcase"?
No, not everyone. Goldwater, Dirkson, Rockefeller, George Will - at least they have (had) some brains. A few modern conservatives are at least consistent and rational.
Bachmann is insane.
I have to believe Nate is playing a game of liar's poker.
SHRINKERS
did you see the recent story about Bachmann where she wonders aloud why DEMs just don't understand her ??? she cannot fathom it...
Michelle said she used to be a DEM from a family of DEMs & that she voted for Carter & danced at Mondale's Ball back in the day - so why don't people understand her ???
she is completely detached from reality - I attribute it to her conversion to creationism/homophobic/religiosity/home schooling bent [I mean she would apparently burn 'those' books if she could do it on a funeral pyre of burning gays that she openly loathes ever so much]
why don't people like her ???
Bachmann does make Palin appear much more mainstream in comparison - BUT they are both extremely hangin' over the starboard side of the HMS Titanic CON which has hit an iceberg & is listing perilously...
PAN:
"Of course, no black president has ever won re-election, either."
Two questions for you that undercut your argument here:
1. How many black major party presidential candidates have there been since 1820?
2. How many LOSING VP candidates have there been?
See my point?
@DCM
I don't dislike Bachmann. I bet she is very sweet, and is probably - well, I won't go there, but she is pretty.
But every time she opens her mouth in public, she says something incredibly crazy.
remember "death panels"? She pushed that meme (along with Palin). And she said Congress should investigate the "anti-American" people in Congress. She even said that to Keith Olbermann (at least she should have had the good sense to not say that when Keith was recording things).
I mean really, she's a birther, and she talks about Obama's connection to muslin terriers. How can anyone take this airhead seriously?
Oh, I forget. She's a pretty Republican woman. Just the sort of mindless airbag Those People elect to Congress.
I only pray for a Palin/Bachmann ticket in 2012. All my myself, I will keep the popcorn industry in business.
I get the impression that many Bachmann/Palin supporters don't really support Bachmann/Palin so much as they oppose Obama. Most of the news coverage of book signings/teabagger events where the reporter asked an attendee to describe what policies they supported specifically don't really seem to have thought that part out. They're not sure what it is they want Palin to do exactly if she wins.
The answers seem largely visceral,. When they do articulate their issues, it largely seems based on some pretty obvious errors-such as a belief that Reagan never engaged in deficit spending, or that he opposed gun regulation. I have seen some who believe Palin negotiated the borders between Alaska and Canada and Russia, which is pretty odd since those borders were settled more than a century ago. Someone told me today that the Constitution says America is a christian nation, and frequently mentions God. It doesn't, and it,s strange they would choose to inject false content into a document that is easily accessible and brief-I mean, anybody could just download the thing and look, and it doesn't take long to read. Most of the footage from the Town Halls on Healthcare show them not presenting any form of argument; rather, they just try to be as insulting as possible. They're not trying to engage in discourse, they just want to push buttons and piss people off.
In short, they don't look like they're trying to participate in government so much as to destroy it.
Living in the district adjacent to Bachmann, it seems from the local perspective that she is f***ing crazy but pretty clever. She knows how to win her base and confuse the drop-off voters.
But for Bachmann to run in 2012, she would have to win reelection in 2010. Not a certainty, even in what may be a fairly GOP-friendly year.
Here is the website of her opponent, Senator Tarryl Clark, for any non-whackjobs here who want to donate or volunteer to help get this embarrassment out of Congress.
http://www.tarrylclark.com/
GO TEABAGGERS, GO !!!
hint: those teabags can also be used for/by a ____
[6 letter word, starts with D---HE]
that will be some kinda party - where will their convention be held ???
It's hilarious that DCM is citing PPP(D).
PPP found Obama at 47/47 in Wisconsin. So much for the theory that Obama is struggling in deep red states. In fact, here's a blog post.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/sunday-morning-roundup.html
"Does Barack Obama have a midwestern problem? 52% of voters there disapproved of him on our national poll this week, by far his worst performance in any region. A new Des Moines Register poll this morning finds him under 50 in Iowa, as did Quinnipiac in Ohio last week. We have a Wisconsin poll in the field this weekend and it looks like Obama will almost certainly be under 50% there, and possibly even in the red. Certainly the region has been hit unusually hard by the economic downturn, and a year after his election some of the blame seems to be shifting from Bush to Obama."
Thanks, Jacob. I'm donating.
@shrinkers
Pretty? She looks possessed.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/members/photos/228/B001256.jpg
@shrinkers.
Many thanks. I am donating, volunteering (once the groundgame heats up), and hopefully working on the campaign as well. Could be one of the great success stories of 2010.
Geoff,
I don't know about Bachmann. Rasmussen showed her with a higher net approval statewide than Obama in Minnesota (still waiting for the evidence that Rasmussen's polling is fixed. This theory took a big hit after NJ and VA when Kos fell flat on his face with his pollster. The NY Times/CBS News completely embarrassed itself in NJ).
As for the $9, you do recognize that it was the result of a price war. Stephen King's book was also a part of the price war. So nice try.
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/10/amazon_wal-mart_target_get_stingy_with_books_at_center_of_price_war.html
@Jacob
Pretty? She looks possessed.
Okay, call me a pervert. I'll 'fess up.
wv: blesstag - something pervs do with sacred relics
@GayIthican
I think the point was that trends are broken all the time in politics.
Though here is a pretty solid one:
Since the Presidential primaries became serious in 1952, no President who has faced significant primary competition has won reelection and no President who has a free ride to the nomination has lost. I think if any Dems mount a primary challenge, Obama could be in serious trouble; if not, he's probably got the win.
Bachmann won both of her MN congressional elections with just 50%...so she is by no means a lock against a good opponent [although 2010 may be low turnout which would help her base]
SnW - the local news stations here in the orlando/daytona TV market tried to induce her book signing supporters to say something interesting and/or intelligent on camera today...
the best they could get was she is 'awesome' - but one guy in his 30's said she is his hero because palin is a fiscal conservative
>>>it was abundantly clear that he had no idea what 'fiscal' means - and he mispronounced it as 'physical' of course so maybe he was talking about her as a GMILF
the guy was repeating something he heard on Rush or Beck or Hannity but had no idea what it means since she is clearly not a fiscal con in real life
and he was headed off to hawk the books he got her to sign to make a few bucks on ebay....
those who got turned away [again] returned their book purchases for a refund...
appears that many of the book signers just want to try to cash in the autographs rather than make a statement
[no idea why she agrees to sign multiple copies for each person rather than accomodate more 'fans']
Jacob,
Good luck pushing the public option in MN-6. Wealthy suburban/exurban areas don't care for the public option according to Nate's numbers.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/analysis-public-option-is-likely.html
Sorry pal, MN-6 doesn't care that the very few don't have healthcare (I don't). Cry about it to Keith Olbermann, maybe he'll open up a clinic. No healthcare? Bummer, baby, bummer.
How badly could Obama screw up? He could be filmed screwing a goat and Palin would not beat him. 50% of Americans believe Palin is incapable of the the job, and that number has been going up every time she opens her mouth. She has so many lies on the record, and so few achievements, that she is the ultimate beatable candidate. She couldn't hack the scrutiny afforded to a small state governor, and you better believe that if she tries to talk about how mean all those ethics complainers were in a campaign, then every Democratic ad will contain a quotation from the bipartisan, Republican-majority inquiry that found her in breach of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, then unanimously agreed to publish their findings.
McCain chose Palin because he felt that the Democrats had built the case for a woman candidate, and then blown it by not selecting HRC as VP. Add to that the fact that Palin was young and enthusiastic, neither of which McCain is, and her choice was the perfect high-stakes bet at a time when safe choices meant certain defeat.
Doesn't mean she's up to the job, however, and were she to become the a presidential candidate she'd be tested. I'm in no doubt she'd fail that test.
My main problem with this poll is that uhhh...the election isn't tomorrow.
Frankly, well into his term George H. W. Bush was cruising with 80%+ approval ratings.
Yet he lost. Why? A lot happened in between then and the election.
I agree with his main thesis: "re-elections typically come down to a referendum on the incumbent." Unless its an extreme scenario, the challenger hardly matters. Like the incumbent, he gets reelected. Don't...he doesn't.
Two main issues now...
a) Sarah Palin may very well be an extreme scenario. I agree Romney et al wouldn't be.
b) Its a real long time until election day. I'm not sure any of this matters.
I'm curious how many incumbents have had app ratings somewhere below this early in their term and won. How many have had ratings above this and won?
MORE EVIDENCE that leftists cannot respond to argument, instead always resorting to distortion (i said three times that palin was #2 behind bill and in front of hillary re books, i never said palin is more popular than bill clinton) and ad hominem.
I guess "smart lefties" can only invent strawmen arguments to attack instead of actually dealing with the facts.
Gosh, Geoff, you really got us there. All we have are distortions of other arguments and strawmen. Ouch! Guess we're all going to have to quit posting in shame...
Oh I'm sorry, you had another post?
Seriously - talk about Bachmann is a joke, right? I live in the next district over - she is a total nutcase, I mean certifiable. Seriously.
November 24, 2009 11:04 PM
SO everyone who disagrees with your hard left ideology is a "total nutcase"?
Y'all "smart lefties" sure are an intolerant bunch for all the preaching about tolerance.
:facepalm:
Consistency fail. Also, are you actually quoting "smart lefties" from somewhere, or simply putting it in quotes so it seems like you are?
I suppose you thought the Bush idea was better—just leave them wherever they are, and when you’re not torturing them just forget about them?
Well, if you weren't so stupid, you'd realize that that's exactly what Obama's going to continue doing with some of these people. Well, guess what? It was wrong when Bush did it, and it's wrong when Obama does it.
And then there's the fact that Holder recently said that even if KSM is acquitted, the administration will still keep him in prison. I guess you support the government having the power to imprison people indefinitely even after they've been found innocent of any crime?
Oh, I forgot. You're too stupid to understand any of these things. Just go back to eating paste.
@Pragmatus and @Shrinkers, you two seem really out of touch with reality. Taxing everyone at the same rate would generally be unfair. The flat tax would tend to be burden on the very poor. For SS, it is not a tax, which you seem unable to understand. But, ignoring that, you are either suggesting we charge everyone the same amount (as you would with insurance or food or whatever) or you are saying we use the same percentage. Using the same amount would make rich people very happy (they would pay exactly the same as the poorest). Using the same rate is as absurd as saying the cost of a bottle of milk should be a percentage of your income. SS is a premium with a discount for lower earners. So, the cap forms the undiscounted premium. Your property tax is a percentage of your home value because that generally relates to the amount of land you use, and because it is a tax. Again, social security is not a tax, it is a pension plan. Pensions are a form of insurance. They are not a tax.
A tax is a social contract with society that says the collective needs will be met using some form of required payment, perhaps according to ability, perhaps according to use, perhaps according to some other metric (such as house value). A pension is a legal contract that says you have the right to get your money back (and more since supposedly wisely invested) when you need it: after retirement.
It's cute how conservatives form their opinions about current realities from their imaginings of what they want to happen - without any actual evidence concerning those future events.
Kinda precious, really :)
@PaulK
@Pragmatus and @Shrinkers, you two seem really out of touch with reality. Taxing everyone at the same rate would generally be unfair. The flat tax would tend to be burden on the very poor.
That's cute! The conservatives have been pushing a flat income tax for as long as I can recall.
But not for FICA. For the general fund.
Really cute! Like, pinch your cheeks cute!
PAULK
are you really trying to assert that Social Security is NOT a tax but a pension fund ???
sorry, unless you typoed above you are WRONG [dead wrong]
Social Security is designed as an insurance program & it is funded by a TAX - it is NOT a 'pension' per se.
look it up & get edutated...
you sound like Sarah Palin [you know not what you say]
it is sad
@shrinkers, nice try, but I am by no means a conservative. I am a fiscal moderate and social liberal (I voted for Barbara Boxer, Clinton, Obama, etc).
In my view, you are a far left liberal who has forgotten or does not care why social security was created and what promises were made. Even Democrats know that when you start stealing from one program to give to another, you have violated the trust of the voters. Social security was setup to protect people from themselves and from unscrupulous companies. At the time, voters were assured it was just a pension program and the money would never be taken to pay for other things. Reagan and others cheated by borrowing against it and/or using its asset base to make the deficit look better, but every politician knows you have to be very careful about it.
But, you have identified exactly why so many are afraid of the public option (I am not one of those as I am in favor of the public option): they fear people like you will suggest that more money should be taken from the rich to pay for more things vs. covering it by self-funding (premiums). The PO has to be generally self-funding, with only subsidy money to cover those who cannot afford the premiums.
I do not approve of tax breaks just for the rich (e.g. Bush tax cuts) even though they benefit me, but I also do not believe in soaking the rich. Class warfare has never helped our country.
@DCM in FL, I mean it is not a general tax and was never intended to be one. FICA is a payroll tax in the sense of being enforced (on both employer and employee). But, unlike normal taxes, SS is indexed to FICA contribution because it is intended to be a pension. That is, the amount you can collect from SS at retirement is related to how much you have put in (more related to full time contributions vs. actual dollars). The SS standard for disability is not related, although funded the same.
This is very different than any other tax. You do not get more or less police/fire protection based on how much and how long you have paid taxes, you do not get more access to roads or schools, etc.
greatone98040 said...
"...doesn't care that the very few don't have healthcare (I don't)."
Well it's a shame that you don't care about the (very many) Americans who don't have adequate health insurance. But props on admitting that you oppose health care b/c you don't care about America. Not many would admit to that.
As for MN-6, I have worked extensively there and they are good people by and large. Have you ever considered that regardless of their stance on HCR, many of them don't want a radical anti-choice anti-freedom far-right teabagger apparatchik representing them? After all, most of them didn't vote for her.
No, I don't share your cynicism that most MN-6 voters are as apathetic about America as you seem to be. Hopefully, they will prove me right.
Yes PaulK, the FICA tax is indeed regressive. But it's never been just an IRA where you get an amount based on what you put in--it's a grand societal contract. And the point is that it doesn't by definition have to be regressive or could be flat or at least less regressive.
Can't type... LOL so hard at BDP, greatone and Geoff (or is it Pete Kent with multiple accounts? Hmmm). You FReeptards crack me up!
Nate, no analysis needed. How Bad Could Obama Screw Up and Still Beat Sarah Palin? pretty much summed it up. I didn't even bother reading the rest.
Notice how the White House keeps kissing The Quitter's ass, using the standard line, "She's got quite a following and is a force in the Republican party"? And yet, when the bean counter, the guy who ran the operation, David Plouffe, says she was a huge plus for the Obama campaign, and whenever she opened her mouth it was like printing money for Obama and the Dems, it kinda gives the game away.
PaulK-
Incredible doublethink ...
Yes, a flat tax is unfair to the poor. Which means, in fact, that the Social Security tax should be progressive, with higher tax rates as income goes up - right?
But no, you think it is a "pension fund".
Personally, I think the tax should be progressive, and the payouts should be means=tested - so that people with high retirement income (say, over 100k / year) don't draw from the fund. That would make Soc Sec solvent forever, and would insure that no America retiree ever lives in poverty.
And you will condemn that as a "far left" idea. I'm okay with that.
You cute conservative, you :)
Is anybody else finding that the listed # of comments for a post isn't matching up with actual comments for the last few days? Or that the comments on the page do not always include all those in the comment window?
PAULK
but that is not what you appeared to be saying previously
while it is a type of mandated insurance [ala HCR ???]...
SS is an undefined benefit program funded primarily by current taxes collected
plus no one has any guarantee or claim on 'benefits' - so it is not correct imho to call it a 'pension' [except in the most general of insurance terms]
per WIKI for FICA:
"The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax is a United States payroll (or employment) tax imposed by the federal government on both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare —federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, the disabled, and children of deceased workers. Social Security benefits include old-age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI); Medicare provides hospital insurance benefits.
The amount that one pays in payroll taxes throughout one's working career is indirectly tied to the social security benefits annuity that one receives as a retiree.
>>> This has led some to claim that the payroll tax is not a tax because its collection is tied to a benefit. The United States Supreme Court decided in Flemming v. Nestor (1960) that no one has an accrued property right to benefits from Social Security."
---------------------------
so NOT a 'pension' per SCOTUS...
just sayin...
and HCR could be set up the same way with funded medicare for all IF the country had any sense of perspective
that would make out economy competitve with the rest of the industrialized world + provide the right to reasonable health care for all citizens which is one of our unalienable right under the Declaration of Independence [LIFE, liberty &...]
Jacob,
Do you understand your district? It's a socially conservative leaning district that opposes tax increases on the wealthy and the public option because they well...they are wealthy people.
I don't have any issue with healthcare. I don't care about those that do. According to the polling, most people don't give two cents about the poor family that doesn't have healthcare either.
It's all pretty sad that a small minority of Americans don't have healthcare...but not really, hahaha.
Porridge,
Why doesn't Plouffe ever explain why he was trailing for a week and a half after the RNC convention? (Plouffe's explanation in his book, which is a total bust, is that they were still ahead in the states, a prospect that Nate Silver has ruled highly improbable).
By the way, notice that Plouffe said something completely different on Greta's show than he had said on other shows. He knows who buys books in this country and quite frankly, it's not Obama's base if you know what I mean. Obama's base cannot buy very much and whatever money they have, they certainly aren't spending it on books.
@Shrinkers, the CBO thinks it is progressive already. Since lower earners collect effectively more at retirement, it is not regressive for what it is for. That is, if one person earns $20K year and another $200K year, and both work full time for enough years, at retirement they will get the same amount in social security. So, the person paying $1200 a year and the person paying $6300 a year will each get around the same amount. So, your argument is only that it should be even more progressive than it is. I suppose next you will argue that it should tax non-income sources such as capital gains.
The whole point and what I am saying is that they cover potential future shortfall by raising the cap now. Shortfall predictions are rarely correct as you have to predict new earners and average lifespan and the like, and that is very hard.
Porridge,
Take a look at the leading story on gallup to find out what I mean.
@DCN in FL, "so NOT a 'pension' per SCOTUS...". Actually no. SCOTUS also said that you do not have an accrued property right to a pension either. That is what safe harbor statements are for - someone is assuring you that you will get your pension anyway.
SCOTUS was ruling that you do not own that annuity and so can demand it sooner, cannot borrow against it, and cannot transfer it.
Sorry, "cannot demand it sooner".
GREATun
MN-6 is NOT a 'socially conservative' leaning district
Bachmann has yet to get more than 50% of the votes cast, so it hardly leans
and the social issues were NOT put up for a vote - remember there are other issues...
BUT I will concede that the social CONS in MN-6 do turn out at the polls to support their bigotted policies more than their counterparts [unfortunately]
still, I have more than a few family members living in that district, and I spent a good part of the summer there in rural Wright County
Bachmann is not beloved or even well respected by most residents of Mn-6 from my experience across the district - but she has had less than stellar DFL candidates to run against in the last 2 elections
they do seem to be tired of her grandstanding & calling attention to her own pet 'social causes' rather than their economic interests from St Cloud to Buffalo to Anoka & especially over on the east side of St Paul in Washington Co...
Bachmann may end up being her own worst enemy imho
Bachman got only 46% of the vote in 2008 vs 43% for the DFL candidate
so she got re-elcted as a plurality winner at best [and only got 50% in 2006]
the talk was that if she is still around after 2010, she may get unfavorably 're-districted' in 2012
MN-3 (Erik Paulsen) is the wealthy district in MN, not MN-6, which is fairly economically diverse. Greatone's "people who are rich enough to not care about others" base doesn't play extremely well in most places.
Another factor is MN's Independence Party, which tends to attract moderate Dems and many reform-oriented Indies, and has been responsible for the plurality wins of Bachmann and TPaw. If it can be neutralized (i.e. backing Clark) in 2010, Bachmann is in serious trouble.
DCM is also correct about Sixth District voters becoming increasingly aware of Bachmann's insanity which was less obviously displayed until her appearance on Hardball last year.
Additionally, if MN loses a Congressional seat in 2010 (about 50/50) and the DFL keeps the Legislature (very likely), then the Sixth is probably on the chopping block anyway.
Many progressives are indeed disappointed in the Obama administration.
But it's hardly a matter of competence that's at issue. It's the administration's policies and priorities.
As a moderate I think they're doing fairly well considering the incredibly difficult challenges they faced when coming into office.
In any case, it's sad some only resort to insults when disagreeing about the performance of the administration. This childishness on the net never ceases to amaze me.
As for Palin, I don't think she's got a chance of winning the GOP nomination and am not convinced she wants it anyway. She's about cashing in on her fame (which I don't find as such particularly objectionable). I think that will determine whether or not she wishes to enter the race.
Yet if she does, I believe she's in for a rude awakening as many Palinistas shall opt for Huckabee instead, if you ask me.
The problem for Obama and the Dems is their manifest failure to lead. The economy remains in its weakest state in decades and the prognosis is very poor. The Federal Reserve predicted yesterday that unemployment will remain high for years, predicting it will be 7.5% in 2012. Even the Pseudo Messiah Obama cannot get elected with 7.5% unemployment.
Other than the Liberal Fringe, Obama's electoral coalition has pretty much collapsed. The new voters he brought to the Polls in 2008 will go back to their beer bongs and video games and will not come out to vote.
Obama's support among White voters is around 40%; he and the Congressional Democrats have effectively severed the tie between the Elderly and the Democratic Party established by FDR.
It's lost for you all.
Wring your hands over Palin -- well, then, Pawlenty or Romney will pop up.
Rage against the establishment is building. Palin is clearly an anti-establishment figure, as such she will have enormous credibility over the ensuing months and more and more people are coming to hear her message unfiltered (her recent round of interviews have been a resounding success, starting with Oprah).
Obama can’t fix the economy with his Socialist prescriptions. His foreign policy is a shambles with Russia, Iran and North Korea on the advance. While he supports and bro hugs dictators and tyrants, our traditional allies are bemused and unwilling to contribute to the War in Afghanistan, a War that Obama campaigned relentlessly on as the War we needed to win. While the cynical, disengaged youth in Berlin may turn out to cheer for him, the leaders of the West show him cool disdain in private and are beginning to see him as a tyro and something of an irrelevance because his ineptitude and incompetence are so palpable as to render him personally useless to them. Heck, he could not even land the Olympics for Chicago!
America to Liberal Dogma and Politicians: Nobody Likes You!
It was a nice few months for y’all, but now the hard job of governing is at hand and you have failed.
Obama sux at being President.
petekent01 (on twitter)
@PeterKent, it is time you put away your beer bong, so you can see through the haze of your own absurdity.
Trying to make grand assessments at this stage in a presidency is like determining the likely career of a toddler. Bush was a major slacker president and his approval ratings were going down (and disapproval was high) until 9/11. Reagan was steadily going down until shot and then they went up a bit and then down (below 40%). Truman's dropped steadily from day 1. Clinton's dropped to 43%. Each one of those were re-elected.
The 1st year is often rough for a president because the idealists are shocked to find out how slow things change and little can be done over a year. For Obama, getting saddled with a disastrous economy and a credit market that exploded due to lack of oversight or regulation under Bush, this is more so. But, Reagan picked up moribund economy and yet did fine. Clinton picked up a down economy from GHB and did fine.
The biggest question is 2010. Clinton and Reagan both lost congressional seats in the midterms. Obama may, although it really depends on what he does in the 1st 9 months of 2010. Clinton allowed the GOP to sucker punch him on Health Care and that was a big factor.
As long as jobs are coming back, people feel better. They do not measure the exact unemployment rate, as seen by history, only the trend.
Yes, it appears the GOP hopes the economy does not recover in 2010 because they want the seats more than they care about their fellow citizens. But, all of the right wing prognosis of no recovery will not stop a recovery. The real economists who look at the numbers vs. their wishes see a decent recovery.
The biggest fallacy at the heart of Dowd's column is the notion that just because Obama's numbers are slipping below 50% NOW means that this is where they'll be in 2012. A stretch to say the least! And it won't last - Tim "Wonderboy" Geithner is being fitted for a shallow grave, and Jamie Dimon is waiting in the wings - a decent first step. Both Reagan and Clinton sank below 50% long before Obama did - just ask Mondale and Dole how much that helped them out.
That the Rethugs and PUMAs are so eager to write Obama's political obituary so early is a funtion of their racism and hatred - they still underestimate him. Plus they have a piss-poor field - nominate Romney and they lose the South, nominate Gingrich and they lose everything but the South, nominate Palin (or Cheney) and they lose everywhere. And for the one guy who could beat Obama, Huckabee, the GOP establishment and the Teabaggers will move heaven and earth to keep him from the nomination. History is predictable - Obama will win. Bank on it.
PaulK…
It’s hard to imagine how hidebound you are in your thinking.
Here’s the skinny on the first person to receive a month retirement check. She received it in 1940, about 2 ½ years after the program began. Please explain how the money she received monthly until her death in 1975—$22,888.92—came from the total money she paid into the system—$24.75.
Despite your linguistic contortions, Social Security is Pay-As-You-Go. If it were a true pension system as you claim good old Ida would have received only her $24.75 back—so she’d be in good shape for about one month and a day, and then after that it would have “Too bad, sister. Shoulda thought about the bleakness of retirement when you were throwing all that money away on rent and food during your working life.” The fact is that the people currently employed, through their FICA tax, pay for the people who have already retired under the plan. It has always been that way, and always will be.
Social Security is not a pension plan. It is a government program that provides financial security in the form of a monthly check for those who have retired. It is funded, as most government programs are, by taxes on people currently working.
Please go elsewhere to whine your babytalk about those horribly put-upon rich folks. You are a typical GOP shill.
Y
@Pragmatus, you seem unable to get the point. The fact that SS is funded by the current working people paying for the previous ones is the funding approach they used - many pension systems work that way. This is not the same as an IRA or 401K, which are ways for you to save and invest your own money tax free and get it back later (whether $24.0 or $2.4M), taxed at your retirement rate. SS was built on pensions as they existed in 1930. Most were funded by new payments covering the outgoing for the previous.
As to the 1st payees, this was decision they made for obvious reasons - no plan would be very popular if the 1st real payment were 20 years out. Just like the "notch babies" in the late 70s, tinkering with the plan has always required some exception handling. If the public option is started, you will see a similar event: the plan will go negative in the 1st year since it will be paying before it gets enough premiums to cover the costs it pays out. Does this make it not an insurance plan??? You seem unable to understand the most basic realities of how programs work in both the private sector and public. If you started a new insurance company, you would have the same; you would need to create a big asset pool and draw from it initially, only getting to break even a few years in. Shocking? Hardly.
As to the funding, it is a self-funded plan, unlike most other government programs. The concept of tying a specific tax to a specific program only (FICA has a SS and a Medicare portion broken out) is unusual. Generally, all other programs come from the general fund and have no relationship to collections or planned costs vs. revenue into the future.
You are not a shill for the Democrats since none of them believe your nonsense. You are only a shill for those who believe that all answers come from taxing the rich more. It is time to wake up.
PeteKent said...[don't know, stopped reading. Next!]
@Bart DePalma:
Here is the quarterly annualized growth rate for the United States. http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=427
I love it! Claim that Reagan's recession was worse because of the rampant inflation, and then link to nominal growth rates to show how great his recovery was! Brilliant.
Reagan's annual real GDP growth averaged 3.5%, and you'll still never find a serious economist willing to agree that the '82 recession was worse than the '08 one.
Nate:
Almost as if in response to your post, Rasmussen has performed another horse race poll of likely voters for the 2012 election:
Obama 44, Romney 44
Obama 46, Palin 43
Obama 45, Huckabee 41
In short, only a year after winning election by a 6% margin, Obama is in a statistical tie with Romney and Palin among likely voters with about 10 % undecided.
The obvious objection to this is the fallacy that approval of the incumbent and attitude toward the challenger are independent variables.
I suspect one seldom admits to disapproval of a candidate one intends to vote for, in other words, specifically because of the psychological effect of planning to cast a vote in that person's favor. The effect is probably strong only close to the time of an election, so the Truman number doesn't apply, but it otherwise becomes a tautology, if I'm right; people will say they approve of the person they're voting for, when (close to an election) that may mean nothing more than approval relative to the alternative.
Actually polling a race 3 years ahead of time is absurd. nothing in 2012 will look like 2009. We will either be in a total downfall as a country in which case the race may be wide open or things will be much better leading to an Obama landside.
In any case Sara Palin would never be elected president no matter how bad things are going in the country. If we are in bad shape this would argue we need
a serous person as president and not a dolt like Palin.
I expect a serious third party or possibly several, expect either an Obama landslide or the rise of a valid third party.
My biggest gripe with Dowd's analysis is that he makes the assumption that because the latest Gallop Poll show President Obama's approval rating at 49% that this is a factor for Pallin beating him in 2012 - three years away. As Dowd should know that's three lifetimes in politics. Could he have predicted that Bush approval rating on 9-10-01 would go from the high 40s/low 50s to a strasospheric 82%. Could Dowd then predict that Bush polling after the 2004 election would drop like a stone and stay in the low 30s for nearly two years. To assume that President Obama's approval rating will stay at 49 or lower is really assuming too much for his argument. I suspect that President Obama's approval ratings will bounce around like most modern presidents, with the exception of Bush's record breaking stall. One thing should be kept in mind is that the recent approval rating was taken when the President has been rather laying low. The major news involving him is that he's been trying to decide what to do about Afghanistan, an issue that has the US divided. It's been over two months since he has addressed the nation - so much so that the Media Talking Heads are now complaining that he hasn't had a news conference after complaining that he was appearing too much on TV. After he speaks on Tuesday about his Afghanistan decision I'm sure his approval numbers will go up.
The other factor in Dowd's analaysis of Pallin, which Nate didn't mention, was that he listed five things that Pallin should do to become a serious candidate. Three of them I would say are inheirently impossible for her to do. The first one is "Quality Over Quantity" where he advises he not to 'tweet' so much and to sit down with Charlie Rose and Editorial Boards. Sarah seems to like the comfort of making her grand and often false pronouncements from the safety of her Facebook page and I think is adverse to giving any interview that could not be labeled softball. His last two suggestions wer for her to "Use Humor" when responding to perceived attacks and to "Think Accountability" and not rely on her endless parade of excuses. Does any one in the rational world think Sarah "guns a'blazin'/martyr" Palin can do either one. That part of her character is so ingrained in her personality that I fear extraction wouldnot be humanly possible. I suspect it is Victim Sarah and Take No Prisoners Sarah that are the most attractive to her fans but are the traits that drive progressives crazy. I would also suspect that the vast majority of independent voters would fall in that last catagory as well.
Social security is not an insurance program. It's government entitlement currently funded by a dedicated tax. If you insist on considering is as a private financial transaction, the one it actually most closely resembles a Ponzi scheme: the people who got in on the ground floor get the most benefits, paid for by the people who joined later, who hope that eventually they'll get paid for by more people joining down the line. The biggest winners, of course, were the folks who were retired when it was introduced, who hadn't paid in a dime in "Social Security payments" but still got monthly payouts for the rest of their life. (Of course, most of them are dead now.) There's absolutely no way you can compare that to a private pension fund. For example, suppose you start "paying into social security" at age 18, pay for your entire working life, most of it making over 110k a year so your contributions were capped, and now at age 65 you decide to retire and emigrate to sunny Australia and become an Australian citizen. Good luck getting "your money" out of the Social Security Administration: they already paid most of it out to people who were retired while you were earning.
So, take your pick, it's either a government entitlement paid for by a dedicated tax, or a government-administered Ponzi scheme. Either way, the US government can (if enough of them agree) do anything it wants to the payment scheme, and if you don't like it, well, your only recourse is to find enough people wo agree with you to Vote the B#%%^#$ds Out.
Of course, since SS entitlements are the Third Rail of US politics, they're not going to go down other than by slow erosion by using inaccurate cost-of-living adjustments, so my bets would be on changing the entitlement age and/or the tax that pays for it.
Just a quick question that I don't think has been addressed in the discussion. What are the r2 statistical significance for each of the scaterplots Nate did? It seems that both methodologies are relying on sample sizes that are far too small. Thats not to say that the data can't be a good way to figure out the question but without the r2 #s its hard to have much confidence in such a small sample size.
Vs. Carribou Barbie, like Huey Long before him, Obama would have to be caught in bed with a live boy or dead girl in order to lose.
Мультфильмы онлайн
Post a Comment