Rasmussen was proven last tuesday to have a pretty heavy republican bias.
As was the electorate.
I meant comparing their poll results vs actual vote results, about 5.8 points in favor of republicans.
Isn’t there a problem with the underlying premise of that article though? It compares poll results over a three week period prior to the election, and then compares those results with how people actually voted come election time. But polls are well known to fluctuate day by day. This is why some polls show that so-and-so would be elected if the election were ‘held today’. Plus a certain come-from-behind shift is common within the electorate during the last week or ten days preceeding an election as well. So in other words the way people will say they will vote is somewhat fluid - it changes day to day, at least to a certain degree. So I don’t think it’s particularly accurate to look at polls up to three weeks out and then compare them to the way people actually voted in order to determine bias.
But even if we were to accept the article’s premise and its conclusion and go with a 6% Republican bias on the part of Rasmussen’s poll, the percentage of the electorate wanting the entire health care bill repealed still stands at 52%.
Rassmussen has always oversampled Republicans.
Agreed 100%. This whole “The Republicans have Obama right where they want him” meme is one of the most retarded things I’ve ever read. They can’t do jack shit without a Presidential signature or a collective freakout by the majority of the Senate. How does that help them in 2012 and how does that ensure the repeal of all the “liberal” things Obama did? The Teabaggers wrote checks their mouths can’t cash and it’s gonna come back and bite them big time.
Which leads to…
Why are the Pubbies talking about investigations? Investigations into what? That Obama makes Sasha and Malia cry when he hogs the Wii? That when the dog shits on the carpet they say he’s “dropping a Palin”? That the Budweiser Obama drank at the Beer Summit was secretly Kenyan sex juice? Come on. The man is not banging interns and there’s no smoking gun out there. He’s a good President who will cruise to reelection in 2012 partly on the back of “Look at how much money the Republicans wasted investigating a church-going family man who fixed the economy!”
They can make extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich and killing the estate tax a condition of raising the debt limit and preventing the U.S. government from defaulting on its obligations.
Look at the brouhaha over Obama’s India trip, complete with claims that 34 Navy battleships are parked off Mumbai, and that the trip is costing the taxpayers $200 million per day.
And recall that the GOP took 140 hours of testimony over claims that the Clintons misused their Christmas card list.
Certainly. I was showing the best case, and demonstrating why Obama’s fucked even under the best case. If he wins the 2012 election with 58% of the vote, and everyone votes a straight ticket, he’ll still be several votes away from breaking a filibuster. And 2014 won’t help.
If things turn out considerably worse, which as you correctly suggest is quite possible, he’s still fucked.
Since the GOP decided to filibuster literally everything as a matter of course. Hence the need for filibuster reform.
You are much more optimistic than I am that the GOP gives a flying flip about governing.
The brouhaha over the Obama India was made up out of whole cloth by a moron Indian journalist. Outside of this board I haven’t heard a single mention of any controversy. Presidents go on trips, and trying to make some weird political point over a pretty standard trip would be stupid for the GOP.
Did anyone talk about the Clinton Christmas card list for more than 30 seconds? The Pubbies got away with investigating Clinton because they actually found something. That won’t happen with Obama.
Shut The Fuck Up, Moron.
No, his Administration is not over, even if re-elected while the GOP has both houses of Congress.
He will be tasked with running the Executive branch. He will propose legislation, and veto and/or sign GOP-generated legislation. He will appoint the various people that will implement his health-care reforms, and staff his newly-created consumer protection agency. He will continue to be the Commander in Chief of the military during a time of war. He will be head of a security apparatus constantly attempting to prevent future terrorist attacks. And he will likely appoint a Supreme Court Justice or two in his second term, and countless lower-court judges.
Oh, and pretty much by definition the deficit will be much, much smaller in the next few years (stimulus and TARP spending alone will make a big dent, not to mention likely higher income tax revenue due to changes in economic conditions).
A lot of the other stuff in this thread is just kinda silly - many, many things have happened in our nation’s history while one party controlled the legislature and another the presidency.
On Preview: Wow, is that what passes for a Great Debate these days? Sheesh…
Wow, stunningly bad.
The notion that a president is useless unless he’s got a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate is kind of silly. The last president who had a filibuster-proof majority was Roosevelt. I guess we’ve had 80 years of effectively-over administrations then.
And I also have to say, it’s kind of silly for Republicans to fight as hard as possible to stop Democratic legislation, and then blame the Democrats for failing to pass that legislation.
Maybe it’ll work. But the fact is, the Republicans aren’t going to repeal Obamacare. It ain’t happening. They can’t extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy without cooperation from the Democrats. And so what’s left for them? 2 years of holding hearings on how unamerican climate scientists are, and how many Black Panthers stood outside polling stations?
Even if it were true, it might have been worth it, we won’t know for quite some time. But HCR is friggin’ huge, the dam has been cracked, and the pressure is building for a sane and sensible public health policy.
Not being a sophisticated thinker, I tend to rely on benchmarks, like, foremost, how loudly are the Forces of Darkness screaming their heads off, and to what extent are they gibbering in incoherent rage? Tippy-tip-top marks on both, which means this victory is far more important than it appears.
“It’s the economy, stupid.”
The 2012 election will rely on the economy. If it is humming along with plenty of jobs, then Obama and the Dems will be fine. If it is still struggling then all bets are off. Everything else is noise.
Damn right, Sam! If the Dems did strong-arming the way Der Trihs and I want it done, you would run straight to Canada!
I know…
Personal insults aren’t allowed in this forum. This is a warning not to do this again.
The signature legislative accomplishments of the last 20 years other than Obama’s were either (a) passed using unusual Senate or House procedures like reconciliation or fast-tracking (e.g., Bush tax cut, NAFTA, Medicare Part D) or (b) signed by a President who reached across the aisle to pass something either bipartisan or which is primarily supported by the other party (e.g., No Child Left Behind, Welfare reform). In most cases, a little of both.
Passing something like massive health care reform or massive financial reform is by far the exception rather than the rule of turn of the century American politics. So we’ll return to the norm. Obama will sign a few bipartisan or conservative-leaning bills, like an energy bill focusing on natural gas and nuclear, or some kind of intelligent version of tort reform.
And other than that, the Administration will focus on foreign policy (and there’s a lot to focus on there), as well as work to be done purely within the executive branch. I expect a lot of focus on getting the rulemaking right for financial reform, health reform, and possibly CO2 regulation since the EPA is still under a legal mandate to unilaterally do something about that.
He has a better chance than Reagan, I agree, but, what money is left?
Rubles, tovaritch, rubles.