2010: Even more alarm bells for Dems, in MO, NC, AR, etc.
[Posted by Karl]
If the polls were a record, they would sound like the beginning of Pink Floyd’s “Time.”
Public Policy Polling (PPP) — a Democratic firm — has a raft of numbers, almost none comforting to Democrats.
Following up on the troubles of Rep. Vic Snyder in Arkansas’ 2nd Congressional District — where Barack Obama had his strongest performance in the state last year — we learn that Sen. Blanche Lincoln is in even worse shape there, with a 27% approval rate:
Few of the Democrats who dislike her will go so far as to vote Republican next year, but as we saw in Virginia and New Jersey this year they might not show up to vote for a candidate they’re not enthusiastic about and that could have serious repercussions for the rest of the state’s Congressional Democrats and not just Lincoln.
It’s hard to say what she should do to get on the path back to popularity though. 30% of Democrats in the district think she’s too conservative but 49% of the independents think she’s too liberal. Those are the two groups she needs to do a lot better with to win reelection, and it’s not clear what she could do to appease both of them.
Numbers like that suggest that the poll Zogby did for an anti-ObamaCare group — showing that voting for the bill will likely end her career — probably has a grain of truth to it. Lincoln has some tough decisions ahead of her.
In the Missouri Senate race, Democrat Robin Carnahan is in a dead heat with Republican Roy Blunt, despite having a better approval rating:
In a normal election year Carnahan would probably cruise to election given that divergence in the candidates’ popularity. But 2010 is shaping up to be good for Republicans and Carnahan can’t completely avoid that. 52% of voters in the state disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing with only 43% giving him good marks. Also 58% of voters have an unfavorable opinion of the Democrats in Congress with only 27% seeing them positively. Those two findings are a good look into why Carnahan doesn’t have a wider lead.
Congressional Republicans are actually even more unpopular than Congressional Democrats in the state- 62% view them unfavorably. But among voters with a dim view of both parties- which accounts for 27% of the state- Blunt leads 59-22. Generally speaking when voters don’t care for either party they’ll vote for the one that’s out of power because of the mentality that there’s at least a prospect for things to change.
Again, lefty wishful thinking that the damaged GOP brand will save them is being disproven.
The GOP is also highly competitive in North Carolina, a state with a heavy Democratic registration advantage. PPP’s full release explains (.pdf):
Republicans are faring well for two key reasons. First, they have a significant edge with independents. On the legislative ballot they have a 48-27 lead with them and on the Congressional one it’s 48-29. Second, GOP voters are more unified heading into 2010 than Democrats are. On the legislative ballot 88% of Republicans commit to voting for their party while only 79% of Democrats do. When it comes to Congressional voting the figures are 90% and 77% for the two parties.
One reason the state looks so competitive for next year is that suburban swing voters, who tended to go Democratic last year, have now shown a shift back toward Republicans. They say they’ll vote for GOP legislative candidates by a 50-40 margin.
“The way things are shaping up there is a real chance Republicans could take control of the legislature in North Carolina next year,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “It’s important for Democratic voters not to be complacent because if they don’t show up at the polls there could be real consequences for the party for the next decade if the GOP gets a hold of the redistricting process.”
All of these results echo the GOP victoies in Virginia and New Jersey earlier this month (not to mention that nationally, Obama is slipping below 50% with Fox, Rasmussen Quinnipiac and PPP). Despite mounting evidence that independent and suburban voters have soured on the Democrats, the Obama administration sees no need to reposition Obama’s image or the Democratic message. The White House attributed the VA and NJ losses to local factors, as even more polls show Democratic incumbents trailing Republicans among Independents by double-digit margins statewide in places as varied as Connecticut, Ohio and Iowa. The DNC seems equally clueless. And with double-digit unemployment, it takes a special brand of cluelessness for Pres. Obama to tell NBC that creating jobs isn’t the goal of a coming White House forum on jobs and economic growth. Or perhaps that was just a Kinsleyian gaffe.
—
Update: The hits keep on comin’. Ace nicely rounds up today’s news that Obama has slipped below 50% in the Gallup poll, along with Charlie Cook talking about previously safe Dems having to sweat because they are “saddled with a sitting Democratic president who is beyond radioactive in their districts”:
Less than a year out from Election Day, it’s time to rethink who the vulnerable Democrats are. And if President Obama is the dominant issue of the 2010 midterms (and rarely has a midterm not been a referendum on the incumbent president), Democrats ought to be seriously concerned about districts where reliable surveys suggest voters are in open revolt against him. Democrats would rather not draw attention to their problems in these districts, but both parties recognize the sea change underway.
Ask not for who the bells toll.
–Karl
I think this is the last chance for Republicans to figure out what voters want and align themselves with the Tea Party folks. If they go back to the old corrupt ways that cost them the Congress in 2006, another party will appear, maybe with Sarah Palin as the leader.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/20/2009 @ 2:12 pmI could easily see myself voting for Palin in 2012. All the vitriol hurled at her only emphasizes the degeneracy of the opposition.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (c3b70d) — 11/20/2009 @ 2:27 pmI’m still waiting for Myron to give us his stirring defense of Mammogram – Gate, and now we have this news. C’mon, Myron – tell us all how the healthcare bill’s going to be passed carte blanche, and how these numbers are completely negated by that idiotic election in Upstate NY.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/20/2009 @ 3:00 pmReid is busy bribing the Blue Dogs, $100 million to Landrieu, so it could pass. Moon would be proud of her.
Blanche LIncoln may be toast, though, no matter what she does. That isn’t necessarily good news as she may be looking for work. Obama could find something for her to do in 2011.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/20/2009 @ 3:36 pmI’m gonna laugh when you guys win back the House and then have to come to grips with the fact that Republicans are going to cornhole the country just like the Democrats. 2010 to 2012 are going to be a learning experience for all you True Believers out there.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 11/20/2009 @ 3:51 pmThat’s a slogan to rally the country with:
My guys are bad, but yours’ are so much worse!
Which is why the TEA movement seems to emphasize voting all incumbents OUT!
AD - RtR/OS! (e373b4) — 11/20/2009 @ 4:33 pmHow about “Time is on my side, yes it is.”
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 11/20/2009 @ 4:36 pmForgive me repeating my question, please …
Is it arithmetically possible for the GOP to have 67 Senators after the 2010 election ?
Alasdair (26a7b8) — 11/20/2009 @ 4:38 pmIn a word: NO!
There are elections for 36 seats: 18 held by the Dems, 18 by the GOP.
AD - RtR/OS! (e373b4) — 11/20/2009 @ 4:49 pmIf the GOP were, by some stroke of genius (or pure luck/Divine Intervention) to sweep all 36 seats,
that would be a pick-up of 18 seats, giving them 58 in the next Senate.
Alasdair,
If I’m reading this correctly, there are 36 Senate seats up for grabs in 2010 (34 regular seats and 2 special elections). Of these 36, 18 are held by Democrats. The Dems currently hold 58 seats and have two Independents who caucus with them. A clean sweep would mean 58 Republican Senators, 40 Democrats, and 2 Independents (who would presumably continue to caucus as Dems).
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 11/20/2009 @ 4:55 pmHow are Reid’s poll numbers back home?
JD (f8c405) — 11/20/2009 @ 5:09 pmReid is in serious trouble – Las Vegas has been hit hard in this downturn,
AD - RtR/OS! (e373b4) — 11/20/2009 @ 5:18 pmand the WH’s bad-mouthing of business junkets at resorts has not helped old Harry.
Also, if Guiliani jumps into the NY Sen race against Gillibrand, she looks very vulnerable.
Then, there is the stew brewing in PA, plus IL.
It is not unreasonable for the GOP to have a net gain of 4-6 seats; it just depends on continuing trends (bad for Dems) and some good candidates on the GOP’s part.
12.Reid is in serious trouble – Las Vegas has been hit hard in this downturn
True, but SEIU came through for Obama, didn’t they?
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 11/20/2009 @ 5:24 pmI like Giuliani, warts and all.
JD (6a0bfc) — 11/20/2009 @ 5:29 pmJD,
Reid’s numbers aren’t good — and that’s probably why he stuck the public option in his bill. He needs the MoveOn/ SEIU army.
Karl (404c05) — 11/20/2009 @ 5:30 pmThe assumption is that off-year elections will be held as usual.
So, I’m just askin’ what if the economy tanks, banks fail, the Internet shuts down, food and gasoline rationing hit hard, al Qaeda attacks, and Barack Hussein Obama (SoA) announces that elections will be postponed till 2012?
Who ya gonna call?
ropelight (6e0c3c) — 11/20/2009 @ 5:41 pmHere is a hilarious piece by a lefty Elizabeth Drew, one of those “unbiased MSM reporters” about why Obama is in big trouble.
The people who are most aghast by the handling of the Craig departure can’t be dismissed by the White House as Republican partisans, or still-embittered Hillary Clinton supporters. They are not naïve activists who don’t understand that the exercise of power can be a rough business and that trade-offs and personal disappointments are inevitable. Instead, they are people, either in politics or close observers, who once held an unromantically high opinion of Obama. They were important to his rise, and are likely more important to the success or failure of his presidency than Obama or his distressingly insular and small-minded West Wing team appreciate.
The Craig embarrassment gives these people a new reason – not the first or only reason – to conclude that he wasn’t the person of integrity and even classiness they had thought, and, more fundamentally, that his ability to move people and actually lead a fractured and troubled country (the reason many preferred him over Hillary Clinton) is not what had been promised in the campaign.
For those keeping score at home. Craig was the author of the policy to close Gitmo in one year, soon to be up. He has been replaced by another member of the Chicago mafia.
Thomas Wilner, a distinguished Washington attorney who challenged Bush administration detainee policies, particularly on Guantanamo, and had worked with Craig on these issues, told me, “There’s a lot of concern among a lot of lawyers in this town, especially those who were supporting Obama, that somebody this bright, this respected, this good, and with this integrity, was treated in such a way.”
Poor baby ! The meany old Chicago pols acted like… well, Chicago pols.
Craig is lucky he doesn’t sleep with the fishes.
Breitbart, look both ways crossing the street.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/20/2009 @ 6:05 pmI was thinking more like ACDC’s “Hell’s Bells”.
Socratease (efb5f7) — 11/20/2009 @ 6:44 pmSocratease,
I went for quantity over quality.
Karl (404c05) — 11/20/2009 @ 6:59 pm#5 Sorry but the Republicans didn’t do anything awful during the 4 years they had the Prez, House and Senate. There was too much spending of course, but compared to the Dems they were pikers. The idea that you vote Dem if you’re dissatisfied with Republicans spending too much calls into question the intelligence/honesty/sanity of the person making the claim.
Allegations of Republicans being to blame for the subprime mess are Democrat urban legend stuff, e.g. that there was massive deregulation leading to the banking mess or ludicrous claims that the Bush tax cuts caused it and other Democrat Alice in Wonderland type stuff.
Gerald A (a66d02) — 11/20/2009 @ 7:17 pm1.I think this is the last chance for Republicans to figure out what voters want and align themselves with the Tea Party folks.
They align with the tea party folks, MIke K, they lose everybody else. This is the dilemma the party has yet to solve. The Palin Problem.
Dmac: While I’m glad I’m missed, I don’t know what you to expect me to say about “mammo-gram gate.” The federal standards aren’t changing. Dems aren’t stupid, as evidenced by how they continue to outfox the GOP on this bill. I expect cloture tomorrow. We’ll see (my constant refrain).
I sense a lot of grasping at straws on this thread. I can’t say I’m not enjoying it.
That said: The GOP will definitely gain house seats next year, but not enough to flip it. The special elections since November have not been exactly a harbinger of massive GOP sweeps (Dems 3, Repubs, 0).
One of a few big differences b/n now and ’94 is that the party in ’94 had an actual plan, the Contract On America. These days, everyone’s just spinning their wheels and complaining about RINOs. The RINO Wars have become my favorite political side show, bar-none. To see even Newt branded a sell-out by the teabagger crowd is just rich beyond belief. (Though on a serious note, he deserves better.)
The Senate is secure for the donkeys and, if things go well, the Dems should even gain. First order of business, team up with Club For Growth to drain that RINO Crist in the Rubio Wars and set up Meek FTW.
Myron (63564c) — 11/20/2009 @ 8:23 pmHere’s the Cook Political Report numbers, condensed nicely by redstate:
Dem (left number) GOP (right)
Likely D 45 0
Leans D 23 1
Toss-up D 12 0
Toss-up R 0 3
Leans R 1 8
Likely R 0 15
Total 81 27
This is not the recipe for a sweep election, not yet. Especially considering the Repubs will have some seats to seriously defend as well as try to pick up.
Link here: http://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/house/competitive_2009-11-12_13-08-48.php
Myron (63564c) — 11/20/2009 @ 8:39 pmThey align with the tea party folks, MIke K, they lose everybody else.
Sure they do, Myron. Sure they do.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/20/2009 @ 8:47 pmMyron will go into a catatonic state if he ever realizes that the Tea Party rallies are about evenly divided between Dems, Reps, and Indies.
AD - RtR/OS! (e373b4) — 11/20/2009 @ 9:07 pmBut then, in his current state of delusion, that might be an improvement.
Myron, what are the numbers you posted in comment 22? They are not Senate races as there are only 36 seats up next year. They are not House races (or at least not anywhere near half of them) as there are 435 odd House races.
Gallup (not an outfit known to be Republican freindly) states that the Dem-Republican generic ballot choice is more pro Republican now than it was in 1994 or any time since then. By their metric if the race is held today the Dems may only keep 189 House seats. That is Republican pickup of more than fifty seats.
I have seen several national stories about the Dodd’s Senate race in CT calling it a toss up. I am a resident of Connecticut. That race is not a toss up. The only way the Dems win is if they find someway to get rid of Dodd and replace him with a Dem with statewide appeal. There are only two other Dems who have won a statewide race in CT in more than ten years, and neither of them can win the Senate race.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 11/20/2009 @ 9:24 pmIf they’re slipping in the polls why are they passing this effing bill??
Patricia (b05e7f) — 11/20/2009 @ 9:59 pmAnd now, a waste of sperm Democrat claims that Americans are complaining too much:
“Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri is seeking to pass a resolution that would officially make the day before Thanksgiving “Complaint Free Wednesday.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/20/democratic-lawmaker-americans-stop-complaining?test=latestnews
–well excuse me you incredibly out of touch piece of dog excrement. How dare you. Millions out of work, people starving, losing their jobs, homes, and families. Generations from now our debt will be paid by our children with radically lower standard of living.
How dare this “person” introduce this legislation. Must be nice to be a millionaire Democratic Representative with the best health care in the world, nice clothes, nice home, enough to eat. This piece of excrement has helped to run this country right into the ground and now passes legislation instructing us not to complain ?
EFF you buddy.
DaveinPhoenix (988dba) — 11/20/2009 @ 10:45 pmMr. Leviticus is right absent any evidence to the contrary, which, said evidence is a lot absent.
Republicans are pretty gayed up lately. Princess Lindsey is still thinking he’s an Important Voice.
Not a good sign.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/21/2009 @ 12:04 am^^Only footsie can get away with that.^^
But, I can’t say I disagree with the sentiment.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/21/2009 @ 1:36 amKarl,
The ad naseum comparisons of 1994 and 2010 by legions of pundits are missing – well at least to me – some pretty obvious points
Obama is way to the left of Bill Clinton
The economy is in much worse shape in 2010 than in 1994
Clinton had passed a massive tax increase on the upper middle class – Obama is passing tax increases on everyone
Clinton ignored or downplayed his regulatory wishes – Obama is disturbing the moderates with grandiose wide sweeping regulatory missives in his speeches
EricPWJohnson (5d28fa) — 11/21/2009 @ 5:35 amMyron: #21
I don’t know what recreational substance you are abusing, but I want some and I want it now!
The democrats are facing an economy in ruins without hope more jobs in the next 50 weeks. Any democrat who voted or votes for a stimulus, bailouts, cap & trade, card check, amnesty for illegal aliens or healthcare will find themselves in huge trouble.
Here’s why:
The stimulus hasn’t and won’t stimulate hiring.
Bailouts have been unmasked as political patronage using taxpayer money.
Cap & trade is a huge 80% energy tax to prevent fraudulent, non-existent global warming.
Unions are widely understood to have been Detroit’s problem, not the solution.
10.2% of Americans are on unemployment and another 5% have had their benefits run out. Illegals are swamping our schools, social services and public health systems. Supporting people who should not be here takes a backseat to our own economic problems.
Healthcare will fund abortions, treat illegals for free, strip medicare and tax us without any benefit until 2013.
The Left’s decline is just beginning. Republicans, without even beginning their campaigns, are rising in the generic polls and now lead donks by 4%. Independents have switched from 2:1 democrat to 2:1 republican. Blacks, who worship Obama, will not turn out as they did in 2008. Neither will the empty headed youth zombies who supported him. Jews, who voted for Obama at 78%, are unhappy with his party’s policy toward Israel.
If you believe “the Dems should even gain”, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
arch (0cb096) — 11/21/2009 @ 6:01 am#26, Patricia, “Why?” is the easy part, you already know why. It isn’t enough for Democrats to take your money, limit your rights, and control your access to information, they now want you on your knees begging them for the lives of your children and loved ones too.
Aren’t you really asking: What makes Democrats think they can do this and still get re-elected?
ropelight (962db0) — 11/21/2009 @ 6:55 amIf they’re slipping in the polls why are they passing this effing bill??
They know to fail is to start a war with the base that would put even the RINO Wars to shame. Dems will not be listening to talk radio, FoxNews, tea party-types and Republicans on what to do with the health care legislation. That’s a given.
It might be tough winning with fewer independents and the handful of Republicans who sometimes vote Democratic. But it’s impossible to win without the base.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/21/2009 @ 7:56 amarch: You might be surprised that your doctrinaire right-wing viewpoint is not shared by the majority. This is why your predictive powers re: congressional elections will fail. You mistakenly believe everyone thinks like you. One of the original fallacies in logic.
The recreational substance I am abusing is logic. And yes, you should smoke some … soon!
Bailouts incidentally, were strongly supported by both parties.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/21/2009 @ 7:59 amBailouts incidentally, were strongly supported by both parties.…ergo Tea Parties are innately non-denominational in principle, emphasis on principle.
By the way, the chutes have been found to have a flaw whether intentional or not. They only open inside banks.
political agnostic (a74715) — 11/21/2009 @ 8:06 amHave Blue: Sorry about my not clarifying on the numbers. They are the 108 competitive House races, as determined by Cook.
They illustrate why talk of a takeover of the chamber is premature. It is very hard to flip a 70+ advantage in the house, b/c most races in any given year are not even competitive. It is even harder to flip the Senate.
One of the more amazing takeovers was not last year, but 2006, when everything fell perfectly for the Dems (capped off by the VA defeat of that pimple, George “Macaca” Allen) and they took both chambers. But that was buoyed by Iraq War fatigue more than anything. (How ironic that Obama is still slogging along in both wars and about to deepen involvement in one of them.)
Anyway, I don’t want to stop anyone from dreaming. I prefer that to cynicism. But just know, you might wind up disappointed in 2010 as you were with Obama’s election to begin with, as you were with the stimulus and Sotomayor, as you will be about health care. Elections matter.
Finally, it’s also useful to remember that, while generic ballot polls provide a relevant piece of information, they are not the be-all end-all. Ultimately, elections come down to one person beating another, not one generic statistic beating another generic statistic. If Republicans continue fielding candidates who can’t win, as they did in conservative districts NY-23 and NY-20, they will not make up the difference.
That many moderate Repubs will have to face both tough primaries and generals will not help things (NY-23).
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/21/2009 @ 8:15 amMyron never fails to disappoint – as predicted, he just goes back to the one election that proves his all – ecompassing theories. Yes, the election in upstate NY is the entire bellweather of the voter’s mood and predelictions, no question. Talk about grasping at straws, you’ve got a baleful at this point.
And you have the stones to declare that you’re using logic to make your case? Socrates just turned over in his grave.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/21/2009 @ 8:40 amYou also forgot that the previously – bought ACS just came out hugely against the new Federal guidelines. They’ve called out the administation for creating this dangerous new paradigm for breast cancer screenings, and now the Dean of the Harvard Medical School just shat all over the entire bill as well:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574539581994054014.html
So now he’s lost his own alumnus – awesome! But remember, a Democratic Rep. won re – election in bumf-ck upstate NY, so never mind.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/21/2009 @ 8:46 am#33 said, “But it’s impossible to win without the base.”
Yes, absolutely so, the GOP’s record of lost elections proves it. Conservatives certainly know it, but have no reason to be even marginally convinced the Republican Party leadership has internalized that fundamental truth. It seems clear the GOP would rather lose than give Conservatives a place at the table.
However, the GOP does have one last opportunity to prove they are worthy of support, healthcare will tell the tale. My guess is they come up short.
The disastrous RINO selection of Dede Scozzafava is an open wound, and without prompt and professional attention the patient will die. The Conservative base, unlike the Democrat base will not march in lock-step off the precipice. We have an alternative, and we’re sufficiently numerous to beat the Dems in a fair election.
Our problem is the GOP leadership, they keep stabbing us in the back. Well, that was then, and this is a new day. The GOP can lead, follow, or get out of the way. The future is ours for the taking, all we have to do is kick the deadwood, Republican and Democrat aside, and take our place in the sun, we’ve earned it.
ropelight (962db0) — 11/21/2009 @ 8:47 amMyron:
Look at the polls. The democrats are upside down on healthcare, cap & trade, stimulus, bailouts, card check, immigration. Obama’s popularity is dropping at 3% per month. By summer, he’ll be radioactive and rightly so. He’s a terrible president – foolish, weak, incompetent, inexperienced.
The democrat base will be disappointed by job numbers, out of touch administration, a lost war, all because of Obama, Reid & Pelosi.
Look at the recent races VA and NJ, states Obama won by comfortable majorities. Obama threw Deeds under the bus and couldn’t save Corzine in a solidly blue NJ with three times the funds.
By the way, to erase a 70 seat advantage, the conservatives only need 36 seats. You should work on your math. Look at all those blue dogs.
Logic is not your drug of choice. It’s obviously Kool aid. Drink up. The election is less than 50 weeks away.
arch (0cb096) — 11/21/2009 @ 8:59 amTrue, guys, they are blowing up the old alliances to lock in the base: couch potatoes who suck up government handouts.
Patricia (b05e7f) — 11/21/2009 @ 9:36 amMy congressman won’t listen. John Dingell. My senators hate me. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. I don’t know who might run against any of them in the distant future, and whoever it is probably doesn’t have a chance in Michigan in my lifetime.
So I just gave a donation to Marc Rubio. I think it’s dumb to spell his first name with a ‘c’, but I’m a big tent kinda guy. I can take a little disagreement on the side issues.
Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 11/21/2009 @ 9:50 amLook at the recent races VA and NJ, states Obama won by comfortable majorities
“Those elections had nothing at all to do with anything – the only numbers that matter are from an upstate election in NY. That is all I need to know, and if you persist I will cover my ears and start screaming ‘nyah, nah, I can’t hear youuuuuu.'”
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/21/2009 @ 9:56 amKarl’s posts remind me of the series of posts WLS did here last year predicting that the Obama campaign was going to go completely broke…any day now…any day now..as they were spending too much money. That turned out to be one the most dumb bunch of sustained predictions of the whole election considering all the records that were broken by the Obama campaign’s ability to raise funds from small donors. But whatever , it made the people here feel good, and I guess these posts are all about making people on the Right feel good, no matter how rah rah blinkered and groundless they might be.
So yeah…rah..rah..go team! GOP is on the rise etc….
Yet, now not only are they responsible for the rubber stamp failures of George W. Bush (too many to mention and known by all), but also being one of the most obstructionist and self-defeatingly intransigent politicians this country has ever had the shame of being represented by. Say what you will about the dems, but slowly they’re getting things done. Obama is going to get Health Care Reform in his first year in office. It won’t be perfect but it will be something to build on and it will be an impressive accomplishment.
Next, year, and the year after…the sky’s the limit. You people need to put your house in order. Until you shut down the extremist loony spokesmen and spokewomen in your party you’ll be more and more marginalized. No matter that a few Tea-Tards show up at demonstrations with misspelled signs and no understanding of history or economic/political systems. Those folks are quickly becoming a parody of themselves and picking up the neo-nazi and KKK as well.
So Myron is right. And as long as you folks viciously attack anyone who tells you the truth as a lefty, your goose is cooked.
Truth is I think while the GOP dies a slow and sloppy death, the Dem party will probably split into the Blue Dogs party and the conventional Dem party, and I think the country will be better for it. And you guys will have a few reps from SC and Texas and Wasilla and frickin’ Pluto or something.
Assclown Pumpkinheads (f0d390) — 11/21/2009 @ 9:58 amAwfully long and seemingly self confident post from someone who thinks they are just posting for fun. And who doesn’t expect to change minds. You don’t suppose the TLE is a mite nervoius, do you?
Eric Blair (8e9826) — 11/21/2009 @ 10:05 amIndeed, as the aptly named person in #44 says, Obama and the dems are certainly accomplishing a lot in just one year.
Of course, it’s generally a lot easier to push things downhill than it is to pull them up.
And better yet, from Pumpkinhead’s perspective, is that it seems to just be going faster and faster and faster! Whoooeee! What a ride! Pumpkinhead is right again – when this wagon gets to the bottom of the hill the democrat party is likely to fracture alright. Like Humpty Dumpty.
Pray the nation doesn’t fracture with it.
Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 11/21/2009 @ 10:18 amUntil you shut down the extremist loony spokesmen and spokewomen in your party
That’s hilarious coming from a person whose party is headed by a Jeremiah-Wright-embracing, Goddamn-America-rhetoric-hugging, bowing-at-the-waist ultra-liberal in the mold of Barack Obama.
Mark (411533) — 11/21/2009 @ 10:23 amThe more I think of it, the more I like that image. Did you ever get suckered by your evil big brother into being the one sitting in the red wagon while he pushed it down the hill? Somehow I can feel Obama behind me, shoving in the middle of my back and grinning like Pumpkinhead while this wagon gets moving too fast to steer, and there’s a big patch of gravel…
And when it’s all ended in a mess of bloody knees and torn pants, guess who Big Brother forces to pull the wagon back up to the top of the hill?
Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 11/21/2009 @ 10:23 amremind me of the series of posts WLS did here last year predicting that the Obama campaign was going to go completely broke…any day now…any day now..as they were spending too much money. That turned out to be one the most dumb bunch of sustained predictions of the whole election considering all the records that were broken by the Obama campaign’s ability to raise funds from
small donorsillegal contributions via credit card that were never accounted for properlyThere, fixed that one for ya.
Now the next one-
Obama is going to get Health Care Reform in his first year in office. It won’t be perfect but it will be something to build on and it will be an impressive accomplishment
extremist loony spokesmen…more and more marginalized….a few Tea-Tards…with misspelled signs and no understanding of history or economic/political systems…a parody of themselves and picking up the neo-nazi and KKK as well.
you guys will have a few reps from SC and Texas and Wasilla and frickin’ Pluto or something
maybe you should have bothered to read a few posts above, the loony tea-tards who can’t spell have added some new members:
now the Dean of the Harvard Medical School just shat all over the entire bill as well:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574539581994054014.html
So now he’s lost his own alumnus Comment by Dmac — 11/21/2009 @ 8:46 am
You know the kool-aid has to be really bad when the usual liberal academie’ speaks out against it
anyone who tells you the truth as a lefty
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 11/21/2009 @ 10:24 amWell, we just found the example we’ve been looking for. We’ll see how many of youse who can spell and all lissen to your own high-falutin’ folk.
Say what you will about the dems, but slowly they’re getting things done.
It certainly does take time to crush an economy and then try and prop it up through dollar carry, debt monetization, and colossal spending bills. With a 10.2% U3 and 17.6% U6, along with “extend and pretend” policies in the face of rapidly increasing home delinquencies that will put even greater strain on the financial system, the Dems are “getting things done” to death.
Obama is going to get Health Care Reform in his first year in office. It won’t be perfect but it will be something to build on and it will be an impressive accomplishment.
Getting a bill passed with supermajorities in both houses of Congress is an impressive accomplishment? Obama wanted this done months ago, and the result has been a bill that doesn’t even come close to what he supposedly wanted. Now the best defense is that “Well, it’s not perfect, but at least we did something!” Yeah, and the “stimulus” was supposed to be the same thing, and it utterly failed. Although doing nothing is something no one supported, in Obama’s case that might always be the best option. He does far better when he can smile and make speeches rather than actually do any real, actual work.
And “Health Care Reform” in its current incarnation won’t build on jack squat. The country’s already on the hook for about $140 trillion in debt and unfunded obligations, and there is $50 trillion in cumulative debt across all financial sectors of the country. If people aren’t working, they aren’t paying into the system, which will result in services that are far less than promised, especially when (not if) illegal aliens are brought into the mix. If you think that the US can fund Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and cover an additional 43 million people (and rising) with complete and total healthcare in perpetuity, you’re delusional.
Obama may get health care “reform” passed, but the math guarantees that it won’t survive or even grow as the decades pass and all these other entitlements have to be paid for, short of us becoming de jure economic vassals to the Far East.
Another Chris (470967) — 11/21/2009 @ 10:30 amThe math doesn’t care how much you or anyone else suffers–just ask the good citizens of Detroit.
Just reading “So Myron is right”, pretty much told me all I needed to know…
On a side note, to believe that a fast passage of a bill equals something good, again speaks to the left’s short-sightedness and inability to see the bigger picture, including unintended consequences. It’s all for appearance sake. Fools.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/21/2009 @ 10:39 amYou don’t suppose the TLE is a mite nervous, do you?
Judging by his moniker and 2nd Grade prose level, I’d say that’s the least of his problems.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/21/2009 @ 10:54 amAssclown Punpkinhead, you are well named.
You guys make me laugh. If the dems have the white house and super majorities in both houses of congress with the vast majority of Americans behind them, why haven’t they passed healthcare, cap & trade, card check and amnesty for illegal aliens? Why is Obama dithering on Afghanistan, the necessary war?
With power comes responsibility. The war in Afghanistan is Obama’s war. According to Obama’s finance guy, the 10.2% unemployment was supposed to have peaked at 8% because of the stimulus. This economy is Obama’s economy. Incompetent, ineffective management.
The truth is independents put the democrats in control while conservatives sat out 2006 and 2008. Look at the polls. All that has changed. Wait until the blue dogs get hung out to dry. Pass the popcorn.
arch (0cb096) — 11/21/2009 @ 11:33 amDmac: You’re claiming I’m talking about one election. I think it’s very small of you to ignore my previous post where I wrote:
The GOP will definitely gain house seats next year, but not enough to flip it. The special elections since November have not been exactly a harbinger of massive GOP sweeps (Dems 3, Repubs, 0).
3 is more than 1, at least it was when I learned math.
Myron (552f64) — 11/21/2009 @ 2:03 pmHe’s a terrible president – foolish, weak, incompetent, inexperienced.
Arch: You’re projecting again.
Myron (552f64) — 11/21/2009 @ 2:05 pmSo yeah…rah..rah..go team! GOP is on the rise etc….
Pumpkinheads: Both the “health care is dying” and “the-Democrats-will-get-swept” posts are the latest versions of the “Obama can’t win” and “the Obama is going broke” posts.
Myron (552f64) — 11/21/2009 @ 2:12 pmGetting a bill passed with supermajorities in both houses of Congress is an impressive accomplishment?
Yes. If it’s something that a party has been working on for 70 years. This is not the first time Dems have had supermajorities.
Myron (552f64) — 11/21/2009 @ 2:24 pmI think the Democrats might get their bill through now that the holdouts have been bought off. I also think it will spark a voter revolt next year. I don’t know if the Republicans can get on the train with the tea party folks. If the opposition splinters and allows the Democrats to keep the House, we will have another Depression. We may be past the point where it can be stopped now but I am not that pessimistic. I cannot understand the Democrats failure to understand basic economics but Republicans were pretty irresponsible the past few years, as well. We have the worst political class, I think, in the history of the country but it just may be that the government does much more damage with an incompetent political class than used to be possible.
I don’t think people will be content to let the government types do the things they accepted in the 1930s. Too many people are more educated and too many have been running their own businesses and know better. In the 1930s, the only small businesses tended to be farms or one man shops. Communications were poor. Now, I think if the Obama people screw this up, and they sure look like they will do so, there will be a violent revolution. I think the choices are a huge turnover in the 2010 election or a revolution. I don’t think there is any chance that Obama’s policies can work. They were tried in the Soviet Union. In the 1930s, people still thought the USSR worked.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/21/2009 @ 2:44 pmI think it’s very small of you to ignore my previous post where I wrote:
It’s not “small” to point out where you fell into your entirely predictable habit of using one example to extrapolate to a widespread meme. Then you continue to make my point by using something you deign to classify as “logic.” It’s neither, and you know it.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/21/2009 @ 2:48 pmthere will be a violent revolution.
Hyperbole.
If the country managed to not end with Bush — and I sometimes had my doubts — I suspect it won’t end with Obama.
People need jobs. That’s a a big issue. I wish there were two functioning parties to tackle it, but, as with all the big issues, we will just have one.
Myron (552f64) — 11/21/2009 @ 3:14 pmDmac: I listed more than one example, on three different occasions on this blog. That’s the thing.
Your lying was the “small” part. Your reading comprehension leaves a bit to be desired, too, I should add.
I find it interesting you dismiss as wishful thinking my contention that 3 HOUSE races say more about future HOUSE races than the 2 GOVERNOR’s races your side has been touting.
Myron (552f64) — 11/21/2009 @ 3:17 pmPumpkinheads: Both the “health care is dying” and “the-Democrats-will-get-swept” posts are the latest versions of the “Obama can’t win” and “the Obama is going broke” posts.
I notice that both of you tend to steer well clear of the “country is broke and going further into debt” posts, however.
Another Chris (470967) — 11/21/2009 @ 3:31 pmThey are in a sort of denial. To admit that the economy is not going to get better with the Democrats’ spending and taxing would be to admit that this health care bill and the cap and tax bill are both irresponsible. They can’t do that. It’s like someone whose credit cards are maxed out but they decide they deserve that Hawaii vacation.
I’m not the only one worried</a?.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/21/2009 @ 3:35 pmIn the 1930s, the only small businesses tended to be farms or one man shops. Communications were poor
The nature of this forum, unique by the standards of the pre-Internet age (when finding out even minor bits of info required a slog to the local library), has allowed me to do some quick sleuthing on a variety of subjects and really opened my eyers.
For instance, when Obama almost a year ago was being touted as this era’s version of Franklin Roosevelt — and positively by all the limousine liberals throughout the MSM — I wasn’t totally sure if that should be judged as a bad thing. On one hand, I had been vaguely aware of FDR getting slammed for packing the Supreme Court, and, on the other hand, for creating national goodwill with efforts like the WPA program. So I wasn’t completely confident in the accuracy of his biggest critics, then or now.
However, the open-access feature of web surfing has enabled me to discover that, if anything, FDR deserved more criticism than he received in his time and certainly more criticism in the light of today.
Learning about aspects surrounding the now-disclosed nature of FDR’s income-tax forms and his being a big fan of raising taxes sky high — not all that many years after the nation had been left reeling from the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929 — was one a-ha! moment. And reading about some economists at UCLA — baffled by why the Great Depression lasted so long — studying the policymaking of the 1930s-40s and concluding that FDR made a bad situation much worse was another a-ha! moment.
Therefore, I guess it is correct — but for reasons unintended by the left — to say that Obama very well may turn out to be this generation’s version of FDR. But it’s more worrisome than that, because I don’t believe FDR ever was stricken with the “Goddamn America” sentiments that I see in facets of Obama.
Mark (411533) — 11/21/2009 @ 3:36 pmSorry about the typo.
Try this.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/21/2009 @ 3:36 pmI wish there were two functioning parties to tackle it, but, as with all the big issues, we will just have one.
Too bad we actually don’t even have one, much less two, as the failed stimulus and extension and expansion of the Home Debtor’s Credit demonstrates.
If anything, any chance the country doesn’t actually tumble into default (and this is not hyperbole, based on the data and metrics available) will depend on individuals, not parties. Alan Grayson and Ron Paul had to work extensively to keep Barney Frank and Mel Watt from nuetering HR 1207 and providing transparency to an organization that can print money at will. It would be nice if Congress blew up the Fed altogether and actually took responsibility for its Constitutional mandate to regulate the money supply, but this will have to do for the time being. Let’s hope that fat Elmer Fudd from Massachusetts doesn’t manage to kneecap it before the final vote, since it has more than enough cosponsers to pass.
Another Chris (470967) — 11/21/2009 @ 3:40 pmThey are in a sort of denial. To admit that the economy is not going to get better with the Democrats’ spending and taxing would be to admit that this health care bill and the cap and tax bill are both irresponsible.
This is why they’ve held off talk of raising the debt ceiling, even though we are right on the cusp of going over it–if they were talking about doing this while the healthcare debate was going on, that bill would still be stuck in the House.
Obama’s assertion earlier this year that he’s always supported “pay-as-you-go” legislation is outright farcical, if not a blatant lie, given his supposed post-hoc plan to institute this type of legislation only AFTER he’s further ramped up the debt.
Another Chris (470967) — 11/21/2009 @ 3:45 pmAnother Chris: I have yet to figure out whether Repubs trust Congress or think they’re all idiots.
You (inaccurately) complain about a failed stimulus but want Congress to regulate the money supply? One of many “conservative” arguments riddled with contradictions.
Myron (552f64) — 11/21/2009 @ 3:52 pmMore on the debt ceiling from ZeroHedge:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/senate-scheming-how-pass-stealthy-debt-ceiling-boost
From the link:
With the daily dollar pounding now becoming a mainstream issue, it is only a matter of time before the debt ceiling topic also trickles down for general public regurgitation. At the end of the day, the question boils down to how massive debt increases now can be spun as necessary to contain debt increases, and in fact to reduce debt, in the future. (Emp. mine) If history is any precedent it will be difficult to convince a public, increasingly skeptical of the Administration’s economic policies, that this move will be in the best interest of Americans. Additionally, if the Senate continues to underestimate America’s sensitivity to this issue, and indeed tries to sneak the debt provision through, it will only turn even more people against Obama’s debt exploding strategy.
This will become even more relevant when the current Senate healthcare bill passes, particularly when the administration plans on taxing people over the next three years to pay for it, despite high unemployment and the continuation of encouragement to the American public to go even further into consumer debt via programs like C4C and the Home Debtor’s Credit.
Another Chris (470967) — 11/21/2009 @ 3:56 pmObama’s assertion earlier this year that he’s always supported “pay-as-you-go” legislation is outright farcical, if not a blatant lie
just one of many:
transparency
bills on web 72 hours prior to a vote
no earmarks
Afghanistan is a war we must win
make the oceans return to their rightful boundaries
become a post-racial president
Joe Wilson is right, in oh so many ways
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 11/21/2009 @ 3:58 pmYou (inaccurately) complain about a failed stimulus but want Congress to regulate the money supply? One of many “conservative” arguments riddled with contradictions.
No Myron, the contradiction is in your pathetically weak deliberate misstatement of the argument to begin with.
The stimulus has failed, and spectacularly–the administration never should have claimed that it would cap the 8%. Obama shot his mouth off and claimed that “most of the money” would go out “immediately and directly” to the private sector, yet the states have been using it to cover their own budget shortfalls, not create jobs–in case that 10.2% U3 and 17.6% U6 wasn’t evidence enough for you.
You have no evidence nor basis that this program has been successful in any way whatsoever beyond making things up out of thin air–this is a credit-based recession, and only deleveraging that debt across all financial sectors is going to stabilize the economy. A “Making Work Pay” tax credit is not a tax cut, especially when that credit will need to be paid back next year. C4C and the Homebuyer’s Credit are “extend and pretend” policies that will exacerbate the overall debt problem in this country, not solve it. Quite frankly, you should be emabarrassed about demonstrating such open and blatant stupidity.
Secondly, Congress has a Constitional mandate to regulate the money supply, not chuck it off to . If you can’t honestly can’t grasp this, (and I know you do, which shows how much of a lying weasel you are) you have no place even pretending to argue about economics to begin with.
Another Chris (470967) — 11/21/2009 @ 4:12 pmSecondly, Congress has a Constitional mandate to regulate the money supply, not chuck it off to .
That should read, “not chuck it off to the Fed.”
Another Chris (470967) — 11/21/2009 @ 4:14 pmBecause they can is the only metric Myron cares about. Whether things should be done have no bearing.
JD (d0d3cb) — 11/21/2009 @ 4:30 pmMyron and the lefties seem to have adopted willful disbelief, to use Hillary’s term, for the principles of economics. You cannot spend your way to prosperity when your only source of money is to take it away from the private citizen.
The multiplier effect of government spending has already been shown to be less than one.
The theory (a simple Keynesian macroeconomic model) implicitly assumes that the government is better than the private market at marshaling idle resources to produce useful stuff. Unemployed labor and capital can be utilized at essentially zero social cost, but the private market is somehow unable to figure any of this out. In other words, there is something wrong with the price system.
John Maynard Keynes thought that the problem lay with wages and prices that were stuck at excessive levels. But this problem could be readily fixed by expansionary monetary policy, enough of which will mean that wages and prices do not have to fall. So, something deeper must be involved — but economists have not come up with explanations, such as incomplete information, for multipliers above one.
A much more plausible starting point is a multiplier of zero. In this case, the GDP is given, and a rise in government purchases requires an equal fall in the total of other parts of GDP — consumption, investment and net exports. In other words, the social cost of one unit of additional government purchases is one.
This approach is the one usually applied to cost-benefit analyses of public projects. In particular, the value of the project (counting, say, the whole flow of future benefits from a bridge or a road) has to justify the social cost. I think this perspective, not the supposed macroeconomic benefits from fiscal stimulus, is the right one to apply to the many new and expanded government programs that we are likely to see this year and next.
What do the data show about multipliers? Because it is not easy to separate movements in government purchases from overall business fluctuations, the best evidence comes from large changes in military purchases that are driven by shifts in war and peace. A particularly good experiment is the massive expansion of U.S. defense expenditures during World War II. The usual Keynesian view is that the World War II fiscal expansion provided the stimulus that finally got us out of the Great Depression. Thus, I think that most macroeconomists would regard this case as a fair one for seeing whether a large multiplier ever exists.
I have estimated that World War II raised U.S. defense expenditures by $540 billion (1996 dollars) per year at the peak in 1943-44, amounting to 44% of real GDP. I also estimated that the war raised real GDP by $430 billion per year in 1943-44. Thus, the multiplier was 0.8 (430/540). The other way to put this is that the war lowered components of GDP aside from military purchases. The main declines were in private investment, nonmilitary parts of government purchases, and net exports — personal consumer expenditure changed little. Wartime production siphoned off resources from other economic uses — there was a dampener, rather than a multiplier.
We can consider similarly three other U.S. wartime experiences — World War I, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War — although the magnitudes of the added defense expenditures were much smaller in comparison to GDP. Combining the evidence with that of World War II (which gets a lot of the weight because the added government spending is so large in that case) yields an overall estimate of the multiplier of 0.8 — the same value as before. (These estimates were published last year in my book, “Macroeconomics, a Modern Approach.”)
The multiplier is less than one. That is what we are seeing except that multiplier assumes the money is not being thrown away on corruption, an assumption unjustified with this administration with its 57 states and 14 Congressional districts in Arizona.
It is just basic economics and we are doomed unless something major happens very sooner. The stimulus was thrown away. They would have gotten more benefit from throwing cash out of windows.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/21/2009 @ 5:52 pm“…regulate the money supply…”
Hell, history has demonstrated that they can’t even balance their personal check-books!
AD - RtR/OS! (444f28) — 11/21/2009 @ 5:52 pm> 30% of Democrats in the district think she’s too conservative but 49% of the independents think she’s too liberal.
Gosh, whatever happened to the Democrats and their “Big Tent”?
/sarcasm off
OBloodyhell (811125) — 11/21/2009 @ 7:10 pmAD: Your comment in No. 75 suggests you think Congress should not regulate the money supply.
Another Chris has a message for you:
Myron (63564c) — 11/21/2009 @ 8:27 pmCongress has a Constitional mandate to regulate the money supply, not chuck it off to … If you can’t honestly can’t grasp this, (and I know you do, which shows how much of a lying weasel you are) you have no place even pretending to argue about economics to begin with.
Comment by Myron — 11/21/2009
C’mon Myron, no witty comaback for the actual data and facts I supplied? You have to deflect onto someone else’s comment? You’re even weaker than I imagined, and that’s saying something.
Another Chris (470967) — 11/21/2009 @ 11:58 pmMyron and pumpkin do not understand
Small businesses create jobs. These nanny state policies – government health care, cap & trade, card check – have created a business climate of uncertainty. Why would a small business owner hire if he does not know what his indirect labor costs, fuel costs or union status will be? How will these issues affect his ability to borrow money? The answer is, he will defer hiring until he knows.
Out here in flyover America, cruising into the midterm elections with unemployment still rising and a voting record in support of Obama’s agenda will be political suicide.
With respect to these two trolls, I suggest we follow advice an old ops officer once gave me:
Never try to teach a pig to sing.
arch (0cb096) — 11/22/2009 @ 2:40 amIt wastes your time and it annoys the pig!