Some Interesting Details in Rasmussen’s Latest Polling Showing Obama’s Bounce
Posted by WLS:
Rasmussens’ latest poll today shows that Obama has opened an 8 point lead over McCain now that the Dem nominating contest is over. A bounce of this sort was widely predicted, and seems to have materialized.
But, the overall number at 8% (48-40) is pretty close to where Bush and Kerry were at this same time in 2004. When “leaners’ for each are included, the numbers are 50-44.
Here’s a lengthy quote from TPM on the Gallup poll out in mid-June 2004:
The new Gallup poll is chock full of interesting data. Perhaps the most interesting finding is this: For the first time in this poll, a majority of Americans (54 percent to 44 percent) now say that US made a mistake sending troops to Iraq. Less than three weeks ago, the public was still saying, by 58-41, that sending troops was not a mistake.
Note that these data were collected before the wave of violence that was unleashed Thursday in Iraq.
Another turnaround is on whether the war with Iraq has made the US safer from terrorism. Just 37 percent now say the war has made us safer, compared to 55 percent who say it has not; when Gallup last asked this question in mid-December it was 56-33 the other way.
The poll also finds a majority (51-46) saying it was not worth going to war with Iraq, pretty much where this measure has been since late May.
Bush’s overall approval rating, compared to Gallup’s last measurement three weeks ago, is down a point to 48 percent….
Despite Bush’s improved economy rating in the Gallup poll, voters still favor Kerry over Bush (53-40) on which candidate can better handle the economy. That Kerry advantage is essentially unchanged since early May.
On the situation in Iraq, Kerry and Bush are nearly tied (47-46 in Bush’s favor), a slightly improvement for Kerry over his 3 point deficit in early May. This tie is notable, of course, because sentiment is now so strikingly negative about the Iraq war. Perhaps Kerry’s failure to gain an advantage reflects the public’s view, captured in other polls, that Kerry does not have a clear plan himself for dealing with the Iraq situation.
Another interesting finding is that, while Bush has a modest lead (51-43) over Kerry in terms of who the public trusts more to handle the responsibilities of commander-in-chief, the public expresses an identical degree of confidence in the ability of Bush and Kerry to handle the responsibilities of commander-in-chief (61 percent in each case).
In terms of favorability ratings, it seems significant that Kerry’s net favorability rating (favorable minus unfavorable) is now substantially higher than Bush’s. Kerry is +23 on this measure (58 percent favorable/35 percent unfavorable), up from +17 in Gallup’s last measurement in April. In contrast, Bush is just +8 (53/45), down from +14 in April. These data are consistent with the recent New York Times story that suggested the GOP’s frontal assault on Kerry has not had much success creating an unfavorable image of him.
Turning to the horse race, as ever we must, Kerry leads Bush by 4 points (49-45) among registered voters (RVs). That approximates Gallup’s early June result when Kerry led 49-44….
Looking further at this match-up, Gallup shows Bush ahead by 8 points in the solid red states (won by Bush by 5 points or more in 2000), but Kerry ahead by 14 in the solid blue states (won by Gore by more than 5 points) and ahead by 9 in the purple states (decided by less than 5 points in 2000). And Kerry is carrying independents nationwide by 10 points and moderates by 24 points.
Pretty good news for Mr. Kerry.
And we know how that turned out.
Now, today’s Rasmussen poll has some interesting internal numbers, but none more important this this:
Since January, the number of voters that identify Obama as a “liberal” has risen from 47% in December to 67% now.
In other words, Obama was politically undefined to more than 1/2 the population until the Dem primary contests got underway. Now that he has been defined, 40% of those that didn’t see him as a liberal before the primary season now see him as such.
Kerry’ liberal’s “identification” only shifted from 37% to 45% over a comparable period in 2004, and it was only up to 53% by the election.
And the GOP campaign against Obama hasn’t even begun.
“Liberal” has been a dirty word in politics for better than 3 decades. Before I can be convinced that it has changed, I’ll have to see proof of it myself — like a liberal winning a contested election in a decidedly un-liberal country.
Are you serious?
Levi (76ef55) — 6/9/2008 @ 6:28 pmIndeed, WLS, I think we are going to find out that the “conventional wisdom” that Obama was going to be a better general election candidate than Clinton will turn out to be a delusion.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/9/2008 @ 6:36 pmAnd that’s based on someone’s ability to copy and paste some poll findings from 4 years ago?
You guys are brilliant.
Levi (76ef55) — 6/9/2008 @ 6:42 pmLevi, I’m sorry that we actually read our links. One day, the ADA act will require us to actually lower ourselves to your level by requiring us to discuss articles we have not read at all … but until then, we’ll just have to endure your jealousy at our ability to read, comprehend and comment upon texts.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/9/2008 @ 6:53 pmYou know you’re talking about a poll from 2004, don’t you?
Levi (76ef55) — 6/9/2008 @ 6:55 pmHere’s what it is based on Levi:
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
There have been 11 Presidential Elections since John Kennedy won relying on votes of the young, minorities, and liberals — and even he had to cheat to win. I don’t count LBJ because his win in 64 was clearly attributable to the JFK assassination.
Nixon, Nixon, Reagan, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Bush Jr., broken up only by Southern Dem. Governors from Georgia and Arkansas, all point to general election defeats for Dem. party liberal nominees.
Obama is now being accurately defined as a thinly qualified liberal nominee.
And relying on large turnouts of the young, minorities and liberals has historically been an electoral college loser.
WLS (68fd1f) — 6/9/2008 @ 6:56 pmYes, Levi, we know. How long did it take you to realize that, given that WLS wrote the date of the poll in the text of the posting where he knew you would miss it?
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/9/2008 @ 6:57 pmI guess your ability to score A’s on papers and tests on books you don’t ready is what really qualifies as “briliat” By the way are you going to go back to the other thread that you slithered away from where you declared:
“That sentiment is pretty retarded, but it’s hardly as silly and voluminously expressed as similar sentiments were by Bush adoring pundits and authors back in the 2000 election and the early years of that idiot’s first term. And with Obama, at least there’s some basis to heap this sort of goofy praise, Bush was just stuttering and stammering and wearing cowboy hats and making shitty jokes. And oh, how you conservatives would swoon. Now that his popularity has fallen through the floor, you guys like to pretend that that wasn’t the case, but you all know it was, deep down. And more importantly, I know it. You guys can repress it and rewrite history all you like, fortunately me and the internet and books like Rebel in Chief are here to remember all of that embarrassing fawning for you.”
All this laughable, unsubstatiated bullshit as usual followed by a whole string of people asking you to put up and of course you slinked away like the spineless little juvenile weenie that you are.
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 6/9/2008 @ 7:00 pm“here to remember all of that embarrassing fawning for you”
So are you going to start remembering it for us, smart guy? And that book report on Rebel in Chief is just about due by now. You declared that “me and the internet” are here to remember for us – so why didn’t you start “remembering” when you boldly made that claim? Oh right, you’re just colossally full of complete utter 100% shit as always.
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 6/9/2008 @ 7:03 pmNixon ended the draft and the young lost interest in voting. Will success in Iraq have the same effect? I think so. Obama’s halo will tarnish a little between now and November, and the youngins will just walk away.
IMO Kerry lost because of his snotty anti-Americanism. Obama is perceived as even worse than him, and that’s where the 67% comes in. It’s McCain’s to lose, as I’ve said.
Patricia (f56a97) — 6/9/2008 @ 7:22 pmPatricia – they just never show up. Seniors on the other hand are statistically the most reliable group of voters. Makes the knee-jerk desire to paint McCain as “old” not the most politically savvy move.
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 6/9/2008 @ 7:30 pmJack’s got it exactly right — and the history in that regard is consistent and longterm.
Voters under 30, as a percentage of their overall demographic, vote in very modest numbers. And that has held true for election after election.
Voters over 55, on the other hand, vote in very high percentages.
McCain is going to crush Obama with the over 55 voters given the polling that is out now.
If the under 30 vote doesn’t turn out — and it never has — Obama is going to wonder where all his voters are on election day.
Go ask Howard Dean about his time in Iowa.
WLS (68fd1f) — 6/9/2008 @ 7:34 pmAnd there is this gnawing feeling that there aren’t enough Portlands, Berkeleys, Madisons, and Austins to go along with the Chicagos and Philadelphias that, using geographical metaphors, make up Obama’s coalition. The U.S. as a whole is not Hyde Park.
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 6/9/2008 @ 7:39 pmObama is now being accurately defined as a thinly qualified liberal nominee.
I see Obama somewhat as this generation’s George McGovern; a liberal media darling.
Paul (19c9b7) — 6/9/2008 @ 7:42 pm12 – ah the scream. I’m picturing Obama rallying the troops with a Dean like rah rah pep talk “…then we’re going to San Francisco! and Seattle! and Cambridge! and we’re going to Brown University! and Yale! and Columbia! and then we’re going to Washington and wonder why we didn’t get the White House!!!! YEEEEARRRRGGHHH!!!!”
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 6/9/2008 @ 7:43 pmObama thinks he is going woo us with talk of another $60 billion stimulus.
Sorry, but that’s a non-starter. Liberal and conservative alike, everyone I know was shocked at the dangerous foolishness of the last rebate.
Every time Obama opens his mouth, I heard “God d*** America!” Money can’t change that.
Patricia (f56a97) — 6/9/2008 @ 8:29 pmGreat analysis, WLS. This is exactly what the McCain team is looking at as well. And they’re seeing that they almost can’t lose this thing. That sort of confidence doesn’t inspire me, though.
If McCain tries to run a traditional campaign and takes only the safe steps, he could have a problem. Part of the reason is going to be turnout. 36 million people have already voted Democrat this year. Fortunately, 18 million voted against Barack. I think McCain is going to have to concentrate on Hillary voters, which will do nothing to placate the right.
They’re telegraphing exactly this on their website. He can’t concentrate on the base because there’s just no way he’s going to drive that turnout beyond what we’ve seen in the last two cycles. So he’s left trying to pick off indie’s and disaffected women. It can work but there isn’t much precedent for it.
Gas is $4-plus and climbing and McCain won’t say that maybe we oughtta do some domestic exploration. I will give him some credit on nukes but that’s a pipe dream at the moment. And Barack can just say he’s for some limited nuclear as well. He neutralizes the issue.
The economy will be front and center, Iraq possibly reverberating in the background, but that’s it. Turnout will be huge and that skews in Barack’s favor at least slightly but possibly dramatically.
I guess my summary is that McCain wins under the old metrics but if BO expands the turnout to 130 million all bets are off. I don’t think team-McCain has prepared for the possibility that this may be a “new metric” year. Hope I’m wrong all around but we’ve already seen plenty of firsts this election season.
George Will was making the point this morning that BO got more votes in Iowa than all five Rep’s put together. Sorry, but that is uncharted territory. Not a deal breaker for Mc but something which has to be considered and prepared for.
Chris (8270f7) — 6/9/2008 @ 8:37 pmThe generic polling (Dem v GOP), unpopular two-term GOP prez, unpopular war, economy in the tank (current perception) = massive Dem gains in Congress and a presidential victory.
These trends hold up much better, unfortunately, than the ones cited by WLS.
Ed (532eeb) — 6/9/2008 @ 8:50 pmLevi – You still haven’t answered the question about Hugo Chavez’s popularity among democrats. Ante up kid.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/9/2008 @ 8:56 pmIt just seems a little retarded to title a blog posting “Some Interesting Details in Rasmussen’s Latest Polling Showing Obama’s Bounce” and then devote the body of the posting almost entirely to a poll from four years ago. Call me crazy, but I thought ‘Latest Polling’ indicated we’d be talking about, well, you know, the ‘Latest Polling.’ We get what, 2 brief sentences that talk about the ‘Latest Polling,’ out of a post of hundreds of words?
Additionally, I’m derisively reminded around here each day that ‘George Bush isn’t running again’ every time I utter the man’s name, and here I find all of you hopefully decrying Obama’s chances because of Bush’s poll numbers versus Kerry’s from four years ago. Need I remind all of you that neither of these two are running again? Further, wouldn’t you find it all annoying if I just dismissed every argument you made in this thread by simply shouting ‘George Bush and John Kerry aren’t running again?’
Levi (76ef55) — 6/9/2008 @ 9:05 pmWhy do I have to answer for all Democrats? I didn’t bring up Chavez, I don’t want to talk about him, I don’t know practically anything about him besides the fact that he gets under Republicans’ skin for talking about George Bush like he’s a retarded person.
Maybe you should account for George Bush’s popularity among Republicans, wouldn’t that be a more pertinent topic of discussion? Since, you know, we’re Americans?
Levi (76ef55) — 6/9/2008 @ 9:09 pmSince when has not knowing anything about a subject stopped you from pontificating?
For someone who routinely calls everyone here a moron or worse, you have a great deal of trouble grasping the most obvious points. What WLS did is called “comparison”. He noted that at the same time in the 2004 campaign, Kerry had a lead similar to Obama’s today, and yet Kerry still lost. The point is so obvious that anyone with a sentience above plant life or a deliberately obtuse partisan hack would see it: Obama’s lead right now is largely meaningless.
Steverino (b42fd7) — 6/9/2008 @ 9:15 pmPatterico – May I suggest that you begin coding all of Levi’s comments a different color than the others to spare readers the time of going through one only to discover it was written by Levi. After all, using the Levi standard:
“You don’t have to read one of Levi’s comments to know its contents. I’ve gotten A’s on papers I’ve written and tests I’ve taken about Levi’s comments I’ve never read.”
A color coded warning would be appreciated, but it’s onlt a suggestion.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/9/2008 @ 9:19 pmBut Kerry and Bush aren’t running!!!!
Levi (76ef55) — 6/9/2008 @ 9:26 pmSo after all that taunting, you’re not even going to respond, huh?
Levi (76ef55) — 6/9/2008 @ 9:26 pmAnd remind me, what is it exactly that Republicans hate so much about Chavez anyway? That he makes fun of this retarded President you’ve all done so much backwards bending for?
Comment by Levi — 6/5/2008 @ 8:55 am
Levi – In the context of Obama flip flopping over whether he will talk to terror supporting countries, Iran and Venezuela, without preconditions, you raised the red herring of McCain having had on staff five people who had lobbied for Venezuela. I pointed out that Chavez had most of the democrats in congress on his payroll and you responded with the above. I answered your question and then asked why democrats venerated Chavez, which you have not had the courage to answer.
I’m still waiting.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/9/2008 @ 9:33 pmOh did I?
I’d like to see you dig up the quote where I said that.
I’ll be waiting…
Levi (76ef55) — 6/9/2008 @ 9:38 pmLevi – The time and date stamp is there. Go back and check the thread. I’ll wait.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/9/2008 @ 10:05 pmLevi – You are still dodging questions you demand answers on from others yet you claim you are here to debate. That is not a good faith approach. In fact it is a juvenile chickenshit approach and you run and hide when anybody challenges you to back up your assertions or answer questions.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/9/2008 @ 10:12 pm“Voters under 30, as a percentage of their overall demographic, vote in very modest numbers.”
– WLS
Not when gas is $5.00/gallon, they don’t…
Also, Bush’s approval ratings in 2004 were (according to the Rasmussen poll) 48%. What are they this time around?
“BUT GEORGE BUSH ISN’T RUNNING!”
So what? Are you going to pretend that Bush’s unpopularity isn’t going to effect McCain by a substantial margin? That’s a pipe-dream.
Sorry, bud: Tweedle(D) beats Tweedle(R) this time around. And, to be quite honest… who gives a shit?
Leviticus (90aba1) — 6/9/2008 @ 10:15 pmLevi wrote: Call me crazy…
Uh, no. Not only would it be redundant, it wouldn’t do you justice.
L.N. Smithee (423468) — 6/9/2008 @ 10:22 pmLMFAO
GREAT line. nd you’re right.
The level of debate we end up getting from either and both sides will doom us for sure…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/9/2008 @ 10:24 pmDid you guys happen to notice that McCain had to fire like 5 guys from his campaign a few weeks ago because they were doing awesome things like lobbying for oppressive military regimes in Burma?
At least Obama never tapped Rezko to run his campaign, right?
Comment by Levi — 6/5/2008 @ 8:13 am
Hey, I got the country wrong. I apologize. The rest of the Chavez stuff I believe is correct and I’m still waiting for an answer Levi.
BTW, text which is a quote is usually somehow indicated as such, like the above which is set off by the time and date stamp as opposed to quotation marks.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/9/2008 @ 10:36 pmLeviticus wrote: Are you going to pretend that Bush’s unpopularity isn’t going to effect McCain by a substantial margin? That’s a pipe-dream.
McCain is playing defense, and not doing a good job of it. He’s fending off the constant bleating of the Dems saying he’s “Bush III.” If he had a brain in his head, he would be on the attack, saying that Carter Jr. has no right pointing fingers, reminding Americans what punishing oil companies did to the economy two decades ago and what coddling Islamist thugs did to America’s image worldwide.
L.N. Smithee (423468) — 6/9/2008 @ 10:59 pmlevi — I’m now convinced that you are really only 19 or 20 years old. you really don’t have the basic historical framework to understand the points raised inthis post or the comments.
these kinds of poll results favoring the liberal democrat are always found at this point in the presidential campaign. But the liberal democrat ALWAYS loses this lead — which is usually larger — on his way to losing the election.
wls (0ee728) — 6/9/2008 @ 11:14 pmNo need, I remember what I said.
I think you’ve got some things to check on though…
Now, now. Don’t get all defensive because you just humiliated yourself.
Is anybody else watching this?
Levi (76ef55) — 6/9/2008 @ 11:23 pmWhat about Hugo and his attractions Levi? Why are you changing the subject YET again?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/9/2008 @ 11:50 pmMcCain as the third Bush term or Obama the second Carter? Better the third Bush term than the Obama 2 term.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 6/9/2008 @ 11:56 pm“That sentiment is pretty retarded, but it’s hardly as silly and voluminously expressed as similar sentiments were by Bush adoring pundits and authors back in the 2000 election and the early years of that idiot’s first term. And with Obama, at least there’s some basis to heap this sort of goofy praise, Bush was just stuttering and stammering and wearing cowboy hats and making shitty jokes. And oh, how you conservatives would swoon. Now that his popularity has fallen through the floor, you guys like to pretend that that wasn’t the case, but you all know it was, deep down. And more importantly, I know it. You guys can repress it and rewrite history all you like, fortunately me and the internet and books like Rebel in Chief are here to remember all of that embarrassing fawning for you.”
Again, you sniveling little spineless chicken shit, you dodged this how many threads ago? Why don’t you answer for this? Did you in the other thread? Of course not. Yet you demand answers from people and call people morons? You hit and run with juvenile crap like this every time your ugly stench fouls up this site and then slink away and prove to be the colossal jackass and total joke with no credibility whatsoever. 19 or 20? Ha if you are actually older than some sloppy, greasy, 15 year old pounding the keys in your parents’ basement than you are a thousand times more pathetic than everyone here tools you on a regular basis for being.
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 6/10/2008 @ 5:59 amStill waiting for that report on Rebel in Chief from when you said “me and the internet” are going to remind all the Bush loving conservative sycophants about our alleged fawning over Bush. You read THAT book, right?
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 6/10/2008 @ 6:03 amI am still interested in Levi supporting his assertion that Republicans viewed Bush as a god-like figure, and along similar lines, why Baracky is more deserving of being praised as a god-like figure. Levi’s teammate, the internets, appears to have failed him.
JD (75f5c3) — 6/10/2008 @ 6:20 amAlso still waiting on that asssertion from gee how long ago that Bush has shown no respect for the taxpayer, the foreigner, basic human rights, the military, etc.
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 6/10/2008 @ 6:24 am#40
Some media wag said that media in their pocket was worth 15 points to Lurch and the Breck Girl. So what are the extra points to Urkel, given that media is even more in the tank? Of course the left thinks the media tilts right and actually wants Faux/Fixed News and VRWC radio banned. Naturally quite fine that taxpayers help fund PBS and NPR though.
Lots of things to be hissed off about the dude who “wipes his ass with the constitution” and McCain, but imagine either the Goracle or sKerry handling the war on terror after 911? Imagine Obambi on the military, relations with despots, UN global taxes, windfall profit taxes here, socialized health care, etc. ad nauseum and yet dems think all that would be for the best.
Europeans I talk to think Bush is an evil and stupid cowbiy and that Clinton was god-like. One heard various comments made by Bobby Byrd and thought he’d make a great POTUS.
And what ever will happen with the Paultards at the GOP convention or the various ANSWER/Soros slugs in Denver?
Too be too harsh on Levi. I suspect he is alone pretty much with his attitude and beliefs in Big Sky country. I know many like him in my own neighborhood and plenty back in Philly area with that same midset. Watching Olberdouche, Chrissie Matthews, Letterman, Stewart, Couric and others daily seems to exacerbate the ignorance of the unwashed masses.
Of course many of us a racists by default by not worshipping the new Messiah. Seems to me he’s more a self-loathing white man if he actually has eight times more white blood than black and seven times more Arab blood than black. Why is race even a factor to libs? Imagine the racial shit they will be throwing at Bobby Jindal when he enters the national scene? What is the term for an Indian with a dot who isn’t marxist?
madmax333 (c45f12) — 6/10/2008 @ 6:26 am#43 I would love to watch Levi ride the Broad Street Subway all the way up to the North end right around 3 PM or so when all of the public schools are letting out for the day.
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 6/10/2008 @ 6:35 amWhy do I have to answer that question? I didn’t bring up Hugo Chavez, I already told you I don’t know anything about him except that he makes fun of George Bush. Aren’t you changing the subject by following me around from thread to thread demanding I talk about something that has nothing to do with anything, and again, something that I didn’t even bring up in the first place?
Levi (76ef55) — 6/10/2008 @ 8:08 amLevi, more hypocrisy from you, of all people, whining about “changing the subject”.
Do you ever think about anything you write? Or do you just expel whatever juvenile thought occurs to you first without even thinking about how dumb it makes you look?
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/10/2008 @ 8:10 amI’m whining about it?
I’m pretty sure daleyrocks was just whining about it because I refuse to answer questions about things that I never said. I’ve got like 10 people at this point demanding that I answer all sorts of questions about past topics, and I’m the one that’s changing the subject?
Levi (76ef55) — 6/10/2008 @ 8:17 amI’ll tell you what SPQR, if Patterico makes me a ‘Levi Discussion Post,’ I will answer questions from you and your buddies all day.
Levi (76ef55) — 6/10/2008 @ 8:21 am“And oh, how you conservatives would swoon. Now that his popularity has fallen through the floor, you guys like to pretend that that wasn’t the case, but you all know it was, deep down. And more importantly, I know it. You guys can repress it and rewrite history all you like, fortunately me and the internet and books like Rebel in Chief are here to remember all of that embarrassing fawning for you.”
Why don’t you at least follow through on the promises you yourself make? How was Rebel in Chief by the way? Good book? Tell us about it.
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 6/10/2008 @ 8:24 amActually, Levi, you answered me here – pretty clearly you don’t bother at all.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/10/2008 @ 8:30 amAm I just, like, the most exciting thing that happens to you all day?
Levi (76ef55) — 6/10/2008 @ 8:31 amLevi – I think I’m just cementing the case that people should ignore everything you say because you really don’t know anything about the topics on which you vent. Your inability to defend your assertions when questioned or answer simple questions about democratic positions when you attack republican positions on the same issues I think amply proves the point.
I think my suggestion to Pateerico to color code all your comments is a good solution:
“You don’t have to read one of Levi’s comments to know its contents. I’ve gotten A’s on papers I’ve written and tests I’ve taken about Levi’s comments I’ve never read.”
That way of readers of the blog can avoid wasting their time on your petulant and juvenile drivel.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/10/2008 @ 8:34 amHow was Rebel in Chief by the way? Good book? Tell us about it.
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 6/10/2008 @ 8:36 amWhen did I ever make an assertion about Huge Chavez?
Levi (76ef55) — 6/10/2008 @ 8:39 amLet me just make your week and a half before I’m off to work and let you know that I DIDN’T READ IT.
Levi (76ef55) — 6/10/2008 @ 8:40 amYou have a job? Oh imagine that, you cited something that you didn’t read to back up one of your lame points. And you wonder why nobody here treats you as anything better than a juvenile joke?
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 6/10/2008 @ 8:43 amI didn’t cite it. The title itself supported my point.
I don’t wonder why you guys treat me the way that you do, either.
Levi (76ef55) — 6/10/2008 @ 8:48 am“I didn’t cite it. The title itself supported my point.”
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 6/10/2008 @ 8:49 amLOL did your social studies teacher give you an A on the paper you wrote about it, too?
You are a one-note song.
Levi (76ef55) — 6/10/2008 @ 8:54 amThis is breath taking in its inanity. The title Rebel in Chief supports your assertion that we viewed George Bush as a god-like figure, and your assertion that Baracky is at least somewhat deserving of a god-like devotion?!
JD (75f5c3) — 6/10/2008 @ 9:01 amThe title itself supported my point.
That is breathtaking indeed. A new low for someone I thought could demonstrate no lower credibility.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/10/2008 @ 9:02 amI am going to title this thread “Levi’s Lies”. The title proves all future points.
JD (75f5c3) — 6/10/2008 @ 9:06 am“This commentor has reached rock bottom and started to dig…”
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/10/2008 @ 9:10 amActually, I think he’s reached the foundations of the Great Wall from below.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/10/2008 @ 9:16 amColor coding, italics, pixelating, bolding, or some other device is the solution.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/10/2008 @ 9:17 am“You are a one-note song.”
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 6/10/2008 @ 9:40 amAnd oh what a sweet melody it is. And you are the gift that keeps on giving, providing endless comic relief.
Dare I ask how the title “Rebel in chief” prvoes anything?
I was thinking that Levi was a mental midget. Then, I went to the library and checked out a book titled “Levi is a mental midget”, but did not read it, therefore proving my point that Levi is a mental midget.
JD (5f0e11) — 6/10/2008 @ 9:53 amLiberals always campaign as moderates in national or statewide elections. They ALWAYS lie (perhaps not according to the lawyers definition, but according to the everyman’s definition) about who they are and what they believe.
That tells you that the liberal identification is a sure loser for them.
martin (cd5d90) — 6/10/2008 @ 1:01 pm