Ronald Reagan won one of the most lop sided victories in history but did not declare until late and trailed Carter by substantial numbers shortly before the election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … tion,_1980
In 1948 Harry Truman's defeat was all but guaranteed.
Hillary Clinton was the presumptive front runner when the 2008 Democrat Primaries started. That didn't last long.
Is it a good idea to dismiss a dedicated voting block - the Tea Party groups? Is it a good idea to predict an assured victory for your candidate? Can being a Presidential incumbent make a person even more arrogant, ego driven and narcissistic than they were when a mere Senator?
But, then again, we are talking about the smartest man to ever be President.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4-AKcH3 … re=related
Now that the Teabaggers are in a tailspin you don't want anyone to consider the impending crash.
Voters are becoming disgusted. The polls show an accelerating downward trend and they [GOP] can't change.
Good point Doug. Fear, the "Chicken Little Syndrome," caused people to run to the nearst exit in the theater The problem was, that "exit" leads to a black hole.
With the Tea Party Credit Downgrade voters are concluding that the GOP House doesn't have a clue.
The only 'jobs' plan the House has proposed is lower taxes for the rich and business. They plan to pay for this by reducing or eliminating benefits for the unemployed and seniors. What a plan.
There would have been no downgrade at all if the House plan would have passed. The Democrats are responsible for all the spending the last 3 years, but still want to blame Bush. He was bad enough when he was in office, but it's time for Obama and the Dems to quit their childish blaming of Bush and take responsibility for where we are now. They had 2 years when they had all the power and did nothing but spend. Could have raised taxes, fixed Social Security and Medicare but didn't have the guts to do anything but spend. Now they are whining about the House Republicans obstructing their agenda. Disingenuous to say the least.
Worst part of it is when the Republicans win the White House and the Senate, they'll do the same damn thing.
I am disgusted by the continued use of the term "teabaggers" to refer to people who hold a different opinion the you. Is this a respectful tone to use a word that refers to a specific sex act? In the future, I will not respond to anyone who uses this term in their forum posts.
The Tea Baggers came up with that first. Do you prefer Tea Tards?
What would you call this guy? Tea Bagger is quite descriptive IMHO.
Do you just prefer being rude and crude?
Your posting that picture doesn't change the fact that you suggested calling tea party members "tea tards".
The man in the picture looks like a common-sense patriotic person to me.
So it is done. Anderson Cooper was the first to be so degrading.
The term Teabagger is a perfect metaphor for the tender service the rubes provide for the Koch brothers who financed this astroturf 'movement'. The bubble is bursting as poll numbers fall. Seniors are finding out they will be the first to be thrown under the bus. I'm sure it was fun while it lasted. Wipe your chin.
You really don't read the political winds very well.
He is clueless. He has no idea how or when the Tea Party came to light. But everything is their fault, even things that happened before their existance. Some people have no idea about history yet spew inaccurate hate statements
"A Pew Research/Washington Post poll finds 29 percent of those asked think Tea Party members have had a mostly negative effect in Congress. That's up 11 percent in the eight short months since most of those members took office.
There are two other pieces of bad news for members who support the Tea Party in this poll. The first is that 35 percent of respondents think the group has not had much of an effect at all. Worse is that 28 percent of independents say that Tea Party members have had a negative effect, while 24 percent of the coveted group say they have had a positive impact. In January, twice as many respondents (29 percent to 14) expected the Tea Party-backed group to have a positive effect."
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/ … says-poll#
I used a Fox source from Aug. 9 - the handwriting is on the wall.
Ok 29% have a negative effect, so that means 71% think they had a positive effect? Thats 30% better than Obama Notice you did not show Obamas numbers going down.
Now I am not saying 71% tea Party approval because I really have not seen a poll about them, but that is what your polls leads us to believe
Submitted by Michael Santo on 2011-08-05
Disapproval of Congress hit a record high in the latest New York Times / CBS News poll...
The Tea Party's approval continues to drop, perhaps influenced by their role in the debt ceiling talks. In fact, 43 percent of Americans now think the Tea Party has too much influence on the GOP, up from 27 percent in mid-April. In addition, the Tea Party is now viewed unfavorably by 40 percent of the public and favorably by only 20 percent. In that same mid-April poll, 29 percent of those polled viewed the Tea Party unfavorably, while 26 percent viewed it favorably.
50 percent of those surveyed said the debt ceiling deal should have included increased tax revenue as well, although 44 percent said it should have relied on cuts alone. However, 63 percent of those polled said that they support raising taxes on households that earn more than $250,000 a year, with including majorities among all of the political parties: Democrats (80 percent), independents (61 percent) and even Republicans (52 percent)."
http://www.huliq.com/3257/disapproval-c … oval-drops
So because I pointed out the poll you posted showed a favorable opinion of the Tea Party, you went to find another that would show the aganda you are trying to push. Look, I do not care how many times you have to make a post because you first one did not go your way. You just continue your ways. Do better research. Anyone can find a poll to say what they want to push. And find a credible poll next time. At least the Pew poll is a credible pollster.
You can't FIND a scientific poll done recently that doesn't show Teabagger popularity in the basement. You make a ridiculous assertion from one scientific poll. When I answer your false conjecture with recent polls, you blow it off without EVER offering anything in evidence but your opinion. Which is better than making stuff up, at least.
I do not have to offer anything. You make the claim of 29% then when I point out it meant that the tea party had a 70% rating, you scamble to find an obscure poll. So yes, show obscure, we will blow you off. But it is you that is trying to make a point and had to change yourself midcourse. We have been down this road with you so many times it is expected at this point. So do not have a fit when we show your information does not back what your agenda.
See At least I said I had not seen a poll so I do not know if they had 70% approval, but at least I did not present 2 polls that say completely different facts.
I'm not going to offer up polling data because polls are not very reliable. I will say this, the democrats will lose big in the 2012 elections, Obama will not have a second term. It wont be because of the recent downgrade it will be because the democrats have zero leadership ability. Its not scientific but its what will happen.
So your argument amounts to "Because I say so"?
Trust me. You want to remain ignorant of the polls.
No its not my argument I'm not arguing at all. I am predicting an outcome of a future election. I don't think its a foolish trap either its only my opinion.
Just curious what it was based on. Didn't see anything.
Its based on dealing with people of varied backgrounds who seem to all hold the same opinion of the President. I talk to people everyday and listen to what they have to say, I find interacting with people and hearing what they say to be a better barometer of their feelings than polls could ever be.
That was my point, polling is not reliable. When one does not give the info you want, there is one out there that will.
I have written surveys, one can steer the outcome if one chooses. Sampling composition is the easiest way to skew end results. Without knowing more about the internals of the poll it is valuable for little more than making headlines, which is the major purpose of publicly released political polls. More objective polls are conducted by campaigns because those measures are instructive to future campaign direction. Since Obama and others are still talking harshly about the "tea party" it is likely that there is some private polling data that shows something quite different.
Polling firms that make their living at it are very aware that they are judged by the "internals" of their methods. That's why the leading polling firms are just that. They attempt to assemble accurate information.
RealClearPolitics.com does a great job of assembling all the competing polls and providing an average that has proved to be a very good predictor of future events.
Your presumption of some secret polling data that supports what you prefer to believe seems amazingly convenient.
Speaking of RCP how are those Obama numbers? There are many ways to measure and many reasons. Polls are commissioned sometimes with certain conditions provided to the pollster. If polls were so objective than why do the internals of some polls show samplings of skewed toward one political party. More than once the composition of samples contained more Democrats than the percentage reflected in the general population. This would result in a skewed result.
Democrats are not the only ones seeking skewed results.
You place a great deal of faith in a free market in polling, curiouser and curiouser.
No I don't. That's why I am a fan of RealClearPolitics and their habit of blending all the polls and coming up with an average rating, that has proved to be quite prescient.
What is the relevance of your Obama statement? Have I said anything about his poll numbers? Just more of your trolling for reaction tactics?
That is why predicting future election outcomes is a bad idea. If Obama loses it will be fun to mock those who are wrong. I will feel free to gloat.
Now we know how to avoid your predictably arrogant responses.
You are right, Obamas approval rating is tanking
Some comments from my Sunday paper:
Frank Bruni in "Adrift in Iowa" "...candidates vying for the opportunity to lead a diverse nation nonetheless played a tired game of Excite the Right, dwelling on their opposition to gay marriage and trumpeting their anti-abortion credentials. Those aren't and can't be the issues this time around. Not with the European debt crisis threatening to become a worldwide contagion, London burning, the Arab world convulsing, the Dow jackhammering and America's crisis of joblessness grinding on and on. It's time for nobler, more substantive politics. It's past time actually. But that's not what Iowa presented...
"There was a stunning ideological uniformity on display. Among the eight candidates not one brooked the possibility of any tax increases to help solve the debt problem...
"These politicians tend to talk like they're on 'Hee Haw.' Over several days I heard Romney say 'sure as heck,' 'fella' and 'darn well.' I half expected him to take a pitchfork to that hay.
"Rick Perry wasn't around, but that didn't preclude discussion of him, my favorite bit of which was a CNN segment in which it was revealed that his father-in-law had performed his vasectomy. I'm not sure where on the spectrum of family values that falls or why voters needed to know it..."
Did Rick Perry's father in law also perform the labotomy?
Good question. However, I think Perry is dangerous. He appears "presidential." His demeanor and speaking style remind me of Reagan. However, his position on the issues is much worse.
I sure hope he is dangerous to the Left's agenda!
We call him Governor good-hair or pointyboots here. He is a professional politician and has his own interests at heart, having said that I have voted for him twice. He was by far the most qualified candidate running for Governor. Kinky Friedman was the most entertaining.
So...20 years at least. Not bad, is it? I mean, if he had just switched a couple years ago, it might seem more like an Arlen Specter-type switcharoo...
I think Perry would make a good President at least better than what we have had recently. He is more politically savvy than Obama could ever hope to be. He does have the same confounding problem Obama has, his accent seems to change depending on who he is speaking to.
That's exactly how it appeared twenty years ago. Just like when Reagan switched.
He saw the light over 22 years ago. Sounds like a conversion not a convenient switch. There a many who have had such conversions. If Perry is as unreliable as the last Texas governor, he is no solution to our troubles but a mere palliative. Many conservatives were lured in by GWB but his poor leadership on financial issues lost the Republicans the Congress.
Are your referring to John Kerry in an Ohio Walmart asking' "Is this where I get me a huntin' license?" Or do you mean the "g"s that Barry drops constantly? Or do you mean Bill Clinton, John Edwards, James Carville, et al?
Rick Perry has been my Governor since Bush became President. He is a former Democrat who knew the political winds would blow more conservatively here. He is a political machine who has a smart team surrounding him, he will draw the most attention on the GOP side and probably run against Obama, he will be more of the same.
I'm calling you two the Battling Bickersons from now on...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148940/tea-p … ssion.aspx
Here are a couple of very recent polls. The trend seems pretty clear.
Well, how many people actually voted for them in the first place. In 2010, 41.5% of the eligible voting population voted. If 55% of those people voted Republican, you still end up with less than a quarter of the voting population.
How is that different than any other midterm election? How is it different than a Presidential year?
It isnt. I never made the assertion that it was. Was simply saying that the 25% or so that voted for them in the first place is about the same as the 25-28% that still support them now. Just saying that brucebeat's statistic if u can call it that didnt really tell us anything that we didn't already know.
The trend is the rapid rise in distrust of the Tea Party. It's quite clear.
by Friendlyword5 years ago
I'm not sure is this will work again:One day after I wrote a hub about the illegal attempts by Governor Rick Scott and his Secretary Of State to purge Blacks, Latinos and Elderly voters from Florida voter rolls; a...
by ahorseback3 weeks ago
Other nations that have influenced or had interests in influencing US elections ;-The UK.-Ireland -France -Spain -Mexico-Canada-South Africa-Cuba-Norway-Sweden-Germany -Chile-Scotland-China-Japan-..............Are...
by ahorseback20 months ago
You wanted Christians and lions in the coliseum , you got it . You want a circus in the political debates , there you go ! The last election amounted to a ...
by ledefensetech7 years ago
by Stacie L5 years ago
The 15 richest members of CongressDemocrats making the list include former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former presidential candidate John Kerry. But which Republicans hold the top two spots?By CNBC and Roll CallCNBC...
by Deforest14 months ago
I am not saying that none of the candidates gathered the 207 electorate votes. I am just stating that a majority of the US citizens vote blank. Will the majority rule?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.