text:
Are the polls rigged?
It's a question we're hearing a lot lately – almost always by conservative Republicans.
It's no secret that a lot of the polls weight Democrats more heavily than Republicans. In and of itself, that's not necessarily a problem — unless the over-weighting is based on faulty assumptions about voter turnout.
So when pollsters use 2008 voter turnout as their model in 2012, alarms should go off. Do the pollsters really think that Barack Obama will draw the same big numbers from young voters as he did four years ago? Or from Hispanic voters? Or even from black voters?
Not likely.
Pat Caddell, who ran the polling operation for Jimmy Carter, says not only is the polling science bad this time around, he thinks the polls really are rigged – often by the same news organizations that have been running interference for Barack Obama and are clearly rooting for him to win.
Caddell is no conservative Republican. He is a smart guy and shouldn't be written off as a partisan political hack. Anyone using 2008 as a model should know better, he says. And if they still use it, malice may very well be involved.
But let's wait to see how things turn out. If the polls wind up being right, no problem. If they wind up being way off and Mitt Romney wins, there needs to be some kind of investigation. The problem is we probably won't get it from those supposedly impartial observers in the media. Expecting President Obama's most loyal base – journalists – to do their job, unfortunately, is asking a lot — especially if their own news organizations conducted the faulty polls.
What if Romney loses?
If that happens the civil war that has been brewing for years in the Republican Party will go nuclear.
Conservatives" on talk radio and the Fox News Channel will say we went with McCain – a moderate – four years ago and lost. Then we went with Romney – another moderate – and lost again. Now it's time for "a real conservative."
And by that, they will mean the most conservative candidate running. After all, they'll say, Ronald Reagan was a real conservative and he won.
What these true believers don't seem to understand is that being the most conservative candidate in the field may be a recipe for losing yet again. If the most conservative candidate is a religious fanatic, for example, he or she will lose.
If the most conservative candidate divides the nation with fiery rhetoric, he or she will lose too. Pat Buchanan was the most conservative candidate in the field every time he ran, why did he lose every time?
Because even Republicans don't simply want the most conservative candidate if he's a fire-breathing right-wing ideologue who will scare more than half the country into voting for the Democrat whoever he or she is.
As for the Reagan analogy, he didn't win simply because he was a conservative. He won because he was Ronald Reagan – an affable campaigner who didn't frighten voters.
If Romney loses and the conservative media true believers push for the 2016 version of Pat Buchanan or Michele Bachmann, the Republican Party will be wandering in the wilderness for a long, long time.
So who is dropping the first nuke?
Hi Bernie! Your comment, "Ronald Reagan won because he was Ronald Reagan" was great. I don't agree with everything in your article because the Constitution is a conservative document. Still, I love your work and always go out of my way to see on on the O'Reilly Factor on Monday nights. Keep it up!
Hey Bernie, also took a bet too. I believe a landslide will happen just like it did with the shock of the Chick-Fil-A thing. It's called the silent majority.
Lost that bet, but hindsight is always 20/20
It's called a silent death.
number of registered Democrats has grown by nearly 700,000 while the #
of registered Republicans is down by almost 1 million.
"If Romney loses and the conservative media……the Republican Party
will be wandering in the wilderness for a long, long time."
So I guess the answer is elect another wishy-washy-McCain-Type who has about as much fight in him as a wet rag and just lose again.
Get Lost Goldberg…GO BACK TO CBS NEWS WHERE YOU BELONG. GO BACK TO YOUR OWN KIND.
Two main reasons why McCain lost: the economy and Palin.
I lean more towards palin as the biggest thing he had against him.
Bernie, Bernie, Bernie. Romney will win in a landslide, and if he governs as a conservative, conservatives won't challenge him in 2016. Then he will be replaced by a conservative. As for your remark— "If the most conservative candidate is a religious fanatic, for example, he or she will lose."—I must point out that religious fanatics, by which you mean nuts, are not conservatives. Conservatives are principled people who desire the republic to be governed according to the constitution that was written by the framers.
As for Democrats, the party is overwhelmingly Marxist today, and they have destroyed the party. It will have to change considerably if it is to recover. Genuine Americans will not tolerate a Soviet-style or Hitler Germany-style socialism.
There isn't gonna be a landslide. Most likely, this election might go the way of Gore / Bush for closeness, methinks.
Hey look at that you were right. Well done.
BTW, one more comment, Bernie…Who do you think discovered America? Columbus was sent on a mission from God by Queen Isabella of Spain. Many of our Founders were your "Religious Fanatics" "Right Wing Idealogues" who actually said the best book to use in school to teach children, is the Holy Bible. Who actually said, "There is no king, but King Jesus" (Patrick Henry), who actually, were such "Religious Fanatics" that they inscribed scripture from the Holy Bible all over our government buildings and throughout their historic documents that are filled with Bible scriptures. Our nation's coins and minted money, going right up to Harry Truman who sent our boys Bibles to help them as they fought in WWII and Dwight Eisenhouer who is responsible for seeing that "In God We Trust" be inscribed on our coins and bills, as I recall. And how about the fact that many, like the Pilgrims and Puritans came to settle here to escape religious persecution because tho Chrisitian, in the lands where they emigrated from, they were under the strong arm of the Church of England, etc., and thus they came seeking religous freedom to choose what type of Christian denomination to worship instead of just one particular Christian denomination. It was not intended that Islam be eequal with Christianity, no rather, that our Judaeo Christian religion, as most of it was then, that was orthodox in their beliefi in the entire Bible–both Old and New Testaments, this is the history of our Founders and those who came here seeking religions freedom. Some may not appreciate this or would like to forget or re-write our history, but as for me, I truly cherish it. And when one degrades or slurs "Religious Fanatics, I pray to the Lord that they will try to remember our beautiful, God-give Founding and heritage that is a unique part of our nation and that makes it so Exceptional that people come from many nations around the world, seeking that same religious freedom and freedoms we cherish, as per our Declaration of Independence, these inalienable rights that come from God, and that, among these, are the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happines! God bless America!!!
Judy Doorn
Happy "Religious Fanatic" who joins our Founders in heartily saying, "Amen"!!!
It was not intended that Islam be equal with Christianity…"
This is why religious fanatics will never win the elections. Their beliefs are such a turn-off and are extremely frightening not only to other religions but to less extreme Christians as well. Our nation would be a better place without such bigotry. I'm glad I don't have to defend your radical position. Anyone else from the Right willing to attest to such a belief?
Sorry, Bernie, I do not agree! First of all, speaking as a Christian and a conservative, the term ""Religous Fanatic..Right wing..ideologue" "Fire-breathing" or whatever slurs you wish to use will get you, and most likely the voter, nowhere. If your idea of "religious fanatic" happens to mean one who takes God at His Word and one who believes, as do I that the Word of God, the Bible, is written by men, inspired by God, then I gladly accept the religious slur. And, slur it is. And, btw, I voted for Dole, not Buchanan. At the time I did not realize he was an Isolationist, which would give me a good reason not to vote for him. In actual fact, I knew nothing about him, except that I enjoyed watching the banter back and forth with his TV partner on the other side of the political spectrum. Ronald Reagan inspired me and so did George W. Bush who was hated because he claimed that Jesus was his philosophical hero. There is only one person I believe I need to please, be it in the voting booth or in life, itself, and that is Almighty God!
I see I will need to repeat myself, since you're not reading my posts properly.
I was having a discussion regarding the causes and severity of the Early 80's Recession with another poster. (But who knows, I would not be surprised if one poster is posting under dozens of handles.) You stepped into the debate and ignored the information I presented about the deteriorating condition of our economy after Reagan's policies took effect. First you start posting about the latter years of Reagan's presidencies, and then you followed with the entire 70's economy. How about we stick to the time periods that apply to our discussion and avoid spanning over two decade, shall we? I understand that in certain situations one needs to examine eras of longer time periods, but since I've identified a stabilized time frame in the economy months before Reagan entered office and during his first two quarters, we really don't need to discuss the other recessions of the 70's and the boom in the 80's. Sure, I am picking certain material to present in my discussion, but my material applies to the debate I was having with the other poster, and your material is irrelevant since it is so distant and frankly, it doesn't apply to this debate. If you feel like partaking in our debate, feel free, but stick to the topic. If you wish to discuss the recessions of the 70's, or the boom Reagan is credited for, feel free to start a new debate. Discussing Reagan's boom is irrelevant to the cause of the Early 80's recession, and so are the recessions of the 70's.
Since you've accused me of not supporting my position with facts on the housing market, then I guess I need to present some evidence. You claim "Bush did nothing to make that bubble inflate faster… he made a tepid effort to restrain it." hmmm, such a statement is very perplexing in light of the following fact.
Can you guess who made these statements, and when they were made?
"One of the biggest hurdles to homeownership is getting money for a down payment. This administration has recognized that, and so today I'm honored to be here to sign a law that will help many low-income buyers to overcome that hurdle, and to achieve an important part of the American Dream …. This administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. … Today we received a report that showed that new home construction last month reached its highest level in nearly 20 years. … Low interest rates help. They have made owning a home more affordable, for those who refinance and for those who buy a home for the first time. Rising home values have added more than $2.5 trillion to the assets of the American family since the start of [year] …The rate of homeownership in America now stands a record high of 68.4 percent. Yet there is room for improvement. The rate of homeownership amongst minorities is below 50 percent. And that's not right, and this country needs to do something about it. We need to close the minority homeownership gap in America so more citizens have the satisfaction and mobility that comes from owning your own home, from owning a piece of the future of America…. Last year I set a goal to add 5.5 million new minority homeowners in America by the end of the decade. That is an attainable goal; that is an essential goal. And we're making progress toward that goal. In the past 18 months, more than 1 million minority families have become homeowners. And there's more that we can do to achieve the goal."
The above collection of statements says plenty. The speaker wanted to eliminate the down payment requirement for low-income buyers. He wanted more people owning homes, even though the homeownership was at a record high. Low interest rates help achieving the higher homeownership rate. Rising home values added $2.5T to the assets. The speaker set a goal to add 5.5 million minority homeowners before the decade's end.
Who made those statements?
Finally, I am very pleased you brought up the devastation of WWII. The Western European nations, devastated after the major war, adopted the mixed (public and private) economies to rebuild their countries. Just like I wrote earlier, the mixed economy is an efficient system for unusual and stressful conditions. I thank you for that.
PS: There are two reasons why the Democrats are celebrating the 7.8% unemployment rate. 1) The 8% unemployment rate is a psychological factor during elections, and 2) The Right can no longer play the unemployment card, claiming the current rate is higher than when Obama took office. Hurray! Wanna party at my place?
Be glad to attend, but forgive me if I pass on the kool aid. Since my post recognized Reagan policy brought recession in '81, seemed to me the discussion had to go somewhere, sorry if you can't handle moving on. I am curious about this "mixed economy", if the definition is where both private and gov't partake in economy, what economy in the history of the world is not "mixed"? Even USSR and People's Rep. of China had black markets. Europe "mixed economies" post WWII were more socialist, but they were not mixed with defense spending (defended mostly by US defense dollars, can you factor that in?). Let's ignore that this social spending policy has not led to long term economic stability (in fact, European instability is hurting our economy), even when European economy was doing better it had chronically high unemployment (sound familiar? Have another sip of the punch!). As to your quoted passages, thanks for proving that Rs promoted a program begun by Clinton and Ds, with R support. There are plenty of speeches by Ds (B Frank and C Dodd come to mind) supporting it, Frank was even cynical enough to use the race card when Bush tried to restrain. Did D Senators filibuster to stop this? Or did alot of Ds in House and Senate support expanding minority home ownership? The collapse of the housing bubble was chickens coming home to roost on a bipartisan Keynesian social spending program, where advice from economists who foresaw the collapse was ignored by politicians in both parties. The fact that Ds keep talking about "Bush recession" is worrisome because it tells me they will repeat this error, and the collapse will be too big for another TARP to staunch the bleeding. But, hey, you party for another month or so, when the outgoing administration and the press explain these fudged numbers were…Pres. elect Romney's fault.
Paul, another thing. In reply to your question below as to whether i bothers me that Rep. Pelosi , Sen. Reid and VP Biden lied about the stimulus. I'm not convinced that they lied. They might have been over-zealous and caught up with the emotions of the time. There were all kinds of emotions and cross-emotions due to the economic collapse.
Yes, maybe they should have been more clinical in their assessments. But would TARP have passed in that event? It was clear (to me and many others, anyway) that it was desperately needed, even if it was too scanty.
But you know what really rankles me? During the PR build up to the invasion of Iraq, I was going back and forth as to whether we should go ahead and invade Iraq. I could see a definite downside and a large risk factor. But I also understood Tony Blair's admonition about doing nothing and being right as opposed to moving forward and being wrong.
I ended up by supporting the Iraq invasion. What finally swayed me was Pres. GW Bush and his administration talking about yellow cake, aluminum tubes, swift long range delivery systems and the spector of a mushroom cloud. Many babyboomers I spoke to were scared by this talk. So I took it seriously.
Then I found out that Pres. GW Bush and his administration were simply trying to do a sell-job on us. They were cherry picking the intelligence to push the war down our throats. They may have really believed what they said at the time, but they presented this propaganda as if it were solid truth. I trusted them. So did a lot of other Americans. They were just used car salesmen trying to close a deal.
I have no doubt that Pres. GW Bush and his administtration thought the invasion was the right things to do at the time. But they tried to get us to support it by whipping up intense emotions instead of explaining their reasons. Why we really invaded Iraq is still not clear. I suspect Pres. Bush was in way over his head.
In the case of of the economic collapse, intense emotions were already swirling. The Obama administration and many in Congress tried to stem panic and soothe anxiety. The Bush administration created fear and manipulated us.
Bob, are you my twin or can you read me mind? Those are my thoughts. Good job! Thanks.
Thanks Mario! Where have you been the past several months?
I'm not sure if you remember, but I used to post on here some time ago. I took a break, but the elections got me back into it. Nice to see someone with your brilliance on here.
Thanks again Mario! Yes, i remember you. It was getting lonely here!
Don't worry, the punch will only help you loosen your stiff joints, which are rusted from outdated policies.
Thank you for admitting Reagan's policies turned the economy for worse. That is very noble of you. Many on here fight very hard to stubbornly cling onto their positions, even when it's irrefutably defenseless. Or they just vanish, never to be heard from again, under that defeated handle.
You don't really believe the USSR and China had mixed economies, just like Western Europe? What happened to their Communist systems? You truly think black markets are the private side of certain mixed economies? I'm just going to move on from that creative conclusion.
Regarding the Western European mixed economies, I'm not saying the US needs to adopt exactly such a system, but there is plenty of room for improvement within our system, and we should be picking the best and successful programs from the European models. The reason many European economies are hurting is because their banks, and even their governments, invested in our markets and got caught in the bubble. Once the US financial system collapsed, the European investments crashed and the governments had the bail out their banks, on top of the governments' failed investments. The Europeans depend on our market, and we're affected by the European weakness. Today's economy is global, and that is why the financial meltdown caused such a ripple across the globe. Without a doubt, the Great Recession was significantly worse than the Early 80's recession.
Returning to the housing market bubble, I just want to make it clear that all those quoted statements from my previous post were taken from a speech Bush2 gave on December 16, 2003, as he signed the American Dream Downpayment Act. Bush2 and the Republican Congress knew (I hope) of all the banking deregulation that occurred during the 90's with Clinton and his Republican Congress, yet they thought Clinton did not go far enough and more deregulation was needed. The reason for the 90's lending deregulation was to stimulate the housing market which stalled in the late 80's and early 90's. Those deregulation, signed in '95 and '99, had a valid purpose; the deregulation of late '03 was not necessary and was cereless, since the housing market was booming and setting records. And I'm not going to recognize a minority party's ability to filibuster as an option to effectively oppose and derail the passing of a legislature, because once that option is accepted as an effective tool, then no one can place blame on any president, or a majority party, for their failures. We would then not be having this debate.
Finally, for six years the Republicans had a chance to improve our healthcare system, but they did not. The Republicans had a chance to take control of the housing market, but they ignored it. The Democrats finally took control of the problems the Republicans did not address, and even though the Democratic policies are very similar to what the Republicans would have done had they sat down and took charge, the Right has a problem. The Right must have a problem with the Democratic policies, because if the Republicans did not protest, the Democrats would be seen as the heroes repairing our nation (again), and the Republicans would be viewed as incompetent for their past inaction. The Republicans can't afford to have the Democrats fix the issues, because they want to be seen as the saviors. It's a bit late, ain't it? Instead of admitting fault and letting the Left do the job, with their intervention the Right is willing to sacrifice the nation for the preservation of their party.
If Mitt does not win it is not because he is a moderate, it's because the MSM, and people have been dumbed down. The MSM never reported on Obama in an honest way. They no longer know how to investigate and report the truth and get information to the public . The MSM is so one sided in favor of the democrates and Obama this election, along with Chicago politics, any republican would have a problem. We have to hope that the debate opened the eyes of more Americans.
Venter; I certianly agree, no matter who the Republican candidate is ir was the MSM will do anything to get this fraud re-elected and it is a shame tht people in this Country are so dumbed down. They pay more attention to American Idol that they do what is going on in this Country and how serious this election is for our futures and our children & grandchildren. People better wise up before it's too late. God help us all if the "fraud" get re elected
If Romney loses again, we will not have to worry. Obama will complete his objective of destroying America and reducing it to the status of Somalia by 2016. Then our worries will be more about finding money and food to stay alive. Just like it is in the countries the left wing loons of America want us to become.
Ok, Lucky3511, so if Obama wins next month, and you believe the US will become a third world nation in four years, I think it's safe to assume that for your family's well-being and safety, you will be moving out of the country to another western nation. Any idea yet where you'll be sending in your postcards from?
Bernie, you are absolutely correct. Mainstream America will never elect an extreme conservative – no religious fanatic, no NRA fanatic, and for Pete's sake, stay away from the abortion issue – pro-life, pro-choice. America has changed and God now has to share the stage with Allah, Buddha and whatever other diety people believe in.
Bernie, slightly off. America will not elect an extreme right wing loon. Because the conservatives think. They have already elected an extreme left wing loon, the great pretender "O" The extreme left wing are the brain dead of America
That's odd, because Santorum said the Right will never have the "elite, smart people" on its side. So, since according to you, the conservatives are thinkers, conservative Santorum must have thought about his statement, and therefore he must be correct.
But then again, Romney admitted last night that he was "completely wrong" about his 47% comments, so I guess Mitt didn't think before he opened his mouth back in May. Or was he not thinking last night? Gosh, it's tough to determine when the Right thinks, and when they have a brain fart.
Anyone denying the Great Recession was less of a recession than the early 80's one needs to have his statements taken with a grain of salt. There is obvious misinformation intended within his side of the debate and his credibility is immediately shot. I really don't need to entertain the discussion how severe the last recession was, since the great majority of economists believe the last recession was the worst hit on our economy since the Great Depression times. But I will explain why the Early 80's Recession was as a result of Reagan's economic policies, since you're confused who the real culprit of that economic slowdown was.
Although the economy was nothing to be proud of when Reagan took office, it was stable and not in a recession. (The Early 80's Recession started in July of 1981, six months after Reagan took office.) The unemployment rate (UR) has been in the mid 7% for months before Reagan took office in early 1981. The UR remained at those levels for months that year, until October, when the rate jumped to high 7's. Since October of '81 the UR rose for fifteen months until it peaked at 10.8% by the end of the following year. So what happened to cause the UR shift for the worse, and not better, that October in 1981? Reagan's first budget, the budget of 1982, kicked in on October 1, 1981, and the diversion of funds to programs critical to the health of economy was enacted. Reagan was also experimenting with his new economic theory, the Trickle-down Theory (TDT), however he didn't fully understand its workings, especially in what type of an economy to apply his new theory in. The problem with the TDT is that the strategy does not create jobs. Reducing taxes on the wealthy does not "trickle down" to the working class in poor economic times. Even if business taxes were cut to zero, not a single job would be created if there is no demand for the goods and services. Reagan's theory can only be experimented with during strong economic times, when companies keeping more of their profits can use the extra funds to expand their business, reward their employees with higher compensation so they do not depart from the firm, and even reward them to increase production output. In poor economic times the TDT does not work, because the extra funds kept by the businesses will sit in the companies' bank accounts. The extra funds will not be used for expanding the business, since the future of the economy, and the company, is uncertain. The extra funds will not be used to increase the salary of the workers, because the workers are lucky to have a job in a weak economy. And the extra money will not be used to hire more workers, since there is no demand for additional product or services. Therefore to improve the economy in poor economic times, the need is to stimulate the demand side, and not the supply site, of the economy by giving more funds to the consumer. The consumer will then spend the money on businesses, increasing the demand for goods and services, which in turn cause the needed hiring or workers. The TDT does not stimulate the hiring of the work force in a poor economy; it will just lock up that extra money in the banks or be invested in other global business opportunities.
So, that is why Reagan caused the Early 80's Recession. He inherited a weak, but stable, economy, and instead of at least keeping on track with what was left to him, let alone improving the situation, the Skipper decided to go with his experimental TDT and steered the economy south. Do you now understand who caused that recession? I think it's all pretty simple to understand, and if you do not agree with my view of who caused the Early 80's Recession, feel free to present your side.
The only reason the UR in the early 80's hit 10.8% was because of the Republican economic policies. The only reason the UR didn't hit 15% during the Great Recession was because of the Democratic economic policies. Lucky for the nation, the Democrats were in power in 2009, and some Republicans, like Hank Paulson and Bush Jr., understood the severity of the financial meltdown and allocated the bailouts in late 2008. You should be grateful things turned out the way they did, or the UR would still be in the teens.
How refreshing, an unabashed Keynesian. So you really think the last 4 yrs of lousy economy is Bush's recession (I'll get to your late-game acknowledgement of Bush in a moment), but early 80's recession was all RR? OK, let's ignore the lousy economy of the seventies (remember "stagflation"?)(hey, you missed the chance to tell us that was all Nixon's fault) and just go with your premise that the world began in 1981. Reagan's policies (pushed through Tip O'Niel's House!) brought a severe recession for about a yr, hurt him in election of '82, but by '83 the recovery was on. Not some fart of a Keynesian recovery, either, but an historic, long, hurricane of a recovery. By late '84, recovery was so strong, Mondale swept…Minn., Reagan a mere 49 others. Voters then got what you still don't get. Economy still going so good in late '88, a sitting VP won, another historic sign you can't handle. Again, voters understood what you still don't. After short recession in '92 cost Bush re-election, economy went roaring forward. Due to what? We could argue all day, but NOBODY argues economy of '90s was due to Keynesian spending by Clinton. Real test run of Keynes-type spending came with TARP and your Stimulus (Dem congress both times). You think these programs successful, how's your Keynesian recovery coming along four yrs in? I don't expect you to concede to the lessons of experience, just do this for us-when voters show us, once again, that they still get it, and elect Mitt next month, don't blame it on racism.
The mixed economy, where both the private and public sectors direct it, is responsible for the Great Depression recovery and the post WWII boom. Hence you can't deny its success, especially after unusual and stressful world conditions. Regarding which president is responsible for which recession, you just need to look at where the economy stood when that president's policies were applied.
Reagan took over an economy which was stable and not in a recession. With strong evidence to back up my claim, I showed that Reagan steered to economy downward. Hence, it was him, not Carter, who expanded the hardships in early 80's into a recession. Reagan caused his recession, and then he fixed it, at the expense of the national debt. By the way, we were discussing the cause of the Early 80's Recession, and not the aftermath, so we don't need the breakdown of what happened during the rest of that decade.
Bush2's recession also started under that president's watch, thanks to deregulation during strong economic times and lack of governing oversight. (Deregulation should only take place during an economic slowdown.) Bush2 inherited a controlled economy, and steered it with his "Homeownership Society" policies towards a bubble. Instead of managing the economy, Bush2 let it run free. He failed to control the housing market, a market which was kick-started from the early 90's stall by Clinton. Instead of taking control of the market, Bush2 fueled it with his policies, or the lack of, and was searching to break new home-start and loan-origination records even though new records were being set every year. Hence, he caused his recession, with the Republican Congress he worked with for six years. They had a great opportunity to set the country on the right path, but they failed.
Clinton's successful economy was mainly due to business directing it; I'm not denying that. But here is the problem with uncontrolled business booms. Generally, the Republicans, with their deregulation, allow business to guide the economy, a move which ends up identifying a business opportunity where much of the economic activity ends up concentrating. This concentration of business activity results in a bubble, which eventually bursts, and the nation often enters a recession. To control, and avoid, these economic bubbles we need to have regulation in place. The economy needs to be controlled and be predictable. We don't want to have booms and busts, both of which are stressful to the populous, and end up with the same net effect as a constant economy.
How is the mixed economy coming over the last four years? You may think it has been a failure, but the people, the economists, who truly know what the condition of the economy was when Obama took over, are very happy with stopping the economic meltdown and avoiding a depression in such a brief time. Our current unemployment rate is just above 8%, but it surely still could have been in the teens had not the right measures been taken. So don't be such a cynic.
UPDATE: Our current unemployment rate is no longer above 8%. For September, the rate was reported at 7.8%, the same as it was when Obama took office. The Right can no longer play that card.
Anyone who believes the economy of the Democrat-dominated 70's was "stable" simply because it avoided the book definition of "recession" must be taken with many grains of salt. Likewise anyone who brushes off the growth of the 80's as an "aftermath" that we can ignore because it doesn't fit your pre-formed opinions. Likewise anyone so partisan that he insists George Bush and Rs had exclusive control of gov't, never mind economy, for six yrs. It's simply a matter of record that housing "growth" policy was bipartisan from Clinton's era on. Bush did nothing to make that bubble inflate faster, he made a tepid effort (easily shut down by then-minority Ds) to restrain it. Your posts make clear that you refuse to entertain facts that don't support your pre-conceived notions. I'll concede there's a "downside" to a business cycle, it's a cycle, right? Do you concede any downside to your gov't controlled economy? You probably can't even see it. Your over-simplified view is best displayed in your opening, "mixed economy" theory of recovery. So the fact that WWII reduced rest of manufacturing world to rubble while entirely sparing US, not a factor? Don't bother to reply with one or two facts that support your view, try to broaden your outlook. And to your report below, what a surprise, a Democrat celebrating 7.8% unemployment!
Paul, This is in response to you a few posts up: regarding Keynesian spending vs. Pres. Reagan's economic policies.
What you and many other conservatives fail to see is that Pres. Reagan pursued Keynesian spending, i.e. an increase in federal gov. spending during an economic downturn that stimulates demand to help stem a recession and to help create conditions for an economic upswing.
Under Pres. Reagan defeicit spending exploded. Reagan never presided over nor even proposed anything close to a balanced budget. Yes, much of his increased spending went into the military, but it was still Keynesian style spending.
Pres. Reagan continued his deficit spending even after the economic upswing, which is NOT Keynesian spending.
Pres. Reagan's soaring rhetoric was that of a true blue conservative. But his governing was more moderate than conservative. As an old and wise family friend put it, "People just love to be fooled."
Our last recession ripped a multi-trillion dollar hole in our economy. There's no way a $750 billion or so stimulus would make our economy whole, or even close to it. Rather, the stimulus placed a floor on the recession. Prior to the stimulus, our economy was in free-fall.
Bob: Thanks for reading my stuff, hope you appreciate that I read (sometimes even absorb) yours. I'll quibble on this point- Reagan started defense spending very quick, even before recession began, and during '81 and '82. Mario will explain how recession happened in spite of this spending. But I'll grant defense spending likely helps improve economy, did then and in pre-war lend lease era. Any gov't spending (particularly borrowed money) is bound to increase some economic numbers, but for only short term. Reagan's defense spending was a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions in broad economic growth during time frame Mario won't discuss. One more quibble- economy was in free-fall before bipartisan TARP (one could say "Bush TARP", but we can't give him any credit) set floor. I agree that the economic hole larger than $750 B, but it was Nancy P, Harry R and Joe B (they put it together more than Obama) who promoted stimulus as making us whole. Doesn't it bother you that these folks have lied to you?
Paul, One note: I have stated in several posts elsewhere on this website that Pres. GW Bush, to his credit, canned ideology to promote TARP just as Pres. Reagan, to his credit, canned ideology on numerous occasions.
Of course the economy was in free-fall before TARP!!!! That was why both Pres. Bush and Obama promoted it.
Keynesian spending is not nearly a be-all-and-end-all measure. Not by a long shot. Keynesian spending is intended more as a jump start. It helps promote conditions for an upswing. Who was it who said "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"?
Although military spending does help our economy, it is a very inefficient expense in regards aiding the economy. The money could be used way more efficiently on other programs and services. Funding a massive armed force wastes funds on drills (fuel, ammo,etc.) , transportation, maintenance, training, housing, benefits, etc. The funds would be so much more efficient employing the regular work force.
Paul Courtney,
Please see my reply above. Search for:
The problem is Dems give demand money to the crooks & cronys who deliver no proportionate productivity for the exorbitant sums they absorb. In other words capitalists at least seek greater output (value) than input. Dems expect the converse and encourage inefficiencies to justify greater public expenditure on their bogus schemes.
Efficiency is the word of your post. We have two forms of efficiency here: economic and business.
If the Democratic policies are not economically efficient at creating jobs and improving our economy, then why do the Republican policies result in worse economic numbers and in greater number of recessions? Look at the unemployment rate, the GDP and stock market growths, the inflation, etc… All those statistics benefit the Democratic presidents.
The problem with the two political parties is not that one party's policies are more business efficient than the other's, but the problem is how and where the money is spent. If the Democrats were taking taxes from the wealthy and handed out cash to be used as firewood, meaning the handed out money would not reenter our economy, then your argument about Democrats having economically inefficient policies would hold water. But because the "distribution of wealth" is taking money that would otherwise be stagnant in a bank account or be invested abroad, the money is being injected into our economy and is efficiently stimulating it. Money sitting in banks or in other countries is not very efficient as a stimulus for our economy.
You obviously believe that an efficient business model is the best solution for our economy, since you desire efficient output. That argument may be true if the company's profits are generously being shared with everyone in the firm. However, the workers' compensations have been declining over the decades, while the rewards for the ones at the top have ballooned, resulting in that money stagnation which doesn't return the profits into our economy. So, in regards improving the economy, it really doesn't matter how efficient a business is, what matters is how the profits are handled. Company A may be extremely efficient at generating profit for the owners, but its business model does not benefit our economy as well as company B's model, which generously rewards its workers. Even if company B spends money inefficiently, that inefficiency is contributing into our economy's growth. The effects of the private sector's extreme efficiency is hampering our economy's full potential, which is a fact that is often overlooked by hardline capitalists. Don't get me wrong, I believe in rewarding the ones who should be rewarded, but as the rich get richer, they do so at the expense of the working class, as opposed to doing it together, which helps in growing our economy.
Bernie — et tu? The tale of the two recent videos — the Romney video and the just disclosed video of then-Sen. Obama tells us, I think, that the two men have at least one similarity — they will tell their audiences what they believe thjeir audiences want to hear.
I have yet to hear Gov. Romney refer specifically to our founding legacy — say the suggestion from Madison in Federalist No. 57 that leaders should serve the common good and stay close to the people, failing which every government, Madison warned, will become tyrannical.
President Obama is not intent on attacking the rich,. He is — and I am no Marxist–seems tome, agtent of the upper class. Traditionally, the upper class manipulates the poverty class to serve as its ally against the middle class. Regret that the conservatives with access to the media cannot see that the middle class is, for the upper class, the enemy. It should eb no surprise, then, that the Uber-class Democrats loath the Tea Party. That Romney has distanced himself from the Tea Party — well, there the RINO allies of the upper class go again.
And bear in mind, neitehr the Democrats nor the RINOs ever met a $38,500 fundraiser they didn't like. What is the purpose of such events. I think Madison had it right in the opneing line of Federalist No. 57 which I am borrowing for this context: the "ambitious sacrifice of the many, to the aggrandizement of the few.
Two other things — President Obama regards the recent violence in Libya that took the lives of four Americans as — how did he put it =–"a bump on the road"? Perhaps he was careful not to give his whole game away and therefore did not shrug his shoulders and say " You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs." Recently President Obama dismissed as "noise" concern that Iran, with nukes, would attack Israel. Even Mayor Koch,an Obama backer, has compared Obama's policy on Iran with the west's appeasement of Hitler, throwing Czechoslovakia to the Nazi wolves.
In the 1930's was it likely that someone pro-Nazi would be aympathetic to Jews.
In this second decade4 of the 21st century is it likely that someone pro-Muslim Brotherhood would be sympathetic to the Jewish State? Well, two recent one-term presidents, Carter and George H.W. Bush, were not particularly friendly towards Israel. Please G-d, He is indeed watching.
I totally agree with your assessment. It really seems as though the country is going through a fundamental transfermation from center-right to center-left, especially on social issues. Therefore, a true conservative candidate does not stand a chance in a general election. The blame for this can be found on college campuses where the left is influencing our kids and the left biased mainstream media.
You nailed it there. The Left, through their corrupt abuse of power of influential institutions such as media, pop culture, academia, are transforming the center mass of the country from center-right to center-left. That is dangerous for our future as there will be an increasingly diminishing outlet for right-of-center people to influence the direction of their country.
Conservatism will stand or fall based on the real world impacts of our decisions on others. Ultimately Conservatism will be accepted when political Conservatives demonstrate a genuine respect for the rule of law, i.e. keeping the scales true, have compassion on and assist in a way forward those working people bound up in circumstances- through no fault of their own- which have resulted in economic decline, and insure a medium for progress, i.e. quality education, is affordable to all. If conservatives produce quality opportunities for working people their future is secure.
All those desired qualities you listed for Conservatism are nice and dandy, but you left out the most important quality, the economy. The current economic policies of Conservatism have resulted in poorer economic numbers than the Liberals' policies. If you wish for Conservatism to be accepted, the economic policies need to change.
I'm a Liberal mainly due to the achievements of Liberals' economic policies. Had the Right been more beneficial for our nation's economy than the Left, I would have a hard time justifying to myself the social services aid and the environmental protection the Democrats are know for if those benefits came at the expense of the economy. But since the Democrats can run a better economy while helping the great majority of our populous and the environment, it's extremely easy for me to side with the Liberals.
Incorrect. The reason for the shift you identified is due to the abuses of the private sector we have observed over the past decade. You must have already forgotten.
If Obama ran his campaign honestly in 2008 as he has governed (as a socialist), I doubt he would be participating in this debate tonight!! Why doesn't he come clean and explain to the American people how much he hates our capitalistic free market system and explain what he wants to replace it with!!!Most of us are on to his game now.
Sexulars on either side of the aisle are just changing seats on the Titanic, IMO.
In other words—POLLS-SCHMOLLS!¡
2. Communal Strength cannot be restored because it needs a pool of unselfish citizens who no longer exist, and it is impossible to change the existing selfish into unselfish people.
Nothing Left To Save
When the symptoms of social decline appear the people who gave the civilization energy, intelligence and made it an asset to humanity, no longer exist in any numbers. Their place has been taken by a race of foolish cowards, who can only dissipate the accumulated wealth and wisdom they have inhereted.
Can Only Promote Lies And Injustice
To attempt to help such a community is to aid and abet people who hate truth and justice. Those citizens, who feel their duty impels them to try, are taking grave risks
for no purpose. Their individual efforts cannot make up for the shortcomings of their society, but they will be punished for their attempts, and this is demonstrated in no uncertain manner by contemporary and historical examples.
The polls showing Obama leading, may be helpful to Romney. There is no doubt that the majority of the Republican base/voters will vote no matter what the polls are saying, but will Joe freshman or Mary Sophomore or any other members of the Democratic Base vote in the numbers as they did in 2008, especially, if they think Obama has it in the bag? I don't think so.
Here is a story for Goldberg and O'Reilly to cover.
It wasn't that long ago we were all subjected to the crucifying of Herman Cain all based on allegations. The media went nuts covering that story as well as Fox and Friends. The media jumped all over the Spitzer sexual scandal in NY. They jumped all over the sexual scandal with the NY Governor a couple of years back. They eventually jumped all over the John Edwards sexual scandal. They jumped all over the Weiner scandal. So why would they avoid this huge story.
I am not pleased that we didn't get a name of the person from Wright's church but I can understand her fears given the murders of Donald Young and Larry Bland. You would not your name floating around the streets of Chicago with a thug running the city.
The media went nuts will all those past scandals, but why isn't FoxNews going nuts with your 2003 story? Maybe Fox looked into it and nothing panned out, otherwise I'm pretty sure they would have gone nuts with it, right?
Many believe the news polls are twisted and manipulated, but even when FoxNews reports Obama is up by 5 points, how truly manipulated is that liberal media? Today FoxNews reported that the Quinnipiac University gave the president a four point edge, and a 2:1 advantage for tomorrow's speech. It doesn't appear Romney will come out swinging on Thursday. Too bad; it's time to pack it up.
The polls will magically tighten toward the end of the race. Not because voters have changed their minds, but because the pollsters know they have been missleading everyone and they want to have some credibility at the end so they can sell their services next time around.
The liberal biased news media skews everything else why not the polls ? The liberal owners of the networks control the election through their news bias. Disenfranchising voters and denying them the objective news coverage they deserve. Comcast (NBC), Disney(ABC) and CBS, CNN(Time Warner) . I believe it is malpractice and voter disenfranchisment.
It has reached the point of being heinous .
Keep whining John…Is Fox News and talk radio not part of the media?
Check out the newly-found obummah 'other race' speech from 2007 on DailyCaller.com. Listen closely to his 'accent' – he's almost unrecognizable.
Black and scary..be afraid…be very afraid!
Best you can do is one-liners? Piss off. You are totally irrelevant here.
Keep playing the race card….Didn't work in 08..won't work now….
It's obummah who's confused if he's white or black. A fake accent is only patronizing. Anyway, you're a draft dodger so your opinion doesn't matter. Coward.
I tore up your race card, son. Try something new, like engaging us in debate.
And yet ANOTHER video of obummah appears on DailyCaller.com this morning. This time he's spewing and encouraging violence against the rich….wants to make them 'powerless'. Jealousy and instigating race wars..pure and simple. Scumbag.
Nothing against Reagan, but in my opinion his win in 1980 was aided by the Iranians who had been holding our hostages for months and also by Walter Cronkite who closed every evening's news program with a countdown to remind the public that the US under President Carter was being held hostage. Carter had a lot of problems of his own making, but having the 'most trusted newsman in the country' dinging him every night was hard to overcome.
Reagan also had some help from Senator Ted Kennedy who, even though the Carter campaign paid off his primary campaign debt, Kennedy only campaigned grudgingly and as little as possible. What he said when he came to our town was he thought it was better to support the other candidates on the Democratic ticket over President Carter.
It's nice to have Ronald Reagan as a hero, but I think it's also wise to credit him with what he is due and not burden his memory with hopes and wishes that make anyone following him seem less than they are.
Suki, Carter has held the title of Worst President Ever for good reasons.
He would have lost to Mickey Mouse. Gas disappeared & people had to wait for hours to fill up. Electricity was so high that people could not afford to heat their homes. It was a miserable winter. Carter gave away the Panama Canal, built at our expense & many American lives. For 400 days our hostages were abused by Iranians & he made one lame attempt to get them. He was a wimp .
Only Obama came on the scene & he is worse than Carter.
Carter has held the title of Worst President Even? hmmm…. which is worse, Carter leaving 52 Americans in Iran for 444 days, or Bush2 causing unnecessary death to 4,500 Americans? … hmmm… Carter causing gas and electric prices to skyrocket during a miserable winter, or Bush2 destroying the world's economy for years to come? hmmm… which is worse…. Carter signing the treaty, which originated during Ford's presidency, granting control of the Panama Canal to the Panamanians, or Bush2 causing the grating of control to millions of foreclosed homes and properties to the banks? hmmm…
Was your conclusion about Carter based on a poll taken at your dinner table?Looking at the averages of numerous presidential popularity polls for all the nation's presidents, Carter falls in the middle (average) third, the same third where Reagan resides. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_StatesConsidering the popularity of the presidents elected over the last hundred years, although Carter lands dead last among the Democratic presidents, he still beats the following Republican presidents: Bush2, Nixon, Hoover, Coolidge, and Harding. For the same hundred year era, of the six presidents in the top third, only one is a Republican, Eisenhower, and only one of the six presidents in the bottom third is a Democrat, Carter. It's sad for the Republican party to have such mediocre presidential heroes and villains. The GOP only dreams of having the Democratic presidential record. Yet they Right repeatedly believes they can do better, this time, again, and again. They never learn from their mistakes, so why put the entire nation through the pain of having another incompetent president?
Carter has held the title of Worst President Ever? hmmm…. which is worse, Carter leaving 52 Americans in Iran for 444 days, or Bush2 causing unnecessary death to 4,500 Americans? … hmmm… Carter causing gas and electric prices to skyrocket during a miserable winter, or Bush2 destroying the world's economy for years to come? hmmm… which is worse…. Carter signing the treaty, which originated during Ford's presidency, granting control of the Panama Canal to the Panamanians, or Bush2 causing the grating of control to millions of foreclosed homes and properties to the banks? hmmm…
Was your conclusion about Carter based on a poll taken at your dinner table?
Looking at the averages of numerous presidential popularity polls for all the nation's presidents, Carter falls in the middle (average) third, the same third where Reagan resides.
Considering the popularity of the presidents elected over the last hundred years, although Carter lands dead last among the Democratic presidents, he still beats the following Republican presidents: Bush2, Nixon, Hoover, Coolidge, and Harding. For the same hundred year era, of the six presidents in the top third, only one is a Republican, Eisenhower, and only one of the six presidents in the bottom third is a Democrat, Carter.
It's sad for the Republican party to have such mediocre presidential heroes and villains. The GOP only dreams of having the Democratic presidential record. Yet they Right repeatedly believes they can do better, this time, again, and again. They never learn from their mistakes, so why put the entire nation through the pain of having another incompetent president?
It's interesting that you bring up the 1980 Iran hostage crisis, I remember Cronkite and later Rather reminding everyone every night with a countdown of how many days the hostages had been in captivity. I remember that, my 7th grade teachers talked about the hostages, yellow ribbons were everywhere, that "Tie a Yellow Ribbon" song was everywhere and there was a real sense of unity. It was one example of good work the media did on this website devoted to exposing media bias. Carter was a lousy president and probably would have lost even without Cronkite's nighly countdown. But you have to wonder if the media had downplayed or ignored the hostages as they probably would do nowadays because they don't want to hurt their guy, (it's a new generation of journalists now) what the outcome of that election would have been.
Great fan of yours. We constantly hear about the war brewing in the Republican party between between conservatives and moderates. Is there no war between ultra liberals and moderates in the Democrat party? If not why not? If conservative Republicans move to the center they will be mince meat for the leftist Democrats. Why do you and other smart guys not understand this fact?
Because they aren't too smart? These smart guys just want to get their followers worked up so they will buy their books….A sucker is born every minute…
If all the complaints are really about the press, why the H*LL aren't we attacking them? I mean, shutting down the presses, disrupting their delivery trucks, trashing the newstands and honor boxes, picketing the publisher's houses, spitting at reporters and tar and feathering these dunderheads? READ HISTORY people! Look at some of the things there real 1776 patriots did and get it on!
Mr. Goldberg…What is the definition of "religious fanatic"? I'm betting anything short of agnostic or athiest is considered fanatical by someone and especially the media.
I dare to say, if Romney loses…we are up a creek and will lose the Republican party…
I figure the Tea Party will fill in quite well…that is if we are not prevented by a 'Castro' like regime….then it's the end of America as we have known it.
The end of America as you know it occurred 60 years ago….Oh for the good old days of Archie Bunker…
If Obama wins, life will go on. The exception is that life will get much more difficult since Obama will pull out both barrels and attempt to make as many new regulations as he can through the EPA and other agencies plus by executive order. He will feel unrestricted since he will no longer be looking for votes. Welcome to the European United States Mr. Goldberg. Send us your IRA and 401k savings and we will give you an allotment of food stamps. If Obama wins, the republicans will send another warrior into battle in 2016 and he/she will be similar to Romney or it could be one who is a little more conservative. Maybe a Ryan, Gingrich or a version of these two.
obummah and the corrupt UN will do nothing to aide Israel and my 'guess' is that Israel will finally get fed up with the sawed-off little shit in Iran and just nuke the crap out of them. But it won't end there. Israel will hit Syria and a few others while they are at it. Thus, the domino effect: Gas prices will go through the roof, for starters, and the US will be sitting ducks due to our military being gutted – and on and on.
Which is exactly what Obama wants to happen, hello to the latest Somalia, formerly USA.
Yep, it's time to move out. See you when I'm vacationing in your new home country.
Mr. Goldberg, how dare you describe conservatives as "fire-breathing" right-wing ideologues.
If that's the case…how were the "fire-breathing" left-wing ideologues able to elect Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton or the biggest of all "dear leader" O?
You are spot on. Mr. Goldberg should be ashamed!!
Shameless, isn't it?
You are right..Comservatives are bitter and tired old white guys…
"Bitter". "Tired". "Angry". "Archie Bunker". "Black president". "Voting against your own interests". "Romney dodged the draft". "Romney didn't pay taxes."
Unless I missed any other empty talking points you've worn down to the nub, now let's see you grow up and engage in a real debate.
Why I should not be concerned that Romney is going to start a war with Iran?
What makes you believe that Romney will ever get out of Afghanistan?
Much better.
Regarding question #1, assuming you're not actually sure he "is going to start a war…":
First, consider a lack of need to go to war in the 1st place. Governor Romney is not the weakling BO is; the chances of Iran aggression decrease if an Adolph-wannabe has a grown man to deal with instead of the 12-year-old girl currently in the WH. If it turns out Aminthemoodforjihad is dumb enough to establish a real, imminent threat to the Israeli people, they will be backed up no matter who is president.
Second, if you look over our country's history, what are the chances there WON'T be some sort of a war being started or involving us (justified or not) no matter who's president?
Question 2: I tend to be surprised when the U.S. leaves any country outright, but if what you mean is the war being essentially over and the majority of our military coming home, among Romney's biggest strengths are knowing an exceedingly big risk when he sees one, and hearing out input from all sides before a major decision is made.
Also worth considering: Obama isn't much of a force to be reckoned with if you're the leader of an allied nation. Saying "yes" to our SEALs' plan get Osama, good as it definitely was, remains sandwiched between his highly questionable bowing, his half-assed gifts to the Queen, the "more flexibility" statement he made to Medvedev, not knowing his mic was hot, Fast & Furious, and his woefully unprofessional conduct surrounding the recent Libya attacks.
This is suppossed to be a serious response? Your response to the Iranian question is that Obama isn't a tough guy and Romney is?
Should have known better than to get serious with someone who obviously watches too much Fox News..
You asked 2 straight questions instead of tossing around your worn out, petty crap (must've felt weird, eh?), and I answered respectfully and sincerely.
You have a problem, kiddo: you're too lazy to give anything even a little consideration. It's one of the reasons you keep hiding behind crap like bigotry accusations. You single out one portion, fail to offer even the slightest challenge to it (which absolutely would have been accepted), and you think you're serious now?
You give yourself far too much credit, and it appears I'm guilty of the same thing.
Why would you say such a racist thing?
Racist? What is racist…have you seen the polls?
Maybe she meant to say "sexist".
I'm not an old white guy pal. Pfffft.
You are right… The correct demographic is older, less educated white folks….LOL
New Romney/Ryan shirts seen at campaign rallys say "Put the White back in the White House"…Maybe Bernie can sell them on this website…
You have a problem with white people?
Are you racist?
I have a problem with a political party that appeals to voters fears and prejudices….I have a problem with older folks who believe that they are victimized because the government helps the poor..while they collect Social Security and Medicare…
By older folks, do you mean older "white" folks?
Furthermore, older folks that worked were forced to pay into SS.
As far as the poor, they receive EBT cards, welfare checks, section 8 housing, utility help, WIC, breakfast-lunch vouchers, cell phones and child care. What more do you suggest?
Tell me pal, which voting block earned their benefits?
Yes, the polls are rigged, and the liberal MSM is in the tank for Obama. Conservatives who don't vote for Romney are fools. Romney is far more conservative than the Socialist Obama. Obama will bankrupt the federal government with his reckless spending. Romney cannot possibly be as bad for the USA as Obama is. Vote for Romney/Ryan.
I don't believe the polls and I don't believe the news. But with that said, I'm not sure what to expect. All I know is that in my neck of the woods Romney Ryan yard signs are beginning to pop up all over the place. While that doesn't mean a win, it does mean that people are giving voice to what they believe in and I hope we never lose that!
Romney should have memorized Reagan's "are you better off" lines and use them several times. I think he will lose. I also think that both parties are responsible for devolving our country into the kind of country that Marx wanted and his current deciple BO wants. Sadly, Americans are wanting what they can get from government and don't really care that it comes from their fellow citizens.
America has been a socialist nation for more than 100-years, starting with TR. Now we have BO and next time around we will have HC. But there is one presidential candidate who believes in our founding documents. His name is Gary Johnson. He and Ron Paul were rejected by the GOP for the same reasons they would be rejected by the Dems.
If enough people like Dr. Paul or Mr. Johnson were elected the jig would be up for both the GOP and the DEMS. But that would never happen because the American people have shown time after time that they want a socialist government. It's sad, but it's true.
We'll have to wait until Nov. 6 to find out how far off the polls were. I'm thinking about 2016 if Romney loses.
The percentages of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents don't translate directly into votes. We may have already reached a point where what sounds good at the time, plus the TV personna (likeability) of a candidate, determines more votes than commitment to a set of principles. And likeability is related to promises that sound good.
This isn't great news for conservatives. Cornerstones of conservative thinking include self reliance, fiscal restraint, and morality. By 2016, fewer will be learning self- reliance, more will be wanting government benefits, and the war on Christianity will be worse. Couple this with the growth of the Hispanic vote, and I don't see how a conservative argument can win in 2016. I think Obama, Clinton and others are counting on this.
If reelected, Obama will blame Bush for four more years. And people will have learned to be happier with mediocrity. In 2016, conservatives would have to sell ideas that by then will sound too punitive and difficult to achieve.
2012 is so important.
Since most Hispanics are Catholic, I wonder if they've considered what would happen in a country that moves more toward Sharia Law?
Remember, Reagan wasn't always so conservative. He voted for some liberal abortion laws.
I don't believe ANY polls. I took statistics and know that depending on the questions and the sampling group, you can come up with any results that you want. While it's not really cheating, it's very biased and unreliable — so unless you can see the questions and how the sample group was selected, don't depnd on ANY polls — they truly are meaningless and are being done by people who want to show theie employers that they did some work and want to get paid for it.
I'm curious what questions FoxNews asked the voters they polled, because they're giving the elections to Obama by 5.
Let's keep in mind that Ronald Reagan was a conservative and brough us out of the last "worst economy since the depression". He never blamed Carter or anyone else for the issues we Americans faced then, he simply made us believe in ourselves again. In 1984 he won again with overwealming support from Americans from all sides of the political spectrum. The Lame Stream Media would still have us believe Reagan's presidency was a complete failure. Oh how we wish the next Ronald Reagan would show-up.
Actually, he did blame Carter pretty regularly, to be fair. But he gave it a rest after a couple of years and the economy started its huge improvment soon after.
Now what we have is a narcissistic tool who hasn't stopped deflecting and an economy that hasn't stopped sucking (and which wasn't nearly as bad as what Reagan faced).
Wow?! What?!?! The Bush2 recession wasn't nearly as bad as what Reagan caused??? Believing that the Reagan recession was more severe than what Bush2 caused is the belief of a delusional minority.
Hmmm…"what Reagan caused" and "Reagan recession".
Assuming you meant to put "Carter" where you put "Reagan", I'm actually surprised. I was not aware that higher unemployment figures, proportionally higher inflation & consumer costs, and drastically less market and investment activity were so harmless.
Thank you for clarifying, Bizarro.
Please see my response to you above. Search for:
I, for one, I am getting very tired with the media characterizing those of us who want a smaller government and lower taxes as "kooks" and religious zealots, or worse, racists. I have never considered myself as a Romney supporter, but I will vote for him because we cannot continue we are under Obama
I believe that most people side with Romney- what they get hung up on is the layers of perceived or given rights that are be threatened: Woman's right to choose, Illegal Aliens, Social Programs, etc…
Does ANYONE really believe that a President can actually change these things in a significant way? Does anyone believe that Romney can overturn Roe V Wade? Even if he appoints 2 more SCOTUS judges that are conservative- they will not ever overturn it. The President can say these things- but they have no teeth when it comes down to it. The only way anything like this happens is if an overwhelming shift in balance happens in the Congress (like we just saw from '06-'10). Bad things happen- depending on how you look at it. In some areas, the POTUS can move the dial, but I believe Romney has the best interest of the nation in mind- Obama just does not.
When talking to people, I ask who they will vote for. It's about half for/against. But I do try to explain that they should go with who they believe can lead us out of this mess. They almost always say Romney. Then I explain that their rights will stay intact- that the POTUS cannot change it by himself- there are safeguards in place. Usually, I can sway a person with this argument.
Hopefully we can dispose of the idiot that occupies the WH and get someone that will actually LEAD!!
Romney IS the right person for our times- we just have to stay busy and get the word out there. He is not the most conservative but he is enough for the problems we face today- THAT is the most important thing to remember!
"Then I explain that their rights will stay intact- that the POTUS cannot change it by himself- there are safeguards in place. Usually, I can sway a person with this argument."
Mostly right, but sadly BO has decided to give himself power to override duly signed laws, and the Legislative Branch appears too cowardly to push back with those safeguards.
I know your right. We, conservatives, keep putting up for election what we think should be adhered too. There has to be room for those who don't think like us, but; might if it was properly given in the right context. I really believe we have put ourselves once again in a position to lose on Nov. 6, because we didn't choose the right candidate. Sad, too; because this nation is in serious trouble with the likes of the Muslim bastard.
Bernie, I'm said to say this, but I believe you were in the Lame Stream Media (LSM) too long. Why do you think the Tea Party bubbled up with patriotism? It's my belief that the Republican party has become democratized, that is, as George Wallace said decades ago (1968), "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party." The Republican elites, in concert with their Democrat friends, have slowly chipped away at freedom over time. Though I still support the GOP, it needs to return to its roots–Conservatism!
As a conservative, I am voting for Romney, well aware that he doesn't naturally go to the "right". I believe he would have a better chance of winning if he did. I usually agree with Bernie on most things, but not this time. If Romney loses, part of it will be the media lies but I also believe it will be because most of the time he cannot articulate true conservatism.
look, it's romney or obama. that your two choices. you could stay home and not vote, but that as good as voting for obama. I'm as conservative as many, however , times are changing whether we like it or not. It time to evolve on some issues, not all but enough to corral more support.
Btw, Pat Caddell is a total political hack. He left the Democratic Party in 1988 and has made his living since then as a movie consultant. He hates the Dem Party because of some lawsuit back in the Reagan days. Fox trots him out and misleadingly calls him a Democratic Pollster when he is now nothing of the sort. Oh yeah, his biggest gig was with Jimmy Carter.
you don't like him, cause he looks like Rachael Maddow in twenty-five years.
Just pointing out facts.
There are more democrats that do not agree with many of Obama's policies. Another one is Doug Shoen (sp?) We will see what affect Obama's policies have on the general public on election day. I am hoping for a Romney win but with all the pol confusion, I am not over confident. The MSM is and has been in the democratic tank for years but with Obama it has gotten worst. Again, I am hoping that there are enough sane voters that see through all the spin from the media and the democratic propaganda and vote for Romney. I realize this is a tall order since many so called voters do not even recognize who the vice president is when shown a picture. This includes the uneducated poor and college students.
Caddell is not a Democrat.
Since this article is about polls, it is interesting to note that the national polls in the last nine elections have ended up overrating the Dems five times and the Repubs four times. The overrating was generally insignificant. Whatever you think of the MSM, the polls tend to be objective, especially if you analyze various polsl of polls to locate midpoints.
Bernie, you are spot on. Hardened, Evangelical, Conservatism is not a party platform. It is a dictate for one way of thinking. The Republicans desire for smaller, less intrusive government is bigger than only the representation of conservatism.
I have taken my own personal poll with friends and family that voted for Obama in 2008.
Most state they are still voting for Obama. They are disenfranchised, they like Romney's ideas but they all [which seemed strange] became ballistic about Women's Right to Choose [including a 90 year old white male]. I think this represented something greater than the topic itself.
The USA is a BLENDED nation of indigenous people [Native Eskimos, Native Hawaiians, Native American Indian Tribes, etc.] AND immigrants. When Republicans are blended, they are not just conservatives. There are amazing, fresh and honest leaders rising in the Republican Party. The ability to blend their perspectives will be a gift to our country. What a shame if it is lost.
Exactly, DB … you get it!
As long as the actual voting isn't rigged, it doesn't matter about POLLS. Just remember the rhetoric and the biased polls in WICONSON. Look what happened there!
If Pat Caddell is up in arms, it's time to pay attention. The president thinks the tragedy in Libya was a 'bump in the road' and the media is complicit in trying to sweep it under the rug. Where is the media oversight?
"Media oversight" is as much an oxymoron as "reality TV" and a "modest Obama."
It is the venom of the far right that moves centrists to the left, regardless of who the candidate is. Mr. Goldberg is correct. It is true that the far left was just as bad toward George Bush. I believe if not for the timing of the financial crisis, John McCain would be President today.
The biggest difference is that the far left doesn't have anyone in congress, and very few with real media outlets – Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann were two of the few during Bush, although MSNBC has added more since that time. Obama has faced many at the outter fringe of the Right who either sit in congress, sit behind a Fox News desk, or behind a talk radio mic.
Randy, I respectfully disagree. I'm a conservative and I don't spew venom, but I don't compromise my principles either.
"Venom from the far right"…I have never heard such hate and intolerance and that is on the left.
Is this venomous enough?
They were examples of appalling behavior. Two wrongs don't make a right! Just turn on MSNBC and all you will hear is "venomous" attacks on all republicans.
I just showed you the venum for the Right, which you claimed only existed on the Left. That's it. Now you know, so leave it at that.
I'm tired of seeing traditional Republicans flounder against a party like the Democrats and a candidate like Obama, it should be a slam dunk these days. It's almost like they've lost their mojo and cannot cope.
If Romney isn't delivering a victory speech on Election night then I'm going to have to take my vote to the Tea Party. At least they seem to have some momentum and seem to be about limiting big government, something traditional Republican politicians seem to only pay lip service to. I used to think it was the same as voting the other party when voting for a distraction candidate like Ron Paul, but I'm fed up with losing against trash like Obama.
Michael, I agree with you. This should be a slam dunk! Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan are running against the worst president and vice president in history. True conservatives should be able to beat Dumb and Dummer in a walk. The record BHO has built (yes, he did build it) is abismal. Good grief, the economy is in the tank, 23 million out of work, 16$ TRILLION in debt, ObamaCare, the housing market has been devastated, and no foreign policy. If any two conservatives can't beat these two clowns, then the Republican Party should be disbanded.
This is one of the few times that I have to disagree with Mr. Goldberg's analysis. He concludes that a loss by Romney will unnecessarily tear the party apart. My bias is that I wanted Romney since I thought he would have the most appeal to the Independents. Given the absolutely atrocious record of Obama, if Romney can't win then the Republican's chances are doomed for the foreseeable future whether they run a moderate or a far right candidate. Why does he conclude that the Democrats can successfully run a far left candidate and the Republicans cannot run a far right candidate unless the electorate has gone left of center and the ideology of the Republican is irrelevant.
Democrats haven't run a far left candidate since Dukakis. Obama is to the right of Ike and Nixon on almost everything outside gay rights. He's to the right of Reagan on many issues, including most tax rates. Only when you get to Bush 43 is Obama clearly to the left of a GOP president. Such is the reality of that the window of what defines mainstream right and left has slid right over the past 30 years.
That is hilarious. Your contentions that is.
Care to look at their foreign policy stances (Reagan sat down with hostile leaders and traded arms with the post revolution Iranians..;) taxation stances Reagan raised taxes 11 times and his top margin rate was 50% to Obama's 35% which he would like to take only to 39.6%; immigration policies (Reagan was for amnesty for gods sake!) then get back to me? Nixon created the EPA, had 70% top marginal rates and went to China, Eisenhower was such a relative leftist that his farewell address was an indictment of the Military-Industrial complex which he feared would drive us into repeated conflicts for profit! Perhaps if you recalled history beyond that offered by Glenn Beck you wouldn't be so amused.
Each President has to perform within their current context. Tax rates specifically is what I am referring to. I will agree that Nixon policies were ironically liberal given the perception of him. Much the same way that Clinton's were ironically conservative given his nominal liberal status. But 'Democrats haven't run a far left candidate since Dukakis' is hilarious. Obama is in many ways far left. Look at his mentors, or maybe more descriptively his 'founding fathers'.
Look at you. You're making way too much sense. Some stopped reading after your second sentence, while others just punched their monitors.
In order for the Congress to evolve the swindle of taypayers money, the Dems had to have the help of the Republicans occupying seats beside them to cover it up. Now, we find they've even compromised the law. We're almost helpless in getting the theft resolved.
And if the polls are accurate, what are the repercussions for all the "newspeople" that have whined about a conspiracy? New contracts at Fox?
And what's more, what about the those devious pollsters at Fox itself who have Obama with a 5 point lead?
Bernie — I agree with you that a super conservative Republican has no chance of winning. I also agree that the reason Regan won and buchannan didn't is because of the image of each. Reagan was seen as friendly and upbeat, Buchannan was seen as an angry firebrand and kind of scary, like Goldwater.
Mitt Romney doesn't scare people. He's a polite and reserved businessman who looks presidential. He does need to show a more informal side of himself in public. He may be a brilliant businessman, but you can't talk to the American people like you would talk to Wall Street investment firms or a board of directors. He needs to talk about people's take home pay and how he will make it larger by cutting taxes on individuals and business and removing government imposed regulations that have kept businesses from growing and hiring. He needs to assure people that he and Ryan are not going to take away their Social Security and Medicare. He needs to tell people how he will remove the government imposed barriers on domestic oil and gas drilling, building nuclear and coal fired power plants, the Keystone pipeline and building new refineries so that gas prices come down as well as their electric bills. He needs to set a goal of full employment. As an employer he can talk about how good it is to see the look on people's faces when they land a job and the dignity they have when they earn a payceck and can support their families. He can talk about the pride, security and confidence in the future people feel when they see that they have greater job opportunities — and that he intends to bring those opportunities to the American people once again.
Of course the polls are rigged. Yesterday the "news" reported a "nationwide" poll of about 850 people. Let's see: There are 50 states. If all states were polled, then only 17 people per state were represented. That is enough to determine state opinion? No way! But if some states had more than that number of people polled, then some states were left out and the poll was not nationwide. To approach accuracy would you not have to poll at least 100 people per state? That means the total poll would have to be at least 5,000 polled. I have never heard of a poll that covered even 2,000 people. And I have never forgotten the lesson taught in my college statistics course: The fellow that pays for the poll dictates the results of the poll.
Comparing Michelle Bachmann to Pat Buchanan is simply vile.
Pat Buchanan says the war against Hitler was a mistake – does Michelle Bachmann say that?
Pat Buchanan says that taxes on imports are the way to restore the economy – does Michelle Bachmann say that?
Pat Buchanan complains that American policy is controlled by Jews loyal to Israel – does Michelle Bachmann say that?
And on and on.
What matters is ECONOMIC PRINCIPLE.
Ronald Reagan had clear economic principles – he won.
John McCain did not have clear economic principles (just a vague "me toism" on the bailout and everything else) – he lost.
People need to hear clear economic PRINCIPLES from Mitt Romney – a clear statement of what he believes in and why he believes it.
Say what you like about Michelle Bachmann – but her economic principles are straight from "Human Action" by Ludwig Von Mises, that is also true of Senator Rand Paul and Senator De Mint (and many others). And it is not just book learning – what they have seen in real life confirms what they have read.
It was the same with Ronald Reagan – for example he did not own books by Hayek for show (look at those books that Reagan owned – they are well used, and have his comments written in them).
Is this (is this committment to free market principles) to be seen in Mitt Romney? Can he present it?
That is the test – and we will know on Wednesday.
As for the Republican party being "in the wilderness for a long time"……
The politician that was said about was Winston Churchill – who was "in the wilderness" in the 1930s (denied office even though his party was in office) because he warned against Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists.
Churchill was CORRECT about the Nazi threat. Sometimes being "in the wilderness" is the price you have to pay for being loyal to the truth and warning people.
The United States (indeed the entire Western world) is facing bankruptcy and economic collapse.
Compromise and the "middle way" is not going to save anything – and nor will be being a "better manager".
The time has come for dramatic action to roll back government.
Not for stupid deals with the Democrats that will not deal with the real threat.
The threat of out of control government spending.
You're a fucking whack job
Looking forward to the Bachmann v Hillary race of 2016….
Are the Western European nations Communist? If they are not, then the Democratic party is not Communist either. Maybe you don't know what Communism really stands for.
"Maybe you don't know what Communism really stands for."
I do–it stands for everything you and as(sho)l(e)3676 espouse.
Both you and BJ up there need to do some studying to learn the differences between a mixed economy and Communism. You two are obviously uninformed, at best.
Careful! You snap their head back with too much reality and book learnin' the foil hats will fall off.
hehehe. Well, someone has to snap them back into reality, or they'll vote in more clowns.
You got that right, Bernie.
I consider myself a conservative Republican. I don't know what Mr. Romney is, ideologically speaking. I do know he is singularly inept as a politician, and so unpersuasive on the stump that I can't bear to listen to him anymore.
I watched a joint interview with Mr. Romney and Paul Ryan a few days ago (by Carl Cameron of Fox News), and the stark contrast between the two was devastating. Asked for specifics of his pitch to the voters, he said something like:
"We're offering a choice between big-government and more spending, and shrinking government so more people can pursue the American dream."
His delivery was the same as always: affable. (Perhaps a better way of describing it would be "suffocatingly affable"). And of course, there was the ever-present but innocuous GQ-male-model smile.
These are superficial criticisms, except for the lack of substance in his answers. They come off as crafted not to offend anyone (including the President), and make him appear to be "one of us". In practice, they serve to remind us that he isn't. And, like it or not, charisma matters in politics, and Romney is singularly lacking in that too (at least as observed on TV).
This interview (which may still be accessible on Fox News) would have been a disaster had it not been for the intervention of the Vice-Presidential nominee. Paul Ryan managed to tactfully join the conversation after waiting for Mr. Romney's answers to peter out, and rescued the moment with a firm, clearly understandable restatement of the Republican position.
"Peace through strength, reduce spending and lower taxes for everyone, so we can get people back to work and let the middle class keep more of what they earn…" (words to that effect).
And it's not just Mr. Ryan who delivers the message better than Romney. I could name a dozen prominent Republican leaders who can actually explain why the Obama presidency is a disaster, en-route to becoming a catastrophe for this country. Everyone is trying to show Mr. Romney how to do it, but he just doesn't seem to get it. Or, maybe he does get it, but hasn't got the skills to do anything about it.
I suspect that from where Mr. Romney sits (on top of several hundred-million dollars worth of assets), he simply does not understand that for those of us who are entrepreneurial and motivated to achieve success, another four-years of Barrack Obama means our opportunity for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…" will be replaced by an opportunity to "pay to play — with a ceiling", subject to Mr. Obama's definition of "fairness". Hence, the visceral antipathy I feel towards this narcissistic usurper, and dictator wannabe (who I voted for, BTW), is not shared by the Republican nominee. As Scott Walker observed, "He needs to show a 'fire in the belly'." (Don't hold your breath Gov. Walker.)
If Romney loses, will there be a "civil-war"? I find it appalling that Mr. Romney was the best my party could put up at this dire moment in our nation's history (which I consider a civil-war already). And there is no question in my mind as to who is to blame. I was praying to my pagan god that the social-conservatives would park their "right-to-life" and "anti-gay" irrelevancies at home, and leave them out of this election. Instead, they were out in force, further alienating undecided voters. I have watched these people hobble the Republican party's ability to oppose the politics of entitlement for the better part of four decades, and even a threat as malignant and unprecedented as Mr. Obama — has not been enough to persuade them to shut-up.
About three-weeks ago, I re-registered as an independent. Of course, I'm going to vote for Mr. Romney. But if he loses (as I believe is almost inevitable), I intend to set about forming (or joining) a new party, not one based on establishing a home for "true conservatives", but based on the pragmatic necessity of ridding this country of it's hard-core Leftists and crony capitalists, and salvaging what's left of it when (and if) Barrack Obama leaves office.
Maybe Romney can show his tax returns as well as his tax policy in which he'd be paying virtually no income tax….
He would not be paying 'virtually no income tax' under his tax policy. What a lie!
He would eliminate capital gains tax…That's what most of his income consists of….Where is the lie?
From Romney's web site at http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax:
"Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains"
There is your lie.
Now, exactly why should we listen to anything else you have to say? You've been exposed.
Is there any validity to the unskewedpolls.com website and how they view the polls? They have Romney up three+ last night.
When even Rasmussen, the reliably right leaning pollster of GOP favor, laughs at the unskewed polls guy saying he has no concept of how polling works, probably it's not one to put a lot of stock in…
If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck and hates America like a duck; then it is time to call the Liberals out for what they are and who they support: Marxists. They are the enemy of America and need to be called out before America cannot protect itself.
Obama is a Liar, Phony, Fake, Fraud, Thief and Traitor. The Justice Department is being run by a Closet Communist and the White House is being Occupied by a Serpent who aspires to become King Obama.
Time to flush this most corrupt government with the Raw Sewage they are to the Septic Tank….one way or another.
Good work, young Tea Party Scout! You detected a Marxist in Obama, the guy who:
…Resisted all calls to nationalize banks.
…Kept the Fed overnight lending window funneling what totaled in the trillions to the banks.
…Had three white house chiefs of Staff, all of whom are Wall Street Alums.
…Rigorously refused to allow any investigation of Wall Street in the wake of the 2008 run up and crash of the Housing Bubble.
….Didn't make any serious effort to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest…
Yup, that's a regular Lenin disciple we got in there destroying capitalism, huh?
Great Work – Now go see if you can find the black helicopters dropping fluoride into the water supply! Them Commies always try to get ya through your fluids!
I don't think there is significant evidence he is a Marxist. It is interesting that he has never, at least as far as I know, repudiated the beliefs of one of his mentors, Frank Marshall Davis. I do think there is enough evidence to believe he is more of a EU style welfare state ideologue. That is easy.
There will never be an end to the number of 'mentors' tossed at Obama. It's a game and silly. If that's the angle, I never heard Bush repudiate the beliefs of any of his dear family friends from the Saudi Royal Family…
And what you define as an EU style welfare state can also be defined more accurately as wanting to protect the social safety nets of the New Deal.
Nice try. Obama writes of Davis in his own autobiography. No intellectually honest person can deny the relationships. Nor the extrapolation to ideology and policy goals – at least to a degree (maybe not communism but certainly EU style welfare state). And as for the difference between EU style welfare states and our traditional concept of social safety nets, its the level of entitlements and taxation (income redistribution) to support them. But that should be obvious. Welfare state is where Obama and his ilk (evidently that would include you) wants us to go. Its just that they lie and obfuscate that with claims of just protecting our 'social safety net'. There is a big difference and you know it. As a matter of fact, this difference is the crux of this whole election and the ideological conflict that undergirds it.
Considering that the concentration of income and wealth has been moving in one direction at a rapid pace since 1980, it's true we are dealing with massive income redistribution, but its not in the way your rhetoric claims. Also, I would assume the current version of Obamacare (drafted by the Heritage Foundation in 1998 and first championed by Gingrich, lest you forget) is the evidence of EU style welfare state? Keeping in mind there is no public option and no single payer, how does this apply? Or would you like to point to other examples of the emergence of an European model welfare state?
CentralScruntinizer: Typical liberal skewing of the real meaning of a word or concept. People getting wealthy, or increasing their wealth, is not 'income redistribution'. Its called 'success'. Its called 'The American Way'. Typical Liberal confusion on the nature of wealth. There is rarely a fixed envelop of wealth so that if someone increases their wealth then someone else will loose wealth correspondingly – like slices of a pie. The envelop is usually expanded by successful entrepreneurs. A 'growing gap in wealth' does not represent a problem necessarily. For the government to take money from these successful people and redistribute it is unfair and frankly immoral. Taxation should be for things like national defense, not to steal from the successful and give to the unsuccessful. As for Obamacare and an EU style welfare state, Obama or any other liberal will do as much as they can. Politics is the art of the possible. They of course want, and will continue to work for, systems closer to that of the France, Germany, Japan, the U.K., and Canada models.
An Obama win will not exonerate the biased pollsters. Because everyone loves a winner, a perception of winning causes more people to get off the fence and jump on the winning bandwagon. That is the destructiveness of these corrupt pollsters and skewed poll results.
Expecially them Libs at Fox News with that biased poll showing Obama up by 5!
And of course you miss the entire point of my post. When a candidate starts to lead in a bunch of polls people take notice. There is then a tendency to jump on the bandwagon because everyone likes a winner. Then that will increase legitimate poll results for that candidate. Thats the power of polling. And we know that liberals wouldn't abuse another institution (polling) for their own benefit, now would they? Now, is that too difficult for you to understand?
That's quite an assumption your whole theory rests upon: that pollsters change their own polls to reflect the others. OK. Got any evidence or just a hunch? And how about the pollster at Fox who knows that their results showing an Obama lead will be not help or be ammo for their on air team? Your theory rests on those Fox pollsters braving the disappointment of Roger Ailes, and a brigade of producers and on air talent for not producing the contrarian data that Fox thrives on, to falsified polling data? Thanks for enlightening me.
This is quite amazing. I have no more evidence or 'hunch' than Caddell. But past lib behavior with respect to the media, academia, popular culture, etc etc and how they abuse power through those institutions obviously brings polling into suspicion. And what does Fox pollsters have to do with any of this? Its a pleasure enlightening you.
"past lib behavior with respect to the media, academia, popular culture, etc etc" Well thanks for being specific and relying on factual back-up. You must've wowed 'em in debate class.
1. You know that the main stream media has a liberal bias and has abused it since essentially the end of WWII. You may not admit it but you know it. See the writings of Bernard Goldberg.
2. You know that academia generally has a liberal bias and has long used it to try to influence the minds of young students. You may not admit it but you know it. See the writings of David Horowitz.
3. You know popular culture in general has a liberal bias and they abuse it. You may not admit it but you know it. See the writings of Ben Shapiro or Michael Medved. Or better yet just listen to just about any jackass actor out there.Yea. You're wowing us with debate. Ignoring obvious facts to support your own ideas never wins.
You do realize that even conservative stalwart Bill Kristol has admitted that the canard of a liberal press has been the best piece of right wing spin of the past 30 years? The news media indeed has a bias, in fact it has two: The first and primary bias is toward sensationalism which equals profit. Stupid simple stories win, whether it's a car chase, the story line of Romney being a comic clown out of touch with real Americans or John Kerry being a comically stiff clown out of touch with real americans. The second and most hard line bias is that mass media are pro-corporate. You will almost never see a story that is anti corporate advanced by a major broadcast network or a major mass publication. Monsanto copywriting most seeds or keeping retailers from disclosing genetic modifications? Not gonna see it anywhere. Any real investigation of the methodical way BP and Global Marine bought off safety inspectors and priced in the likelihood of a major disaster as the cost of doing business? Not coming to a set near you. The broadcast media are overwhelmingly controlled by six large conglomerates: Viacom, Comcast, Disney,Time Warner, NewsCorp,and Clear Channel. These six companies incidentally see more profit under a republican tax and regulatory climate… Not gonna see a true liberal press coming from them. The cost would be in the billions. As for Bernie Goldberg, like Dick Morris, he's paid for his retirement five times over by being the man who came in from the liberal cold… David Frum and David Brock are working the same deal in reverse. Everyone likes to have their suspicions confirmed by a defector. Academia is a more complicated issue, and there is liberal leaning in academia – Whether that's bias or a natural outgrowth of the disciplines in which you find liberalism (do you find liberalism in Engineering?)
As for pop culture, absolutely – there is liberal bias. It's not monolithic – I know many conservatives in Hollywood, but they are in the minority, and by and large you see liberal messaging in pop culture above conservative ones.
Nice theory about the twisted polls by the media. But your theory can't explain why the FoxNews polls show Obama leading by 5 points. Where does the FoxNews poll fit into your theory? Or are the FoxNews polls an oddity that even your theory just can't explain?
Has anyone yet seen an analyst, anywhere, asking if these polls bot 2010 election right? My recollection is that none of the polls foresaw the tea party tsunami in 2010. Are the pollsters who are weighting the 2008 turnout giving any weight to the 2010 turnout?
I think Caddell is right; the polls are simply too erratic. And incredibly I find I agree with Dick Morris: the logical contradictions in the polling data are too consistently pro Obama to be accidental. (Obama is leading beyond the error margin while trailing independents by 5?) Typically there is some consistency, even in tracking polls. The recent CBS poll as an example had D+9 as a sample-well beyond even the 2008 turnout gap. If the GOP loses it will be more of a comment on the candidate and the media than the candidate's ideology. And pitchfork populism as a core presentation will not just sentence the GOP to wander in the electoral woods for the short term future. It will spawn a new party of the centrist right variety which may well ultimately put the GOP out of business. Romney unfortunately is a much better executive than politician, and Reagan's great skill as a politician was his defining quality. Your comment that he won because he was Ronald Reagan is right on target. The electorate was more attuned to whom he appeared to be than what his ideology was. And he carefully avoided the ideological confrontation arena, unlike Gingrich et. al. who had moments in the sun without any durable appeal.
Not only are polls rigged, they are created. If I owned ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and all the major news papers I can create any results I so desire. If I owned all these media outlets, I could place a bet with Las Vagas that given 90 days advance, I can poll Americans and get a 51% negative of Jesus Christ. Let me run negative stories for 90 days about Jesus and then take a poll and I can get a 51% negative of Jesus. Now keep in mind, the stories I run for 90 days may be 100% false, but the end results will be the same. America has not lost its way to progressive, socialist, or communist politicians, it has lost its way to the media.
In football, baseball, soccer or boxing for that matter a good player/ team can beat another good player/ team on any good day, but NO team can beat the referees/umpires.
Romney has an uphill battle because he is not running against Obama, he is running against the biased media. This becomes almost an impossible task because there are so many lazy Americans that don't do their own research to determine the best candidate but they rely on their local newspaper, radio station or tv newsman. Many are Dems or Reps because their parents were Dems/Reps ….. or because their union leaders tell them how to vote, etc. etc.
None of this matters much if Obama is reelected because all the lazy, ignorant voters will be forcibly enlightened by the dramatic changes in America. This man is a danger to America in so many ways and America, as we know it, will be a faint memory. Hint of the changes to come have been there if anyone wanted to see them. Today we see the beginning, a crystal ball into the future. What we eat, where we eat, how we discipline our children, what we drive, when we drive, who can drive, etc. etc…….chipping away little by little.
Tomorrow, we may well be told how many children we can have, where we can live, how big our house can be, exactly what to eat and not to eat, IF we can drive and on and on.
If you are too lazy to do your research on the candidates, at least go to the library or go online and read what "socialism" means to America.
Come on, America ….. you yourself a favor, get off the couch, just the one time and seek the truth.
How Romney does tomorrow night is very critical and will set the tone for the remainder of the the campaign. So how about we keep our powder dry for the time being and work hard to educate voters that need a push in the right direction.
Bernie, if Romney wins the Democrat legal machine will swing into action in every state to contest the results in court and it will be brutal with the same anti Romney news machines claiming Romney cheated!
If Romney wins, we all know it'll be ACORN that done it!
No, ACORN and their ilk try to 'do it' for the other side. That would be your side, CentralCruntinizer.
And of course I was absolutely 100% not being sarcastic there. However any real voter fraud evidence you'd like to support from that nepharious (and now defunct) ACORN, or the 11 members of the "New Black Panthers" or their ilk would be interesting to see.
Bernie, the polls are rigged.
Zero and his sycophants know it.
That's why they are running testimonials from Mitt's garbage man for God's sake!
That's why they are using phoney letters from girls with Down's Syndrome!
Nobody runs ads that are so patently ludicrous or venal when they know they are winning.
You have to get your spelling right, nickshaw, it's "psycho-phants" , not sycophants.
I think you are underestimating a proud, Tammany Hall tradition, Nick.
Immigrants used to be the fresh meat, now it is disadvantaged and/or PO'ed minorities.
However, to be honest, I have seen sleaze enough in former years in GOP campaigns. Especially the campaign against Dukakis. However, it's his and his party;s fault that their efforts were lame and even sometimes embarrassing, making poor Dukakis look like a fool in an army tank.
You can't rust either side, power players always have their hooks into one or the other, or both. I would like to note that reality to the liberal media. Maybe I can catch them inbetween Fairy tale story hour, manipulating public opinion on behalf of Obama and the DNC, and quality time up OBama's butt.
I got ya', Grain.
Both sides play the game but, in this election the sleaze is so thick it oozes from Dims and their support staff, the LSM.
In 2004 I was a Democrat for 30 years. A college pollster called me with an 'independent poll' and said they were not interested in my affiliation. They asked me a question with two choices (neither were my choice) and when I balked at that, I was then offered, "You're a Democrat, right?" I said I could not honestly give them an answer because neither was my choice. I was then told they would fill in the blank for me. I hung up and became a Republican since I hadn't been voting Democratic in years. I have not been polled since.
While a Romney loss almost certainly leads to a GOP civil war, I get the feeling that the sycophantic media is prepared to make a bigger war on a Romney win. I suspect part of the motivation for such high emphasis (attention) on questionable polling and the declaration by some pundits that the race is nearly over is partly due to the leverage it gives them come November 7 if they need it. In particular, a narrow Romney win will most certainly become Bush.v.Gore 2.0 and be all the media will cover for weeks.
We, first, as Conservatives, need to stop letting the MSM choose our candidates for us. Then, we need to make sure that WE vet the D & R candidates ourselves, again not letting the MSM to pretend they vet their guy.
Next, WE need to define "religious fanatic", again not letting the MSM do it for us. Remember? They think that ANYONE who would possibly have any backbone at all in standing for Judeo/Christian values is a fanatic.
What's YOUR definition? Where do YOU draw the line of fanaticism?
The biggest difference between Reagan & Romney is the media is in the bag for Obama; thus Romney is not only battling the President , he is fighting against a media that is obviously biased.
Yep. The media was lib biased when Reagan ran but nothing as bad as they are now.
Romney loses and the conservative media true believers push for the
2016 version of Pat Buchanan or Michelle Bachmann, the Republican Party
will be wandering in the wilderness for a long, long time."
No, if Romney loses, the American people will be calling for Obama to be tarred and feathered and deported to Indonesia after he further destroys the nation. A conservative president and Congress will then be elected to restore the liberties Obama has taken away.
Of course the former mainstream media polls are rigged. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Rasmussen is, by far, the fairest out there. You are right, Bernie. The media will not investigate if Romney wins. If Obama wins? – a civil war in the GOP? Probably. I disagree with your outcome, though.
Obama's second term will be so rooted in communism, that any GOP candidate will win in 2016. And what's wrong with Michele Bachmann?!
You wonder what will be the reaction if the polls prove to be wrong and then suggest an investigation will be in order.
Permit me to make a prediction. Those around Obama and those who defend him have demonstrated an incapacity to revise their beliefs when faced with facts that contradict them. If Romney wins after the polls have predicted a loss, then it will not be said that the polls were wrong but rather that the polls were correct and something nefarious must have happened in order to prevent the votes from being counted. It will get ugly.
You are so much smarter than Bernie who has been in the news business for decades. A lot of stuff goes over Bernie's head. Does he really think someone will investigate the media and the pollsters (LMAO)? That suggests that Bernie has lost his way or has no contacts to help him connect the dots. Hanging out with Bill O'Reilly has caused him to let his guard down.
Romney gave two amazing speeches last week, both ignored by Bernie and for the most part Fox. You should google the speeches. If he performs like that in the debates Romney will make Obama look like a fool. I don't think Romney will allow Obama to "bait and switch" in these debates, he is too smart to allow that to happen. People tell us how smart Obama is and what a great speaker he is. Hell, anyone can give a good speech when no one challenges the Obama "bait and switch" tactic. Obama spends a sentence or two on a response and then boycotts the rest of his way through the speech and we never get an answer or a solution. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!! Great bumper sticker for 2012!!
I read that Romney will win for this reason: Nobody who voted for McCain will change his mind and vote for Obama. Many who voted for Obama will change their mind and vote for Romney.
It's difficult to believe Rasmussen would be ideologically biased. But if extrapolating total vote from a survey sample doesn't mirror the percentage 2008 turnout, how is one to predict the percentage that will turnout this time around. Nobody can.
In other words, they can't predict what percentage will vote this year so they are unable to predict who will win moment by moment running up to the day.
I don't think it's bias as much as ignorance that is flaw of polls today.
The polls are rigged. Women outnumber men in Ohio by one or two percent. Yet an Ohio polls that showed Obama five points ahead of Romney surveyed nine percent more women than men. What was the basis for that sampling? The women were intentionally oversampled to give Obama a bigger lead in the poll, because the pollsters know Romney leads among men and Obama leads among women.
As Caddell suggested, 'ignorance' to this level suggests bias.
Mr. Goldberg, you wouldn't know conservatism if it slapped you in the face. We are not fire breathers except when it comes to the Constitution of the United States of America. Most believe in God, all believe in limited govt, personal responsibility for our lives and families. We believe in the FACT that this nation was founded as a Judeo-Christian nation and that we are the best, strongest and most powerful nation and the last best hope for mankind.
I think anything and everything connected to the mainstream liberal media is rigged. Rigging polls is child's play for them. They know they can get away with rigging everything and they will continue to do so until their networks go bankrupt. They know that they only have to fool about 4% of the populace in order to get their guy elected. If they change 4% of the vote in a given year, they will win.
All the polls, liberal and conservative, put Obama ahead. FoxNews reports a five (48/43) point lead, while Rasmussen gives Obama a three (50/47) point lead. So if somehow Romney wins, the legitimacy of all the polls will be questioned.
But again, all the biased polling causes more people to go with the 'winner'. Biased polling begets more followers. That would be the intent of nefarious biased polling, right?
If the polls were biased and rigged and the voters were affected by them, then why in some cases the polls predict the wrong winner?
If Romney loses it is because he is a poor candidate with a poorly-run campaign. No excuse for GOP to lose in this environment. GOP needs to find a candidate who can authentically argue for conservatism. (Chris Christie anyone?)
Every few minutes on television, I see the liberal Obama commercial "making hay" with the victim and entitlement speech by Romney. The damn GOP should be HOWLING about all the sniveling victims and all their entitlements in our country! They should be RUNNING with it, but they just quietly walk by with their heads down.
Not really 47% are sniveling victims? Ok, fine, then pick a better number and then vocally and loudly add all the sicko codependent/enabling liberals to that better number and it will be close enough to 47%.
Indeed – Run on that notion. It will get you far. Also suggest you look up the totals budgeted every year for traditional welfare programs lined up alongside corporate welfare (subsidies, set asisdes, tax incentives, tax loopholes) and see that tradtion welfare is less than 10% of corporate. So now you're calling Exxon (40+ Billion in 2010 profit, $0 in taxes paid) a sniveling victim. How's that gonna work out?
You liberal codependent liars just don't grasp it do you.
The government does not SPEND money by allowing taxpayers to keep their own money. You thieves just consider all money to be yours, don't you? Just like you see all these "poor disenfranchised victims of social injustice" behind every door, around every corner that you MUST rescue with other people's money! Liars and thieves. We can all see how THAT is working out for our country.
The transference neuroses of the liberals:Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D. ''The Liberal Mind The Psychological Causes of Political Madness'' 2006pp 328-330:
What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are "workers," "minorities," "the little guy," "women," and the "unemployed." They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims' plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the "root causes" of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: "Big Business," "Big Corporations," "greedy capitalists, "U.S. Imperialists," "the oppressors," "the rich," "the wealthy," "the powerful" and "the selfish."
There you go, L'il fella, get all the rage and the ignorance out in one big spasm of stupid. You probably will never be able to realize that in a capitalist system (and I'm a big fan of capitalism to pop one of your bubbles of cartoon misinformation) there needs to be balance – A balance of regulation (too much and you cramp growth, too little and, among other things you can allow vertical integration, monopoly and plutocracy) a balance of the tax load, and restrictions on the influence of corporate money to influence elections and legislation. Over the past 30 years all of those have gone radically out of whack, and the movement of income and wealth to its current concentration in the hands of the top 1% at levels unmatched since the robberbaron era of the 1880s has little to do with the poor and middle class suddenly succumbing to moral failings. Nice myth, not borne out by any reality. The ability of corporations and the ultra rich to write their own legislation has tipped the playing field in extreme and probably irreversible ways from NAFTA, to Tax Loopholes, to the destruction of Glass Steagall. If you don't understand how those things have happened, and have not seen the massive financial impact, I suppose it is comforting to think that the poor, working and middle class all brought it on themselves. If only ANY facts backed up your simplistic and angry fiction.
Typical codependent trash from an obvious limousine liberal. You see everything in terms of emotion don't you, just like the rest of the codependent snivelers. Do you have an Obama/Biden sticker on your non-UAW car?
We who do not live in sheltered environments see the abuse of the entitlement system by the phony victims every day. No one said those on entitlements are all phony, but you lie about that, too, as if we did.
Lying, stealing, blaming corporations and like the liar you show yourself to be you put "central" in you moniker?
Liars and thieves. All of your rationalization will not change that. $120 trillion in unfunded entitlements coming from YOU thieves in the next 75 years.
Actually, I'm swayed by fact, including the role of deregulation (this particular instance being 300 million spent by Citigroup lobbyists to get Glass Steagall overturned in 2000) in the financial collapse of 2008. These are things that your ignorant rage-spittle can't cope with, because they are facts. You clearly have no concept of how much is spent every year on TANF and traditional welfare as opposed to corporate subsidies, tax loopholes etc.. Naturally you see no trade off of taxes being owerd in return for the infrastructure of society (which includes the markets) – But by all means, get your angry fact free rants out. I'd be happy to give you charts from places like OMB, Wall Street Journal, Fortune, etc charting the concentration of wealth since 1984 due to right wing tax and regulatory legislation and the destruction of organized labor. But your goal is to find a vent for your frustration and ignorance, so have at it.
One other thing – If you really want to go with scientific study (and as a good conservative, you should know that science has a well know liberal bias) you do realize that for every study by a small time Bircher shrink, there are 10 large university studies looking into the roots of Conservatism, authoritarian behavior, cognitive dissonance, etc.. Even Conservatives John Dean and Barry Goldwater wrote "Conservatives without Conscience" talking about the fear and resistance to enlightenment that marks the Conservative masses. For more, how about this, from Reason Magazine of all places – http://reason.com/archives/2004/10/20/pathologizing-conservatism
Codependency is a sickness from which to recover, sicko. It is not a philosophy by which to govern a city, county, state, or nation. Just like an addict, you are in complete denial.
Interesting to scan your recent frantic posts – Have you heard about projection – the concept that you accuse others the qualities you fear or loathe in yourself ? By that standard, you seem to be panicked that you are co=dependent (you are seemingly obsessed with that concept) and detest that you find yourself sniveling and a liar. I don't agree with any of your political points, and find you to be dealing with a lot of misdirected rage, but even i think you might be being a little hard on yourself.
Actually son, I have dealt with hundreds of alcoholics and their families. I am very aware of the mental disorders associated with addiction and the families of addicts. YOU and most liberals are in fact codependents in denial. Right there on WebMD. It fits like a glove.
Keep accusing me of certain emotions, as if that really means anything to anyone. But to codependents obsessed with feelings – especially other people's feelings – I know that such is very important for your type.
Get some help, son. You are incredibly sick.
Your irate posts aimed at dozens of those you see as having political outlooks to the left of yours indicate you see anything but raging ultra-right stands to be indicative of co-dependence and mental illness. Clearly, as I mentioned, things must be working out very well in your life, and none of this is transferred rage and self-loathing at all. Keep up the great work. Your political outlook is obviously the outcome of reasoned thought,a strong education and a nuanced understanding of the political system.
Disagree. 'this environment' includes an extremely biased main-stream media.
That's good, Dan. If your simple mind can't come up with something meaningful to say, resort to vulgarity. It says a lot about you.
What has the GOP done in their so-called campaign to make one think otherwise? Have you been paying any attention at all to what the liberals have actually DONE and are DOING NOW to this country and what the sickeningly polite GOP presidential campaign is "suggesting"? Where is the Romney who said,
"You know, let me tell you, no no, look, look let me tell you something. If you're looking for free stuff you don't have to pay for, vote for the other guy. That's what he's all about, okay? That's not, that's not what I'm about.!"
They should be showing that girl and that clip every half hour on every television station.
Again, the vast majority of the "free stuff" in this country goes to corporations who also just happen to fund the campaigns, own the "liberal" media outlets, and write the actual legislation itself.
But by all means, focus your anger and resentment on the poor. It's easier, and they can't fight back.
Dear codependent, liberal liar:
www dot usdebtclock dot org
the bottom line is ALL entitlements, liar.
Keep telling yourself that – Even hold your breath if it does you good. It still won't be remotely supported by facts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html
Oh my! a blame bush article from a codependent liberal.
www dot usdebtclock dot org like I said.e.n.t.i.t.l.e.m.e.n.t.s
The next generations of US citizens will be paying off your sicko liberal bar tab.And stay in that "emotional jungle" of yours where all liberals do their "thinking" or what they actually believe is thinking" but in fact is just emoting.
I'm certain that from the rage and intellect of your arguments, life must be just working out swell for you.
Also, it's fascinating how you term a factual article (not an editorial, not a columnist, but a grid of independently verifiable numbers) to be a "blame bush article." You really panic when faced with facts, don't you?
No, the fact is it is another BLAME BUSH article. You are still a liar and thief. Obama had all that time to "fix" what might have been wrong, but all he could to was pass a new entitlement. A NEW social entitlement, like the ones that are already bankrupting the country.
Food stamps, housing vouchers, medicaid, Obama phones, nothing is enough. Now the most horrendous theft of taxpayer money from the liberals with Obamacare.And just as expected, you play your "superior liberal" facade to the hilt. Your kind are just liars and thieves. But you really do believe you are superior and should run the whole country.
Where to start with you, RageSpittle? Do you remotely realize that ObamaCare was drafted by the ultra Right Wing Heritage Foundation in 1998, and initially championed by Newt Gingrich? And I doubt it's penetrated the rhetoric bubble in which you marinate, but the ObamaPhone bit is also a myth. Its funded by the phone company, but you might want to look at who triggered the phone company subsidizing it (hint: rhymes with "Reagan" )
The typical liberal ego, as expressed by thia leftwing"Scruntinizer" above deserves a good old repost of part of Eric Beltt's 2004 explanation of liberal sickness and ego:
August 05, 2004
Liberalism is a Psychology
Eric Alan Beltt
There's even more similarity though when you consider how the liberals of today feel about certain groups of people. They'll never tell you as much, but the poor are one group liberals consider decidedly inferior. That's why they support handouts; the poor are like pets to liberals. They see them as this downtrodden group of people who are absolutely helpless, and who'd simply die if it wasn't for their intervention.
Liberals have a hard time believing that most of the people who qualify as "poor" only do so for a short period of time (through college for example) and that without any help from liberals they manage to pull themselves up from poverty, and sometimes even become rich, but it's true. Liberals want the poor to be this large group of people who simply can't make ends meet and never will unless they step in and educate them, feed them, clothe them, and give them jobs.
Why? Because superiority is relative. If everyone was just as good as you, you wouldn't feel as good about yourself. So part of the core of the liberal psychology is a deep-seated need to see other people as inferior, intellectually, morally, culturally (think McDonalds and NASCAR), or any other way that feeds the liberal's ego.
The poor aren't alone. Liberals think wealthy people, southerners, conservatives, devout religious people, minorities, "rednecks", and many other groups of people are inferior to them in many different ways. Some they try to help and others they try to hurt (the "morally inferior" rich for example), all because other people's "inferiority" makes them feel superior.
OK, in an attempt to understand your argument here, I went to find out who this is, and what this rant is – It apparently was never published, never an academic paper – It's an online rant by an angry partisan guy. Well played sir, you've trumped me with an angry internet post from a grouch shut in. How can I counter that?
Vulgarity? Did I miss something?
Whether Romney wins or not, the GOP "campaign" people are a bunch of pussys.
Oh, now I get it. Just read the other post. DUH?
Bernie: Conservatives face the additional challenge of finding an affable person willing to run the gauntlet of the press. We may never know if Mitch Daniels is that affable. We know he chose not to put his wife through hell. Another thing looks bad, enough people like gov't programs (no, not 47%) and can get buffaloed by Ds saying Rs will wipe out medicare or some such. "If they make Mom pay her own DR. bills, next thing you know she'll have to move in with us!" 'Course, after 4 more yrs of Obama, Mom will have to move in anyway, and kids will still live here, probably in-laws, too. Hey, can't say Ds are against family togetherness!
I liked it but don't get carried away. Conservative as in RR. Pat Buchanon is a reactionary isolationist and is not what most people and I would assume you Bernie would regard as conservative.
I thought about this today. According to "conventional wisdom" (whomever falls into that category, I have no idea) no conservative candidate will ever again be able win in the history of the United States. Never. Ever. In a country where conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1. I frankly find it a little offensive that anyone who wants a stronger candidate, not the cookie cutter establishment GOP, "hand the mantle over to the next in line of party royalty" type that we've seen for 24 years, being denigrated as a "true believer." I hardly consider myself in that category; I jumped into the political foray 4 years ago so I'm far from a "conventional wisdom" type, but even I can tell you Romney had no chance to beat Obama. So whomever the "conventional wisdom" types are, they are driving the country into the ground as they look their noses down upon us "true believer" types.
As for the polls being rigged, anything is possible, but when a poll from a conservative outlet puts Obama 8 points ahead of Romney, I think we may be grasping at straws.
I checked out that Newsmax link you gave us, and found that they are simply reporting on a poll from the Washington Post, not exactly a conservative outfit. Keep the faith. As for conservative candidates, if the GOP is always going to lose, we may as well give everyone a try.
GOP loses? Dead, done over. Turn out the lights. Never mind, they'll go out without further adieu.
No, Reagan won because he articulated conservative thinking in a way that people could understand and concur. Romney or anyone else can win by zeroing in on the key question, which is not whether you are better off today. It is: Do you want bigger government taking more of your money and making more decisions for you? Or do you want smaller governemnt that let's you keep more of your money and make more of you own decisions? I'm willing to live with the results of that proposition.
So could Barry Goldwater in 1964, but that didn't help him much. Honestly, you can articulate conservative principles better than anyone else, but if you aren't likable, you will turn off the moderates and independents who generally decide elections. Sorry Sam, but likability and great speaking skills are key here in as Bernie has termed it "the United States of Entertainment".
True, Goldwater wasn't exactly Mr. Personality, but no GOPer would have stood a chance that year, in the wake of the JFK assassination and with LBJ, Dr. Feelgood, yet to show his true colors.
Thing is, the polls are almost always wrong (they were close in 2004) at this time of the cycle, and they always favor the democrats. They either show a larger democrat lead, a smaller republican lead, or a false lead. This isn't something that just happened this year, but it may be the worst.
The problem, however, is that if pollsters are using the 2008 assumptions, and the conservative vote becomes demoralized because they don't think Romney can win, they may not even bother to go out to the voting booths.
Thus, I'm not sure we'll learn much when we compare the poll results up against the election results. The polls numbers might end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I have no idea if the polls are fair or not.
Unfortunately, you're probably right about the civil war if Romney loses.
I respectfully disagree John (although I almost always agree with your columns). Conservatives are already demoralized, but not because of Romney's poll numbers. We're demoralized by what Barry O'Drama has done to our country and what he continues doing every day. That's why many of us will crawl 10 miles on our hands and knees if necessary to vote against Obama. Demoralized liberals sit at home and wring their hands. When conservatives are demoralized, they take action. Conservatives hold a sizable enthusiasm card again this year, even more so than in 2010. And if some of those folks voting for Obama in 2008 were actually voting against Bush, why wouldn't that same trend of voting against the incumbent hold true this year?
© 2014 Medium Cool Communications, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

subset: commoncrawl