Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:20:08

drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:PPP poll from tonight has Obama's approval rating among independents in NY-09 - Weiner's old district where the special election is Tuesday - at 16%.

To put that in perspective, Bush's approval rating among independents hit its low nationally in the midst of the financial crisis in early October 2008 at 19%.

Small sample size and angry Jews caveats apply, but holy fucking shit.

what's ppp

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/ - dailykos's pollster

ahhhh, thanks

any thought that part of their current disapproval has to do with the US's, shall we say deliberate, reaction to the storming of Israel's embassy in Cairo?

It's a weird district. Gore won 67% of the vote there, Kerry only got 56% and Obama got 55%. It swung pretty heavily GOP after 9/11, even more so than the average NYC area district, and didn't swing back for Obama like most of the rest of the NYC area. So there was already some skepticism/unhappiness with the national Democratic party there.

It's the 4th most heavily Jewish district in the country, and it's heavily white for being a NYC district because so many minority neighborhoods get cut out into neighboring majority minority districts. Obama's having trouble with middle class white voters on the economy, and he alienated a lot of pro-Israel Jewish supporters with the 67 borders stuff earlier this year. I'm sure some of the recent events in the middle east aren't helping matters by drawing more attention to the issue, but most of Obama's problems here go back well beyond that.

Throw in an uninspiring candidate (see: video of him dancing), and you've got yourself a pretty good recipe for a special election loss.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:45:59

jerseyhoya wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:PPP poll from tonight has Obama's approval rating among independents in NY-09 - Weiner's old district where the special election is Tuesday - at 16%.

To put that in perspective, Bush's approval rating among independents hit its low nationally in the midst of the financial crisis in early October 2008 at 19%.

Small sample size and angry Jews caveats apply, but holy fucking shit.

what's ppp

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/ - dailykos's pollster

ahhhh, thanks

any thought that part of their current disapproval has to do with the US's, shall we say deliberate, reaction to the storming of Israel's embassy in Cairo?

It's a weird district. Gore won 67% of the vote there, Kerry only got 56% and Obama got 55%. It swung pretty heavily GOP after 9/11, even more so than the average NYC area district, and didn't swing back for Obama like most of the rest of the NYC area. So there was already some skepticism/unhappiness with the national Democratic party there.

It's the 4th most heavily Jewish district in the country, and it's heavily white for being a NYC district because so many minority neighborhoods get cut out into neighboring majority minority districts. Obama's having trouble with middle class white voters on the economy, and he alienated a lot of pro-Israel Jewish supporters with the 67 borders stuff earlier this year. I'm sure some of the recent events in the middle east aren't helping matters by drawing more attention to the issue, but most of Obama's problems here go back well beyond that.

Throw in an uninspiring candidate (see: video of him dancing), and you've got yourself a pretty good recipe for a special election loss.

so there's no consideration of who the alternative will be? I mean, is there any active reason for them to pull the lever for, say, the republican candidate? What are they getting for their disaffection, other than a nice little tantrum?

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:12:27

Ed Koch is pushing the line that Jewish voters should vote for the Republican to send Obama a message that they dislike his policies on Israel. Getting to send clear policy signals in elections is rare, but in this case I think there's the polling to back it up that this is a significant factor in the race.

I don't think there are too many compelling reasons to go vote for the Republican. He's a 70 year old retired businessman with no political experience. But he's running for a House seat, not anything where being an impressive or thoughtful individual is a prerequisite.

The seat is getting eliminated either way before next election due to redistricting.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:22:55

The Funkadelic to congress' Parliament?

by **Grotewold** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 14:17:29

Some E-Cards wrote:I think the Republicans could win the presidential election if they stopped revealing who their candidates are

by **Werthless** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 14:43:40

Ron Paul doesn't look Presidential, which might hurt more than any other significant impediments to a Paul presidency. Plus I think we're at least one more term away before enough Republican primary voters will consider a candidate that will actually reduce defense spending.

Roger Dorn wrote:Ron Paul needs to have a good debate tonight...I pretty much agree with all of his positions on the issues I care the most about i.e. ending the wars, bringing the troops home, stabilizing our currency, and getting the government out of our personal lives.

The problem is, he is terrible in debate formats. He is by far the most knowledgable candidate on the stage alongside Huntsman, but he tries and gets his points across in limited time and often comes across as "a nut" because of this.

The last debate he was widely ridiculed for his comments on getting a gallon of gas for a silver dime, or his comments on the TSA being intrusive. He is right on both points, but he wasn't effective in communicating it. Also, let's be honest and say that a good percentage of Americans lack critical thinking skills and have the media pick their candidates for them.

Perry is a moron, and it's really troubling that he leads the polls in double digits. I hope he flames out, because he is one scary dude.

Also, I dont think Paul is necessarily the smartest guy in the race based on his answers. If he was smart and unprincipled, he would probably say things more palatable to the average Republican voter. But then he wouldnt be Ron Paul, would he?

by **jeff2sf** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 14:51:14

Do both you and Roger Dorn advocate returning to the gold standard? I assume you'll respond to this at some point in October.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 14:54:25

I doubt Ron Paul is interested in really being President or winning the nomination. Like Nader before him, he's trying to shift the terms of the debate. The interesting thing is that in doing so through the primary system, rather than as a 3rd party candidate, no one can accuse him of costing the Republicans a close election like Nader did to the Democrats.

by **thephan** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 15:19:12

I caught a call from some polling organization at 2143 looking for Mrs. Phan. The caller had no good reason for calling at almost 10PM. They young lady never got to her intended victim but she did get a 4 letter lecture on have incredible rude it is to catch a call after 8PM from someone unknown and with no excuse for being on the phone. You;d better either a) be a friend long lost or with important news or b) someone better be maimed if not dead. I think the turning point, not that the ringing phone was not a trip line, was when she tried to explain how important it was for her to speak to Mrs. Phan with the election so near. The first words out of my mouth were, "Important to who..." Phone survey workers, creating disaffected voters one call at a time.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 15:44:10

Romney lands Pawlenty's endorsement

Perry responds with Jindal. Strong.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 16:20:00

Huckabee is on Team Romney. He really hates Perry.

by **Eddie Jordan** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 17:18:25

Remember that time Ron Paul said he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 64? If he REALLY wanted to be president, he wouldn't say things like that. Although I bet some southern voters enjoyed it.

by **Roger Dorn** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 18:44:01

I think Ron Paul's point on the Civil Rights legislation was that both the federal and state governments should respect private property, and if a dining establishment or movie theater wanted to be bigots then it was their right to do so.

In a free society, people would then be able to say "Hey, I'm not going to patronize this establishment because they are run by bigots and racists and I want no part of it."

The national sentiment was turning against the Crow Laws at the time, and undoubtedly those establishments were going to fail because non-discriminatory businesses would attract more people. I respect a person's right to be a complete asshole, it's what you get in a free society.

Anyway, I like Ron because he speaks the truth and is non-establishment.

Can you honestly say Obama is different than Bush? If so, how? And how will Rick Perry or Mitt Romney be any different?

They are all the same. Our two party system is a joke.

by **pacino** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 19:09:49

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 19:17:38

Does Ron Paul still have the blimp? Blimps are fun. Yeeeee!!!

by **Eddie Jordan** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 19:20:27

I don't think you should have the right to be a bigot to the extent that if affects the lives of any other individual. That seems like a good rule to live by.

I do admire that he's strong in his convictions, even if I don't agree with the ideology.

That's not really what i was saying though, just kind of agreeing with TV. If he had any legitimate aspirations for the nomination, he wouldn't say half of what he does

by **pacino** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 19:21:32

he doesnt hold to his convictions, not for his constituents. he takes tons of money for them.

by **Roger Dorn** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 19:22:05

Well the country is going to shit regardless of who's in charge, Republicans or Democrat

by **pacino** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 19:22:59

then we should certainly vote for the guy that will bring the country to ruin faster.

by **Roger Dorn** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 19:26:21

Eddie Jordan wrote:I don't think you should have the right to be a bigot to the extent that if affects the lives of any other individual. That seems like a good rule to live by.

I do admire that he's strong in his convictions, even if I don't agree with the ideology.

That's not really what i was saying though, just kind of agreeing with TV. If he had any legitimate aspirations for the nomination, he wouldn't say half of what he does

That's fair. I also think he doesn't have much interest in power in the sense that he would be a "powerful" President, as he would leave most duties to Congress. For better or worse, he is too blunt and honest and that will never win an election in this country.

Archived

Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible