Driving attitudes is a pervasive sense of a country in trouble. Overwhelming majorities say the country is badly off-track and give the economy negative ratings. Economic expectations are little better today than they were at this time four years ago.
October 28, 2014
"Republicans enter the final week of the midterm campaign holding higher ground than the Democrats..."
"... aided by public dissatisfaction with President Obama’s leadership, with the overall direction of the country and with the federal government’s ability to deal with major problems, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
90 comments:
Prediction: Dems will keep the senate.
It isn't the government's ability to deal, but rather its inability, that has me concerned.
When within days I'm told that Ebola won't reach the US and then that Ebola is here, it makes me realize they can't even get their story straight, let alone do things right.
And the idea that Hillary might be president is just amazingly disheartening, because I already have a horrible mother-in-law and don't need another shrieking harpy in my life, selected by my fellow citizens.
One must simply endure the final week of the campaign.
Then the post-campaign analysis will occur for a day, then the race for the White House can start.
Driving attitudes is a pervasive sense of a country in trouble.
No Shit.
I have yet to see a poll for a contested senate seat that is outside the margin of fraud (aka error).
So yes, I think the commie pinkos keep the senate.
voter fraud
American government has reached the management point of mid-seventies American car markers: bloated and hoping the people will keep buying an ever-worse product. Now we are waiting on the K-Car to save us.
Driving attitudes is a pervasive sense of a country in trouble. Overwhelming majorities say the country is badly off-track and give the economy negative ratings. Economic expectations are little better today than they were at this time four years ago.
This is what happens when Dumbocrat politicians put their party ahead of the good of their constituents.
Democratic votes melt steel.
My representative is a freshman Democrat that voted with Nancy Pelosi 95%+ of the time. She's a rubber stamp for Democratic leadership. She and many others deserve to be tied to Obama.
Might the pervasive sense that the country is in trouble be because the country is indeed in trouble?
HNIC management for dummies:
1) claim ignorance(those who say he lies constantly miss this point) "I didn't know about it 'til I read it in the paper"
2) claim competence "I got this"
3) claim bad messaging "Let me be perfectly clear"
4) claim exculpability "I didn't do this. Bush did this"
5) claim statute of limitations "That's old news...I'm dealing with..."
6) Go to 1
I'm with Humperdink. If Republicans can't keep enough contested seats outside the margin of fraud, Democrats will keep the Senate.
That's what the campaign is primarily about - keeping races inside the margin of fraud.
They will cheat. They have before. They will again. It's what they do.
@RecChief.
I don't think the beltway crowd realizes how disillusioned a large portion of the voting public is with the integrity of the election process. They can make jokes about it, but I really believe it is reaching the tipping point.
I love the Red Hot Chili Peppers cover of Higher Ground.
I too don't think the Republicans will take the Senate. Not to be pessimistic, but there's just to much fraud and people just don't seem to care about it.
Hillary for dictator!
A [ebola] plague a' both your houses!
There are approx 72 million registered Democrats in the U.S., and approx 55 registered Republicans. OF COURSE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO CHEAT.
When does President Jarrett get fired?
garage mahal said...There are approx 72 million registered Democrats in the U.S., and approx 55 registered Republicans. OF COURSE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO CHEAT.
And that is relevant...how? I know you're not that ignorant of how democracy works in this country, and I harbor no illusions that you care in the slightest how much cheating is going on on the left side of the voting booth, but I have to wonder what sort of spin you use to wave off the recent analysis showing that Democrats win 75% of races that are decided by less than 1%, but only 50% of races decided by 2% or more--a pretty damning statistic.
Well, if nobody is cheating, why does voter ID freak you out?
It didn't freak out Democrats to block overseas military ballots in Florida in 2000. In fact they cheered every time they disenfranchised another voter.
"but I have to wonder what sort of spin you use to wave off the recent analysis showing that Democrats win 75% of races that are decided by less than 1%, but only 50% of races decided by 2% or more--a pretty damning statistic."
You don't expect garage to come up with a cogent explanation, do you?
Unless the polls are off, I expect several of these races to go into overtime--some run offs, and also a recount or two. Prepare for an ugly winter!
Tim -- I think dems don't like voter id laws because studies show that Blacks and Hispanics disproportionately lack identification. Some of them may also support/participate in fraud, but the dems official position doesn't necessarily mean they support voter fraud.
Along the same lines, I think a lot of republicans want id laws not because they are so worried about fraud but because they also know that more dems don't have id than republicans. Both sides are being disingenuous.
Personally, voter id laws don't freak me out. I don't see a constitutional right to vote w/o ID. And if is is easy to get an id (and free), seems like not a very big deal. Lot of other burdens such as long lines involved with voting.
"Along the same lines, I think a lot of republicans want id laws not because they are so worried about fraud but because they also know that more dems don't have id than republicans. "
-- There is no valid reason to assume secret racism is the cause of a policy preference.
steve uhr said...I think dems don't like voter id laws because studies show that Blacks and Hispanics disproportionately lack identification.
To my knowledge, there is no support for that claim (and, yes, I've looked). If you are aware of any analyses showing minorities are disproportionately unable/uninterested in getting an ID, I'd appreciate a link.
Garage, you are not that stupid. Why do you continue to present such specious rebuttals?
"recent analysis showing that Democrats win 75% of races that are decided by less than 1%, but only 50% of races decided by 2% or more--a pretty damning statistic."
And yet, steve uhr claims Republicans aren't concerned about fraud.
Minority voter participation in a few places went UP after voter ID laws were put in place. I doubt the two were related in any way except both happening in the same time frame.
Isn't the number of registered Democrats vs. registered republicans skewed based on which states require/allow registration by party? I am a registered republican now that I live in Connecticut but I wasn't when I lived in Wisconsin.
How can anyone look at the news these days, messaged and massaged as it is by the hands of the MSM to avoid casting Democrats in a bad light, and still not think that the country is on the wrong-track road to perdition? A Himalaya-sized mountain range of scandals, head-chopping Muslims running rampant in the Middle East as we scamper away, a hideously scary disease that our President and his friends seem unable and unwilling to try to protect us against... And what's the good news, huh? Why, exactly, should those incompetent leaders keep their jobs?
Garage, you are not that stupid. Why do you continue to present such specious rebuttals?
You're convinced Democrats cheat in elections. I get it. I don't see the evidence. It's been investigated in this state. The state couldn't prove instance of fraud that would be prevented by their voter ID law. At what point do conservatives just admit their wrong?
Voter fraud happens. Try not to conflate in-person voter fraud with the other methods of vote fraud.
I also find it interesting that vote fraud is one of the few crimes that Democrats assume only occurs in exactly the number of verified convictions, as opposed to most other crimes which they are willing to extrapolate some data and hedge some bets that the number is higher, sometimes orders of magnitudes higher.
Try not to conflate in-person voter fraud with the other methods of vote fraud.
In-person is the only fraud that is prevented by photo ID laws. Almost nobody is going to risk prison to vote twice. I'd be a lot more worried about touch screen voting machines.
Wow, so fear that "some people" might think something is a way to overcome a reasonable argument on the part of others.
Good by Enlightenment.
Garage: But, people DO vote twice. Here; also here; another here; finally here.
So, yeah. People will. Will it swing an election? Who knows.
Out of 1,000 students in the State of Wisconsin asked in 2000, 15% admitted voting twice. garage will not see what it is his interest to not see.
"You're convinced Democrats cheat in elections. I get it. I don't see the evidence."
"recent analysis showing that Democrats win 75% of races that are decided by less than 1%, but only 50% of races decided by 2% or more."
I think dems don't like voter id laws because studies show that Blacks and Hispanics disproportionately lack identification.
Bullshit.
@garage, in Illinois and Maryland, states that are incandescently blue in their political leanings, we now have had instances of voting machines that switched Republican votes to their Democrat opponents. So I have a bunch of questions.
(1) If, as alleged, this is merely a case of improper calibration, then why are all the votes switching from Republican to Democrat? My intuition is that some of the calibration errors should go in the other direction if the errors are not deliberate.
(2) Who calibrated the machines? What training did they receive and what are their qualifications? And are they free of political taint?
(3) Democrats feel the need to cheat in local races in places like Maryland and Illinois? What's up with that?
You're convinced Democrats cheat in elections. I get it. I don't see the evidence.
@garage, you don't believe in the evidentiary value of confessions? Democrats positively boast about cheating in elections in nearby Chicago. That hasn't reached your ears?
Tim -- The democrats claim there are such studies but I have not reviewed them and do not know if they are scientifically valid. However, it makes sense to me that poor people who are more likely to be democrats are less likely to be able to afford a car (hence less likely to have a driver's license) and less likely to travel internationally (and hence less likely to have a passport). Those are the two major forms of photo ID I believe.
Re your Hilary poster, I note that she shows her left cheek and An shows her right cheek. Subliminal message.
Garage, President Obola received 100% of the votes cast in certain Philadelphia precincts in 2012, a statistical impossibility. In some cases, Obola received more votes than registered voters - a mere quirk apparently.
Garage, I do not think you understand the gravity of the situation. It may be a real knee slapper to you, but there was a war over taxation w/o representation. And sham elections are just that.
Garage: But, people DO vote twice. Here; also here; another here; finally here.
The first link I checked was a Walker supporter. LOL.
So why aren't Republicans introducing laws that would prevent these handful of people from voting more than once?
garage -- there are laws against voter fraud.
Correct. Those laws should be enforced.
"Enforce the laws that are already on the books".
Along the same lines, I think a lot of republicans want id laws not because they are so worried about fraud but because they also know that more dems don't have id than republicans. Both sides are being disingenuous.
I think you're wrong here, just my opinion. Why is it that, and this has been the case in places like Georgia, when there is an ID requirement, minority voting goes up? It's about the integrity of the vote. Obviously, if you are going to require an ID to vote, the state has to provide one, if someone can't afford one. But it's not disingenuous to want integrity in the voting process. It IS disingenuous for the UAW to mouth the Democrat Party line, like you just did, when they require ID to vote in union elections. It IS disingenuous to say it represents a poll tax even if ID is provided free. It IS disingenuous to claim you can't get an ID because your birth certificate is jacked up, you don't have the $100 dollar fee to fix it, and then turn down that $100 from a 3rd party so you can later claim you've been disenfranchised. It IS disingenuous to claim you can't get down to the DMV and then accept a ride from a political organization to a polling location.
And I don't care if it's the GOP or Democrats doing it. I think the penalties for voter fraud should be very harsh because it strikes directly at the heart of our system of government.
steve, I don't doubt that Democrats claim these studies exist, I only doubt that these studies exist. I also doubt that minorities are significantly less likely to own a car.
What I don't doubt is that people who don't have cars still have state IDs (including, but not limited to, driver's licenses) because state IDs are necessary for a great many things beyond driving a car.
I'd be a lot more worried about touch screen voting machines.
Yes, that is why Voter ID is only a first step. Next should be absentee ballots.
So, yeah. People will. Will it swing an election? Who knows.
The difference between Franken and Coleman was 312 votes.
Yes, that is why Voter ID is only a first step
Which prevents none of the fraud Republicans claim is happening widespread. Maybe the last step?
Garage. You referring to (G)AG Holder going after the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case in ...... wait for it...... Philly?
The first link I checked was a Walker supporter. LOL.
So why aren't Republicans introducing laws that would prevent these handful of people from voting more than once?
You truly are a purposely obtuse troll. have a nice day.
You truly are a purposely obtuse troll. have a nice day.?
You say there is a problem but refuse to do anything to fix it. You'd rather just whine about it.
RecChief - Interesting about Georgia. My guess is that before they get their ID they (wrongly) think they would not have been able to vote and did not want to cause a scene.
If democrats really believe that more minorities will vote with ID laws, then you may be right that their true motive is to encourage voter fraud.
But to me it seems unlikely that the number of dem votes gained with ID laws is greater than the number of votes dem gain through voter fraud minus the number of votes rep gains through fraud. But who knows.
If democrats really believe that more minorities will vote with ID laws, then you may be right that their true motive is to encourage voter fraud.
Except Democrats ignore this phenomenon. Why? Even with all the evidence of voter fraud, Ohio, connecticut, wisconsin, NC, florida, convictions and confessions. supporters of both parties. But only one side says "There is no voter fraud!" Why?
But to me it seems unlikely that the number of dem votes gained with ID laws is greater than the number of votes dem gain through voter fraud minus the number of votes rep gains through fraud and right here is the reason that people like garage mahal oppose any efforts to ensure integrity to the voting system.
RC -- So what is your estimate/guess of the percentage of votes that are fraudulent for dems and for republicans. nationally?
Hard to get an accurate number since fraud done properly is never uncovered.
My guess is under 1% but this is just a guess.
So then, close elections should not break one way or another preponderantly, if fraud is under 1% and both sides do it?
If they both do it equally, yes. Even if it is 10%. Just another reason not to vote.
steve uhr said...
RC -- So what is your estimate/guess of the percentage of votes that are fraudulent for dems and for republicans. nationally?
Hard to get an accurate number since fraud done properly is never uncovered.
My guess is under 1% but this is just a guess.
I don't have a guess. It's hard to assess. Are you saying that since your guess is under 1% then nothing needs to be done? Actually, I think it's more like mice and cockroaches. If you see one, there are probably 10 more you don't see. And that is why, first and foremost, there should be a requirement that you prove you are who you say you are. That is, a citizen who has the right to vote in this country. Second, in some states, it's permissible for a single person to gather as many as ten completed absentee ballots to turn in. If that one person is unscrupulous, who is to say that they don't open ballots and only turn in the ones that are votes for who they want? That's not even voter fraud per se. How wide spread is that action in a state with those kinds of rules? probably not very, yet why shouldn't every effort be made to stop that kind of vote tampering? But don't let the Democrat Party fool anyone, they don't care about disenfranchisement, they happily disenfranchise overseas military personnel whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Garage has finally graduated. He has achieved a level only one person has reached on this blog. That, of course, would be C'MC. Someone who's future posts I zoom by w/o reading.
A complete waste of time.
I'm saying if it is under 1% and done equally by both sides (both of which I believe to be true) then maybe the cost and inconvenience involved with voter id laws is not worth the trouble.
However, we will never know how frequently it occurs or whether one side does it significantly more than the other side. Hence I have no problem with ID laws. (I do have a big problem with English-only laws however)
Someone who's future posts I zoom by w/o reading.
A complete waste of time.
Same. When I see "New Black Panther", I immediately lose all interest.
"Enforce the laws that are already on the books".
If we did, would you be inside a cell or outside the jail?
I'm saying if it is under 1% and done equally by both sides (both of which I believe to be true) then maybe the cost and inconvenience involved with voter id laws is not worth the trouble.
That's where we disagree. If it's one percent, that sounds small. but if you factor in the fact that there were 169,000,000 registered voters in the US, thats 1,690,000 illegal votes. Personally, whether it's .1% or 10% it's all the same to me. Vote integrity is that important.
But you would have to agree that at some point the cost involved in finding that last fraudster isn't worth it. Government can't do everything. Limited resources may be better spent some other way.
Aside from the question of vote fraud, what about this video?
steve uhr said...
But you would have to agree that at some point the cost involved in finding that last fraudster isn't worth it. Government can't do everything. Limited resources may be better spent some other way.
Again, I have to disagree. To me, it is worth it. This is one of the few areas that I don't find any gray area. Every last one needs to be run to ground. This crime strikes at the very heart of our political system. If one person in effect has two votes because of some kind of vote fraud, and you only have one, are you ok with being the only person in the country who is disenfranchised? because that is the net effect. My guess, Steve, is that you tend to vote Democrat party, you may have guessed by now that I tend not to, and I am not ok with you being disenfranchised in that way, why would you be ok with it? As long as the federal government has money for shrimp on a treadmill, we have the financial resources to go after every last one. And most people who would like to commit vote fraud would be prevented if any effort at all was made to stop it, because most would do the cost benefit analysis of whether they would risk jail time and decide, nope.
Re the video -- I think many dem polices have hurt minorities over the years and it is a real shame when blacks are ridiculed for being conservative. However, I also believe that racism is still a very big problem that republicans like to ignore.
I rarely vote. Maybe if I voted more I would care more about being disenfranchised.
steve uhr said...
RC -- So what is your estimate/guess of the percentage of votes that are fraudulent for dems and for republicans. nationally?
That's easy. Which states have motor voter.
steve uhr said...
I rarely vote. Maybe if I voted more I would care more about being disenfranchised.
flabbergasted.
However, I also believe that racism is still a very big problem that republicans like to ignore.
I don't know, my own experience hasn't shown that. I've worked with, been led by, and have led men and women from every minority group listed in a government employment questionnaire. And of those, the distribution of the lazy and incompetent was pretty even across the board. That is, those who couldn't or wouldn't pull their weight didn't fit a pattern based on their skin color, gender, or religious affiliation. Doubtless it exists.
I have a question. If there is 1% of the population that is racist, is that a low enough number to end affirmative action? If no, why not?
If the 1% is The One Percent, the answer is no.
The Democratic ticket in Wisconsin consists of a dilettante and a convicted draft dodger.
Nice choices Garage.
steve uhr said...
If the 1% is The One Percent, the answer is no.
What kind of an answer is that? I had a serious qustion, and you had quite a bit of time to come up with answer, and this is what you came up with? The One Percent? you mean people like Tom Steyer and Eric Schmidt, Jamie Dymon maybe?? how about just a generic 1% of the population?
steve uhr = concern troll
Everything Steve Uhr types makes sense with that in mind.
My point is that if the people in control of our economic system are the ones that are racist there is much more of a problem than if the 1% is scattered equally through the population. I assume you agree.
However, I understand the intent of affirmative action is primarily to address PAST discrimination, so even if there are no racists there may still be need for some affirmative action to rectify past wrongs.
Birkel -- Where have you been all day? I missed you.
steve uhr said...
However, I understand the intent of affirmative action is primarily to address PAST discrimination, so even if there are no racists there may still be need for some affirmative action to rectify past wrongs.
I confess, your thinking is beyond my understanding. best of luck.
Come on. What's not to understand? The point of affirmative action is to correct past discrimination, including past lawful discrimination that occurred before the civil rights law, brown v bd of ed., etc., and to try to put people in the position they would have been in but for that past discrimination.
Even if all discrimination/racism magically comes to an end, AA may still be a good idea to assist those who were harmed in the past. I'm not saying there is not a downside to AA because there certainly is.
steve uhr's obvious point is that affirmative action will create a time machine.
The time machine will be powered by concerns.
----I think dems don't like voter id laws because studies show that Blacks and Hispanics disproportionately lack identification. Some of them may also support/participate in fraud, but the dems official position doesn't necessarily mean they support voter fraud.
Total unimaginative nonsense (I’m being polite), The Washington Post has just published an article with statistical grounding that a large number of illegal aliens voted.
The miniscule number of voters without id should be addressed by the provision of free ID per recent Appellate decisions.
Even blacks support voter ID. After time you really should stop prostituting yourself with this awful argument that your side is to ineffectual to get their own IDs and you don’t care enough about them to get them as a political party.
Unknown,
Your politeness is appreciated.
If you look at my posts above you will see that I have no problem with voter id laws. So when you say "your side" I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
Apology accepted.
Post a Comment