GOP Brand Has Declined Since Obama Took Office, According To New Polling Data

JohnnyBz00LS

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Indiana
GOP Brand Has Declined Since Obama Took Office, According To New Polling Data

First Posted: 10-19-09 12:07 PM | Updated: 10-19-09 12:31 PM

Despite spending the last 9 months battering the president's agenda, the Republican Party has neither gained any traction with voters nor has it appreciably damaged the Democratic brand.

A Democratic source noted, on Monday morning, that the aggregate polling data for how voters list their party affiliations has remained remarkably steady since the Obama administration took office. If anything, the GOP's appeal has worsened.

In late January, a USA Today/Gallup poll recorded 27 percent of respondents saying they identified with the Republican Party, 36 percent with Democrats and 25 percent as unaffiliated or independent. Now in mid-October, the average data compiled from dozens of surveys over more than a year shows Republican ID at 22.5 percent, Democratic ID at 33.7 percent and Independent ID at 35 percent.

Considering how much political capital Republicans have put into depicting the president and his agenda as anathema to basic American values, the numbers seem surprising and noteworthy.

The highest identification ranking for Republicans came in a February 2009 Rasmussen poll, where 34 percent of respondents listed themselves as party members. That was far and away the outlier. ( :rolleyes: ) Since August there have been 18 public opinion polls conducted which have measured party identification. Of those, just one showed more than 30 percent of the public affiliating itself with the GOP. Twice, Republican self-affiliation was below 20 percent. By contrast, ever single poll during that time period has had Democratic Party ID above 30 percent, with a high of 38 percent in the month of August.

The results should come at some relief to those Democrats who are despondently self-assured of massive losses in the 2010 election (though, to be sure, national polls aren't always predictive of individual contests). There may be a large pool of independent or undecided voters waiting to be swayed in one party direction or another. But they aren't trending Republican. If anything, they are staying away.

GOP Poll.JPG
 
...that's because disgust for both parties has increased.
If I were asked, I wouldn't be inclined to self-identify myself as a Republican either.

However, that doesn't mean I'm a liberal, or that I've become more liberal, or any more inclined to vote for a Democrat.

So, while that's bad news for the GOP, the Democrats should not take it as an endorsement of them either.
 
...that's because disgust for both parties has increased.

True, both parties are in decline. But are you trying to blame the decline in dems for the decline in the GOP?

I believe what is driving the dems down right now is their willingness to bend over backwards to accomodate the GOP during this health care debate.

However, that doesn't mean I'm a liberal, or that I've become more liberal, or any more inclined to vote for a Democrat.

Never made such a claim. Only pointing out how the scorched-earth politics the GOP has been playing has backfired.
 
I believe what is driving the dems down right now is their willingness to bend over backwards to accomodate the GOP during this health care debate.
Free health-care for illegal-aliens has nothing to do with it.:rolleyes:

And the fact that it is being shoved down our throats by the illegal-alien President is so much more comforting.
 
I believe what is driving the dems down right now is their willingness to bend over backwards to accomodate the GOP during this health care debate.

Not really. The Dem's decline has a number of factors, but the main one is ideological.

vvvp3cnr_u2sc6yfdus2gq.gif


Combine that with the fact that this is (and has been for years) a center right nation, ideologically and you could see that the majority of people would be opposed to a radical liberal agenda. And look what is being pushed right now; Obamacare and cap-&-tax. Dems lost control of both houses in the early 1990's because of their push for Hillarycare. The same is happening here, but there are other ideological issues adding to it as well.

Combine that with the utter irrational nastiness coming from the left toward anyone not buying into and promoting their agenda and you can see why the country is upset.
 
True, both parties are in decline. But are you trying to blame the decline in dems for the decline in the GOP?
I'm saying that there is universal disgust with government. Both parties.

I believe what is driving the dems down right now is their willingness to bend over backwards to accomodate the GOP during this health care debate.
That's absurd to think that the Democrats are loosing support because you don't think they are radical enough. The national Democrat party isn't representing the average American who identifies themself as a Democrat. And the Obama numbers will continue to fall as the public realizes that they were sold a lie. Obama isn't the centrist unifyign figure that they readily believed he has, but a radical ideolog with a vastly different image and agenda for the country than the average American has.

And be honest with yourself. Look whats going on in D.C.
Just look at the corruption on display with the Democrat leadership.

It's very strange that you're boasting about Democrat strength at the very same time the DNC is in a panic about losing high profile elections in New Jersey and Virginia.

Never made such a claim. Only pointing out how the scorched-earth politics the GOP has been playing has backfired.
The GOP is impotent and for the time being, irrelevant. They aren't engaged in any scorched earth politics at all. The only interesting things taking place are coming from grass roots and local level organizations that are non-partisan and principled.
 
From Larry Sabato's twitter...

"Party ID totals in WaPo/ABC poll are very misleading. They show 33%D, 20%R, 42%Independent. Ridiculous."

"It is fashionable to claim to be "independent", but voting behavior is the real test. The figures as publicized by WaPo & ABC are deceptive."
 
Critically Reading Polls
[Kathryn Jean Lopez]

More from Kellyanne Conway (president & CEO of the polling company™, inc./WomanTrend) on that Washington Post poll and polls of its kind:
This week's Washington Post/ABC News poll is just the latest example of a survey under-representing Republicans and overstating increased public "opinion" on a matter about which the public likely does not know enough to have formed true opinions. This is agenda-driven polling in that it uses surveys to make public opinion rather than to reflect it.


The paper’s headline screams: “Public Option Gains Support: Clear Majority Now Backs Plan.” But, a look at the Post’s own numbers, question wording, and methodology seems this to make this one of those conclusions desperately in search of evidence.

When the media conduct and publish polls, there is far less accountability than when private pollsters do. Unlike private pollsters, the media have no clients, so their existence as "pollsters" is immune to the usual free market forces of hiring and firing based on actual performance and legitimacy. It is common for private pollsters to be cast as “Republican” or “Democrat,” a tacit insinuation that such professionals would rather appease a client than perform honest work.

But the media polls operate under no such scrutiny. This even though their editorial pages and cable hosts – including The Washington Post – routinely endorse candidates and buck up public policies about which the public may know little (because the media that should be reported on it is instead “polling” about it) but that reporters and editorial board members of the paper themselves support. Public option is the latest example of this.

There are two major problems: one is methodological, the second is substantive.

Methodologically, the topline data released by the Post failed to list basic information like gender distribution and regional, age, and racial breakdowns. This isn’t to say the sample isn’t representative, but the full battery of central demographic questions needs to be made known to assess the representativeness and legitimacy of the poll. My own firm has faced such routine inquiries from Washington Post reporters over the years when releasing polling data so we hope the request is viewed in the same spirit.

Perhaps the most dramatic and telling aspect of the little demographic information released by the poll was in the party identification: 33% Democrat vs. 20% Republican vs. 42% Independent. This would mean only one-fifth of the sample belongs to one of the two major political parties in our country.

Even when you adjust the “leaners,” the party identification in this poll amounts to 53% Democrat vs. 39% Republican, counter to most other polling data: 48% Democrat vs. 42% Republican (Gallup) 38% Democrat vs. 32% Republican (the polling company™, inc./WomanTrend ).

The party identification in this survey is even worse than what The New York Times/CBS News poll routinely does to under-represent Republicans by a good six to seven points. In the most recent NYT/CBS poll, the sample naturally fell out to be 27% Republican, 32% Democrat, and 41% Independent. Employing their own idea as to what the nationwide share of party identification actually is, the sample is morphed to be 22% Republican, 33% Democrat, and 45% Independent. In consecutive polls taken this summer, the NYT/CBS poll weighted down Republicans to under 25%, going as low as 20% in July. Only 20% Republicans nationwide. They wish. Seems like each one showed up at a tea party or townhall meeting.

Getting to the substantive part, this Washington Post/ABC News poll presumes a body of knowledge among the public that it is likely wanting and doesn’t exist. In two other separate polls, Americans have made known their confusion. Sixty percent say Obama has not clearly explained his plans for healthcare reform (CBS, 8/09) while separately 59% admit they do not “understand most of the major points in Obama’ healthcare reform” (CNN, 8/09). That makes sense since few would argue that President Obama has stumbled badly in trying to communicate the specifics of his own healthcare plan and, ironically, in trying to convince folks in Congress that meaningful healthcare reform can exist without the public option. It’s why his approval on handling of healthcare has dropped.

Asking an under-informed public in a poll about "public option" is incomplete. It calls for a response to feel-good phraseology rather than a probing of underlying ideology. “Public option” in health care is not so different from "campaign finance reform," "Violence Against Women's Act," "revenue enhancements" or for that matter, “world peace’ and “no rain this Saturday.”

Certainly the “public option” sounds great when it’s described as “a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans” (as it is in the Washington Post poll). If only healthcare reform were as simple as that; then maybe the Democrat President and Democratically-controlled Congress could pass it. But, the fact is they’re arguing about public option internally. That’s why their friends in high places, perhaps including newspapers’ polling units, are trying to help.

Additionally, this very simply-worded question foregoes any mention of cost. What about the costs to taxpayers? What about the costs to insurance companies? Insurance companies will pass along any new taxes they are forced to pay to their consumers, making the costs of coverage even higher, and then leaving consumers with no other “options” but to abandon their private plans and enroll in the public option. Many employers will follow suit and cut the private coverage they offer for their employees. The Washington Post fails to mention any of these possibilities, consequences, and realities.

What’s more, following the initial question on the public option, the Washington Post/ABC News poll probes respondents who opposed, but did not bother asking a follow-up question to those who supported it. The poll asked: “What if this government-sponsored plan was run by state governments and was available only to people who did not have a choice of affordable private insurance? In that case would you support or oppose this idea?” This caused support for the public “option” to increase. No doubt probing initial supporters of the plan on the costs and consequences would have caused them to reconsider. Other surveys, including the well-respected Kaiser Family Foundation’s monthly tracking poll, are unafraid to ask these important and consequential questions about true costs (tangible and intangible).

When questions about costs are actually put to the test, it is evident that Americans can do the math. The public “gets it” and understands that cost-shifting becomes their burden. Sixty-one percent of respondents in this survey opposed taxing the most expensive health insurance policies, even with presented with the do-good opinion in support of such levies (“Supporters say this would help pay for health care reform, and encourage insurers to offer cheaper policies”). They know that higher costs to insurance companies become their (or their employers’) problems.

But it’s not just their own pocketbooks over which they express concern. Americans are worried about the burdens being put upon future generations. When asked “Just your best guess, do you think health care reform would increase the federal budget deficit, decrease it, or have no effect? (IF INCREASE) Do you think that would be worth it, or not?”, 68% think it will increase the deficit and of those, 37% say it is not worth it, 31% say it is worth it; 10% think it will decrease the deficit.

It is worth noting that the graphic in the print edition of today’s Washington Post highlights how 68% think that healthcare reform would increase the deficit. Underneath, a call-out box shows: “Of those who said it would increase it, nearly half said it would be worth the cost (45%).” First, someone needs to recheck the calculator: 31% divided by 68% is 45.6%, which rounds to 46%, but is still not one-half. What is one-half (and then some) is the point that truly should have been highlighted: the fact that among those who said healthcare would increase the deficit, the majority (54%) said it would not be “worth it. “

The bogusness of this poll (and others showing “support” for the public option) is also proved by President Obama himself, who is lukewarm on inclusion of public option and has suggested they would move forward with or without it. In fact, he said in his address to the Joint Session of Congress last month that “the public option is only a means to that end — and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.” He must realize that honest polling shows no such clamor for a public option. Opponents should take heart since the real argument about public option exists almost exclusively among the Left: unions, Congressional Black Caucus, and even Nancy Pelosi. To exclude or dilute the public option will likely cost them precious political currency among an increasingly impatient base who thought this would be included in “hope” and “change.”

President Obama also may know something that he did not realize earlier this summer: Most Americans look at healthcare through an economic prism and so one of his greatest vulnerabilities right now is his handling of the deficit. According to many polls, he’s not trusted on it.

The positive-sounding "public option" should be exposed for what it truly is, by media pollsters and by anyone who truly cares about healthcare reform: a government grab of one of the most intimate matters people face, and one about which most of them are presently content. Additionally, "private" is the opposite of public, and privacy is an important word in the overall healthcare lexicon.

No one benefits when poorly-gathered information is at the root of any message or strategy. An issue as complex as healthcare cannot (and should not) be boiled down to a single headline or a single polling question. Those charged with informing the public truthfully about “public option” should not substitute public “opinion” for facts.

Washington Post Topline: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_101909.html

Gallup (Ideology): http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx

Gallup (Party ID): http://www.gallup.com/poll/123362/Independents-Lean-GOP-Party-Gap-Smallest-Since-05.aspx#

CBS/NY Times Topline: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_health_care_100909.pdf
 
Guess we'll see who lost Hope and Change in the 2010 elections....

7 Months After Stimulus 49 of 50 States Have Lost Jobs
America Now Over 6 Million Jobs Shy of Administration's Projections
Wednesday, October 21, 2009


The table below compares the White House's February 2009 projection of the number of jobs that would be created by the 2009 stimulus law (through the end of 2010) with the actual change in state payroll employment through September 2009 (the latest figures available). According to the data, 49 States and the District of Columbia have lost jobs since stimulus was enacted. Only North Dakota has seen net job creation following the February 2009 stimulus. While President Obama claimed the result of his stimulus bill would be the creation of 3.5 million jobs, the Nation has already lost a total of 2.7 million – a difference of 6.2 million jobs. To see how stimulus has failed your state, see the table below.

Obama jobless.jpg
 
Yep - ND is sitting on huge oil/natural gas fields and right now they are scrambling to start to get those wells started. My brother is in fact in ND (yuk and cold) this week shooting (they put explosives far underground to measure the resulting sine waves, that way they have a good idea of the type of material the waves are going through- gas, solid, heavy or light liquid and at what depth) to get data for more drilling... Energy is booming in ND...
 
Yep - ND is sitting on huge oil/natural gas fields and right now they are scrambling to start to get those wells started. My brother is in fact in ND (yuk and cold) this week shooting (they put explosives far underground to measure the resulting sine waves, that way they have a good idea of the type of material the waves are going through- gas, solid, heavy or light liquid and at what depth) to get data for more drilling... Energy is booming in ND...

interesting...
 
Don't worry, Jennifer Granholm has boasted that Michigan will gain 40,000 green jobs by 2020. :rolleyes:
 
Don't worry, Jennifer Granholm has boasted that Michigan will gain 40,000 green jobs by 2020. :rolleyes:

Will those jobs be volunteer? Will they last for more then 36 hours? ;)
 
Will those jobs be volunteer? Will they last for more then 36 hours? ;)
The larger point is that 40,000 jobs over 11 years is pathetic. She's proud of this, though. Meanwhile Michigan has lost over 900,000 jobs since she took office.
 
Will those jobs be volunteer? Will they last for more then 36 hours? ;)
No- but you'll get a free ticket to Disney world for your day of service...

And what's worse about Granholm is that pitiful job creation she speaks of ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN if the policies she's publicly supporting in D.C. succeed in passing.
 
MonsterMark said:
Free health-care for illegal-aliens has nothing to do with it.

And the fact that it is being shoved down our throats by the illegal-alien President is so much more comforting.

You are an idiot and a LIAR, I refuse to waste my time correcting or debating you.

shagdrum said:
Not really. The Dem's decline has a number of factors, but the main one is ideological.

Combine that with the fact that this is (and has been for years) a center right nation, ideologically and you could see that the majority of people would be opposed to a radical liberal agenda. And look what is being pushed right now; Obamacare and cap-&-tax. Dems lost control of both houses in the early 1990's because of their push for Hillarycare. The same is happening here, but there are other ideological issues adding to it as well.

Not surprisingly, you are drawing a false conclusion to fit your preconceived notions based on the very miniscule amount of data you presented. Given Gallup’s limited amount of granularity in both their sampling size and rate compared to Pollster’s averaged approach using numerous polls in addition to Gallup’s data, it’s much more probable that the minor up-tick in opinion on the Dem’s leanings shown in your graph are the result of the republican respondents’ more polarized opinion of the Dem party in the aftermath of getting slaughtered in the Nov ’08 elections.

Calabrio said:
That's absurd to think that the Democrats are loosing support because you don't think they are radical enough. The national Democrat party isn't representing the average American who identifies themself as a Democrat. And the Obama numbers will continue to fall as the public realizes that they were sold a lie. Obama isn't the centrist unifyign figure that they readily believed he has, but a radical ideolog with a vastly different image and agenda for the country than the average American has.

The progressive left has been plenty angry at Obama for several things, from dragging his feet on eliminating DADT, to effectively protecting Cheney from war crime investigations, to not taking a more active roll in pushing Congress harder to include a strong public option in the health care bills. They are also angry and Congressional Dems for not pushing back hard enough of the lies and false rhetoric from the far right on “death panels” and such. What we now have in both bills from the House and Senate in the form of “public options” have been significantly watered-down from pressure from both the GOP and blue-dogs.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_health_care_100909.pdf

While public assessments of the President on this issue are mixed, they are considerably better than the ratings of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Solid majorities of Americans disapprove of the way both the Democrats (60%) and Republicans (67%) are handling health care.
HANDLING HEALTH CARE

Obama / Democrats / Republicans
Approve: 47% / 25% / 17%
Disapprove: 42 / 60 / 67
Don’t know: 11 / 15 / 16

In addition, Congress’ overall job rating remains low. Only 22% approve, while 65% disapprove.

Although the American public disapproves of both parties’ handling of health care, they do see differences when it comes to the each party’s approach to the issue. Just over half think the Democrats are really serious about reforming the nation’s heath care system, compared to 69% who think the Republicans are not serious about reform.

SERIOUS ABOUT REFORMING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM?
Democrats / Republicans

Yes: 52% / 24%
No: 43 / 69

But then again, I wouldn’t expect you to see that or perceive it that way with your head so far up Rush Limbaugh’s and Glen Beck’s a$$.

Shag / Kellyanne Conway said:
Perhaps the most dramatic and telling aspect of the little demographic information released by the poll was in the party identification: 33% Democrat vs. 20% Republican vs. 42% Independent. This would mean only one-fifth of the sample belongs to one of the two major political parties in our country.

33% + 20% = 53% > 1/5 (20%). Is this “analyst” an idiot or did she mean to state “This would mean only one-fifth of the sample belongs to the republican party in our country”??

And SO WHAT? Does that mean the poll was intentionally biased towards the dems? Or does that mean fewer people in this RANDOM SAMPLE are proud to be associated with the “Party of NO”?

Shag / Kellyanne Conway said:
Even when you adjust the “leaners,” the party identification in this poll amounts to 53% Democrat vs. 39% Republican, counter to most other polling data: 48% Democrat vs. 42% Republican (Gallup) 38% Democrat vs. 32% Republican (the polling company™, inc./WomanTrend ).

The party identification in this survey is even worse than what The New York Times/CBS News poll routinely does to under-represent Republicans by a good six to seven points.
In the most recent NYT/CBS poll, the sample naturally fell out to be 27% Republican, 32% Democrat, and 41% Independent. Employing their own idea as to what the nationwide share of party identification actually is, the sample is morphed to be 22% Republican, 33% Democrat, and 45% Independent. In consecutive polls taken this summer, the NYT/CBS poll weighted down Republicans to under 25%, going as low as 20% in July. Only 20% Republicans nationwide. They wish. Seems like each one showed up at a tea party or townhall meeting.

“They wish”??? Instead of building a strawman to insinuate this poll was intentionally biased by selecting fewer republicans, can this “analyst” instead get a grip on reality and realize that the sample was RANDOMLY selected and the party ID numbers are simply further stats on that RANDOMLY SELECTED SAMPLE? WaPo/ABC didn’t go out and intentionally pick only 20% republicans to question in this poll based on some preconceived notion of the party make-up of the country. So much for “critically reading polls”.

Shag / Kellyanne Conway said:
But it’s not just their own pocketbooks over which they express concern. Americans are worried about the burdens being put upon future generations. When asked “Just your best guess, do you think health care reform would increase the federal budget deficit, decrease it, or have no effect? (IF INCREASE) Do you think that would be worth it, or not?”, 68% think it will increase the deficit and of those, 37% say it is not worth it, 31% say it is worth it; 10% think it will decrease the deficit.

It is worth noting that the graphic in the print edition of today’s Washington Post highlights how 68% think that healthcare reform would increase the deficit. Underneath, a call-out box shows: “Of those who said it would increase it, nearly half said it would be worth the cost (45%).” First, someone needs to recheck the calculator: 31% divided by 68% is 45.6%, which rounds to 46%, but is still not one-half. What is one-half (and then some) is the point that truly should have been highlighted: the fact that among those who said healthcare would increase the deficit, the majority (54%) said it would not be “worth it. “

More “critical reading” at work here: :rolleyes:

1) 31% IS “nearly half” of 68%, the other “barely more than half” of 68% is 37%. I’ll give her the point on the rounding based on the numbers presented, however its even more probable that it was the 68% or 31% numbers that were rounded (i.e.: 30.5% / 68% = 44.8%, or 31% / 68.4% = 45.3%). But leave it to this blatantly biased hack of an “analyst” to jump on the opportunity to take a cheap shot at the poll in a pathetically lame attempt to distort, smear and discredit the source.

2) This hack completely misses the point being made by the graphic she is complaining about. Is it surprising that the people who think the health care reform will increase the deficit would also think that it would NOT be “worth it”? Not in the least. What IS surprising is the percentage of those who think it WOULD be “worth it” to increase the deficit in order to achieve health care reform. It’s not 10% or 20%, it IS “nearly half”. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT worth noting that represents either a shift in the public’s attitudes towards health care reform or a fact that is counterintuitive to the right’s preconceived notions. Nearly 1/3 of the population are more concerned about passing health care reform than keeping the deficit from increasing as a result of it. Merely pointing out that only a slight majority of the people who think health care reform will increase the deficit ALSO don’t think it would be “worth it”, and then putting a number next to it (54%), would be just as surprising to the reader that this number is not higher like 90%. OF COURSE most of the people who think health care reform increases the deficit would also think it’s not worth it (yawn), but BARELY MORE than half?? The reader is drawn to the exact same conclusion regardless of how the result is presented. Again, this “analyst” is desperately grasping at straws to find criticism of the poll and article discussing the poll in a lame attempt to smear the source.

3) Combining the respondents who think the public option decreases the deficit (10%) with those who think it would be “worth it” to increase the deficit to have a public option (31%) shows again that a clear majority of respondents do not fear the public option. The message in the graphic is consistent with these results. To suggest that the graphic state that “54%” think it would “not be worth it” to increase deficits to get a public option would mislead the casual reader from the fact that only 37% of the total respondents feel that way. But then again, that IS the purpose of this hack “analysis”: to mislead and distort.

Isn’t it fitting then that the newly released CBO estimates of the House bill WITH a public option indicates that it REDUCES deficits? ;)
 
You're desire to condescend is undermined by the obvious fact you don't even understand what you're pasting, Johnny, and your absolute inability to understand context.

As Shag pointed out, even this survey was bogus based upon it's sampling data. You don't need to take Shag's word for that, LARRY SABATO made the statement. If you're not familiar with Sabato, and I don't think you are, I suggest you read some of his work.

You seem to think that this is a country of Progressives, but that's simply not the case. The vast majority of Americans DO NOT WANT socialized medicine. They don't want the "public option" or whatever new name the Democrats come up with to disguise it. Aggressively pursuing it, despite the vocal opposition, will not strengthen the Democrat numbers.

And if they try to ram it through with a cloture vote, there will be a hugely negative backlash. Expect the numbers to plummet after that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You seem to think that this is a country of Progressives, but that's simply not the case. The vast majority of Americans DO NOT WANT socialized medicine. They don't want the "public option" or whatever new name the Democrats come up with to disguise it.

I never made a claim that this is a country of progressives, Mr. strawman.

And what planet do you live on? What polls show your claimed opposition to the public option? I've look at many, but haven't found one that shows a clear and decisive opposition to the public option. In fact, this one even indicates a preference FOR the public option by the republican respondents:

Poll: Even Republican Voters Favor The Public Option

Eric Kleefeld | September 25, 2009, 11:39AM

The new CBS/New York Times poll not only shows overwhelming support for the public option -- it shows that a plurality of self-identified Republicans are for it, too.

The poll asked this question: "Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?"

The top-line result is 65% in favor, 26% opposed. Among Democrats only, it's 81%-12%, and independents are at 61%-30%. And among Republican respondents, 47% are in favor, to 42% opposed.

Making bold claims without supporting data that is proven false in the face of facts to the contrary only makes you look foolish.
 
The larger point is that liberalism and socialism are contrary to the human spirit. Most humans (and Americans) long to be free, to govern their own lives. Liberals long to control, to rule, to dictate to humans how they should live their lives. The only way liberals can ascend to power is by fooling people about their agenda and convincing them that they 'need' the government's help. They do this by creating villains to polarize the sheep - such as Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Auto, and Big Bank.

America was never meant to be a country where people are taken care of. It's supposed to be the land of the free, the home of the brave - a place where people go to take their shot at liberty, wealth, position, status, you name it. In other words, America isn't for everybody.

Liberals seek to turn America into the land of the enslaved, the home of the weak and sickly, where all people are dependent on a few oligarchic elites to decide for them what they do from day to day.

For you statists out there, I have one question - Can a cow survive by feeding off its own udder?

Liberty must always be defended - at the ballot box, and if need be, through iron sights.
 
I never made a claim that this is a country of progressives, Mr. strawman.
You initially stated that you thought the Democrat party was in decline because of their "willingness to bend over backwards to accommodate the GOP during this health care debate."

And you went on to later expand upon the point saying, "The progressive left has been plenty angry at Obama for several things...... What we now have in both bills from the House and Senate in the form of “public options” have been significantly watered-down from pressure from both the GOP and blue-dogs."

And what planet do you live on? What polls show your claimed opposition to the public option?
We can play polling games all day.
And what is a "public option?" Is that the same as the "Competitive option."
Is that as described in the 1500 page bill? The 2000 page bill?
Or the next version that comes out of committee?

Or is it simply saying that people would support a provision that provides a limited insurance option for the most needy, maybe federal, maybe run by the state?

There was an article in the NY Times the other day that addressed this:
support for a public health insurance depends on the order of questions, the language and the arguments posed in favor or in opposition.

So, let's avoid the misleading language and just talk about what's really at stake here. A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM.

Here's an August poll from Rasmusen that shows only 32% support a Single Payer System.

Making bold claims without supporting data that is proven false in the face of facts to the contrary only makes you look foolish.
Though you are an expert when it comes to looking foolish, try not to project it on the rest of us.

And, could you try to tone it down a little bit. Your angry, hateful simpleton routine is getting old. You temper tantrums demanding society to provide you cradle to grave care are tiresome and they display a genuine ignorance when it comes to political philosophy and education.

Can tell me where the federal government gets the constitutional power to demand that I have health insurance, let me know. It's not a long document, so it should be a short answer.
 
Johnny, you do realize that, at this point in the debate, no question regarding the "public option" can be considered unbiased. Any way you phrase it will inject a bias because the question will inherently be a loaded one. Kinda like polls concerning the pro-choice/pro-life issue. So any poll showing anything concerning the public option is rather meaningless (except as a great example of how phrasing a question different ways can skew a poll). Of course that won't stop you from claiming a worthless, invalid poll is relevant, will it. Gotta love that ignorance of statistical analysis. ;)

Here is a quote I saw the other day that applies well here:
"Sympathetic goals don’t make petulant demands for the surrender of our liberties any less offensive. No problem facing our society is improved by collectivist policies that restrain our creative energy, and reduce our wealth."​
 
Isn’t it fitting then that the newly released CBO estimates of the House bill WITH a public option indicates that it REDUCES deficits? ;)

That post may be the single biggest steaming pile of ignorance I have ever seen. You seem to hardly be able to grasp what you are responding to, and have no coherent argument against it. It is abundantly clear that you are simply repeating arguments that you clearly don't understand and are misapplying. Cal nailed it; "You're desire to condescend is undermined by the obvious fact you don't even understand what you're pasting, Johnny, and your absolute inability to understand context."

There is also your blatant bias in the fact of your intellectual inconsistency. You are down right hostile toward any non-liberal idea or points of view, but willingly accept, without any critical thought, liberal talking points (which you then vehemently defend). A great example is the last line of your little tantrum where you act as if the CBO estimate has some credibility here, as if the bill was not intentionally crafted in such a way as to distort the numbers through the CBO and deceive the public. That is a thought that clearly never even occurred to you and that you will reject out of hand. Despite the fact that no government program has ever come in on budget, let alone under budget, despite the fact that every entitlement program has exceeded initial estimates by some multiple of the initial estimate, despite the fact that the supposed cost saving measures in the bill are not at all economically realistic and will actually increase the deficit and despite the fact that all these claims are based on a worthless and misleading static economic analysis you accept the CBO analysis.
 
So, let's avoid the misleading language and just talk about what's really at stake here. A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM.

Here's an August poll from Rasmusen that shows only 32% support a Single Payer System.

But Johnny rejects the notion that a public option would lead to a single payer system.

In Johnny's view, a public option would not lead to the monopoly of a single payer system despite the fact that a public option can utilize certain "anti-competitive" mechanisms that a private business can not use in a free market (like predatory pricing), despite the fact that government programs like Medicare and Medicaid are already effectively using those competition crushing mechanisms (arbitrary low and unrealistic reimbursement rates; predatory pricing or price controls) in order to reduce costs (rationing) and despite the fact that all the bills making their way in the House and the Senate tie pricing of public option plans to Medicare/Medicaid pricing, effectively insuring predatory pricing on the part of any "public option". However, in Johnny's view, the private insurance industry somehow "maneuvered" themselves into a monopoly. In short, Johnny thinks the government can be trusted despite history and the facts but the private sector cannot.
 

Members online

Back
Top