Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

It's only taken six months, but independents who were strong supporters of Candidate Obama are begining to see the light and back away from the Administrations expensive, expansive policies...

“This is a huge sea change that is playing itself out in American politics,” said Democratic pollster Doug Schoen. “Independents who had become effectively operational Democrats in 2006 and 2008 are now up for grabs and are trending Republican.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24717.html

Note: That is from a DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER...and it's not the only negative poll data for the Obama Administration...

A Quinnipiac University poll of voters in economically troubled Ohio, released Tuesday, showed Obama’s approval rating slipping 8 points, to below 50 percent, from a poll two months earlier, with a plurality of 48 percent of independent voters disapproving of his job performance. A Public Policy Polling survey in Virginia found Obama’s approval and disapproval numbers effectively tied, with independents disapproving of the president’s job performance, 52 percent to 38 percent.

haha

I'm sure this could be said about many Presidents. But, it is interesting how his "approval" rating is dropping fast .

Makes sense....IMO, most of the independents who voted for Obama weren't so much enthralled with him and his policies (especially the DNC policies) as they were protesting the Republican administration and poor decisions by the McCain campaign. Remember, his calling card was "Change" and that's what people were voting for... a change from the current policies decision-makers.....although I didn't vote for Obama, I would have in principle as I could not, with clear conscience, reward the Republican party based upon the performance of the outgoing administration....

Politico - staffed by GOP staffers who lost their jobs in 2006 when they lost the majority...

I believe he was the best option available as President...
but I do find myself NOT agree with him on a lot of key points

This is not exactly the CHANGE I was looking for... but I should know better by now

(f_cking politicians)

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Politico - staffed by GOP staffers who lost their jobs in 2006 when they lost the majority...

Nice try at diverting, ducking and denying....

Ben Smith wrote that article...

Ben Smith

Ben Smith writes a blog about the national politics for POLITICO. During the 2008 presidential campaign, he covered the Democratic primary.

Before joining POLITICO, he was a political columnist for the New York Daily News and in 2005 and 2006 started three of New York City's leading political blogs, The Politicker, The Daily Politics and Room Eight, for which he still writes occasionally about the New York scene.

So, either you're lying....or Politico is lying with his bio.....Hmmmmmm.....

Col Hogan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Politico - staffed by GOP staffers who lost their jobs in 2006 when they lost the majority...

Nice try at diverting, ducking and denying....

Ben Smith wrote that article...

Ben Smith

Ben Smith writes a blog about the national politics for POLITICO. During the 2008 presidential campaign, he covered the Democratic primary.

Before joining POLITICO, he was a political columnist for the New York Daily News and in 2005 and 2006 started three of New York City's leading political blogs, The Politicker, The Daily Politics and Room Eight, for which he still writes occasionally about the New York scene.

So, either you're lying....or Politico is lying with his bio.....Hmmmmmm.....

no neither is lying... politico was launched in february of 07 STAFFED (not authored) by a bunch of newly out-of-work conk staffers who didn't want to go back to whatever state they were from.

and it's not exactly a shot of help to cite that the guy worked for the Zuckerman-owned tabloid Daily News...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:

Nice try at diverting, ducking and denying....

Ben Smith wrote that article...



So, either you're lying....or Politico is lying with his bio.....Hmmmmmm.....

no neither is lying... politico was launched in february of 07 STAFFED (not authored) by a bunch of newly out-of-work conk staffers who didn't want to go back to whatever state they were from.

and it's not exactly a shot of help to cite that the guy worked for the Zuckerman-owned tabloid Daily News...

So, was his report that I cited to start the thread slanted...and was the DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER cited in the article wrong?????

Col Hogan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
no neither is lying... politico was launched in february of 07 STAFFED (not authored) by a bunch of newly out-of-work conk staffers who didn't want to go back to whatever state they were from.

and it's not exactly a shot of help to cite that the guy worked for the Zuckerman-owned tabloid Daily News...

So, was his report that I cited to start the thread slanted...and was the DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER cited in the article wrong?????

the "polls" link back to another politico article written 3 weeks ago by Andy Barr (Al Franken's former personal assistant) mentioning a dip in numbers... but a poll from this week by Research 2000:

Obama
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 61 34 5
MEN 54 41 5
WOM 68 27 5
DEM 88 10 2
REP 10 86 4
IND 67 25 8
OTH/REF 62 30 8
NON VOTERS 69 25 6
WHITE 55 40 5
BLACK 86 9 5
LATINO 66 28 6
OTHER/REF 68 27 5
18-29 79 14 7
30-44 52 41 7
45-59 68 31 1
60+ 49 45 6
NORTHEAST 84 9 7
SOUTH 35 60 5
MIDWEST 68 26 6
WEST 66 29 5

67% among independents as of this week, where his numbers have been falling is the GOP support he had (which, IIRC peaked around 40%)

As a man who has never sucked up to a political party, Obama, IMO, had a better platform with his change campaign. Since he's been in office, it's SSDD (same shit different day).

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
So, was his report that I cited to start the thread slanted...and was the DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER cited in the article wrong?????

the "polls" link back to another politico article written 3 weeks ago by Andy Barr (Al Franken's former personal assistant) mentioning a dip in numbers... but a poll from this week by Research 2000:

Obama
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 61 34 5
MEN 54 41 5
WOM 68 27 5
DEM 88 10 2
REP 10 86 4
IND 67 25 8
OTH/REF 62 30 8
NON VOTERS 69 25 6
WHITE 55 40 5
BLACK 86 9 5
LATINO 66 28 6
OTHER/REF 68 27 5
18-29 79 14 7
30-44 52 41 7
45-59 68 31 1
60+ 49 45 6
NORTHEAST 84 9 7
SOUTH 35 60 5
MIDWEST 68 26 6
WEST 66 29 5

67% among independents as of this week, where his numbers have been falling is the GOP support he had (which, IIRC peaked around 40%)

Got it....the other poll isn't what you want to discuss...so you trot out a poll by a company (Research 2000) which is featured in such non-bias publications like the Daily Kos, etc...

Col Hogan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
the "polls" link back to another politico article written 3 weeks ago by Andy Barr (Al Franken's former personal assistant) mentioning a dip in numbers... but a poll from this week by Research 2000:



67% among independents as of this week, where his numbers have been falling is the GOP support he had (which, IIRC peaked around 40%)

Got it....the other poll isn't what you want to discuss...so you trot out a poll by a company (Research 2000) which is featured in such non-bias publications like the Daily Kos, etc...

no... the other poll is from 3 weeks ago and showed a dip among independents... the problem here is the politico, citing itself, trying to astrurf a 3 week old poll in to a story that's a non-starter.

the R2K poll, while paid for by Dailykos, is a reliable poll, and showed the same blip 3 weeks or so ago. the data is reliable and the methods are sound.

the "edging away" really hasn't happened in huge numbers - he lost a chunk of his post inauguration numbers that were stratospheric... but that's to be expected. still 67% (or thereabouts) is a pretty impressive number among independents.

Gil Dobie wrote:As a man who has never sucked up to a political party, Obama, IMO, had a better platform with his change campaign. Since he's been in office, it's SSDD (same **** different day).

Gil, Obama is a Chicago politician. The "never sucked up to a political party" was spin. He got his start with the tutelage of Emil Jones (former Illinois Senate President), Richard Daley, etc. He knows how to play the game and keeps his allegiences and debts close to the vest.

UNI88 wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:As a man who has never sucked up to a political party, Obama, IMO, had a better platform with his change campaign. Since he's been in office, it's SSDD (same **** different day).

Gil, Obama is a Chicago politician. The "never sucked up to a political party" was spin. He got his start with the tutelage of Emil Jones (former Illinois Senate President), Richard Daley, etc. He knows how to play the game and keeps his allegiences and debts close to the vest.

Daley and Chicago machine actually tried to shut him down - looking back over his career, he lost his race for Congress to Bobby Rush, then, when running for the US Senate, Daniel Hynes was favored by the Daley machine.

Col Hogan wrote:It's only taken six months, but independents who were strong supporters of Candidate Obama are begining to see the light and back away from the Administrations expensive, expansive policies...

“This is a huge sea change that is playing itself out in American politics,” said Democratic pollster Doug Schoen. “Independents who had become effectively operational Democrats in 2006 and 2008 are now up for grabs and are trending Republican.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24717.html

Note: That is from a DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER...and it's not the only negative poll data for the Obama Administration...

A Quinnipiac University poll of voters in economically troubled Ohio, released Tuesday, showed Obama’s approval rating slipping 8 points, to below 50 percent, from a poll two months earlier, with a plurality of 48 percent of independent voters disapproving of his job performance. A Public Policy Polling survey in Virginia found Obama’s approval and disapproval numbers effectively tied, with independents disapproving of the president’s job performance, 52 percent to 38 percent.

I'm not suprised. It seems that newly elected Presidents have a short honeymoon and then the complaining starts.
Reagans' approval ratings were down until he got shot, Bushs' were down until 9/11.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
Gil, Obama is a Chicago politician. The "never sucked up to a political party" was spin. He got his start with the tutelage of Emil Jones (former Illinois Senate President), Richard Daley, etc. He knows how to play the game and keeps his allegiences and debts close to the vest.

Daley and Chicago machine actually tried to shut him down - looking back over his career, he lost his race for Congress to Bobby Rush, then, when running for the US Senate, Daniel Hynes was favored by the Daley machine.

Running against Bobby was a non-starter regardless of his backers. The Daleys had to back Hynes because of long-standing family ties but Dan didn't have the personal charisma to win the Senate seat and they new their support was a first ballot type of thing.

Side note: Dan Hynes is a competent administrator and leader and I would like to see him run for Governor, especially with Lisa Madigan out of the race for now.

Obama! Kaw kaw kaw! Obama this! kaw, kaw, kaw! Obama that! kaw, kaw, kaw! Socialist! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama Muslim! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama looking at girls ass! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama not tough on Iran! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama won't attack N. Korea! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama gonna spread my wealth! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama Nazi! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw!

Wedgebuster wrote:
Obama! Kaw kaw kaw! Obama this! kaw, kaw, kaw! Obama that! kaw, kaw, kaw! Socialist! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama Muslim! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama looking at girls ass! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama not tough on Iran! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama won't attack N. Korea! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama gonna spread my wealth! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama Nazi! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw!

Beautiful flock of Magpies there, Wedgie!

UNI88 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
Daley and Chicago machine actually tried to shut him down - looking back over his career, he lost his race for Congress to Bobby Rush, then, when running for the US Senate, Daniel Hynes was favored by the Daley machine.

Running against Bobby was a non-starter regardless of his backers. The Daleys had to back Hynes because of long-standing family ties but Dan didn't have the personal charisma to win the Senate seat and they new their support was a first ballot type of thing.

Side note: Dan Hynes is a competent administrator and leader and I would like to see him run for Governor, especially with Lisa Madigan out of the race for now.

I don't disagree. I met Obama, Blair Hull, Gery Chico and Hynes at an event in Wisconsin in 03... walked away impressed with Obama and Hynes... disgusted by Hull and laughing at Chico.

dbackjon wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:
Obama! Kaw kaw kaw! Obama this! kaw, kaw, kaw! Obama that! kaw, kaw, kaw! Socialist! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama Muslim! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama looking at girls ass! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama not tough on Iran! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama won't attack N. Korea! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama gonna spread my wealth! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama Nazi! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw!

Beautiful flock of Magpies there, Wedgie!

Wish I had a .22 rifle.

Wedgebuster wrote:
Obama! Kaw kaw kaw! Obama this! kaw, kaw, kaw! Obama that! kaw, kaw, kaw! Socialist! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama Muslim! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama looking at girls ass! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama not tough on Iran! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama won't attack N. Korea! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama gonna spread my wealth! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw! Obama Nazi! Kaw! Kaw! Kaw!

Obama typical politican kaw kaw kaw

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Politico - staffed by GOP staffers who lost their jobs in 2006 when they lost the majority...

Serious question. Does that mean they still hate Dems, or have axes to grind with Reps. I have seen a good amount of negative coverage of Reps by the Politico.

SeattleGriz wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Politico - staffed by GOP staffers who lost their jobs in 2006 when they lost the majority...

Serious question. Does that mean they still hate Dems, or have axes to grind with Reps. I have seen a good amount of negative coverage of Reps by the Politico.

You didn't ask me, SG, but its a red herring he has tossed out several times when I've used Politico as a source...

Operatives (his description) will do anything to spin the message to favor their client...on both sides...

SeattleGriz wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Politico - staffed by GOP staffers who lost their jobs in 2006 when they lost the majority...

Serious question. Does that mean they still hate Dems, or have axes to grind with Reps. I have seen a good amount of negative coverage of Reps by the Politico.

TTBF would explain that that's just cover for their real mission.