« L.A. Blackout! | Main | Vibrator »

May 18, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I think they will be focusing on vote turnout in November.

Notice I didn't write voter turnout. Two different things.

Ed Zachary

"Remember November"

That's part of the problem. Politicians have come to believe the voters have much shorter memories than we really have. Case in point: Mitch McConnell claiming the biggest issue on the Hill this week is the BP oil spill. It may be on Capitol Hill, but we also haven't forgotten how the Democrats forced a bloated health care bill on us, despite enormous opposition from the public. We haven't forgotten the trillion dollar deficit or the Wall Street bail-outs... and we aren't going to forget anytime soon.

The Tea Party rallies should have served as a warning... that We, The People are sick of Congress's excesses and back door deals. On BOTH sides of the aisle. We're sick of being treated like children by our employees. We aren't going to tolerate that anymore.

The last election should have been seen as a harbringer. Instead, they talked down to their constituents during their "town hall" meetings. They ridiculed us in the press.

This election was only the 2nd Act in a major production. It's not over yet. November is going to be a bloodbath for longtime incumbents.

0 for 4, Mr. President. How's THAT for 'change'?


0 for 4? Is this some alternate reality where 2008 doesn't exist? Then i have to pretend the GOP isn't losing special elections all over the place. (hell, just yesterday, Murtha's open seat... stays democrat). I mean seriously, it's like you people live in another political world.

Interestingly enough, the Scott Brown election is one of those things that might have hurt the GOP just as much as helped it. It's pretty much the only contested special election that the GOP has won since Obama got into office. It's a big win, don't get me wrong, but it's the only one. NY-23, NY-20, IL-14, MS-01, PA-12... all lost. The Brown win gives a veneer over the losing strategy the RNC/NRCC has been pursuing. The illusion of winning without the actual... wins.

Remember November indeed, because you damn sure aren't focused on the present.


And he misses the point again. How convenient.


As far as I can tell, the point is to imagine away any actual losses the GOP has suffered. Including losses AS RECENTLY AS YESTERDAY.


"As far as I can tell". There's the problem.


Regardless of any other losses as recently as yesterday. O for 4 is huge considering where this nation was in 2008.


Derek = delusional
Derek = different reality

O was supposed to be this country's savior, right? His numbers are at their lowest right now, two months after the health care has been passed.


"We won." Eh, not as much anymore.

"We won." We were told that things were going to be done with or without the GOP.

"We won." And had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and complete control in both houses of Congress. (Until Scott Brown.)

"We won." And had a RINO defect to your party -- a Democrat RINO who lost in the primary yesterday.

"We won." And have a Senator (Lincoln) who did not win her primary handedly, and is going into a runoff election next month.

"We won." And just gave a supposedly 'safe' district (Murtha's) to a Democrat who opposes Obamacare.


Ok bringing some reason back to this argument, Derek, the point of this post wasn't republican wins or democrat losses, it was the inability of Obama's charisma alone to help elect or re-elect the people listed above. that being said Derek isn't really off in terms of his criticism, it didn't fit this post, but he isn't wrong. Now I think many of us here, on the conservative side, value conservative wins over republican wins. Not all republicans are conservative, and certainly all conservatives aren't republican. But I think what Derek does miss, is that most of us would value a conservative democrat win over a rino republican win easily. perhaps I am speaking more generally than I have a right to, but I do think as much.


When someone misses the point over and over and over again, there's a reason; and sometimes with that reason, there's an agenda.


Deeds, Corzine, Coakley,and Specter were all deeply flawed candidates — if Obama's star has indeed fallen, why is he still flying high in the polls?


At 44%, your not flying high.


" it was the inability of Obama's charisma alone to help elect or re-elect the people listed above."

Yeah, there is a narrative trying to be constructed here, but the problem is that narratives are usually BS as far as political horse races go. In order for the narrative of this post to work we have to go with this "0 for 4" nonsense and simply pretend no other political race has happened. That's simply willful ignorance on perfect display.


Sheepdog, try the facts:
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19. Today’s rating is the lowest earned by the president since the passage of his health care proposal two months ago". From http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Nice try.


Correction; 48.4% rating.


Yeah, i wouldn't call obama "flying high" but at the same time, obama hit 44 back in December on rasmussen, and hit 45 in September. His lowest number is 43 in feb, not the current 44 (Moonbeam seems to be more literate than hsgbdmama). So really all you can say is that Obama's approval rating has been the same for about 9 months. That's reality.

But whatever, in conservative dream land, steady approval ratings = plummeting, and losing your lead on the generic ballot = rising tide.



compared to when he went into office,and now, it has nosed-dived.


I presume the 48.4 is the RCP average rating.


You are correct.


"But whatever, in conservative dream land, steady approval ratings = plummeting, and losing your lead on the generic ballot = rising tide."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! The conclusions this guy comes to...


Dropping from around 66% to 48% is Huge. And sitting there for months, instead of going up is even worse than you realize. Judging by all the ha,ha's you have up there, you must be smokin' some really good stuff.Math doesn't lie.You can go back to drinking the cool-aid now.


@ Frank: Don't expect Derek to get it--- or to admit it if he does. His agenda won't let him.

Maddie - Saukville

Terry N - funny and I did, before your part two.

To get Tom Barrett to make a gubernatorial run, Obama promised to campaign for him and I'm just wondering, was that a promise or a threat?

Legion, you are dead right also, I value conservative wins over republican wins and no, they are definitely not one and the same.

Along those lines, I repeat my lament for the two party system where to win election, one side simply needs to not be the side that is currently hated most. This is an incredibly low standard and I think that with each successive class of Congress this becomes ever more apparent.


Frank, by the way: I was laughing at Derek’s conclusion as quoted; not at yours by any means, just in case that wasn't clear. Thanks for posting.


From Rasmussen:

"Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove Those figures also reflect the weakest ratings for the president since the health care bill became law."

If these are "flying high" ratings, I wonder what poor ratings look like ...

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

More on James T. Harris


Book James Harris to speak at your event

September 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30