note to RDean

.......the Congressional elections are NEXT year. Hit us with poll numbers
around, say, next July, and THEN you may have something. Until then, figures
such as those cited in the Harry Reid thread are wildly speculative.
A lot of stuff can happen between now and then.....who knows, maybe the GOP
will just come out and make Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity the official
leaders and have done with it.
"Obamamania is coming home to roost....." w00t!!
Tom

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:55:14 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:

......the Congressional elections are NEXT year. Hit us with poll numbers
around, say, next July, and THEN you may have something. Until then, figures
such as those cited in the Harry Reid thread are wildly speculative.
A lot of stuff can happen between now and then.....who knows, maybe the GOP
will just come out and make Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity the official
leaders and have done with it.
"Obamamania is coming home to roost....." w00t!!
Tom


Oh, I don't think the GOP is in much better shape - hence my comments re "None
of the above." And I didn't see any numbers cited in the Harry Reid thread
itself, but his numbers are pretty bad and he seems to be doing everything he
can to make them worse (and Obama's remarks about Vegas and conventions
certainly didn't help).

And FWIW, and speaking of numbers, FOX's numbers are more than double that of
either CNN or MSNBC (so naturally, more than both combined). And that's not the
scary part - add in Limpdick, and you're getting into some real numbers. Then
take the (more-or-less, self-identifying, etc.) "independents," and things do
not look good for 2010 and the Dems. I grant you that _a lot_ can happen in a
month, not to mention a year, but all that can be commented upon is the numbers
today. While I won't say the speculation is "wild," it is just speculation as
to what they might be next year.

An interesting note - there is some wondering going on about how Obama (read -
his people) seems to have lost a lot of the "online edge" they had over McCain,
insofar as they aren't getting the following they had in the run-up to the
election. Unfortunately, they don't get it...

TC,
R

wrote in message
...
speaking of numbers, FOX's numbers are more than double that of
either CNN or MSNBC (so naturally, more than both combined).

checked lately??

And that's not the
scary part - add in Limpdick, and you're getting into some real numbers.

yeah, but like anyone in radio, some folks who vehemently do not agree with
Rush are in those numbers.
Further, those who DO agree with him haven't been on board the Dem bus for a
while.


Then
take the (more-or-less, self-identifying, etc.) "independents," and things
do
not look good for 2010 and the Dems.

by this logic, "things do not look good" EVER, for either party. Most
statewide polls show less that 40% of any state strongly affiliated with a
given party. Either party.

An interesting note - there is some wondering going on about how Obama
(read -
his people) seems to have lost a lot of the "online edge" they had over
McCain,
insofar as they aren't getting the following they had in the run-up to the
election. Unfortunately, they don't get it...

Here, you touch on something I perceive as a miscalculation. Yes, Obama ran
on healthcare reform as a major platform plank. However, much of his
electoral success and online efforts were driven by a lot of sub-30 year
olds. To that group, focus can be lost if an issue doesn't concern them. By
and large, Health Insurance is not an issue with them, and thus was a poor
choice to run with, first, out of the gate, for the administration. Then
again, I'm not getting paid the big bucks to do the political calculus......
Tom

Tom

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:59:15 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
speaking of numbers, FOX's numbers are more than double that of
either CNN or MSNBC (so naturally, more than both combined).

checked lately??

If by "lately," you mean in the last 10 minutes, no. OTOH, if by "lately" you
mean in the last week, yes. To be accurate, I didn't "check" them, I simply saw
them when they came via a (typical) media bulletin giving such information.

And that's not the
scary part - add in Limpdick, and you're getting into some real numbers.

yeah, but like anyone in radio, some folks who vehemently do not agree with
Rush are in those numbers.
Further, those who DO agree with him haven't been on board the Dem bus for a
while.

As are the numbers for the various FOX, MSNBC, CNN components. But what is
interesting - and being noted by the ratings services, etc. - is that the
right-leaning stuff is increasing markedly and the left-leaning stuff is
slipping somewhat. The Beck numbers were really up, although I'd suggest a fair
part of that was due more to the recent controversy than any particular leaning
on the part of the listeners.


Then
take the (more-or-less, self-identifying, etc.) "independents," and things
do
not look good for 2010 and the Dems.

by this logic, "things do not look good" EVER, for either party. Most
statewide polls show less that 40% of any state strongly affiliated with a
given party. Either party.

Again, see my remarks none of the above - I haven't looked at the statewides
in a while, so I can't speak to that, but I would offer that _in a large-sample
poll taken today_, with questions worded as absolutely neutral as humanly
possible, either party would be lucky to get even 30% "strong support" in any
statewide poll, with Alabama and California being possible exceptions, and Texas
and New York being longer-shot possible exceptions. And I'd offer that if the
2008 election were re-run today, with Romney-McCain versus Obama wheeled over
the field, Romney would take it _overwhelmingly_. For contrast, I think the
results of a McCain-Palin re-run would favor Obama as her recent past would
bring them down as much as his would him, so it would be a wash overall,
although I think it would be a bit closer in Florida (even reversed) and a
couple of other states - the end result would likely be the same.

If I had to guess now, I'd say he's a one-termer - not because of anything in
particular, but simply because he isn't as super-duper as many of his fans
think. And having folks like Van Jones and Charlie Rangel speaking for him
ain't gonna help him out. He needs to get a group of _moderates_ from both
parties solidly behind him, and do it quick, and kick the Emmanuels, Pelosis,
Reids, etc., to the fringes where they belong.

Here's an interesting scenario - kick Ramen Noodles out, bring in Joe
Scarborough and then, Haley Barbour and tell Axelrod and Barbour they can hang
out together or they hang by their balls separately - get it the **** done. Then
bring in Romney as his point man on health care - make the invite public so he
can't really say no to helping his country. Then give both Bill Clinton and Jeb
Bush high-profile positions, and bring in McCain as "of counsel."


An interesting note - there is some wondering going on about how Obama
(read -
his people) seems to have lost a lot of the "online edge" they had over
McCain,
insofar as they aren't getting the following they had in the run-up to the
election. Unfortunately, they don't get it...

Here, you touch on something I perceive as a miscalculation. Yes, Obama ran
on healthcare reform as a major platform plank. However, much of his
electoral success and online efforts were driven by a lot of sub-30 year
olds. To that group, focus can be lost if an issue doesn't concern them. By
and large, Health Insurance is not an issue with them, and thus was a poor
choice to run with, first, out of the gate, for the administration. Then
again, I'm not getting paid the big bucks to do the political calculus......

And while you're close, you missed it a bit. What they fail to realize, in
their arrogance, is that the bulk of the population is completely "instant
focus" - while Obama was all bright and shiny and new, he was interesting. Now,
he is, to a large part of that audience, just another story about Britney's
battle of the bulge or Paris Hilton's moneymaker. Combine that with the fact
that the bulk of his "social media" was, as you say, sub-30s, and the results
are inevitable. Unfortunately, his people are arrogant enough to think that
"their message" - whatever it might be at the moment - is worthy of everyone's
attention when _they_ choose to deliver it. Unfortunately, they never had
"everyone's" ear/screen, and the bulk of those they had were going to inevitably
move on to something new because they didn't care about Obama's policy(s), skin
color, or whatever, he was simply the "cool new thing." IOW, Obama has had his
15 minutes with much of that crowd. And his people have made the mistake of
confusing their ability to communicate with a "viral" spark that happened to
catch, burn hot, and then, as they all do, burn about out. And now, he and his
people are left to try to communicate with "the adults" in an "old-fashioned"
way and it's not all gushing, fawning, and "rock star adulation." And
unfortunately for them, his/their answers aren't really any better than any of
the myriad previous answers.

TC,
R


Tom

Tom

spin for the dictator......it's all spin. Ballarena boy and turd
stick. Then mix in
some pelosi and reid. add some axlerod. And walla.....Van Jones, 35
czars,
Holder, CIA, Gitmo, taxes, healthcare, company takeovers,
unemployment,
deficit. All in just 200 days. Not to mention dates, AF1, bowing, and
appologizing.
p.s. tell your fat wife she is not to salute getting off the plane or
chopper!

"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in message
...
spin for the dictator......it's all spin. Ballarena boy and turd
stick. Then mix in
some pelosi and reid. add some axlerod. And walla.....Van Jones, 35
czars,
Holder, CIA, Gitmo, taxes, healthcare, company takeovers,
unemployment,
deficit. All in just 200 days. Not to mention dates, AF1, bowing, and
appologizing.
p.s. tell your fat wife she is not to salute getting off the plane or
chopper!

add in that 'indoctrination' of schoolchildren brouhaha, and the above is my
foremost reason to believe the large mass of rational individuals will flock
to Obama, just to reject the lunatic fringe that has formed in opposition.
Tom

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:59:27 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in message
...
spin for the dictator......it's all spin. Ballarena boy and turd
stick. Then mix in
some pelosi and reid. add some axlerod. And walla.....Van Jones, 35
czars,
Holder, CIA, Gitmo, taxes, healthcare, company takeovers,
unemployment,
deficit. All in just 200 days. Not to mention dates, AF1, bowing, and
appologizing.
p.s. tell your fat wife she is not to salute getting off the plane or
chopper!

add in that 'indoctrination' of schoolchildren brouhaha, and the above is my
foremost reason to believe the large mass of rational individuals will flock
to Obama, just to reject the lunatic fringe that has formed in opposition.
Tom

Um, while I think the text should have been released with the announcement (but
it's clear why the WH didn't release it - they are still playing to the choir
with this petty ****) and I also think the opposition should have waited to see
what he intended to say, I would remind you that such a "brouhaha" has, er,
precedent...Dems, including many of those in Congress (...so, OK, they're a big
part of the "lunatic fringe"...for both parties...well, at least the "lunatic"
part, anyway...), went bat**** when Bush 41 wanted to do the same thing.
Gebhardt and Pelosi were very vocal and I especially remember one Martin Frost,
Texas Dem, who had a few PR folks of his own over the years, who said that such
was a waste of precious Fed funds for such political advertising and, AHEM,
attempts at indoctrination. He further said that if Bush wanted to attempt to
convert kids to the GOP, he should fire some of his PR people and use that money
(as you might guess, that was particularly memorable in part of my circle...).

All that said, if all he wants to do is give a non-political speech, I think
it's a good thing. But the WH not releasing the speech is simply an attempt to
stir the ****. And while it worked, many moderates recognize it for what it is
- nasty, silly partisan politics, and that does not help him in the long run.
This obsession of the far-left wing to portray the far-right wing as "wackjobs"
does nothing but hurt Obama. The moderate middle already considers both
extremes as, to be charitable, the "fringe" and Obama being seen as part of that
makes him look no better than the "fringe." I suspect this plays a part in why
more than the traditional "fringe" has suspicions about his motives. It's like
the birth cert crap - most, had he simply released the damned thing, would have
said, "OK, you've seen it, he's legit, now shut the flock up about it, you pack
of loonies..." But by not releasing it, and keeping the loonies all riled up,
moderates begin to say to themselves, "OK, sure, he's eligible to be POTUS and
all, but ya know, what IS he trying to hide/do here...why is he doing this...?"

Again, he and his people have arrogantly bought into their self-created myth,
fueled by the early-on "friendly" media and he's beginning to look like the
spoiled sports star or actor who has read one too many of their own favorable
press clippings, all the while forgetting they were created by their own press
agents. And before you or anyone else says, "It's just the loonies who are all
up about this," I'll remind you that he has lost _dramatic_ support among the
middle - probably on the order of 5-10% - that he could have kept with a less
partisan (appearing) approach. And he'll never get it back with the same ease
that he got it the first time around.

TC,
R

" the pres is a crack head "


WASHINGTON – The White House is taking a mostly tight-lipped stance
on an environmental adviser who made inflammatory statements in the
past
and is linked to efforts suggesting a governmental role in the 2001
terror attacks.

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 11:52:27 -0700 (PDT), "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:

" the pres is a crack head "

I think you ought to buy a page in your local paper and let everyone know...be
sure to sign your name to it so folks will know that it comes from an informed
source...and hey, the paper probably needs the ad rev, too - it can part of you
doing your part for the economy...

HTH,
R

I am quoting what "Van Jones" stated about the president .....
einstein.........



WASHINGTON – The White House is taking a mostly tight-lipped stance on
an environmental
adviser who made inflammatory statements in the past and is linked to
efforts suggesting a
governmental role in the 2001 terror attacks.

Van Jones, an administration official specializing in environmentally
friendly "green jobs," issued
a statement of apology on Thursday. When asked on Friday whether
President Barack Obama
still had confidence in him, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs
said only that Jones "continues
to work in the administration."