Pew Poll: Republicans Are More Informed Than Dems, and Ultra Right Tidbits

[LiveLaughLove]

Here's an interesting but not surprising poll from Pew:

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54-state-of-affairs/1357-pew-research-republicans-more-knowledgeable-than-democrats


In a 2010 Pew survey, Republicans outperformed Democrats on 10 of 12 questions, with one tie and Democrats outperforming Republicans on just 1 of the 12. In the latest survey, however, Republicans outperformed Democrats on every single one of 19 questions.

I thought we were the ill informed hicks clinging to our guns and religion.

In other news, Florida and North Carolina have gone bye bye for Obam bam. He says he really wanted New Hampshire anyway.

Pennsylvania is now in play. We don't need no stinking Ohio. We'll end up getting it though.

Sandra Fluke holds a rally for the Obama campaign in Reno, NV where tens of people showed up. Well, actually just ten people showed up. Seems the free contraception queen is really rallying the troops for Harry Reid's favorite lack of negro dialect candidate.

Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Vladimir Putin have given Obama ringing endorsements, sewing up the much needed dictator vote.

Billy Graham endorsed Romney. I have a feeling some on here would rather have the former endorsements rather than the latter.

Obama calls four dead Americans in Benghazi, not optimal. Not to be outdone, NYTimes reporter Helene Cooper calls the dead Americans peripheral to what's going on now. Nicely played unbiased NYTimes.

Obama's debate bounce where he crushed Romney in to little pieces of perfectly combed hair balls, eh not so much. Romney +7% Gallup.

[SicEmBaylor]

Romney will not get Ohio or Pennsylvania.

This election will come down to Nevada, Virginia, and Colorado. Romney has to win all three and pick up either Iowa or New Hampshire to win and that isn't going to happen.

[LiveLaughLove]

Romney will not get Ohio or Pennsylvania.

This election will come down to Nevada, Virginia, and Colorado. Romney has to win all three and pick up either Iowa or New Hampshire to win and that isn't going to happen.

Nah, Ohio independents will break for Romney. I do agree he probably won't get Pennsylvania, but I like that it's in play this late in the game.

He'll get Virginia for sure, Colorado most likely, and Nevada doubtful. I don't care about NH or Iowa. They won't matter in the end.

[sappstuf]

Romney will not get Ohio or Pennsylvania.

This election will come down to Nevada, Virginia, and Colorado. Romney has to win all three and pick up either Iowa or New Hampshire to win and that isn't going to happen.

Are you willing to bet the farm?


The poll from Gravis Marketing shows Obama and Romney tied at 47 percent. But that’s as good as it gets for Obama. Among the most interesting tidbits from the poll:

Romney leads Obama by 19 percent among independents, 52–33, and holds 92 percent of his base compared to Obama’s 87 percent. Obama is underwater in job approval, 44–50, and independents disapprove of him overwhelmingly, 31–58. And the poll has a Democratic advantage of 9 percent, which is a 4 percent jump from 2008 — no one believes that Democrats can match their 2008 turnout advantage, let alone almost double it.

PPP (a Democratic firm) released their new poll yesterday showing Obama only up one point, 49 to 48. Just a week ago PPP had the race at 51–46 for Obama. But the four-point gain for Romney is even more impressive when you look at the poll’s findings:

This week’s poll has a Democrat sample advantage of 8 percent; last week’s advantage was 4. Romney gained four points on Obama in a week despite the sample’s having four percentage points more Democrats. Romney leads with independents by 7 percent, up from a 5 percent last week. Obama’s approval is underwater at 48–50, and independents disapprove of him by a 41–54 margin. Last week Obama was in positive approval ground at 50–48, and independents disapproved by a much smaller 45–50 margin. Romney’s favorability has gone from a minus-6 margin last week (45–51) to a plus-2 this week (49–47). Trust on the economy went from Obama plus-5 last week (51–46) to plus-4 in Romney’s direction this week (51–47). Independents jumped from Romney plus-5 last week to Romney plus-15 this week.

These two polls highlight what many saw in the second debate: Romney may have lost the overall debate, but he won handily on the issues of the economy, debt, and taxes. While Democrats were riding high this week after Obama narrowly won the face-off, Romney was quietly solidifying support from voters by commanding the issues that matter most. Based on these two polls, the only way Obama can win Ohio is if he finds a way to greatly surpass 2008 turnout with Democrats, which at the moment seems like an impossible task. If these polls hold, it won’t be long before the state Romney was declared dead in knocks down the last pillar of inevitability that Obama has left.

[cleller]

I'd like to see Vegas lay odds on civil unrest following the election. Democrat vs Republican.

[SicEmBaylor]

Are you willing to bet the farm?
On a close political election more than two weeks out? Of course not. Nonetheless, I believe Romney will lose Ohio.

[LiveLaughLove]

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/20/rnc-up-83-million-dnc-taking-out-loans/

Classic symbolism between the two parties.

RNC has $83mil in the bank. DNC... takes out a loan.

It's in their blood.

[LiveLaughLove]

On a close political election more than two weeks out? Of course not. Nonetheless, I believe Romney will lose Ohio.

Maybe you've stated it before and I didn't see it, but why are you so sure that Romney loses Ohio?

I know Obama has a bigger ground game there, but even with that he won't recreate the turnout he had in '08.

Without an even bigger turnout, he is behind. The last poll I saw had Obama ahead by MOE, but it was a D+9 sample. He won't come close to D+9.

I'm curious to have your thoughts on it.

[Curly Bill]

Sicem's just upset with Romney cause Romney hasn't promised to restart the Civil War if elected. ;)

[badger]

Republicans, and everyone in general, have good reason to be informed these days -- a lot of fear about the future of the economy, jobs, retirement, health, security, you name it.

[SicEmBaylor]

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/20/rnc-up-83-million-dnc-taking-out-loans/

Classic symbolism between the two parties.

RNC has $83mil in the bank. DNC... takes out a loan.

It's in their blood.

Yes because the Bush administration was eight years of lean mean frugality. And the Reagan years for that matter...

The fact is, neither party has a claim to fiscal responsibility.

[LiveLaughLove]

Yes because the Bush administration was eight years of lean mean frugality. And the Reagan years for that matter...

The fact is, neither party has a claim to fiscal responsibility.

It's ok to laugh a little sicem.

And I'd like an answer to my question above from you.

[SicEmBaylor]

Maybe you've stated it before and I didn't see it, but why are you so sure that Romney loses Ohio?

I know Obama has a bigger ground game there, but even with that he won't recreate the turnout he had in '08.

Without an even bigger turnout, he is behind. The last poll I saw had Obama ahead by MOE, but it was a D+9 sample. He won't come close to D+9.

I'm curious to have your thoughts on it.

Mostly intuition. I'm pretty good at this. In March of 2008, I was pretty spot on with my electoral college prediction for Obama before it was even a sure thing he would win the nomination. In 2004, I was wrong on New Hampshire, one Maine EV, and Nevada if I remember correctly. There aren't that many undecideds this election cycle, so the difference this election will be who has the best GOTV effort on Election Day. How good Romney's operation is in Ohio remains to be seen, but I think the Obama operation in the state combined with a few other factors will make the difference.

Then again I could very well be wrong. I think I hope I'm wrong...I think.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sicem's just upset with Romney cause Romney hasn't promised to restart the Civil War if elected. ;)
There is that. I have sworn that I would never ever vote for a Republican who speaks at a Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner.


It's ok to laugh a little sicem.

And I'd like an answer to my question above from you.
I'm a die hard curmudgeon.

[badger]

Fiscal responsibility, in a nutshell, makes people happy to hear about but sh!tty in practice.

As a new mom, here's how I'd relate: A kid in a frugal household as opposed to a spendthrift one. One kid might have financial security, but the other one has a Nintendo, name brand clothing, a bigger allowance, you name it.

Maybe it's better for the kid to be in the frugal household, but to the kid, every other kid is having all of the fun. :(

[SicEmBaylor]

Fiscal responsibility, in a nutshell, makes people happy to hear about but sh!tty in practice.

As a new mom, here's how I'd relate: A kid in a frugal household as opposed to a spendthrift one. One kid might have financial security, but the other one has a Nintendo, name brand clothing, a bigger allowance, you name it.

Maybe it's better for the kid to be in the frugal household, but to the kid, every other kid is having all of the fun. :(
It isn't at all ****ty in practice. It is only ****ty if you are dependent upon a program that is cut. I empathize with people who rely on government programs but it isn't sustainable. It can't be. In most cases it is unconstitutional at worst and at best we simply can't afford it.

[badger]

It isn't at all ****ty in practice. It is only ****ty if you are dependent upon a program that is cut. I empathize with people who rely on government programs but it isn't sustainable. It can't be. In most cases it is unconstitutional at worst and at best we simply can't afford it.

SicEm, let's say that instead of SicEm you were just Sick. You're a poor college student (or recent college grad who is still poor regardless?) and you suddenly are diagnosed with cancer and need life saving chemotherapy.

You can't afford chemotherapy on your poor college student/poor recent college grad budget, so do say "simply can't afford it" and die, or do you go into debt trying to live?

Let's go with a less morbid scenario. You are no longer a poor college student and you have found a promising job and now want to invest in a home. However, you do not have $100,000 in your bank account. Do you say "simply can't afford it" and wait until your bank account grows to the entire cost of the house, or do you take out a 15-30 year mortgage and get your home as a promising investment for your current and future living standards?

Surely you don't think all debt is bad debt. Aren't there situations where you can justify going into debt?

[FaninAma]

My prediction: Obama gets re-elected but loses the popular vote and the Senate is split 50-50 with the GOP increasing their majority in the HoR.

And then we go straight over the fiscal cliff(actually it is more like a curb).

[BigTip]

The fact is, neither party has a claim to fiscal responsibility.

Because, bottom line, they have to buy votes with pork to get reelected.

[FaninAma]

Fiscal responsibility, in a nutshell, makes people happy to hear about but sh!tty in practice.

As a new mom, here's how I'd relate: A kid in a frugal household as opposed to a spendthrift one. One kid might have financial security, but the other one has a Nintendo, name brand clothing, a bigger allowance, you name it.

Maybe it's better for the kid to be in the frugal household, but to the kid, every other kid is having all of the fun. :(

He may be having all the fun until they come and take his stuff away and the family gets kicked out of their home on Christmas Eve because they overspent and ran up their credit card bill and couldn't pay it. If you are going to draw parallels to what is happening in this country lets make it representative of what is really going on.

Now if you are comparing the Democratic base to spoiled kids with their hands out for freebies then I would agree with you.

[FaninAma]

Because, bottom line, they have to buy votes with pork to get reelected.


That's why we need to go over the fiscal cliff...so those voters who don't care about deficits need to see the consequences of their actions.

[SicEmBaylor]

SicEm, let's say that instead of SicEm you were just Sick. You're a poor college student (or recent college grad who is still poor regardless?) and you suddenly are diagnosed with cancer and need life saving chemotherapy

You can't afford chemotherapy on your poor college student/poor recent college grad budget, so do say "simply can't afford it" and die, or do you go into debt trying to live?

Let's go with a less morbid scenario. You are no longer a poor college student and you have found a promising job and now want to invest in a home. However, you do not have $100,000 in your bank account. Do you say "simply can't afford it" and wait until your bank account grows to the entire cost of the house, or do you take out a 15-30 year mortgage and get your home as a promising investment for your current and future living standards?

Surely you don't think all debt is bad debt. Aren't there situations where you can justify going into debt?

First, there are private programs in place for people who need medical care. Having said that, I'm not opposed to well run state programs that provide additional assistance. I am, however, opposed to unconstitutional federal programs that are expensive, poorly managed, and often abused by everyone involved in the process.

Second, a mortgage is a private debt incurred (optionally) between yourself and the lending institution. Comparing that to a national public debt is apples and oranges.

[badger]

First, there are private programs in place for people who need medical care. Having said that, I'm not opposed to well run state programs that provide additional assistance. I am, however, opposed to unconstitutional federal programs that are expensive, poorly managed, and often abused by everyone involved in the process.

Second, a mortgage is a private debt incurred (optionally) between yourself and the lending institution. Comparing that to a national public debt is apples and oranges.

OK, so long as it's not government debt it's OK debt?

What about for those that are refused debt options by private organizations? Our country unfortunately does not have a clean record of providing equal access and opportunity to all.

[FaninAma]

SicEm, let's say that instead of SicEm you were just Sick. You're a poor college student (or recent college grad who is still poor regardless?) and you suddenly are diagnosed with cancer and need life saving chemotherapy.

You can't afford chemotherapy on your poor college student/poor recent college grad budget, so do say "simply can't afford it" and die, or do you go into debt trying to live?

Let's go with a less morbid scenario. You are no longer a poor college student and you have found a promising job and now want to invest in a home. However, you do not have $100,000 in your bank account. Do you say "simply can't afford it" and wait until your bank account grows to the entire cost of the house, or do you take out a 15-30 year mortgage and get your home as a promising investment for your current and future living standards?

Surely you don't think all debt is bad debt. Aren't there situations where you can justify going into debt?

I don't think anybody has any problem with assisting those who need medical help and can't afford it. The problem comes into play when the government places NO restrictions on access to those who behave irresponsibly(having multiple kids out of wedlock you can't afford, engaging is poor lifestyles that contribute to medical problems) or extending benefits to such a large number of people that you either have to levy taxes at a punitive level or ration care.

The second scenario is a strawman. Loans (even government guaranteed loans) are not a drain on the budget unless the federal regulatory agency responsible for administering the program is remiss in performimg proper oversight on qualified candidates.

[badger]

I don't think anybody has any problem with assisting those who need medical help and can't afford it. The problem comes into play when the government places to restrictions on access to those who behave irresponsibly(having multiple kids out of wedlock you can't afford, engaging is poor lifestyles that contribute to medical problems and extending benefits to such a large number of people that you either have to levy taxes at a punitive level or ration care.)

The second scenario is a strawman. I do not consider loans (even government guaranteed loans) a drain on the budget unless the federal regulatory agency is remiss in performimg proper oversight on qualified candidates.

I was just trying to find common ground. All debt not bad is close enough for me :)

[SicEmBaylor]

OK, so long as it's not government debt it's OK debt?
I didn't say it was okay -- I said that it is a private debt. A person's private debt is between them and the lending institution. There is a huge huge difference between that and the creation of unconstitutional federal programs that are inherently inefficient, not the least bit cost effective, and often abused. Not to mention the fact that the legislation that created any given program was designed with providing satisfying a hodge lodge of various constituencies and special interest groups than it is about providing a well run and cost effective service.


What about for those that are refused debt options by private organizations? Our country unfortunately does not have a clean record of providing equal access and opportunity to all.
There is usually a pretty good reason why someone may be refused debt options.

[FaninAma]

OK, so long as it's not government debt it's OK debt?

What about for those that are refused debt options by private organizations? Our country unfortunately does not have a clean record of providing equal access and opportunity to all.

Then institute some restrictions or guidelines that the government would follow so that we don't end up with a 16 trillion dollar deficit.

That's the problem. These programs are demanded by sympathetic, altruistic segments of our society that have little awareness of possible financial consequences and then they are turned into vote buying machines by the politicians.

Actually I should butt out since I intruded into the conversation you and Sic'em were having. I would just add that the government makes a very poor social services or charity instrument.

[SicEmBaylor]

For me to accept a federal program, it first has to pass strict constitutional muster. After that, it has to address a real need in a well managed and cost effective way.

[cleller]

And then we go straight over the fiscal cliff(actually it is more like a curb).

I think they will find a way to avoid the fiscal cliff, but if they don't - I don't think it will be "more like a curb", by any means. It would trigger sell offs and lay-offs like 2008, except now there is nothing the Federal Reserve can do to try and prop the markets up. It could be long, ugly and unsettling.

[pphilfran]

I think they will find a way to avoid the fiscal cliff, but if they don't - I don't think it will be "more like a curb", by any means. It would trigger sell offs and lay-offs like 2008, except now there is nothing the Federal Reserve can do to try and prop the markets up. It could be long, ugly and unsettling.+

Confidence would tank...

No way in hell Congress fails to act...it will probably be a last second, cobbled together plan...put there will be a plan..