Type to search

The Turning Point: Voter Contempt For GOP Driving Democrats Upward

Carville-Greenberg

The Turning Point: Voter Contempt For GOP Driving Democrats Upward

Share

Looking closely at polling numbers, it is now clear that this election has reached a real turning point. The Republican Party has lost five points in voter identification over the past month. Contempt for the Republicans is pushing Democrats into the lead, not only in the presidential race but across Senate and likely many House races as well.

The voters have watched the primaries and the conventions, and now Romney’s “47 percent” remark is going to seal it. I don’t think they’re waiting for the presidential debates…

Tags:

215 Comments

  1. twcoughlan September 23, 2012

    If he is using the polls for this, he is a moron.

    Reply
  2. Pam Tucker September 23, 2012

    This is all well and good, but these people have their bets on suppressing the vote; as a recent video showed, voters are beng asked who are they voting for, and the clerks are refusing the register a person if they say they will vote Democratic. This election must be stolen for Romney to win, and he is well on this way to making sure that happens. I pray that he fails.

    Reply
    1. Joe Wells September 23, 2012

      Correct! If we only has some Black Panthers patroling the voting areas, we could be SURE the election wasn’t stolen!!

      1. ottovbvs September 23, 2012

        These black panthers are everywhere…..I saw 200 in my yard this morning…..I’m told they’re staying here until the election to force the entire town to vote Democrat

        1. Howienica September 23, 2012

          Dont worry.

          They are ” Holders people”

          1. ottovbvs September 23, 2012

            That’s ok then, they’ll be well armed then with all those guns from Fast and Furious that he and his staff personally ferried up from Mexico

        2. Adobe_Walls September 23, 2012

          Don’t bother calling the Injustice Deparment for help in getting rid of them.

          1. ottovbvs September 23, 2012

            Holder sent them personally didn’t you know? If Obama loses they’ll be mounting a coup, I don’t want to worry you but Rush Limbaugh told me so it must be true.

          2. Adobe_Walls September 23, 2012

            No, the coup must come before he loses, no deniability plausible or not after, even one or two progies might object to a naked coup once he’s been rejected by patriotic Americans at the ballot box. Unlike the published polls, both campaigns pay pollsters to tell them the truth. Comrade President will know by the end of October if he’s going to lose. Unfortunately I doubt he has the stones, though Jarret might. Pity, it would certainly add clarity to our national discourse.

          3. ottovbvs September 24, 2012

            Nothing like a good civil war to add clarity to the discourse. It’s good to know we still have some enthusiasts in the country for such endeavors. I urge you to take a trip to Syria to hone your skills.

          4. Adobe_Walls September 24, 2012

            Enthusiasm doesn’t matter, that’s where we are headed so might as well get on with it. The chasm between Patriots and the left is simply too great to bridge. Personally I blame the Republicans, all that compromise in the past whetted Bolshevism’s appetite for more.

          5. ottovbvs September 24, 2012

            The patriots are the left…..the right are the incompetents. Or had you forgotten WW 1,
            WW 2, Truman and the cold war containment doctrine, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. But say hello to Assad for me.

          6. Adobe_Walls September 24, 2012

            Ya’ll really do drink your own kool-aid don’t you. As for Syria, that’s their civil war, you neo-cons never seem to get that.

          7. ottovbvs September 24, 2012

            Er….the neocons aren’t on the left….duh…Not surprising you don’t understand this since your grasp of history is shaky to put it mildly…..

          8. Adobe_Walls September 24, 2012

            “Irving Kristol remarked that a neoconservative is a “liberal mugged by reality”, perhaps more accurately Socialist Michael Harrington derided them as “Socialist for Nixon” in the early 70s. Neocons are for or at least are willing to accept big government and it’s counterproductive interventions in our lives. They are a species of the left claiming to be conservative.

          9. ottovbvs September 24, 2012

            This will be news to Bill Kristol, Condoleeza and co(they’re leftists) but I can well believe anyone anxious for a civil war is sufficiently deranged to believe it.

        3. Gavin McDougald September 24, 2012

          You too? What a relief. I thought it was the paint chips.

    2. Howienica September 23, 2012

      Where did this happen? When did this happen? Link?

  3. rightdemocrat September 23, 2012

    The GOP cannot seem to figure out that threatening programs for veterans, Social Security and Medicare is not the way to win over the middle class. Taking away what is left of our economic security after 30 years of trickle down economics is no the solution. Voters have figured out that Democrats are more on their side on the pocketbook issues although they may not agree with every stance on social issues.

    Reply
    1. helenium September 23, 2012

      Thanks for your really intelligent comment. I’m writing from abroad, looking for some insight into this election and getting very polarized point of view. that was a good analysis of the Democrat@s stance.

    2. kreemer September 23, 2012

      Simple, direct and true.

    3. Howienica September 23, 2012

      The question is how does the country avoid economic armageddon while adding over a trillion dollars to the National Debt every year?

      Omama has added over 5 trillion dollars to the debt in less then 4 years.

      1. Patrick Garret King September 23, 2012

        Please name the OBAMA legislation that added up to 5 trillion? Ill wait……

        1. John Thorpe September 23, 2012

          It’s 986 billion. They’ve forgotten George Bush, so they tag his legislation onto Obama.

        2. Kevin Barbour September 23, 2012

          Oh…are you asking for an Obama budget? I know you aren’t asking for a Democrat Party Senate budget since Harriet Reed has failed to do his job for 1200 days running. So you must be asking for the last Obama budget Harriet had the US senate vote on…That thing didn’t get 1 single vote

          1. Insanitea September 23, 2012

            I see what you did there – you called a man by a woman’s name, in the belief that that would somehow discredit him. How clever and original! Now I am completely persuaded by your argument, and will undoubtedly vote for your candidate.

          2. Moe September 25, 2012

            Quit sucking from the teat of Fox News, Mr. No-Nothing.

      2. Ruby Leigh September 23, 2012

        Howienica, while it’s true that the Debt increased while Obama was in office, the debt increased more while Bush was in office (in fact it did so more so both terms of amount and percentage). Also, a part of why the debt continued to increase while Obama was in office was the extension of the Bush era tax cuts.

        1. ETD3 September 23, 2012

          Ruby, I think you’re comparing Bush numbers over eight years to what Obama has done in only four. And there’s no indication that Obama will do anything different if he wins another term. He ignored the Bowles-Simpson recommendations and was unable to compromise on a deal for the debt limit. I’m sure you’ll blame the Republicans for that, though the Woodward book tells a different story.

          1. urkmonster September 23, 2012

            etd3 – and you are comparing Bush instigated (optional) war & tax cuts vs Obama’s non-optional financial system meltdown, recession & forced maintenance of same tax cuts. If you think that Obama has had the slightest opportunity for austerity, you’ll need to think on what the economy would look like without the rediculous spending of the last 4 years to help prop it up.

          2. thesafesurfer September 24, 2012

            The thing that is really amazing is that spending is a legislative and not an executive act.

            The Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress from January 2007 through January of 2011. The deficits during that period are far and away the largest deficits in the history of the United States. Obama was in the Senate during this period FYI.

            Pelosi and Reid have to go down in history as the two most fiscally irresponsible legislators in the 225 year history of the Republic so far.

      3. newjersey2003 September 23, 2012

        How many times does it have to be said? – foolish, unpaid for Bush Tax Cuts & foolish, idiotic Bush War vs Iraq are the significant contributors to debt you ascribe to President Obama. The Senate filibuster prevented Obama from doing anything about the insane Bush Tax Cuts (for wealthy Republican contributors) & abandoning our troops in Iraq was also not an option. Additionally, where was your outrage when the national debt TRIPLED during the Reagan years and DOUBLED during the GW Bush years????? As for your question, raising revenue & resisting unpaid for wars that kill 4500 Americans would be a great place to start.

        1. ETD3 September 23, 2012

          Bush has been out of office for nearly four years, NJ03. At what point is Obama accountable for his own actions? He managed to cram through an expensive healthcare entitlement against the wishes of a majority of Americans. Surely he could have ended the tax cuts if he really wanted to. He obviously didn’t make debt reduction, either short term or long term, a priority. That’s Obama’s prerogative, but it was a conscious choice, so he should accept the consequences now and stop blaming everyone but himself.

          1. Tom Anderson September 23, 2012

            Are you really that ignorant of what went on for the last 4 years? When has Obama ever “blamed” Bush. Saying that things were bad when he took over is not blaming it’s stating facts. He couldn’t let all the tax cuts expire at that time, and for the GOP it was all or nothing, and they were holding a gun to the head of the unemployment extensions in order to get it.
            Really look at what’s going on, it’s not what Fox is showing.

          2. thesafesurfer September 24, 2012

            Are you really ignorant that the Democrats controlled Congress the last two years Bush was President.

            It is always entertaining hearing liberal Democrats call Bush the stupidest President in our history on one hand and then turn around and claim that even when the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress they were helpless before Bush.

            It is always entertaining reading the posts of liberal Democrats that make them look like fools.

        2. thesafesurfer September 24, 2012

          How many times does it have to be said that the Democrat House and Senate controlled every single dime that this country spent from 2007 to 2011. Not a dime gets spent without Pelosi and Reid’s approval. Why didn’t they quit funding wars? Why didn’t they repeal taxes.

          When Obama took the oath in January 2009 the Democrats could have done anything they wanted. They could have repealed taxes. They could have ended wars. There was no Senate filibuster until Scott Brown took the oath.

          Why are troops still in Afghanistan? Osama is dead? Obama has refused to bring them home. Why is there still a deficit? Tax receipts are at historical norms. It is spending that is historically high as a percentage of GDP. FDR didn’t spend 40% of GDP in the Great Depression.

          Reagan ran deficits much smaller than Obama’s as a percentage of GDP and had economic growth and job creation triple what Obama has produced.

          Please, keep trying to talk historical facts and I will continue your education.

    4. Marked Man September 23, 2012

      Anyone who votes for a democrat in this upcoming election cannot be considered an American citizen, period. Only lazy, liberals looking for handouts from those who produce will continue to vote for this obscenity of a party.

      1. Patrick Garret King September 23, 2012

        What a stupid remark from a low info voter. NOW FACTS. Over 70% of US GDP reside in BLUE STATES? Now who’s lazy. If red states would contribute more the economy might improve!

        1. John Thorpe September 23, 2012

          The red staters are also far more likely to be on welfare, far more likely to be obese, utilize far more health care per capita, and in general give less to the economy.

          They also take more government dollars than they give in taxes, and they still have the nerve to moan about liberals.

          1. CA_MBA September 23, 2012

            @Thorpe – Care to site a reference for your claims? The majority of welfare recipients live in the largest states which are New York of California which are blue states and CA in particular is bankrupt.

            As for red states or voters taking the most money from taxpayers the notion is rubbish. As a simple matter of common sense, not to mention ample polling data, low-income voters take far more from the taxpayers than gainfully employed successful people. Do you really think the 47% of non-contributors over which Romney has been vilified are “red” voters? Get therapy.

          2. gnirol September 23, 2012

            While I don’t subscribe to your premise, let’s say I did. Since 47% is a rate, looking at the rate of low-income people in the country by state, the states that have voted Republican consistently in the South and Mountain regions have a preponderance of low-income people. The populations of states like NY and CA contribute considerably more to the federal treasury than they receive. Just look in a World Almanac. There are so many websites to tell you the same thing. Just search “red states receive tax money”. And it’s been true for the last three elections at least.

          3. Holly B. Anderson September 23, 2012

            Look here, http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2010/03/09-census-dollars
            then look at the “State Table–Per Capita Assistance by Budget Function.” It shows which states got how much for what kind of aid. If you’re just talking about spending on social programs, look at the columns addressing that. I suggest that given the terms of this argument, spending on military/defense and on high tech likely doesn’t “offend” and so should be left out.
            Everyone has his own statistics but nobody has his own facts.

          4. TheEssene September 23, 2012

            Look it up dodo.

            “During fiscal 2005, taxpayers in New Mexico benefited the most from the give-and-take with Uncle Sam, receiving $2.03 in federal outlays for every $1.00 the state’s taxpayers sent to Washington. This first-place finish is nothing new in New Mexico which has perched atop this list for many years. Other big winners in 2005 were Mississippi ($2.02), Alaska ($1.84), Louisiana ($1.78), and West Virginia ($1.76).

            2005’s biggest loser was New Jersey, which received 61 cents in outlays per tax dollar. Other low ranking states included Nevada (65 cents), Connecticut (69 cents), New Hampshire (71 cents), and Minnesota (72 cents).”

            http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxing-and-spending-benefit-some-states-leave-others-paying-bill-1

          5. Shane Knee September 23, 2012

            It’s “cite” not “site”. We’ll assume your username/moniker of “MBA” is a misnomer.

          6. lostintheswamp September 24, 2012

            Spend a lot of time looking for a hair to split?

          7. katie anderson September 23, 2012

            Low income voters very commonly vote Republican.

            I think you are completely clueless as to who comprises that 47%. For a starter, thousands of that 47% are millionaires.

          8. Lawrence Kopeikin September 23, 2012

            Actually they are right and you are wrong. In terms of which states give the most and in turn get the least from the federal government, states like CA, NY, IL give the most and get the least. That is where the richest people live, so no surprise there. Small southern states, like MISS and AL take the most and put in the least, again because they are poorer states. Just a fact. Yeah a fact. In the new post-fact Republican Party that may not matter, but apparently facts are beginning to matter to the majority of voters.

          9. MplsEric September 24, 2012

            CA_MBA…while your claim that “The majority of welfare recipients live in the largest states which are New York and California” is technically true (because that’s where the largest populations are)…that’s not what Thorpe was saying, and you are creating a straw man argument by comparing apples to oranges…. His claim that “red staters are far more likely to be on welfare” is completely true….and since this is a discussion specifically comparing red states/blue states…you can easily see (for a reference) on the IRS website that the states of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia & Arkansas (all red states) are the top 7 states for both welfare recipients PER CAPITA as well as the largest imbalance between federal tax revenue provided to the treasury & federal aid (welfare, to oversimplify it).

            So, yes, the largest percentage of Romney’s “non-contributers” are indeed from Red states.

            I don’t have data on his claims about obesity or health care dollars utilized, so i won’t presume to comment on those.

          10. Harkens September 24, 2012

            Yes, they are largely red voters. Please read up a bit. As extensively documented, the 47% includes combat veterans, the elderly and rich folk like Mitt himself, who get their money from investments. And they vote Republican. Most working poor, including the bartender who taped Mitt spout his taker vs maker nonsense, pay income taxes on their meager earnings.

          11. anhsbaseball September 24, 2012

            Check out which states get back more for every dollar they send in…..it isn’t Calif….we get back .78 cents for every buck we send in. The red states get back far more money then they take in. …Just check it out….this has been a conversation forever. California is the only state in the union, that if it were a country would be ranked something like 7th or 8th in the economy in the world. Deal in facts please. It’s really easy to research.

          12. bloopville September 24, 2012

            You seem to be an MBA, so you know that you can build a model to say whatever you want. What I did was build a Per Capita income tax receipts calculator, and then sorted it from lowest to highest. I can’t drop the whole thing in here, but it shows a definite trend that solid republican states are low income tax paying states. There are exceptions at both ends.

            Here are the bottom10

            50 – WVA- historically D, but now going Populist R
            49 – Miss
            48 – NM
            47 – SC
            46 – Mont.
            45- Maine
            44 – Ala
            43 – KY
            42- AZ
            41 – Utah

            Definitely a Republican lean here.

            Here are the top 10

            1 – Del
            2. – Conn
            3. – MN
            4. – NJ
            5. – NY
            6. – MA
            7. – RI
            8. – Neb
            9. – Il
            10. – Ark.

            Definitely a Dem lean here.

            So, it is probably true that Republican states are net welfare states. I was unable to find a 2011 or 2012 per capita welfare receipts by state chart.

          13. Alexander Gray September 29, 2012

            Actually, it has been shown definitively that the states with the highest proportion of non-income individuals (i.e. part of Romney’s 47%) *are* in red states, primarily the South. This is everywhere, 2 seconds of a Google search can show you that. Unfortunately, I don’t expect you will, because it will damage your credibility and you can’t take that. Who needs therapy now?

            I love that this country is a country with nearly universal suffrage. Unfortunately, comments like yours show the flaws in that system. You should not have the right to vote, based solely on your inability to be informed.

          14. onjeffriv September 23, 2012

            What communist news outlet do you get this propaganda ? Ever hear of Detroit,Chicago,New York,LA, Baltimore,DC, Philadelphia…..The list of third world cities in blue states created by liberals go on and on. Decent people flee these hellholes trying to get to where Conservatives run things

          15. Sherry September 23, 2012

            why don’t you just look it up instead of spewing your nonsense? The facts are facts and the red states tpically receive more than the blue…there are plenty of sites that verify this. More importantly, why do you guys demonize our seniors, disabled, military folks, and working men and women who make up most of that 47 percent…definitely NOT moochers or deadbeats?

          16. onjeffriv September 24, 2012

            You are the one sounding like an idiot,every liberal run city in America is broke and crime ridden and run by democrat thugs

          17. Moe September 25, 2012

            What an idiot!

          18. onjeffriv September 25, 2012

            Exactly, everyone of you left wing misfits are idiots and know you cannot make in the real world without the government. Liberals are just vastly inferior people. That is why all the successful people are Conservatives.

          19. kinda_informed_voter September 23, 2012

            A simple web search will reveal concrete facts and studies that most, but not all, red states receive a majority of government assistance. In many cases they receive more federal funds than they pay into the federal treasury.

            The cities you’ve listed and labeled as “third world” highlight your ignorance. You most likely have never been to any third world locale. Although these cities have their share of poverty, most of thriving hubs of business, commerce, entertainment, and culture. Another simple web search will reveal the percentage of their populations who receive welfare.

            I am an Independent, and this post is not a partisan argument. They are easily verifiable facts if you CHOOSE to think beyond your party affiliation.

          20. S H September 24, 2012

            Wrong.

          21. Renee Fulton September 24, 2012

            John, they are also less educated. For that reason, the Republican party does not bother campaigning in their states because they know they can get their votes with biased, unfounded commercials. Most of the red staters attend FNU (Fox News University). I do not watch any of the news outlets. If I sign onto the Internet and see a claim or accusation, I go to .gov websites like the US Census Bureau, US Bureau of Labor Statistics, or the US Bureau of Economic Analysis to verify what I see. The red staters are the slackers because they are too LAZY to research and verify the crap they read and see.

        2. Kevin Barbour September 23, 2012

          And how many of these blue state economic powerhouses are teetering on bankruptcy? try 8 out of the bottom 10 genius

        3. jschmidt2 September 23, 2012

          Check out the big cities found in the blue states or even those states and you’ll find them to be listed as the worst states for taxes, huge deficits due to outrageous union pension and medical benefits, and probably the targets of the next bailout if Obama is elected. The Democrats have run those states into the ground giving the union everything they wanted over the years in exchange for campaign money.

        4. Steven Hawkins September 23, 2012

          Just weight votes by amount of income tax paid. Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote and in proportion to their contribution. If the producers are mostly ‘blue’ then election results will reflect this.
          Question answered and problem solved once and for all.
          No representation without taxation.
          God bless.

          1. Michael Siever September 23, 2012

            Ever heard of the 24th Amendment? you know, the one that says “A citizen’s eligibility to vote shall not be determined on the ability to pay a tax or fee of any kind”?

          2. Steven Hawkins September 24, 2012

            No, I confess I hadn’t. A pity then.

          3. Steven Hawkins September 24, 2012

            More’s the pity…

          4. shu42 September 23, 2012

            You do realize that income tax is not the only tax out there, right? It’s not even the only federal tax.

          5. Tom Anderson September 23, 2012

            What kind of moronic drivel is that? So you think that Bill Gates vote should be worth millions of other peoples votes? You are truly deluded and sick.

          6. Steven Hawkins September 24, 2012

            I thought the rich weren’t paying their fair share?

          7. katie anderson September 23, 2012

            Why not make that land taxes paid and just call the elected “King” then do away with elections (they’re expensive) and just let their eldest son inherit it. Then all the land tax payers can struggle and contest amongst themselves for more land and power with the ultimate motivation being the possibility of gaining the power of the crown.

            Then we can call those who pay land taxes “aristocracy” and those who don’t own land can instead owe fealty to whichever land tax payer whose land they each live on.

            They can pay their fealty through work service. They’ll each owe their land lord so many hours of labour in their fields (or businesses) or time enlisted in their standing armies. The landed aristocracy can use the armies in battle as they all struggle to get more land, more power, and maybe even a run at the throne themselves, because possession will ultimately be dictated by violent force.

            Also the church can take a leading role and even have its own courts where it can try common folk for blasphemy, heresy, and there can be wars over religious doctrine, and inquisitions. No one expects the American inquisition.

            Yeah, I wonder why no one has ever thought of or tired this plan before…

          8. S H September 24, 2012

            But Obama wants to be King.

            Why else would he write hundreds of Executive Orders to “work around Congress”.

            How else can he keep AF1, control over the military, and have fun all the time playing golf, basketball, parties every week and spending every day since August 2011 campaigning and fund raising.

        5. Paul Johnson September 23, 2012

          Hmm. So why is the left’s line that the GOP is only pro-rich? The right’s message of more growth / lower taxes / fewer government programs wouldn’t seem to sell well in a red state if they’re not contributing to the economy and living on the dole. You’ve tried to turn Mitt’s 47% statement on its head and have demonstrated the same bias you disdain, now calling the people on the right a bunch of do-nothings.

          1. katie anderson September 23, 2012

            The GOP is only pro-rich but they still want votes. They get the flakes, bigots, and the low information people who tend to be under educated and on low incomes.

            How do they do it? Propaganda, playing to these peoples’ religious and racial prejudices, and because stupid people do stupid stuff, like vote Republican.

            The fact is higher incomes are correlated with higher educational achievement. Was it Rick Santorum who tried to make President Obama look bad because he wants more people to achieve higher education? Whoever it was, they did that because they know that deriding education plays well to the Republican base. Think about that.

            Which set of voters is higher education correlated most strongly with? If you answered Democrats/liberals, then you got that much right.

            I know it was Rick Santorum who said the Republicans will never have the “smart” voters on their side. That was just the other day actually.

            In any case, a good number of that 47% do have reason to thank the Republicans this time. Over 60% are workers who happen to qualify for provisions for low income earners enacted by President Reagan back in the 80s, or workers with children who qualify for Bush Jr’s tax credits for working families.

          2. S H September 24, 2012

            Stephanie Cutter? Is that you telling lies again?

            I thought they kicked you out after every news station figured out that you only lie, so you became a lead weight to the Dems.

            If you are not Cutter…you are doing the same thing.

            Oh wait, maybe you are Debbie Wasserman Schultz who was also sent to the closet for damaging the Dem image by having all of her lies exposed.

            Thanks for showing how Dems only have lies to promote Obama.

          3. Moe September 25, 2012

            There’s something wrong with you. Brain cancer?

        6. Ronald W. Mann September 23, 2012

          You continue to believe that jive from the boys in the allys and you will be living there with Prez Zero in a few months

        7. deathmerchant September 24, 2012

          You are so right and with two of the biggest blue states, Calif and Ilinois facing financial ruin due to Democratic policies we can all see that the red states have it all wrong

      2. bruce bb September 23, 2012

        Marked man’s comment,shows ignorance and a lack of knowledge.on his part.

        1. Ruby Leigh September 23, 2012

          Perhaps he’s being ironic

      3. Ginga Ninja Avenga September 23, 2012

        Marked Man, you are an idiot. Every American citizen voting, for any candidate are CLEARLY expressing themselves as proud Americans. No matter on which they are coming down on, they are getting involved in the process and letting their voice be heard. You, faceless internet coward, could learn a thing or two from them.

      4. Ilse Albert-Lieberthal September 23, 2012

        Marked Man, you must be joking. Take a look around you, talk to people, become involved in your community, turn fox news off. It is the average hard working people that make up a large percentage to the democrat voting block. Firefighters, police, teachers, plumbers, truckers, mechanics, coal miners. You are making yourself look foolish with this post of yours. If you want to talk about obscenity take a look at todays version of the GOP with their lies, distortions, and elitist mindset. This version of the GOP are cousins to fascists…talk about Un-American.

      5. Gary Kantz September 23, 2012

        Marked Man, thank you for that beautiful Joe The Plumber commentary. It’s nice to know that the uneducated, uninformed and bigoted still exists. Too bad that YOUR party has been sitting on their collective arses not doing a damned thing in the past 4 years in Congress, and you will not only lose the White House, but both houses of Congress as well. You’re a complete moron.

      6. Michael Siever September 23, 2012

        This must be how Republicans came to the conclusion that voter ID laws are needed to stop non-citizens from voting:

        “Anyone who votes for a democrat in this upcoming election cannot be considered an American citizen, period.”

        Democrats win elections, months later.

        “Non-citizens are voting! That’s the only possible explanation for why democrats are winning elections, when the Republicans should be winning in landslides! We need to stop these non-citizens from being allowed to cast fraudulent ballots!”

      7. DownriverDem September 23, 2012

        Hey Marked Man: Are you rich or just an angry, bitter racist white duped fool?

        We are talking about programs the repubs want to destroy that we have worked our whole adult lives for. We are talking about Social Security and Medicare!!!!!

        Are you really that jaded?

      8. OriginalmoAb September 23, 2012

        ‘Idiocracy’ knows no bounds. Lets have some sports drinks for dinner hon.

      9. Emperor_Bob September 23, 2012

        Anyone who thinks more tax cuts for the rich and deregulation is the solution to the damages tax cuts and deregulation caused is delusional.

      10. bpai99 September 23, 2012

        You’re hysterical. Thanks for the laugh today. Clearly you are a liberal pretending to be the stereotypical conservative thug/hater. Nobody is that stupid and blindly hateful. Nice try, Demo.

      11. stevefilson September 23, 2012

        Your very comment is in itself highly anti-American. Our most stable times are when differing parties respect each other. Our most deadly times have been with comments like yours–you know, like the Civil War. Hold yourself in check, buddy.

      12. katie anderson September 23, 2012

        Anyone who votes for the Democrats this election is probably not a facist. Anyone who votes for the Republican ticket this election is grossly misinformed, under-informed or a facist.

      13. Sherry September 23, 2012

        marked…you are right where you belong..the party of hate and lies. Demonizing half of the country..which includes seniors, disabled, working men and women and our military…just a brilliant tactic by the party of hate.

      14. Dana I September 24, 2012

        Your statement is irrational. I know you love George Bush, but he was warned and refused to lift a finger to stop 9/11. He violated his oath. Then he lied and said Iraq would nuke an American city if we did not attack first. The CIA told Bush that Iraq had ZERO nuclear weapons, but Bush got away Scot free with his vicious lie, and then Bush proceeded to kill 400,000 human beings. For nothing. He lowered taxes for the rich and got us $4.9 trillion more in debt, then he caused a Depression that required Obama to borrow an additional $5 trillion in order to stay above water. So Bush himself is responsible for a MAJORITY of all of our debt. And you have the stupidity to say that a patriotic American who votes for a DEMOCRATIC president cannot be considered an American citizen? Bush and you Republicans BETRAYED OUR COUNTRY! You Republicans and Bush KILLED OUR SERVICEMEN FOR NOTHING! Iraq was not liberated, people there are WORSE OFF than under Saddam Hussein. Crawl back under your slimy rock for 4 years and drink Southern Discomfort, you Texas tw**

      15. thesafesurfer September 24, 2012

        Totally False. Laziness knows no political party. People seeking a free ride in life know no political allegiance either.

        The only facts are that liberal Democrats refuse to curtail fiscally unsustainable and completely counter productive misnamed social welfare policies that foster a demeaning dependence on the recipients while Republicans want to cut those programs as much a possible until they serve only the TRULY NEEDY and use the savings to reduce the tax burden on the private sector to facilitate job creation.

        Get your story right so it isn’t so easy to blow holes a space shuttle could fly through in it.

      16. Robert Nordgren September 24, 2012

        Rmoney sure have some uneducated foot soldiers

    5. jeannebodine September 23, 2012

      GOT MATH?

    6. Kevin Barbour September 23, 2012

      “Voters have figured out that Democrats are more on their side”?…Says who? Voters have figured out no such thing. A majority of voters are going to ignore the 1000’s of Obama manufactured shiny objects and they will judge Obama and the Democrats based upon his record. That is the Democrat Party nightmare come November 6th. Informed voters deciding whether to vote for Obama based upon his results. Blaming everything and everybody on this earth for his failure to produce will sink him and the Democrat Party on November 6th. Common sense will prevail. Most people instinctively don’t like whiners and cry babies. 4 years of Obama whining and crying the job of POTUS was too hard is enough

      1. John Thorpe September 23, 2012

        If you would like to make a wager…I would love to take your money and then some. Obama wins this one rather handily.

    7. Paul Johnson September 23, 2012

      Too bad we can’t afford any of that stuff. The GOP is just telling it as it is while the Dems are selling people the dream that we can still just buy what we want on a credit card.

    8. CA_MBA September 23, 2012

      @ rightdem – The GOP is not threatening anything. If these programs are to survive they must be reformed. That these programs cannot last without change is a simple matter of mathematics. If voters think the democrats are on their side they must truly believe that continued tax increases will benefit them. The problem is that only 20% of the taxpayers pay almost 95% of the taxes. These are the people who have capital or who can raise it. They are the business and job producers. Punish these people enough and they stop producing. When that happens nobody has anything.

      As for “trickle down” economics: what’s so terrible about large businesses or businesses of any size creating jobs and paying people a wage or salary? But more to the point: What’s the alternative? The highly productive forms of governance such as socialism or communism?

    9. Ronald W. Mann September 23, 2012

      I am a vet, semi retired collecting SS, the only way these programs will survive is with Romney and Ryan

    10. S H September 24, 2012

      Do your own research and do not depend on Obama talking points.

      They are all lies.

      Look into this yourself.

  4. johnr22 September 23, 2012

    How typical. The polls favor Obama…at the moment….so the Left declares THIS particular set of polls to be all-wise and declares the race OVER. No need for debates, no need to analyze Obama’s daily failures, no need to think about unemployment, deficits, debt, etc. Nope. The poll says it’s over. Let’s just coronate Obama tomorrow and save ourselves a lot of time.

    FIrst of all, I give the polls as much credibility as I give an editorial on Global Warming by Paul Krugman. Which is to say ZERO. We’ll see what happens on election day. Everybody I know…including swing voters who voted for Obama last time, are voting a straight Repub (or should I say anti-Obama) ticket.

    Reply
    1. John Thorpe September 23, 2012

      Well, if you don’t “believe” in global warming, you are by definition “not living in reality”.

      I suppose we could put you on Haloperidol and see if you come around.

      1. Don Doyle September 23, 2012

        What, and deprive you of your supply? You’d have to go ask Barry for some more free medicine.

      2. S H September 24, 2012

        So Al Gore took you in?

        No wonder Dems are backers of Obama…they don’t pay attention to reality.

        This whole global warming business has been shown to be a “business”, a way for Dems to steal more money from tax payers and to shut down the energy we need to control the people and make a new market out of carbon credits.

        It is a scam. The people who are the Scientists were caught by emails admitting that they changed their results to make it look like global warming was a real problem to keep money coming in for their “research”….ie. their Jobs.

        It is a scam that has already made a lot of people rich while changing nothing.

        If it made a difference, Gore would not have a huge house and his own airplane.

  5. Howienica September 23, 2012

    Would you mind sharing what poll this came from?

    Reply
  6. Kevin Barbour September 23, 2012

    Hey Stan Greenberg…Were you in the business when Mike Dukakis was making a run for the Presidency?…How many points was he ahead of Bush around this time?…17? How bout Obama’s mentor Jimmy Carter?..How many points was he ahead of Reagan late September?…8?..

    Reply
    1. John Thorpe September 23, 2012

      The differences:

      1. Dukakis was unlikable and made major mistakes between here and November.
      2. Carter (not Obama’s mentor — not that facts slow you down) had an October surprise and a very good, likable opponent in Reagan.

      The current race features an unlikable Republican and a Democrat who is not prone to doing and saying stupid things.

      1. S H September 24, 2012

        You don’t think blaming a terrorist attack on a video that no one saw was stupid?

        It was a lie that caused more rebellions.

        They were yelling in the streets: Obama, Obama. Obama, we are all Osama.

        Those in the middle east are sick of hearing: “Osama is dead and GM is alive”.

        WAKE UP

    2. Puccio d'Aniello September 23, 2012

      Romney ain’t Reagan, people liked him

    3. Insanitea September 23, 2012

      Yeah, that was in July, dude. By Aug. 7 Dukakis’s lead was down to 7, and by September Bush was up. Carter’s lead over Reagan seems to be a myth: [Apparently you can’t post links here. Google monkeycage 1980 and the first hit should be a post which references work by Chait, Nate Silver et al. exploding the Carter lead myth.]

  7. JayDub September 23, 2012

    You may be right, which is why I’m moving my money out of the US and into Australia, Switzerland and Canadian markets. I know this is a game for most of the folks who would read this article, but it’s really deadly serious as regards the coming collapse of the the US monetary system. Most people are economic idiots, so the situation may be approaching hopelessness. I hope that I am wrong and you are right, but, either way, enjoy what you are creating, and get the excuses ready.

    Reply
  8. Steve Gough September 23, 2012

    Don’t feed the trolls! From a lazy liberal small business owner who works 60 hours a week and has a payroll of 8. All with healthcare and benefits.

    Reply
  9. William Svoboda September 23, 2012

    Stan guess what I am no going to be voting for Obama or Pelosi or for that matter any Democrat. You may think there is voter contempt for the GOP, well fine. Maybe you are right. However I will not vote for any socialist or anyone who is in favor of socialize medicine. Sorry Stan, I saw what it did in Europe and was not in favor of it forty years ago and I am not in favor of it today. So keep singing the praises maybe you can convert someone.

    Reply
  10. szore September 23, 2012

    uh, the liberals cannot seem to understand that only 20% of the population self identifies as liberal. We live in a center-right counrty and your BS biased polls dont mean didly squat.

    Reply
  11. Phillip Horton September 23, 2012

    Greenberg is a fool. He sees nothing wrong with 16 tril in debt. Evidently and sadly he’s not alone. Only one thing is necessary to understand that Romney is our only viable option, thought.

    Reply
  12. Come2gether September 23, 2012

    lol

    Reply
  13. jschmidt2 September 23, 2012

    Don’t count on it. The polls are using the 2008 model counting on a extraordinary Democrat turnout that is not going to happen. Many people feel exactly like Romney. THe Dems are all for rewarding people who overleveraged themselves on mortagages, work for the unions and have a career on government handouts. Romney will not touch benefits of anyone 55 and over. The Dems scare tactics will not work as all they want is government programs, government handouts, continued waste of taxpayer money on failed projects and a dependent society. THe Soviet 5 year plans never worked but I don’t think the Dems learned that.

    Reply
    1. 1Mister September 23, 2012

      You’re not fooling anyone. I’ve paid into medicare for the last 30 years or so and the thought that NOW they’re going to give me a coupon and turn around and give billionaires a tax cut makes me want to puke. The rich have done A-ok lately–they can afford it.

      1. jschmidt September 23, 2012

        You are so wrong. Obama is cutting 716 billion from medicare. That is a sure thing since it is already in Obamacare and will reduce services. Doctors are already retiring from the system. The waits will become longer, and the ederly may not even be treated since the yet to be appointed panel of adminstrators will designate allowed coverage. You’ll end up with a UK system where people are told to wait months for tests, are withheld treatments depending on age. ROmney will not touch benefits for anyone over 55. And since that also needs to be sent through COngress, how watered down do you think that will get. No Congressman is going to cut benefits for any elderly and Romney won’t either since he wouldn’t get re-elected. If you want to do the country a favor vote for ROmney because Obama will increase the deficit, and debt burdens on our children, and doesn’t know what he is doing. BTW- how many poor people have created jobs? Only wealthy who invest do and Obama has made this an uninviting country for the wealthy and business. If you think ROmney is too rich with 190 million, did you know JFK net worth in todays dollars was 1 BILLION. And the Dems didn;t make him evil for having money. Net worth of Presidents: http://www.businessinsider.com/american-presidents-republican-candidates-net-worth-2012-1?op=1
        1st Kennedy 1 Billion, 2nd Washington over 525 million, 3rd Jefferson $212 Million , Others- Lincoln <1 million, Teddy Roosevelt 125 million, Hoover 70 million, FDR 65 million LBJ 98 million,Carter 7 million Reagen 13 million, Bush 41 23million, Clinton 38 million ,Bush 43 20million, Obama 5million, -Romney 190 million
        When did being rich become evil? Even George Washington couldn't get elected in this environment.

      2. jschmidt2 September 23, 2012

        Look whether you like it or not the rich are the only ones that create jobs. Obama’s record:43 months of 8+% unemployment, a record since 1948; labor participation rate at 63.6%, lowest since 1981; weakest recovery since WWII; 5.5 Trillion in new debt. Obama doesn’t know how to revive the economy. He is going to cut 716 BILLION from medicare with Obamacare. THat will reduce services, create longer waits and even limit treatment of patients depending on age. Romney is not cutting benefits for anyone 55 and older. He will make a voucher system for anyone under 55 and that will reduce future costs. Obama is raising medical costs with his plans and driving up the debt. THis is will directly impact the health of the nation. We already been downgraded twice because of Democrats refusal to introduce budget cuts. And if you think ROmney is too rich at 190 billion, JFK had 1 BILLION net worth (under todays dollars) and the Democrats didn’t think he was evil. Here are some other numbers-1st Kennedy 1 Billion, 2nd Washington over 525 million, 3rd Jefferson $212 Million , Others- Lincoln <1 million, Teddy Roosevelt 125 million, Hoover 70 million, FDR 65 million LBJ 98 million,Carter 7 million Reagen 13 million, Bush 41 23million, Clinton 38 million ,Bush 43 20million, Obama 5million, -Romney 190 million
        When did being rich become evil? I thought it was the great American dream.

        1. Insanitea September 23, 2012

          The GOP asks not what they can do for their country; they ask, what has my country done for me lately? They built that, right? Sounds just like JFK to me.

          Being rich is not evil. Being rich and seeking to use the influence money brings solely for further self-aggrandizement is.

  14. BigInMemphis September 23, 2012

    Voter contempt for the GOP? Maybe, but you have to be completely brain-dead to believe the democrats have any plan or leadership on *any* issue. Starting in 2006 they have done everything possible to completely ruin this country. I am not a big fan of Romney but we need someone else to take charge and fix the economy because until it’s fixed, nothing much else matters.

    Reply
    1. 1Mister September 23, 2012

      What’s the republican plan? Cut taxes? Didn’t we do that? Maybe if they actually tried to work with Obama rather than obstruct him every single step of the way, we would all be better off.

      It was a strategy to win only–to hell with the country.

      1. BigInMemphis September 23, 2012

        Mister, I wish it were that simple. The entire purpose of a tax based approach, which happened to work for Bush in 2001 is to first bring in much needed stability and to second, motivate the “parked money” to get off the bench. Obama has spent nearly a trillion on the stimulus and there is no visible result. The reason is that the money did not *stimulate* but merely filled in budget gaps for municipalities and provided some tax relief at a time when small business needed a lot more. Now, 5 trillion dollars later the private sector is the *only* pool of money we have left and unlike bureaucrats the people controlling this money (corporations, investment companies and the evil rich) are smart and will put it to work efficiently. The upside will be immediate influx of money into the spending economy, tax revenue (note, it is dead money currently) and stable jobs. Note, the “stimulus” only accomplishes 1 of these goals. And who really gives a crap if the rich make money off of pouring their reserves into the economy.

        The democratic (Obama) plan is to simply spend more and it won’t work, hence the obstruction. So, why not push those evil rich people into a situation where their money will burn a whole right through their pockets and into the US economy? BTW, this has gotten us out of numerous other recessions.

      2. S H September 24, 2012

        You have not been paying attention for the past four years or you would not be quoting the Dem talking points that are nothing more than their attempt to distract people from what Obama and Reid are really doing to destroy this country.

        Republicans cannot work with Obama because he will not allow it.

        If you had paid attention, you would know this.

        You might want to look into how Harry Reid has blocked every bill from the House since the 2010 Republicans won the House.

  15. newjersey2003 September 23, 2012

    Yeah, yeah we know….the polls are wrong, the media is liberal, non-citizens are voting…blah blah blah…..maybe, just maybe this will be the election where the working-class and middle-class white male will wake up and realize they are being fed conspiracy theories and nativist garbage by greedy millionaires and billionaires who care nothing about them and only want their votes to further cut taxes for the wealthy millionaires and billionaires. The greedy rich and their radio mouthpieces are laughing at the ease with which you are manipulated.

    Reply
    1. jschmidt2 September 23, 2012

      Yes the Democrats and Obama have been lying to the middle class and will be re-distributing the wealth of the middle class.

    2. 1Mister September 23, 2012

      Thanks!!!

  16. Steve Wheeler September 23, 2012

    Holy Crap!!!!!

    You found a real graph that shows democrats with an upward trajectory in the polls?

    That IS news!!!!!!

    Reply
  17. Gffgf Fgbfbf September 23, 2012

    The attacks on voter rights has only expedited the GOP”s demise.

    Reply
  18. thesafesurfer September 23, 2012

    Following this logic the economy is not creating jobs or growing because of its disgust with the failed policies of the Obama, Reid, Pelosi cabal.

    Reply
  19. mwill September 23, 2012

    you guys are going to be shocked by how bad obama gets beat in november

    Reply
  20. Bart DePalma September 23, 2012

    This wouldn’t happen to be from one of your polls with a Dem +11% bias?

    Reply
  21. bpai99 September 23, 2012

    Appealing primarily to hate and ignorance can triumph in human affairs, but not always. Unfortunately for the GOP, just hating Obama and counting on the ignorance of the overall electorate as to the impact of GOP proposals likely will not be enough to do the trick this time around.

    Reply
  22. jcaesar September 23, 2012

    I don’t get it. The party ID poll here and in the link shows the Republicans dropping. But only this one shows the Dems going up. The link shows the Dems as basically holding steady.

    Reply
  23. rebjava September 23, 2012

    Romney broke the cardinal rule of speaking the truth. Leftists who have hijacked the democratic party avoid the truth like the plague. It’s the optics that count. And they will deflect, misdirect, misinterpret, and mislead to create the desired illusion. Funny, misleading is the only leading they know how to do.

    “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

    Behold the democratic agenda!

    Reply
  24. Henry Abarbanel September 23, 2012

    Voting for a Republican this election has taken on the tone of the saying “It is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders”

    Reply
    1. Bteri September 23, 2012

      And voting for four more years of Barack Obama’s failed policies is handing the country over to China, Russia and Iran.

  25. Ben Sutherland September 23, 2012

    I think you seriously underestimate how much lack of trust and, unfortunately, contempt that voters have for both parties, right now. And for all major institutions. A problem that Democrats and Republicans have very much contributed to, this election. And the far more important trend-line, long term. Especially for those who care about this country more than they care about themselves. Human. Forgivable. And not going away until either and both parties take responsibility for their part in that much more serious problem in the country, right now.

    Reply
  26. CA_MBA September 23, 2012

    @Ruby @ Not a chance. For the right years that Bush was in office he gave us about $3 trillion in new debt. Obama has given us about $6.75 trillion in less than four years.

    The Bush-era tax cuts gave our economy 5 years of extremely good economic performance (late 2002 through late 2007) during this time tax revenue went up not down. In fact, in 2008 the DBO published a report indicating that in its observation when tax rates are cut tax revenue increase. The reason is that tax rate cuts result in an increase in taxable economic activity.

    Reply
  27. BillinLaMesa September 23, 2012

    A bit too much goose-stepping going on in the republican party these days…

    You can see it, even in the comments from the neocon’s here.

    I’m getting more conservative as I grow older, but I’ll never vote fascist!

    Try again in 2016 guys, and learn some manners while you’re waiting.

    Reply
    1. Bteri September 23, 2012

      You mean like the manners the Democrats displayed the first two years when the slammed the legislative door in the Republicans face essentially telling 50% of the American people that their preferences and opinions dont matter? Those manners?

      And after a week where Obama had to deal with a dead Ambassador, the first terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11, proof from the IG that the DOJ and AFT were responsible for Fast & Furious, Sebelius violating the Hatch Act and the cherry on top — lots of terrible economic numbers.

    2. Rui September 24, 2012

      They are called “Rudepublicans”

  28. katie009 September 23, 2012

    If you love socialism, marxism, racism, plantation mentality and killing defenseless babies…..vote all democrats into office…

    They will soon give you their one party state and the destruction of this once great republic. I love one comment above all…..

    These idiots voting worry about how Romney spends his money, and no one gives a sh_t how these thieves (Democrats) spend our money! To hell with all of them!

    Reply
    1. Kathi Policastro September 23, 2012

      Katie, you are out of your mind.

  29. CA_MBA September 23, 2012

    @Siever – Steven is simply trying to make the point that it’s the “red” voters who make the biggest contribution, and he is correct. The vast majority of successful business owners, not to mention CEO’s of companies are red voters. The vast majority of low producers, including the now infamous 47% are blue voters.

    Reply
  30. smorrow66 September 23, 2012

    Keep drinking that Kool-Aid. Americans hate Republicans and they love liberalism.

    Obama just might win, but my gut tells me that this is 1980 all over again.

    Reply
  31. CA_MBA September 23, 2012

    @jschmidt2 – You are correct and my home state of CA is the worst. Government labor unions have controlled this state for decades at the expense of almost everybody else. The good news is that some people seem to be waking up. For instance voters in San Diego and San Jose just voted to do something about the out-of-control retirement systems of their police departments.

    Reply
  32. Bteri September 23, 2012

    Greenberg is kidding himself if he thinks the voter contempt for the GOP is larger than the voter contempt for Obama and his abyssmal record that has destroyed so many lives with his failed economic policies (and now his failing foreign policies). Greenberg seems to be joining the party on the left that is trying to act like Obama’s victory is a done deal when clearly that is nothing more than wishful thinking and a whole lot of biased TV news coverage (the Obama Presidency has essentially killed TV news and any chance of the American people trusting in it ever again). Just as in the Walker recall where even on election day the polls said the race was neck and neck………and Walker won by 7 points (a few more than his original 2010 victory), I expect the obscenely pro Obama biased media to minimize Romney’s chances and maximize Obama’s – so the bottom line is that no one will know (assuming no voter fraud) until the election is over and counted.

    Reply
  33. Son of a Gip September 23, 2012

    I love the smell of liberal propaganda in the morning!

    Reply
  34. CA_MBA September 23, 2012

    @Ilse – Educate yourself. The people to whom you refer are all labor union members and give massive $$ to Obama and the democrats. Moreover, they are the minority of workers. In fact, only about 9 percent of workers in the U.S. are in a labor union of any kind and only about 5 percent (teachers, police, firefighters etc.) are in a government labor union.

    As for fascism: get therapy. I see nothing fascist about enabling people to work hard, accept responsibility for themselves, achieve success and run their own lives; a notion wholly contrary to the liberal idea that the government should control everybody and punish (tax) people for being successful.

    Reply
  35. CA_MBA September 23, 2012

    @Siever – Precisely what is so terrible about requiring people who vote to verify that they are who they say they are? You can’t even buy a fishing license without showing ID, but somehow anybody has the right to vote by virtue of the fact that they show up? Perhaps Dr. Phil can help you.

    Reply
  36. CA_MBA September 23, 2012

    @Kantz – The Republicans have been sitting on their arses for four years? Get medication. The democrats controlled both house of congress for half that time and their guy Obama was in the white house. Precisely what did they accomplish when they had all the power? Oh yeah, they gave American a health care plan that most Americans don’t want and congress gave Obama the right to increase our country’s debt by almost $7 trillion dollars. And you claim somebody else is a moron? Get psychiatric treatment.

    Reply
  37. DarthYoda September 23, 2012

    This completely explains the mantra the GOP commenters on polls keep saying — that Dems are being oversampled. They are not. More and more people self-identify as Dems and Indies and more and more people are ashamed to tell pollsters they are Repubs.

    The reason Indies are leaning more GOP in polling these days is that so many Indies aren’t true Indies but rather Repubs in hiding. But all the GOP-leaning Indies in the country can’t save Romney from the Dems and Dem-leaning Indies and true Indies.

    Reply
    1. S H September 23, 2012

      Confused much?

  38. CA_MBA September 23, 2012

    @Emperor – Precisely what caused the economic meltdown of 2008? I mean, you do know, don’t you? You’re not a complete moron who lives on a another planet are you? It was massive defaults on subprime mortgages which Bill Clinton forced banks and mortgage companies to make, not to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In other words IT WAS REGULATION BY GOVERNMENT!

    As for tax cuts for the rich: You do know that 20% of the taxpayers pay almost 95% of the taxes don’t you? And that these people and busnesses create the jobs and produce goods and services? But you want to punish them even more. Right? Has it ever occured to you that if you punish people for being successful and reward people for being a bunch of losers that it will create a problem?

    Reply
  39. CA_MBA September 23, 2012

    @Thorpe – Bush didn’t spend a penny after Obama took office. And for the first two years democrats controlled both house of congress. But somehow, Obama was obligated to continue spending money? Besides, the Bush program were miniscule compared to Obama’s spending. In fact, out country’s debt has increased about $6.75 trillion dollars under Obama.

    Reply
  40. CA_MBA September 23, 2012

    @ Patrick – The president doesn’t need “legislation” to spend money. He only needs congress to vote to approve expenditures in general, which the democrat-controlled congress did.

    Reply
  41. Kenneth Glenn Koons September 23, 2012

    So American voters are supposed to forget 4 yrs. of Eco, Mil, Soc., Foreign policy failures because Dems hate the GOP?? Yikes. Well I guess the entire electon will be decided on turnout. Obama promising the moon while raising taxes, regs, spending and having a war on US domestic energy and the GOP trying to cut the debt, deficit, make our military strong again and actually using American energy not green glop like Solyndra scandals. The failed social experiment of Obama has become the failed Socialist agenda which is ruining Free Enterprise and our American heritage, history and values from a know nothing ILL. State Senator who never showed up to vote. Yikes.

    Reply
  42. ThirdPartyNow September 23, 2012

    Just because the majority of voters in a state make it Blue (Democrat Majority) does not mean that the majority of the taxes collected there come from Democrats.

    It might only mean that voting moochers tend to stay in states that feed them better.

    Reply
  43. CA_MBA September 23, 2012

    @newjersey – Your guy Obama sent some 50,000 MORE troops to Afghanistan and has drawn only a token number of troops from Iraq. As for Bush’ tax cuts for the wealthy: In fact he cut taxes across the board. In fact, he created the 10% tax bracket which reduced taxes for the poorest American tax payers by 33.3 percent. Moreover, 20 percent of the taxpayers currently pay about 95 percent of the taxes. So now you want to take more from those who pay for everything? Brilliant idea.

    As for the debt during Reagan’s years, you do know that democrats controlled congress for that entire time don’t you? And you do know that the president must get permission from congress to spend money don’t you? As for the debt doubling during the Bush years: Not a chance. Bush gave us about $3 trillion in new debt. So you’re saying that the debt was only $3 trillion when Bush came into office? Once again, not a chance.

    Reply
  44. Jim Ouradnik September 23, 2012

    People will cut off their nose to spite their face. People did it in 2008.

    Reply
  45. Sick of everything September 23, 2012

    Come on people, how can anybody agree with what the GOP has done, is doing and wants to keep doing?? Romney/Ryan can’t seem to tell the truth on anything, flip-flop on everything, lot’s of talk but nothing specific. Plus probably the biggest problem or the biggest deal breaker of them all, is taking us back to Bush policies that caused this mess in the first place and then putting them on steroids. No thanks, had enough of Bush and all his problematic policies. Obama may not be perfect, but I like his direction way better then what the other two offer.

    Reply
    1. Mojo the Awkward September 23, 2012

      Except that ‘Bush on steroids’ is exactly descriptive of the Obama presidency. It really is.

      Deficit spending? ON STEROIDS under Obama.

      Executive overreach? ON STEROIDS under Obama.

      Foreign adventurism? ON STEROIDS under Obama.

      Partisan division? ON STEROIDS under Obama.

      “Two Americas?” ON STEROIDS under Obama.

      If you like his direction, it’s because you don’t understand his direction. Or you like ruin, because that’s what Obama policy leads to. Ruinous at home, ruinous overseas – but at least he has an unearned Nobel Peace Prize to sit with all his other unearned plaudits, and folks like you to lap up his disinformation and spill it out when required.

    2. Bcrew September 23, 2012

      Really? Obama won’t even talk about his record, has absolutely no specifics he’s campaigning on, has flip flopped on gay marriage, Guantanamo, the mandate, and about 50 other things, has lied incessantly including falsely accusing Romney of committing a felony and causing the death of a woman who still had insurance, and has been the most divisive president in our history. It is a good thing for a lot of you Libs Jim jones isn’t around.

  46. jkstewart2 September 23, 2012

    In the next four years, we’ll have a great time in the food lines complaining aboutow those evil republicans and how they stopped Obama from halting Congressional spending. We will be able to remember what it was like before $10/gal gas. We can listen to the media tell us that everything will be ok because Michelle will fix it in her first term. Thank goodness the Obamas will have sixteen years to fix the country because Bush left the country in ruins.

    Reply
    1. FredFilopek September 23, 2012

      You are right . Bush did leave the country in ruins

      1. Bcrew September 23, 2012

        Please look up the meaning of the word sarcasm.

  47. Alex Brufsky September 23, 2012

    Really. Stan Greenburg? For shame, buddy. A democratic wave election? In this economy? When party ID has never, ever had a 5% monthly change in the 20-30 years of polling? Suddenly now? Three words for you, my friend (and you will get the reference): The Literary Digest.

    Reply
  48. scribblelicious September 23, 2012

    The GOP are the people who wanted someone like Sarah Palin to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. That says everything you need to know about them.

    Reply
    1. Bcrew September 23, 2012

      Democrats have someone like joe Biden a heartbeat away from the presidency. Says all you need to know about the democrats.

  49. Spe September 23, 2012

    In the scathing repudiation of affirmative action, Lord Machniea in “the buttocks of Sir Anthony MaCoon Davis” scores a riposte on his huntsman Jeeves, quoting Shelley – Tis not that the noble were ignoble – nay p’rap the parasite killed the worm ! Obama Davis Soetero is a homosexual prostitute con-man who with nothing to lose, seized the US Presidency ala Shitler, with Satanic assistance and ease, and has usurped the real citizens setting the early stages for the resumption of a civil war put on delay 150 years ago. The good workers against the cess parasites. Both will lose and the blood will be ocean .

    Reply
  50. Son of a Gip September 23, 2012

    Stanley has the party ID breakdown at 34I/34D/25R. 2008 was a terrible year for republicans and their ID was still 32. In 2010, the republicans took over the House and their ID was at 35. Yet, for some unknown reason everyone just hates republicans and they’ve gone back to Watergate numbers. Not drinking the Kool-Aid, Stanley!

    Reply
    1. Mojo the Awkward September 23, 2012

      Their ID *was* at 35, but the plot Greenberg’s referencing had it a shade below 28%. Democratic turnout was supposed to be swelled by the wonderful Organizing for America apparatus – it was around 40%, which is where midterm turnout usually is (and why Gallup used a 40% turnout projection in its polling, and why Nate Silver was laughably wrong to cast doubt on Gallup for doing so).

      This is the only problem with building an entire political philosophy, and political party strategy, on counterfactuals – borrowing equals growth, dependency equals independence, debt equals opportunity, and so on. You get so used to saying up is down that you can’t see reality when it’s setting your embassies on fire and brewing up an electoral beatstick for a mediocre incumbent who has failed even to live up to his hype as a speechifier, much less a President.

  51. Bcrew September 23, 2012

    That video should show old Stanley with a huge Obama bumper sticker right on his forehead. This is the most comical, disingenuous piece of propaganda I’ve seen in a long time.

    Reply
  52. Mojo the Awkward September 23, 2012

    I’m confused at the ‘lost 5% over the past month’ comment. Far be it from me to explain to Messrs. Carville and Greenberg how to read a graph (or a calendar) but their source plot at HuffPo shows a 5% decline since February, not August.

    It also showed a D+6 advantage for election day in November 2010, when Republicans beat the spread on Nate Silver’s expectation of a 54-seat gain in the House.

    And why does Rasmussen show a swell of Republican support, with Republican identification up three points in a month to 37% from the 34% it’s held for most of the year? Don’t tell me – it’s because Rasmussen doesn’t call cellphones, right?

    Reply
    1. jatazus1 September 23, 2012

      Simple mojo. This clown is hoping you will stay home because the race is over….I look at two polls Gallup and Rasmussen and both show a virtual dead heat…the rest are outliers and most of them clearly polls democrats by 6 to 10 points over republicans

  53. Shane Knee September 23, 2012

    Today’s democracy is not the democracy of its founders. Today’s democracy is tied directly to free enterprise, especially the Fortune 500 companies. There is nothing wrong with a free enterprise system as it’s the best economic system there is. However, corporations have only one obligation, and that’s to its share holders, especially the institutional holders who have the inside track. Furthermore, the rule of law and fair play is something of a fairytale within today’s economic system.

    The United States’s role of government is supposed to enforce the rule of law, and make sure “certain” necessities/services are available to everyone and free from the reigns of capitalistic darwinism, i.e. clean water, sewage systems, transportation infrastructure (roads), EMT, education, defense etc. This idea that government is bad, especially on the federal level and that we need to adopt the far-right GOP ideology that free-enterprise can do everything better, is fatally flawed, simply because the corporations’ first obligation is not to the public, especially when providing “public” services…it’s to the big money investors. Historically, we know that big money has no interest of self policing or the moral obligations to do what’s right. Their morality is based and driven by the bottom-line, and for the Gorden Mitt Romney Gecko’s of this game, it means obtaining bottom-line revenue by any means possible, even if it’s not playing by the rules or bending them.

    For true democracy to work, you need a balance of free-enterprise (that plays by the rules) and government. And government neither big or small is the issue…it needs to be efficient government by the people for the people. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to exist anymore.

    Ironically, today’s blue color conservatives don’t realize that they are nothing but shills, being used and played by the corporations under the guise of the GOP. The GOP/Greed coalitions give lip-service support for social bigotry and hate, which the blue collar Fox News watching devotee devours, and in return while in a stuppor of ignorance and biased rage, they blindly suport the GOP party, who in turn are beholden the fat-cat Wall Street machine that chews them up and spit them out, broke, and foreclosed on. The wealthy, intelligent GOP supporters aren’t affected by the social conservative hate agenda, because they can afford to be insulated from it. All they care about is holding on to as much of their money as possible.

    For the record, I’m in the 35% tax bracket and gladly pay it, for all this great country provides for me and my family in both tangibles and opportunity. if I need to pay more, so that others can get back on their feet, or have the same equal opportunity, I will gladly do so.

    Reply
    1. Mojo the Awkward September 23, 2012

      Corporatism, particularly when it facilitates manipulation of the political process, is not free enterprise. It is as inimical to free enterprise as is statism.

      Insofar as our democracy is currently both corporatist and statist in its inclination, the correct descriptor is Fascist. Like Mussolini, if Mussolini couldn’t put together a train timetable.

  54. William Starr September 23, 2012

    You have to be trying real hard to think this is over…….Barry has to overcome HISTORICAL barriers to his elections. You can say Romney is not a great campaigner and you may be right but he so vanilla and safe to think ANYTHING he says is going to sink him or make him an extremist in the eyes of most voters. I say continue to drink the cool aid….I am going to enjoy the night in Nov watching my favorite looney MSNBC explode!

    Reply
  55. jatazus1 September 23, 2012

    Aren’t you the one that guaranteed Carter over Reagan after you assured all that Dewey would beat Truman?

    Reply
  56. bluesdude59 September 23, 2012

    “Voter Contempt For GOP” Thats a hot one. Most of the folks in my business circles do indeed hold serious contempt, but only for the guy in the white house.

    Reply
  57. time4action1 September 24, 2012

    … This ‘red and blue’ crap is stupid sterotyping. The ‘middle class’ as it was known died a long suffering death at least 10 years ago. the big population states use the most gov’t services because there are more citizens in them (dah). Everyone over i guess 8 to 10 yrs old pays taxes…yea sales tax. Many ‘things’ are to big for ‘private enterprise’ to handle (IE: goingf to the moon, the armed forces, major medical research, maintaining the Interstate highway system, building the Boulder Dam, Maintaining and enhancing the Smithsonian Institute, Health care for 310,000,000 million citizens, buliding the LA subway system UNDER skyscrapers, sending a probe to Mars, I can go on… so small gov’t people just have to have small minds as the more the US population increases—DAH the more ‘it’ takes to manage a half-assed civil society.

    Reply
    1. Mojo the Awkward September 24, 2012

      Don’t underestimate the power of decentralization. Walmart has a workforce of 2.2 million people globally; that’s somewhere around three-quarters of a million more people than the Federal government, and Walmart manages operations worldwide.

      If private enterprise can’t send people to the moon, why is private enterprise doing so?

      If private enterprise can’t handle major medical research, why are so many drugs the intellectual copyright of private enterprise?

      1. garywildd September 24, 2012

        Private enterprise would never have gone to the Moon or invented any of the massive spin-offs of Apollo, or created microprocessors and the Internet, or built the Interstates or research universities, if the government hadn’t taken the big risks first, and hadn’t helped the private sector commercialize technology, create new products and market them worldwide. It is and always has been a partnership. Only moronic losers ignorant of the history of technology and innovation in America naively pit the government and private enterprise against each other.

  58. anhsbaseball September 24, 2012

    Also I do believe he has insulted a lot of his base. They may be totally unaware that they are included in the group he’s speaking of. Retired elderly white people….all on social security are part of the 47 percent. I know this because I fall into this category….I’ve worked my entire life and because I’m on SS….I’m a moocher. The military where some are on food stamps. He is in no position to speak about them, when he himself pays less than someone making $60,000….keep drinking the kool-aid. They pay at least 20 if not 30 percent in taxes. He paid 14. He’s really pathletic if this is the best the GOP can come up with. It’s really a shame that he will do or say things he actually doesn’t believe in just to get the word “president” on his resume.

    Reply
    1. garywildd September 24, 2012

      I agree. Pretty soon only racist whites and rapacious uber-rich will vote for Romney. And there aren’t nearly enough of them to make him win.

  59. biggcatt1 September 24, 2012

    When the perons took power in argentina it was a first world country. After the adoption of their socialist policies and to this day it is a third world country. Carters years were an economic wreck. Obamas is an economic diisaster. Where they all overlap is their focus on susstenance. While this is admirable inn one respect thhe mistake they all make is to try to provide sustenance instead of teaching andd requiring all they can to provide for themselves. When you provide resources to someone and they dont give an equal return you are consuming a societys accumulated wealth. Now we can afford a certain amount of this, but beyond a certain point your society just gets progressively poorer and you cant take care of anyone and have no seed stock left to create new wealth.

    Now under harrding, coolidge, kennedy, reagan, thatcher and even bush II, taxes and regulations were ccut and the economy boomed. This hhowever did not lead to the rising of all boats to the extent we would desire. There are many rreasons for this. We are no longer the only industrial nation not bombed to ruins so our unskilled labor cant demand the premium it once did. More than anything else birth control liberated women and let them enter and stay in the work force. While this is great for women it increases the supply of workers therefore lowering the wages a worker can demand. Automation lowered the demand for workers. Wiith the end of the cold war and the adoption of some sort of capitalism in the soviet sphere, china and india some 3.5 billion were added to the worldwide labor pool. Commbined with the information age this put furrther downward pressure on wages. We also should not overlook nixons taking us off the gold standard. Fiat currency hurts the poor and middle class by eroding their wages and savings thru inflation. The wealthy have enoughh assets to hedge against inflation and even to make money off the currency fluctuations.

    But we must adopt pro growth policies in a range i would bracket between reagan and clinton. To much to the left of clinton and we will simply impoverish everryone but the uber rich. To far to the right of reagan we will leave too many of our fellow citizens living a wretched existence.

    Obama may well win. I certainly hope not, but romney is far from perfect. But he is not callous and uncaring. The man donated 4 million to charity last year and also contributes his personal time. But i dont hear anyone adressing what are the 2most biggest structural problems with our system today, fiat currency and fractional banking. And thats because thats where both parties get all their big money. And where we all get fleeced.

    The reason there are demogogues is because demogogary works. An obama victory will mean little more than he is a better politician and americans are economically ignorant. Before someone can worry about getting better wages they have to be getting wages in the first place. Obamas policies will not create enough jobs. He keeps talking about 4 million new jobs during the recovery which started before the first stimulus dollar was spent but we need 2 to 2.5 million jobs a year just to keep up with new workers. We need 4 million a year not over 3.5 years to put a dent iin unemployment and to get rising wages. Im glad we had a black president. Now can we have someone who knows what hes doing?

    Reply
    1. garywildd September 24, 2012

      Biggcatt1, you can either wallow in fantasies and make up facts to suit them, or you can be a real human being with a real brain who wants real data and has the capacity to draw logical conclusions from them.Your choice. The rest of us can’t wait for you. We have work to do.

      1. biggcatt1 September 24, 2012

        Attacking my intelligence allows you to dismiss my arguments instead of having to refute them. What facts did i make up?

    2. Doug Welch September 24, 2012

      Sorry, a return to cheap oil fueled the boom during the Reagan-Thatcher era. During that time Alaska and North Sea oil came online breaking OPEC’s price structure. Deregulation and tax cuts did nothing but add to the national debt. If you want a insightful analysis of our current predicament read Jeff Rubin’s new book THE END OF GROWTH. Both parties are failing us miserably. We truly are in uncharted territory.

      1. biggcatt1 September 24, 2012

        First i agree both parties are failing us miserably. Unfortunately in a democratic system the people get the govt they deserve. So really we’re failing our kids miserably. The reagan tax cuts doubled revenue in 8 years. How doubling revenue creates debt i’ll never understand. Sure theoil boom contributed to the boom in the 80s but so did our position in the long wave cycle. Autos helped us boom in the 20s and aviation in the 60s and compters in the 90swork and the

      2. biggcatt1 September 24, 2012

        And the internet in the aughties. The question is why are these nnovations happening in a low tax low regulation environment and not in a carter or obama high tax high regulatory environment.

    3. ottovbvs September 24, 2012

      Argentina has never been a first world country….you disqualified yourself in your first sentence.

      1. biggcatt1 September 24, 2012

        In 1900 us gdp per capita was 3rd. Argentina was 12th between canada and sweden. Like reagan said its not what liberals dont know that is so bad its what they think they do know

        1. ottovbvs September 24, 2012

          The 12 th largest GDP in 1900 did not make Argentina a first world country in the context of the times.

          1. biggcatt1 September 26, 2012

            12th in per capita gdp. The people in argentina were as wealthy as swedes and canadians and nearly as wealthy as americans. That changed permanently when the perons put in socialism. But if you knew history 1from you’d recognizze a socialist when you saw one and 2to you’d never vote for one.

  60. GlenM2 September 24, 2012

    This is the dumbest thing I have ever seen. The party ID numbers from a selection of polls from HuffPo say nothing about the American People and everything about the organization selecting the polls included, as well as those conducting the polls. Greenberg, you are a shill.

    Reply
  61. onjeffriv September 24, 2012

    I use to race horses and have been to just about everyone of the cities I mentioned and they scared the hell out of me. I do not need some gov’t funded liberal university study lying to me when I have first hand experience

    Reply
  62. DownriverDem September 24, 2012

    Repubs: We don’t like you. We don’t want you. The only way you will win is to cheat and steal the election. I don’t put it past you either to do that.

    Reply
  63. stefanstackhouse September 24, 2012

    Reagan, the former New Deal Democrat, said that he didn’t move, the Democratic party did. Many former Republicans from the now-extinct moderate/liberal wing – like myself – are now saying the same thing. We haven’t moved, but the Republican party has.

    Reply
    1. rednip September 24, 2012

      I dropped the GOP in 2000 and joined the Dems, not because I was ‘in love with them’, but because I saw that the Republican party had become beholden to right wing extremists who’d see America return to the ‘values’ of the Gilded Age. When child labor was considered an ‘anti-poverty measure’.

  64. Linda Perry September 24, 2012

    Oh Shockey Dockey. When 47% of Us are Etch-A-Sketch out. When ER is now a Health Care preference. When Moochers are YOU PEOPLE. I will quote Queen Ann: Stop It.

    Reply
  65. Ashetalia Staatz September 24, 2012

    I’m starting to think that Romney might not want to win, and is driving the polls down deliberately. See his 60 Minutes remarks about ER care. They’re inaccurate; the uninsured still must pay for the care, and obviously going to the ER when you’re seriously sick instead of using primary care to prevent the sickness is inefficient, and costs everyone more. Aside from that, however, NO ONE would approve of what he said. The Republicans at the debates who applauded Paul’s decision to pull the plug on the uninsured coma victim simply want such people dead. They don’t want to fund their health care through visits to the ER. Centrist Republicans disapprove of Obamacare, but believe that the system is in need of reform because of stuff like ER use. Rest of the country finds the situation egregious.

    These results aren’t surprising, and reflected in Senate elections in a few key states. I don’t get Romney’s choices lately.

    Reply
    1. rednip September 24, 2012

      Romney isn’t ‘trying to drive down his numbers’ any more than Obama ‘wants more people on food stamps, he’s just floundering to understand that the crazy things Republicans say to each other doesn’t present itself well to people who are not plutocrats.

      1. Ashetalia Staatz September 24, 2012

        …or reality based humans. You did see his comment about airplane windows, right? He wants them to rolled down, in jets, at 35,000+ feet, doing too many miles per hour. Fact is, you don’t have to be rightie or a leftie to find that objectionable. You just have to be an oxygen reliant animal.

        1. rednip September 24, 2012

          I didn’t see that comment, but I wasn’t replying to it.

          1. Ashetalia Staatz September 24, 2012

            Oh I know. His desire that jet windows roll down at 35,000 feet for the sake of his family struck me as being a tad odd is all :/

  66. 2stevechakos3 September 24, 2012

    We are becoming, thanks to the Left, Europe; which means bankrupt in all areas: religon, government and socially.

    The Left is really only good at one thing. That is vilifying the Right.

    When California fails due to the long standing Democratic rule, no one blames the Left, they blame the economy. I say blame the Left.

    When our economy goes south, I say it is policy that provided the free-fall. We cannot get in the way of business and expect growth. Regulate is not an answer to every economic endevour. We grow because of business. If you do not know why businesses grow and thrive, perhaps you should not be the one regulating business.

    Reply
    1. Ashetalia Staatz September 24, 2012

      We’re becoming Europe? Oh, good. I’d love for our country to have the social safety nets, infrastructure, and sensibility of a Scandinavian/Central European nation. Sadly, I see no sign of that coming true, thanks to ignoramuses like you.

      RELIGIOUS bankruptcy? How does that affect the economy? Who gives a fuck? Social bankruptcy? Do you mean the (for you) tragic fact that some European nations practice marriage equality? Shock, gasp.

      Both the US and Europe experienced the revolution which Reagan and Thatcher instituted nearly thirty years ago. That revolution proved to be a long-term disaster for the US, the UK, Ireland, Iceland, and Greece. INVEST in the state and its institutions. Please.

    2. rednip September 24, 2012

      Another right wing crybaby predicting total disaster if we don’t ‘do things their way’, If in four years California and/or America doesn’t fail, would you admit that you were wrong? I didn’t think so.

  67. onjeffriv September 25, 2012

    Exactly, everyone of you left wing misfits are idiots and know you cannot make in the real world without the government. Liberals are just vastly inferior people. That is why all the successful people are Conservatives

    Reply
  68. MrPrezodent028 September 27, 2012

    Mitt Romney’s 47-crap makes it completely obvious once and for all the GOP is the Party of Wall St. While the social conservatives make it appear as if they are the Party of Main St. And Mitt’s continual blunders is making it obvious to the latter the former doesnt care about them, this country, or anything except their profits. Mitt can pull this polarization Reagan coalition strategy one last time is their only hoe, but if he does, he will decimate the GOP for decades.

    Reply
  69. RonThompson September 27, 2012

    Very useful graph. You wouldn’t care to provide numbers corresponding to points on it, would you?

    Reply
  70. Michael Thomas Murphy October 15, 2012

    I would like to know how Mitt Romney gets away with fund raising in Israel since it is against the law and considered a felony?? How does he do this

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.