Home › Blogs › Alan Peel's blog ›

How the Obama Stimulus Plan is the Best Thing to Ever Happen to the GOP

Submitted by Alan Peel on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 12:07
in

Rasmussen Reports, one of the two most accurate polling firms in predicting the outcome of the 2008 Presidential Race, has come out with a series of new polling numbers the last couple of days that should come as welcome news for the Republican Party. It all has to do with one thing: the opposition to Barack Obama’s so-called “stimulus” package that has been described as a “piñata” and a “rotting corpse”.

In other words, the American people, who were once for the Obama stimulus plan, are now suddenly against it. For the first time, the support for the Obama plan has fallen below the number of those who oppose it (37% support it versus 43% opposing it). Why? There are 50% of Americans who believe that the plan will make the economy worse.

The end result is that this is becoming a huge shot in the arm for the Republicans who are in opposition to the Obama stimulus plan. For the first time since early December of last year, the Generic Congressional Ballot shows the Republicans within four points of the Democrats (42% to 38%) and more than half of all Americans (54%) think Congress is doing a “poor” job while only 12% think Congress is doing an “excellent” or “good” job (that’s beginning to rival Rod Blagojevich territory when Blago had a 7% approval rating back in December). 

If the Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy “Margaret Hamilton” Pelosi want to become a minority party again by 2010 and 2012, all they need to do is to keep doing what they are currently doing. 

In the House vote, every Republican and 11 Democrats voted against the plan, but it was not enough to stop the plan from passing the House. In the Senate, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) has tried to reassemble the “Gang of 14” to get any stimulus plan passed. It’s more a sign of desperation instead of bipartisanship. 

Before our eyes, the plan’s details, namely the pork-barrel projects, are being decried. There was money for contraception which has now been removed. There is money for a discus golf course in Austin, Texas. There is money for Shreveport, Louisiana to purchase eight Harley-Davidson motorcycles for the police department. There is money for a dog park in Chula Vista, California. And, of all places, Las Vegas is asking for $2 million for more neon signs. 

As the days go by, the American people are waking up to what is really going on in Washington and it flies in the face of the “change” that President Obama’s campaign was all about. Instead, Obama should have just cut out the Barbara Streisand (B.S.) and just campaigned on “Politics as usual”. 

4.5
Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (4 votes)

Comments

yeah, you go right ahead with your GREAT LEAP FORWARD

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 12:20.

next time read what Rass has to say.

That's 50% of likely voters.

Dem=forest/Rep=trees

Submitted by artigiano on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 12:48.

You guys on the right are really missing the big picture here.

Complaining about 8 police Harleys in a trillion dollar plan? Get some perspective.

The priorities are as follows:

#1-The guy who won the election we just had and the vast majority of economists think the government needs to spend about a trillion dollars. Because consumers, investors, and banks are all frozen and doing nothing.

#2-It needs to be  spent  as quick as possible. So Obama's guys went looking for any and all projects that were ready to go or damn close.

#3-Nobody gives a rat's ass what we spend it on as long as it gets out there fast. Would we like all of it to go to infrastructure? Sure, but there are only so many projects that are "shovel ready." 

#4-Last time I checked there were actual human employees with families to feed working at the plants that make Harleys, condoms, disc golf equipment, neon signs, and even doggy poop baggies. So the government buying those things pumps dollars into the economy that will be in the cash register at Wal Mart in just a few weeks or months.

What part of this don't you righties get? Or do you actually understand the above and just enjoy being disingenuos pricks?

betcha those harleys get better gas mileage

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 12:49.

than crown vics. ;-)

the conservative forest

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 13:04.

1. We don't all agree that massive fiscal stimulus is the way to go.  It will only put us into a huge black hole of debt that can only be repaid down the road in very unpleasant ways.

2. We also disagree more fundamentally with Obama's scaremongering tactics - that we must do something RIGHT NOW otherwise we are DOOMED!  We don't believe we are headed for a Next Great Depression, that our current situation instead is much more akin to a severe recession a la 1980-82.  Huge government spending wasn't needed to get us out of that one.

3. We aren't political neophytes.  We understand that Democrats picked their "stimulus" projects with a certain political orientation in mind.  We as the opposition party are right to call foul to such cronyism.

4. Even if you accept that the Democrats' projects constitute authentic stimulus projects, most of what the Democrats proposed would not be spent quickly.  That violates even the fundamental assumptions of Keynesian stimulus.

5. We do "give a rat's ass" what the money is spent on.  Government doesn't exactly have a great track record of efficient uses of public money.  As the CBO noted, giving huge budget increases to programs that aren't equipped to deal with it is just asking for trouble.

6. By your logic government should just buy up the nation's entire consumer goods inventory and it would constitute stimulus.  Maybe government should just buy...everything?  This wouldn't work, however.  Three guesses why it wouldn't, and the first two don't count.

By the numbers.

Submitted by artigiano on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 15:59.

1, 2, & 3-We had an election. Largely a referendum on economic theory. You lost. Big time.

4-One of my points restated. If there were faster projects to chose, those would be prefered. Admittedly, when you get down to disk golf and dog parks you are looking for ANY public works projects that are shovel ready. Just to get the cash out the door and spent.  Dems as well as Reps wish it could all be schools, hospitals, and bridges.

5-See 2000-2008 and consult 1,2 &3 above.

6.Yes, and by your logic, if lowering taxes increases revenues, we should collect no taxes at all and thereby maximize revenues. I know my #6 is bullshit. I hope you know yours is too. Otherwise, consult my earlier question about disengenuous pricks?

The election was largely a

Submitted by centerfire on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 19:57.

The election was largely a referendum on economic theory?  Really?

Evidently I missed the debate at which McCain and Obama fenced over Keynesian multipliers and the validity of Hayek's critique that recessions are caused by micro-economic, not macro-economic, factors.  Here I thought the election was principally about whether Obama could pull off his Mirror of Erised act long enough and convincingly enough to gull enough people weary of the Bush presidency to put him in power.

Who knew?

 

It never gets as detailed as we all debate here.

Submitted by artigiano on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 08:05.

McCain and Obama both ran like any politicians do with big ideas and few details. But polls show that the economy was one of if not the primary issue, especially after the financial "meltdown" in September. McCain's own strategist even said flat out, "If this election is about the economy, we lose." We can reverse that to, "If this election is about all the other issues except the economy, I expect we will beat this guy." That didn't happen. So maybe it was an economic referendum.

But the 53% didn't endorse every detail (what few that were offered), at least I didn't. The voter calculus was more like, "Which of these guys sounds like he has a better grasp of what is happening and sounds more capable of fixing it? We decided we trusted Obama more. His mirror reflected an image we could recognize as the image of what we hope to become. McCain's mirror reflected "Real America", and unfortunately for him reality pretty much sucked.

At some point the voter

Submitted by centerfire on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 17:46.

At some point the voter calculus of, "Which of these guys sounds like he has a better grasp of what is happening and sounds more capable of fixing it?" runs up against the inconvenient reality of, "Does the guy we elected actually have a better grasp of what's happening, and is what he's proposing actually going to fix it?"

The fact that we had an election and your guy won doesn't mean he's entitled to four years of dissent-free carte blanche to do whatever the fuck he wants with the economy.  People who think he's full of crap -- and there appear to be a lot of us -- are free to make our case, persuade others, pressure our elected representatives, and hand President Urkel a political defeat even though he won the election.

For the last eight years liberals have been telling me that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.  I'm dissenting.  Are you saying I'm unpatriotic?

 

nope. ain't saying you're patriotic or not.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 11:01.

am saying you are a colorblind racist.

is a little different.

numbers

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 01:59.

Hmm. I'm with centerfire on this one, Election 2008 wasn't a referendum on economic theory, it was a referendum on economic management.  Let's see, Obama promised tax cuts and taking a "scalpel" to the federal budget - fundamentally fiscally conservative ideas.  He didn't promise tax increases.  He didn't promise socialization of health care.  He didn't argue on the basis of rejecting capitalism or free markets.  I understand that many lefties want to believe that Obama's mandate includes a healthy dose of socialism but that just isn't supported by Obama's own platform.  And Bush was portrayed as incompetently managing the economy and McCain couldn't get beyond Obama's criticism that he would merely continue Bush's policies.  That, I think, is a more sober reflection on Election 2008, at least as far as the economy goes.  But go ahead continue to delude yourself that 53% of the population now have this earnest longing for state ownership of the means of production, even as public support for the porkulus bill falters.

And my response to your original post had to do with your perception that Republicans are only narrowly focusing on individually objectionable items in the porkulus bill - as if the presence of bee insurance, condoms and Harleys were the only things Republicans found objectionable.  Republicans have a lot more substantive arguments, and I've illustrated them above.  You reject them.  Fine.  You reject them largely as an appeal to the majority (the 53%), and as an appeal to authority (Democrats in charge).  Of course those with the power aren't required to justify their actions to those that don't.  Might I suggest, though, that if your argument is nothing more than "we won you lost nyah nyah nyah" that you do us both a favor and be as economical with your words as possible.

I furthermore get the distinct impression that you believe Republicans should just shut up and support the bill because "we all know" it's the right thing to do.  This attitude suggests, however, that you not only reject the Republican arguments, but that you believe the Republican arguments have no value.  Is this the case?

As to #4: If the Democrats were truly focused on stimulus, why would they include projects that simply did not meet the definition of Keynesian stimulus?   Why ISN'T it all "schools, hospitals and bridges" if not to pander to Democrat special interest groups with the remainder?  Because the bill wouldn't be "big enough"?  What's the real goal here - to stimulate the economy, or to spend an immense amount of money?  Republicans are absolutely right to hold Democrats' feet to the fire on this one.

As to #5: Surely you've learned by now by hanging around this site that conservatives have been very hard on Republicans for frittering away their majority status largely based on their profligate spending ways.  We're finally glad that Boehner & co. have finally seen the light, at least for now.  So, don't even try to suggest that conservatives aren't interested in efficient uses of public money.

As to #6: You might have a point if any Republican were suggesting that taxes ought to be lowered to zero, or that this was in any way a logical outcome of supply-side economics.  It's not.  Laffer would laugh at you.  But, you are in fact the one suggesting that merely having the government buy tons of crap constitutes stimulus.  Does it now?  The money has to come from somewhere.  Do you know for certain that the money that the government takes to buy Harleys and bee insurance is being put to a better use than if the money had stayed with its original owners, or if the money had not been borrowed in the first place?

We will all enjoy getting past this debate.

Submitted by artigiano on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 08:36.

Yes, chemjeff, Obama did not run on any of the stuff we are debating with the stimulus bill. I think he is just as ready as anyone to get this monster behind us. Many commentators have noted that Obama is not burning up any political capital on this one. No address to the American people about the nature of the emergency and need for the plan, just some vauge references in the Inauguration speech. No individual behind the scenes arm twisting and horse trading in congress, just some large group meet and greets with a feel good atmosphere. No visible angst when Republicans modify the bill. No mobilization of the 13 million strong Obama online army to pressure congressmen.

Obama probably is a bit pissed that the nature of the steaming pile of shit Bush left on the desk means he has to clean up the economy first thing out of the box. Obama himself spent two years outlining about a dozen other issues and proposals that have a higher priority for him than the stimulus bill. He's only doing this because his economists say it is necessary and must happen immediately. Unless he forgot in his two books to mention the PhD in econ he got, the dude probably has little choice but to trust the opinion of the econ geniuses around him. It's no different than military matters (which he also is no expert in). You tell the generals what the strategy is you hope to accomplish, and they tell you what tactics and timetables will make that strategy happen.

I'm pretty sure Obama just wants any bill he can get on his desk ASAP so he can start building up the new Obama legacy instead of spending all his time fixing what Bush let go to hell.

changing the subject

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 12:40.

Yes, Obama did campaign on a stimulus bill.  And yes, Obama is mobilizing his army to pressure Senators to support the bill.  And Obama just wrote an Op/Ed in the Washington Post on the stimulus.  So yes he is expending political capital on this porkulus monstrosity.  He actually wants a stimulus bill in case you hadn't noticed.  It's not something he was just forced to do because of George Bush (a laughable accusation) or something that Congress has foisted upon him out of the blue.  But, for some reason, you place Obama in this moral plane high above all the other petty politicians.  It's telling that you speak of Obama's other priorities or that Obama wants to build up his legacy.  If getting the economy going is the number one priority, who cares about his "other priorities" or his "legacy"?  Wouldn't the responsible thing to do be to focus on that which needs attention despite what his other preferences are?  (And it's a wee bit early to be thinking of Obama's legacy, don't you think?) Furthermore I'm simply appalled by his use of fearmongering in order to intimidate people into supporting this plan.  He says that if we don't pass the bill we will have a "catastrophe" or an "irreversible recession".  This is all nonsense.  Imagine if George Bush had said that if he didn't get his wiretap authority then terrorists would bomb Chicago?  You'd go apeshit nuts over it yet this is the same type of tactics that Obama and his team are engaging in.  So much for "hope and change".  You know, you give Republicans a lot of grief for their unerring support of George Bush when he didn't really deserve it, and all of that grief is richly earned.  You might do well to take the lesson to heart yourself.

But you're really just changing the subject.  There are important philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats and they aren't reduced to simply squabbling over bee insurance and Harleys.  You not only reject the arguments, but evidently don't even believe the arguments are presented in good faith.  That's too bad IMO.  It just confirms something that Charles Krauthammer wrote a while ago: "Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil."  We get this vibe when liberals insist that we all "join together" and "work with Obama", implying that conservative objections are shallow and unserious and can be overcome merely by the presence of an empty suit with a talent for oration.  And when we conservatives simply can't seem to pound it into a liberal's head that tax cuts mean more individual liberty for EVERYONE, including other liberals, we might be tempted to believe in Krauthammer's first sentence.

So, we could either continue the same game, or we could actually believe that each of us are presenting serious arguments that deserve attention.  Your call.

research supports Obama in that "permanent recession"

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 12:54.

when we lose the economy of things, the places with the least cost of production will gain back what our high cost to produce has lost us.

enjoy your paycut, there's more on the way.

Judging by the anthrax, I think an argument was effectively made to congress on what would happen to them if they did not pass the Patriot Act. Now, by whom is another question, but I would point to the numerous statements by the Bush Administration that there were no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11.  If the deliberate mailing of anthrax to the United States Congress wasn't terrorism... that leaves state action.

Philosophical differences are one thing. Deliberately distorting facts is another (one that I have seen used on this very website, I might add). One of the frontpagers believes in the Boskin Committee over the FreeMarket's verdict on what our current inflation is. That is a civilized disagreement on facts. However, his philosophy is quite undercut by his beliefs.

I do not believe this makes him evil nor stupid, but definitively unreflective.

It's a plain fact that there is no research supporting tax cuts during the deflation of a severe asset bubble. (If you have some, throw up some links. extra special cookies if you can find some from before this bubble started to crash).

You had two theories: Friedman's and Keynes'. Of the two, Friedman's was easier to implement, was implemented, and failed. So we move on to Keynes'. This seems simple, straightforward, and relatively devoid of philosophy, other than the empiricism that underlies most research.

simplistic analysis

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 14:20.

You had two theories: Friedman's and Keynes'. Of the two, Friedman's was easier to implement, was implemented, and failed. So we move on to Keynes'. This seems simple, straightforward, and relatively devoid of philosophy, other than the empiricism that underlies most research.

This simplistic analysis lacks a few key details.

First, Friedman didn't offer one single, unwavering strategy.  He favored monetary policy, yes.  He also favored fiscal policy involving tax cuts to businesses.  We haven't done enough of that.  The US still has a very high corporate income tax rate and, even though interest rates are at zero, the long-term uncertainty of future government actions with potentially far-reaching negative consequences for the economy are still looming, inhibiting businesses from making long-term plans.  So it's a bit premature to proclaim Friedman's ideas dead.

Second, Keynesian stimulus has an abysmal track record.  When has it worked before?  Can you actually point to a successful example of Keynesian fiscal stimulus?  So, before we consider Keynesianism as "Plan B", perhaps we should have some confidence that Plan B actually has some chance at working.

Third, you did not consider a third option: do nothing.  The economy will recover on its own, the only real question is how long it will take.  Of course this sounds like heresy to the sky-is-falling crowd, but which is worse: doing nothing and having a bad recession, or doing something like Keynesian stimulus which may only make things worse?  I'll pick "bad" over "worse" any day.

25% GDP stimulus called WWII.

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 14:31.

And have a nice day.

Can you cite me some sources on Friedman indicating tax cuts to businesses during a severe downturn (recession or depression just semantics at this point)? Krugman's increasingly sounding more worried about deflation (as are the econ experts I know more personally -- I think my friends have a better argument than the piece of shit graph Krugman's got up about GDP versus deflation).

ZIRP ain't hit everywhere, which in my opinion, might be a better argument for you to advance than one about how businesses aren't making long term plans (the stimulus is short term, at least in theory).

Also, CBO says that our effective business tax rate is much less than our nominal one. My experience with small businessmen bolsters that conclusion.

I do not believe that the economy will recover on its own. I believe that if the bullshit economy spills into the Economy of Things and begins to erode it, we will never regain our production capacity. I think that there is a limited amount of first world countries that can exist at any point in time, and that it may very well be America's turn to lose that title, and receed into second world status like Canada and Europe. Or maybe third world, depending on how much China wants to monkey with us.

America can stand on what she is good at -- innovation and discovery and entrepreneurship, or we can go ahead and reward the stupid ceos and shareholders who took too many risks.

I no longer believe we can do both. We stand to lose a trillion dollars through Geithner's bad bank program, and yet nobody here is sounding the alarm bells. That one would be easier to derail, and more effective at reducing our debt than the current stimulus plan.

more stimulus

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 14:54.

Re: WW2 spending.  You can't seriously suggest that this is in any way a model to emulate in our current situation?  And, guess what, government war spending did not increase domestic, per capita spending.  The Keynesian argument is that government borrowing and spending will pump money into the economy that will then spur consumer demand.  That didn't happen in WW2.  So once again, no successful examples of Keynesian stimulus.

And I think Friedman was pretty clear when he said "I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible."

And if you think the economy cannot recover on its own, then I suppose that means on some level you don't believe the free market really works.

actually, you have that wrong.

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 15:04.

the Keynesian argument is that government spending can help fill in for decreases in consumer and private (capital) spending. With the added demand, private industries will push their own money into the system, employ more people, etc, which will enable consumers to spend more.

wwII was a poor example of the last of this chain, as there was substantial rationing. The earlier bits in the chain are easy enough to document.

Oh, if you want to know whether I think you can live in the free market, then sure. go to work at age three (the lowest age in which a child can be counted on to produce reliable labor), work till you die at a company plant. Yeah, I'm familiar with free markets. They work in some people's favor, and not in others.

They are also remarkably ineffectual at maintaining a standard of living that rises above subsistence.

In short, I do not believe that Americans have been providing the world with NEARLY as much as they've been paying for us to provide it. I believe that we will lose our growth sectors, our engines of the economy to other countries (you may say good riddance to stem cells and universities, I will not).

But, yes, the free market works excellently. Soon enough we won't have anyone living in Arizona or New Mexico. Hooray free market.

free market

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 15:32.

The point is that WW2 is not a valid example of Keynesianism in action because, through direct government purchasing of war materiel and rationing, government more or less ran the economy.

And it's illustrative that you equate the free market with child labor and squalor.  Now I understand why you are so eager for government management of the economy - you don't even really know what the free market is!  Do us all a favor and check out Milton Friedman's Free to Choose.  You can even watch the documentary FOR FREE online.

What, you'd rather I talk about white slavery?

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 15:41.

I'm sad to say that more than america practices free market economics. Or maybe I should just mention russian credit card scammers. That might hit a little closer to home with you puritan types (snerk. that's a joke).

As a country, we have shown that we are willing to put up with squalid conditions in the factories from which we buy our peanut butter, spinach, clothes, etc.

We do not provide significant added value that Mumbai cannot replicate. the problem with FIRE is that financials have little reason to continue to reside here, where they can instead reside in india or shanghai. At least manufacturing has plants to relocate.

Fair trade is also free market, and you don't want to get me started on the abuses of fair trade...

get a clue

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 15:45.

Okay I am done trying to talk to you about free markets until you get a clue.  Just one small hint: a free market does not mean anarchy.  Not even laissez-faire capitalism means NO government.  Russian credit card scammers are engaging in fraud and that is and should be illegal in any free market.

well, naturally it doesn't have to equate to anarchy.

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 15:53.

the fact is that the free market is completely functional in governmental systems ranging from anarchic (russia) to authoritarian (China/Chile) to Democratic (USA) to Socialist (Sweden).

To ask about the free market 'working' is to allow me to choose my ground. I chose it to lay this point out, and I probably could have done it in a significantly better manner. My apologies.

Yes, the free market still works in supplying death camps, even when they are starved of enough supplies to keep the workers within alive.

And yes, IKEA still manages to function quite well in Sweden.

Woot, IKEA, places like that still give good value and innovation for your money. most american businesses do not. This is why I see the standard of living dropping in America, despite the continuance of the free market.

If we're really lucky, the price of gas will climb high enough that you can move to the rural South, and pay the police directly for the level of service you want -- anything from flunkiecop to nocopneeded to DaNiceCopWantsYourMoney. [I'm actually rather serious about this. those Crown vics cost a lot of gas, and police service is one of the first things to go when housing prices crater -- which is a likely thing if gasoline suddenly costs 40% of your income]

Charlie doesn't know the half of it.

Submitted by artigiano on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 16:42.

"It just confirms something that Charles Krauthammer wrote a while ago: "Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil." "

We actually think conservatives are evil AND STUPID.

A bit of a joke, as I try hard not to assign traits to any group. But I must admit conservatives rarely come off as evil at first blush. (Dick Blofeld Cheney is the exception) If you give them the benefit of the doubt that their heart is in the right place, and that they truly believe their actions and beliefs are for the benefit of all their fellow men. But of course, their advocated action, when taken, is often evil in it's real effects. So by those loose standards I could not believe that Hitler and the Nazis were truly evil. After all, they thought they were doing good.

I have a much harder time with the stupid assumption. As evidence of this pops up so frequently on an individual basis, that it is very hard not to assign it as a group trait.  When confronted with conservative stupidity (hourly) I just have to remember Buckley, Safire, Will, Sowell, Hitchens, Goldwater, Poppy Bush, Gen. Powell, C.J. Roberts all seem like thoughtful people. But you can't deny the fact that Democratic voting rates are very strongly correlated with educational achievement. And by common sense cross-correlation extension (though not yet directly proven with hard data) intelligent folks are far more likely to be Democrats.

I'd love to see a random set of Democrat and Republican congressmen face off on Jeopardy. And don't bother listing all the real lampposts on our side of the aisle. $90K hidden in the freezer is all the intelligence test anyone needs.

not to put a fine point on it,

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 16:48.

but the Republicans were traditionally the party of the higher educated. Particularly in the hard sciences, which is where the most intelligent went. perhaps not the most verbally inclined, but I can certainly say that the sciences have done more to enhance our standard of living than the humanities have.

Educational achievement is

Submitted by centerfire on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 17:52.

Educational achievement is not a particularly great proxy for intelligence.  Take Josh Marshall: PhD in history, and dumb as a bag of wet hair.

I would suggest that Democratic voting patterns correlate much more closely with pretensions of intelligence than actual intelligence.  People vote Democratic to feel good about themselves, not because they're smart.

 

 

All we know for sure

Submitted by artigiano on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 18:05.

Until they give standardized IQ tests as part of exit polls we can never know for sure. And RisingTide's point about traditional voting patterns could go back 100 years. But last time out according to WSJ/ABC News exit poll, post graduate degree Whites went for Obama by a 17% spread and non-college White went McCain by a 7% spread. They split the college degree Whites evenly at a non-significant difference.

The exit poll data for Blacks is pretty meaningless this time out for any attribute other than race. Identity politics trumps ideology. I would have voted for Gulliani, just because we've never had a paisan in the big chair. Maybe Andy Cuomo will give me a chance to pull the lever one day and feel doubly good about it.

Hmm that's not what CNN reported

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 18:41.

CNN's exit polls:

No high school: Obama 63/McCain 35

Highschool graduate: Obama 52/McCain 46

Some college: Obama 51/McCain 47

College graduate: Obama 50/McCain 48

Postgraduate: Obama 58/McCain 40

So the very uneducated and the very educated both went big for Obama.  This is also consistent with exit polls from previous elections.

Race is probably the difference.

Submitted by artigiano on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 08:40.

Exit polls very often do not agree for exact percentage but get the trends right. I suppose the difference is the numbers I found from WSJ/ABC were for Whites only. The CNN numbers probably included everybody. Blacks and Latinos drop out of high school or don't go on to college at significantly higher rates than Whites. And O did quite well with both those ethnic/racial groups. That probably accounts for his increased numbers among non-college (high school grad only) in your CNN poll.

The CNN numbers and WSJ/ABC are very close for post-grad, college grad, and some college. From a cold stats point of view, if you are kicking ass on both tails of the bell curve and spliting the fat part of the bell, you are well positioned. The GOP needs to step it up with the MENSA crowd.

you'd have voted for The Little Nazi?

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 11:00.

(some jews in NYC made that nickname. not me.)

rofl.

If Kucinich and I were of the same ethnicity, I STILL wouldn't vote his incompetent ass president.

Fearmongering

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 08:15.

Chemjeff, Republicans don't outright say, "Terrorists will kill you if you don't support X bill" but they certainly imply it. Look at the comments of RedState or other sites. How many of them say, "THESE PEOPLE WANT TO CUT OUR HEADS OFF AND YOU WANT TO CODDLE THEM!!!" (Of course, with more spelling mistakes then that.)

Just this week, Cheney said he feared Obama's policies would lead to another terrorist attack.

And yes, I agree that there is a degree of 'fearmongering' on Obama and the Democrat's side to pass this bill as well.

we have nothing to fear but Obama himself

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 10:49.

But...but...but...but I thought Obama was Mr. Hopenchange!  He's not supposed to engage in those eeeeeeeeeeevil Karl Rove Chimpy McBushitler Halliburton tactics.  But here he goes again, he says that if we don't pass the porkulus bill we will have a "CATASTROPHE".  Shame on Obama for borrowing a page from Chimpy's playbook, and shame on you for not calling Obama to the carpet on it.

call Ben Bernanke to the carpet for it.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 10:58.

he's supposed to be nonpartisan.

Obama on the carpet

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 11:01.

OBAMA is the one using words like "catastrophe" and "irreversible recession".  Bernanke, he gives mildly lukewarm support for some fiscal stimulus and that's it.

So are you willing to call Obama to the carpet for his disgraceful fearmongering tactics?

who the hell listens to Obama?

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 11:07.

the market listens to the Federal Reserve, because the federal reserve gets its numbers before the rest of us do.

And when the Federal Reserve throws in the towel, then it is a REALLY bad sign.

At this point, we've seen six trilliion dollars vaporize from homeowners alone. Figure we could give ourselves a six trillion dollar tax cut? ;-)

I have no idea if Obama's

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 11:14.

I have no idea if Obama's Rovian scaremongering has any effect on the market, but it's certainly had an effect on a lot of people who think we are heading over the cliff.

not according to my research.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 11:19.

the folks most likely to get news from traditional sources still haven't realized that we have a problem.

the folks most likely to get their news from Facebook, they're scared shitless. but they aren't taking their cues from Obama.

Facebook makes codebreakers cry. so much information, so little time.

not buying it

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 11:27.

Oh so I am supposed to believe that Obama, the Leader of the Free World, the Great Orator, the celebrity president, says if we don't do things his way we are headed to CATASTROPHE, and nobody listens or cares?   Please.  I wasn't born yesterday you know.  You are simply trying to minimize the role of his fearmongering and refusing to call him to the carpet on it.

we're headed to depression anyhow.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 11:34.

catastrophe was if the bank bailout didn't pass.

permanent loss of industries is what we're talking, if the nationaliation of the banks doesn't happen.

I know that centerfire won't mind if we lose global superpower status -- do you feel the same way?

not really

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 17:35.

Not really, no.  Having "global superpower status" only means that we have to put up with a lot of crap from people who don't really like us very much.  (And yes that includes the French.)   I'd like for this country to be strong and secure with free markets and free trade.  That's all I really ask.  But if we aren't able to project military power in South Ishtar, I really don't care.

how about the border region of Mexico?

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 08:50.

render Arizona unhabitable and unconsumable.

When your "research" consists

Submitted by centerfire on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 13:55.

When your "research" consists of something other than assessing the various aromas inside your own colon, let us know.

 

consider yourself notified, then.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 13:59.

and have a blessed day in hell!

Hey, don't look at me!

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 11:43.

I wasn't calling Mr. Obama Hope and Change for everything. I have a few hopes that he will implement a few specific policies. I did not think he was some brand new sort of politician... otherwise, he wouldn't have been elected.

And I did call him out for it. That's why I said I agreed he's fearmongering lol.

It's not fearmongering if it's the truth

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 11:45.

in my opinion. though hyperventilating about truthful things might be as well.

the mexican border is about as bad as the afghanistan/pakistan border region. nobody mentions it because they ain't bombing us, but it's getting pretty damn bad. no rule of law at all.

CBO says condom money

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 10:15.

gives us a 2 to 1 return on the dollar. That seems pretty fine to me.

Obama ran on socialized medicine, on SAVING AMERICAs MONEY through socialized medicine, and on a whole boatload of conservative shit. NOTHING about voodoo economics.

I firmly believe that a firm push by the government in terms of spending will leave us better off, and may be enough to push us out of this economic depression. hehehe. Not certain, but I look at who called what right, and I look to the ones who are accurate, to predict what will be needed to get us out of this. You seem to be looking at the ones that only fit your ideology. I'm trusting future performance to past performance, as I don't see any incentives for the bears to distort their opinions.

yes, in a way

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 12:47.

Well, the stimulus plan has certainly revealed to all what we Republicans have known all along: given sufficient power, Democrats will spend through the roof and use the flimsiest of excuses to justify it.  Bee insurance as "stimulus"?  Give me a break!  It may pass in the end but it will only raise suspicions later on when Democrats get ready to present the Next Ginormous Spending Act.

It's a good thing

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 13:16.

That citizens are paying attention to this massive bill, and eliminating all the waste they can find. Still kinda annoyed that Rubin Navarette on CNN.com thought money for child-care for military families was 'waste' though.

Military folks are constantly pushed to work longer, educate ourselves AND contribute to the community. Not to mention deployments and TDYs. I think supporting child care for military families is far from 'waste'ful. (Then again, I'm semi-biased. Military, but no children.)