quote: Note the timing of the whole ACORN thing. The smear machine has been very good at anticipating the news cycle.
I think that's a little disingenuous. I have no doubt that if you do a search for 'ACORN scandal' you will find many articles over the last few years.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: What? No, the numbers above are from different sections of the populace, not an overall polling — those hadn't been even attempted yet.
Believe me, as much as I would like a 20% shift in 'all americans ..'
I thought you were using it as an indication (a leading indicator ) that Obama's speech would provide a large bounce. I see now that you never made that sort of assertion.
But why did you link the numbers, then? Was it to show the speech was "Good?" And do you attribute the relative lack of general populace bounce to the fact that not enough people saw the speech, or some other factor?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But why did you link the numbers, then? Was it to show the speech was "Good?" And do you attribute the relative lack of general populace bounce to the fact that not enough people saw the speech, or some other factor?
I guess for the sake of providing the expanded context — something which was not transmitted by a snapshot of watcher analysis — of what these numbers can be taken in consideration of, I'll quote first myself from elsewhere and follow it up with a 538 analysis by Silver.
first, here's me:
quote:Some numbers are coming in. Right now, we have a handful of analysis regarding how opinions shifted overall among three particular types of Americans
Group (1) is polls or focus groups involving Americans who watched the address. 1 is obviously tilted towards democrats and has an 'out of center' bulge — people less interested in politics are more likely to be swing voters or weak partisans and are less likely to have watched; people more interested in politics are more likely to be strong partisans and entrenched voters who have more or less made up their mind one way or another on the issue. In these polls, what we largely get is a consolidation and strengthening of support amongst Democrats and liberals, and a notable shift amongst independents. The impact of Obama's speech on the populace that watched the speech was, actually, bizarrely favorable.
Group (2) involves polls selected for independents and weak partisans; the people whose votes and support can still be jockeyed for. Very strong and positive response for Obama.
Group (3) involves focus groups designed around independents and weak partisans, who were specifically shown the address as part of the study. Very very strong and positive response for Obama.
Initial polls of overall response to reform showed that overnight, the country shifted into majority support for the reform plan. Swing voters, undecideds and 'weak partisans' alike, were swayed over to pro-reform where and when they watched the speech. This is an unusually positive response for democrats.
So unusually positive, in fact, that among others, I am assuming that Obama was helped along by the Republicans coming off very poorly with their public demeanor and response. Yes, Obama's speechcraft is strong, but when you take Wilson's "You lie!" outburst and the republican responder being a birther and a controversial title-buyer wannabe — seemingly chosen out of desperation for merely being a doctor — delivering a sub-par counterpoint, the numbers make more sense.
Let's see how much these gains contract in the next few days; if the contraction is minimal or nonexistent, the public option may become solidly feasible. If you start to see an overall 3-5 percentage point shift involving health care reform attitudes in favor of the Democrats, that would be all you need to declare Obama's speech an incredible success, and the question will begin in earnest if it can actually be the tool that results in the consolidation of Democratic votes against filibuster.
Remember: this reform plan is electorally weird. Republican support is irrelevant to the success of the bill. The GOP effectively refuses to let a "bipartisan approach" work, since they are too strategically invested in preventing the bill's passage and attempting to create a 'debacle' for Obama's presidency — to them, it is a matter of electoral survival. The only way this speech will at all influence the passage of the bill is through the swaying of anywhere between one and five democratic senators specifically.
and Nate Silver:
quote:Remember back to the campaign? I know, it feels like ages ago. But one of the things we all learned back then is that one really needs to look the preponderance of the polling data to get some idea of where the numbers are headed. The margins of error on individual polls -- margins which are in fact much larger than the ones the pollsters report officially -- are generally too large to be terribly useful unto themselves.
So far, there have been three sets of polling on health care conducted since Barack Obama's big speech last Wednesday:
-- Rasmussen finds an 7-point bump in support for health care reform -- from 44 percent in a poll conducted last Tuesday and Wednesday (essentially all the interviews were completed before the President's speech began) to 51 percent support based on polling conducted over the weekend.
-- ABC/WaPo, on the other hand, identifies just a 1-point improvement in support for the President's plan versus a poll conducted about a month ago (although their "strongly oppose" number has decreased by 4 points, and their "strongly support" number has increased by 3 points.)
-- CBS/NYT re-sampled their panel from 8/27 and 8/28 and found a 12-point increase in approval for Obama on health care after his speech; this is not the same thing as asking whether people whether they support or oppose his health care plan, although the numbers have generally tracked one another fairly closely.
The first thing to notice is that each of these polls has a different jumping-off off point. Rasmussen has begun tracking the health care numbers daily; CBS's previous poll was about two weeks old, and ABC's previous poll was about a month old. So these polls are not necessarily contradictory if Obama's health care numbers had declined from mid-August -- when ABC last polled the issue -- until the night before his speech. On the other hand, it's not clear that Obama's numbers were in decline over that period -- most of the damage seems to have been done in July and early August.
If we simply take the three polls at face value and average them together (6.7 points), they in fact point toward a statistically strong likelihood of a bounce. Concluding that there is no bounce on the basis of the ABC poll, as some smart commentators appear to have done, while ignoring the other polling, is not objective, plainly put. There should, however, be plenty more data out before the end of the week to help settle any arguments.
The real question, of course, is not whether there's been a bounce, but how long-lasting its effects might be. Bounces usually dissipate. That's why we call them bounces; they go up and they go down. If Obama's health care polling is back in the low 40s by early next week, well then, who cares if there had been a bounce -- it's entirely an academic question. I'm not yet prepared to render a prediction on this subject, although for a variety of reasons -- basically, the GOP having used up a lot of its firepower coupled with Obama having underachieved his overall approval ratings on health care reform -- I think the bounce (if there is one) is more likely to have "oomph" than it usually does.
posted
Rasmussen, which was showing the largest "bounce" among all pollsters, is now showing a significant decline in support: 55-42 opposed. Pollster.com shows a more complete story. Support for the bill(s) has increased slightly in the wake of the speech, but opposition to the bill(s) has increased more. The WaPo survey demonstrated this effect with the question on "The more I hear about the plan, the (more/less) I like it." 55% chose less and only 42% chose more. The Pollster chart shows exactly what you would expect for that sort of opinion: a steady movement from uncertain/undecided to opposed.
Hat tip to Mickey Kaus, who's thoughts on the strategic mistakes made in selling health reform are worth reading.
<edit> Numbers on that "more/less I like it" question should be 41/54 (not 42/55). The verbatim question is in the WaPo poll I linked on the previous page.</edit>
posted
Baucus released the "compromise" bill yesterday, declaring it won't add anything to the deficit, and has everything Obama asked for except a public options. Republicans are almost universally against it, and the more liberal Dems are refusing to support it without a public option.
Looks like his compromise was in effort to find a way to piss off everyone.
What a mess. As near as I can tell, there's no way this thing is going to pass, in almost any form, in any bi-partisan way. I think it's time to jettison bi-partisan kumbaya handholding, use "reconciliation" and hammer the thing home. The budget process loophole only requires a 51 vote majority, rather than the faux 60 vote supermajority. Otherwise it's never going to pass, or it'll pass in such a watered down form as to not even matter.
I can already hear Republicans screaming about subverting democracy, but look at the Constitution. It only requires a simple majority to pass legislation. The filibuster is a parliamentary tool, a trick, in order to make legislation even harder to pass. I like supermajorities for some things, like passing constitutional amendments or overriding presidential vetoes, but to pass regular legislation? Nope, we're a majority rules country (with respect for minority rights), no matter how much that might suck for the other side, and lord knows the Republicans played it that way.
This has to end one of two ways: 1. Democrats threaten to use the reconciliation budget method of passing the bill with a simple 51 vote majority, which they can get even without blue dog senators, and they use that as a stick, and perhaps something like tort reform (if Obama can force them to) as a carrot to lure in some Republican support. I fully expect this not to work, as Republicans would rather have something to complain about than they would vote for a piece of legislation that has things they like in it even if it has a single thing they don't. It's smart politics. So that leads us to 2. Democrats actually use the reconciliation process and pass a much more liberal version of the bill than would have been passed had Republicans cooperated. It becomes law, and Republicans threaten to storm the bastille because Democrats have subverted Democracy. Lots of hissy fits and tantrums.
If it ends any other way, we won't have health care reform, we'll have some slapped together piece of crap legislation that calls itself health care reform but likely does nothing to solve any of our long term problems, but has some feel good pieces in it to temporarily placate the masses.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a very difficult time believing that this bill is not a product of the fact that Sen. Baucus gets lots and lots of money - more than anyone - from health and insurance interests.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have a very difficult time believing that this bill is not a product of the fact that Sen. Baucus gets lots and lots of money - more than anyone - from health and insurance interests.
This really bugs me. I hate that our government is for sale.
We're generally either a nation that does things in baby steps or giant leaps. I think even if Baucus wasn't in the pocket of Big...Health Care...assuming he is, single payer would never be a viable option. Even if the Dems rammed it through using loopholes, the outcry would be so dramatic as to be not worth it I think. On the other hand, a public option is an excellent foot in the door, which is exactly what insurance companies are afraid of. If they can get it up and running and let it go for a few years, and it works, they'll have something to point to and say "see, it works!" and people will be used to it, so when they come back and put more stringent requirements on insurance companies in ten years, it can drive more people towards the public option. Health care is going to have to be one of those things we do in baby steps, but I think a public option is necessary in moving us along the road to single payer.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
So any reports of misdoings by ACORN can only be politically motivated because of when they are released?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. Rather, it is unsurprising that the conservative media is doing everything it can to fill the airwaves with distraction at specific times. Currently, ACORN is a useful distraction. They will find another one when this one is used up, since none of them actually care about ACORN in any way except insofar as it can be used to discredit their opponents.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Baucus released the "compromise" bill yesterday, declaring it won't add anything to the deficit, and has everything Obama asked for except a public options. Republicans are almost universally against it, and the more liberal Dems are refusing to support it without a public option.
Grassley admitted he wouldn't vote for it no matter how many concessions were put in, and thus has all but come out and said all his stress on "bipartisanism" and "compromise" was in bad faith.
In so doing, Grassley essentially just got Baucus to write a bill the democrats won't vote for. It was a poison pill, and Baucus should had realized this.
The GOP is united in a single purpose of never compromising on this bill. Concessions only serve to weaken bills and reward debate stonewalling tactics.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. The Dems should really just push through a bill that will work. The bill put forth by Sen. Baucus is dreadful. And I don't blame Sen. Grassley as much as the money Sen. Baucus gets from the health insurance biz.
quote:From Samp: In so doing, Grassley essentially just got Baucus to write a bill the democrats won't vote for. It was a poison pill, and Baucus should had realized this.
Come now, Grassley gave Baucus the perfect cover he needed to water down a bill that harshly affected his greatest campaign contributors. Now he can say he didn't do it to help them and rake in the cash, he did it in the spirit of bipartisanship!
Now even if (when) it fails, he can claim he tried to be bipartisan, but the Republicans acted in bad faith, he can tell his donors that he was trying to protect them, and tell the people that he was trying to save them from high health care costs.
His halo practically glows!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know where to put this, but this is closed!?!?! But it's Palin on China, healthcare, and government! C'mon, this is going to be gold-quality stuff!
quote:Former US vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin is expected to speak about US foreign policy and China in her first keynote speech outside North America, Hong Kong organisers said on Monday.
Palin, mocked during last year's presidential campaign for her lack of experience in foreign affairs and for her verbal gaffes, is due to address hundreds of financial big-hitters at the CLSA Investors' Forum on Wednesday.
"We have asked her to address US foreign policy, to discuss her views on governance, healthcare, and of course, China," Jonathan Slone, chief executive officer of the Asia-focused brokerage, said in an interview with AFP.
Palin was chosen to speak since she's a possible Republican candidate in the next US presidential election and because of her influential role in politics, he said.
But CLSA, an arm of French bank Credit Agricole, decided to close Palin's session to the media after the former Alaska governor indicated that she would have to adjust her speech if reporters were present, Slone said.
posted
I think we should kill this thread. Seriously. One giant omni-thread may have worked well for the campaign but the Presidency isn't the same. Having one thread for 4 - 8 years for all the political issues involving Obama just isn't working at least not from my perspective.
People will always start new threads as new events and issues happen. Keeping this thread alive means splitting the discussion and diluting it.
One point of having different threads with different titles is to alert people to a discussion topic they might want to join. Even if Lyrhawn frequently modifies the title its really hard to have a clue what is currently being discussed in this thread.
A second point of having different threads is to group together posts on a common topic. This allows people to read through what has been said by others on the topic recently before posting their own points. In a mega thread like this, the topics discussed on page 1 have become irrelevant and there is no marker that would tell someone where to beginning if they want to join the current discussion.
After 25 pages, this thread has aquired some serious baggage. Hence posts on ACORN and the birthers get interspersed between discussion of the current health care proposals and recent developments.
I know that threads naturally drift and don't necessarily stay on topic -- but that is fundamentally different from having a thread that is intended to encompass everything political.
So please, let's just let this thread die and go back to starting new threads focused on current important issues in the Obama Presidency.
[ September 22, 2009, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
On the one hand, having one giant thread is interesting if you want to go back and see what was being discussed at a certain time about a certain thing. It's interesting to see how opinions might have changed, how an issue was discussed and then brought back up again later, etc. You can't do that with multiple threads. They're impossible to keep track of, both for the frequency with which national issues continue to change and the sheer number that would be necessary to keep up with new subjects. I don't think it's that difficult to spend 30 seconds looking through the most recent pages to see how far back you have to go to jump in on a current conversation. Otherwise you'd have to catalog every Obama related thread and have a big list of links somewhere for people to reference, which I'm personally unwilling to devote the time to.
Also, any thread is going to have baggage. Frankly I don't think any of the "baggage" in this thread particularly matters now. No one is going to harp on something from 20 pages ago, and I think this thread has actually remained remarkably on topic, and has done very well at shying from thread drift and serious arguments.
Furthermore, I didn't intend for this to be an in general politics thread. Several things, from next year's midterm, to anything specific to Congress, to the discussion about Palin that you (I think rightfully) moved to a different thread, are things I never intended to include here. So many threads over the last several years were "Bush did X" threads that they became tedious and rarely lasted for more than a page or two, and I found the clutter factor to far outstrip the convenience factor.
On the other hand, it's difficult to know what might belong in the Obama thread and what might deserve it's own separate point of discussion, and I can see how a thread of such breadth could possibly turn some people off to joining the debate at all when they feel they have to read the whole thing to participate (that's why I often lurk rather than post on sake, to be honest).
I'm sorry if it disappoints you, and you should feel free to start a topic on anything you wish to, but I plan to continue to update this thread with new issues as I see fit. If there is a mass of agreement with you, or a mass of complaints against my posting/thread starting style, then I'll probably change my mind. As I have before, I'll never attempt to co-opt a subject from another thread, and in fact if I see a subject already being talked about, I'm far more likely to join that discussion rather than start my own. But I'm not going to start all new threads for things I see, I'm going to continue using this thread. Perhaps it's overly self-involved of me, but I always thought people sort of appreciated having things in one convenient place, rather than dozens, often overlapping. But that's what I get for assuming, and I apologize for that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, Please reconsider. The problem isn't simply that this thread has become so long. Its that "The Obama Presidency" is far to broad a topic to be useful. You say it hasn't drifted, but that is solely because the topic is so broad you can discuss anything and its still on topic. If you had started a thread on say "health care reform", I could go back through the thread and see evolution of thinking on the the issues. But in this thread, there are simply too many topics being discussed for me to be able to readily find discussions on any one issue.
If you really want to preserve the history, consider doing what CT did for climate change. Start a new thread on topics like the economic recovery, taxes or health care and link all the relevant parts of this thread to it. I know its work, but this thread is just too cumbersome to deal with. Its your baby and I understand that you want to keep it going, but it's not working. The real value of hatrack is drawing people into a discussion not preserve the history of the debate. This thread is killing discourse. Please find another way.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgive me, I'm an historian in training. It's hard to fight instinct.
I'm curious as to what others, who are either regular contributors or readers of this thread, think.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure that I care much either way, but I think I've been more likely to check out a new thread than to check this thread each time it bumps.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with The Rabbit. For semi-lurkers such as myself at least, it would be much easier to keep up with discussions on individual aspects of Obama's presidency if they had their own threads.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I would have stashed that tidbit in the equivalent of a "foreign issues"* thread. The only reason I picked this thread was that it from a quick check looked like the only possibly relevant thread on the first page but it on its own (and my thoughts on the matter) was not nearly "big" enough to warrant a new thread.
* A cynical part of me wonders how popular that would actually be in light of the other thread
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Mucus points out another problem with the massive Omni-thread. It becomes a dumping ground for everything with a political tint to it. Taken to an extreme, it pretty much eliminates the point of separate threads at all.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) that Obama's speech would provide a large bounce. I see now that you never made that sort of assertion.
