Thread: Obama more popular than the GOP

The New York Times...

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Obama more popular than the GOP

That's really not saying much.


In regard to the polls, I think that collectively they show that the public is fed up with Democrats and Republicans. The candidates that will do best in November are the non-incumbents who don't wear either the Republican or Democratic brand on their sleeve and instead present themselves as outsiders.

However when these non-incumbent people get into office, they are more likely to join the contiguous opposition block than they are to support the type of bills that have been coming out of the house.

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

That's really not saying much.


In regard to the polls, I think that collectively they show that the public is fed up with Democrats and Republicans. The candidates that will do best in November are the non-incumbents who don't wear either the Republican or Democratic brand on their sleeve and instead present themselves as outsiders.

However when these non-incumbent people get into office, they are more likely to join the contiguous opposition block than they are to support the type of bills that have been coming out of the house.

If I remember correctly, Obama used to have a landslide advantage over the GOP. Now a year later, it's "an edge". Doesn't sound too good to me. Plus it's a NYT poll, meaning it probably (can't prove it of course) over-sampled from Democrats.

Oh oh! I've been waiting to do this!!

"All you Conservatives ever do is attack the source. How about you actually address the issue for once?".

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Imagine if the Democrats picked up even more seats in November.

Probably be the end of the Obama agenda. It seems that the more seats the Democrats have, the less that manage to actually accomplish.

Matt

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Imagine if the Democrats picked up even more seats in November.

A president picking up seats in congress 2 years into their first term?
That's happened twice since the Civil War.

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

That's really not saying much.


In regard to the polls, I think that collectively they show that the public is fed up with Democrats and Republicans. The candidates that will do best in November are the non-incumbents who don't wear either the Republican or Democratic brand on their sleeve and instead present themselves as outsiders.

However when these non-incumbent people get into office, they are more likely to join the contiguous opposition block than they are to support the type of bills that have been coming out of the house.

I've noticed this locally. When I get campaign literature in the mail these days, I have to really look to even see what party the candidate is associated with. Sometimes, it doesn't appear at all.

2 seats? Hell, if you want to fantasize, go big and make it 10.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I've noticed this locally. When I get campaign literature in the mail these days, I have to really look to even see what party the candidate is associated with. Sometimes, it doesn't appear at all.

It's weird how the names of political parties have almost become pejoratives.

'Pretty telling about how the public feels about what the government's done this decade.

The door is as open for third parties as it ever has been.

Originally Posted by Cari

Oh oh! I've been waiting to do this!!

"All you Conservatives ever do is attack the source. How about you actually address the issue for once?".

Actually most of us aren't worried about liberals attacking sources (such as sources being biased) as that is completely legitimate, we are worried about liberals attacking people with ad hominems instead of attacking arguments. Attacking a source is not illogical; ad hominems are logical fallacies.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Probably be the end of the Obama agenda. It seems that the more seats the Democrats have, the less that manage to actually accomplish.

Matt

So does that mean that all the Republicans should be voting for Democrats to make sure that the agenda doesn't pass?

Originally Posted by pramjockey

So does that mean that all the Republicans should be voting for Democrats to make sure that the agenda doesn't pass?

It would fit right in nonsensical world of partisan politics, actually.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

So does that mean that all the Republicans should be voting for Democrats to make sure that the agenda doesn't pass?

Who knows? You have to admit that even with supermajorities in chambers, the Dems really haven't accomplished much of anything.

Matt