Saturday, January 16, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Cook: Brown 'Really Might Win' - “There is something big going on in Massachusetts”
(NRO).“There is something big going on in Massachusetts,” says political analyst Charlie Cook in a conversation with National Review Online. He tells us that he’s “convinced” that Republican Scott Brown “really might win” the upcoming special election for U.S. Senate in the Bay State. Brown, he says, has run a “flawless, very smart campaign” while his opponent, Democrat Martha Coakley, has been “overly cautious” and run an “awful campaign.”
“This just seems to be a time where voters are looking for change and new blood,” says Cook. “The argument of continuing Senator Kennedy’s legacy doesn’t seem to be cutting a lot of ice.” The hardest thing for Brown, he says, will be breaking Massachusetts’ “almost theological” belief that Democrats usually represent them in the Senate. “There’s still a bit of resistance” to the idea of a Republican winning, he says.
“This just seems to be a time where voters are looking for change and new blood,” says Cook. “The argument of continuing Senator Kennedy’s legacy doesn’t seem to be cutting a lot of ice.” The hardest thing for Brown, he says, will be breaking Massachusetts’ “almost theological” belief that Democrats usually represent them in the Senate. “There’s still a bit of resistance” to the idea of a Republican winning, he says.
A BROWN OUT!! Poll shocker: Scott Brown surges ahead in Senate race
(Bostonherald).Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.
Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey’s margin of error, the underdog’s position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos.
“It’s a Brown-out,” said Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “It’s a massive change in the political landscape.”
The poll shows Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, besting Coakley, the state’s attorney general, by 50 percent to 46 percent, the first major survey to show Brown in the lead. Unenrolled long-shot Joseph L. Kennedy, an information technology executive with no relation to the famous family, gets 3 percent of the vote. Only 1 percent of voters were undecided.
Paleologos said bellweather models show high numbers of independent voters turning out on election day, which benefits Brown, who has 65 percent of that bloc compared to Coakley’s 30 percent. Kennedy earns just 3 percent of the independent vote, and 1 percent are undecided.
Given the 4.4-point margin of error, the poll shows Coakley could win the race, Paleologos said. But if Brown’s momentum holds, he is poised to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy - and to halt health-care reform, the issue the late senator dubbed “the cause of my life.”
Yet even in the bluest state, it appears Kennedy’s quest for universal health care has fallen out of favor, with 51 percent of voters saying they oppose the “national near-universal health-care package” and 61 percent saying they believe the government cannot afford to pay for it.
The poll, conducted Monday through Wednesday, surveyed 500 registered likely voters who knew the date of Tuesday’s election. It shows Brown leading all regions of the state except Suffolk County.
“Either Brown’s momentum accelerates and his lead widens, or this becomes a wake-up call for Coakley to become the ‘Comeback Kid’ this weekend,” Paleologos said.
And with 99 percent having made up their minds, voters may be hard to persuade.
The poll surveyed a carefully partitioned electorate meant to match voter turnout: 39 percent Democrat, 15 percent Republican and 45 percent unenrolled.
Brown wins among men and is remarkably competitive among women - trailing Coakley’s 50 percent with 45 percent.
While Brown has 91 percent of registered Republicans locked up, an astonishing 17 percent of Democrats report they’re jumping ship for Brown as well - likely a product of Coakley’s laser-focus on hard-core Dems, potentially at the exclusion of other Democrats whom she needed to win over, Paleologos said.
For Coakley, Brown’s surge may be as ominous as the fact that her campaign’s peril is not fully recognized, with 64 percent of voters still believing she’ll win - a perception that threatens to keep her supporters home.
Brown’s popularity is solid. He enjoys a 57 percent favorability rating compared to just 19 percent unfavorable. Coakley’s favorability is 49 percent; her unfavorability, 41 percent.
No longer does Brown suffer from a name-recognition problem, with 95 percent of voters having heard of him statewide.
Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey’s margin of error, the underdog’s position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos.
“It’s a Brown-out,” said Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “It’s a massive change in the political landscape.”
The poll shows Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, besting Coakley, the state’s attorney general, by 50 percent to 46 percent, the first major survey to show Brown in the lead. Unenrolled long-shot Joseph L. Kennedy, an information technology executive with no relation to the famous family, gets 3 percent of the vote. Only 1 percent of voters were undecided.
Paleologos said bellweather models show high numbers of independent voters turning out on election day, which benefits Brown, who has 65 percent of that bloc compared to Coakley’s 30 percent. Kennedy earns just 3 percent of the independent vote, and 1 percent are undecided.
Given the 4.4-point margin of error, the poll shows Coakley could win the race, Paleologos said. But if Brown’s momentum holds, he is poised to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy - and to halt health-care reform, the issue the late senator dubbed “the cause of my life.”
Yet even in the bluest state, it appears Kennedy’s quest for universal health care has fallen out of favor, with 51 percent of voters saying they oppose the “national near-universal health-care package” and 61 percent saying they believe the government cannot afford to pay for it.
The poll, conducted Monday through Wednesday, surveyed 500 registered likely voters who knew the date of Tuesday’s election. It shows Brown leading all regions of the state except Suffolk County.
“Either Brown’s momentum accelerates and his lead widens, or this becomes a wake-up call for Coakley to become the ‘Comeback Kid’ this weekend,” Paleologos said.
And with 99 percent having made up their minds, voters may be hard to persuade.
The poll surveyed a carefully partitioned electorate meant to match voter turnout: 39 percent Democrat, 15 percent Republican and 45 percent unenrolled.
Brown wins among men and is remarkably competitive among women - trailing Coakley’s 50 percent with 45 percent.
While Brown has 91 percent of registered Republicans locked up, an astonishing 17 percent of Democrats report they’re jumping ship for Brown as well - likely a product of Coakley’s laser-focus on hard-core Dems, potentially at the exclusion of other Democrats whom she needed to win over, Paleologos said.
For Coakley, Brown’s surge may be as ominous as the fact that her campaign’s peril is not fully recognized, with 64 percent of voters still believing she’ll win - a perception that threatens to keep her supporters home.
Brown’s popularity is solid. He enjoys a 57 percent favorability rating compared to just 19 percent unfavorable. Coakley’s favorability is 49 percent; her unfavorability, 41 percent.
No longer does Brown suffer from a name-recognition problem, with 95 percent of voters having heard of him statewide.
Four is enough! A Majority of 50 % Would Vote Against Obama in re election bid
(hotlineoncall).A year into his tenure, a majority of Americans would already vote against Pres. Obama if the '12 elections were held today, according to a new survey.
The Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll shows 50% say they would probably or definitely vote for someone else. Fully 37% say they would definitely cast a ballot against Obama. Meanwhile, just 39% would vote to re-elect the pres. to a 2nd term, and only 23% say they definitely would do so.
Obama's first year in office has been marked by an unemployment rate that surged to 10%, an increased commitment of troops to Afghanistan and a health care battle that has taken a serious political toll on the WH.
Obama's approval rating is down to 47%, the poll showed, a 14-point drop since the April survey. 45% disapprove, up 17 points from April. Only 41% say they trust Obama more than Congressional GOPers, while 33% pick the GOP over the WH. That 8-point gap is down from a 21-point edge Obama sported as recently as Sept.
Just 34% say the country is moving in the right direction, down 13 points since April, and 55% say it is off on the wrong track, up 13 points over the same period.
But as GOPers focus on taxes and spending, that message seems to be causing Obama the most harm. Among those who believe Obama's policies have moved the country in the wrong direction, 45% cite spending and government regulation as a top cause for their opposition.
The Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll shows 50% say they would probably or definitely vote for someone else. Fully 37% say they would definitely cast a ballot against Obama. Meanwhile, just 39% would vote to re-elect the pres. to a 2nd term, and only 23% say they definitely would do so.
Obama's first year in office has been marked by an unemployment rate that surged to 10%, an increased commitment of troops to Afghanistan and a health care battle that has taken a serious political toll on the WH.
Obama's approval rating is down to 47%, the poll showed, a 14-point drop since the April survey. 45% disapprove, up 17 points from April. Only 41% say they trust Obama more than Congressional GOPers, while 33% pick the GOP over the WH. That 8-point gap is down from a 21-point edge Obama sported as recently as Sept.
Just 34% say the country is moving in the right direction, down 13 points since April, and 55% say it is off on the wrong track, up 13 points over the same period.
But as GOPers focus on taxes and spending, that message seems to be causing Obama the most harm. Among those who believe Obama's policies have moved the country in the wrong direction, 45% cite spending and government regulation as a top cause for their opposition.
New social media polling data suggests Republican Scott Brown will win in a landslide victory
The state-wide special election to fill the seat vacated by US Senator Edward Kennedy on January 19th has attracted huge national interest because if the Democrats lose this seat, they lose the filibuster-proof margin they currently have in the US Senate.
For the first time for as long I can remember, my very own home state of Massachusetts is today considered a battleground state. Recent polls show the two candidates, State Senator Scott Brown (Republican) and State Attorney General Martha Coakley (Democrat) engaged in a tight race – well within the margin of error.
Dates Scott Brown (R) Martha Coakley (D)
Public Policy Polling (PPP) January 7-9 48% 47%
Rasmussen Reports January 11 47% 49%
But being a search marketer, I launched my own investigation to see if I could find out more information about the dynamics of this US Senate race based on internet marketing and social media metrics. The findings (based on data collected on January 14) were staggering. The data suggests that conventional pollsters and Washington insiders have it completely wrong – that it won't be a tight race, and that State Senator Scott Brown will win by a landslide.
Social Media Polling Methodology
In this poll I looked at the three major social media venues – Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube – as well as the Alexa Ratings. I used the user engagement metrics that are available from the various sites in order to compare the internet presence of the two candidates.
YouTube Channels
Both candidates prominently feature a link to their respective YouTube channels on their home pages and syndicate television ads and other content on the site. Scott Brown is showing a 10:1 advantage over Martha Coakley in terms of video content viewership.
Channel Views Total Upload Views Subscribers
Martha Coakley on YouTube 8,561 24,014 58
Scott Brown on YouTube 26,622 223,678 387
Facebook Fan Pages
Facebook fan pages are a great way to connect with people and their networks. Both Scott Brown and Martha Coakley maintain their own Facebook fan pages, which are featured prominently on their homepages. Scott Brown has over a 4:1 edge in terms of number of fans.
Number of Fans
Martha Coakley Fan Page 9,398
Scott Brown Fan Page 41,050
Twitter Mentions
President Obama famously used Twitter to connect to millions of followers. Both Scott Brown and Martha Coakley employ Twitter to communicate with their fans – again, Scott Brown has the edge. He has more followers, appears on more user lists, and generates more buzz overall on Twitter.
Followers Listed Twitter Mentions
Martha Coakley on Twitter 2674 236 7210
Scott Brown on Twitter 7105 404 21500
Alexa Rankings
Alexa is an internet ratings company – think "Nielson's ratings for the internet". If the point of all the social media efforts on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter is to familiarize people with your brand and drive engagement to your website, and if Scott Brown is doing a better job than Martha Coakley in all the aforementioned social media marketing tactics, you'd expect to see more traffic to his website. And indeed we see that Scott Brown has a tenfold advantage in internet reach (i.e., an estimate of the percentage of internet users that visit their respective websites on any given day). Also noteworthy is rate at which Scott Brown has skyrocketed - in just a week – any conventional pollster will tell you that momentum is everything.
Scott Brown versus Martha Coakley
So in summary, Scott Brown is way ahead in this race, with the following numbers:
* 10:1 Advantage in YouTube video views
* 4:1 Advantage in Facebook fans
* 3:1 Advantage in Twitter mentions
* 10:1 Advantage in estimated web traffic
Is this Polling Data Valid? Can Social Media Metrics Predict Election Outcomes?
First of all, consider that conventional polling is flawed – they go through the phone book, so they exclude anyone without a land line. This social media polling data also excludes people – namely, those who don't use social media or the web. The question is, who is the more "likely voter", someone with a land line or someone who uses Facebook? I have no idea. I do know this: one day, more people will use social media than land lines - maybe not today, but probably not too far off either.
The social media polling data could simply mean that Scott Brown supporters are more excited about their candidate than Martha Coakley supporters – and even the conventional polling data has picked up on that notion. Clearly underdogs have the most passionate fan base (think crazy RedSox fans pre-2004).
Then there's the effect of non-Massachusetts residents (who can't vote in this election) affecting the social media engagement metrics – though as far as I can tell, the Senate race has attracted the attention of national special interest groups on both sides of the political spectrum. But are non-Massachusetts special interest groups and their followers 3 to 10 times more likely to be interested in Scott Brown than Martha Coakley?
It could be that the average Coakley supporter doesn't use the internet or social media venues as much as the average Scott Brown supporter. Again: is it plausible that her supporters use social media 3 to 10 times less?
It's also noteworthy to point out that in November 2008, Alexa had Barack Obama with an estimated five times larger Web presence over John McCain – and President Obama was famous for his success in connecting with the electorate over Twitter, YouTube and Facebook – and he won that election in a landslide.
In summary, while the data might not be complete, all available signs in the Social Media sphere currently point to a pretty strongly to a win by Scott Brown next week.
For the first time for as long I can remember, my very own home state of Massachusetts is today considered a battleground state. Recent polls show the two candidates, State Senator Scott Brown (Republican) and State Attorney General Martha Coakley (Democrat) engaged in a tight race – well within the margin of error.
Dates Scott Brown (R) Martha Coakley (D)
Public Policy Polling (PPP) January 7-9 48% 47%
Rasmussen Reports January 11 47% 49%
But being a search marketer, I launched my own investigation to see if I could find out more information about the dynamics of this US Senate race based on internet marketing and social media metrics. The findings (based on data collected on January 14) were staggering. The data suggests that conventional pollsters and Washington insiders have it completely wrong – that it won't be a tight race, and that State Senator Scott Brown will win by a landslide.
Social Media Polling Methodology
In this poll I looked at the three major social media venues – Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube – as well as the Alexa Ratings. I used the user engagement metrics that are available from the various sites in order to compare the internet presence of the two candidates.
YouTube Channels
Both candidates prominently feature a link to their respective YouTube channels on their home pages and syndicate television ads and other content on the site. Scott Brown is showing a 10:1 advantage over Martha Coakley in terms of video content viewership.
Channel Views Total Upload Views Subscribers
Martha Coakley on YouTube 8,561 24,014 58
Scott Brown on YouTube 26,622 223,678 387
Facebook Fan Pages
Facebook fan pages are a great way to connect with people and their networks. Both Scott Brown and Martha Coakley maintain their own Facebook fan pages, which are featured prominently on their homepages. Scott Brown has over a 4:1 edge in terms of number of fans.
Number of Fans
Martha Coakley Fan Page 9,398
Scott Brown Fan Page 41,050
Twitter Mentions
President Obama famously used Twitter to connect to millions of followers. Both Scott Brown and Martha Coakley employ Twitter to communicate with their fans – again, Scott Brown has the edge. He has more followers, appears on more user lists, and generates more buzz overall on Twitter.
Followers Listed Twitter Mentions
Martha Coakley on Twitter 2674 236 7210
Scott Brown on Twitter 7105 404 21500
Alexa Rankings
Alexa is an internet ratings company – think "Nielson's ratings for the internet". If the point of all the social media efforts on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter is to familiarize people with your brand and drive engagement to your website, and if Scott Brown is doing a better job than Martha Coakley in all the aforementioned social media marketing tactics, you'd expect to see more traffic to his website. And indeed we see that Scott Brown has a tenfold advantage in internet reach (i.e., an estimate of the percentage of internet users that visit their respective websites on any given day). Also noteworthy is rate at which Scott Brown has skyrocketed - in just a week – any conventional pollster will tell you that momentum is everything.
Scott Brown versus Martha Coakley
So in summary, Scott Brown is way ahead in this race, with the following numbers:
* 10:1 Advantage in YouTube video views
* 4:1 Advantage in Facebook fans
* 3:1 Advantage in Twitter mentions
* 10:1 Advantage in estimated web traffic
Is this Polling Data Valid? Can Social Media Metrics Predict Election Outcomes?
First of all, consider that conventional polling is flawed – they go through the phone book, so they exclude anyone without a land line. This social media polling data also excludes people – namely, those who don't use social media or the web. The question is, who is the more "likely voter", someone with a land line or someone who uses Facebook? I have no idea. I do know this: one day, more people will use social media than land lines - maybe not today, but probably not too far off either.
The social media polling data could simply mean that Scott Brown supporters are more excited about their candidate than Martha Coakley supporters – and even the conventional polling data has picked up on that notion. Clearly underdogs have the most passionate fan base (think crazy RedSox fans pre-2004).
Then there's the effect of non-Massachusetts residents (who can't vote in this election) affecting the social media engagement metrics – though as far as I can tell, the Senate race has attracted the attention of national special interest groups on both sides of the political spectrum. But are non-Massachusetts special interest groups and their followers 3 to 10 times more likely to be interested in Scott Brown than Martha Coakley?
It could be that the average Coakley supporter doesn't use the internet or social media venues as much as the average Scott Brown supporter. Again: is it plausible that her supporters use social media 3 to 10 times less?
It's also noteworthy to point out that in November 2008, Alexa had Barack Obama with an estimated five times larger Web presence over John McCain – and President Obama was famous for his success in connecting with the electorate over Twitter, YouTube and Facebook – and he won that election in a landslide.
In summary, while the data might not be complete, all available signs in the Social Media sphere currently point to a pretty strongly to a win by Scott Brown next week.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
From Bottom Up! Florida’s Marco Rubio for Vice President in 2012?
(Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers).He hasn't even won the Florida Senate GOP primary against Gov. Charlie Crist yet, but there's speculation in Washington that former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio would make a perfect 2012 vice presidential candidate. "If he gets here, he automatically becomes the No. 1 candidate," says a former Bush adviser now associated with Sarah Palin.
Glenn Beck: "It's Mitt Romney's turn"
"I don't think she'll [Sarah Palin] get the Republican nomination. It's Mitt Romney's turn. That's the way it always works with Republicans. They go by turns."
Quinnpiac: Obama Approval at 45%; Only 2% are "very" satisfied with the way things are going
(RCP).A new Quinnipiac national survey shows the public evenly split on President Obama's job approval rating. The 45% job approval is his lowest to date in the Quinnipiac poll, and his 45% disapproval rating is his highest.
The public is equally split at 45/45 on the question of whether President Obama's first year in office was "mainly" a success or a failure. Among the crucial group of registered Independents, 40% view Obama's first year as a success while 47% view it as a failure.
Obama's handling of specific issues declined again this month, reaching new lows across the board:
Creating Jobs: 34% approve (-3 vs. last poll 12/09)/59% disapprove (+3)
Health Care: 35 (-3)/58 (+2)
Economy: 41 (-3), 54 (+3)
Afghanistan: 45 (-2)/45 (+2)
Foreign Policy: 45 (-1)/46 (+2)
Other notables from the Quinnipiac poll:
Democrats in Congress currently have a 32% job approval rating, down from a high of 45% last March.
Republicans in Congress have an equally anemic 32% job approval rating, but that actually represents their best showing to date in the Quinnipiac survey.
Only 2% are "very" satisfied with the way things are going in the country, with another 25% "somewhat" satisfied. On the other hand, 41% are "very" dissatisfied with the direction of the country and another 31% are "somewhat" dissatisfied.
Despite Obama's sinking approval ratings, 43% still rate him as "better than George W. Bush," while 30% say his is worse than Bush and 23% say he is "about the same" as Bush.
35% believe the country would be "better off" if John McCain had won the 2008 election, 37% believe we'd be "worse off" and 17% believes it didn't make a difference.
The public is equally split at 45/45 on the question of whether President Obama's first year in office was "mainly" a success or a failure. Among the crucial group of registered Independents, 40% view Obama's first year as a success while 47% view it as a failure.
Obama's handling of specific issues declined again this month, reaching new lows across the board:
Creating Jobs: 34% approve (-3 vs. last poll 12/09)/59% disapprove (+3)
Health Care: 35 (-3)/58 (+2)
Economy: 41 (-3), 54 (+3)
Afghanistan: 45 (-2)/45 (+2)
Foreign Policy: 45 (-1)/46 (+2)
Other notables from the Quinnipiac poll:
Democrats in Congress currently have a 32% job approval rating, down from a high of 45% last March.
Republicans in Congress have an equally anemic 32% job approval rating, but that actually represents their best showing to date in the Quinnipiac survey.
Only 2% are "very" satisfied with the way things are going in the country, with another 25% "somewhat" satisfied. On the other hand, 41% are "very" dissatisfied with the direction of the country and another 31% are "somewhat" dissatisfied.
Despite Obama's sinking approval ratings, 43% still rate him as "better than George W. Bush," while 30% say his is worse than Bush and 23% say he is "about the same" as Bush.
35% believe the country would be "better off" if John McCain had won the 2008 election, 37% believe we'd be "worse off" and 17% believes it didn't make a difference.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
PPP: Brown's chances increase due to his lead among moderates, and a chunk of Obama independents
(PPP)...-I wrote last week that if the turnout drop off in Massachusetts for Democrats was as bad as it was in Virginia and if Scott Brown and Martha Coakley got the same proportions of the McCain and Obama vote that Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell received that it would equate to a three point win for Coakley. But Brown is getting 15% of the Obama vote, better than the 12% McDonnell got in Virgina, and that's why he's in such a strong position right now. Who are these Obama voters going for Brown? Mostly white independents who seem unhappy with the Democratic Party across the board right now. Despite having voted for him they now give Obama just a 25% approval rating. Only 11% of them have a favorable opinion of Congressional Democrats. And they give Deval Patrick only 8% approval. The Democratic brand is not doing well with these folks across the board.
-Brown is winning moderate voters 49-42. Republicans just don't win with moderates these days. Even the day before they went down in flames Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine were winning moderates in their races by margins of 56-42 and 47-37 respectively. It's going to be interesting to see if the attack ads going up against Brown now cut down his standing with voters in the middle.
-Brown is winning moderate voters 49-42. Republicans just don't win with moderates these days. Even the day before they went down in flames Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine were winning moderates in their races by margins of 56-42 and 47-37 respectively. It's going to be interesting to see if the attack ads going up against Brown now cut down his standing with voters in the middle.
CNN poll: 48% say Obama's first year was a failure, thumbs down on handling Economy and Health care
(CNN) - Americans are giving Barack Obama a split decision on his first year in office, according to a new national poll.
Forty-eight percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say Obama's presidency has been a failure so far, with 47 percent saying Obama has been a success. The poll's January 12 release comes just 8 days before Obama marks one year in the White House.
The survey indicates that Obama's approval rating as president stands at 51 percent, down 3 points from last month, with 48 percent disapproving, up 4 points from December.
"On the plus side for Obama, he remains personally popular and he gets decent ratings on foreign policy and national security issues. That may explain why his overall approval rating is a little higher than the number who say Obama's first year has been a success," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Unfortunately for Obama, domestic issues - led by the economy - are far more important to the public than foreign policy issues, and a majority disapprove of how he is handling every single economic and domestic issue tested."
According to the survey, the economy by far remains issue No. 1 with Americans, with 47 percent saying it is the most important issue facing the country today - up 7 points from last month. Health care, at 15 percent, is the second most important issue with the public, followed by the deficit at 11 percent. Terrorism is tied with the deficit, and up 7 points from last month, most likely do to widespread coverage of the attempted terrorist bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day.
The dominance of domestic issues in importance is most likely a contributing factor to the slight dip in Obama's overall approval rating.
"Only 44 percent approve of how Obama is handling the economy; just 4 in 10 give him a thumbs-up on health care and his approval rating on the federal deficit has plunged to 36 percent. Those are three of the four most important issues on the public's mind today," says Holland. "The president's ratings also suffer from the growing perception that he is too liberal - 46 percent feel that way today, up 10 points from March.
Forty-eight percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say Obama's presidency has been a failure so far, with 47 percent saying Obama has been a success. The poll's January 12 release comes just 8 days before Obama marks one year in the White House.
The survey indicates that Obama's approval rating as president stands at 51 percent, down 3 points from last month, with 48 percent disapproving, up 4 points from December.
"On the plus side for Obama, he remains personally popular and he gets decent ratings on foreign policy and national security issues. That may explain why his overall approval rating is a little higher than the number who say Obama's first year has been a success," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Unfortunately for Obama, domestic issues - led by the economy - are far more important to the public than foreign policy issues, and a majority disapprove of how he is handling every single economic and domestic issue tested."
According to the survey, the economy by far remains issue No. 1 with Americans, with 47 percent saying it is the most important issue facing the country today - up 7 points from last month. Health care, at 15 percent, is the second most important issue with the public, followed by the deficit at 11 percent. Terrorism is tied with the deficit, and up 7 points from last month, most likely do to widespread coverage of the attempted terrorist bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day.
The dominance of domestic issues in importance is most likely a contributing factor to the slight dip in Obama's overall approval rating.
"Only 44 percent approve of how Obama is handling the economy; just 4 in 10 give him a thumbs-up on health care and his approval rating on the federal deficit has plunged to 36 percent. Those are three of the four most important issues on the public's mind today," says Holland. "The president's ratings also suffer from the growing perception that he is too liberal - 46 percent feel that way today, up 10 points from March.
Will Brown end Dem's super power? It’s the people’s seat, and it’s up for grabs
(Bostonglobe).Coakley supports ObamaCare, opposes the war in Afghanistan, and favors higher taxes on the wealthy. Brown is against the health care legislation, backs the president’s surge in Afghanistan, and wants across-the-board tax cuts à la JFK. Coakley is an EMILY’s List prochoice hard-liner; Brown condemns partial-birth abortion and is backed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Coakley has no problem with civilian trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Brown thinks it reckless to treat enemy combatants like ordinary defendants.
But the most striking thing about the debate was not that the very liberal Democrat and the not-especially-conservative Republican disagreed on the issues. It is that they are both viable candidates in a race too competitive to call. In Massachusetts!
“I don’t know what’s going to happen on Jan. 19th,’’ Coakley said. She wasn’t being coy. Nobody knows what’s going to happen next week.
When Ted Kennedy died five months ago, who would have guessed that the contest to replace him would be anything but a slam-dunk for the Democrats? Yet there was no slam-dunk on that stage last night, and the race certainly doesn’t feel like a slam-dunk now.
“It’s not the ‘Kennedy Seat,’ ’’ Brown has been reminding Coakley lately. “It’s the people’s seat.’’
But the most striking thing about the debate was not that the very liberal Democrat and the not-especially-conservative Republican disagreed on the issues. It is that they are both viable candidates in a race too competitive to call. In Massachusetts!
“I don’t know what’s going to happen on Jan. 19th,’’ Coakley said. She wasn’t being coy. Nobody knows what’s going to happen next week.
When Ted Kennedy died five months ago, who would have guessed that the contest to replace him would be anything but a slam-dunk for the Democrats? Yet there was no slam-dunk on that stage last night, and the race certainly doesn’t feel like a slam-dunk now.
“It’s not the ‘Kennedy Seat,’ ’’ Brown has been reminding Coakley lately. “It’s the people’s seat.’’
Monday, January 11, 2010
New CBS poll: It's the Economy STUPID! lowest approval for Obama and HCR
(CBS)President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 46 percent, according to a new CBS News poll.
That rating is Mr. Obama's lowest yet in CBS News polling, and the poll marks the first time his approval rating has fallen below the 50 percent mark. Forty-one percent now say they disapprove of Mr. Obama's performance as president.
In last month's CBS News poll, 50 percent of Americans approved of how the president was handling his job, while thirty-nine percent disapproved.
More importantly, Mr. Obama's approval rating among independents has declined 10 points in recent months – and it now stands at just 42 percent.
Domestic issues – and not his response to terrorist threats - appear to be driving the president's approval rating downward.
Just 41 percent now approve of his handling of the economy, which Americans say is the nation's most pressing issue. Forty-seven percent disapprove. The president's marks on handling health care, with reforms still under debate in Congress, are even lower – just 36 percent approve, while 54 percent disapprove. Both of these approval ratings are the lowest of Mr. Obama's presidency.
The president receives slightly higher ratings for his handling of the war in Afghanistan and the threat of terrorism than on domestic issues. Forty-six percent approve of Mr. Obama's handling of Afghanistan, and 52 percent approve of how he is handling the threat of terrorism.
While some Republicans have criticized the president and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano's responses to the attempted Christmas Day terror attack, most Americans don't share their opinion.
In the poll, 57 percent of Americans approve of the way the Obama administration has responded to the attempted attack, and 29 percent disapprove. Views are highly partisan – 75 percent of Democrats approve, while just 41 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of independents do.
Remember Jim Demint : Waterloo??
That rating is Mr. Obama's lowest yet in CBS News polling, and the poll marks the first time his approval rating has fallen below the 50 percent mark. Forty-one percent now say they disapprove of Mr. Obama's performance as president.
In last month's CBS News poll, 50 percent of Americans approved of how the president was handling his job, while thirty-nine percent disapproved.
More importantly, Mr. Obama's approval rating among independents has declined 10 points in recent months – and it now stands at just 42 percent.
Domestic issues – and not his response to terrorist threats - appear to be driving the president's approval rating downward.
Just 41 percent now approve of his handling of the economy, which Americans say is the nation's most pressing issue. Forty-seven percent disapprove. The president's marks on handling health care, with reforms still under debate in Congress, are even lower – just 36 percent approve, while 54 percent disapprove. Both of these approval ratings are the lowest of Mr. Obama's presidency.
The president receives slightly higher ratings for his handling of the war in Afghanistan and the threat of terrorism than on domestic issues. Forty-six percent approve of Mr. Obama's handling of Afghanistan, and 52 percent approve of how he is handling the threat of terrorism.
While some Republicans have criticized the president and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano's responses to the attempted Christmas Day terror attack, most Americans don't share their opinion.
In the poll, 57 percent of Americans approve of the way the Obama administration has responded to the attempted attack, and 29 percent disapprove. Views are highly partisan – 75 percent of Democrats approve, while just 41 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of independents do.
Remember Jim Demint : Waterloo??
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Right and Left bloggers rank Romney as the strongest candidate leading the GOP in '12
Via National Journal:
Right blogger's total: 66% , Left blogger's total: 25%
*"It's Romney's 'turn.' He was the second-place finisher last time (technically third, but only because Huckabee ran for months after the race was over). Huckabee and Palin cancel each other out for the populist vote." James Joyner, Outside The Beltway
*"The Republican lower tiers (e.g., Thune) might be much stronger in a general election than would be the better-known possibilities (e.g., Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich)." David Kopel, The Volokh Conspiracy
*"At this point, predicting the likely Republican nominee is a crapshoot. Romney (from 2008) and Barbour (from when he headed the RNC) are probably the two Republicans with the best networks in place right now." David Gerstman, Soccer Dad
*"The economic climate, as it stands today, is a perfect setup for Romney. But I've been ringing this bell for years. He's played it perfectly, staying out of sight, preparing for his re-emergence. He's scandal-free, and has already gone through the Mormon, policy-flip-flopping gauntlet with the base, which is likely to forgive the imperfect if the candidate looks like a winner, which Romney exudes. With his beautiful wife and family beside him, Mitt Romney is simply the perfect GOP commercial; all he needs is a national security veep." Taylor Marsh
*"Romney would be the strongest against Obama in the general election." Robert Farley, Lawyers, Guns And Money
*"Tea people notwithstanding, sometime between now and presidential primary season the GOP elite will decide they need an 'electable' Republican, and go with the one who came in second last time. Alternately, there's an outside chance that our infotainment media culture will augment Facebook Governor Palin's chances." Dean Barker, Blue Hampshire
*"So much will depend on the mood of the electorate in 2012, and it's too soon to predict what that will be. I chose Mitt Romney on the guess that people will be mostly concerned with the economy." Barbara O'Brien, The Mahablog
Right blogger's total: 66% , Left blogger's total: 25%
*"It's Romney's 'turn.' He was the second-place finisher last time (technically third, but only because Huckabee ran for months after the race was over). Huckabee and Palin cancel each other out for the populist vote." James Joyner, Outside The Beltway
*"The Republican lower tiers (e.g., Thune) might be much stronger in a general election than would be the better-known possibilities (e.g., Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich)." David Kopel, The Volokh Conspiracy
*"At this point, predicting the likely Republican nominee is a crapshoot. Romney (from 2008) and Barbour (from when he headed the RNC) are probably the two Republicans with the best networks in place right now." David Gerstman, Soccer Dad
*"The economic climate, as it stands today, is a perfect setup for Romney. But I've been ringing this bell for years. He's played it perfectly, staying out of sight, preparing for his re-emergence. He's scandal-free, and has already gone through the Mormon, policy-flip-flopping gauntlet with the base, which is likely to forgive the imperfect if the candidate looks like a winner, which Romney exudes. With his beautiful wife and family beside him, Mitt Romney is simply the perfect GOP commercial; all he needs is a national security veep." Taylor Marsh
*"Romney would be the strongest against Obama in the general election." Robert Farley, Lawyers, Guns And Money
*"Tea people notwithstanding, sometime between now and presidential primary season the GOP elite will decide they need an 'electable' Republican, and go with the one who came in second last time. Alternately, there's an outside chance that our infotainment media culture will augment Facebook Governor Palin's chances." Dean Barker, Blue Hampshire
*"So much will depend on the mood of the electorate in 2012, and it's too soon to predict what that will be. I chose Mitt Romney on the guess that people will be mostly concerned with the economy." Barbara O'Brien, The Mahablog
McCain on CNN: Obama's tough terror talk and policy don't match
(Washingtontimes).Sen. John McCain said Sunday that President Obama's tougher talk about fighting terrorism following the attempted Christmas airliner bombing does not match his decision to try the bomber in civilian court.
"That person should be tried as an enemy combatant; he's a terrorist," Mr. McCain, Arizona Republican, said. "And if we are at war, then we certainly should not be trying that individual in a court other than a military trial."
He said Mr. Obama should not allow terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian, to get "lawyered up" for his day in court instead of handing him to intelligence officials to extract vital information.
"To have a person be able to get lawyered up when we need that information very badly, I think betrays or contradicts the president's view that we are at war," Mr. McCain said on CNN's "State of the Union."
Mr. Obama has said that as commander in chief he ultimately bears responsibility for the failures and that no one will be fired over the incident.
"People should be held responsible for what happened," Mr. McCain said. "We can't go back to the old Washington kind of routine -- we are all responsible, so therefore nobody is responsible. Somebody has got to be held responsible."
Still, Mr. McCain, who as the 2008 Republican presidential nominee blasted Mr. Obama's weak stance against terrorism, said he appreciated the president's comments that "we are at war" with terrorists.
"They are a departure from his language before," Mr. McCain said.
"That person should be tried as an enemy combatant; he's a terrorist," Mr. McCain, Arizona Republican, said. "And if we are at war, then we certainly should not be trying that individual in a court other than a military trial."
He said Mr. Obama should not allow terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian, to get "lawyered up" for his day in court instead of handing him to intelligence officials to extract vital information.
"To have a person be able to get lawyered up when we need that information very badly, I think betrays or contradicts the president's view that we are at war," Mr. McCain said on CNN's "State of the Union."
Mr. Obama has said that as commander in chief he ultimately bears responsibility for the failures and that no one will be fired over the incident.
"People should be held responsible for what happened," Mr. McCain said. "We can't go back to the old Washington kind of routine -- we are all responsible, so therefore nobody is responsible. Somebody has got to be held responsible."
Still, Mr. McCain, who as the 2008 Republican presidential nominee blasted Mr. Obama's weak stance against terrorism, said he appreciated the president's comments that "we are at war" with terrorists.
"They are a departure from his language before," Mr. McCain said.
Friends we believe in! What do Clinton , Biden and Reid think on the 'Coffeemaker in chief'?
Via Ben Smith-Politico, on Clinton and Reid's racist remarks from the campaign trail,in the book Game Change, John Heliemann and Mark Halperin reports:
*CLINTON:As Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill’s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee".
*REID:–Reid said Obama could fare well nationally as an African-American candidate because he was “light-skinned” and didn’t speak with a “Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.” Saturday, the majority leader said he had used “poor choice of words” and called Obama to apologize; the White House issued a statement indicating that the president had forgiven Reid.
*BIDEN AND OBAMA CLASH: The relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden grew so strained during the 2008 campaign, according to a new book, that the two rarely spoke and aides not only kept Biden off internal conference calls but refused to even tell him they existed.
Instead, a separate campaign call was regularly scheduled between the then-Delaware senator and two of Obama’s top campaign aides – “so that they could keep a tight rein on him,”
When Biden, at an October fund-raiser in Seattle, famously predicted that Obama would be tested with an international crisis, the then-Illinois senator had had enough.
"How many times is Biden gonna say something stupid?" he demanded of his advisers on a conference call, a moment at which most people on the call said the candidate was as angry as they had ever heard him.
*CLINTON:As Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill’s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee".
*REID:–Reid said Obama could fare well nationally as an African-American candidate because he was “light-skinned” and didn’t speak with a “Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.” Saturday, the majority leader said he had used “poor choice of words” and called Obama to apologize; the White House issued a statement indicating that the president had forgiven Reid.
*BIDEN AND OBAMA CLASH: The relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden grew so strained during the 2008 campaign, according to a new book, that the two rarely spoke and aides not only kept Biden off internal conference calls but refused to even tell him they existed.
Instead, a separate campaign call was regularly scheduled between the then-Delaware senator and two of Obama’s top campaign aides – “so that they could keep a tight rein on him,”
When Biden, at an October fund-raiser in Seattle, famously predicted that Obama would be tested with an international crisis, the then-Illinois senator had had enough.
"How many times is Biden gonna say something stupid?" he demanded of his advisers on a conference call, a moment at which most people on the call said the candidate was as angry as they had ever heard him.
Democratic Support andvantage slips to 5%, if included Independents leaning GOP
(Gallup).The year 2009 marked the end of a three-year run of majority Democratic support among U.S. adults. Last year, an average of 49.0% of Americans identified as Democrats or said they leaned Democratic, the party's first yearly average below 50% since 2005. Still, Democrats maintained an average eight-point advantage in support over Republicans last year, as 40.7% of Americans identified as Republicans or leaned Republican.
The 2009 results are based on aggregated data from all Gallup and USA Today/Gallup polls conducted last year, encompassing interviews with more than 21,000 Americans. In each poll, Gallup asks Americans whether they consider themselves Republicans, Democrats, or independents. Independents are subsequently asked if they lean to the Republican or Democratic Party.
"The increase in overall GOP support is owing to an increase in the percentage of Republican-leaning independents, from 11% in the first quarter to 15% in the third and fourth quarters."
The 2009 yearly averages do not tell the whole story of changes in party support last year, as they to some degree obscure the sharp decline in the Democrats' advantage over the course of the year. In the first quarter of 2009, coincident with the beginning of the Obama administration, Democrats enjoyed one of the largest advantages for either party since 1991, 13 percentage points (51.7% of Americans identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, versus 38.7% who identified as or leaned Republican). In each subsequent quarter, the percentage of Democratic supporters declined, and by the fourth quarter, the Democratic advantage had shrunk to 5 points (47.2% to 42.2%).
The five-point party gap in the fourth quarter of 2009 represents the smallest Democratic advantage since the second quarter of 2005. Thus, the gains the Democratic Party made in public support during the last several years of the George W. Bush administration have disappeared.
Though total Republican support did increase last year, this came mostly from what can be considered "soft support." The increase in overall GOP support is owing to an increase in the percentage of Republican-leaning independents, from 11% in the first quarter to 15% in the third and fourth quarters. The percentage of Americans with a stronger attachment to the GOP -- those who initially identify themselves as Republicans -- was stable and, if anything, showed a slight decline over the course of the year. Also, there was a two-point drop in the percentage of Democratic identifiers and a two-point drop in the percentage of Democratic-leaning independents.
The 2009 results are based on aggregated data from all Gallup and USA Today/Gallup polls conducted last year, encompassing interviews with more than 21,000 Americans. In each poll, Gallup asks Americans whether they consider themselves Republicans, Democrats, or independents. Independents are subsequently asked if they lean to the Republican or Democratic Party.
"The increase in overall GOP support is owing to an increase in the percentage of Republican-leaning independents, from 11% in the first quarter to 15% in the third and fourth quarters."
The 2009 yearly averages do not tell the whole story of changes in party support last year, as they to some degree obscure the sharp decline in the Democrats' advantage over the course of the year. In the first quarter of 2009, coincident with the beginning of the Obama administration, Democrats enjoyed one of the largest advantages for either party since 1991, 13 percentage points (51.7% of Americans identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, versus 38.7% who identified as or leaned Republican). In each subsequent quarter, the percentage of Democratic supporters declined, and by the fourth quarter, the Democratic advantage had shrunk to 5 points (47.2% to 42.2%).
The five-point party gap in the fourth quarter of 2009 represents the smallest Democratic advantage since the second quarter of 2005. Thus, the gains the Democratic Party made in public support during the last several years of the George W. Bush administration have disappeared.
Though total Republican support did increase last year, this came mostly from what can be considered "soft support." The increase in overall GOP support is owing to an increase in the percentage of Republican-leaning independents, from 11% in the first quarter to 15% in the third and fourth quarters. The percentage of Americans with a stronger attachment to the GOP -- those who initially identify themselves as Republicans -- was stable and, if anything, showed a slight decline over the course of the year. Also, there was a two-point drop in the percentage of Democratic identifiers and a two-point drop in the percentage of Democratic-leaning independents.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Rudy Giuliani:The fact is - No attacks under George W. Bush
(Politico).Rudy Giuliani claimed Friday that were “no domestic attacks” during George W. Bush’s presidency.
Giuliani, who was the mayor of New York during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and later ran a presidential campaign centered around his widely praised response to the crisis, made the statement while criticizing President Barack Obama during an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
“What [Obama] should be doing is following the right things that Bush did,” Giuliani said. “One of the right things he did was treat this as a war on terror.”
“We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We’ve had one under Obama,” he said.
Giuliani did, however, praise Obama’s speech on Thursday, in which the president accepted responsibility for the systemic failures that led to the attempted bombing on a Christmas Day flight to Detroit.
“I'm very hopeful that President Obama turned a corner yesterday,” Giuliani said. “He first used the words, thank goodness, war on terror.”
Giuliani, who was the mayor of New York during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and later ran a presidential campaign centered around his widely praised response to the crisis, made the statement while criticizing President Barack Obama during an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
“What [Obama] should be doing is following the right things that Bush did,” Giuliani said. “One of the right things he did was treat this as a war on terror.”
“We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We’ve had one under Obama,” he said.
Giuliani did, however, praise Obama’s speech on Thursday, in which the president accepted responsibility for the systemic failures that led to the attempted bombing on a Christmas Day flight to Detroit.
“I'm very hopeful that President Obama turned a corner yesterday,” Giuliani said. “He first used the words, thank goodness, war on terror.”
PPP:Republican Scott Brown Leading Dem. Coakley 48%-47%; Hannity: This will be a political earthquake
(PPP)..Buoyed by a huge advantage with independents and relative disinterest from Democratic voters in the state, Republican Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 48-47.Here are the major factors leading to this surprising state of affairs:-As was the case in the Gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia last year, it looks like the electorate in Massachusetts will be considerably more conservative than the one that showed up in 2008. Obama took the state by 26 points then, but those planning to vote next week only report having voted for him by 16.
Brown leads among Independents by 32%.
Brown leads among Independents by 32%.
Romney hits Obama's handling of terrorist attack
"I think almost anybody who's looked at the way the President has handled this has been very, very dismayed. His initial reaction, which was to say this was apparently an individual acting on his own -- that was wrong, that was the wrong thing for him to say.
And then, of course, he came out and attacked the intelligence community in an aggressive way, and of course, they needed a talking to -- particularly, the Secretary of Homeland Security, but that's not the sort of thing you leak to the press. The President should have stood up -- as JFK did -- and said, 'Look, this was my fault. I'm responsible. I'll do a better job', and then deal with your people one-by-one, but perhaps the biggest fault that I have is that instead of taking this would-be bomber and interrogating him so we could learn the very intelligence that our intelligence community so desperately wants to have, instead of doing that -- they decide to lawyer him up and quiet him down, so that he can't give us the information we need.
The President is more intent on having the people at the ACLU happy than he ought to be."
Gop Insiders poll: Romney ranked #1 to win '12 nomination; Romney: Better then a kick in the teeth!
(NRO).A poll of GOP insiders suggests that ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has little support among the party's professional class -- and maybe that's just how she wants it.
In a survey of 109 party leaders, political professionals and pundits, Palin finished 5th on the list of candidates most likely to win the party's '12 WH nomination. Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) was the overwhelming choice of the
Voters were asked to rank 5 candidates in the order of likeliness to capture the GOP nod. The results:
Likely To Win WH'12 Nomination (First place votes)
Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney 81 points (62%)
MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty 46 (9%)
Sen. John Thune 38 (12%)
MS Gov. Haley Barbour 28 (6%)
IN Gov. Mitch Daniels 25
Ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin 25
Rounding out the top 10: Ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee, ex-FL Gov. Jeb Bush, LA Gov. Bobby Jindal. Candidates other than Romney, Pawlenty, Thune and Barbour split the remaining 11% of first-place votes.
Meanwhile, Dem insiders too think Romney is the most likely candidate to run against Pres. Obama next year. The results, from interviews with 111 Dem insiders:
Likely To Win WH'12 Nomination
Romney 29%
Thune 15
Pawlenty 13
Daniels 11
Gingrich 6
Romney responded to the poll numbers , on his appearance on Foxnews with Greta:
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, Governor, you must like those numbers; that information.
ROMNEY: Well, it's better than a kick in the teeth, but [I] haven't made a decision yet about what we might do in 2012. This is really a critical year right now, getting ready for the 2010 elections.... that's what I'm focused on, but the future will take care of itself.
VAN SUSTEREN: What's the criteria you look at, because, I mean, you gotta think out into the future. What is it that would tip your decision either way? What are the things that you're considering?
ROMNEY: You know, my wife and I and kids will sit down when the time comes, and talk about a whole host of considerations. Where the country is, what the implications would be for ourselves for a race, what the personal implications might be, whether I'd be the right person, whether somebody else might do a better job. These are the kinds of things we'd have to discuss, but we haven't given that a lot of thought this time.... we really won't begin a discussion like that until after the November elections and maybe not until sometime in the next year.
In a survey of 109 party leaders, political professionals and pundits, Palin finished 5th on the list of candidates most likely to win the party's '12 WH nomination. Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) was the overwhelming choice of the
Voters were asked to rank 5 candidates in the order of likeliness to capture the GOP nod. The results:
Likely To Win WH'12 Nomination (First place votes)
Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney 81 points (62%)
MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty 46 (9%)
Sen. John Thune 38 (12%)
MS Gov. Haley Barbour 28 (6%)
IN Gov. Mitch Daniels 25
Ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin 25
Rounding out the top 10: Ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee, ex-FL Gov. Jeb Bush, LA Gov. Bobby Jindal. Candidates other than Romney, Pawlenty, Thune and Barbour split the remaining 11% of first-place votes.
Meanwhile, Dem insiders too think Romney is the most likely candidate to run against Pres. Obama next year. The results, from interviews with 111 Dem insiders:
Likely To Win WH'12 Nomination
Romney 29%
Thune 15
Pawlenty 13
Daniels 11
Gingrich 6
Romney responded to the poll numbers , on his appearance on Foxnews with Greta:
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, Governor, you must like those numbers; that information.
ROMNEY: Well, it's better than a kick in the teeth, but [I] haven't made a decision yet about what we might do in 2012. This is really a critical year right now, getting ready for the 2010 elections.... that's what I'm focused on, but the future will take care of itself.
VAN SUSTEREN: What's the criteria you look at, because, I mean, you gotta think out into the future. What is it that would tip your decision either way? What are the things that you're considering?
ROMNEY: You know, my wife and I and kids will sit down when the time comes, and talk about a whole host of considerations. Where the country is, what the implications would be for ourselves for a race, what the personal implications might be, whether I'd be the right person, whether somebody else might do a better job. These are the kinds of things we'd have to discuss, but we haven't given that a lot of thought this time.... we really won't begin a discussion like that until after the November elections and maybe not until sometime in the next year.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Romney to decide a '12 run After the Midterm Elections
(LifeNews).Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says he will decide after the 2010 Congressional elections whether to take on pro-abortion President Barack Obama. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, ran as a pro-life candidate against eventual nominee John McCain.
Romney is one of several Republicans considering a bid against Obama and consistently polls in the top three in most surveys of Republicans and American voters.
In a new interview with Fox News slated to air Wednesday, Romney discusses his plans.
“It’s always a possibility, and you keep the options open, but, you concentrate on the task ahead, for me that’s trying to get some good people elected in 2010,” he says on the Fox News program “Fox and Friends.”
“And, I know once that’s done the next item on the agenda is what’s 2012 going to be; and, Ann and I will give that some thought and make the decision then,” he added.
Appearing like a candidate, or at least an advocate for “change” in 2010, Romney voiced criticism of Obama, saying he has governed from the left when he pledged to be a moderate.
“I had higher hopes for him,” Romney said. “I knew he was a smart individual — I thought that he would learn that governing from the middle was the right way to go, as president Clinton learned his second term, but he’s made a lot of the mistakes that ideologues often do, which is thinking that everybody in the country voted for their extreme agenda.”
Romney also talked about Palin in the interview on the Fox News show and diffused rumors that she may consider a third-party presidential bid.
“I don’t know what her plans are but my expectation is that she’ll stay in the Republican party,” he said.
“Look, she’s a great, energizing member of the party. She has good ideas that have galvanized a lot of support for the party and she’s a welcome addition,” he added.
Romney is one of several Republicans considering a bid against Obama and consistently polls in the top three in most surveys of Republicans and American voters.
In a new interview with Fox News slated to air Wednesday, Romney discusses his plans.
“It’s always a possibility, and you keep the options open, but, you concentrate on the task ahead, for me that’s trying to get some good people elected in 2010,” he says on the Fox News program “Fox and Friends.”
“And, I know once that’s done the next item on the agenda is what’s 2012 going to be; and, Ann and I will give that some thought and make the decision then,” he added.
Appearing like a candidate, or at least an advocate for “change” in 2010, Romney voiced criticism of Obama, saying he has governed from the left when he pledged to be a moderate.
“I had higher hopes for him,” Romney said. “I knew he was a smart individual — I thought that he would learn that governing from the middle was the right way to go, as president Clinton learned his second term, but he’s made a lot of the mistakes that ideologues often do, which is thinking that everybody in the country voted for their extreme agenda.”
Romney also talked about Palin in the interview on the Fox News show and diffused rumors that she may consider a third-party presidential bid.
“I don’t know what her plans are but my expectation is that she’ll stay in the Republican party,” he said.
“Look, she’s a great, energizing member of the party. She has good ideas that have galvanized a lot of support for the party and she’s a welcome addition,” he added.
Newt Gingrich: 'We are not safe'
POLITICO 44-Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Monday night that Americans are less “safe” than they were a year ago.
During an interview with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly, the former Republican congressman from Georgia said - “We are not safe. We are in much greater danger than we were a year ago,” Gingrich said, though adding that “it’s not just Bush vs. Obama.”
“The North Koreans had an additional year to build missiles,” he said. “Iranians had an additional year to develop their nuclear weapons and keep paying for terrorists. Al Qaeda had an additional year. And by the way, two of the top four people in Al Qaeda in Yemen were released from Guantanamo Bay.”
During an interview with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly, the former Republican congressman from Georgia said - “We are not safe. We are in much greater danger than we were a year ago,” Gingrich said, though adding that “it’s not just Bush vs. Obama.”
“The North Koreans had an additional year to build missiles,” he said. “Iranians had an additional year to develop their nuclear weapons and keep paying for terrorists. Al Qaeda had an additional year. And by the way, two of the top four people in Al Qaeda in Yemen were released from Guantanamo Bay.”
THE CONSEQUENCES OF OBAMA: TERRORISM IS BACK
(Dick Morris And Eileen McGann).Rev. Jeremiah Wright said that the “chickens came home to roost” on 9-11. He was wrong. But they have now, indeed, come home to roost as we witness the results of the unilateral disarmament President Obama has practiced in the war on terror. Beset once more by terrorism on our soil and in our airspace, we find ourselves suddenly overmatched by those who the Bush Administration kept away from our shores for seven years.
This new onset of terrorism is not the product of any change in the international environment or some new “systemic” flaw in our intelligence operations. It is due to the policy of President Obama in letting down our guard and inhibiting those charged with our protection.
Under Obama, the hunters have become the hunted as America inverted her priorities. Those who have been working to keep us safe have, themselves, come under scrutiny for profiling, harsh interrogation techniques, and a failure to give terrorists constitutional rights they don’t have.
The result is predictable: Timidity and caution have become the order of the day in our intelligence community. In a world where hunch, guesswork, and a willingness to leap to conclusions by imagining the worst are vital to success, a cover your butt mentality has taken over. If you come to the wrong conclusion, if you profile without adequate justification, if you accuse incorrectly, you are finished. Your career and your pension will be gone. Guess right and you are accorded anonymity. Guess wrong and you’re through.
The failure of the intelligence operatives to pass along the information about the Ft. Hood shooter or the airline bomber did not flow from a blind spot or a lack of co-ordination, they stemmed from terrorism of a different sort — the terror of making a mistake and falling on the harsh mercies of Eric Holder.
Now Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutall sits, lawyered up, in a federal prison. His interrogation will proceed, if at all, under the watchful eye of his counsel. He will not finger other operatives nor warn us of other impending attacks. He will receive the full panoply of constitutional rights, none of which he is entitled to.
Barack Obama does not seem to understand that these terrorists come here to use our laws and our system, not to protect us, not even to shelter themselves, but to destroy us.
Abdulmutall should be interrogated by the military, without benefit of counsel. The evidence we obtain should not be admissible in a court of law nor used as the basis for his sentencing. But it must be used to ward off future threats and attacks.
But Obama is a true believer. His persistence in downgrading the war on terror to a criminal investigation will continue. And we will experience more and more attacks. Because pessimism is the bodyguard of liberalism, he will explain to us that the world has become more threatening and that he is doing all he can to keep us safe. But the truth will be that it will have been his policies and priorities that are leaving us exposed.
And the attacks will continue.
This new onset of terrorism is not the product of any change in the international environment or some new “systemic” flaw in our intelligence operations. It is due to the policy of President Obama in letting down our guard and inhibiting those charged with our protection.
Under Obama, the hunters have become the hunted as America inverted her priorities. Those who have been working to keep us safe have, themselves, come under scrutiny for profiling, harsh interrogation techniques, and a failure to give terrorists constitutional rights they don’t have.
The result is predictable: Timidity and caution have become the order of the day in our intelligence community. In a world where hunch, guesswork, and a willingness to leap to conclusions by imagining the worst are vital to success, a cover your butt mentality has taken over. If you come to the wrong conclusion, if you profile without adequate justification, if you accuse incorrectly, you are finished. Your career and your pension will be gone. Guess right and you are accorded anonymity. Guess wrong and you’re through.
The failure of the intelligence operatives to pass along the information about the Ft. Hood shooter or the airline bomber did not flow from a blind spot or a lack of co-ordination, they stemmed from terrorism of a different sort — the terror of making a mistake and falling on the harsh mercies of Eric Holder.
Now Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutall sits, lawyered up, in a federal prison. His interrogation will proceed, if at all, under the watchful eye of his counsel. He will not finger other operatives nor warn us of other impending attacks. He will receive the full panoply of constitutional rights, none of which he is entitled to.
Barack Obama does not seem to understand that these terrorists come here to use our laws and our system, not to protect us, not even to shelter themselves, but to destroy us.
Abdulmutall should be interrogated by the military, without benefit of counsel. The evidence we obtain should not be admissible in a court of law nor used as the basis for his sentencing. But it must be used to ward off future threats and attacks.
But Obama is a true believer. His persistence in downgrading the war on terror to a criminal investigation will continue. And we will experience more and more attacks. Because pessimism is the bodyguard of liberalism, he will explain to us that the world has become more threatening and that he is doing all he can to keep us safe. But the truth will be that it will have been his policies and priorities that are leaving us exposed.
And the attacks will continue.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Cheney: Obama pretends we’re not at war
(Cheney to Politico) “As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.
“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.”
Here are my remarks on my weekly BIBI report show:
"The 9-11 attacks learnt us, what Israel had suffered all these years was not a territorial conflict, not a fight between 2 sides , but a global fight over Freedom , a fight between fanatic radical Islam and the free world, a terror attack that makes no difference of race, faith, age and region is a intention of destroying our moral freedom.
as Jeff Jacoby writes in a article in the Boston Globe:
Therefore we must always remember that we are at a continues war that didn't end yet, although some Leaders (Obama etc). try to avoid using the words "War on terror", the War against radical Islam is far from over, this is our challenge, freedom is at stake, and answering in a quiet weak voice after a incident that could have been prevented, is a sign of weakness, and does not add to the power of overcoming our enemies in protecting freedom ....".
“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.”
Here are my remarks on my weekly BIBI report show:
"The 9-11 attacks learnt us, what Israel had suffered all these years was not a territorial conflict, not a fight between 2 sides , but a global fight over Freedom , a fight between fanatic radical Islam and the free world, a terror attack that makes no difference of race, faith, age and region is a intention of destroying our moral freedom.
as Jeff Jacoby writes in a article in the Boston Globe:
"Terrorism isn’t caused by poverty and ignorance. Abdulmutallab came from a wealthy and privileged family and had studied at one of Britain’s top universities. He wasn’t trying to kill hundreds of Americans out of socioeconomic despair. Like the 9/11 hijackers and countless other jihadists, Abdulmutallab was motivated by ideological and religious fanaticism. The teachings of militant Islam may seem monstrous to outsiders, but that is no reason to doubt that their adherents genuinely believe them or that by giving their lives for jihad they hope to change the world..."
"...Abdulmutallab’s attempted attack was “part of anything larger’’ - this even after he had acknowledged his ties to Al Qaeda. Of course Abdulmutallab is part of something larger: He is part of the global jihad - the relentless assault by Islamist radicals whose deadly serious goal is the submission of America and the West to Islamic law.."
Therefore we must always remember that we are at a continues war that didn't end yet, although some Leaders (Obama etc). try to avoid using the words "War on terror", the War against radical Islam is far from over, this is our challenge, freedom is at stake, and answering in a quiet weak voice after a incident that could have been prevented, is a sign of weakness, and does not add to the power of overcoming our enemies in protecting freedom ....".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)