« | »

NYT Poll: Obama Voters Lean Republican

From an outraged New York Times:

Coalition for Obama Split by Drift to G.O.P., Poll Finds

October 27, 2010

Critical parts of the coalition that delivered President Obama to the White House in 2008 and gave Democrats control of Congress in 2006 are switching their allegiance to the Republicans in the final phase of the midterm Congressional elections, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Republicans have wiped out the advantage held by Democrats in recent election cycles among women, Roman Catholics, less affluent Americans and independents. All of those groups broke for Mr. Obama in 2008 and for Congressional Democrats when they grabbed both chambers from the Republicans four years ago, according to exit polls.

If women choose Republicans over Democrats in House races on Tuesday, it will be the first time they have done so since exit polls began tracking the breakdown in 1982.

The poll provides a pre-Election Day glimpse of a nation so politically disquieted and disappointed in its current trajectory that 57 percent of the registered voters surveyed said they were more willing to take a chance this year on a candidate with little previous political experience. More than a quarter of them said they were even willing to back a candidate who holds some views that “seem extreme.”

On the issue most driving the campaign, the economy, Republicans have erased the traditional advantage held by Democrats as the party seen as better able to create jobs; the parties are now even on that measure. By a wide margin, Republicans continue to be seen as the party better able to reduce the federal budget deficit.

Which should give us all hope. It would seem that eventually reality will win out over even the best and most thorough propaganda.

The public wants compromise from both sides, though it thinks Mr. Obama will try to do so more than Republicans will.

Sure they do. Nothing says "compromise" like voting for a slew of candidates who promise they will not compromise their principles like the jackals they are replacing have done.

Yet for all of its general unhappiness, the electorate does not seem to be offering any clear guidance for Mr. Obama and the incoming Congress — whoever controls it — on the big issues.

Oh, of course not. It is impossible to discern what message is coming from the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party, and the most dramatic grassroots uprising against a run amuck government in our nation’s history.

While almost 9 in 10 respondents said they considered government spending to be an important issue, and more than half said they favored smaller government offering fewer services, there was no consensus on what programs should be cut.

What a laugh. The "clear guidance" is that the 9 out of 10 Americans want government cut.

There was clear opposition to addressing one of the government’s biggest long-term challenges — the growing costs of paying Social Security benefits — by raising the retirement age or reducing benefits for future retirees.

Notice how The Times, just like the rest of the media, always trot out Social Security as the only government program to cut. Never mind that it is one of the few government programs that at least pretends to pay for itself.

Moreover, Social Security is actually "insurance" that recipients have paid into, and not a ‘free’ welfare benefit. – Or at least that is how it started out. But our media masters always seize upon it to prove that Americans really don’t want the government to cut spending, after all.

Support for one of Mr. Obama’s main economic proposals — raising taxes on income above $250,000 a year — has declined substantially over the course of this year.

Exactly how does opposing raising taxes prove that the voters don’t want government spending cut?

Though Republicans have managed to keep Democrats on the defensive over the health care plan they enacted this year,  the poll also shows Americans remain divided over Republican promises to repeal it. Forty-five percent said the law should stand, and 41 percent said it should go

You see, opposition to Obama-care is just due to Republican propaganda. Also note that whenever a majority oppose something that The Times wants, the results are called "divided."

The poll includes indications that Republicans will have their own challenges should they gain control of one or both chambers of Congress with a new crop of lawmakers who identify with the Tea Party.

About 6 in 10 Republicans who are likely to vote think the views of most Republicans are consistent with those of the Tea Party movement, which, though diffuse, has had success this year in arguing that Republicans have been too eager to choose compromise over principle.

Yet 78 percent of respondents said they believed Republicans in Congress should compromise some of their positions to get things done and 15 percent said they should stick to their positions even if it means getting less done. Similar percentages said they wanted Democrats to choose compromise over principle.

And this last, of course, is the real reason for this entire poll. The New York Times wants to get this message about the need for "compromise" to the presumed victors.

We have already seen how our media masters have begun the drumbeat for compromise, which in itself is the surest sign that the Republicans are going to win big.

Though it is funny, how our watchdog media said nothing about the need for compromise when the Democrats were about to take control of the Congress in 2006. Nor was the need for compromise ever mentioned when Mr. Obama gave them total one party rule of Washington, in 2008.

Why is that?

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, October 28th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

12 Responses to “NYT Poll: Obama Voters Lean Republican”

  1. Rick Caird says:

    The left and the big government tyes only believe in compromise when they cannot get their way in the first place.

    This is fun: “Yet 78 percent of respondents said they believed Republicans in Congress should compromise some of their positions to get things done”. I wonder how the NYT worded the question and what the preceding question was. Notice, there was no talk about what things to get done, either.

    This is another “push poll” from the NYT designed to get the NYT view across, not to report anything else.

  2. Petronius says:

    Yes, yes, we all know how the voters feel.

    That’s all very well and good.

    But what about the voting machines?

    Doesn’t anybody ever consider how THEY feel?

    Perhaps it’s time to update and revisit one of our classic Bollingbath episodes :


    Is Senator Margaret Nash America’s Next President?

    The Sun. Thursday, 28 October 2010, London. “Go down to Wapping and see life,” Dr Samuel Johnson once advised the faithful Boswell. And so our intrepid reporter wandered down Narrow Street to The Grapes pub, where he found Viscount Hereward St John Reginald Arthur Fulbert Bollingbath, Tory Member for Stepney and Foreign Secretary, surrounded by his usual coterie, including the American ambassador, Ms Margaret Nash, Jack Kitchen, MP for Hackney and member of Prime Minister David Cameron’s inner circle, and Jack’s special friend, the proprietress of The Grapes, Ms Fiona Ridley, a former Playboy bunny and reputed chief of MI6.

And indeed Boswell would not have been disappointed, for The Grapes was absolutely bursting with life, as Lord Bollingbath, Ambassador Nash, Jack, and Fiona, all four as lively as ever, were celebrating Ms Nash’s recent appointment to the United States Senate.

Ambassador Nash was recently appointed as a Republican to fill the vacancy created by the mysterious disappearance of Democratic Senator Alf Cranken. The Republican governor of Minnesota, who made the appointment, called Ms Nash “the obvious choice,” saying she is “widely known as a woman who can not only weigh and judge the more obvious issues, she can make leaps of the imagination laterally, create possibilities no one else has considered, solve problems, and devise new methods of doing things. She has a kind of concentrated energy and inner excitement, as if she knows things other people do not. Clearly she is a woman whose name will be in the history books.”

Joining the celebration at The Grapes, Ms Nash and her three companions spontaneously burst into song, all swaying in unison, each arm hoisting a pint of Fuller’s London Pride,

“Come cheer up, my lads! ’tis to glory we steer,

    To add something more to this wonderful year . . . .”

Then the entire pub joined in with the rousing, thumping chorus:

“Heart of oak are our ships, heart of oak are our men . . . .”

The entire crowd seemed pleased to celebrate Ambassador Nash’s appointment as Senator from Minnesota. And that’s not all they have to cheer about. There is also the matter of Lord Bollingbath’s appointment as chairman of International Machines Technology (IMT), the world’s leading manufacturer of slot machines, ATMs, voting machines, and casino management systems.

By the terms of the government’s £3 billion bailout, the British government took controlling interest in IMT and a majority of seats on IMT’s board of directors. Lord Bollingbath’s appointment followed in due course.

Seated in the adjoining booth were three of Lord Bollingbath’s new American business associates, whom he gaily introduced to this reporter as “three outstanding American businessmen––but not only businessmen, something even better, they are what the Yanks call ‘community organizers,’ which, according to my understanding, is the highest calling to which any American can aspire! Yes, the very highest calling, and community organizers par excellence, all three of them!”

These American gentlemen were Mr Carmine “the Gent” Galluzzo, vice president of IMT’s Northeast Region, with offices in New York, Bayonne, Atlantic City, Philadelphia, and Boston; Mr Rubio “Ice Man” Ragucci, vice president for IMT’s Gulf Region, with offices in Miami, Biloxi, Tunica, and New Orleans; and Mr Jo Jo Gigante, vice president of IMT’s West Coast Region, with offices in Las Vegas, Reno, and Los Angeles. Readers of The Sun may recall Mr Gigante as the much acclaimed body builder and the former “Mr Nevada.”

IMT’s sensational new product, Heart of Oak Vote Model 2010, is the voting machine advertised under the popular slogan, “Mighty oaks from little acorns grow.” The Heart of Oak 2010 is in high demand, being the latest model preferred by England, Ireland, Italy, Iran, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and many of the cities and States in the USA. According to Lord Bollingbath, hundreds of licenses for the Heart of Oak 2010 have already been issued to electoral authorities for the States of Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida, Minnesota, Virginia, and North Carolina. Negotiations with California, Ohio, the city of Chicago, Mexico, and Bolivia are presently in progress.

Lord Bollingbath, always a man of dynamism, seemed to radiate energy. He was speaking about the possibility of Senator Nash making a run for the White House in 2012. “It isn’t largely the political issues that are the problem.” He dismissed them with a wave of his hand. “It is the engineering and production . . . .”

Senator Nash swung quickly round, elegantly flipping her hair with a little flick, and placed a graceful finger lightly on Lord Bollingbath’s lips to silence him. “If we must have this discussion at all, Reggie darling, could we at least put it off until after we have finished dining? I’m sure we are grateful that you seem to be taking charge of things, but your zeal has temporarily overtaken your good taste. I would prefer to have my fish and chips without the details.”

Leaving Senator Nash, Lord Bollingbath, Jack, and Fiona to their meal, our reporter eavesdropped on Lord Bollingbath’s new American business associates.

“Sorry I’m late,” Galluzzo said, but somehow Galluzzo gave the impression of a man who was never sorry about anything. Jo Jo nodded and glanced over at Rubio, wondering if Rubio could read what he was thinking. Jo Jo could never be sure what was going through Rubio’s mind.

“No problem, Carmine. Been talking with Rubio.” Rubio sat very still, and stared blankly at Galluzzo, eyes cold, his face expressionless. A muscle ticked dangerously in his jaw.

Galluzzo smiled, but it was a smile without humor, without warmth or affection. “So what you got for me, Jo Jo?” Galluzzo said.

“Guy I know is looking for more Oak 2010s.”

Galluzzo was quiet for a moment, his eyes heavy on Jo Jo. “Who is this guy?” he said finally.

“He’d like to remain anonymous,” Jo Jo said, nodding slightly in the direction of Lord Bollingbath.

“Wouldn’t everyone?” Galluzzo said. “Is it for the IRA?”

“No, nuthin’ like that.”

“Zealots are not good people to do business with,” Galluzzo observed, his eyebrow arched.

Jo Jo wasn’t exactly sure what a zealot was. But he knew Lord Bollingbath wasn’t negotiating with the IRA. At least not this time. “His Royal Highness is interested in an engineering project that may be undertaken by our company,” Jo Jo began again, regaining his confidence. “The three of us are here in London, at his invitation, in order to discuss the possibilities––the details, if you like. . . . Me and Rubio, we been here two days already, and the discussions have been excellent.”

Galluzzo looked unimpressed. He gave a very slight shrug. It was a minimal, elegant gesture of his shoulders. He was far leaner than Jo Jo, and more at ease in his beautifully tailored Italian suit. “What’s in it for me?” he asked.

“There’s plenty in it for all of us, Carmine.” Jo Jo hunched his shoulders in an effort to stretch and loosen his thick back muscles, restricted by his jacket and the heavy Glock Model 19 semi-automatic pistol strapped to his ribs, and discretely glanced around the room. He picked up his pen, jotted something on a napkin, and slid the napkin, face down, across the table to Galluzzo. Galluzzo curled his hand over the napkin, looked at what Jo Jo had written, then folded the napkin into his pocket and nodded. “Can you do something for us?” Jo Jo asked. “Fix it with the unions? We need to ramp up production. Got a big order for the Oak 2010s coming in from the governor of California. Rubio made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. . . .”

The rest of their conversation was drowned out by another rousing outburst of the chorus,

“Heart of oak are our ships, heart of oak are our men . . . .”

  3. John The Builder says:

    Every election in my memory has the same issues.

    1) The liberals lie, cheat and steal to win.
    2) The media is in the tank for the liberals.
    3) The establishment of both parties take newcomers to DC and quickly corrupt them to conform to the establishment.
    4) The government grows and continues to be a resource hog and freedom killer.

    I think the difference in this election is that all of these items have become obvious to a lot of people who normally don’t pay that much attention. I don’t talk politics with my wife and daughter because they hate the subject, but they have figured this out without a whole lot of effort.

    I can’t help wondering how much better shape this country would be in if the media was not constantly shilling for the liberals.

  4. proreason says:

    Lets see.

    What would have happened if the Founding Fathers had compromised? Well, for starters, the East Coast would still be part of the British Empire. America would probably be split between France, Spain, England and one or two other countries.

    What would have happened if Lincoln had compromised? Most likely, the Civil War would have happened 20 to 50 years later with even more slaughter. But perhaps the country would have split apart and slavery might have continued for another 100 years.

    What would have happened if the US had compromised with the Axis Powers? Germany would probably still rule Europe. The Jews would have been exterminated. Japan would probably still rule Asia, much of which would be enslaved.

    What would have happened if the US had compromised with the USSR? The USSR would now rule all of Europe, all of the Middle East, and most of South America. Russia would be the world’s superpower and the dictates of madmen would govern the world.

    Oh yeh, compromise is great, particularly for the party that was losing.

  5. tranquil.night says:

    The Times is only admitting it because the Dems are so desperate to stop the message of the Tea Party, even if they can’t stop it entirely now. Obviously the popular narrative the Left is pushing now is “compromise” because getting us to let up is the best they can hope for now.

    “Notice how The Times, just like the rest of the media, always trot out Social Security as the only government program to cut. Never mind that it is one of the few government programs that at least pretends to pay for itself.

    Moreover, Social Security is actually “insurance” that recipients have paid into, and not a ‘free’ welfare benefit. – Or at least that is how it started out. But our media masters always seize upon it to prove that Americans really don’t want the government to cut spending, after all.”

    You know who needs to take notice are our candidates. This is one of the most common plays along with cutting Medicare in the Democrat campaign book everytime Republicans tighten their belt fiscally.

    Yet everytime they use it, we end up on the defense, sheepishly denying “No! No! We’re not going to do that!” and then are afraid to aggressively talk about the big government waste that CAN be attacked until we have the larger consensus on the bigger reforms.

    Use the facts, articulate them calmly and inarguably, and turn these ridiculous lies on their heads. Democrats are experts at the narrative of mind-control, but it’s only because the experienced one’s are well-versed in Alinsky tactics and they work as a collective mechanism of media, politicians, and others who establish the cultural responsiveness to their talking points. If the Republicans would take lessons from eachother like the Dems do, and actually learned from the styles of Marco Rubio and Chris Christie who no one can effectively call “radical” yet are still getting the job done, then there would be no Democrat Party anymore.

    Articulate the truth, counter the lies. You’ll end up with at least 60/40 majority support. Every time.

    • proreason says:

      Rest assured, tn, that anybody who works steadily during the course of his or her life has paid into Social Security MUCH MORE than they will ever get out.

      For starters, as you know, every dime that is confiscated from your paycheck is matched by your employer, not because your employer is happily charitable, but because they are forced at the point of a gun. So, being business people, they reduce you wages by the equivalent amount.

      But what most people don’t realize is that when Social Security taxes are returned in the form of a payment (if you are lucky enough to live that long), the payment is HEAVILY REGRESSIVE. How regressive? This regressive: low wage earners get 90% of their average lifetime wages as their SS payments. High earners get about 30% of their average lifetime wages (which are capped as well). Common sense will tell you that the high earners, in addition to receiving a 1/3 payments per earnings are also HEAVILY SUBSIDIZING low wage earners. Of course, it’s much worse for Medicare because there is no cap on the income that is taxed for Medicare. Highly productive people could literally pay millions into Medicare and get nothing out.

      Plus, if you are single and die young, every dime you put into the system goes to somebody else, not your heirs. Oh….excuse me……somebody will get your $255 “death benefit”. That will get you a nice bouquet of flowers for your coffin. If you and a spouse both die before the age of 62, all of BOTH of your lifetime contributions will be given to somebody else.

      So, anybody who willingly agrees to foresake even one thin dime of Social Security (or Medicare) is a fool of epic proportions.

      Any conservative who calls it an “entitlement” is also a fool. It’s only an “entitlement” if you think the government owns everything that you earn and the “gives” it back to you.

      Stop any idiot in his tracks who begins to imply that Social Security is a benefit. It’s not. It’s a small fraction of your own money, returned to you if you are lucky enough to live long enough to get it back.

    • JohnMG says:

      And as I’ve noted here before, pro, as a self employed person, I get the privilege of paying BOTH halves of my contribution, yet cannot draw any more out than can one of my employees for whom I’ve had to match contributions.

      I’ve been getting screwed all my life. Why am I not in thrilled?

    • proreason says:

      That’s what you get, John, for starting your own business and providing jobs for other people that aren’t gubamint jobs.

      If on the other hand, you had gone to work for the gubamint losing letters or pretending you were counting stuff for a couple of hours a day, you would be handsomely rewarded with multiple pensions that for many people, will exceed their average lifetime wages after a few years of retirement.

      Let others take heed.

  6. tranquil.night says:

    Thanks Pro your expertise continues to be invaluable (they need to take your to Washington, heh). Is there not one government program or agency that hasn’t just become a scam for redistributing wealth? I don’t think so.

    The choice just couldn’t be much clearer at this point.

  7. Liberals Demise says:

    Obama voters don’t like being gagged and bound by thugs in suits anymore than you or I. Obama voters for the most part were hoodwinked and bamboozled by a flashy, skinny, halfrican-american (?) commie socialist without the ‘hood ebonics.
    In other words…………………… a DORK!!

« Front Page | To Top
« | »