March 13, 2012

"Over at Salon, they’re worried about Obama’s sudden polling crash."

And, "The New York Times caught cocooning in public."

120 comments:

Quaestor said...

Do you think Salon would worry about a crash in Romney's numbers? Or would they crow?

damikesc said...

Maybe...he just is not that likeable.

Curious George said...

I'm sure Hat Boy will come to clear this up as soon as he has finished being the bottom.

shiloh said...

If nothing else, Salon appreciates the shout out. Hey, Althouse doesn't discriminate as her "current" aspiration in life is to seek out negative Obama info whenever/wherever.

And "we" wish her well in her lofty goal. :)

>

btw, the most useless (5) words in politics:

If the election were held now.

btw, if the election were held now :-P mittens would still lose, C-in-C qualifications notwithstanding.

shiloh said...

(6) words

SteveR said...

Most people who equate the availability of free birth control pills with Women's health, aren't going to vote for any republican, anyway.

Anyone who thinks Rush Limbaugh is the GOP nominee for president in 2012, is already going to vote for Obama.

cubanbob said...

Being blind Shiloh doesn't understand that most taxpayers when asked "who are you going to believe Obama or your lying eyes" choose their eyes.

Chase said...

Shilo,

Repeat after me:

Pres-i-dent Rom-ney.

Say it out loud.

Please let us know your plans for election night. Bar? Parenthood "War(on Women)Room?

traditionalguy said...

Axelrod had better quit waiting crank up his sympathy campaign for smiling and valiant Obama the black man in the race who wants to take the RICH peoples money for our benefit.

And did you hear, he killed Bin Laden and he freed us from carbon based energy slavery that cheap energy Palin style was causing babies to be born and poisoning Gaia's Pure Earth.

Well OK, how about the GOP hates women?

edutcher said...

Yesterday, all the trolls were out, trying to do damage control.

Now they've been undercut by the media. So bathtub swabbie now plays Keven Bacon at the parade in "Animal House".

Which may explain this finding. As they used to say, it is to laugh.

PS And this is about the time in '80, after Desert One, when the media started souring on Old Bucketmouth.

Pogo said...

When Obama generates a positive result, shiloh, do let us know.

MadisonMan said...

I used to read salon a lot, more than 10 years ago. Wow.

Not so much now. Does the pilot guy still write monthly articles? I found those interesting.

Hagar said...

I am not sure either, that I want to buy this story about gas prices being the source of Obama's popularity problem, or even a major part of it.

Let's wait and see if these polls is a temporary aberration or the start of something bigger.

Maybe just one crack to many has appeared in the facade, and some folks are beginning to wonder if they have just been had after all.

garage mahal said...

When Obama generates a positive result, shiloh, do let us know

Shush! Only GOP-Friendly polls are discussed here. Follow the Story Book :)

Quayle said...

The tyranny of post-60s labels like 'racist' and 'sexist' is almost over.

The left used to be able to clear the deck.

Now they just look pathetic.

And, think for a moment - how much longer can the boomer lefty nomenklatura keep the 20 - 40 year olds in line?

They've robbed the younger generations absolutely blind by keeping them focused on crit-study presumptions of conflict between the races and sexes.

"Look! A Racist!" as a distraction to your pocket being picked.

Blue@9 said...

Do you think Salon would worry about a crash in Romney's numbers? Or would they crow?

No, they'd see it as confirmation that good Americans see through his evil sham.

Of course, if they vote out Obama, it would be confirmation that America is evil and racist.


Shiloh does have something right though, which is that these polls are meaningless. May as well predict who's going to win the Superbowl. Shit, for all we know the Mayan Deathship is going to land in October and everything that we find politically significant today will be inconsequential come November.

cubanbob said...

garage mahal said...
When Obama generates a positive result, shiloh, do let us know

Shush! Only GOP-Friendly polls are discussed here. Follow the Story Book :)

3/13/12 1:33 PM

Yes, once again whom do we believe? You or our lying eyes? Salon has rightly recognized that Obama has one huge problem: his record. All the republican candidate has to show is : here is Obama's campaign promises and here is what he has delivered. And as Obama himself said if he can't deliver he doesn't deserve a second term. He hasn't and he doesn't. So again, who do the sane, non moocher voters vote for? Obama or their lying eyes? It's the economy, stupid!

Pogo said...

Do tell, garage.

Fill me in: How are we better off than 4 years ago?

Frame it in a way not meant just to encourage the already-committed left.

David said...

I'll pay attention if the results stay at this lever for another two or three polling cycles.

shiloh said...

Yesterday, gallup had Obama 48/44, today 47/46. Today Rasmussen has Obama 49/51.

yada yada yada

As always Althouse conservatives, it's early soooo pace yourselves.

Again, Bush43 was re-elected w/48% Gallup job approval as presidential elections come down to choices.

Your easily swayed czar er leader notwithstanding. :-P

Pogo said...

You too, shiloh.

Tell me how we are better off than we were 4 years ago.

TMink said...

The crash is only sudden to folks who have not been following his popularity.

It always seems sudden when denial breaks, because it is SUBJECTIVELY sudden.

Trey

shiloh said...

2008 and since economists don't blame the president for the economy in the 1st year of their presidency, we'll give cheney/bush 2009 as well.

Again, the rhetorical question:

Will cheney/bush be allowed to appear at the 2012 Rep convention in Tampa?

Alex said...

Can anyone name one actual positive deed Obama has done that doesn't violate liberal ideals?

Alex said...

shiloh is a simple-minded buffoon who praises or blames the POTUS for the state of the economy. Or he is very smart and cynical and knows how to manipulate people into believing that. Either way he's a cancer on the body politic.

Curious George said...

"edutcher said...

Which may explain this finding. As they used to say, it is to laugh."

Ain't it the truth. Both my sister and their husbands have "unfriended" me on Facebook.
Because I posted factual rebuttals to some their postings. Liberals need their echo chamber. They build their life around it.

John M Auston said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John M Auston said...

Liberals need their echo chamber. They build their life around it.

Cognitive dissonance is not a made up fancy phrase. It is a very real thing, and it hurts.

It literally pains a Liberal when CD is flushed out by counter-arguments and facts.

Thus, the need for the echo chamber, and the need to silence 'dissent'.

If only they knew how good is feels to be a conservative.

garage mahal said...

Fill me in: How are we better off than 4 years ago?

Well, I remember most people were shitting their pants as the economy just lost 700k+ jobs the month before, and the banks were melting down like Fukushima. Better than that? Sure.

EDH said...

Particular issues aside, I wonder if it's sinking in that Obama's election strategy is to pick a series of divisive battles that really don't bear on the issues of the day for most people.

Pogo said...

Great argument, garage.

Obama 2012: Slightly better than the financial panic of 2008!

A real winner.

How about:Obama 2012: It could be worse!

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

It will be real interesting once Romney clinches. Democrats will be left with circling the wagons around Obama, inventing one war on (insert aggrieved party here) after another as the public prepares to hoist president foodstamps on his own oily petard.

It should be fun.

bagoh20 said...

"Tell me how we are better off than we were 4 years ago."

We now know how stupid it is to hire an executive with absolutely zero history of success or experience to the most important job in the world.

Tank said...

Alex said...

Can anyone name one actual positive deed Obama has done that doesn't violate liberal ideals?


Snorted some coke?

Authorized shooting pirates in the head - pretty sure even libs don't side with pirate/kidnappers, do they?

Lem said...

Obamas gas price gambit is very simple.. simple as a Men's Warehouse commercial.. let it go up, so he can markdown, just in time for the election.

Watch the pipeline get approved this summer and other things presidents can do at anytime to see to it that the price of gas goes down.

John Stodder said...

GOP-Friendly polls are discussed here

The New York Times poll? WaPo/ABC?

MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...

Just as the Republican primaries have been a roller coaster, so it looks like Obama's poll numbers are subject to the same kind of volatility.

We've got a very unsettled electorate of all persuasions. It tells me in this era, the right thing to do with all the polls and the pundits who write about polls is not to overplay their importance.

garage mahal said...

Obama 2012: Slightly better than the financial panic of 2008!

Instead of endless lies Romney will have to put forth something to the electorate why he should be put in charge. And Romney really has nothing other than "give my rich friends more tax cuts", or stupid shit like "Obama is apologizing to our enemies". As they say, good luck with that.

Roger J. said...

Tank--re shooting pirates--gotta tell you that was a great piece of marksmanship--shooting a barett 50 cal off the fantail of a destroyer where the platform is pitching and rolling. Wonder what the last thing that went thru the pirates minds other than the 50 cal slug

Revenant said...

Well, I remember most people were shitting their pants as the economy just lost 700k+ jobs the month before, and the banks were melting down like Fukushima. Better than that?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

In November of 2008 there were 135,002,000 full-time non-farm jobs in the United States.

In December of 2011 there were 132,166,000.

Still, I guess you could say that the 2,836,000 missing jobs are ones people are no longer "shitting their pants" about losing. You can't lose what you haven't got.

Rusty said...

Fill me in: How are we better off than 4 years ago?

Well, I remember most people were shitting their pants as the economy just lost 700k+ jobs the month before, and the banks were melting down like Fukushima. Better than that? Sure.


Got a flash for ya there sport. After 3 1/2 years, things haven't improved.
But you just keep thinkin, Butch. Someday you'll get good at it.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Well, I remember most people were shitting their pants as the economy just lost 700k+ jobs the month before, and the banks were melting down like Fukushima. Better than that? Sure..."

Well the good news is we stopped the bleeding. The bad news is we need to amputate your legs.

Revenant said...

Instead of endless lies Romney will have to put forth something to the electorate why he should be put in charge

The 2008 election suggests it is possible to win election with no more of a plan than "I'm not the other guy".

Roger J. said...

IMO too early to put much stock in polls--late October maybe, but the only poll that counts is in November. Polls keep the horserace aspect of primaries and elections in play and give the half witted pundits something to blabber about on 24 hour news cycles. Now 4 dollar a gasoine will attract some voter attention.

Tank said...

Can't argue with that Roger.

Tough enough shooting under pressure laying on the ground or standing still.

Of course, pretty low bar for captain zero - allowing military to shoot kidnappers.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Instead of endless lies Romney will have to put forth something to the electorate why he should be put in charge..."

It worked for Obama.

Hagar said...

@ Garage,

Look around you. Have you ever seen a time when there were so many things surrounding us teetering and looking ready to crash?

And some of them looking to be potentially really grim?

bagoh20 said...

As someone who has done it more than once, I can tell you that there is no opportunity so promising as the one where the organization has just taken a dive and you are asked to fix it. Obama blew an excellent opportunity, because he has the wrong ideas.

When given that opportunity you need to cut costs and the power of those who created them, while giving your full attention to what is paying the bills and give those who are part of the positive side the authority and freedom to employ their sensibility.

Obama has done the exact opposite. Just one of many examples is his giving the Pelosi congress the job of healthcare reform. That's like putting a tax cheater in charge of the treasury. Now, who would do something like that?

edutcher said...

It's only going to get worse.

Off Cavuto:

Beef, eggs, cheese, milk, sugar all up 10% over last year

Corn up 12%

Potatoes up 15%

We're so much better off with Zero.

bagoh20 said...

It's pretty hard to stop the pendulum of economic activity from swinging back in your favor after 2 years. That takes a special talent that we as electors have rarely found in a President.

Love said...

The daily Gallup polling has him at 47% approval and 46% disapproval.

The polling is always all over the place.

The key will be in November when he flattens whoever the GOP finally annoints as their latest savior.

I think a Santorum Bachmann ticket would be fun.

bagoh20 said...

"I think a Santorum Bachmann ticket would be fun."

You go on and fantasize there. The GOP already has their fantasy opponent in Obama. They're just trying to decide which of bench warmers gets the honors.

Love said...

edutcher - So now the President has something to do with the price of commodities?

ANd...

Prices for New York state farmers producing milk, corn and apples decreased between November and December while prices for hay and potatoes increased, a reported released by the United States Department of Agriculture said Monday.

Local dairy farmers received an average of $18.40 per hundred weight of milk last month, down $1 compared to November. Last month's price was still up $1.30 compared to December 2009.

Grain corn, which sold for $5.20 per bushel, decreased by 3 cents last month compared to November, but was up $1.42 compared to December 2009.

Apples sold for $25.60 per hundred weight last month, $1.20 less compared to November's prices but up $4.10 compared to December 2009.

Hay sold for $105 per hundred weight last month, up $1 compared to November but still down $24 compared to December 2009.

Potatoes averaged $13.30 per hundred weight, up 90 cents compared to November and up $1.20 compared to December 2009.

Read more: http://auburnpub.com/news/local/article_126ba1f0-175b-11e0-89b4-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1p1xGiJZ9

Revenant said...

The key will be in November when he flattens whoever the GOP finally annoints as their latest savior.

"Flattens"? That's just silly. He had every possible advantage last time and won by 7%. If he wins at all it will be closer than that -- he has done plenty of things that annoy voters (bailouts, ObamaCare, etc) and very little that they liked.

We can expect to see plenty of commercials about how "he" killed bin Laden; that's pretty much the only significant thing he's done that voters actually approve of.

Love said...

bagoh20 - Yeah, the current crop of dildos you've got competing for the GOP nod has Presient Obama shaking in his boots.

Now if only one of them could actually get over 50% of their OWN party's vote...

shiloh said...

As the endless Althouse Obama whining continues unabated.

Gotta love that conservative consistency! :)

Love said...

Rev - "He had every possible advantage last time and won by 7%."

He didn't have "every possible advantage."

First of all there were plenty who still wanted Hillary, he had only served two years in the Senate, and of course, being black certainly wouldn't qualify as being some kind of "advatage."

Your buddy, John McCain, choosing the Alaskan twit certinaly helped out though.

Revenant said...

edutcher - So now the President has something to do with the price of commodities?

The downside of running on a platform of "the government will make your life better" is that it is hard to say "I couldn't do anything about it" when people's lives get worse.

Hagar said...

I just got to thinking that this contraception - women's health flap looks a lot like an issue contrived by men to appeal to women.

A lot of women may not say much, but they really do not like that sort of thing?

shiloh said...

Aplogies to Alaskan twits ...

John Stodder said...

The key will be in November when he flattens whoever the GOP finally annoints as their latest savior.

Uh-huh. Obama is just massively popular right now. It's easy to tell. Everything he does, the network news shows praise him for it. You never saw that happening under Bush, and look what happened to him! The networks are a very key indicator of popular support. They need high ratings, so they reflect the public's attitudes.

Like that whole thing about the Republican War on Women! So true! That alone will get all the women on his side!

(Wait...what was that? Women are opposed to the contraception mandate? The public opposes it now by 19 percent? What Fox News crap are you reading that from? Oh... the New York Times? The NYT poll?)

edutcher said...

Love said...

edutcher - So now the President has something to do with the price of commodities?

Gas prices go up, the cost of growing things goes up, the cost of transporting crops to market goes up, the cost of transporting crops to the manufacturer goes up, the cost of transporting finished products to the wholesaler goes up, the cost of transporting products to the retailer goes up.

You'd think Love would understand this.

All the Lefties here do is circle jerk.

Quaestor said...

Tank wrote:
[Obama] authorized shooting pirates in the head - pretty sure even libs don't side with pirate/kidnappers, do they?

Correct, they don't side with pirate/kidnappers. But the point is academic since there are no pirate/kidnappers to be against. That just another calumny voiced by the knuckle-dragging Rush Limbaugh wing of conservatism. Those so-called pirates are either the innocent victims of the grinding poverty engendered by American imperialism, or else they are valiant eco-warriors battling toxic waste dumping by the myrmidons of American imperialism.

Revenant said...

He didn't have "every possible advantage."

Well, let's see:

- Extremely unpopular opposition party incumbent: check

- Economy getting worse on opposition's watch: check

- Friendly media. Check

- Opposition candidate disliked by his own party: Check.

- Demoralized opposition: Check.

- Unified party support: Check. Spare me the "Hillary still had supporters" crap -- the Clintons got behind Obama once he secured the nomination.

- He represented a key Democratic demographic, namely black Americans. This substantially increased black voter turnout and caused around half of black Republicans to defect. It had no negative impact with non-black voters. Overall, it accounts for about a sixth of his margin of victory.

What other possible advantage could he plausibly have had? I guess if McCain had been caught cheating on his wife with Sarah Palin that would have been something...

and of course, being black certainly wouldn't qualify as being some kind of "advatage."

Hilarious. Who do you think you're fooling? If he wasn't black, Hillary Clinton would be President right now.

edutcher said...

John Stodder said...

Like that whole thing about the Republican War on Women! So true! That alone will get all the women on his side!

(Wait...what was that? Women are opposed to the contraception mandate? The public opposes it now by 19 percent? What Fox News crap are you reading that from? Oh... the New York Times? The NYT poll?)


And get ready for the gift that keeps on giving!!!!

Ms Fluck announces she WILL NOT BE SILENCED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(oh, dare we hope)

Another step on the road to Cindy.

WV "ofurr" What ironrails says when he meets a full-flavored woman.

damikesc said...

He didn't have "every possible advantage."

First of all there were plenty who still wanted Hillary, he had only served two years in the Senate, and of course, being black certainly wouldn't qualify as being some kind of "advatage."


Hold on to that myth.

He had an economic meltdown that was blamed SOLELY on his predecessor and his party (though his predecessor AND opponent in 2008 both saw problems years earlier and Dems blocked attempts at reform). He had a press that carried the water for him to a stunning level --- even the media admits that now. He had an insane funding advantage. He had no record to run on and it was, amazingly, a BENEFIT.

Nobody has had the massive benefits running for office that Obama did since FDR (who, ironically, was ALSO an economics ignoramus).

Yeah, the current crop of dildos you've got competing for the GOP nod has Presient Obama shaking in his boots.

They lead him in many polls while slamming each other and Obama is barely mentioned.

That's not a positive sign for the Pres.

So now the President has something to do with the price of commodities?

Blocking drilling, blocking Keystone, etc --- all tend to not do a lot to help the cost of oil.

Imagine if we opened up ANWR when Bush asked. It'd be online pumping oil right about now.

Prices for New York state farmers producing milk, corn and apples decreased between November and December while prices for hay and potatoes increased, a reported released by the United States Department of Agriculture said Monday.

Grand.

The wife and I buy groceries each week. Rest assured --- prices aren't dropping on much. Milk is still insanely expensive.

Instead of endless lies Romney will have to put forth something to the electorate why he should be put in charge.

I'll note the current President never did that.

Well, I remember most people were shitting their pants as the economy just lost 700k+ jobs the month before

What month was that? December 2008 had job losses of 524,000. November was 583,000. January 2009? 598,000. All bad --- but where did the Progressives come up with this "losing 700,000 jobs a month" nonsense?

Will cheney/bush be allowed to appear at the 2012 Rep convention in Tampa?

Have they even asked to speak there?

Michael said...

The economy is projected to grow at north of two percent, up from sub two percent. Past recoveries have averaged north of six percent and began months and not nearly two years from the official end of the recession. It takes around 200000 new jobs per month to keep even with people entering the workforce. These are not encouraging metrics. Though the average person has no idea about the preceeding they nonetheless know in their marrow that the economy remains, kindly, fragile. The cost to fill their cars has gone from a meaningless amount five years ago to amounts that require the pumps to stop and make you pay before you re-insert the card to continue to fill up. They hear the president yammering on and on about what they cant tell you because he talks so much and so often they no longer tune in.

Love said...

educher - "Gas prices go up, the cost of growing things goes up"

This President has nothing to do with gas prices...no more than the previous President did when prices spiked in the same wqay.

Why not read up on the causes of rising prices instead of parroting the drivel the rest of the GOP throws out?

1. 65% of oil is purchsed by speculators who never even take possession.
2. An improving economy produces a need for more fuel. (supply and demand)
3. The middle east situaion effects the price of oil.

Read more...talk less.

Love said...

Michael - This is unlike any previous recession.

And it began in December of 2007.

Love said...

damikesc "Hold on to that myth."

Which part isn't true?

Love said...

damikesc "They lead him in many polls while slamming each other and Obama is barely mentioned."

Show me the polls where "they lead him."

Love said...

damikesc - Read through these seven different polls and with the exception of one...show me the one where Obama is behind:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Eric said...

Wow. Romney sure is benefiting from the weakness of the Democratic bench.

Matt said...

These polls mean nothing. Besides the GOP has nothing in return except white hot rhetoric and Sarah Palin - who provides lots of humor.

Love said...

damekesc - "Blocking drilling, blocking Keystone, etc --- all tend to not do a lot to help the cost of oil."

Drilling is UP, production is UP, imports are DOWN...and the Keystone pipeline will do nothing for American consumers. It's designed to move the oil from Canada to ports so the oil can be transported faster to other countries.

*The number of oil drilling rigs in the U.S. hit a record last week, having quadrupled in number over the past three years. Between oil and gas drilling rigs, the U.S. now has more rigs at work than the rest of the world combined. The current oil boom has buoyed the projections of some leading oil industry analysts:

“It’s staggering,” said Marshall Adkins, who directs energy research for the financial services firm Raymond James. “If we continue growing anywhere near that pace and keep squeezing demand out of the system, that puts you in a world where we are not importing oil in 10 years.”

Alex said...

Love - obviously you do not buy into the notion of peak oil.

Love said...

Alex - My comments and factual referencing relates the notion that ANY president can somehow lower the cost of fuel.

If you believe that to be the case, why didn't Bush do something when it spiked during his second term?

As for the "peak oil" theories, I'll leave them to you to settle for everybody.

Alex said...

Love - so you are a typical cornucopian who is all for pumping every last drop of sweet, sweet crude oil until collapse. Have you ever read about Hubbert Peak Theory?

Old Dad said...

Love,

You should be a speech writer for Romney. All your superlatives vis a vis energy are in spite of the President's policies.

avwh said...

"This President has nothing to do with gas prices...no more than the previous President did when prices spiked in the same way."

That MUST explain why Obama and other Dems RAILED against Bush when gas prices got close to $3/gallon (about 35% LESS than they are now).

You lefties - just keep on deluding yourselves all the way to a November debacle.

Fen said...

being black certainly wouldn't qualify as being some kind of "advatage."

Howler! Its the only reason the libtards voted for him.

DHOTUS. Diversity Hire of the United States.

Not qualified for the job. Selected because of his skin color. Can't handle the workload. Fumbles everything. Grows frustrated then bitter then angry. Blames the system for his failures. Blames Bush. Blames everyone else except himself.

And you gave us this clown. All so that you could renew your "enlightened" cred amoung your fellow liberals... all gathered around the water cooler trying to figure out why the high price of oil is affecting grocery store prices. Idiots.

No wonder you want to harp about "free" contraception being a Womyn's Right.

AJ Lynch said...

How long will it take the Beltway pundits to blame Obama's falling support on the impatient, uninformed Americans?

Alex said...

Or maybe most women don't want to be pandered to by liberal Democrats.

Fen said...

This President has nothing to do with gas prices...

Unless he:

1) nixes a key pipeline

2) sends Canadian oil suppliers into the arms of China

3) creates a regulatory stranglehold on domestic drilling and refineries

4) support increased gas prices as a way to drive consumers toward green "energy".

But other than that, no. He's not responsible. Must be Bush's fault again. Or the bitter-clingers. Or the Koch brothers. Or Rush. Or the Jews.

What a failure. Next time, can you guys find a competent candidate, regardless of skin color? Because Obama will go down in History as the archetype of why Affirmative Action is a joke.

Alex said...

I suggest a recent film called "The Road" as preview of what Obamanomics will take us.

Matt said...

Fen
Yes, the President alone controls gas prices. All the things he did - apparently alone - single handedly changed gas prices for the worse. And the price has nothing to do with OPEC or supply and demand around the world. Come on....

Its not Bush's fault either. Maybe Americans need to get in shape and start bicyling more. Or taking a bus.

damikesc said...

damikesc - Read through these seven different polls and with the exception of one...show me the one where Obama is behind:

Tied in 2 against Romney and trailing in ABC poll. Trailing Santorum in USA Today poll.

Do you look at what you cite before citing it?

This President has nothing to do with gas prices...no more than the previous President did when prices spiked in the same wqay.

...yet Dems blamed Bush for it, with Pelosi saying the Dems have a plan to lower them. Apparently, global financial crisis is a plan the Dems had.

And Bush didn't do much to stop production. Obama definitely cannot say the same.

This is unlike any previous recession

Provided you ignore the 1970's - 1982. And 2001 would've been worse if an inept buffoon was in the WH then as well.

Drilling is UP

On PRIVATELY OWNED LANDS, yes. On lands the government has any control over --- no, it definitely is not.

production is UP

Given oil takes a DECADE or so to go online, any increases are not thanks to Obama. However, shutting down the Gulf? That is ALL Obama.

imports are DOWN

A terrible economy will do that to you.

and the Keystone pipeline will do nothing for American consumers. It's designed to move the oil from Canada to ports so the oil can be transported faster to other countries.

Because oil isn't a global market and an increase in supply won't lower costs at all. Naturally.

Alex - My comments and factual referencing relates the notion that ANY president can somehow lower the cost of fuel.

If you believe that to be the case, why didn't Bush do something when it spiked during his second term?


So, are you calling the Dems liars for saying he was responsible for them to pay off his "oil buddies"? That was a common refrain from the donkey brigade.

Even Teh Won said Bush was bad when oil approached $3.00/gallon. That'd be a GREAT price now...thanks to the policy of our inept President.

Michael said...

Love. "Michael - This is unlike any previous recession"

Correct. The point is the recession is officially over so "this" is not the operative word if you are a Democrat. Instead, having declared the recession over in the summer of 2009 the President has had two and a half years to promote the recovery which by any measure is tepid. As for oil production it is on private land and the president has absolutely nothing, nothing, to do with that increased production. You wont get far with "talking points" here. They are great soundbites where there is no time to respond, but here on the internet there is all the time in the world

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Besides the GOP has nothing in return except white hot rhetoric.."

Well it worked for Obama in 2008.

edutcher said...

Love said...

This President has nothing to do with gas prices...no more than the previous President did when prices spiked in the same wqay.

Matt said...

Yes, the President alone controls gas prices. All the things he did - apparently alone - single handedly changed gas prices for the worse.

This is the President that said if Congress wouldn't do what he wanted, he'd go around Congress.

He went around Congress.

He owns it.

So do you.

Tell Kos this is one talking point that nobody's gonna buy.

Matt said...

edutcher
Obama probably did say he could control gas prices. So are all the GOP nominees. They are all trying to fool you into thinking they can control oil prices. They can't. Either can Obama. But, yes, he owns it because he said he did. Oh well.

Read this here about gas prices.

edutcher said...

He's on record as wanting $8 a gallon gas.

He's also on record as saying if Congress didn't implement cap&trade, he'd do it by executive order and EPA regulations.

Which he's done.

But keep up the "La la la, I can't hear you".

Matt said...

edutcher
When did Obama say he wanted $8.00 a gallon? Did he really, as President, say at a news conference or a speech he actually wanted $8.00 a gallon? I'm skeptical.

ken in sc said...

"This is called bad luck." --Robert Heinlein.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

edutcher,

Off Cavuto:

Beef, eggs, cheese, milk, sugar all up 10% over last year

Corn up 12%

Potatoes up 15%


Yes. If you actually shop for your own food, you will have noticed this. IIRC Palin was ridiculed for noticing that food prices were rising, by people who most likely hadn't seen the inside of a grocery store in years.

Love said...

avwh "That MUST explain why Obama and other Dems RAILED against Bush when gas prices got close to $3/gallon (about 35% LESS than they are now)."

They got a hell of a lot higher than than.

Do the research...gas price under bush went to $4.21 a gallon in 2008 and was over $3.00 a gallon most of his last term in office.

The only reason gas was at $1.85 when President Obama took office is because of the economic crash which greatly reduced demand and the crash effected all countries not just the US.

Old Dad said...

Love,

Thank goodness, the law of supply and demand is still in effect.

I wonder if the market considers at all the President's obvious bias toward reducing supply?

Writ Small said...

From the Salon piece:

"And [Obama’s] weakening position cut across all major demographic groups, even among those with which he has kept an edge over his Republican challengers: women, independents, moderates, college graduates and younger voters. "

This is evidence that the perceived inevitibility (and broad acceptability) of Romney is playing a big part in Obama's drop. Independents, moderates and collge graduates would not be fleeing the good ship Obama for Newt or Santorum. Like I said on the other thread, the lack of debates isn't hurting the Republican candidates either. Many debates are exercises in ganking the frontrunner.

bagoh20 said...

Love said...

bagoh20 - Yeah, the current crop of dildos you've got competing for the GOP nod has Presient Obama shaking in his boots.

Now if only one of them could actually get over 50% of their OWN party's vote...

3/13/12 3:27 PM

According to CBS polling at this time in 2008 Obama had only 45% of the Dems favoring him in a 2 person primary race, and only 39% of all registered voters.

Looks like it's our dildo versus your dildo, and your batteries are running low.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/CBS_MAR08A-DEMS.pdf

edutcher said...

Matt said...

When did Obama say he wanted $8.00 a gallon? Did he really, as President, say at a news conference or a speech he actually wanted $8.00 a gallon? I'm skeptical.

As an IL state senator in an interview. And it's on video.

Up on You Tube, right before the '08 election.

And he's never renounced it.

Revenant said...

And it began in December of 2007.

Yeah, stick with "not my fault" as your election strategy. Americans love a President who never takes responsibility for anything. :)

avwh said...

Obama's Energy Secretary, Chu, is also on record as saying U.S. gas prices have to "catch up to Europe's", which also means they're committed as policy to $8/gallon gas.

Revenant said...

Read through these seven different polls and with the exception of one...show me the one where Obama is behind:

Um, three of those saven are two to three weeks old. Of the four taken in the last week, Obama's winning two, Romney's winning one, and one's a tie.

If you want to change your argument to "Obama WAS easily ahead of Romney", nobody will disagree. But being 2-1-1 against a guy who hasn't even started running against you yet -- that ain't good.

Matt said...

edutcher

I was unable to find that interview on YouTube. I did find one he gave to MSNBC in which he agrees higher prices would help us go find alternative energy sources but he says he would not do that unless there was more money in our pockets. But he doesn't say $8.00.

I do know that secretary Chu talked [before he was secretary] about a gradual, 15-year increase in the gas tax to encourage efficiency and keep money in America. But his idea was rejected by Obama.

cubanbob said...

Of course Love overlooks that the daily gasoline consumption of the US is less today than when gas was at $1.85. Love also ignores the fact that the recession starerted when the party of asses took control in 2007. Love also overlooks the fact that according to the economists leaning towards the party of asses stated the recession was over in 2009. Yet as noted by others here the total number of non farm employed people is lower now than when the current head of the part of asses party took control of the executive branch. But then again what can you expect from a shill for the party of asses?

edutcher said...

It made the rounds just before the election.

Google it. Bing it. Yahoo it.

Love said...

Writ Small - So, suddenly, among the far right crazos here...Salon is a source of information??

As for the polling: Gallup has it at 47% approval/46 disapproval as of today.

Love said...

Revenant "Yeah, stick with "not my fault" as your election strategy. Americans love a President who never takes responsibility for anything."

The recession began in December of 2007...13 months BEFORE Obama took office.

That is a "fact."

You can whine about things not coming together faster, but they are improving, and as we ALL know...your candidates offer up nothing whatsoever in terms of solutions, other than cutting taxes.

That is also a "fact."

cubanbob said...

December 2007, when the party of asses took control of congress with a bullet proof majority, looks like cause and effect.

edutcher said...

Love said...

Writ Small - So, suddenly, among the far right crazos here...Salon is a source of information??

As for the polling: Gallup has it at 47% approval/46 disapproval as of today.


Those aren't good numbers, either. Apparently the far left crazos are grabbing at any straw they can find.

FedkaTheConvict said...

Heh....

Chu Backtracks on High Gas Prices

Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Tuesday retracted his now-infamous quote from 2008: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

“I no longer share that view,” Chu said in response to questioning from Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on another topic related to DOE’s loan-guarantee program.

Chu’s 2008 quote, initially included in a Wall Street Journal article, has formed the foundation for daily Republican attacks on President Obama over high gas prices.

Chu seemed to equivocate, pause, and stumble over his words when responding to Lee’s question about high gas prices. Other comments Chu made at another hearing late last month put him in hot water on gas prices. Politico reported on Feb. 28 that Chu told a House committee that he was not working to lower gasoline prices but to wean the United States off oil. That story has since been corrected to clarify that DOE is working to both lower gas prices and wean the country off oil. But that was only after the story was picked up by Republicans and used against the administration.

Hagar said...

Secretary Chu was on the News this evening. He almost choked on it, but he did get it out finally that the administration wish to lower oil prices.

No way did he believe a word of it. It was just what he had been ordered to say.

Revenant said...

The recession began in December of 2007...13 months BEFORE Obama took office.

Yes, we heard you the first time.

The question voters will want an answer to is "why are we still deep in the hole four years after Obama swore he'd have everything fixed in 18 months". Saying "waaah someone else created the problem" ain't gonna cut it. Why on Earth would voters want a President who can only fix his OWN problems? Name me one President who has ever won election on the "things suck and there's nothing I can do" platform. Just one.

Fun history for you: the stock market crash of '29 happened shortly after Herbert Hoover took office, and the mistakes that caused it had all been made well before his election. You think the voters in 1932 gave a rat's ass? Of course not. All they cared about was that he'd had years to fix things and had failed. They decided to try their luck with the other party.

They will do the same this time around, barring some crippling scandal involving Romney. Obama's already neck and neck with Romney and the latter hasn't even started *running* against Obama yet.

Writ Small said...

Obama's already neck and neck with Romney and the latter hasn't even started *running* against Obama yet.

Yes, we heard you the first time.

But really, that is something you can't say often enough.

leslyn said...

Oops:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/13/us-usa-campaign-obama-idUSBRE82C1AN20120313.

Approval rating at 50% with a larger sample.

Too bad, so sad.

leslyn said...

Should have added this from the same poll:

"In a survey of registered voters, Obama led Romney 52 to 41 percent in a head-to-head match-up, nearly double the margin from February. Obama led Santorum 52 to 42 percent, and Gingrich 54 to 37 percent."

Blue@9 said...

It feels like people are betting on the Superbowl after a couple preseason games.

Revenant said...

Um, leslyn...

The Reuters/Ipsos telephone poll of 1,084 adults included 554 respondents who identified themselves as Democrats, 421 as Republicans, and 109 as independents.

Out of a group of people that was 51% Democrats, he gets... 50% support.

Unless you have a scheme for arranging for most of the votes cast this year to be cast by Democrats, you've got a problem. Maybe ACORN can scare up a few extra "registered voters" for you? :)

Michael said...

Love. Fact. The recession ended in June 2009. Almost three years ago. Fact.

Rusty said...

You can whine about things not coming together faster, but they are improving, and as we ALL know...your candidates offer up nothing whatsoever in terms of solutions, other than cutting taxes.


Since when did pointing out your shortcomings become whining? You're a fool. Deal with it.




.your candidates offer up nothing whatsoever in terms of solutions, other than cutting taxes.


Finally you're getting it. That's all they need to do in the short term. Cut fucking spending.