quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
...tainting public opinion polls about the President.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I just received a computer-generated phone poll, last night. Based upon the way the questions were worded, it seems the democrats are really looking to concentrate on the "independent" vote (I'm registered and belong to the Libertarian party).

I got the impression they were trying to "direct" me toward the democratic candidates in the Senate and Gubernatorial elections, coming up.

I liked this mode of poll (computer-generated; no interaction with a pollster) but, even in the way the questions were constructed, it was obvious that there was a "slant".

I find it interesting that the only three choices for political affiliation were: "Republican", "Democrat" or "Independent". There was no "Libertarian", "Conservative", "Liberal", etc. If I were either of the "big two" parties, I would want to see where I was gaining or losing a foothold, in preparation for 2016.



Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I do not think however there will ever be and I am not so sure there need be...so-called conservative or liberal 'affiliation.'

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


From what I'm reading the Republicans are favored to take over the Senate.

Turnouts will be small.

Most Americans don't even know elections are upcoming.

Most Americans vote according to party affiliation / brand loyalty.

Most Americans cannot name who their actual Congressman is.

Second Term Presidents face stiff headwinds during the midterms.

The Republican Noise - Opposition Machine has worked for their party (not the nation) tainting public opinion polls about the President. It is upsetting to me to see such a scorched earth, put-the-country-second strategy succeed (politically.)

Angry Republicans will turn out.

Those benefiting and in favor of Democratic policies won't vote.

---------THAT'S WHAT I'M READING AND HEARING ----------

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I do not think however there will ever be and I am not so sure there need be...so-called conservative or liberal 'affiliation.'

I am about 99% positive that there was something called a "Liberal Party" and I'm about 85% sure about a "Conservative Party" at one time or another.

Unfortunately, so-called "third parties" are nothing more than voices crying out in the wilderness, at this point. I harbor no illusions that my vote for a Libertarian candidate is anything more than a passive-aggressive nod to the Dems.

By the same token, I'm not all that convinced that anyone's vote is truly counted, anymore (and don't get me started on the redundancy of the EC).



Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

FR
If we're lucky, we'll have a better percentage of voter turn out than Obama has of attending his PDB... which is 37% for those of you who didn't know.

quote:



I asked National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor about the findings, and whether there were any instances where the president attended the intelligence meeting that were not on his public schedule. Vietor did not dispute the numbers, but said the fact that the president, during a time of war, does not attend his daily intelligence meeting on a daily basis is “not particularly interesting or useful.” He says that the president reads his PDB every day, and he disagreed with the suggestion that there is any difference whatsoever between simply reading the briefing book and having an interactive discussion of its contents with top national security and intelligence officials where the president can probe assumptions and ask questions. “I actually don’t agree at all,” Vietor told me in an e-mail, “The president gets the information he needs from the intelligence community each day.”

Yet Vietor also directed me to a Post story written this year in which Obama officials discuss the importance of the intelligence meeting and extol how brilliantly the president runs it....