Posts Tagged ‘generic ballot’

Why Have Republicans Jumped Out To Largest Lead EVER Over Democrats?

June 2, 2010

Something is building and growing.  And it is in response to the total failure of Democrat control.

June 1st, 2010
Republicans Jump Out To Historic Lead In Gallup Generic Ballot
Posted by Sean Trende

Gallup’s generic polling shows the number of voters saying that they would vote for Republicans rising three points from last week, while the number saying they will vote for Democrats dropped four pointsThe 49%-43% lead for the Republicans is the largest that the pollster has ever recorded for the partyMoreover, Democratic enthusiasm for voting this fall fell a point, while enthusiasm among Republicans stayed about fifteen points higher.  This indicates an even wider lead for Republicans once Gallup imposes a likely voter screen this fall.

There’s any number of reasons for this:  the public’s perception of Obama’s response to the oil spill, the shaky stock market performance last week, continued concern about the economy and spending.  The bottom line is that, despite what is perceived as an underperformance for the Republicans in PA-12 a couple of weeks ago, there are still plenty of Democrats in trouble for this November.

Keep up the good work, Democrats.

At the rate you’re going, there may not even BE any Democrats soon.  Because you suck, and people are starting to figure that out.

In addition to the fact that oil is pouring into the ocean at a rate that defies comprehension (we’re up to four times the calamity that the Exxon Valdez created with no end in sight), our banks that anchor our economy are bleeding out nearly as badly:

May 24, 2010
What recovery? Bank failures double this year compared to 2009

Although the federal bailout stabilized the banking system, bank failures are continuing at at rapid clip. Check out the latest federal tally. More than twice as many banks and savings and loans have been seized by regulators this year as in the same period last year: 73 in 2010, and 33 in 2009.

Banking analysts have long been warning us to expect a bumper crop of failures among small- to medium-sized community and regional banks this year. Many of the big banks that teetered on the edge of collapse had made bad bets on exotic mortgage securities. But most of the smaller banks are feeling the effects of residential mortgage foreclosures (such at the one pictured here) and, increasingly, commercial property loans going bad.

The Associated Press sums it up thus:

With 78 closures nationwide so far this year, the pace of bank failures is more than double that of 2009, which was already a brisk year for shutdowns. By this time last year, regulators had closed 36 banks. The pace has accelerated as banks’ losses mount on loans made for commercial property and development.

Now, remember that the first half of last year was the DEPTHS of the recession.  And it’s more than twice as bad this year as it was during those depths of the recession.

The only thing worse than having Republicans run things is having Democrats run things.  Only Democrats run things so much worse that America compares to a Swiss watch under Republicans.

Democrats do one thing well: they demagogue better than anybody in the world.  But lest we forget, during the period when the economy truly went into the crapper, between 2006 and 2008, it was under the total domination of Congress by Democrats.  Add that to the fact that it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that created the becoming disaster for the very reasons that banks are still struggling (idiotic mortgage policies) that the Democrats owned lock, stock and barrel.

Meredith Whitney accurately predicted the economic meltdown when a lot of other “experts” were saying buy, buy, buy.

Here’s what she said in July of last year:

Unemployment is likely to rise to 13 percent or higher and will weigh on the economy for several years, countering government efforts to stabilize the banking industry, analyst Meredith Whitney told CNBC.

And a year later, does it appear that the government has stabilized the banking industry?  NOT EVEN FREAKING CLOSE!!! The factors that Whitney cited in predicting 13% unemployment are happening before your very eyes.

Looking at 13% unemployment coming up, all I can think of is Al Pacino in Scarface: “Say hello to my little friend!

As bad a year as Bush had (thanks to Democrats who refused to do anything about the mortgage security crisis created and sustained by Fannie and Freddie), unemployment was 7.6% when Bush left office.

What was it the last month statistics were available, under Obama’s, Pelosi’s, and Reid’s terrible misrule?  9.9%.  And that after a massive failed stimulus that Obama promised would keep unemployment under 8%.  Obviously, it did nothing of the sort, but our children’s children’s children’s children will still be paying off a $3.27 TRILLION black hole of debt anyway.

Did somebody say “debt”?

Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge wrote on May 25:

This means that as of this moment, assuming the new debt were to settle today, the US has $13,031,095 billion in debt: congratulation America – you have now passed lucky $13 trillion in total debt. But don’t worry, we won’t stay here for long. At the current rate of issuance, $14 trillion will be passed in 8 months, and $15 trillion in another 7. By the end of 2011, we estimate total US sovereign debt to be about $15.5 trillion.

Democrats tore into Bush tooth and nail over his increase of the national debt.  That said, it took George Bush eight full years to increase the debt by $4.89 trillion.

Right now, under Barry Hussein, it is $13.o28 trillion.  Which is to say that Obama increased the debt by more than $2.4 trillion in only fifteen months.  That will be more than $3.4 trillion in just over two years in office.  By the end of 2011, after less than three full years in office, Obama’s share of the debt will be $4.9 trillion.

Which is to say that Obama will have racked up as much debt as Bush did in eight years in only three.  Obama is increasing the debt at nearly three times the rate that Bush did.

Which goes back to what I said about Republicans being bad – unless you compare them against Democrats.

Over the past thirty years, Democrat Congresses have increased the debt 2.4 times as much as have Republican Congresses.  Another way to put it is that Democrat Congresses have spent 137.7% more than Republican Congresses.

We are hurtling toward a disaster that will create a collapse that will ultimately make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park.  The United States of America is going to completely implode – and no one will bail us out when it happens.

You want to watch your kids starve to death before your eyes?  Elect Democrats.  Because that would be the kind of “change” you can truly “hope” for.

Advertisements

Upcoming Slaughter Of House Democrats Might Make 1994 Losses Seem Tame

April 9, 2010

The Washington Examiner provides a very good summary of a detail analysis of a polling expert.

On the positive side (for Democrats), it’s possible they could only lose 20 seats; but realistically, it’s far more likely that they will be utterly slaughtered than the scenario in which they only lose a few seats.

Could Democrats lose 79 House seats in November?
By: Chris Stirewalt
Political Editor
04/09/10 12:32 PM EDT

Nate Silver of 538.com today rejiggers his assessment of the midterm elections to reflect a bunch of new numbers that show Republicans with a bigger edge in the generic ballot.

If Republicans outperformed generic-ballot ratings, as they usually do, Silver projects a worst-case scenario for Democrats of 79 seats in the House switching from blue to red based on the surveys of Rasmussen Reports.

Silver puts the more likely scenario at 51 seats going to the GOP — 11 more than they need to take over the majority.

And while he holds out that much smaller Democratic losses are possible — say 20 or 30 seats — his warning to Democrats is that the worst case scenario is more likely to occur and is more catastrophic than previously imagined.

Worth reading.

“The point is not necessarily that these are the most likely scenarios — we certainly ought not to formulate a judgment based on Rasmussen polls alone, as the jury is still out on whether the substantial house effect they’ve displayed this cycle is a feature or a bug. But these sorts of scenarios are frankly on the table. If Democrats were to lose 50, 60, 70 or even more House seats, it would not totally shock me. Nor would it shock me if they merely lost 15, or 20. But their downside case could be very far down.”

If Democrats thought they would benefit by imposing health care by means of the vicious partisan tactic of reconciliation, they were wrong.  Following the passage of ObamaCare, Obama’s approval went into the toilet.

Here’s what top pollster Rasmussen had to say as of April 6:

Forty-six percent (46%) of voters not affiliated with either major party now prefer the Republican candidate, while 24% like the Democrat. These findings show little change from the previous survey. Last week, support among unaffiliateds for Democrats jumped six points, while support for Republicans held steady.

Two weeks after passage of the health care plan, 54% of the nation’s voters still favor repealing it, unchanged since Obama signed the bill into law.

CBS polling showed Obama hitting his lowest point EVER following the passage of ObamaCare.  Now Fox News’ polling shows that that anger against Obama has only increased; their numbers now show that Obama has just hit a new, lower, low.  And they show that the American people are more outraged over the partisan ObamaCare boondoggle than ever before.

It’s hard to say whether Obama ever succeeded in “spreading the wealth” around, given the fact that the percentage of rural or suburban homelessness has risen from 23 percent to 32 percent since last year under his watch.  But one thing is DAMN clear: Obama has spread the rage like no president ever has.  And this rage is “progressive,” too, in that it is progressively growing against Democrats.

Update, April 14, 2010: Did I say 79 seats?  The number could be 100 seats.

Sean Trende – who was one of the first who accurately saw a Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts – had this to say:

…I think those who suggest that the House is barely in play, or that we are a long way from a 1994-style scenario are missing the mark. A 1994-style scenario is probably the most likely outcome at this point. Moreover, it is well within the realm of possibility – not merely a far-fetched scenario – that Democratic losses could climb into the 80 or 90-seat range. The Democrats are sailing into a perfect storm of factors influencing a midterm election, and if the situation declines for them in the ensuing months, I wouldn’t be shocked to see Democratic losses eclipse 100 seats.

Trende sees the generic ballot between Republicans (red) and Democrats (blue) shaping up like this as we approach November, based on Obama’s “popularity”:

What a lovely looking map!  Unless you’re an unhinged liberal loon.  Then it becomes some kind of Rorschach test.

Not all conservative-open pollsters are seeing these kinds of numbers.  Frank Luntz on Hannity tonight said his projection as of right now was that Republicans would gain 35 House seats.  Nice, but not enough to fire Nancy Pelosi and take back the House of Representatives.

This is the attitude that conservatives need to be stoking: we have a historic opportunity to take back control of our government and undo a lot of the damage that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid did before it truly screws the country.  We shouldn’t be complacent, because it won’t just “happen”; we have to work for it.  Every conservative needs to start seeing himself or herself as their own precinct leader, and be “out there” as much as possible – by writing articles on blogs, or commenting on those articles; by registering people to vote; by keeping informed so he or she can inform others in a convincing manner; by attending tea party rallies; by writing letters and making phone calls; etc. – in order to take back our government and restore the Constitution.