While doing a little background research today TRS came across some very solid polling data, too good to keep to myself. The latest Rasmussen polling shows the dynamics that drove the narrow Democrat success in 06 are clearly changing.
By the time of the 2006 election Democrats enjoyed enormous advantages in public opinion on almost every public issue. Now, the margins have shrunk and we have recovered our advantage on taxes. Although Democrats are still preferred on a majority of issues, the margins are now less than ten on most issues. As Rasmussen notes, having recovered taxes we are poised to jump ahead on general economic performance as well.
Perhaps the most significant change in mood is on healthcare. The Democrats have dropped thirteen points on management of the nation's healthcare in less than sixty days. The Democrats are talking about it like crazy in their primary race and the public quite clearly is not interested since they are losing ground. The Democrat eight point advantage on health care exists in the absence of a clear Republican alternative to the European socialism the Democrats offer. Think of what we could do if we devoted greater emphasis to the benefits of the consumer centric health care distribution system most Republicans endorse?
Our Party is now being defined by Presidential candidates against the backdrop of the Post Office Congress. The insanity of Bush Derangement Syndrome is losing impact as the electorate realizes that President Bush is not on the ballot. Of course the complete repudiation of the Democrat Iraq criticique of the “Surge” in Iraq, even before it began, has helped as well.
The public is starved for leadership on issues. Why don’t we give them something of substance?
By the time of the 2006 election Democrats enjoyed enormous advantages in public opinion on almost every public issue. Now, the margins have shrunk and we have recovered our advantage on taxes. Although Democrats are still preferred on a majority of issues, the margins are now less than ten on most issues. As Rasmussen notes, having recovered taxes we are poised to jump ahead on general economic performance as well.
Perhaps the most significant change in mood is on healthcare. The Democrats have dropped thirteen points on management of the nation's healthcare in less than sixty days. The Democrats are talking about it like crazy in their primary race and the public quite clearly is not interested since they are losing ground. The Democrat eight point advantage on health care exists in the absence of a clear Republican alternative to the European socialism the Democrats offer. Think of what we could do if we devoted greater emphasis to the benefits of the consumer centric health care distribution system most Republicans endorse?
Our Party is now being defined by Presidential candidates against the backdrop of the Post Office Congress. The insanity of Bush Derangement Syndrome is losing impact as the electorate realizes that President Bush is not on the ballot. Of course the complete repudiation of the Democrat Iraq criticique of the “Surge” in Iraq, even before it began, has helped as well.
The public is starved for leadership on issues. Why don’t we give them something of substance?
16 comments:
If it's substance you want, Ted, then why don't you support Mark Klein? Put him back on your poll, Ted.
Sporer,
What is your guess, how will the eventual R nominee handle W and his tenure when he no longer has to pander to the R base and will try to win the general election?
My guess is that the nominee will start the distancing dance the day he clinches the nomination. I don't think continuing on the W path is going to be a competitive/winning strategy.
Wow - do your hands get stained from the constant turd polishing?
Re the need for policy substance anonymous (#1) above mentioned my new Washington Times nat'l weekly full page comes out on Monday. Non subscribers can get a pdf copy by e-mailing me at mark@drmarkklein.com. Also sending Ted a copy which he is free to distribute or reproduce here.
If Mark Klein was a turd....he'd be Turdosaurous Rex
It's not only the international date line which signals it's already tomorrow in Australia.
AP-Howard’s Reign in Australia Is Over
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 24, 2007
Filed at 6:53 a.m. ET
SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd swept to power in Australian elections Saturday, ending an 11-year conservative era and promising major changes to policies on global warming and the Iraq war.
_______________
If I can't make a credible showing in Iowa or New Hampshire, means politer versions of John Owens and Bobby "The Sack" are all that's left of the once great party of Abe Lincoln. Wouldn't continue associate myself with such an overflowing reeking chamber pot.
"...the surge will never work...." I heard big ol Bill Richardson saying that about 3 days ago...oops. Do these guys even read the newspapers that support their own theories?
It could be a tough spring for these goofballs if W starts bringing troops home with a victory rather than the much hoped for defeat.... by our Demo brothers and sisters and their heroic insurgent freedom fighters, that is.
+rf - like most democrats you misunderstand r's feelings for Bush. We are mad at him for not being MORE aggressive. We are mad at him for sitting around in his oval office doing his thing and not communicating more.
Bush was right on Stem Cells, as it turns out. We knew he was.
Bush was right to fight the war.
Bush was right on the tax cuts.
Bush was right on most everything he did.
So, I don't think a bunch of distancing is the ticket.
History will be good to Bush ont he big decisions.
My question is, how come the democrats don't distance themselves from Bill? He was an actual criminal and didn't make ANY big decisions beyond which cigar to smoke today.
My other questions is, how come the democats actually pursue Hillary? They wish a return to illegal pardons for cash, they wish a return to the nuts and sluts that Bill hangs with. They wish a return to steal more furniture from the White House when they leave?
What is the LOVE with the Clintons? They have done more to destroy your party - 1994 losses, moved total control of all houses of Government to Republicans. Democrats had been in power for over 40 years prior to Bill leading you to those big losses.
Why do you love them?
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/
November 23, 2007
John Edwards has a plan to combat hunger in America but apparently his plan does not include informing himself as to the basic facts of the situation.
In his latest comments Mr. Edwards misunderstands the basic reports and overstates "the hungry" by roughly a factor of three - imagine my surprise.
And wouldn't we hate to go to war on hunger based on phony intelligence?
-----
Edwards assumed that no one would check his facts. Hey Sphincter, did you see this story on Jon Stewart? Did you know that Edwards lies on purpose because he depends on you not doing your own research?
Just keep coming back over here and we'll be happy to keep you straight on your facts.
We do it, so you don't have to.
In a phone call with reporters, the former North Carolina senator said 35.5 million Americans went hungry last year, including 13 million children. "We have a moral responsibility as a country," to make sure no one goes hungry in America."
So from this report, which formed the basis of the Edwards' assertions, we learn that "7.7 million adults and 3.4 million children lived in households with very low food security", which means they experienced hunger at some point during the year. That is roughly one-third the number of adults and children cited by Edwards.
rf,
Much depends on the next couple of months in Iraq and the economy.
It is highly unlikely that we are going to see a recession or anything close to one. Iraq is working out. Its not that W will ever get, or even claim, credit for anything so I think he will be a neutral factor.
W's budget vetos will bring that part of our base back, and we'll pick up a little voter share as things continue to get better in Iraq (if they do-and you have to admit, getting positive Iraq coverage from the NY Times and WaPo are surely signs of success)we'll pick up some base Rs and a good chunk of independents.
The "x" factor is corruption/honest government. Its the no. 1 issue for most NP voters. Ds have a little advantage here but I expect a few more Chinese money headlines will bring that issue much closer.
Evita will be able to froth up the D base with continued attacks on Bush-and this will probably be another base oriented election given what we're seeing from both sides. The frothing will be a good strategy for her.
Bush would be a non-factor in a Huck/Obama race-I think. Both appear to be carving out some new ground that I think each wishes to discuss more than they want Bush to be the topic.
Yes, Mr. Edwards is hitting Mrs. Clinton on foreign policy.
Yes, Barack Obama is taking it to her on trade.
But consider this: What none of her Democratic opponents has broached--what has so far been a super-off-limits-high-security-no-fly-zone--is any direct mention of Mrs. Clinton's ethically challenged period as first lady.
Interesting, given that character is Mrs. Clinton's biggest problem.
For all the Clinton protestations that they were the object of a conspiracy, the polls consistently show that even Democratic voters are queasy about her honesty.
The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll of likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa--which puts Mr. Obama ahead--shows him beating her by 2-1 as the most honest and trustworthy candidate.
the above was this article. more below.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/mrs_clintons_real_campaign_wea.html
Every bump on the Clinton campaign road has also been linked to her reputation as insincere.
Norman Hsu made donations to many Democrats, but it was Mrs. Clinton's cache that dominated the headlines, thanks to the 1990s fund-raising scandals.
What campaign hasn't planted a question? Yet catching Mrs. Clinton in the act revived the stereotype of a calculating lawyer from Arkansas.
Flubbing one policy question among hundreds (on immigrant drivers' licenses) shouldn't be a big deal.
But it reminds folks of a Clinton White House that specialized in double-talk and dissembling.
Mrs. Clinton has all but broadcast that her greatest fear is that her opponents will reopen this can of Clinton creepy crawlies.
Her refusal, which is growing news, to expedite the release of her records from her time as first lady, is one big sign.
Her campaign's aggressive reaction to the merest hint of a personal comment by an opponent is another.
It isn't clear the Clinton campaign is sitting on dirt on Barack Obama; but they're happy to have him think they are.
More
"Mr. Obama has come the closest to delving into Mrs. Clinton's past, though you need an Enigma machine to decode it.
His campaign slogan is "Change We Can Believe In." (Translation: If you elect her, don't be surprised what she discovers in a box under a table.)
He's mused about "character and judgment." (Translation: I don't trade in cattle futures.)
Freudian psychology this is, Mortal Kombat it is not.
Sporer,
No matter what happens with Iraq & the economy, I can't see any way the R nominee will embrace W. Assuming he wants to win. All R contenders must realize embracing W will pretty much hand the White House to the D nominee. Wasn't it McCain who a while ago said he was running to "restore competence to the White House." Probably a sign of things to come.
Anon 8:48,
"Bush was right on Stem Cells, as it turns out. We knew he was." - Huh? You a scientist? We should only pursue one avenue of research?
"Bush was right to fight the war." - Yeah, sure. Simple cost benefit analysis: complete fiasco - even if the surge works.
"Bush was right on the tax cuts" - Sure, just look at the ballooning deficit. My grandkids will surely thank W for all he did.
"Bush was right on most everything he did." - Yeah, that's why we have McCain running to "restore competence to the White House."
And, I don't particularly care for either one of the Clintons.
Post a Comment