More Americans Say They're Better Off Than They Were 4 Years Ago
By Blue Texan
June 21, 2012
Bad news for Team Willard on Wednesday. In addition to a new Bloomberg poll that showed Obama with a 13-point lead, there was this interesting tidbit.
A plurality of Americans now say they are better off than they were when President Barack Obama was inaugurated, providing a surprising lift to Obama’s re- election campaign despite troublesome economic news.
Forty-five percent of those surveyed in a Bloomberg National Poll say they are better off than at the beginning of 2009 compared with 36 percent who say they are worse off. In March, poll respondents split almost evenly on that question after having been decidedly negative since the aftermath of the worst recession in seven decades.
And that's a big problem for Willard, who's been channelling Reagan lately.
But it's not just that the economy is better than it was four years ago. People just don't like what Willard is saying about what he's going to do with the next four years.
Even with the run of bad reports, Americans say they prefer Obama’s economic vision to that of his presumptive Republican rival, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, by a margin of 49 percent to 33 percent. That finding reflects a 7-percentage- point gain for Obama since March and an equal loss for his opponent, identified then as “Republicans” and in this survey as Romney.
“You don’t just trust the private sector to do the right thing,” says Chris Howell, 23, who works at a nonprofit organization in West Chester, Pennsylvania. Obama’s policies are better suited to providing “long-term solutions” for the economy’s problems, he added.
Surely, the Willard campaign knows that Americans don't believe more tax cuts for rich people will magically turn the economy around. And seeing as how that's kinda Willard's entire recovery plan, that's a problem. So, what they'll have to do is run an almost entirely negative campaign against the president -- all the while complaining that he's the one that's going negative.
Fun times.
Read More: http://crooksandliars.com/blue-texan/more-american...
I want TRUTH about FAST and FURIOUS....Dont you?
Building had returned to the shore line, my rentals were really picking up and my job was going great. I had received several pluses to my contract. Infact my one rental SOLD!! AT a nice profit. I could not budge it at all during the Bush dark times. As for me I am living better then I was four years ago. I believed in Obama and he delivered.
But he always was the subversive at CNN..
CERTAIN people choose to forget what it was like during the Bush Admin and how bad things were.
Nice tactic, until somebody calls you on it.
So the Fed was lying when they downgraded their projections yesterday? Maybe they'll bump the interest rates back where they belong, then. Doesn't seem like a country in the pink of financial health should maintain 0% interest.
I wonder if all these wonderful projects in your town are being bankrolled by one of the banks that's in the process of collapse... like all the businesses in Overland Park that have halted construction when their loans fell through. Yeah, I think our little corner of the country is better than most, but still a financial disaster area.
And well done, by the way... but I think your area is the exception to the rule!
This is absolutely cherry picking at this point.
And the fact that the "tidbit" comes from an unreliable poll of 700 people makes it unreliable as well.
This is clear misdirection on your part because you knew well before you posted it the situation with that Bloomberg poll.
PP chose to post the article. He read it on a different site and went to the trouble of copying and pasting and all the whatnot of sharing it on here. Thats was his action of his own choice. Whatever website it was didn't force him to do it. He read it and felt it relevent enough to share.
So if we're discussing his actions why is it not about him? I've seen this happen too often on here, and multiple times on here. Someone posts an article they read elsewhere without really framing a question or poll around it and when someone challenges it the cry is "I didn't write it". No, but you reposted it. And without a statement like "heres what I think, what about you" the logical choice is that the poster agrees with the article.
And what trips me out is that just a few hours ago I directly discussed this poll with him at which point he said that it was the first one he found and he wasn't aware of the others that I passed along to him. Despite that knowledge, including a listing for composite polling from multiple sources he read and choose to repost.
So yeah, its dishonest and misdirection (leading someone down a path you know to be incorrect).
You want alternate polling data? Here: http://www.realclearpolitics....
As far as PP himself. As I said, I had a discussion with him earlier in the day in which I very clearly brought to light the other polls. At that time I accused him of cherry picking to which his response was that "this was the first poll I found" and he didn't know about the others. He then proceeded to post this article in light of the information he now had. So its very clearly attempting to cherry pick polls.
And yes, if you post something without comment you're very clearly open to having someone question or think that you agree with the article. He's very welcome, since my original comment was for him and not you anyway, to respond and give his opinion on this article. Does he agree, does he disagree? But in absence of a response on both the article and my accusation I will take him as agreeing with the article.
The misdirection, mind you, is posting the article in an attempt to push people toward one side while knowingly leaving out relevant data. He know about the information I just posted but chose to leave it out.
Either you know PP or you don't. If you know him you know he is fully capable of regularly posting his thoughts and opinions b...
You want alternate polling data? Here: http://www.realclearpolitics....
As far as PP himself. As I said, I had a discussion with him earlier in the day in which I very clearly brought to light the other polls. At that time I accused him of cherry picking to which his response was that "this was the first poll I found" and he didn't know about the others. He then proceeded to post this article in light of the information he now had. So its very clearly attempting to cherry pick polls.
And yes, if you post something without comment you're very clearly open to having someone question or think that you agree with the article. He's very welcome, since my original comment was for him and not you anyway, to respond and give his opinion on this article. Does he agree, does he disagree? But in absence of a response on both the article and my accusation I will take him as agreeing with the article.
The misdirection, mind you, is posting the article in an attempt to push people toward one side while knowingly leaving out relevant data. He know about the information I just posted but chose to leave it out.
Either you know PP or you don't. If you know him you know he is fully capable of regularly posting his thoughts and opinions before an article he posts or responding in depth to people that respond to his posts. He's fully capable of coming on here and giving his opinion on the validity of the article. Below he responded without even mentioning his opinion, avoiding it entirely. Thats all I need to know.
If you know PP then you know he does both, he posts with opinion and without. And ALL he posts are articles that favor Democrats.
All I've done is point out the fact that he had knowledge before posting this thread that what he was posting was an incomplete picture. All the details weren't included. Thus he cherry picks his information and as you yourself have said he has an agenda. I'm merely pointing that out.
So whats your beef with me then? He can post whatever he wants but I'm not allowed to respond? I shouldn't point out when I think he's pluggin an agenda because you don't?
And pushing forward certain information while leaving out the rest of the information isn't dishonest or misdirection? I disagree with that completely.
Having a political agenda at the end of the day always means you're trying to pull or push people to your side. The fact that few people on SH may actually be swayed is moot. The idea behind putting on information is that someone somewhere may listen. And their are independents on this site. Or is it your position that independents don't exist?
The only thing going on here is that I see PPs routine of daily pushing a far left ...
If you know PP then you know he does both, he posts with opinion and without. And ALL he posts are articles that favor Democrats.
All I've done is point out the fact that he had knowledge before posting this thread that what he was posting was an incomplete picture. All the details weren't included. Thus he cherry picks his information and as you yourself have said he has an agenda. I'm merely pointing that out.
So whats your beef with me then? He can post whatever he wants but I'm not allowed to respond? I shouldn't point out when I think he's pluggin an agenda because you don't?
And pushing forward certain information while leaving out the rest of the information isn't dishonest or misdirection? I disagree with that completely.
Having a political agenda at the end of the day always means you're trying to pull or push people to your side. The fact that few people on SH may actually be swayed is moot. The idea behind putting on information is that someone somewhere may listen. And their are independents on this site. Or is it your position that independents don't exist?
The only thing going on here is that I see PPs routine of daily pushing a far left agenda and I rail against it, call it out for what it is. The thing about the far righties and far lefties on her is that its very clear who they are usually. They resort to rhetoric and "bumper stickers" (what I call those silly political pictures). But PP here constantly tries to portray himself as above that fray, as if he is honest and isn't part of an agenda. He is.
Despite how you think the world should work I plan to keep calling him out on it. Especially when I know he directly lies or fails to share information he has.
For the record, has I seen this thread before I had my other discussion with him that day my response would be completely different. It would have been a simple disagreement with the premise. However, he failed to share information and that is dishonest.
With all due courtesy, then, go to hell.