every trump poll we've ever seen

why romney ran

atrios @ eschaton asks:

who the hell would want that job

not going to waste too much of my beautiful mind on it, but I do wonder why romney wanted to be preznit. i wonder the same about anyone, of course, but the reasons do differ.

let me count the ways:

1. to prove Himself better than His Father, who, though being the better man, failed to become President

2. to see His Name writ upon the Pages of History, as a member of the Most Exclusive Club in the World

3. to walk in the Company of World Leaders, and not as a donor or favor-seeker or hanger-on

4. to bask in the Glow of His lessers, and have Senators, CEOs and Rock Stars seek His Attention and Kiss His Ring

5. to receive Presidential Awards, Prizes and Medals

6. to hear everyone speak His Name every day for eight continuous years

7. to place a Capstone on His Worldly Achievements

8. to culminate a life-long Quest for Validation

the sad trombone

via tumbler, scenes from the night republicans discovered that reality really does have a liberal bias:

four more years ...

romney unplugged

(original artwork by alex ross)

fox news:

bill o'reilly: i don't understand what the controversy is. i think mr. romney should campaign on this point. if i'm governor romney, i run with this all day long.

sean hannity: it is romney unplugged as the GOP presidential nominee delivers one of his sharpest critiques yet of president obama and the entitlement society that he enables.

stuart varney: i think this will be seen as a win for romney.

pollster nate silver @ fivethirtyeight:

after a secretly recorded videotape was released on sept. 17 showing mitt romney making unflattering comments about the "47 percent" of americans who he said had become dependent on government benefits, i suggested on twitter that the political impact of the comments could easily be overstated.

"ninety percent of 'game-changing' gaffes are less important in retrospect than they seem in the moment," i wrote.

... since then, however, mr. obama has gained further ground in the polls. as of thursday, he led in the popular vote by 5.7 percentage points in the "now-cast," a gain of 1.6 percentage points since mr. romney's remarks became known to the public.

it's hard to tell whether this recent gain for mr. obama reflects the effect of the "47 percent" comments specifically. but the most typical pattern after a party convention is that a candidate who gains ground in the polls cedes at least some of it back.

instead, the more pertinent question seems not whether mr. obama is losing ground, but whether he is still gaining it.

... what we can say with more confidence is that mr. romney is now in a rather poor position in the polls.

... the overall story line, however, is fairly clear: mr. romney is at best holding ground in the polls, and quite possibly losing some, at a time when he needs to be gaining it instead. further, it's increasingly implausible for mr. romney to attribute the numbers to temporary effects from the democratic convention. mr. obama's probability of winning the electoral college advanced to 83.9 percent in the nov. 6 forecast, up from 81.9 percent on wednesday.

the fluke contraception deception

the numbers are out and in a surprise to no one but conservatives, it turns out that women do not like being called "sluts":

the biggest change came among women under 50. in mid-february, just under half of those voters supported obama. now more than six in 10 do while romney's support among them has dropped by 14 points, to 30%. the president leads him 2-1 in this group.

republicans' traditional strength among men "won't be good enough if we're losing women by nine points or 10 points," says sara taylor fagen, a republican strategist and former political adviser to president george w. bush. "the focus on contraception has not been a good one for us ... and republicans have unfairly taken on water on this issue." (usa today/gallup)

"unfairly"? well, cry me a river ... one which appears to be roaring right through our favorite wingnut watering hole free republic, where you will never find a more wretched hive of chauvinism and misogyny.

and they're wond'ring where all the wimmenfolk went ...

unfortunately, to some women, especially single ones, government is daddy, husband, lover and provider all rolled up into one. (scottinVA)

but isn't that the model wingnut family? (cue "dueling banjos")

women are "wired" that way.

the 'rats and their mentor, satan, knew what they were doing when they destroyed the support structure called "marriage" and "family".

the title should say "boosted by SINGLE AND DIVORCED women voters..." (mrB)

bingo - a lot of the women i know politically are mostly selfish, self centered, ditzes who only care about abortion, birth control, etc. (glockThe Vote)

translation: "they didn't wanna touch my glock!"

why do they keep calling these free contraceptives? someone is paying for them. and are rat women so gullible that they'll vote for a guy who is killing us at the pump, thermostat, grocery store and job market - not to mention the little matter of national security, just to get "free" birth control??? (aria)

if these women don't like romney they sure as heck aren't going to vote for santorum. obama's little birth control scheme seems to be working. i think republicans need to do some intense opposition research into obama's donors. the candidates need to start talking about all the dirt that's been coming out on him. make him look like the crooked chicago politician that he is. (jersey117)

riiiiiight. because in four years nobody's tried that yet ...

the social issues bs makes me want to scream. birth control? FNG really???

women voters in general are easily scammed. (glockThe Vote)

that they are. i'm here to tell you — they're buying this issue hook, line, and sinker. bunches of women i know are convinced that EVIL republicans have only one agenda ...and that is to make birth control ILLEGAL in this country.

i kid you not. they are convinced. rational, otherwise intelligent women. this flat out LIE has worked like a charm.

but, who is surprised. america has and is going down due to this very issue at the heart of it. we've contracepted ourselves so much that we've had to import workers. we have aborted so many we dont' have a tax paying base anymore to support all the elderly OR the freeloading immigrants. radical feminism has done its trick on this country ...and continues to do so, destroying marriage, family, and a strong moral base. why be surprised? many women are in love with themselves and their own power and new-found freedom to screw up their lives with oblivion. (libsRJerks)

repeal the 19th amendment. (sharpRightTurn)

sure glad we gave them the vote. (dagogo redux)

because women vote for appeals to emotion. that is the democrat party's specialty. (longbow1969)

and the GOP's specialty? appeals to idiocy ...

young single women want to go on killing their unborn babies. and now they really believe evil republicans are going to completely ban contraception. the fluke contraception deception worked perfectly. (protectOurFreedom)

tricking rush into a three-day tirade was the easy part. tricking wingnuts into defending him? actually, that was easy too ...

woman — being fooled by snakes since the garden. (bmwcyle)

the "war on women" paying dividends.

dems would never win without the woman voter advantage. (tigerClaws)

alas, the unfairness of it all ...

it won't matter -- those ideological women voters are blind to everything except what they want to see, their "vision". by teasing up reproductive issues, obozo is rattling their chains, they just don't know it.

giving women the vote was a civilizational mistake that will kill the republic. women don't want anything like what men do from government, and the republic was constructed around a male electorate. women's brain processes make them the very, very last people anyone anywhere should want next to the levers of republican government, and that's even allowing for real exceptions like margaret thatcher and sarah palin.

overeducated, barren, man-hating democrat women will turn america into a despotate, and then a wasteland -- like something out of hellboy. (lentulusgracchus)

unlike the patriarchal heaven-on-earth that is saudi arabia, or even afghanistan, eh, lentulus?

now i'm pretty sure that free republic, every dittohead's little patch of heaven on the internet, is by no means men-only. i'm pretty sure freeperville has some members that at least have claimed to be female. i'm pretty sure i can remember reading the praises of these culture-war-hardened survivalists for the fierceness and independence of their mothers, mates and daughters. so where are all the wimmenfolk? none showed up today, or more certainly, no one either female or male showed up to crash this little meeting of the "he-man women haters club":

so if not unfettered misogyny, what kind of hate speech proves simply too intolerable for the neanderthals on this thread?

cut it out psycho. santorum can’t be blamed for splitting the vote, but we know who polls lower than rick with women and he is the one with the second fewest delegates.

so cut the hate. (dforest)

... just leave little ricky alooooone!

giddy-ap (updated* yet again)

the donald is trumping his GOP competitors.

the billionaire real estate mogul has taken a rather shocking nine-point lead in a national poll of the hypothetical republican presidential field, according to a new survey by public policy polling ...

(us news and world report)

congrats to the billionaire toupee life-support system and born-again birther (and apologies to isaac asimov):

"there is an old fable," said hardin, "as old perhaps as humanity, for the oldest records containing it are merely copies of other records still older, that might interest you. it runs as follows: "a republican horse having a democratic wolf as a powerful and dangerous enemy lived in constant fear of permanent minority status. being driven to desperation, it occurred to him to seek a strong ally. whereupon he approached a birther, and offered an alliance, pointing out that the wolf was likewise an enemy of the birther. the birther accepted the partnership at once and offered to kill the wolf immediately, if his new partner would only co-operate by placing his greater speed at his disposal. the horse was willing, and allowed the birther to place bridle and saddle upon him. the birther mounted, hunted down the wolf, and killed him. "the horse, joyful and relieved, thanked the birther, and said: 'now that our enemy is dead, remove your bridle and saddle and restore my freedom.' "whereupon the birther laughed loudly and replied, 'the hell you say. giddy-ap, dobbin,' and applied the spurs with a will."

(* see "giddy-ap" from january 2008 and "giddy-ap upated" from september 2010)

politics 2010

i see no surprises in the coming year — conservatives will triple-down on their special brand of crazy ...

... which unfortunately for the rest of us means another year of non-stop lies, attacks, obstruction, fear-mongering, tantrums, tea-bagging and general misanthropy, all in a craven effort to poison the taste of liberal governance.

it's a brain-free strategy that doesn't require them to actually tackle real problems, like jobs and money, the kind real people worry about. no doubt the increasingly impolitic-looking defection of parker griffith (r-al) and increasingly divergent polls from increasingly GOP-chummy pollsters are sending visions of sugar-plum majorities dancing in their rovian heads.

but, as i noted in "no rewards for failure", conservatives need to pay attention not to democratic but republican ratings. because as frustrated and disappointed as the electorate appears with the struggling democrats, john q. public is giving no points to republicans, whom john q. continues to rate worse.

the bad news for the GOP: voters still trust president obama more than republicans, even on health care. the numbers: economy, obama +12; health care, obama +7; afghanistan, obama +12; energy, obama +10. what's the lesson? even though americans disapprove of president obama's record on many domestic policy issues, they do not see the republican party as a viable alternative.

at the very least, john q. recognizes that democrats are at least trying to address real problems, even if he isn't entirely sold on their solutions. as long as republicans continue to hold their breath, stamp their feet, wave their guns and threaten to repeal health reform, john q. is not going to switch horses in midstream, especially if the other horse is a crabby, flea-bitten nag.

conservatives will remain too cynical to realize that their 24-7, it-goes-to-11, non-stop attack-poodle shtick actually alienates those of us living outside their echo chamber. unleashed without any sense of moderation or proportion, their constant carping has already become impossible to take seriously. but, desperate to make any muck stick, republicans will continue to take every possible opportunity to politicize every event and loudly accuse every democrat of ... something, whether it's simply accepting prestigious international awards or making sales pitches for the olympics. why stop now? unfortunately for the GOP, anybody who's not a political junkie will simply tune this noise out — and with it the noisemakers.

still, conservatives need only knock off one democratic senator to bring congress to a literally screeching halt, especially if the house, even if left its sizable margin, chooses to defer to the senate, as it appears resigned to do in order to pass a health reform bill. but that is a dilemma for 2011 and 2012.

no rewards for failure

the washington post:

the latest NBC/wall street journal poll suggests the country is slipping back into the pessimism it felt before last year's presidential election with just one in three american saying the country is headed in the right direction while 55 percent said it was off on the wrong track. less than three in ten (27 percent) said life would be better for their children than it is for them and six in ten agreed with the statement that the country was in a "state of decline." democratic pollster peter hart, who helps conduct the NBC/WSJ poll, called the results evidence that "optimism has crashed through the floor board." remember that much of obama's appeal is centered on the ideas of hope and change; if voters see his administration as overseeing more of the same, there could be considerable backlash from voters against democrats in the 2010 midterm elections.

this is GGRRREEEEAAAAATT NEWS FOR REPUBLICANS!!!! ain't it?

or maybe not ...

daily kos, on the same poll:

the bad news for the GOP: voters still trust president obama more than republicans, even on health care. the numbers: economy, obama +12; health care, obama +7; afghanistan, obama +12; energy, obama +10. what's the lesson? even though americans disapprove of president obama's record on many domestic policy issues, they do not see the republican party as a viable alternative. at some point, that may change, because the GOP is also the only alternative, but for now, the country is not looking for president obama to be more like republicans — they are looking for him (and the democratic congress) to deliver on the change they voted for in 2008. if the white house can deliver, the GOP will be left out in the cold, partying with the teabaggers.

the GOP won't be winning any rewards for sitting out a constructive debate on health care reform. had they developed a real plan and defended it honestly, instead of dangling promises of pretend plans while screeching "no!no!no!" to everything else and patting themselves on the back while cheerleading failure, they might now be looking like a credible alternative.

but of course, that would require the GOP being interested in reform in the first place.

quote of the day

megan carpentier @ air america:

an overnight poll by AARP shows that obama's speech on health care helped resolve the concerns of many people over 45 dumb enough to believe braying republicans that the administration planned on executing the elderly.

(hat tip to josh marshall)

there goes the female vote

first, of course, it was the hispanics. but you knew the ladies were not long behind, didn't you?

from unreconstituted watergate ghoul and all-around professional creep g. gordon liddy:

let's hope that the key conferences aren't when [sotomayor's] menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. that would really be bad. lord knows what we would get then.

looks like they've whittled themselves down to the cranky old bald white guy vote now. and they've already lost jesse.

stay classy, gop.

update: gallup and quinnipiac break down the numbers ...

attitudes towards sotomayor nomination
Gallup	D men	D women	R men	R women
excellent/good	65%	70%	19%	33%
only fair/poor	20%	16%	63%	43%
NET	46%	54%	-44%	-11%
Quinnipiac	D men	D women	R men	R women
approve	79%	80%	18%	31%
disapprove	5%	4%	57%	40%
NET	74%	76%	-39%	-9%

looks like the daughters of the revolution aren't quite in the mood for the 24/7 republican hate fest. must be that time of the month.

negotiation 101

this should not have been a learning experience:

what has this experience with the stimulus led you to think about when you think about these future challenges?

obama: now, just in terms of the historic record here, the republicans were brought in early and were consulted. and you'll remember that when we initially introduced our framework, they were pleasantly surprised and complimentary about the tax cuts that were presented in that framework. those tax cuts are still in there. i mean, i suppose what i could have done is started off with no tax cuts, knowing that i was going to want some, and then let them take credit for all of them. and maybe that's the lesson i learned.

never open with a compromise. always make your counterpart earn every concession, especially when he isn't bargaining in good faith. your initial generosity won't be acknowledged as a concession to be reciprocated and will be treated as a giveaway, as it predictably was: it won obama zero republican votes. his initial plan might as well have been to nationalize the economy and imprison all the bankers for all the support it got from across the aisle. it would have been at least a better hand to start with.

if nothing else, the gambit for "bipartisanship" helped expose the republicans as the "know-nothings" and "do-nothings" they've devolved into, at little cost to obama's popularity.

gallup:

cnn:

seventy-six percent of those questioned in a cnn/opinion research corp. survey released monday gave obama a thumbs-up on how he's performing his duties, while 23 percent disapproved.

... three out of four poll respondents said that obama is doing enough to cooperate with republicans in congress, but only 39 percent feel that congressional republicans are cooperating enough with the president.

six out of 10 approved of the way democratic leaders in congress are handling their jobs. but only 44 percent of those questioned approved of the way republican leaders in congress are performing. overall, only 29 percent said they like the way congress is handling its job, with 71 percent disapproving.

a record-breaking transition

and too long in coming ...

bush's final approval rating: 22 percent president bush will leave office as one of the most unpopular departing presidents in history, according to a new cbs news/new york times poll showing mr. bush's final approval rating at 22 percent. seventy-three percent say they disapprove of the way mr. bush has handled his job as president over the last eight years. mr. bush's final approval rating is the lowest final rating for an outgoing president since gallup began asking about presidential approval more than 70 years ago. the rating is far below the final ratings of recent two-term presidents bill clinton and ronald reagan, who both ended their terms with a 68 percent approval rating, according to cbs news polling. recent one term presidents also had higher ratings than mr. bush. his father george h.w. bush had an end-of-term rating of 54 percent, while jimmy carter's rating was 44 percent. harry truman had previously had the lowest end-of-term approval at 32 percent, as measured by gallup.

nation's hopes high for obama, poll shows obama will take office tuesday as the most popular incoming president in a generation. he also will enter the white house with a broad mandate to act that was missing when george w. bush was elected by the narrowest of margins in 2000. more than half of all americans have high hopes for his presidency, almost three-quarters of the public say obama's proposals will improve the struggling economy, and about eight in 10 have a favorable view of him — more than twice the percentage now holding positive views of bush. about seven in 10 say obama understands their problems, and a similar proportion say his victory gives him "a mandate to work for major new social and economic programs."

poll finds faith in obama, mixed with patience president-elect barack obama is riding a powerful wave of optimism into the white house, with americans confident he can turn the economy around but prepared to give him years to deal with the crush of problems he faces starting tuesday, according to the latest new york times/cbs news poll. ... as the nation prepares for a transfer of power and the inauguration of its 44th president, mr. obama’s stature with the american public stands in sharp contrast to that of president bush. mr. bush is leaving office with just 22 percent of americans offering a favorable view of how he handled the eight years of his presidency, a record low, and firmly identified with the economic crisis mr. obama is inheriting. more than 80 percent of respondents said the nation was in worse shape today than it was five years ago. by contrast, 79 percent were optimistic about the next four years under mr. obama, a level of good will for a new chief executive that exceeds that measured for any of the past five incoming presidents. and it cuts across party lines: 58 percent of the respondents who said they voted for mr. obama’s opponent in the general election, senator john mccain of arizona, said they were optimistic about the country in an obama administration. ... his favorable rating, at 60 percent, is the highest it has been since the times/cbs news poll began asking about him. overwhelming majorities say they think that mr. obama will be a good president, that he will bring real change to washington, and that he will make the right decisions on the economy, iraq, dealing with the war in the middle east and protecting the country from terrorist attacks. over 70 percent said they approved of his cabinet selections.

welcome to nixon country

when richard nixon resigned in 1974 his approval rating was down to 23% ...

bush's approval at new low in reuters: 24 percent by mark silva president bush's approval rating has reached a new low in the newest reuters/zogby poll — with just 24 percent of those surveyed approving of bush's job performance. that is down from 29 percent last month. it is lower than the latest register of bush's approval rating in the gallup poll — 32 percent in gallup's newest october survey. the newest gauge arrives as president bush prepares for a press conference in the west wing this morning — at 10:40 am edt — and as the president prepares to fend off an override of his veto of an expansion of children's health care on capitol hilll tomorrow. public approval for the job that congress is performing — 11 percent in the new survey — matches the all-time low that reuters found last month. "deepening unhappiness with president george w. bush and the u.s. congress soured the mood of americans and sent bush's approval rating to another record low this month," reuters reports today. "the reuters/zogby index," which measures the mood of the country, also fell from 98.8 to 96 — the second consecutive month in which it has dropped. the number of americans who believe the country is on the wrong track jumped four points to 66 percent. "there is a real question among americans now about how relevant this government is to them," pollster john zogby said. "they tell us they want action on health care, education, the war and immigration, but they don't believe they are going to get it."

(video courtesy of rich garella)

i have a feeling that the former holder of the title of "the worst president in the nation's history" is sleeping less fitfully these days.

---

let's hope george doesn't forget to wave to harry on his way down; truman's approval rating had sunk to just 22% at the end of 1952 (though it did bounce back to 32% by the time he left office a year later).

a crazy li'l thing called credibility

as greg sargent @ talkingpointsmemo.com demonstrates, once it's gone — it's gone, baby:

as you can see, over the past four months the percentage of respondents who think the us "must win" in iraq for the sake of the broader "war on terror" dropped eight points. meanwhile, the percentage who think victory is not necessary to it has gone up a surprising ten points. this is striking — because in that four months or so since dems took power in january the overriding message that the white house, the gop and all of their lackeys and shills in the media have been blaring at the electorate in every conceivable forum is that (a) victory is absolutely essential in iraq and failure is not an option lest america become less secure; and (b) leaving iraq would constitute a catastrophic defeat in the broader war on terror. in other words, not only is the central white house/gop message failing to persuade, but fewer people buy it now since the propaganda campaign geared up in earnest, and significantly more people hold the opposite view. the white house and gop are losing the argument, if they haven't completely lost it already — suggesting that on iraq, their once-daunting ability to persuade, something that was jealously eyed by dems after the 2004 losses and has been hailed by the media for far too long since, has been reduced at this point to little more than smoldering wreckage.

one more bush hater

uh oh.

amid still sliding poll numbers, president bush has just lost his number one fan:

i am frustrated with the progress. if you were to take it and put me in an opinion poll and said do i approve of iraq, i'd be one of those that said, no, i don't. — president bush, pbs newshour with jim lehrer

hmm — looks like it's really just down to laura and barney now.

that certain ... je ne sais quoi

results from today's cbs news/new york times poll for the period august 17-21. the poll was open-ended, in which the respondents were allowed to provide answers in their own words rather than choose from a provided list:

what do you like best about the bush presidency?
	don't know	34%
	nothing	19%
	handling of war on terror	11%
	decisive	5%
	handling of war in iraq	4%
	taxes	3%
	morality/religion	3%

one year later

almost one year ago, clinton administration jetsam dick morris washed up on fox news and made this bold prediction about hurricane katrina's impact on bush's popularity:

y'know, george bush basically believes the federal government should do two things: fight wars and help people recover from disasters and now he's got both on his plate. i think that his ratings are gonna soar! not necessarily in the next three days, but over the next year he's gonna look so good doing all this stuff.

morris' hosts — even bush apologist-in-chief sean hannity — were understandably skeptical:

morris: ... the people who said this storm is gonna hurt bush's presidency are just wrong. he can get all the money he wants out of congress 'cause of this disaster, the people will be solidly behind him, the media will cover it like crazy, and he's gonna look like santa claus. colmes: so if you're advising democrats now, how would you advise them to react? morris: to shut up and stop harping — colmes: ha! "shut up" ... ! morris: — and screaming and hollering and pointing fingers, and start amassing national credits by showing the same liberal democratic compassion bush did. colmes: so they should just agree with him and say he's doing a great job. morris: yeah, they — just like right after 9/11, they hurt themselves by any kind of carping. ah, bush — this speech was fantastic! [ snip ] morris: ... you have a president that doesn't think government should do a lot. but he believes they should fight wars and that was the first term, and they believe they should recover from disasters and that's the second term. man, is this guy fortunate! hannity: [chuckling] fortunate to have a disaster? morris: fortunate to be able to be president at a time when he can respond without violating his principles.

with bush's approval at 41% (according to a fox news poll released on the day of the broadcast), dick probably thought his analysis was not completely ludicrous, since bush seemed to have nowhere to go but up:

today, 41 percent of voters approve and 51 percent disapprove of president bush’s performance, which is the lowest job rating he has received in a fox news poll. the president’s approval rating is down 4 percentage points from two weeks ago (45 percent, august 30-31), around the time the magnitude of katrina’s damage was becoming clear. before the hurricane, 47 percent approved and 44 percent disapproved (july 26-27).

well, after a year of bush's "liberal democratic compassion", dick may have been at least half-right — bush had nowhere to go. nowhere but down, that is, and he's dragging his republican-led congress down with him:

the new poll finds the [sic] 36 percent of americans approve of president bush’s job performance and 56 percent disapprove. these results are in line with the ratings the president has received for the last couple of months. moreover, for the past three surveys the gap between approval among republicans (76 percent) and democrats (10 percent) has been 66 percentage points. the assessment of the job congress is doing continues to be abysmal, as more than twice as many americans say they disapprove (58 percent) as approve (24 percent).

to be fair, dick's fawning pronouncements would not necessarily have been so pathetically absurd had he been prognosticating about any other president than the dismal one we are presently stuck with. to vindicate dick's wet dreams of republican munificence, all nero bush needed to do was to roll up his sleeves and simply deliver on dick's assurances of timely and tangible material support to katrina's victims.¹ compassion — if bush actually has any to give — without assistance is nothing more than contempt.

it was sickening enough that dick neglected to acknowledge the federal government's own culpability in the disaster that so fortuitously befell louisiana. but did dick truly believe that this potemkin administration ever intended to provide new orleans with more than a white wash and red tape? did he truly believe that the destruction of a major american city ever meant more to bush than just an opportunity for another series of woefully ineffectual photo-ops in bush's non-stop dog-and-pony tribute to himself?

---

¹ and of course, while he's at it, bush would also need to pacify iraq and lower oil prices and catch osama bin laden and jump-start the economy and ...

time for a change

well, it's primary day in connecticut and the country finally gets to see if democratic and independent voters there want a new senator. although lamont has enjoyed an amazing 13-point lead in the polls over the last week, that lead was halved over the weekend, and polls have been known to be wrong anyway. lamont's "netroots" supporters have been careful to temper their enthusiasm, having bitterly tasted defeat too often before.

i've been trying to step back and look at the race in more fundamental terms, beyond the particular issues being argued in it. in most regular elections the voters are offered two choices: the incumbent or the challenger; the status quo or change.

and right now the entire country is disgusted with the direction the white house and congress has taken the country, and nowhere is that truer than in connecticut, one of the bluest of the blue states. the country is aching for change. it's a fundamental dynamic that seems only today to be getting the emphasis it really deserves:

americablog: people are frustrated. they're tired of the republicans and their arrogance, their failed policies, their incompetence, and their inability to learn and grow from their mistakes. that is why the blogs came about, and it's why we've been successful at getting a voice. we are tapping into that frustration and, yes, anger, and channeling it towards an effort to change things for the better. and that, my reporter friends, is what is happening in connecticut and across america. joe lieberman is a victim of the anti-incumbent, anti-republican times in which we live. he is not a victim of the peace movement. he is not a victim of the iraq war. he is part or the larger passion play that is taking place across the country against the incumbent party in power. republicans control the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. americans believe our country is heading in the wrong direction and we, rightfully, are finally holding those running the country accountable, in addition to those who enable and embrace them.

mydd: luis, a poll worker who came out for some fresh air, said "lots of democrats today!" — the polling place had separate doors for the republican and democratic primaries, and i could see fewer than 1 out of 10 voters were going in the republican door. luis said he's seen a lot of new voters and young voters today. "they want change."

for all his vaunted experience in politics, lieberman strangely has been either unwilling or unable to recognize or respond to that basic dynamic. he's lost touch with his own constituents. he's been taking them for granted.

this race shouldn't have been a contest. it's been lieberman's to lose all along, and he will. what finally convinced me was lieberman's last big media statement, his "closing argument", which he delivered as a speech on sunday in east haven.

in it he reiterated his record and ticked off his democratic bona fides. but not once did he say the magic words: i'm going to change.

lieberman insists that he's been good for connecticut for 18 years and connecticut needs him to continue to do what he's been doing.

he even insists that he hears the criticism:

what i will say is this: i not only respect your right to disagree or question the president, i value it.

but just how does he demonstrate that? he never explains how his constituents' views influence his behavior, if at all. i get the impression of joe patting a boy on the head, telling him, "i know you're upset — i really, really do — you just need to understand your daddy knows what's good for you."

so it comes as little surprise, according to markos of daily kos, that lieberman omitted these words from his planned ending for that speech when he finally delivered it:

if after hearing the truth about where i stand on iraq, you still want to cast your vote solely on that one issue, then i respect your decision.

lieberman apparently had second thoughts about legitimizing that rationale for the voters.

and when asked early sunday for his position on iraq by george stephanopolous on abc's this week:

gs:	you're right that iraq is the number one issue, there's just no question —
jl:	— there's no question about it and you see not only — you see it in the opinion polls.
gs:	and you said in the debate [with lamont on july 7] that iraq is better now than a year ago. do you still believe that?
jl:	it is better now ... it- it- it’s better and worse if you’ll allow me to put it that way ...

joe just can't let go of his support for the failed occupation. even while suffering the damage it's done to his career — which explains his fumbling bush-like doublespeak.

so joe's not gonna change his tune or his behavior, and he expects connecticut voters to simply accept that.

and they will, but only for a few hours longer.

the limits of failure, pt. iii

hmmm. that didn't take long.

a new cnn poll, comparing attitudes towards president bush's job performance with that of his predecessor bill clinton, seems to have put josh marshall off our running wager:

speaks for itself. and i suspect americans attitudes toward president bush will own [sic] grow more grim over time.

clinton outperformed bush in every measure: economy, foreign policy, national security, disaster management, promoting unity, meeting people's needs and honesty.

looks like buyer's remorse has officially set in.

poll pall

virtually overnight the washington post has generated a poll showing twice as many supporters than objectors to bush's illegal nsa spying program, which only yesterday was revealed to have been accumulating records on "tens of millions of americans", contrary to the administration's repeated assurances. bush supporters are of course ecstatic at any news that can be wrung into kool-aid while bush critics seem to be reflexively retreating into their ready disenchantment with the apathetic hordes.

i was planning to post my own analysis of the poll, whose construction raises serious questions regarding the framing of issues, and which completely ignored the central issue of warrants, court orders and oversight, but glenn greenwald's "polling hysteria and the nsa program" nimbly beat me to the punch:

... when the nsa eavesdropping scandal was first disclosed, rasmussen reports quickly issued a blatantly flawed poll purporting to show that "sixty-four percent (64%) of americans believe the national security agency (nsa) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the united states." the question mentioned nothing about warrants. it mentioned nothing about fisa. and it specified that the government would be eavesdropping only on conversations "between terrorism suspects." the only surprise with the results was that only 64% favored that. One would think that virtually everyone would favor eavesdropping on terrorism suspects. nonetheless, since that was the first poll, it was held up by bush followers as proof that the nsa scandal was political suicide for democrats ... as the debate over the nsa scandal became more informed and more americans understood the issues at stake, virtually every poll thereafter showed that a majority or plurality of americans oppose warrantless eavesdropping and/or believe the president broke the law, and some even show that a plurality favors the censure resolution. opinions change when people stand up and explain why what the government is doing is wrong and dangerous, and americans respect politicians who are willing to do that even when — especially when — they are not guaranteed by the consulting class ahead of time that they will win. all other issues aside, there is nothing for bush opponents to lose here by pursuing this issue. nobody who has abandoned george bush is going to again become a supporter of his because he is keeping track of the telephone calls of every single american.... ... meanwhile, in the real world, ever since the nsa scandal was revealed, the president's approval rating has done nothing but plummet. that, of course, does not demonstrate a causal relationship, but it certainly proves that scandals of this type do not remotely help the president in any way. all of those frightened beltway democrats who were anonymously screeching that russ feingold's censure resolution played right into karl rove's omnipotent hands, that it destroyed the grand democratic plan, that it would allow the president to recover by forcing the debate back onto his turf — how wrong were they, as always?

i encourage you to read the entire post.

meanwhile, for a no-nonsense takedown of the poll's questions themselves, be sure to also check out former telephone pollster krazypuppy's "worst poll ever: americans do care" at daily kos.