Yesterday, the much vaunted McCain-Palin ticket rolled into the Twin Cities. Team McCain has been crowing for weeks about how Palin’s addition to the GOP ticket has generated a massive increase of enthusiasm among the Republican faithful. Apparently, McCain-Palin rallies have generated record crowds all across the country (although, media reports have revealed that the McCain campaign has exaggerated their crowd counts).
Well, John McCain did draw a large crowd to his rally up in Blaine yesterday - something in the neighborhood of 10,000 people. Not bad. But you want to know what is really impressive? The Obama counter-rally at Peavey Plaza, which did not feature either Barack Obama OR Joe Biden (or even a state-wide elected official) drew 3,500 people! (Added by Aaron: …and it was only announced two days in advance!)
That, my friends, is a first rate example of the enthusiasm gap in this election - a big reason why Obama is going to carry Minnesota and win the election in six weeks.
I would have been there if I had been free to ditch work, so I’m glad to hear there was such a great turnout at Peavy Plaza.
I don’t know how much you can read into this as an “enuthiasm” gap. Liberals seem to care a lot more about rallies and stuff like this and get involved a lot earlier in the process. Meanwhile, the conservatives are busy working, carrying the country, and raising their families. Then when they go to vote and realize that the Democrat running is usually an oober-left liberal who wants to tax them back to the stone age so their followers can get a free ride on the sweat of others, they choose to vote Republican.
I just love reading posts from angry GOP’ers like JT. They honestly believe they are the only people in the world who work, the only people in the world who raise their own children, the only people in the world who pay taxes and everything is a conspiracy against them to make them pay more. News Flash, JT. Democrats work, own businesses, raise children and pay taxes, too. Why do you think there were only 3,500 at the counter rally? Because the rest of the Dems were at work and didn’t have flexibility to get off. Why aren’t you asking how 10k (9k per the Secret Service) Republicans could get off work to see McCain yesterday? Maybe they’re the ones on the dole…maybe they’re the ones riding the gravy train. It’s perspective and yours needs tweaking.
JT have you been seeing the news lately… the Republicans just put the taxpayers on the hook for something like a trillion dollars bailing out Wall Street. I mean if you are going for stereotypes… welcome to the Soviet Socialist Republic of the GOP.
Republicans simply are not good stewards of the economy. Massive tax cuts for the upper income bracket is what turned everything to shit because trickle down economics does not happen and I have yet to see proof that it ever does.
Interesting fact, the last time Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House was 1930. They suffered massively huge losses in that election because the Republicans governed the countrty into the Great Depression.
JT, I agree 100%,
Everyone knows these Liberals have a bloodthirsty desire to raise taxes and spend on programs that help the American people who do not deserve any help. These lazy, stupid Americans are to be hated, they are the biggest threat America has ever faced. They are not really Americans. We should deport them all to Canada or France. We Republicans do not want people who disagree with us on our ship. For now, they can stay in the lower levels as we navigate the North Atlantic.
Republicans responsibly borrow spend huge amounts of money on the things we Republicans consider important, billing future generations to help generate huge profits for people who deserve them, because they agree with Republicans on the issues. These wealthy, successful Americans are a symbol of America, and fit the definition of a REAL American the way we Republicans define it. They are why we must stay the course. Anyone who disagrees, obviously, hates success. Anyone who disagrees, well, they do not get any lifeboats. They don’t deserve them.
Great Job Minnesota Republican blogger JT
Andrew - learn your history. republican leadership didn’t cause the great depression. they just took the heat for it because that’s where the buck stops.
Does anyone remember the rally with Obama at the Excel Center? There were an estimated 17000 in the arena and an additional 15000 outside. That is not a campaign estimate.
An issue bigger than campaign rally numbers is judgement..
McCain and Obama each wrote articles about health care in the Sept/Oct issue of the magazine Contingencies which is published by American Academy of Actuaries.
John McCain writes “Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.”
See it worked so well for banking that we should do the same thing for health care.
He claims that as chair of the senate commerce committee he had oversight over parts of the economy. It appears he never saw the locomotive coming down the tracks.
And this is the person that will fix our problems?
I only vote for oober candidates.
Obama has huge rallies, massive turnouts even when he is not going to attend. Amazing.
McCain, meanwhile, is just putzing around with more humble venues, being made fun of by Paris Hilton.
And the amazing thing is that this race is stastically tied. In the end, people will make the decision based on who they think will be best for them and best for the country. It will have little to do with how fired up a rally was or how ugly someone thinks old man McCain is.
Of course, McCain did not have to rely on a Rock Band to draw the crowds. You forgot to mention the other aspect to the Enthusiasm Gap. That is the 4th Brach of Government: The Biased Media. I watched the news that night and they ran 30 seconds of the McCain rally followed by a minute and half fluff piece on the non-Obama event.
Several things impressed me at the McCain rally. Approximately 1/3rd of the participants parked in the National Sports Center and then hiked the 2 miles to the event. As I walked along, I was struck by the wide range of ages. There were retirees, mothers with their kids, and quite a few teenagers. And everyone had a smile as they walked along.
Quite a stark contrast to the angry and vocal dozen Obama supporters who were shouting at the edge of the airport fence. I can understand their anger when I look at the number of electoral votes for each candidate. http://flickr.com/photos/jbenson2/2868101326/
Supply side economics has created the 1920’s era depression and again this one.
All sides of the debate agree that consumer spending is what makes this economy vibrant and strong.
Conservatives supply siders say, if we redistribute all the wealth to the top 1%, they will re-invest it and create jobs. They causes this redistribution of wealth by deregulating corporations and hammering labor.
The fact is, and all sides will agree, real wages and purchasing power for the vast majority Americans have been stagnant for 30 years, while the top 1% have increased 10 fold.
Now, since consumer spending drives the economy, supply side doesn’t work, so what did supply siders have to do to get more money into the economy? They made credit easier and easier to get. That is why we are in this mess.
Democrats, on the other hand, believe in Keynsian demand side economics. Create strong labor. Create good jobs. Consumer spending will go up WITHOUT workers having to go into debt. Instead of a paltry $200 tax break for the middle class like McCain offers, Demcrats will strengthen labor so you can actually ahve a good job wit good benefits.
Yes, we will tax the top 1% fairly, and it will not hurt the economy. McCain’s plan gives him a half million dollar tax cut. Does he need it, especially when we are at war and China is funding it?
Now, the supply siders will say, “A poor person never gave anyone a job.” As if consolidating all the wealth at the top has created so many jobs.I think profit is great, but when corporations are obscenely enriched by conservatives, they do not re-invest it at a simlar rate. Typically they buy their own stock back, putting nothing new into the economy, or they invest in China or some other country, because we fail to protect our markets like every other country in the world.
So, in essence, the conservatives of today, want to create a new class of economic royalists on the backs of the middle class. A decent job with decent benefits is contrary to Republicans goals.
IF you make less than 250k and vote for Republicans on economic reasons, you are truly unimformed and hurting yourself and this country. IF you make over 250k and vote for Republicans it will serve your economic interests, but hurt this country.
What more proof do you guys need that supply side economics hurts America?
I think anyone who has read my comments would onsider me a conservative supply sider. And I certainly do not agree with “redistribute all the wealth to the top 1%”
“They made credit easier and easier to get. That is why we are in this mess.” - You need an economic lesson. Watch some Fox Biz or CNBC.
“Create strong labor. Create good jobs.” - Yes, you democrats are the only ones who believe this. Come on.
“A decent job with decent benefits is contrary to Republicans goals” - I’m not a registered Republican, but I have many Republican friends, and can assure you this is an incredibly false statement.
“IF you make less than 250k and vote for Republicans on economic reasons, you are truly unimformed and hurting yourself and this country.” - I am not uninformed. I know the economic mess, and know that raising taxes on businesses and doubling the cap gains tax will only burden the economy more.
“What more proof” .. Proof? Didn’t see any. Just saw some egregiously partisan cheap shots that are remarkably inaccurate.
Alec - you should read up on what caused the financial mess. Google “Community Reinvestment Act”.
The financial mess started and was continued by the congressmen who tried to stop a practice known as Redlining. They made it sound like a terrible thing, but it was normal financial decision making. The congress felt it was just terrible to say NO to people who could not afford a house just because they lived in a poor neighborhood and had poor credit.
The bankers wanted to loan money to buyers who offered a decent down payment and had a good credit rating.
But noooo!. Congress wanted some feel-good laws and said everyone should have a home. (Sounds strikingly familiar to Obama)
The bankers fought the congress, and the bankers lost. This was the start of the downfall.
It was called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
“The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to underserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses.”
And it got much worse in 1995, when Bill Clnton substantially increased the number of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. This is when subprime loans started with companies like Countrwide. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998. When interest rates climbed, after years of poor mortgage control, the bubble finally burst.
jbenson2 & Sean2, I agree 100%,
These people who disagree with us should read up. It’s almost as if they live in a bubble dominated by Liberals who all agree 100% with everything each lazy, stupid Liberal says.
Instead, they should listen to both of your wise words. I’m sure that Rush Limbaugh, Laura Flanders, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Anne Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Robert Novak, Mary Matilin, Jeff Gannon, Liz Trotta, Kevin James, Michael Savage, Steve Doocy, Charlie Gibson, Glenn Beck, Tucker Carlson, William Bennett, Matt Drudge, Charles Krauthhammer, David Limbaugh, Melanie Morgan, John Stossel, Chris Wallace, Britt Hume and George Will would all agree with you two.
Everyone knows that the comments both of you make that help Republicans win election are not partisan and certainly are not exagerrated for political gain, because we Republicans have a track record of success after success. There is nothing we bold, strong, steady Republicans have done wrong, because supply side economics works. Any and all failures are the Democrats fault.
Everybody knows these Democrats have controlled both houses of congress with a veto proof majority, have controlled the White House, and the Judicial branch for two years now, and looked what happened! Everything was completely fine until then, that’s just common knowledge.
We hate you people who disagree with us on issues!!!!! Look what happened!!
Every aspect of the failure of the economy can be blamed on Democrats, because we Republicans are the party of “Personal Responsibility” and “Ownership Society”. Democrats are the party of “do as we say, not as we do”.
Great Job Minnesota Republican bloggers jbenson2 & Sean2
The enthusiasm gap in this election is well-documented.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/voters-grade-ba.html
To say this is because “democrats like rallies” is asinine spin, and nothing else.
A little anecdote. My friend just graduated from law school. He just got a job at one of the largest firms in san francisco. He just signed a lease on a $5,ooo/month apartment in SF. His stock portfolio lost 30% this week, and his firm is going under so he now has no job.
Despite this, he is upbeat because he believes Obama can win this election.
The enthusiasm gap is evident in my southern suburb where about a dozen first time canvasers turned out for the dfl Sat. morning. Fired up supporters are going to make a differnce this year.
also I got a good laugh out of the electoral map linked to by jbenson2 and have noted to be skeptical of future info used to back his/her arguments. I don’t know much about CRA, but have seen sources that I deem credible faulting Clinton for signing off on some deregulatory bill that contributed to the finacial crisis.
LOL @ Jbenson’s electoral map. Might want to take that down, chum.
lojasmo -
I’m sorry to hear about your friend. I find it especially unlucky that his portfolio was down 30% in a week where the market was up 1%. I am also surprised to hear of a major law firm “going under”. That is news to me and I’m sorry to hear that.
Please give him my best wishes, and give him this message from me: His future success will have more to do with his actions and choices than who is elected President in November.
DtM
doesn’t it tick you off just a little bit as a tax payer to be on the hook for a trillion dollar bailout? what about your kids who are really being stuck with this debt? I worked it out to about $3OOO per capita. I can’t see how I contributed or benefitted from this mess, but end up affected by having a gov’t very limited budget wise to address energy, healthcare, education, retirement security etc.
I think the president and congress make a tremendous difference and had Bush, Graham and co. stayed in texas and dems had led for the last 8 years I’d be living in a very different country. While Dems are far from perfect, they have a much better record of how the country has fared under their leadership.
DtM
Yup, Dan’s circumstances are especially unfortunate. He knows full well about his future success. No hackneyed truism you could offer would be news to my friend.
I’m sure he’ll be fine, even if McCain gets elected and continues to drive our nation off another cliff.
So you have a rally in the most liberal city in the state where hundreds of thousands of people live and work and you think it’s a big deal that 3,500 showed up. Well the last time a liberal presidential candidate turned out thousands of people like this was George McGovern. McGovern was known for having tens of thousands of people — including the “youth” vote — turn out for rallies and he got crushed in a landslide. The fact that you would make a story out of this shows me that you’re worried about McCain-Palin winning and even taking MN. Try having the rally on the iron range and see how many of those voters show up for Obama surrogates? Hell, iron range DFL legislators aren’t even publicly endorsing Obama.
“Well the last time a liberal presidential candidate turned out thousands of people like this was George McGovern.” Huh? Chris, do you not read the former comments? Do you not remember the Excel Center rally for Obama which turned out 17,000 in the arena and 15,000 outside? Now I am waiting for your, “Ya, but….” statement.
Don’t know about Chris, but I’ll bite…
Ya, but here in Minnesota, the only state to vote Democrat in each Presidential election since 1972, having rallies like that for a Democrat candidate should be that he will carry the state by 15 points. Slam dunk.
Instead, the most recent polls are showing MN as being a toss-up.
You can feel good about the rally attendance. We’ll feel good about where the polls stand.
A fairly obvious comment after looking at the non-Obama rally photos. The local college classrooms must have been very quiet Friday afternoon.
Just look at all the kids in the photos.
Here are a few of the colleges and Universities within a 2 mile radius of the rally.
* Minneapolis College of Art and Design
* University of St. Thomas
* Capella University
* Augsburg College
* University of Minnesota
* Universtty of St. Thomas
* Minnepolis Community and Technical College
* U of M Institute for Global Studies
* Art Institute of Minnesota
* Metropolitan State University
* Walden University
* College of St. Catherine
* Dunwoody College Technology
* College of Liberal Arts
* U or M Graduate School
* School of Denistry
* College of Pharmacy
The rather naive Obama will find out, just as John “Did you know I served in Viet Nam” Kerry found out, kids will say they will vote, but they don’t.
jbenson2, I agree 100%,
We should ignore the college vote, and consider them irrelevant.
I’m sure the more Minnesota Republican bloggers say that, the more hearts and minds will be won when we obsessively make comments on the blogs of people we disagree with.
You boldly repeated the talking point “kids will say they will vote, but they don’t.” Obviously we Republicans are going to win now, so we Republicans better keep repeating that.
When we Republican bloggers say it, it becomes true, just as we told you Liberals Hillary would be your nominee, (repeating that endlessly).
We Republican bloggers have a track record of success after success after success. Any failure is not our fault, because we are the party of “personal responsibility”….. so, what we say reflects reality. Get over it, Liberals.
Great Job Minnesota Republican blogger jbenson2!
TFRWG says: We should ignore the college vote, and consider them irrelevant.
The kids were irrelevant in past elections. They didn’t vote.
No reason to think that the Uniter, the Messiah, the One has made any difference with the kids this year.
(Unless they are German kids - but they don’t vote either)
jbenson, I agree 100%,
ANYONE who thinks Obama is the Messiah is stupid and lazy, and wants to suck off the Government teat, right jbenson2?
So, anyone who supports Obama is stupid, we’ve proven that, it’s just common sense.
Repeating this theme over and over will help us Minnesota Republican bloggers win elections.
There are some who think that insults and exagerrations only energize people you disagree with. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Typically, people we disagree with read what we Minnesota Republican bloggers comment, and either become Republicans, or slink back into their corners where they belong.
Great Job Minnesota Republican blogger jbenson2!!
deesent,
Like the Obama campaign does to McCain, you’ve taken my words completely out of context. What I said was the last time a liberal Presidential candidate drew the large crowds Obama has been drawing was McGovern in 1972 and we all know what happened then - Nixon in a landslide. I was comparing Obama to McGovern not Obama to Obama.
And to answer the #1 internet stalker’s concerns, the youth *did* turn out and vote in huge numbers for McGovern. And, remember, 1972 was the first election where 18 year olds could vote as the Constitution was amended to lower the voting age in 1971. You can have a 100% turn out of 18-25 year olds, but older people still outnumber them greatly. For McCain to be dead even with Obama in Minnesota says a lot about Obama.
TFRWG - I never said the Messiah would suck off the Government teat. But since you brought it up… Let’s see who speaks for his principles and who speaks because his party tells him to.
McCain has a long and substantial record of producing bipartisan alliances on tough issues. He has bucked his party again and again — on immigration, federal judges and campaign finance, to name three on which he enraged many Republicans by defying the party position and working with Democrats.
Obama has a much thinner record of opposing his own party. With the exception of a discussion on ethics reforms in the Illinois Senate and in Washington — Obama has rarely challenged party dogma on the sort of big, contentious issues he’d face as president. As a U.S. senator, he has taken the extreme liberal Democratic position on most issues. Studies by Congressional Quarterly show Obama has voted with his party almost 97% of the time.
Obama’s limited bipartisan accomplishments in Washington have been on relatively non-controversial, efforts to secure outdated conventional weapons (which was so non-controversial that it had no opposition at all). He also established a federal-spending database.
What Obama lacks is a record of challenging his own party on divisive, difficult issues — the deficit, immigration, energy — that he’d have to reach out to Republicans on if he’s elected. Even with a Democratic majority in Congress, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass most major measures.
Based on their records and the facts, it takes a much greater leap of faith to believe that Obama will turn into of a consensus-building, party-challenging president than McCain.
Jbenson2:
32% of the 18-14 demographic voted in 2000
42% of the demographic voted in 2004
If 50% vote in 2008, as they did in 1972 (possible) and current polling holds to partisan identification (I suspect it will) Then Obama wins walking away. /subthread.
”. What I said was the last time a liberal Presidential candidate drew the large crowds Obama has been drawing was McGovern in 1972 and”
That was not the case.
Before Obama, Kerry drew the largest crowds. Obama has over performed those crowds by about 400%
jbenson2,I agree 100%,
Nice comment full of talking points people can google.
I think you won some more hearts and minds with your completely fair and balanced comments. Obviously, none of these Liberals have ever heard this information before.
Continue to repeat these talking points as if nobody as ever heard them before. That is the only way we Minnesota Republican bloggers will win elections.
There may be some who might wonder how a Maverick could adopt the popular Republican talking points, and how that could be maverick-like??
Easy,…because the talking points we Republicans uses over and over, election after election, and our strategy of exagerrations that cause people to hate every single Democratic candidate are 100% correct, consistently.
The Republican party is the only credible party. Anyone who disagrees with Minnesota Republican bloggers is a liar.
I’m sure Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Flanders, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Anne Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Robert Novak, Mary Matilin, Jeff Gannon, Liz Trotta, Kevin James, Michael Savage, Steve Doocy, Charlie Gibson, Glenn Beck, Tucker Carlson, William Bennett, Matt Drudge, Charles Krauthhammer, David Limbaugh, Melanie Morgan, John Stossel, Chris Wallace, Britt Hume and George Will would all agree.
Great Job Minnesota Republican blogger jbenson2!!
Shorter jbenson2:
College classrooms will empty out for a political rally, but kids won’t vote.
Makes perfect sense to me.
JBenson2 — I have to agree with you 100% on your most recent post.
What do I look for in a President? Someone who will actually be a 3rd branch of Government, not an extension of the Congressional branch. To do that, you need some courage to rise above your party.
McCain has shown it with hard and proven legislation. The points you raise are good. I’d add global warming and gay rights to the list. If you compare McCains positions with the party platform, you’ll see differences ranging from subtle to stark.
Obama not only was the most liberal Senator in DC, he was also one of the most liberal Senators in the Illinois state house.
Everything that Barack Obama has done in his brief and vague political career is great news for liberals, but very bad news for moderates and centrists, let alone anyone flirting with conservative ideals.
I gave a nice simple explanation of the financial mess we are in because of housing, and some moderator here thought it too honest so they decided not to post it? LOVE the free speech around these parts. Why have a blog when you can’t speak the truth? The Clinton deregulation legislation of the 90’s lead to this mess…and we all have to pay now. There was a lot more to the prior post but I guess the SS doesn’t want it posted? Nice…
re comments from jbenson2: (does jbenson1 post here?)
“What Obama lacks is a record of challenging his own party on divisive, difficult issues — the deficit, immigration, energy — that he’d have to reach out to Republicans on if he’s elected. Even with a Democratic majority in Congress, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass most major measures.”
Maybe Obama has voted party line more consistently because dems hold the right positions on these issues.
on deficit: Obama’s proposals result in greater deficit reduction than mccain’s. I don’t have link handy, but greater taxes on the rich must be part of future responsible budgets and dem presidents have a better record on balanced budgets.
on immigration: Mccain’s position on immigration was the basis for my prior respect for him as a maverick, but as he has since caved to the right wing, this no longer works as evidence of mccain’s good bipartisan character.
on energy: drill now/all of the above policy rhetoric works well until there are actual votes. Mccain and other rebubs have a record of with holding support for investments in renewable energy.
On federal judges: with the liberal justices most aged and ready to retire we need Obama appointees just to maintaon liberal/conservative balance on the court. Even one more conservative justice could result in major changes/setbacks to the country from reprodutive choice to many other issue in which rich people and corporations win over regular citizens.
“Maybe Obama has voted party line more consistently because dems hold the right positions on these issues.”
That kind of logic is unhealthy. The reason we have the tone we do in Washington right now is because everyone truly believes that they have the only right ideas and to hell with the rest. According to Rasmussen, 39% identify themselves as Democrat. Does that mean the other 61% just have it all wrong on the issues? If your answer is yes, then I fear you are part of the problem and will never be part of the solution.
Just to show that I’m not as partisan as you think, I too would like to see the court maintained about where it is. I think today’s court is a relatively accurate reflection of a cross section of America. Adding more conservatives could tip the scales too far. But it won’t keep me from voting for the Maverick.
I have posts disappear all the time ~ not just here but on other blogs as well. Funny - I’m just not paranoid enough to think I’ve been censored by the SS. I just figured it was a technology glitch. And it never mattered enough that I need to go back and whine about it.
DtM - in regards to the polls - do you think the fact that 17% of Minnesotans have only cell phones and no land line at all has any effect of poll results? Just a guess but I’m thinking the majority of them are young people. I have two college students, both of voting age, who have only cell phones and neither of them know anybody who has ever been contacted by a pollster. By the way, the word on campus is to make sure to vote this year!!
DtM - in regards to the polls - do you think the fact that 17% of Minnesotans have only cell phones and no land line at all has any effect of poll results? Just a guess but I’m thinking the majority of them are young people. I have two college students, both of voting age, who have only cell phones and neither of them know anybody who has ever been contacted by a pollster. By the way, the word on campus is to make sure to vote this year!!
Max, well then you better check the rules of this site. The moderators here can and do delete posts. Ask them. My posts have the “Waiting for Moderation” on the bottom when I submit, thus allowing them time to decide whether or not they want to “allow” my post. The SS comment was sarcasm…if you didn’t know. Lastly, I am sorry to hear that what you write about never mattered much. Well, that being the case, why bother at all?
Has anybody here really looked at what Franken has done for our state?
Please…someone….tell me how he is qualified to run, or even deserving of the post?
Don — many peoples comments come up as “Waiting For Moderation” and very rarely do we ever delete any comments. If we do, we’ll usually give cogent reasons why we’re deleting them.
Don’t worry buddy, I love having you comment here, if just because it shows the kind of people the Republican party is made of. Sean
#32 lojasmo mentioned the 1972 election to support his case of kids helping the democrats to win.
That’s kind of an odd selection when you look at the 1972 results. Democrat George McGovern carried only 1 state (Massachusetts) in the general election.
Also I highly doubt your statistics that “32% of the 18-14 demographic voted in 2000”
The 18-14 demographic is only allowed to vote with the dead voters in Chicago.
#35 the other scott’s questioning analysis “College classrooms will empty out for a political rally, but kids won’t vote.”
I have a better version of your analysis.
College classrooms will empty out for any reason known to man when it is a warm sunny day, but the kids still won’t vote.
#38 south metro dem asked if jbenson1 posts here?
No, that’s my grandfather and he is dead.
Regarding the suggestion that “Maybe Obama has voted party line more consistently because dems hold the right positions on these issues.”
Obviously, you are not very knowledgeable on how Chicago politics works. But I have to admire your logic.
#42 Max had an common thought about cell phone vs land line.
Good point and it is something the pollsters are wrestling with. But it is not just a kid thing. The trend is across the board. I’ve got grandchildren and I only use my cell phone (land line gone several years ago). I’ve never been polled either.
Not to burst your bubble about the comment “By the way, the word on campus is to make sure to vote this year!!” They’ve been saying that since I was in college (and it never works).
Do most college kids vote in the state they go to school in or the state their parents live in?
jbenson2, I agree 100%,
Lordy Lordy do you have the vapors today, as I always do because people who disagree with Republicans exist. Where are my pills!! People who disagree with Mature Minnesota Republican bloggers are an OUTRAGE.
Making fun of type-os, ridiculing college students, accusing people who disagree with you of being stupid, and bursting bubbles with opinions are great ways of taking these moonbats down.
Keep up the awesome representation of a Minnesota Republican blogger.
Great Job Minnesota Republican blogger jbenson2!!
18-24 stupid head. Trend lines show obama dominating in that demographic. If 18-24 year olds vote at 50% (as in 1972) given current support for Obama, he wins walking away.
51 lojasmo, I’m glad I was able to get a rise out of you and TFRWG.
Let’s get our head out of 1972 (a loser election of epic proportions for the kids) and stick with the current Obama kid vote.
Youthful voters, a famously fickle group, could be important in November — if they vote. And that is a very, very big IF.
Waiting for the youth vote is like waiting for Godot.
1. Most politicians aren’t aged 18-24, and hence they relate better to older people who do vote.
2. Kids are often, if not always, more concerned with other pursuits. Voting is associated with caring about your community, building a future for your family, etc.; those things don’t matter so much when you’re young.
3. A cause and effect syndrome. Politicians know that 18-24-y-o’s don’t vote much, so they don’t focus their policy choices on that age group’s needs (more beer for example and cheaper video games). And because they don’t focus on those needs, that age group doesn’t benefit from involvement in politics, and hence don’t vote much. And the cycle continues indefinitely.
While some students are active in politics, if you measure this by which age group is more likely to vote, write their representative, or even run for office, that title belongs to seniors - those over 65. Students only appear to be more active because they are more vocal participating in the Obama rallys so they can get out of school early.
Truth be known, most of the kids don’t get involved in politics, don’t join political movements, and many don’t even bother registering. However, seniors are well organized, have by far the highest percentage of voting, getting involved with party politics and elections.
Political experts know just how fickle the youth vote can be. Just ask Howard Dean, John Kerry, or Al Gore. They all had strong popularity among young voters. But those voters didn’t show up on Election Day, and the kids who did were clobbered by the overwhelming higher participation from the older generation.
jbenson2 - I’m bookmarking your post - we’ll see if you’re right that nobody under 24 shows up on Nov. 4
53 Max - thanks for your concern. You also might want to recheck the post.
“Nobody under 24”? A great example of how the left spins comments they don’t agree with.
Things that just might focus that youth vote… McCain/Palin seem to be suggesting wars with Russia and Iran - potential Draft, Bush Administration and deregulator McCain just about to saddle every man, woman, child and student in the USA with an extra $8,000 debt for Wall Street bailout without any help for home-buyers, McCain/Palin seem to indicate less student loans and less education help, Palin against birth control and any abortion including making rape and incest victims carry to term.
Don’t know about the young people you know but potential drafts, extra taxes to pay for Wall Street excesses, education help being cut, and moving back into the Sexual Dark Ages is mighty motivating to the oung ones I’ve talked to…
I once read a well-written study on why there was such a healthy number of “young republicans” in Universities and Colleges. While it is true that people tend to vote Democrat when they are younger and vote Republican as they age (reverting to Democrat in their twilight), the Democrats certainly don’t have a lock on the college crowd.
One theory was that, while college kids might not be financial successful yet today, they expect to be in a few years. They don’t picture themselves as a starving student, they picture themselves as an able and creative member of the world in a few years. As a result, they are essentially safegaurding for the future — safegaurding a nation where you can follow your passions and endeavors, create a business, be successful in your field, and not be straddled with a tax burden where your wealth will be shifted away from you the second you earn it.
In other words, college kids are full of Hope. And that Hope makes them lean to the right. It was very interesting and I’ll try to dig it up.
“not be straddled with a tax burden where your wealth will be shifted away from you the second you earn it.”
Then why on God’s green earth would they continue to support current Republican policies that spend, spend, spend (read ‘Iraq War’ and ‘Bailout’) and borrow, borrow, borrow to pay for it making those bs due, due, due in a few years, when they are finally making some money?? Sorry I learned (and have taught my kids) that if you can’t afford it, you don’t buy it ~ or else figure out a way to raise your income. Our government needs to do the same - cut spending AND increase income. Besides reducing spending, getting a second job (as an individual might have to do) or raising taxes (as a government has to do) is not fun, I agree. But it’s the responsible thing to do.
By the way, jbenson2 - good for you for calling me on my post - I don’t disagree that old people vote more than young people do - I just don’t like your pooh - poohing attitude of those young people (Dems or Repubs) who care enough to try to make a difference. “Waiting for the youth vote is like waiting for Godot.”
“making those bs due, due, due”
uh, that should be bills, not bs.
I’m amazed at the efforts the Republicans put forth to suppress the vote. They know that big voter turnouts spell trouble for them. In other words, they are not chancing anything on the American people, just the republican voters.
where your wealth will be shifted away from you the second you earn it
Why is the parasitic wealthy class so averse to paying taxes. Are wealthy people unwilling to pay taxes because they are unpatriotic or are wealthy people unpatriotic because they are unwilling to pay taxes? To hear anti-American sentiments spouted by DtM over and over again all the while he points out over and over again, that he has wealth that he imagines, I would say somewhat obsessively, is about to be whisked away from him, it’s really painful. What’s also painful is the ridiculous notion that Hope makes college students lean right. That’s some good stuff there. I had to read that one aloud to my wife and she’s still laughing. Seriously. Young Republicans don’t lean right for the same reasons they don’t enlist in the military to go to illegal wars, they are amoral sociopaths. Greed, avarice, perverse narcissism, I guess if you want to define Hope like that then you might be right but I don’t think so.
Max -
I’m with you on financial responsibility, and am teaching my kids the same values.
The problem is that when Government raises revenues, it is less akin to a family earning more and more akin to a mafia boss going to one of his “clients” and saying “yo - we need another thirty grand a month from you”. I’d much rather that the family actually find a way to earn more to pay for their excesses, which in this analogy means you grow your economy and your tax base.
And I would much, much rather that the same analogous family not take one mortgage and car payments that they can’t afford. In that respect, we’ve been failed by both parties.
Why McCain will loose (part38):
John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.
McCain has recently begun campaigning as a critic of the two companies and the lobbying army that helped them evade greater regulation as they began buying riskier mortgages with implicit federal backing.
Last week the McCain campaign stepped up a running battle of guilt by association when it began broadcasting commercials trying to link Mr. Obama directly to the government bailout of the mortgage giants this month by charging that he takes advice from Fannie Mae’s former chief executive, Franklin Raines, an assertion both Mr. Raines and the Obama campaign dispute.
Incensed by the advertisements, several current and former executives of the companies came forward to discuss the role that Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager and longtime adviser, played in helping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac beat back regulatory challenges when he served as president of their advocacy group, the Homeownership Alliance, formed in the summer of 2000.
Mr McCain is an idiot who’s pants are on fire.
Richard -
Thank you for such a respectful tone. When you start calling those on the other side of the aisle “amoral sociopaths”, “parasitic”, and guilty of “perverse narcissism”, we are bound to have a nice, healthy, productive exchange of ideas. Oh yeah, and “anti-American”. I had to read that one aloud to my wife, and she is still laughing.
When those on the extreme wing of the left truly believe that the right is wrong not due to having ideas of less merit, but are wrong because they are flawed human beings, then we’re bound to make a whole heck of a lot of nonpartisan progress in DC, aren’t we
Here’s to ignoring the discussion about the idea, and attacking the character of the individual! Good job, Richard!
Dan you want proof you Rightwingers are wrong? Watch the news tonight and see what Republican philosophy of deregulation has gotten us.
“I’d much rather that the family actually find a way to earn more to pay for their excesses, which in this analogy means you grow your economy and your tax base.”
I agree with you to a point - but Republicans continue to espouse Reagan’s trickle down economics as the way to grow the economy and that’s not working. Instead, when we’ve given tax breaks to huge corporations, instead of large reinvestments back into the business, they’re going into stockholder portfolios. Now this isn’t all bad of course (it’s been very good to me) BUT when it means that companies have figured out they don’t have to pay their workers a living wage, it’s not very good for the middle class guy who has to go get a part time job to put gas in his tank. It would have been better for him if Ford had put money into development to create an attractive car that he can afford that gets decent gas mileage, instead of fighting mandated mileage standards tooth and nail (for example). Plus, when that guy’s wife (ok, I’m being sexist here), makes a decent wage working at Target or Wal-Mart or Taco Bell, she can take home more PLUS more can go into income taxes. Growing the economy by putting more money into the hands of the wealthy and then reducing their tax burden seems counterintuitive to me.
Just to show I’m not some partisan hack….
I favor corporate tax rate increases now. I didn’t two months ago. But if we’re going to support the corporations that fail, then they need to be paying in more during the good years.
My preference would be no bailouts and no corporate tax increases. But the individual taxpayer shouldn’t bailout the corporation.
How’s that for moderation!
I love how you people all attack the rich and claim that Republicans caused this mess. That lame accusation couldn’t be farther from the truth. Who are the “rich” who ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground while cashing out tens and hundreds of millions along the way? Liberal Democrats like Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Rahm Emanuel and Jim Johnson. Each of those individuals made millions of dollars from Fannie or Freddie. Raines in particular made over $100 million. And he advised the Obama campaign on housing and mortgages. If you want to read about how Democrats caused this mess, go to this article from Bloomberg.com. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Max,
I don’t know who taught you economics, but they didn’t do a very good job. First, who do you think are the shareholders of these major corporations you spent about 100 words attacking? I don’t know if you have a 401(k) or a 503(b) or a IRA or a pension, but if you do, you are one of the greedy shareholders you’re attacking. Don’t feel bad because you aren’t alone: about half of all Americans are invested in the stock market. Second, the idea that you’re getting screwed because Ford didn’t make smaller cars is asenine. You’re getting screwed because there isn’t enough domestic oil coming out of the ground to keep up with demand, even though there are billions of barrels of oil that Congress won’t let us tap. Third, Corporations don’t pay income taxes. They pass those taxes on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. If you think corporations will sit idly by and watch their taxes go up, you’re wrong. The price of those Nabisco crackers or Bud Light will go up. Moreover, why do you think the money is going to be better spent by the government than by the corporation which reinvests the money into the business or passes the money to the shareholders?
So Chris, Reaganomics worked? Defend it please.
Minnesota Republican Chris, I agree 100%,
Democrats have had complete control of all three branches of government for quite some time now.
Everybody knows these Liberal elites only legislate to favor big business, as the Democratic party always has been. These Liberal elites put the interests of big business before the AMerican people.
The Republicans, and especially Minnesota Republicans, have always been the party of big business. They have basically gotten everything they wanted since Reagan began the era of deregulation that has helped big business become more profitable at the expense of the financial stability, safety, and health of average working people. Shame on these hollywood Liberal elites!
When the Republicans had complete control of the House, Senate, and White House they passed a number of bills that ried to prevent this financial disaster, and it happened anyway. That’s just how insidious these Liberal elites are.
The Republican leadership did not fail to lead, no, instead they led America in a direction we Minnesota Republican bloggers agree with 100%, and the disaster happened anyway, and that disaster is the fault of Democrats.
Chris, continue to stalk the blogs of people you disagree with and make comments that take them down. You’re doing a heck of a job!
Great Job Minnesota Republican blogger Chris
I said “they’re going into stockholder portfolios. Now this isn’t all bad of course ” Hardly 100 words attacking the shareholders.
See, jbenson2?? Your side can also spin things they don’t agree with…
By the way, I learned economics from Karl Marx (that’s a joke, please don’t get riled up any further!)
I just scanned the posts. A word of defense for deregulation.
The Community Reinvestment Act had as much to do with our mess right now as any greedy banker. The Act required banks and lenders to offer riskier loans to poorer individuals every time they offered a less risky loan to a wealthier individual. Regulation, in this case, caused banks to do something that they wouldn’t have done otherwise.
So, they proceeded to chase these risky loans in order to keep their portfolios “in balance” according to this Act. And now, those risky loans make up a disproportionately high rate of the 3% of loans that are currently defaulting.
Deregulation fails us? No, in that case, Regulation caused the problem.
How about the inability to drill in the arctic or in the deep seas. Every other country can do it, but we cannot within our own borders. I know, I know, we “can’t drill our way out of this problem”. But you cannot complain about high gas prices in one breath and then talk about the fact that we have reregulated ourselves too far in the next. If we drilled in ANWR and the deep seas, we would provide some temporary respite from high gas prices while we develop better, cleaner, and realistic ways to power our nation in future decades.
Is deregulation helping the price of gas remain high? No. Regulation is preventing it from going down.
I blame both parties for the financial crisis. Graham and republicans wrote deregulation bill , WJC signed it, nobody has done anything to fix it since. Dodd and others in congress should have seen this train wreck coming and taken some steps to reregulate.
DtM has the right idea to raise corporate taxes. How about hitting up all those who have been making millions on wall street for years, too. The Lehman bros CEO equaled my annual salary in two hours work. And what is the big rush to spend a trillion on this bailout in a week rather than do it right. And why wouldn’t all congress people vote to make the process as transparent as possible rather than let the treasury secretary dole out the billions with no oversight.
I probably don’t have the story on this mess quite right, but that is how I understand it and I am ticked my gov’t will so much less $ for what I see as urgent needs and this debt will be added to the burden being placed on my kids generation.
Disassociating risk and rebundling of mortgages as exotic financial instruements without regulation and oversight… nah that would mean that greed and avarice was all over Wall Street. Couldn’t be a cause of this crisis… it must be those damn poor people who took out mortgages.
Max,
Everytime taxes in this country have been cut, revenues to the federal treasury have gone up. And I said you attacked the corporations in 100 words, not the shareholders. President Bush has actually made the wealthy pay more in taxes. The top 1% pay 39% of all income taxes and the top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes.
Minnesota Republican blogger Chris, I agree 100%,
Yes everytime taxes in this country have been cut the past 8 years, revenues to the federal treasury have gone up. Statistics from the White House can be trusted 100%.
Everyone knows that, therefore, this has been true for 100 years.
Great Job Minnesota Republican blogger Chris!
Minnesota Republican blogger Chris, I agree 100.
The top 1% pay 39% of all income taxes and the top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes.
Im sure Carly Fiorina would agree that this is terrible.
Great Job Minnesota Republican blogger Chris Fiorina
DtM:
Greedy bankers remain most likely culprits for financial crisis:
“The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977. Are we supposed to believe that CRA was working smoothly throughout the Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton years and then only under Bush II did overzealous anti-”redlining” enforcement come into play, perhaps a result of Dubya’s legendarily close relationship with ACORN? Or maybe overzealous enforcement back in the late 1970s is somehow responsible for a real estate blowout that only materialized 30 years later? It doesn’t even come close to making sense. ”
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/blame_the_cra.php
Attributing this mess to bad loans made to poor people through CRA is called blaming the victims (people lacking the ability to understand the bad terms they were signing). Certainly many loans should never have been made/accepted and it was the banks responsibility to deny these.
south metro dem,
Who were the greedy bankers? Democrats: Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, Jamie Gorelick and Rahm Emanuel. All were either CEOs or top officials at Frannie or Freddie. All of them made tens of millions and Raines made hundreds of millions.
McCain’s campaign manager Rick Davis made 2 million in 30 thousand/month salary protecting fannie and freddie over the past five years or so. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/rick-davis-mccains-campai_n_128183.html?page=2
SMD -
The Community Reinvestment Act began in 77 but was signficantly changed in 1995 to have even more regulatory teeth:
“In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton’s administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators’ attention on institutions’ performance in helping to meet community credit needs. These revisions[1] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans.”
Not ironically, that coincides with when the great housing bull market and subsequent bubble started to show signs of life.
Inevitable greed is found on both sides of the aisle and is one example of how Washington is broken. Leaders in DC have responsibility to regulate the game and largest share of blame goes to Phil Graham & republicans with an assist by president clinton for signing a bad bill that started us down the road to this crisis. At least Dodd and Frank seem to be acting like adults to address this mess in a way that attempts to avoid greater disaster and watch out for ordinary taxpayers, although were all basically screwed. Somebody on msnbc this morning said this adds several thousand to my $35,000 share of the national debt.
This just hit the news today. See what I mean…
BOSTON (AP) _ University of Massachusetts officials on Monday quashed efforts by an Amherst campus chaplain to offer two college credits to any student who would campaign for Obama in New Hampshire this fall.
Chaplain Kent Higgins sent students a Sept. 18 e-mail. Higgins added that an unnamed “sponsor” in the university’s history department would offer a two-credit independent study for students willing to canvass — identify supporters — or volunteer on behalf of the Democratic nominee.
So the colleges have lowered themselves to pushing kids to be involved in interstate political bribery. So, the kids will have a major impact on the vote this year? Keep dreaming.
south metro dem,
Do you even know what the Gramm bill did? The Gramm bill allowed companies like AIG to re-insure mortgages. So what? If Freddie and Fannie hadn’t issued hundreds of billions of dollars in questionable mortgages, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in. Phil Gramm did not have anything to do with legislation allowing these junk mortgages to be issued. As for Dodd and Frank, Chris Dodd was the largest recipient of Freddie/Fannie campaign contributions in Congress. Both had oversight of Fannie and Freddie in their respective committees and did nothing. This crisis didn’t happen overnight. Congress knew that Fannie Mae had overstated its earnings and its capital position and understated its CEO and executive pay. And they knew this for three years. How did they know this? Because liberal Democrat Franklin Raines was investigated by the SEC and the OFHEO.
As for Rick Davies, he may have made a lot of money lobbying for Fannie Mae, but he had nothing to do with the bogus lending practices which led to the crisis. I love how Huffington Post and all these far left kool aid sites you people link to can just pass the buck. Rick Davies: $2.1 million lobbying. Franklin Raines: $100 million raiding. Which person is more culpable?
This story helps solidify my point about the college kids supporting Obama
Headline: Low Turnout for Barack Obama Rally in Green Bay, Wisc. (McCain/Palin drew 4,000 more supporters at same venue a week ago)
GREEN BAY, Wis. — Hoping to shore up support in