FL-Quinnipiac: Obama in worse shape after budget deal

[pbrower2a]

I am using post-deal polling by Quinnipiac which more favors Republicans and casting out pre-deal polling.  President Obama obviously has some credit or culpability for this deal which, in my opinion, practically ensures that there will be nothing like a full peacetime recovery for at least five years. Sure, the Republicans are at least as responsible (not that such is my preferred word), but it is what voters think, and I have but one vote.

More significantly, Florida has a thoroughly-corrupt Governor who will do anything to protect himself -- like rig the 2012 election -- to protect himself from criminal investigations or ouster. In a close election one of his toadies can be "worth" a few thousand votes. 
 
Obama vs. Romney

Obama vs. Bachmann

Obama vs. Palin

Obama vs. Perry

Favorite Sons:


Obama vs. local favorite sons

[pbrower2a]

Interesting:

Florida Independents approve of the debt deal by double digits, but Obama's margin among Independents over Romney and Perry dropped by 20 points (!!!) after the debt deal. The margin remained mostly steady when matched against Bachmann and Palin.

Hard to reconcile, but my best guess is that independents tend to favor budgetary discipline and increasingly see the GOP as the way to pursue it.  In other words, they see the debt deal as a victory for the GOP and identify with that victory.  They see a GOP moderate president as the way to obtain that outcome, and I think Romney and Perry are seen as moderate compared to Bachmann and Palin.  Maybe some gender bias in there, too (R-leaners who care about debt issues favor male R candidates?)

Just spitballing.  Wacky sample makes the brainstorming harder.

People are all for budgetary discipline until they start to experience hunger pr have to surrender such freedom as they have to corporate fat-cats  who 'offer' harsh terms of employment in return for a little bit of food.

Independents will demand an economic panacea from the spending cuts -- and when the jobs fail to materialize they will want a stimulus that the Hard Right cannot offer. No panacea means that President Obama runs as a populist and assails a bad piece of legislation.

[pbrower2a]

People are all for budgetary discipline until they start to experience hunger or have to surrender such freedom as they have to corporate fat-cats  who 'offer' harsh terms of employment in return for a little bit of food.

Exactly who does this rhetoric describe?  I don't know many people who are fed by the government.  As for prostrating yourself before your corporate master, well, that's all of us, even yuppies like myself.

Outright fascism, the dream of America's economic elite.

[pbrower2a]

People are all for budgetary discipline until they start to experience hunger or have to surrender such freedom as they have to corporate fat-cats  who 'offer' harsh terms of employment in return for a little bit of food.

Exactly who does this rhetoric describe?  I don't know many people who are fed by the government.  As for prostrating yourself before your corporate master, well, that's all of us, even yuppies like myself.

Outright fascism, the dream of America's economic elite.

For the life of me, I have no idea what connection your comment has to mine.

Dude, you asked a question - 'exactly what does this rhetoric describe' - and he answered it 'Outright fascism, the dream of American's economic elite.

I thought you Ivy-beating lawyers had to know how to read.

Who, not what.  Who the f*** is "fascism"?  It's a concept, a political ideology.  He was making a comment that people like fiscal discipline until they're starving.  Who's starving?  Fascism?  What the f*** sense does that make?

MY ANSWER TO YOU IS COMMUNISM, THE DREAMLAND OF GRANOLA OPTIMISTS AND UNEMPLOYABLE TRADESMEN THE WORLD 'ROUND

There, I showed you both!  My point is unassailable.

The compulsion to prostrate oneself before elites who have the ability to determine who gets a basic need and who doesn't indicates a lack of freedom, at least for those whose needs become objects of exploitation.   

[pbrower2a]

The compulsion to prostrate oneself before elites who have the ability to determine who gets a basic need and who doesn't indicates a lack of freedom, at least for those whose needs become objects of exploitation.   

Understand and agree.  How does that alter that people demand fiscal responsibility from their government?  And what circumstances (historical or hypothetical) do people demand the government deficit spend on FOOD?

This almost makes my point for me -- what people really want is both fiscal responsibility and the essentials to be taken care of.

Of course one assumes that the government is responsible to the people, something essential to democracy. A democratic government might not produce the food, fuel, and shelter... not that such is a good thing, as such implies a Marxist economy that stifles initiative except among True Believers.

Private ownership and operation of the means of production works for people other than capitalists only

(1) if the system is competitive in the marketplace for goods and workers, or
(2) the ownership class and executives are decent people.

Both are in question in America these days as they used not to be in question.