Dick Morris: What Many Polls Are Missing

[nhmagic]

Dick Morris can and is amazingly wrong most of the time.  However, he is borrowing this line of thought from other people and thus he is correct.  There is absolutely no way that Obama is going to outperform his 2008 numbers and pollsters are using democratic sample sizes larger than 2008.  I also disagree with the myth of the Reagan polls.  Reagan did lead throughout much of the summer.  That has nothing to do with the belief that the polls are wrong in my view.

1st - The feeling isn't in the air.  I don't see the enthusiasm like I saw in 2008 where nearly every single person I knew outside of my family was voting for Obama.  I don't see signs, shirts and other campaign materials.  In 2008, all I saw was a sea of Obama signs.  This year I see much more enthusiasm for Romney and I know multitudes of people who voted for Obama that are either staying home or voting for Romney - and yes, this is post-convention.  I live in a heavily democratic city too.  In the recent primary, turnout was 48% on the republican side, 52% on the democratic side.  Make what you will.

2nd - If there is a groundswell it's deeply hidden as if democrats are embarrassed to reveal that they are voting for Obama.  I remember in 2008 seeing people proudly proclaim their allegiance.  It's not so this year.  I see dismay, dissappointment and anger by people who voted for him other than the most left wing.

3rd - Among conservatives, the anger at what Obama is doing is unbelievably deep and increases daily.  It's not even close to the anger that democrats had at Bush or republicans had of Clinton in the 90s.  Republicans truly feel that they will lose their country if the president wins another term.  Go watch the ending of 2016: Obama's America and that is exactly what republicans see in a second Obama term.  So put yourself in our shoes for a second, if that's what we see for the future, do you honestly believe that we're staying home?

So yes, its very logical to believe that the polls are using hilariously bad models. That's why I will take great pleasure in watching the false hope fade from democrats' eyes as the president gives his concession speech on election night.

[nhmagic]

Once again, it's just eerie to me how much this sounds like what I was thinking at this time in 2004.

I don't know any democrat who thought Bush's policies couldn't be changed or defeated even if he won a second term.  Our belief is that if Obama wins a second term, the policies that are enacted will stay permanently - developing a society that functions around cradle to grave government care that in short time gives way to an economic collapse that tips the balance of power in the world to Russia and China whilst the rest of the western world collapses into chaos. 

The democratic opposition to Bush was for a much less motivating reason.  It was primarily a combination of a feeling of delegitimacy left over from the 2000 election, anti-war protest and support for gay rights.  That's not like the opposition we have to Obama.  It wasn't the end of the country if Bush won a second term.  The country would make its typical cyclical shift between democrats and republicans every 8-12 years.  It certainly did during the 2008 election.  This year truly is different.  The feelings I described in the paragraph above are not just felt by a bubble of conservatives pushing conspiracy theories.  The view is near uniform among every single registered republican, even the republican moderates I know and many independents. 

[nhmagic]

Once again, it's just eerie to me how much this sounds like what I was thinking at this time in 2004.

I don't know any democrat who thought Bush's policies couldn't be changed or defeated even if he won a second term.  Our belief is that if Obama wins a second term, the policies that are enacted will stay permanently - developing a society that functions around cradle to grave government care that in short time gives way to an economic collapse that tips the balance of power in the world to Russia and China whilst the rest of the western world collapses into chaos. 

The democratic opposition to Bush was for a much less motivating reason.  It was primarily a combination of a feeling of delegitimacy left over from the 2000 election, anti-war protest and support for gay rights.  That's not like the opposition we have to Obama.  It wasn't the end of the country if Bush won a second term.  The country would make its typical cyclical shift between democrats and republicans every 8-12 years.  It certainly did during the 2008 election.  This year truly is different.  The feelings I described in the paragraph above are not just felt by a bubble of conservatives pushing conspiracy theories.  The view is near uniform among every single registered republican, even the republican moderates I know and many independents. 

Two things:
1. If Obama's policies are so horrible, why wouldn't the Republican party be able to overturn them after the landslide defeat for the Democrats, caused by his horrible policies?
2. You dismiss far too lightly democratic opposition against Bush in 2004. For example, I don't think that any major Republicans have threatened to leave the US if Obama (and yes, I know that was mostly in jest, but it was still indicative).

1. First, we don't have control of the senate.  Second, his policies are creating a society dependent upon government for every need.  The Julia cartoon says it best.  Once you are dependent, you don't let it go.  Once Obamacare is implemented, it will never be gotten rid of.  Say for example, that it does what we think it will do - cause a shortage of doctors, increase wait times and decrease quality of care.  The people getting free care won't give it up, even if the old level of care was better because its "free".  Every day we don't cut spending brings us closer to the tipping point of economic collapse with our national debt.  That collapse will likely unable to be surmounted.  Also, watch the end of 2016: Obama's America.
2. Where would we go?  This country is it.  There isn't another country in the world that would ever allow the level of economic and personal freedoms allowed by conservatism.  All of the rest are dictatorships or social democracies.  Plus, we love this country.  Unlike democrats, there isn't another country that shares our views and values.  That's why it's easier for democrats to say they'll move to Canada.

[nhmagic]

Once again, it's just eerie to me how much this sounds like what I was thinking at this time in 2004.

I don't know any democrat who thought Bush's policies couldn't be changed or defeated even if he won a second term.  Our belief is that if Obama wins a second term, the policies that are enacted will stay permanently - developing a society that functions around cradle to grave government care that in short time gives way to an economic collapse that tips the balance of power in the world to Russia and China whilst the rest of the western world collapses into chaos. 

The democratic opposition to Bush was for a much less motivating reason.  It was primarily a combination of a feeling of delegitimacy left over from the 2000 election, anti-war protest and support for gay rights.  That's not like the opposition we have to Obama.  It wasn't the end of the country if Bush won a second term.  The country would make its typical cyclical shift between democrats and republicans every 8-12 years.  It certainly did during the 2008 election.  This year truly is different.  The feelings I described in the paragraph above are not just felt by a bubble of conservatives pushing conspiracy theories.  The view is near uniform among every single registered republican, even the republican moderates I know and many independents. 

You have no clue about the anger people felt about Bush in 2004. Hell, I still get angry thinking about it. We were fighting for the morals of the nation! We were fighting for the good name of America, a country that doesn't go around invading people just because it can.

That anger isn't even close to the feeling that your country will be irrevocably lost and destroyed.  Also about invading people...you do realize that Obama invaded Libya right under the same reasons Bush invaded Iraq and for good measure announced it on the exact same day in March Bush did 8 years earlier with the exact same words Bush used nearly word for word.

[nhmagic]

The Libyan intervention had more to do with Atlanticism than anything else, but I guess that it's all globalism to you, brother.

Me?  No.  What bothers me is the changing story about Libya, the serial and the attacks on about 20 embassies since then.

I've generally given Obama high marks on foreign police, but he blew this latest crisis.

I was addressing nhmagic there, J.J. As for your concerns about Obama's handling of the embassy attacks, I'd turn your attention to the massive pro-democracy, pro-USA, anti-militia demonstrations taking place in Libya. It's hardly the xenophobic scare story the American right-wing would like to feed us.

You're right Nix.  I do see it as globalism and I don't like it.  I didn't like the Iraq war after I saw it for what it was and democrats (that weren't public office holders, that is) were 100% right.  

Also, Obama failed on the Libya response by covering up that the marines weren't at the embassy by telling people a You Tube video was responsible.  

[nhmagic]

1. First, we don't have control of the senate. Second, his policies are creating a society dependent upon government for every need. The Julia cartoon says it best. Once you are dependent, you don't let it go. Once Obamacare is implemented, it will never be gotten rid of.

The healthcare program that requires you to be a customer of private insurance companies? That dependency scheme?

Moreover, what's so amazing about the American Right's approach to social and economic problems is that they never really attempt to solve problems, they just absolve the government of any responsibility. The solution to supposed "dependency" is not to remove social programs, that does nothing at all except further entrench people in bad circumstances into progressively worse circumstances and stifle social mobility, the solution is to focus on implementing policies that dramatically raise lower and middle class income levels. And no, tax cuts don't do that.

There is also good dependency and bad dependency. I am dependent on the government for roads, I am dependent on government to check the food I eat to make sure it's safe, I am dependent on government to regulate air quality. I'm pretty stoked with all of that. What the government can do cheaper, centrally, impartially, and safely, it should do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some of those social democracies you hate so much are happier and more socially mobile than the US. Not to mention we are regularly beat in one area or another in the Heritage Foundation created Index of Economic Freedom and easily rivalled overall by some of those evil social democracies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that so? What side of American politics so routinely insults all different areas of the country? Like Sarah Palin, you only like the "real" America; defined, of course, entirely by you.
[/quote
I hate all of these quotes, I can't answer them all easily on my computer for some reason...

Yes, because the bill was designed to fail in order to bring about single payer.  Every democrat I know states this proudly. 

On dependency, how does taking money from producers and giving it to consumers do anything to increase mobility?  Do consumers use their welfare to start a business and hire people?  Does the welfare make them money?  Can they trade healthcare for assets?  Also, what would you say about the college students who refuse to get a job and sit on food stamps throughout their entire college education?  I have no sympathy for those kids.  I had a job (at times 2) while in college, sometimes 60 hours a week.  I chose a degree that wasn't a waste of time, like medeival studies.  And should the government provide contraception to people like Sandra Fluke so she can have unlimited sex on the public's dime with no consequences, a law student set to make $175,000 when she leaves college and is considerably wealthy as it is?

Don't tell me about social programs because I work in community development and work towards helping the poor every single day.  There isn't mobility.  I've seen it with my own eyes.  I've seen the people living a lifetime of government aid.  They are insular, live in fear and the vast majority never break out.

Tax cuts do provide producers with additional capital to invest, hire, etc. you name it.  Unfortunately, democrats see business with a one track mind.  They see business in general as making decisions because "they don't like Obama", "they're holding back their money because of Obama".  No, businesses make projections, forecast both macro and micro-trends, and make a decision that it isn't time to expend the capital.  They have made the decision not to spend it because of Obamacare, which will cost them considerable amounts of capital.  It isn't because of "Obama" though.  At the same time, I don't believe the nation is in need of tax cuts.  What we need is to stop spending and kill the debt.  We need to become a creditor nation again and have value in the dollar and less regulation that creates barriers that are merely troublesome for big businesses, but nearly insurmountable for a poor person - and that will never happen ever with democrats, and we also have to worry about republicans. 

I also question you this: Have you ever lived with roads that weren't government roads?  Should the government be checking food to the point that a little girl's lemonade stand gets shut down, while Monsanto's genetically-altered, disease causing food hits the stores?  How far should the government go in regulating air, just businesses or also personal private activities?

That's all I can answer for now...maybe the other comments later...I'm tired for the night.