Poll watch - New England Patriots Forums

PatsFanInVa · 12-08-2011, 04:06 AM

I'll be poll-watching the next few days.

A couple days ago, in Kansas, the President delivered a Teddy Roosevelt Progressive-style speech in Kansas, and went after "trickle down" economics.

As of yesterday's results (12/8) on the Gallup app compiled at 1 pm, his positives/negatives were 41/51. If they stick there, I'm thinking the message doesn't resonate... if they move much off that mark, I'm thinking the opposite is likely the case (although the daily #s are pretty volatile.)

I think you can get the #s on the website too, but if you have a smart-phone, download the app.

I'll keep you guys posted the next few days.

Caveat: Of course the daily polls also reflect events other than those you're looking for... so it's all out the window if, for example, Iran preemptively surrenders and converts voluntarily to liberal democracy.

PFnV

PatriotsReign · 12-08-2011, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

I'll be poll-watching the next few days.

A couple days ago, in Kansas, the President delivered a Teddy Roosevelt Progressive-style speech in Kansas, and went after "trickle down" economics.

As of yesterday's results (12/8) on the Gallup app compiled at 1 pm, his positives/negatives were 41/51. If they stick there, I'm thinking the message doesn't resonate... if they move much off that mark, I'm thinking the opposite is likely the case (although the daily #s are pretty volatile.)

I think you can get the #s on the website too, but if you have a smart-phone, download the app.

I'll keep you guys posted the next few days.

Caveat: Of course the daily polls also reflect events other than those you're looking for... so it's all out the window if, for example, Iran preemptively surrenders and converts voluntarily to liberal democracy.

PFnV

ABC news conducted a poll in November that showed 55% of American voters believe Obama will be a one-term president. Only 37% believed Obama would be re-elected. I found that surprising...almost shocking

It's early and things will change many times over the next 12 months. Honestly, it doesn't feel like 3 years have passed since he was elected. Which just means I'm 3 years older....

The poll results are 10 seconds into the video.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/email-...ry?id=14957973

PatsFanInVa · 12-08-2011, 04:59 AM

Try to focus, PR. [Edit - sounds harsher than I want. Point is, what I want to do is tease out the effect of this particular direction for Obama's numbers.]

This isn't another thread about "will he win or will he lose?" As we all know that's going to change, up or down, especially once we have a choice between him or [your name here.]

However, this thread is about whether the neo-progressive tack is good or bad for his prospects.

PFnV

PatriotsReign · 12-08-2011, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

Try to focus, PR. [Edit - sounds harsher than I want. Point is, what I want to do is tease out the effect of this particular direction for Obama's numbers.]

This isn't another thread about "will he win or will he lose?" As we all know that's going to change, up or down, especially once we have a choice between him or [your name here.]

However, this thread is about whether the neo-progressive tack is good or bad for his prospects.

PFnV

Then I think you should have written...

"this thread is about whether the neo-progressive tack is good or bad for his prospects."

in your opening post because nothing you wrote there indicates the above intention. You mentioned both his Kansas speech and scenario's that would/may change polls

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

so it's all out the window if, for example, Iran preemptively surrenders and converts voluntarily to liberal democracy.

Neither Obama nor any other candidate should ever try to deliver the "right message" that resonates with the most voters. They should just be who they are and stick to it no matter what, shouldn't they?

Isn't the valid question here "Is Obama truly a neo-progressive or is he just trying to be what voters want?"

I am focused...I just don't know what I'm focused upon.

The Brandon Five · 12-08-2011, 06:56 AM

I know the forum has been focused on his joke about being in Texas during that speech rather than the actual speech, but I thought overall it was pretty good. I don't know how many Americans will sit through or read the whole thing.

I agree that we need to restore the % of GDP that are paid in wages to historic levels to revive the economy. The issue is how best to do that...Obama wants to dump more money into the public schools. We already are among the tops in the world in spending per student and % of GDP spent on education.

If you look at the amount spent on post-secondary education, we are the top.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_ifn.pdf

Quote:

In 2007, expenditures per student for the United States
were $10,768 at the combined elementary and secondary
level, which was 45 percent higher than the average of
$7,401 for the OECD member countries reporting data
(see table A-38-1). The expenditure per student measure is
based on full-time-equivalent (FTE) student enrollment
rather than headcounts. At the postsecondary level, U.S.
expenditures per student were $27,010, which was more
than twice as high as the OECD average of $12,471.
Expenditures per student varied widely across the OECD
countries: at the combined elementary and secondary
level, expenditures ranged from $2,165 in Mexico and
$2,245 in Chile to $15,579 in Luxembourg; at the
postsecondary level, they ranged from $5,576 in Poland to
$20,278 in Canada, $20,883 in Switzerland, and $27,010
in the United States.

Among the OECD countries reporting data in 2007, the
countries that spent the highest percentage of their GDP
on total education expenditures were Iceland (7.8 percent),
the United States (7.6 percent), Israel (7.4 percent),
Denmark (7.1 percent), and Korea (7.0 percent). Looking
at education expenditures by level, the percentage of
its GDP (4.0 percent) that the United States spent on
elementary and secondary education was higher than the
average percentage by all OECD countries reporting data
(3.6 percent). Compared with the percentage of its GDP
that the United States spent on elementary and secondary
education, 6 countries spent a higher percentage, 20
countries spent a lower percentage, and 3 countries
spent the same percentage. Among OECD countries,
Iceland spent the highest percentage (5.1 percent) of its
GDP on elementary and secondary education. At the
postsecondary level, the United States spent 3.1 percent of
its GDP on education, which was higher than the average
percentage spent by OECD countries (1.5 percent) and
higher than the percentage spent by any other OECD
country reporting data.

- Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., Tahan, K. (2011). The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 106

I don't know how to restore the balance between know-nothing execs and people who are doing actual work. As you discussed elsewhere, in some ways we might have become victims of our own productivity gains as continued automation and optimization reduce the need for human labor. I can't help but think that the contracting of family size makes that harder to navigate. Take a large family where you have not only a couple of brothers and sisters, but many aunts, uncles and cousins. In that scenario if only a few of them have well-paying jobs there is a natural mechanism to share the wealth (assuming that the high-earners are not selfish a-holes).

The liberal approach (I assume) would be to try to replicate that dynamic with government making us all one big family, but I am afraid that in practice that does not appear to work well (in my opinion). I don't know what the answer is, but I think at the root the issue is not only a corrosion of virtue in our culture but that so many of the people who are in positions of power in corporations and the gubmint have no idea what they are doing.

PatriotsReign · 12-08-2011, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Brandon Five

Take a large family where you have not only a couple of brothers and sisters, but many aunts, uncles and cousins. In that scenario if only a few of them have well-paying jobs there is a natural mechanism to share the wealth (assuming that the high-earners are not selfish a-holes).

I have never heard of a family (among those I personally know) that shares their wealth with extened family members. But then again, I don't know anyone extremely wealthy. However, I know a lot of people who have HH incomes in the $200-$300k range. I've never heard anyone talk about sending checks to family members.

Aunts, uncles and cousins? I highly doubt many "share the wealth" with anyone other than their immediate family members.

Do you know people who actually share their wealth like that?

***Harry Boy*** · 12-08-2011, 09:44 AM

Did he use his teleprompter----------------------------

The Brandon Five · 12-08-2011, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

I have never heard of a family (among those I personally know) that shares their wealth with extened family members. But then again, I don't know anyone extremely wealthy. However, I know a lot of people who have HH incomes in the $200-$300k range. I've never heard anyone talk about sending checks to family members.

Aunts, uncles and cousins? I highly doubt many "share the wealth" with anyone other than their immediate family members.

Do you know people who actually share their wealth like that?

It doesn't need to take the form of sending checks. You can buy clothes for nieces and nephews, offer to let someone stay in your home for awhile, give them furniture or appliances that you are replacing with newer ones....Those that are doing well can provide assistance to their kin in may ways.

My point is that families can make sure that the basic needs of all members are taken care of. There is no reason for a cousin to go hungry or an elderly aunt to spend money she doesn't really have to have work done around the house.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 12-08-2011, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

Aunts, uncles and cousins? I highly doubt many "share the wealth" with anyone other than their immediate family members.

Do you know people who actually share their wealth like that?

Yes......................

PatsFanInVa · 12-08-2011, 06:44 PM

Gallup update, today, 1 p.m.

Approve +1 42%
Disapprove -1 50%

Meh, One more day, tops. I don't think this gave him the bump he wanted. The question's whether he had no coverage, or whether people didn't resonate with it. I thought it was pretty decent.

PR, to your question: I'm in communications for a living. I don't think for a minute that just spewing whatever crap comes to mind is going to be either good thinking or good messaging.

Sometimes you play checkers, sometimes you play chess. Do I think Obama's a progressive at heart? Meh. Center left. But he can get in touch with his inner progressive if the timing works.

Obviously, being "just yourself" results in dumbass moments where "just yourself" sneers at the media, especially when they're more informed than you, and other moments where you make unsupported statements, or losing arguments because people are ready for A and you went all the way to B too soon.

So your "should" -- which you should really banish from your vocabulary just to see how it feels -- is only appropriate if you're thinking of a drinking buddy, not a politician.

You guys probably think "Aha! That's the problem right there!"

Nah. I don't support Newt style or Romney style flip-flopping. I CAN support centrist choices of emphasis -- when you push which point. I was never that sure that Obama should have pushed health before jobs, for example, and he burned all his capital by the time he was on jobs. But he did get his stimulus, he did get his deal at Christmas of 2010, and he has presided over private-sector job growth. Point is though, it might have been more robust had he prioritized jobs first and health care second. Does that mean that he is only now worried about jobs? If he did it in the other order, does that mean that at heart, he REALLY only cases about jobs and not health care?

No, it means he's chosen the moment he wanted for the issue he wanted, for whatever reason.

Ten minutes after Joe the Plumber might not have been the moment to talk progressivism. After a few months of the tea party congress, with the Occupy movement camped out in people's heads, it might just be the time to get in touch with your inner Teddy Roosevelt.

PFnV