Not sure I agree. The poor showing for Obama could also be because people are happy with the health care and insurance they have now, and do not want that to go away, which clearly is a consequence if not the aim of Obamacare. Or both, which would mean he has succeeded in pissing off both Republicans and the left. Quite an accomplishment, but not so good for the elections this fall.

Furthermore, the numbers I see indicate Americans who may have favored reform, just not the kind Pelosi, Reid and President Obama have delivered, are also on the increse. In fact their numbers are going up almost as fast as Obamacare’s cost estimates and the debt.

/b

The point I want to make here, however, is with regard to the Right’s rallying cry that Obama is not doing what the people want. The Right interprets the polls, for example, on healthcare, to mean that the people do not want “Socialist” Healthcare.

That couldn’t be further from the truth.

If you look at the numbers more closely, they say that the people DO WANT Health Care Reform. The poor showing for Obama is because they want STRONGER reform, such as a public option.

Our posts must have have crossed in the ether.

I was responding to your congratulatory reply to Liberaldemdave and your “global warming” analogy, in my first paragraph, and your asessment of President Obama’s drop in popularity which was in your next post, following that.

Hope that clears things up.

/b

PS: What kind of mathematics do you teach? Have you ever taught statistics? Just curious.

Please don’t tell me you still believe there is any indication that the earth is warming? You are aware that the dearth of such evidence, indeed the strong empirical evidence to the contrary for the last 10 years, has caused the phrase “Global Warming” to be dropped in favor of “Climate Change”? That way statist scientists can cover the natural cycles of both cooling and warming. Or what I prefer to call by it’s archaic name: Weather.

I also believe you are right about President Obama’s unpopularity with the left. Too bad you couldn’t have come to the Cindy Sheehan Bill Ayers event. Cindy was positively lamenting the election. Of course it turns out that she was much better treated by the Bush administration than she has been of late. Bush never had her arrested, nor was she restrained from protesting outside the White House. Both of which have happened since President Obama was inaugurated. Maybe Rham, Axelrod and Eric Holder didn’t get the memo that political dissent was patriotic.

Of course that is Immaterial since the left like Ayers and Sheehan would still vote for BHO if he were Hugo Chavez. Actually that’s what they would prefer, and they said so.

No, since neither Democrats nor Republicans have a majority of voters, the disaffection of Obama supporting independents will determine the next electoral outcome, and I have met many of them at Tea Party events.

As another indication of how well things are going for Democrats, I suggest you check the trend of “conservative” or “liberal” self description, among likely voters. Republican vs Democrat self-identification will also work and show the same trend. Remember there are almost always more voters that identify as Democrats. In fact in 1994 self-identified Republicans never even drew equal to Democrats, and inspite winning a historic majority on the heels of a 100 seat turnover.

By the way Gina, if you are interested in Ayers and Sheehan beyond the American Thinker article I sent you, I have the whole evening on mp3 and I would be happy to link it to you. I could also link you their photos if you’d like to hang them in your home or classroom.

/b

My second point is that if we were going to delve into the history , then I believe the history of the Bush administration should be brought to light. He committed so many crimes, and yet was fully supported by his own party. We were less free under Bush because he revised the constitution to fit his ideals on a regular basis, through signing statements, lies, treason and more. For a more complete list, check out http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/49839 Bush took our country and WE want it back. So when all those tea party members yell “We want our country back!” they must be talking to Bush!!

Cherry pick THAT.

Congratulations on a clever if specious argument. However, it’s also a very good example of Simpson’s Paradox.

When you break down statistics or re-categorize the numbers, often the “new” categories can support different or even opposite conclusions.

Your point is that in both the “Good” North and the
“Evil” South, the Dems “out performed” the Republicans on this issue. Certainly that is one possible interpretation of your numbers. Naturaly you’re taking for granted that the states divided into “North” and “South” are really representative of the North and South. Certainly cherry picking here would drastically affect the statistics you are claiming are conclusive. Do you know which states we’re included in each category?

Well it really doesn’t matter, because in any case I believe you still make my point for me since it’s clear that:

1. Without (at least) substantial Republican support Democrats could have never passed this legislation no matter how you parse the numbers.

2. Democrats could never have passed this (or most of the legislation touted in the Gold article) without Dixiecrat Senators and Congressmen, which liberals conveniently deride and disown when it suits them. Of course since the disasters of the Great Society and it’s concomitant Government expansion have been coming home to roost, these same Dixiecrats have pretty much been replaced, and the South is since 1994 generally (that is to say Nationally) overwhelmingly Republican. As well as overwhelmingly supportive of Civil Rights.

/b

And if Obama’s popularity is going down, it is the liberals bringing it down because he is TOO CENTRIST! Heck, the republicans/right wings/tea party/Christian right couldn’t have brought his numbers down because they ALWAYS rated him very low.

sure enough, there are varying numbers on the internets regarding the vote.

CLEARLY, IT WAS NOT (as you indicated) A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY THAT PASSED THE LEGISLATION.

i see you cherry picked your numbers from WIKI (not the most reliable source, btw), so i thought i would share more numbers from the same article:

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)