This account of how the White House tried to deal with the IRS inquiry — based on documents, public statements and interviews with multiple senior officials, including one directly involved in the discussions — shows how carefully Obama’s top aides were trying to shield him from anysecond-term scandal that might swamp his agenda or, worse, jeopardize his presidency
This account of how the White House tried to deal with the IRS inquiry — based on documents, public statements and interviews with multiple senior officials, including one directly involved in the discussions — shows how carefully Obama’s top aides were trying to shield him from anysecond-term scandal that might swamp his agenda or, worse, jeopardize his presidency
In citing these polls, it's too bad 14 Road didn't cite the polls that pointed to an Obama victory in 2012.
To him, polls are only relevant when they favor your own opinion.
59% now say that the U.S government could have prevented the attack in Benghazi, up 11 points from last November. And only 37% say that congressional Republicans are overreacting in their handling of the matter, with 59% saying they've reacted appropriately.
It's the same story on the IRS controversy, with 54% saying the GOP in Congress has not overplayed its hand
======
That's from CNN.
Could you cite me a poll showing Americans do not care about this stuff?
0
Quote Originally Posted by promark12:
In citing these polls, it's too bad 14 Road didn't cite the polls that pointed to an Obama victory in 2012.
To him, polls are only relevant when they favor your own opinion.
59% now say that the U.S government could have prevented the attack in Benghazi, up 11 points from last November. And only 37% say that congressional Republicans are overreacting in their handling of the matter, with 59% saying they've reacted appropriately.
It's the same story on the IRS controversy, with 54% saying the GOP in Congress has not overplayed its hand
======
That's from CNN.
Could you cite me a poll showing Americans do not care about this stuff?
Why do you think she hasn't been fired? She is career civil service and part of the union.
(A career civil servant who has run the division since late 2005, Lerner has not been disciplined for her role, IRS officials said.) https://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2013/05/irs_official_lois_lerner_says.html
Isn't that nice?
0
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
link please.
I provided a link in post #29.
Why do you think she hasn't been fired? She is career civil service and part of the union.
(A career civil servant who has run the division since late 2005, Lerner has not been disciplined for her role, IRS officials said.) https://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2013/05/irs_official_lois_lerner_says.html
Could you cite me a poll showing Americans do not care about this stuff?
14 - I highlighted in that poll that people have not changed their opinion of Obama given that his approval rating is basically unchanged since November. Keep listening to that echo chamber of yours telling you these "scandals" are game changing issues.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Could you cite me a poll showing Americans do not care about this stuff?
14 - I highlighted in that poll that people have not changed their opinion of Obama given that his approval rating is basically unchanged since November. Keep listening to that echo chamber of yours telling you these "scandals" are game changing issues.
14 - I highlighted in that poll that people have not changed their opinion of Obama given that his approval rating is basically unchanged since November. Keep listening to that echo chamber of yours telling you these "scandals" are game changing issues.
Mr. Democrat Lanny Davis who handled Clinton scandal issues, dismissed some polls showing that Obama has maintained a level approval rating. "This is going to eat away at his approval ratings"
We'll see if the Democrat party's most loyal,liberal democrat is correct.........
0
Quote Originally Posted by Cool_Arrow:
14 - I highlighted in that poll that people have not changed their opinion of Obama given that his approval rating is basically unchanged since November. Keep listening to that echo chamber of yours telling you these "scandals" are game changing issues.
Mr. Democrat Lanny Davis who handled Clinton scandal issues, dismissed some polls showing that Obama has maintained a level approval rating. "This is going to eat away at his approval ratings"
We'll see if the Democrat party's most loyal,liberal democrat is correct.........
Lanny is entitled to his opinion but the numbers are still holding up for President Obama. You would think that if these "scandals" were real that they would be hurting his numbers but the polling shows that they are not. The Obama coalition is made up of the young, minorities, those with advanced degrees, Union Members and single women. I just don't see any of those groups caring about the IRS targeting Tea Party groups for an audit, getting talking points wrong about BENGHAZI!!!! or wiretapping of journalists. Not that they all approve of these (I don't) but I'm certainly not going to change my opinion of President Obama related to these issues especially given the alternative.
I am quite confident that these will have minimal impact on any voting patterns. Those who are "fired up" by these won't be voting Democratic anyway.
0
Lanny is entitled to his opinion but the numbers are still holding up for President Obama. You would think that if these "scandals" were real that they would be hurting his numbers but the polling shows that they are not. The Obama coalition is made up of the young, minorities, those with advanced degrees, Union Members and single women. I just don't see any of those groups caring about the IRS targeting Tea Party groups for an audit, getting talking points wrong about BENGHAZI!!!! or wiretapping of journalists. Not that they all approve of these (I don't) but I'm certainly not going to change my opinion of President Obama related to these issues especially given the alternative.
I am quite confident that these will have minimal impact on any voting patterns. Those who are "fired up" by these won't be voting Democratic anyway.
While this may not be hurting Obama's approval rating - yet - as he isn't seen as knowing or directing these activities, it will hurt Dems next year. The Dems now have about a 1% chance of taking back the House.
Further, elections are all about turnout. If the same # of people went to vote for Romney as did McCain, Romney would have won a big victory. Obama is the only president in modern memory to win re-election with fewer votes than the 1st time out.
These scandals will help conservative turnout next year.
0
cool arrow,
While this may not be hurting Obama's approval rating - yet - as he isn't seen as knowing or directing these activities, it will hurt Dems next year. The Dems now have about a 1% chance of taking back the House.
Further, elections are all about turnout. If the same # of people went to vote for Romney as did McCain, Romney would have won a big victory. Obama is the only president in modern memory to win re-election with fewer votes than the 1st time out.
These scandals will help conservative turnout next year.
14 I actually agree with part of what you said! Dems have no shot at taking the House back next year. Not going to happen. These "scandals" do help conservative turnout I agree but I don't think it helps as much as needed.
I will ask you to recheck your math about "Romney winning if he had the same number of votes as McCain got". Feel free to let me know what I am missing.
2008 McCain had 59.9 million votes and 2012 Obama had 65.9 million votes. Given that the popular vote doesn't matter I looked at 4 key states.
2008 McCain had 4.0 million votes in Florida and Obama had 4.2 million. Obama still wins. 2008 McCain had 1.7 million votes in Virginia and Obama had 1.9 million. Obama still wins. 2008 McCain had 1.1 million votes in Colorado and Obama had 1.2 million. Obama still wins. 2008 McCain had 2,677,820 million votes in Ohio and Obama had 2,697,260 million. Obama still wins but barely.
0
14 I actually agree with part of what you said! Dems have no shot at taking the House back next year. Not going to happen. These "scandals" do help conservative turnout I agree but I don't think it helps as much as needed.
I will ask you to recheck your math about "Romney winning if he had the same number of votes as McCain got". Feel free to let me know what I am missing.
2008 McCain had 59.9 million votes and 2012 Obama had 65.9 million votes. Given that the popular vote doesn't matter I looked at 4 key states.
2008 McCain had 4.0 million votes in Florida and Obama had 4.2 million. Obama still wins. 2008 McCain had 1.7 million votes in Virginia and Obama had 1.9 million. Obama still wins. 2008 McCain had 1.1 million votes in Colorado and Obama had 1.2 million. Obama still wins. 2008 McCain had 2,677,820 million votes in Ohio and Obama had 2,697,260 million. Obama still wins but barely.
My error. Romney got fewer votes than McCain, which led me to substitute that fact for this one:
Romney would have erased Obama's nearly 5 million-vote victory margin and narrowly won the popular vote if voters had turned out as they did in 2004, according to Frey's analysis. Then, white turnout was slightly higher and black voting lower.
More significantly, the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and Colorado would have tipped in favor of Romney, handing him the presidency if the outcome of other states remained the same.
My error. Romney got fewer votes than McCain, which led me to substitute that fact for this one:
Romney would have erased Obama's nearly 5 million-vote victory margin and narrowly won the popular vote if voters had turned out as they did in 2004, according to Frey's analysis. Then, white turnout was slightly higher and black voting lower.
More significantly, the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and Colorado would have tipped in favor of Romney, handing him the presidency if the outcome of other states remained the same.
14 - with all due respect your cut and paste analysis is garbage. So you are hanging your hat on if white turnout was equal to 2004's turnout then Romney would have won? Times have changed and whites are shrinking as a percentage of the population and these "what if" scenarios did not happen and won't happen.
Your analysis really sums up the GOP position: if only we could turn back the clock and not how do we deal with the changing electorate? You really think that with demographic changes that the 2016 electorate will resemble 2004's electorate? I'm no stat or census genius but when whites go from 83%, 81%, 77%, 74% and then 72% (1996 - 2012 elections), being that this is a gambling website, I would bet on whites being about 69 or 70% of the electorate in 2016 and not 77% that your model would need to win. Wouldn't you bet on 69 or 70%?
Do you seriously think the path to winning national elections for the GOP is that these new voters are going to be outraged about the IRS auditing the tea party, Benghazi talking points and AP journalists wiretapping? Persuadable people don't care about these as voting issues.
0
14 - with all due respect your cut and paste analysis is garbage. So you are hanging your hat on if white turnout was equal to 2004's turnout then Romney would have won? Times have changed and whites are shrinking as a percentage of the population and these "what if" scenarios did not happen and won't happen.
Your analysis really sums up the GOP position: if only we could turn back the clock and not how do we deal with the changing electorate? You really think that with demographic changes that the 2016 electorate will resemble 2004's electorate? I'm no stat or census genius but when whites go from 83%, 81%, 77%, 74% and then 72% (1996 - 2012 elections), being that this is a gambling website, I would bet on whites being about 69 or 70% of the electorate in 2016 and not 77% that your model would need to win. Wouldn't you bet on 69 or 70%?
Do you seriously think the path to winning national elections for the GOP is that these new voters are going to be outraged about the IRS auditing the tea party, Benghazi talking points and AP journalists wiretapping? Persuadable people don't care about these as voting issues.
14 - with all due respect your cut and paste analysis is garbage. So you are hanging your hat on if white turnout was equal to 2004's turnout then Romney would have won?
Your reaction to facts is funny.
0
14 - with all due respect your cut and paste analysis is garbage. So you are hanging your hat on if white turnout was equal to 2004's turnout then Romney would have won?
So you are hanging your hat on if white turnout was equal to 2004's turnout then Romney would have won?
Why don't you actually read what was offered rather than going into this tangent about whites declining as a percentage of population and attacking things I never said?
Why don't you understand the difference between turnout rates and percentage of the population?
Why didn't you actually read the article?
Persuadable people don't care about these as voting issues.
Keep telling yourself that.
0
So you are hanging your hat on if white turnout was equal to 2004's turnout then Romney would have won?
Why don't you actually read what was offered rather than going into this tangent about whites declining as a percentage of population and attacking things I never said?
Why don't you understand the difference between turnout rates and percentage of the population?
Why didn't you actually read the article?
Persuadable people don't care about these as voting issues.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
