Is Barack Obama Stupid?

New CBS News poll out confirms every other poll we've seen on the topic - the American people are solidly against tax cuts for the rich.

53% of respondents said there should only be tax cuts for the middle class and no tax cuts for people making over $250,000. That's the number most people in the media are using, but that's not quite accurate. Another 14% said they don't want tax cuts for anybody, including the top bracket. So, the reality is that an overwhelming 67% of the country don't want tax cuts for the rich (including 52% of Republican voters!). Only 26% said that everyone should get a tax cut, including the rich.

So, let's do the math for people who are a little slow. That's 67% to 26%. That's a crushing 41% lead. If it was an election, that margin would be so large they would think it was rigged. The group that doesn't want tax cuts for the rich is more than two and half times the group that does.

If that weren't enough, there is an internal memo being sent around to Democrats on the Hill by Anzalone Liszt Research that shows that 77% of Americans would let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire if the extra money went toward helping small businesses and balancing the budget. 77%!!!

Now, as a politician, how stupid do you have to be on the other side of this issue?

But that's not entirely fair because the Republicans have built their entire party on being on the other side of this issue and they're doing well. Why? Because they get handsomely compensated by those same millionaires and billionaires who benefit from the tax cuts. They use the money they collect from those guys into deceiving the American people into voting for them during the elections. That sucks for the rest of us, but at least that makes sense. There is a logical reason for them to take the more unpopular side of this equation.

Democrats on the other hand just got their ass kicked by that money spent to make sure they lose. Now, they would like to do a favor for the people who just killed them in the election and in the meanwhile take a position that 67% to 77% of the American people are against. How stupid do you have to be to do that?

That is the position of the Obama administration right now as they argue for a "compromise" where they extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich for another two years. Even Pat Buchanan laughed on-air and said that's no compromise at all. That's complete victory for the GOP. Remember, in two years there will be a new president - and if it's a Republican, the tax cuts will be extended forever. Complete and utter victory for one side. Complete and utter capitulation for the other side. Pathetic.

Of course, there are two other explanations for the actions of Obama White House. The first one is that they're not dumb, they are embarrassingly weak. They know they should side with 67% of the American people, they know they shouldn't help the people who crushed them in the last election, they know they are showing no leadership by constantly cratering to the other side, but they can't help themselves. It is in Obama's nature to always compromise, no matter what the situation is. He hates to fight. He is No Drama Obama. He will do anything to avoid a confrontation, including giving the other side exactly what they want in the guise of a sage and tempered compromise.

The last possible explanation is the worst of all. He is complicit. He is among the top 2%. So is nearly everyone he knows. Everyone in his bubble is rich, fabulously rich. So, all of the people he knows thinks it's a brilliant idea to give more tax cuts to the rich, namely them. Plus, most of the Democrats also get campaign donations from the millionaires and billionaires. Though it's self-destructive in the long run because those guys will always give more to the Republicans, they can't wean themselves off of that money. So, they go along with whatever their rich funders want.

All three options are sickening. But there is no fourth option. No one in their right mind can possibly think that opposing at least 67% of the American people to help the political opposition is a good political idea.

And one last note, when President Obama agrees to this and they add another $140 billion dollars to the deficit over the next two years because of these tax cuts for the rich, who do you think the Republicans will blame for that deficit? You guessed it, the man who just gave them everything they wanted -- Barack Obama.

Come on, how stupid do you have to be? Or at least, I hope they're just stupid and not the other options.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Become a Fan of The Young Turks: www.facebook.com/tytnation

 

 

Is Barack Obama Stupid?

New CBS News poll out confirms every other poll we've seen on the topic - the American people are solidly against tax cuts for the rich.

53% of respondents said there should only be tax cuts for the middle class and no tax cuts for people making over $250,000. That's the number most people in the media are using, but that's not quite accurate. Another 14% said they don't want tax cuts for anybody, including the top bracket. So, the reality is that an overwhelming 67% of the country don't want tax cuts for the rich (including 52% of Republican voters!). Only 26% said that everyone should get a tax cut, including the rich.

So, let's do the math for people who are a little slow. That's 67% to 26%. That's a crushing 41% lead. If it was an election, that margin would be so large they would think it was rigged. The group that doesn't want tax cuts for the rich is more than two and half times the group that does.

If that weren't enough, there is an internal memo being sent around to Democrats on the Hill by Anzalone Liszt Research that shows that 77% of Americans would let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire if the extra money went toward helping small businesses and balancing the budget. 77%!!!

Now, as a politician, how stupid do you have to be on the other side of this issue?

But that's not entirely fair because the Republicans have built their entire party on being on the other side of this issue and they're doing well. Why? Because they get handsomely compensated by those same millionaires and billionaires who benefit from the tax cuts. They use the money they collect from those guys into deceiving the American people into voting for them during the elections. That sucks for the rest of us, but at least that makes sense. There is a logical reason for them to take the more unpopular side of this equation.

Democrats on the other hand just got their ass kicked by that money spent to make sure they lose. Now, they would like to do a favor for the people who just killed them in the election and in the meanwhile take a position that 67% to 77% of the American people are against. How stupid do you have to be to do that?

That is the position of the Obama administration right now as they argue for a "compromise" where they extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich for another two years. Even Pat Buchanan laughed on-air and said that's no compromise at all. That's complete victory for the GOP. Remember, in two years there will be a new president - and if it's a Republican, the tax cuts will be extended forever. Complete and utter victory for one side. Complete and utter capitulation for the other side. Pathetic.

Of course, there are two other explanations for the actions of Obama White House. The first one is that they're not dumb, they are embarrassingly weak. They know they should side with 67% of the American people, they know they shouldn't help the people who crushed them in the last election, they know they are showing no leadership by constantly cratering to the other side, but they can't help themselves. It is in Obama's nature to always compromise, no matter what the situation is. He hates to fight. He is No Drama Obama. He will do anything to avoid a confrontation, including giving the other side exactly what they want in the guise of a sage and tempered compromise.

The last possible explanation is the worst of all. He is complicit. He is among the top 2%. So is nearly everyone he knows. Everyone in his bubble is rich, fabulously rich. So, all of the people he knows thinks it's a brilliant idea to give more tax cuts to the rich, namely them. Plus, most of the Democrats also get campaign donations from the millionaires and billionaires. Though it's self-destructive in the long run because those guys will always give more to the Republicans, they can't wean themselves off of that money. So, they go along with whatever their rich funders want.

All three options are sickening. But there is no fourth option. No one in their right mind can possibly think that opposing at least 67% of the American people to help the political opposition is a good political idea.

And one last note, when President Obama agrees to this and they add another $140 billion dollars to the deficit over the next two years because of these tax cuts for the rich, who do you think the Republicans will blame for that deficit? You guessed it, the man who just gave them everything they wanted -- Barack Obama.

Come on, how stupid do you have to be? Or at least, I hope they're just stupid and not the other options.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Become a Fan of The Young Turks: www.facebook.com/tytnation

 

 

"The Saga of Partisan Affairs"

Some highlights from the world of numbers crunching.

Nate Silver: Scott Brown's early 2010 victory may have been an early bell-weather for Democratic losses, but it was an outlier and Brown may be vulnerable:

The tsunami that hit Democrats last month — as large as it was — was remarkably precise and orderly, all things considered: given that the Democrats lost more than 60 seats, they lost almost exactly the 60 seats that you might have expected them to lose based on the overall partisanship of the districts. That did not include seats similar to Massachusetts, where Democrats in fact held on to all 10 congressional districts, even though several of the seats had been considered vulnerable.

Pollster: Americans have been ready for DADT repeal for over a decade.

Some outlets use a favor/oppose construction, others use yes/no or agree/disagree. Some outlets use the word "homosexuals," others use "gays and lesbians." ...

Regardless of the question wording, the basic result is the same. For sixteen years Americans have been supportive of allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military.

PPP: Montana Republicans want former Governor, former insurance lobbyist, and former Bush adviser Marc Racicot as their 2012 Senate candidate challenging Jon Tester:

Most would like to see either Marc Racicot (40%) or Denny Rehberg (37%) end up with the nod. Rehberg has near universal popularity with the Republican base (75/14) and although he gets a lot of 'not sures' 10 years removed from the Governor's office pretty much all Republicans with an opinion about Racicot like him (58/12 favorability). It's hard to imagine anyone else winning the nomination if either of them end up running

Also, they loves themselves some Palin/Huckabee.

Thomas Schaller takes a look at CO, NH, OH, VA in 2010, areas of biggest gain for Democrats in the previous three midterms, and concludes:

...just two years after Obama’s precedent-setting victory, America remains entrenched in a period of partisan dealignment and gridlock, and divided government nationally. Despite steady Republican gains since Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election, followed by a stinging Republican rebuke by a revitalized Democratic Party during the late stages of George W. Bush’s presidency, the shifting fortunes of the two major parties in these four states suggest that this saga of partisan affairs may well continue for some time.

Maybe this is because voters are having difficult time distiguishing between the two parties these days?

Finally, you're losing the messaging war, Mr. President.

The president's overall job approval rating in the poll, conducted separately from Gallup Daily tracking, is 42%. His ratings on three of the issues tested -- foreign affairs, Afghanistan, and taxes -- are within two to four points of that rating. Obama's ratings on the economy and the federal budget deficit, however, are significantly lower than his overall approval -- by 7 and 10 points, respectively.

 

 

"The Saga of Partisan Affairs"

Some highlights from the world of numbers crunching.

Nate Silver: Scott Brown's early 2010 victory may have been an early bell-weather for Democratic losses, but it was an outlier and Brown may be vulnerable:

The tsunami that hit Democrats last month — as large as it was — was remarkably precise and orderly, all things considered: given that the Democrats lost more than 60 seats, they lost almost exactly the 60 seats that you might have expected them to lose based on the overall partisanship of the districts. That did not include seats similar to Massachusetts, where Democrats in fact held on to all 10 congressional districts, even though several of the seats had been considered vulnerable.

Pollster: Americans have been ready for DADT repeal for over a decade.

Some outlets use a favor/oppose construction, others use yes/no or agree/disagree. Some outlets use the word "homosexuals," others use "gays and lesbians." ...

Regardless of the question wording, the basic result is the same. For sixteen years Americans have been supportive of allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military.

PPP: Montana Republicans want former Governor, former insurance lobbyist, and former Bush adviser Marc Racicot as their 2012 Senate candidate challenging Jon Tester:

Most would like to see either Marc Racicot (40%) or Denny Rehberg (37%) end up with the nod. Rehberg has near universal popularity with the Republican base (75/14) and although he gets a lot of 'not sures' 10 years removed from the Governor's office pretty much all Republicans with an opinion about Racicot like him (58/12 favorability). It's hard to imagine anyone else winning the nomination if either of them end up running

Also, they loves themselves some Palin/Huckabee.

Thomas Schaller takes a look at CO, NH, OH, VA in 2010, areas of biggest gain for Democrats in the previous three midterms, and concludes:

...just two years after Obama’s precedent-setting victory, America remains entrenched in a period of partisan dealignment and gridlock, and divided government nationally. Despite steady Republican gains since Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election, followed by a stinging Republican rebuke by a revitalized Democratic Party during the late stages of George W. Bush’s presidency, the shifting fortunes of the two major parties in these four states suggest that this saga of partisan affairs may well continue for some time.

Maybe this is because voters are having difficult time distiguishing between the two parties these days?

Finally, you're losing the messaging war, Mr. President.

The president's overall job approval rating in the poll, conducted separately from Gallup Daily tracking, is 42%. His ratings on three of the issues tested -- foreign affairs, Afghanistan, and taxes -- are within two to four points of that rating. Obama's ratings on the economy and the federal budget deficit, however, are significantly lower than his overall approval -- by 7 and 10 points, respectively.

 

 

"The Saga of Partisan Affairs"

Some highlights from the world of numbers crunching.

Nate Silver: Scott Brown's early 2010 victory may have been an early bell-weather for Democratic losses, but it was an outlier and Brown may be vulnerable:

The tsunami that hit Democrats last month — as large as it was — was remarkably precise and orderly, all things considered: given that the Democrats lost more than 60 seats, they lost almost exactly the 60 seats that you might have expected them to lose based on the overall partisanship of the districts. That did not include seats similar to Massachusetts, where Democrats in fact held on to all 10 congressional districts, even though several of the seats had been considered vulnerable.

Pollster: Americans have been ready for DADT repeal for over a decade.

Some outlets use a favor/oppose construction, others use yes/no or agree/disagree. Some outlets use the word "homosexuals," others use "gays and lesbians." ...

Regardless of the question wording, the basic result is the same. For sixteen years Americans have been supportive of allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military.

PPP: Montana Republicans want former Governor, former insurance lobbyist, and former Bush adviser Marc Racicot as their 2012 Senate candidate challenging Jon Tester:

Most would like to see either Marc Racicot (40%) or Denny Rehberg (37%) end up with the nod. Rehberg has near universal popularity with the Republican base (75/14) and although he gets a lot of 'not sures' 10 years removed from the Governor's office pretty much all Republicans with an opinion about Racicot like him (58/12 favorability). It's hard to imagine anyone else winning the nomination if either of them end up running

Also, they loves themselves some Palin/Huckabee.

Thomas Schaller takes a look at CO, NH, OH, VA in 2010, areas of biggest gain for Democrats in the previous three midterms, and concludes:

...just two years after Obama’s precedent-setting victory, America remains entrenched in a period of partisan dealignment and gridlock, and divided government nationally. Despite steady Republican gains since Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election, followed by a stinging Republican rebuke by a revitalized Democratic Party during the late stages of George W. Bush’s presidency, the shifting fortunes of the two major parties in these four states suggest that this saga of partisan affairs may well continue for some time.

Maybe this is because voters are having difficult time distiguishing between the two parties these days?

Finally, you're losing the messaging war, Mr. President.

The president's overall job approval rating in the poll, conducted separately from Gallup Daily tracking, is 42%. His ratings on three of the issues tested -- foreign affairs, Afghanistan, and taxes -- are within two to four points of that rating. Obama's ratings on the economy and the federal budget deficit, however, are significantly lower than his overall approval -- by 7 and 10 points, respectively.

 

 

Diaries

Advertise Blogads