Senator Fom MASS Scott Brown Calls Obama’s Comments Sad
Obama, One Sad President …
It would appear that Scott Brown, the newly elected Senator from Massachusetts is none to impressed with President Barack Hussein Obama’s comments regarding Tea Party members. It is sad that a President who certainly had no problem criticizing President George W. Bush, his policies, the war in Iraq and the surge seems to have an issue going after “We the People” who protest his own policies.
It is too bad that Obama can not act in a respectful manner toward people who are merely expressing them self in a respectful manner. It is a sad day when a President mocks the people for expressing them self and feels that he should be thanked. Some one might want to remind Obama that this is still the Unites States of America and the people want to keep it that way.
The Senate’s newest Republican called it “sad” that Barack Obama told a laughing crowd of Democratic donors on Tax Day that he was amused by the antics of Tea Partiers, who the president said should be thanking him for cutting their taxes instead of protesting against his policies.
“I find it sad that the president gets personal with these groups who are just expressing themselves in a respectful manner,” Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown said Friday morning in Washington to a conference of Republican lawyers. “That’s the way our country operates.”
Obama, speaking to about 1,000 Democratic donors in Miami Thursday night, said he’s been “amused a little over the past couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes,” adding, “You would think they would be saying, ‘Thank you.’ That’s what you’d think.”
It’s pretty sad when a President of the United States feels the need to be thanked for taxing people and irresponsibly spending the People’s money.
The Gateway Pundit shows us what a real political athlete looks like.
Scott Brown makes an important point and one that should put the fear of Gad into Democrats and Barack Obama. The MSM likes to drive wedges between people and start trouble where there is none, like in the case of Scott Brown, the Tea Party, his election and why he was not at the Boston Tea Party rally on April 14.
When asked about his general views on Tea Partiers, Brown — whose election in January has been hailed a sign of the power of the conservative grassroots activists — rejected the premise that the protesters concerned with runaway government spending should be solely credited with putting a Republican in the Massachusetts Senate seat for the first time in decades.
“Did the Tea Party movement help me? Sure they did. So did 1.1 million other people in my state and so did others across the country,” Brown said.
He added: “So to have one particular party take credit — I’m appreciative. But I had a big tent in my election.”
Brown did have a “BIG TENT” and it was Tea Party folks, Republicans, Independents and Democrats who voted for Brown. How else could a republican win in a Blue state like Massachusetts and win Kennedy’s old Senate seat?
This is where Democrats and Obama have an issue in elections to come. They want to believe that Republicans and the Tea Party peaked too soon. Not even close. Now every state and district wants to have their own Scott Brown election in 2010 & 2012 and there after.
Posted April 17, 2010 by Scared Monkeys
2010 Elections, 2012 Elections, Barack Obama, Obamacare, Obamanation, Obamanomics, Politics, Senate Elections, Tea Party, We the People, WTF | 22 comments
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
22 Responses to “Senator Fom MASS Scott Brown Calls Obama’s Comments Sad”
Leave a Reply
Scott Brown also chose not to attend the Tea Party on Boston Common last week for the simplest of reasons: He was on the Senate Floor that day doing the job that the people elected him to do.
Senator Brown will not be defined by one group or one movement. He is well aware how he got voted into office and again,,,that he represents all of us—WE THE PEOPLE.
Smart move on his part, I thought.
Please. Scott Brown doesn’t want to associate himself with the Tea Party because he thinks it will hurt him politically. If you’d like to make up a story to tell yourself, fine, but it’s just denial.
SM: Yea, that’s why he thanked them among the many in his “Big Tent”. Who is in denial.
I have lived in New England and know what it takes to be elected in MA as a Republican. Never in my life time did I expect to ever see any one with an “R” be elected to federal office.
Who is in denial?
Wait until November 2010 and we shall see who is in denail.
Whenever Obowma’s name is mentioned I consult Websters:
fool1 ? ?[fool]
1. a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.
#2- Once again Fern is talking out of her ass. Do you live or work here? Do you know thousands of us in Mass personally, the ones who voted Scott Brown into office and for what reasons?
No one here believes he is a God or worships him like you do your boy Obama. We don’t expect him to perform miracles, either. But we certainly know WHY we elected him…and you are still clueless.
Why don’t you stop typing & behaving like such a snotty know-it-all?? Speaking on behalf of the thousands of us here in Massachusetts who fired THE SECOND SHOT HEARD ROUND THE WORLD—you don’t know diddly, Fern so zip it.
I can’t wait to see what your excuses will be come November when defeat is staring you in the face again.
Rightknight, if you have to look the word “fool” up in a dictionary. . .
NewBostonGirl, here’s a great article on the 2010 and 2012 elections: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/04/18/gop_2012_problem_kilgore/. They sure will be interesting!
We do not look ahead and speculate to 2012, We the People are concentrating on the 2010 midterms. Here is the reality.
1. Generic Congressional Ballot: Republicans 45%, Democrats 36%
Even at the height of Obamaism, Dems only had a 2-3 point lead, now it is 9% advantage for Republicans. The problem for Obama and Dems is the Independent vote.
2. Obama continues to track near -20 in the Rasmussen Daily Tracking poll, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
This tracks the number of highly motivated against Obama vs the highly motivated for Obama.
3. Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on nine out of 10 key issues
4. Democrats could lose up to 70 to 100 House seats.
But if you want to Add Obama into the mix and the anchor he will be on the Democrats in 2010 …
5. Obama has an average of even in job favorabilty polls. Take out a LEFT leaning CBS/NY Times poll and he is ubderwater.
6. Obamacare is opposed now by more voters than ever before
7. Majority of Americans do not want Obama to have Second Term
CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn’t deserve reelection in 2012
Gallup: 46% say he deserves re-election and 50% say he does not.
8. Obama Not Meeting Americans’ Expectations on Issues
9. When a state like Massachusetts goes Republican to fill a Kennedy Senate seat and a blue state like NJ picks a Republican Governor, you have a major issue.
10 Unemployment is still near 10% and first time unemployment claims are still on the rise.
Further in US Senate contests, Democrat held seats in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Delaware, Arkansas, Colorado, North Dakota and Indiana are all but considered RED and flipping Republican. That is a pick up of 7 states. Close battles are being waged in California with Boxer and Illinois, both of which could flip as well. Republicans stand to gain between 7 to 10 seats depending on if they plan on running any one in NY against Kirsten Gillibrand.
If we want to look forward to the US Senate elections in 2012 …
Check out some of the vulnerable races in 2012:
* WV – Robert Byrd will be 95 years old. (WV has been Republican of late)
* ND – Kent Conrad could be the victim of the anti-Obama vote.
* NE – Ben Nelson and the corn husker kickback, Nelson already trails by 31.
* FL – Bill Nelson and his preferential Obamacare deal
* VA – Jim Webb in newly “Red” Virginia like what swept Bob McDonnell into office.
* OH – Sherrod Brown in a swing state like Ohio in a Presidential year. How much of the vote against Obama will be a vote against Brown?
* PA – Robert Casey in a swing states that could trend against the incumbent President.
* NY – If Kirsten Gillibrand wins in 2010, will there be a strong GOP candidate like Rudy unseat her in 2012?
If Republicans do not gain complete control of the Senate in 2010, it could bode even worse for Dems in 2012 as the GOP will be even more motivated to finish the job in ’12.
The LEFT makes me laugh when I see them already looking ahead to 2012 because they know what a political bloodbath it will be in 2010 for Democrats. They look to shift the focus.
Sorry, our laser beam is on 2010 and we have business to take care of.
We will handle 2012 in good time.
After all that has transpired in less than 2 years of Obama … a slogan of 4 more years is hardly a bumper sticker anyone would care to have.
Not so cut and dry, Scared Monkey.
Apr 13, 2010
Polls paint murky picture for November
Two independent polls released today paint a different picture of which political party is in better shape heading into November’s congressional elections.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll today shows that 50% of Americans say they would support a Democratic congressional candidate if the election were held today, compared with 46% who say they’d vote for a Republican. That’s a reversal from CNN’s last poll, conducted in March, which showed the GOP with a 4 percentage point advantage. To read more on the poll, click here.
Meanwhile, Republicans beat Democrats 48% to 44% in a generic ballot poll conducted by Gallup. The survey, also released today, marks the third week since President Obama’s health care proposal was approved by the House that Republicans have led or tied Democrats, according to Gallup. More on the Gallup Poll here.
In the CNN poll, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to enjoy a higher favorability rating (61%) than Obama (57%), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (38%) and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (39%).
The CNN poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for the generic congressional ballot question. The Gallup Poll’s margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
(Posted by John Fritze)
SM: Once again Fern you are the one who is doctor shopping here. You are stating a specif poll because it suits your liberal agenda. We will once again go back to the Real Clear Politics average polling for generic congression ballot.
Generic Congressional Vote
Republicans up by 3.2% in an average.
However, Rasmussen, who is polling has a larger sampling is at +9 for Republicans.
Like I have said, you can choose to have your head in the sand and listen to the Dem talking heads spin the upcoming disaster as rosy. What else are these idiots going to do … say we are going to lose big in epic proportions? As it is they are already floating the trial balloons of, “well all parties elected to the Presidency lose seats in the first midterm.” That is usually true although I don;t believe GWB did. However, it is going to be over the top this midterm because the the partisan view of the people against Democrats who are in control.
Fern, you best prepare yourself for the political Democrat Turkey shoot this November … they will lose the House, the Senate might be a Republican pick up of 7 to 9.
Yup, it’s a matter of where you get your stats.
Poll: Democrats, Republicans Virtually Tied Ahead Of November Elections
April 15, 2010 1:00 p.m. EST
Topics: politics, poll, election, national elections, United States
Kris Alingod – AHN News Contributor
Washington, DC, United States (AHN) – Voter support for Democrats and Republicans running for Congress are statistically even ahead of the November elections, according to a new poll. Two surveys released earlier this week had either Democrats or Republicans leading in voter preferences.
The latest George Washington University Battleground Poll has found that 41 percent of voters would support the GOP if the elections were held today, a virtual tie with 40 percent of voters who prefer Democratic congressional candidates.
In terms of disapproval, the two parties are also running neck-and-neck, with 59 percent disapproving of the job performance of Republican lawmakers and 57 percent saying the same for Democrats.
Forty-four percent believe the GOP would control wasteful government spending better, compared to 32 percent who say Democrats would do a better job on the issue. Republicans also lead when it comes to controlling the deficit, 45 percent to 36 percent, and holding down taxes, 56 percent to 28 percent.
Democrats, however, would be better at creating jobs, 46 percent to 38 percent; reforming Wall Street, 43 percent to 34 percent; and “getting things done,” 41 percent to 32 percent. Significantly, 52 percent of voters believe Democrats are better at reforming healthcare, compared with 35 percent who prefer Republicans on the issue.
The survey was conducted from April 5-8 among 1,000 registered likely voters. Its release comes the same week as a Gallup poll that had Republicans leading Democrats, 48 percent to 44 percent, in voter preferences for the mid-term elections.
“In midterm years when Democrats prevailed at the polls (such as 2006, 1990, and 1986), their net support among registered voters typically extended into double digits at several points during the year — something that has yet to happen in 2010,” Gallup’s Lydia Saad said, explaining the results.
However, a CNN/Opinion Research survey conducted from April 9-11 had Democrats ahead with the same 4-point margin. The poll also found an equal number of voters, 47 percent, have a favorable and unfavorable opinion of the GOP, while 49 percent view the Democratic Party positively and 46 percent negatively.
Read more: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018409684?Poll:%20Democrats,%20Republicans%20Virtually%20Tied%20Ahead%20Of%20November%20Elections#ixzz0lPeaeFDG
SM: You just dream that little dream and we shall see in November. Wanna bet? You can live in denial all you want. I guess you will be in the shock of your life post midterm election morning.
You only pick and choose your stats, I’ve noticed, and use polls that favor your viewpoint. Well, I’m sorry to tell you that it looks like anyone’s race at this point, with public opinion split about even. Gallup shows Obama at 49%, which is not bad for a this point in a presidency. And it shows Republicans and Democrats with roughly equivalent disapproval ratings.
Whoa, hold the phone. I just read that
32% of Tea Party members are retired
75% of Tea Partiers are 45 or older
87% are white
57% are male
SM: Fern … here is the fact that you need to be looking at.
95% of blacks voted for Obama in the 2008 election. Why would you think that more than 5% would be a part of a Tea Party demo? So the fact that 87% are white … that means that 13% are not.
Wow. That’s a definite segment of the community. I think the age statistics might be the most shocking for me. Why wouldn’t young people be getting involved?
There are different polls that have demos, I am guessing you are quoting the NYT’s.
One again you cannot seem to tell the truth, you said …
Meanwhile we have consistantly used the following two polls among many to prove the point against Obama. They are average of many polls from Real Clear Politics:
President Obama Job Approval
Take away the never bias (yes, this is sarcasm) CBS/NYT poll and Obama approval as an average of polls would be negative.
Obama and Democrats’ Health Care Plan (AVG from Real Clear Politics)
An average of all polling has opposition to Obamacare at +12%.
Care to retract your statements?
There are certain polling that I would never consider useful. Some polls are apparently bias by the sampling. All that needs to be considered when using a poll. Sorry, but Scott Rasmussen for years has been the best in the business. His track record has been better than any other polling. He nailed the 2000, 2004, 2008 elections … he was even correct in the % in picking Obama over McCain.
Sorry if you use bias in your analysis, I do not. It serves me no purpose.
Hmmm. Scott Rasmussen is unbiased and he works for the RNC?
Putting the [R] in [R]asmussen?
by Nate Silver @ 6:21 PM
Bookmark and Share Share This Content
ThinkProgress has discovered, by way of a cool new invention known as The Internet, that Scott Rasmussen has in fact been conducing polling on behalf of partisan clients, in particular the RNC and the Bush re-election campaign, both during 2003-04.
This appears to contradict all but the most absurdly lawyerly readings of a statement on Rasmussen Reports’ website, which reads: “Scott [Rasmussen] maintains his independence and has never been a campaign pollster or consultant for candidates seeking office.” The statement was also repeated word-for-word in a Politico article without any qualification.
OK, so we’ll score this The Internet 1, Politico’s fact-checking department 0, and Rasmussen a negative something for posting a blatantly misleading statement on their website.
Here’s an interesting question: Should organizations like Pollster.com and Real Clear Politics, each of which put an (R) or a (D) by the name of pollsters whom they consider to be “partisan affiliated”, put an (R) designation by Rasmussen Reports?
Well, I can’t really answer that question, because I don’t know exactly how they define “partisan affiliated”. Still, I think some nuance is in order. In particular, it’s probably useful to distinguish between Scott Rasmussen himself and Rasmussen Reports. The polling industry is fairly incestuous; people may be partners in some firms, consultants to others, and may conduct further polling on behalf of themselves as a sole proprietorship or another entity like an S-Corp created for tax purposes. And these relationships may change over time. In this case, the polling for Bush and the RNC was conducted on behalf of “Scott Rasmussen Inc”, which I’d surmise is Scott’s personal business and is separate from Rasmussen Reports itself.
Does that matter? It emphatically does not excuse the statement on Rasmussen Reports’ website, which is specifically applied not just to Rasmussen Reports but also to Scott Rasmussen himself. But, if RCP and Pollster were to place an (R) or a (D) by the name of any polling firm who had any partner who had ever conducted polling on behalf of partisan clients, there wouldn’t be too many pollsters left who went without a partisan designation.
I suspect that the working definition that RCP and Pollster use is closer to “a firm that actively solicits polling business on behalf of clients from one party”. Rasmussen Reports currently is not doing this. In fact, they state on their website that “because we value our independence and credibility, Rasmussen Reports cannot be hired to conduct a poll for anyone” (although Rasmussen Reports left the line blurrier several years ago, and I don’t know if the prohibition on for-hire polling applies to Scott Rasmussen himself.)
Personally, I don’t think you get very far looking at who conducted the poll — instead, I prefer to look at who paid for it. If a “partisan” polling firm like Democracy Corps or Public Opinion Strategies issues a poll under their own name (or on behalf of a media client), I wouldn’t consider that to be a partisan poll and would list it in my averages. Likewise, if a non-partisan pollster like Gallup were to issue a poll on behalf of Charlie Crist, I would consider that a partisan poll and wouldn’t include it. As our FAQ states:
A poll is excluded if it was conducted by any current candidate for office, a registered campaign committee, a Political Action Committee, or a 527 group, unless (i) the poll has a bipartisan partner (partisan polling groups will sometimes pair with one another to reduce the perception of bias), or (ii) the organization has a long and demonstrable track record of releasing all its data to the public.
Polls are not excluded simply because the pollster has conducted work on behalf of Republican or Democratic candidates.
I don’t want to pretend this is a perfect definition, but it does draw a fairly bright line. This applies, by the way, specifically to the polls we include in our statistical models (the 2010 model should debut sometime in late spring). I apply a bit more discretion to what polls I might choose or choose not to highlight in narrative pieces, although I think you’ll find I generally apply the same principle. If the organization that paid for a poll has some skin in the game, I’ll usually ignore it — or if I do talk about it, I’ll probably talk about it in a disparaging fashion.
Right now, Rasmussen Reports is branding themselves essentially as media organization. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt here, in no small part because that’s how I tend to brand FiveThirtyEight as well. I don’t buy that a media organization won’t, can’t, or shouldn’t have a “point of view”; FiveThirtyEight has a point of view, i.e. that of me and our other writers. I also don’t buy that a “point of view” automatically equals “bias”.
But I do believe in open disclosure, both as a branding and an ethical matter. That’s why I tell you in the FAQ who I voted for (Barack Obama). I have never conducting polling or paid consulting on behalf of a political client, nor am I actively (or even passively, for the time being) soliciting such business. I have conducted consulting and polling on behalf non-political clients, and I have also advised political clients on an informal, unpaid basis. FiveThirtyEight is independently owned and operated.
Any of that could change — in which case, we’ll just have to tell you about it. As for Rasmussen, I’m not going to tell them how to run their business.
SM: Good God, do you have a clue? Now you are quoting Think Progress. Why don’t you just quote the old USSR or an old Pravda newspaper?
Yea, cuz they ain’t slanted socialist.
LOL. The more I read about it, the worse Rasmussen Reports looks. They are heavily biased toward the right wing.
Why MSNBC doesn’t use Rasmussen
May 15, 2009 8:57 am ET by Eric Boehlert
The surveys are beloved by conservatives. Remember how John McCain was in striking distance late last October, according to Rasmussen? And conservatives can always turn to Rasmussen today to find outlier polling data which suggest Barack Obama isn’t really that popular. But more and more journalists seem to be concluding that from a public policy perspective, the Rasmussen polls aren’t worth much.
Note this exchange on Thursday during an interview MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell did with a conservative Catholic, Patrick Reilly, who appeared to argue against the invitation Notre Dame University extended to Barack Obama, who will speak at the school’s commencement this weekend [emphasis added]:
O’DONNELL: Is it possible, given the poll numbers that are out, that show that 60% of Catholics in this country think that President Obama should — be out there, that your view is a minority view?
REILLY: It’s possible. There are a minority of Catholics who are faithful practicing Catholics who attend Mass regularly. However, there are other polls. There was the Rasmussen poll that showed that Catholics, 60% to 25% opposed the honor and the reason is –
O’DONNELL: You know, we don’t use the Rasmussen poll at NBC.
REILLY: Well, that’s a shame. But the reason is, because they ask the question in the context of explaining to respondents that the bishops had instituted a policy banning this type of honor under that — in that context.
My hunch is that O’Donnell meant that MSNBC doesn’t use Rasmussen polls period, and not just the Rasmussen one regarding the Notre Dame issue. But Rasmussen’s Notre Dame survey is a perfect example why conservative love the polling firm. Why? Surprise! Rasmussen, virtually alone, found that Americans do not agree with Notre Dame’ invitation to Obama. All the other major polling conducted on the question has found most Americans agree with the commencement speaker choice, but not in Rasmussen’s world.
BTW, here was the Rasmussen ND polling question, which reads like it was typed up by the right-wing Cardinal Newman Society itself:
Guidelines established by U.S. bishops state that Catholic institutions such as Notre Dame should not honor people whose actions conflict with the church’s moral principles. Given these guidelines, should Notre Dame award President Obama an honorary degree?
Compare that to the more practical question posed by the Pew Forum:
Do you think it was right or wrong for Notre Dame to invite Obama to give their graduation speech and receive an honorary degree?
I wouldn’t be surprised to see more news outlets adopt MSNBC’s rule when it comes to Rasmussen.
Sm: YOU JUST PROVED YOU ARE AN IDIOT and a LIBERAL TROLL PLANT.
MSNBC? Are you joking? This does not even deserve a comment. MSNBC as as far LEFT as it gets and sadly has lost its soul. I used to have many friends and knew producers and hosts there. No more and I would have nothing to do with them ever,
MSNBC, lol … Moonbat, Socialist National Broadcasting Corporation.
So why aren’t young people involved in the Tea Party movement? You responded to the race statistic, yes. That does not surprise me. My bigger question is, why aren’t young to middle-aged people involved in the Tea Party movement?
32% of Tea Party members are retired
75% of Tea Partiers are 45 or older
87% are white
57% are male
SM: Who knows, maybe they have not realized the detriment of the situation? How many people when they were young considered them self Democrats until they got a job and had to pay taxes? 62% of 18 to 29 voted for Obama, 32% voted for McCain.
So with that being the case … also understand that the young may not be getting polled … they all have cell phones, not land lines.
With the lib teachers in HS and college this is no wonder.
However, the big picture is … Obama would not consider the Tea Party a threat if he had npt felt the need to purposely target them in his “Thank you” comment the other day. Of course it had the opposite intended consequence.
Rasmussen appears to be doing push-polling, Scared Monkey, which is really one of the lowest forms of campaigning. (Richard Nixon used push-polling extensively to smear his opponents.)
How Rasmussen’s right-wing bias has made it a laughing stock among major pollsters
There’s are reasons most major news outlets don’t often mention a Rasmussen poll. One reason is because their questions are designed to elicit responses that skew heavily to the right.
The second reason is that Rasmussen doesn’t even use live operators or ask for voice responses. They robo-call their phone list sample, which is weighted more heavily to Republican households than the general demographic, and they tabulate based on phone keypad responses. There’s no quality control in that polling – does voice mail or a fax machine produce tones that Rasmussen counts as “yes” responses? Nobody knows. Does no response produce a “yes” response? Nobody knows.
We do know that they’re an outlier that always produces results that guarantee favorable Fox News coverage and always agree with the GOP talking points of the moment.
That’s a little too coincidental for most news organizations to take seriously.
What is consistent about Rasmussen’s coverage of the health care debate is their incessant desire to frame the debate in ways designed to denigrate both the Congress and President Obama. One of the most insipid examples of this was a survey earlier in the week in which Rasmussen reported that two-thirds of voters believed that they understood the health care reform proposal as well, or better, than President Obama.
Of course, there is objective evidence to prove that this poll is false. Indeed, in the recent poll conducted for AARP, just thirty-seven percent of Americans could correctly identify what is meant by a “public option”. Nearly one-half of voters either thought it was a total nationalized healthcare program, or admitted that they had no idea.
They are not limited to right-wing cheerleading on the health care issue. Check out the wording on this question about taxes and government services, offered up this week on the front page of their website:
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement… it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money?
Why stop there, Rasmussen? Why not add a parenthetical phrase about how tax cuts regrow hair, whiten teeth, and ensure that your favorite team will win the Super Bowl this year?
Once you’ve already loaded a question with biased wording (this question, when stripped down, is basically asking people whether they like themselves more, or bureaucrats), you might as well go big or go home.
Amazingly, with their word construction, people favored tax cuts 62-20. Legitimate pollsters, however, word the question very differently. Earlier in the year, both Pew and CBS asked the question simply, and without bias. The wording between the two varied slightly, but the basic construction was: “What do you think would benefit the economy more at this time: cutting taxes on individuals and businesses, or increasing spending on items like infrastructure and other programs?”
Not surprisingly, without the loaded wording, the question was considerably closer.
Now you are citing the Daily KOS, the most LEFTISTS BLOG on the internet. If I said one Republcan thing on that site it would be deleted and I would be attacked as a Nazi.
You really have shown your true colors.
Please don’t counter an argument by quoting the Far Left, it is unbecoming and really foolish. What next, The Huffington Post?
Scared Monkey, why does everyone on here, including you, call people names? In #11, you call me an idiot, but you’ve called me other names. I was raised not to call people names. If my momma heard me call a kid a name on the schoolyard, she’d blister my behind when I got home.
And I’m not a “plant.” Well, unless you are referring to the fact that I’m named for one. Also, it’s not just “liberal” sites that call into question Rasmussen’s numbers.
SM: It is foolish to question what has been the most accurate pollster in the business for years and use liberal propaganda to smear Rasmussen’s good name and work.
Do you not understand that I could care less who one works for? The results are the key. I guess you dismiss the fact that he called that Obama would defeat McCain in his polling and final poll when Republicans were stating McCain had a chance. I knew McCain would lose … Rasmussen called it as he has numerous Senate, House and Presidential elections.
Have an opinion but back it up with some type of intelligent fact. The idea that you would quote MSNBC and Daily Kos, you lose any and all credibility.
Those are the facts.
Ha! Dora and I are having coffee this morning, and her info was in her browser. FYI, this is Fern.
We’re having a great time reading the replies this morning.
SM: Glad you are enjoying yourself.
P.S. Dora thinks I’m wasting my time on your site. I disagree.
SM: I don’t think you are wasting your time. Maybe you can learn some thing that is not spoon fed to you from liberals.
Here is a piece of education for you. I do not think you are wasting your time at all, maybe you will take off your liberal colored glasses and come to understand that all is not what you think or espouse. I do not pretend that I will ever change your political ideology, just try and keep an open mind to some things, because some of the stuff you quote is silly:
Polling accuracy in 2008 elections:
Rasmussen named #1 pollster for 2008.
Poll Accuracy in the 2008 Presidential Election: Rasmussen Most Reliable
Rasmussen 2008: How Did We Do?
The final Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Election 2008 showed Barack Obama leading John McCain 52% to 46%. We are pleased to report that those figures precisely matched the actual election returns.
Election 2008: Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
2004 Rasmussen Final Presidential polling
This matches our Election 2004 performance when our tracking poll was the only national poll to project the totals for Bush and Kerry within half a point of the actual totals.
The final, certified, results of Election 2004 show that President George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while Senator John Kerry earned 48.3%. Those figures are very close to the final Rasmussen Reports Daily Tracking Poll. We projected the President would win 50.2% to 48.5%.
Kinda hard to call him bias isn’t it when he called two elections, one for a Republican and the other for a Democrat and they were nearly exact!
You are all wet with your Rasmussen argument. He is the most credible name in the game and only those that don’t like his truth say otherwise. Funny that many on the LEFT were praising him in 2008 when he called the election for Obama in his final tracking poll. But I guess he was just being bias.
Suddenly the LEFT is silent on Rasmussen when the FACTS are provided to them.
Whats the matter, the facts get in the way of your liberal smear?
Kinda hard to BS your way outta this isn’t it?
Yea, Rasmussen is such a Republican, right wing bias pollster that he predicted Obama victory spot on.
Crow tastes the best, baked with a lemon sauce and a bottle of light Chardonnay. I heard it tastes like chicken.
Nah, i just went out for a nice run. Rasmussen is biased. The Obama victory was a done deal, and Rasmussen needed to get on board for the big win so it didn’t hurt his reputation any worse than it’s already been. I think, after reading about it, that Rasmussen is a push-poller for the RNC.
SM: You are a clown, please stop wasting people’s time and find another site to bother … you have proved yourself to be a TROLL.
You are a waste of time and that is your purpose. Bye, bye.
You notice that Fern still hasn’t answered me on the videos I posted and the questions that I asked? Typical liberal behavior. Doesn’t matter now, I’m done with it. Not going to argue with someone who can’t look at the facts with an open mind.
SM: I don’t think Fern will be answering any more things here Michelle.
TROLL BE GONE.
Trolls don’t answer and deal with the facts, they just like to waste people’s time and bandwidth.
LOL; what a total and utter LOSER. Sitting in his office with one her lesbian and liberal freak of a girlfriend? LOL! What a nerd!
You really can’t make this stuff up. This is why liberals are the butt of jokes outside of their little MSM world.
Hey Dora where is your little monkey friend Boots? Your retarded logic befits what a cartoon your life is; especially dealing with some old 50 some year old elitist liberal who couldn’t get laid in a morgue!
don’t agree, just insult.
Indeed, it is sad for a President of the United States of America to comment on regarding the reactions of the tea partiers. It’s also trivial that Brown’s attention was caught by Obama who was amused by the antics of tea partiers. I feel sad about it!