New Favored Conservative Term: "Tanking"

If a net drop of -6 is "tanking"... What is the term for GWB's drop at (-16)??
Or the drop for Conserva-Jesus, himself (-8)... Ronald Reagan?

Truth is, all Presidential ratings drop in the second year... and Obama's "tanking score" is the best since Eisenhower.


J said... / Aug 19, 2010, 9:00:00 PM

Codester said... / Aug 20, 2010, 1:51:00 AM  

How is this related to Presidential approvals?

Codester said... / Aug 20, 2010, 2:54:00 AM  

1) Get your own blog if you want to post topics that are completely unrelated to MY blog topics, or find a relevant related blog of mine that fits, and comment THERE.

2) Put the 538 tweet into context with some real and genuine Nate Silver analysis... if you can comprehend it.

3) I say 25-30 seats swing for Republicans at best. 39 seat swing is needed for control. Put up or shut up and make your own prediction. How many seats are you gonna take, Mr. OffYear ElectoralGenius?? Neither you (in all the other instances when I've given you the chance) nor any of your other peers will venture a educated guess, most likely because you're just not educated on historical congressional gains.

4) Since conservatives don't currently have any reasonable ideas of their own (other than Rove and the further obstructionism plan) on how to govern, I'm first disappointed for the country. But even if they COULD take the House, politically that plays to a stellar situation in 2012 after the public gets another taste of the Republicans AND two years of governance that actually CAN be laid at their doorstep... instead of the Democrats constantly getting blamed for their bungling.
Fine by me.

5) WSJ says you only have the South. We have every other region of the country.

6) WSJ says voters prefer Dems to Reps 33% to 24%/

7 WSJ says Tea Party has a net-negative fav/unfav rating (30%-34%).

Good luck, Mr. HanginMyHopes completely on a 4.6% House ballot advantage and NO other indicator.

Codester said... / Aug 20, 2010, 11:01:00 PM  

Oh, and did I forget to mention the overwhelming fundraising advantage we've enjoyed this cycle?


J said... / Sep 3, 2010, 1:13:00 AM  

1) I post here out of boredom and because I have a thing for blondes. You can't out debate me, but you are sexy as all hell. There, I said it! So don't have a cow because I post something about congressional gains in a post about presidential polls. Nate Silver said it, and since he said it, you're getting all defensive about posting. I mean no harm, seriously.

2. He's a leftie, I don't trust him

3. adding href is disabled

4. "Since conservatives don't currently have any reasonable ideas of their own"

You still don't get that our ideas eminate from reforming liberal ideas gone too far. Read ANY Republican canidate's platform, it's usually centered around reforming (or outright getting rid of) shit that will put us on the road of Greek-like insolvency. We exist to LIMIT state power, not come up with a new idea that will increase the scope of the state in our everyday lives. Our "ideas" are just reactions, in general.

For 5,6,7, see #3

You guys beat us in every election cycle because unions and billionaires like Soros. Dems will always have a bigger machine. It's hard to motivate people to vote for you when the reality of our existence is #4. You're not selling a new program in general if you're an actual conservative running for the house, senate, or presidency.

Codester said... / Sep 4, 2010, 2:23:00 AM  

2) You don't have to "trust" anything ya dolt.

Since you're such a champ at "out-debating" folks... it's your job to counter with real and genuine facts that directly address, discredit, or disprove his analysis or methodology.

"He's a leftie" isn't gonna cut it. Trust? Pffft. Why don't you just counter with your religious "beliefs" like Beck is lately.

4) How is that "Limit State Power" deal working out for ya... "in our everyday lives".

Adding href works fine for me.
So I'm not gonna bother to cut and paste your static link.

Post a Comment