Powered by TypePad

« Almost Like Reporting | Main | Careful Reading Tuesday »

July 13, 2010



It's a WaPo poll --the very definition of a hamburger helper poll.If they can't hide the decline........


Indeed, Clarice. I think the WaPo and other pollsters understate the actual mood of the public - epecially among likely voters - because of the built-in Dem bias that's usually present in their polls.

The GOP isn't doing anything to reclaim the voters' confidence, but hopefully the people will want hope and change from this regime enough to vote for anyone who isn't a Dem.

Old Lurker

WaPo is "owned" by the Clintons and the established Clintonistas.

Just sayin.

narciso the harpoon

Despite the massaging of the numbers, that even Al Gore didn't get, I hate myself for that image, they are are facing a wipeout,
it is instructive however, how the press kept the impression negative, back when we all knew that a recovery was ongoing, in the fall
of 2004.

But the positive number on the economy is half that of the '94 period

Danube of Thought

Might not be any more date nights, but you can bet there'll be plenty of golf.


The good news; the House escapes the clutches of Nancy, David Obey, Barney Frank et al -- the bad news it does so because all suburban Dem "moderates" get wiped out, leaving the permanent liberal Dems in place. More good news, the Senate moves close to 50/50 so nothing gets through the Senate unless a significant number of conservatives agree to it, and with a lot of Dems are up in 2012 they may actually have to agree to rolling back Obamacare and sensible tax/spend policies. The Great news is that the electoral bloodbath leads to the Dem civil war, the Chicago Mafia and the left-wing against what's left of the Clintonista Mafia. All the Clintonistas have left is access to money, so they will lose. The Obama 'victory' will truly be Pyrrhic, as the Dems will be left as a inner city/left-wing ideolgue narrow coalition. The wipeout continues in 2012 with a conservative president, and the "progressive" brand ruined for an electoral generation. And they would have done it all to themselves; it's a beautiful thing.


Presidents can be unpopular for many reasons. Reagan's unpopularity was clearly due to the pain of the recession, but he was doing all the right things to set the stage for a boom. Clinton's was similar to Obama's, but he knew enough to change course. Obama is both rigid and tone deaf (and not too bright). He's not just stuck on stupid, he's doubling down on stupid. It's remarkable that he could be consoled by Clinton's recovery, without realizing that Clinton made a complete u-turn in his policies.

narciso the harpoon

True, Jimmy, but Obama is one that really thought CArter and Clinton were 'too conservative' that's like a 12 years old with
a can of sterno, and a lighter,

Danube of Thought


Republican candidates hold a six-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, July 11.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely Voters would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate, while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.


Barry O won't "change course" after November. He will win the civil war with the Clintonistas, he'll veto popular legislation passed by the Congress, he'll threaten all remaining Dems that's he's the only thing between them and a generation of right-wing rule, he'll pull all the dirty electoral tricks that can be pulled, and he'll still lose in 2012. As a result, the "progressive" brand will be discredited for a generation.

Danube of Thought

Minus 17 at Raz today.


NK, from your mouth to God's ears..

The only way the Dems win is for Obama to go.  Where, I won't say.

Nope, I think the Clintonistas win. I seriously think it'll be Sarah vs Hillary, and what a mess that's gonna be.


The Great news is
subpoena power

Danube of Thought

Survey USA: Whitman by seven over Brown; Fiorina by two over Boxer.


Oh, the very possibility is thrilling, DoT. We can play the theme from Call Me Madam as Boxer packs up.


The wipeout continues in 2012 with a conservative president, and the "progressive" brand ruined for an electoral generation. The Dems, of course, are hoping a Republican Congress & hung Senate will get those hopey/changeys agitated and the media riled enough to re-elect this Carter redux.

I think Jimmy might be right, and the removal of Bush's tax breaks & other Dem stupidities might cause another downward lurch in the economy, which would make someone like Mitt plausible, but really, can you replace a Zero with a decimal point followed by a zero? You gotta have something to replace a nothing, and a Gingrich or Sarah isn't enuf.


Dave in Boca--

Agreed, but consider 5 words: George W. Bush John McCain. An unpopular out going pres. and a terrible candidiate elected Barry O (coupled with the Fall 2008 financial collapse and anti-wall street media frenzy.) Conservatives will nominate a good candidate, not just "the next republican" and they will have a simple theme, I'm not Barry, Harry or Nancy and I won't bankrupt the country. That will be enough, more than enough.


IMO, the Democrats have already assured their 2012 Victory.

Remember, as Stalin said--"it is who counts the votes that matters"


Going back to strategic defaulting and the rich doing it more, there are a couple of useful blogs out today.

1. Yves Smith (for the second time): Strategic Defaulters as the New Welfare Queens, this time also touching on the political angle:

So why all this hysteria about strategic defaulters? If I were conspiracy-minded, I’d say this is a very clever push to stoke jealousy among what is left of the middle class to keep the focus off the way the banksters wrecked the economy, got lots of cash and prizes, and have every reason to repeat that profitable exercise. So focus public ire instead about the commies in our midst, um, the new welfare queens, aka various forms of alleged housing deadbeats. The immediate reason is that the more people are made to resent the breaks they fantasize their neighbors are getting, the more they will oppose deep principal mods, which historically is what banks always did when they had a borrower get in trouble who still had a remotely viable income.

Why would the banks oppose principal mods? It will force an end to extend and pretend, and when THAT happens, a lot of financial firms will be shown to be undercapitalized and in need of rescue or resolution (as we and others have pointed out repeatedly, Mike Konczal’s conservative analysis of second mortgage portfolios at the four biggest US banks, Bank of America, JP Morgan, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo, shows that they probably need another $150 billion in equity among them, and others contend the writedowns on seconds should be much more aggressive than Konczal assumed).

This push could also be an effort by the GSEs to shift blame, Whocouldanode 2.0: “whocouldanode prime borrowers would default at such high rates?” It wasn’t our crappy procedures and unduly optimistic assumptions, it was the black swan of a change in values!

Now let us say I am wrong and the banks and GSEs are about to embark on new tactics versus defaulting borrowers, say by getting more aggressive in trying to garnish wages when recoveries fall short. That has the potential to backfire massively.

Right now, contrary to popular opinion, virtually the only parties fighting foreclosure are either people who think they can afford the house but are the victims of massive servicing mistakes (I could write a separate post on this, trust me) or people who have filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcies where the servicer (acting on behalf of the trust) tries to block the bankruptcy stay. In 45 of 50 states (this is a simplification but pretty accurate), the mortgage (which is a lien, in some states called a deed of trust) can only be enforced by the legitimate owner of the note (the IOU). Mortgage securitizations had very specific requirements as to what the trust (the securitization entity) needed to do to obtain the note. Trust are very brain dead vehicles, they can only do what their governing agreements permit them to do, nothing more. In short form, it appears to be widespread, if not endemic, that securitizations starting around 2004 began not bothering to do what they needed to do so that the trust had clear ownership of the note (the key item being proper endorsement of the note by all the parties in the ownership chain of the securitization prior to or on the day of closing. Limited fixes were permitted post closing, generally up to 90 days, but they were designed to be narrow and apply only to a small percentage of the notes in a pool).

Increasingly people who are fighting foreclosures are having good results by questioning whether the party who shows up in court to foreclose is entitled to do so (the legal concept is “standing” and is fundamental). Note the person fighting the foreclosure is NOT arguing that they don’t owe the money but whether the party who wants to take the house has the right to. And this is not a theoretical objection; there have been cases where the same note has been sold to multiple securitizations. If the wrong party forecloses, the borrower is at risk that ANOTHER trust will show up, and again demand that he pay the mortgage debt in full. Although decisions vary (usually by state, based both on state law considerations and the temperament of the judiciary), many judges are ruling for borrowers, typically dismissing cases without prejudice (meaning the lender can try foreclosing again if he can get his act together, but typically the issues that led to the unfavorable ruling are insurmountable).

So if the banks and Freddie and Fannie start on a big, and very badly aimed push to go after defaulting borrowers to extract more blood from stones, one outcome may be that they don’t get the headlines they want. Instead of “Greedy guy reneged on his mortgage when he has plenty of dough (be sure to include photo of deadbeat with luxury car or in front of very fancy new residence)” you will get “Cancer victim who had to abandon beloved home harassed by greedy banks.”

But more important, this sort of move will lead incorrectly targeted “strategic defaulters” who willingly gave up their houses to fight the efforts to extract more cash from them. That in turn has the potential to increase awareness of the widespread problems with mortgage securitizations, with the potential to shift to dynamic. What if the owners of private label mortgage bonds come to realize that in many cases, the instruments are effectively unsecured? What happens if Fannie and Freddie’s strategic defaulter push backfires from a financial standpoint (the cost of a badly-targeted collection effort exceeds any increased recoveries?)

And most important, what happens if the public comes to understand the hypocrisy of the banks’ stance, that they are demonizing borrowers for failing to live up to contracts, when they couldn’t be bothered to comply with the terms of their own contracts, which set up procedures for conveying notes to the securitization entity, and in many cases foreclosure mills have forged documents to cover up that fact? Whoever is behind the “strategic defaulter” push may well wind up hoist on his own petard.

2. Steve Sailer, more along TM's line: Is this a statistical optical illusion?


Just a reminder...Bill Clinton ran against Bob Dole. A banana could have beaten Bob Dole.


A Clinton-Obama fight to remove Obama from the ticket will destory the Dems either way. If Clinton wins, then the African-American vote stays home for at least a decade. If Obama wins, he has to burn every penny he has just to stay in the race, and those deep pockets that were so bountiful in 2008 will be no where to be found in 2012. The only problem is if Barry stays true to form, he will decide in 2011 he doesn't want to run again.


--The Great news is
subpoena power--

As much as I'd like to see stylish Nancy in an ill-fitting, striped jumpsuit, even with Jim Wright and the House banking scandal very fresh in people's minds the Repubs did very little to root out dem corruption via the congress after 94. It was only Ken Starr's investigation which prompted their looking into Clinton.
I hold out little hope they'll do much more this time.
OTOH, if they were to do something novel, like say, govern effectively and slash the size of government and help the economy recover they wouldn't need to worry about subpoena power cause the Dems's would be a small minority for a very long time.


"A banana could have beaten Bob Dole"

i was thinking more like a pineapple.


I hold out little hope they'll do much more this time.
OTOH, if they were to do something novel, like say, govern effectively and slash the size of government and help the economy recover they wouldn't need to worry about subpoena power cause the Dems's would be a small minority for a very long time.

Posted by: Ignatz | July 13, 2010 at 10:29 AM

No reason they can't do both.

What I really want to see them do is a full public investigation over the passage of Obamacare. Make is clear what a total set of lies and fraud was used to push it through, then expell the Dem leaders who did it. The only way you will prevent this in the future is if you show that even if you are in a safe seat in congress, you can still lose you seat for crossing the line.


Hot Air:

"Before we get started on the results, let’s take a look at yet another skewed sample from the WaPo/ABC pollster. Democrats have a seven-point advantage in this poll in its general population (31/24) and registered voter subgroup (33/26). Barack Obama won the popular vote by seven points in November 2008. Does the WaPo/ABC pollster really believe that today’s electorate is exactly the same as then? On the other hand, it’s an improvement over the last survey in June (+9 RV) and April (+9 RV, +11 GP). Maybe by the time we get to the midterms, the WaPo/ABC sample may actually begin to look like the electorate."



Damn. I wish that had occurred to me. Opportunity lost.


Ranger is on the mark, excepting speculation that Barry O sits out 2012. He is waaay too arrogant for that, arrogance being defined as the relative conceit to ability, and since Barry O has virtually no ability as a CEO of the country his arrogance is virtually infinite. Ranger's right that the civil war will destroy the Dems either way; I just can't see the almost 70 year old Clintonistas convincing the Dems to go with them; maybe if the white baby booomer Dems all turn on Barry O, but I just don't see it, Barry O will bribe them off with I'll keep the medicare rollin'.



spoken like a true conservative. As a proud independent I hold no allegiance to Repubs, except when they live up to small government and sane fiscal policy credencials. If they toe the line and stick to those principles, they will be in power for a long time, and rooting out the Pelosista scoundrels isn't a big deal. Besides, those Pelosi crooks will engage in some crime some day without Congressional imunity and the US Attorneys and Courts will sort them out.


Hot Air:

"t must be Polling Tuesday, as more than a few interesting results have hit the news circuit this morning — and this may be one of the most interesting of all. Democrats have targeted Michele Bachmann in all three of the cycles in which she has run for Congress, and despite the first two being overwhelmingly Democratic elections, they have come up empty in MN-06. The latest Survey USA poll from the district strongly suggests that their luck isn’t changing in this midterm:

In MN-06, High-Profile Michele Bachmann Narrowly Atop DFL Challenger, 4 Months To Election: In an election for United States Representative from Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District today, 07/12/10, men and younger voters re-elect incumbent Republican Michele Bachmann to a 3rd term, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for KSTP-TV in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Bachmann and DFL State Senator Tarryl Clark are tied among voters age 50+. But when voters of all ages are combined, including the youngest voters, Bachmann leads 48% to 39%. There is a striking 33-point Gender Gap. Bachmann, a woman, leads by 25 points among male likely voters. Clark, a woman, leads by 8 points among female likely voters. Of those who support the Tea Party movement, 86% back Bachmann. Of those who oppose the Tea Party movement, 82% back Clark.

KSTPnotes correctly that an incumbent under 50% in a poll is usually a red flag, but not when the main challenger is below 40%, and a three-way race makes that dynamic a little different anyway. They also correctly note that Bachmann hasn’t really begun to campaign, while Clark has TV ads running already:

Jacobs points out the fact Bachmann is short of the 50-percent mark gives Clark some hope, but when Bachmann begins running her TV ads, she’ll make a big effort to define Clark as a tax-raising Democrat.

Clark is a tax-raising Democrat, not exactly what MN-06 usually sends to Congress in any year. Bachmann just completed a big fundraising quarter that gives her a big war chest to fund those ads, which will flood the zone closer to the election.

KSTP also describes this result as putting Clark “within striking distance,” but nine points is a long distance to strike. That might be tough to make up in a race for a Republican challenger to a Democratic incumbent, even this year, but for a Democratic candidate, it’s going to be well-nigh impossible — especially in MN-06. Don’t expect that to discourage the national party from dumping resources into the race like they did in 2008 and 2006, but it will do nothing but keep those resources from helping elsewhere."

narciso the harpoon

I voted for Crist, just start slapping me now,
I've found the state GOP much like the Alaskan
delegation without the polar bears, I was for Newt when I was younger and more naive, so to say I'm jaundiced on the practical possibilities is an understatement


I don't believe any poll that shows Obama close to 50%. If his numbers were that high, he would have every democrat in the country clamoring for him to campaign for them. And they wouldn't be slashing the price of admission to his campaign speeches where he does show up.


Remember, when reading/listening to leftist material you have two groups - the Democrat propaganda writers and the Democrat propaganda readers.


--No reason they can't do both.--

Unfortunately there is. For every Darrel Issa or Michelle Bachman there are five squishes who just want a safe, comfy seat and pension and who can't wait to get that pig trough filled up with swill for THEIR constiuents.
If they prove otherwise fine; until then I live by the motto, fool me twice shame on me.


I wish I could say I was an independent, but I can't vote for a Dem and I have to vote for someone and a third party vote is (usually) the same as voting Dem. So why pretend I'm not a Republican when I only vote for Republicans? At least that's the way I look at it.



Me too. I used to be an indy. Prior to 2000. Since the 2002 elections, I walk in, vote straight party line and walk out. The last time I voted for a democrat was in 2000. And no, not Gore.



I vote party line too, and I enjoy it. In my deep blue little neighborhood polling place (my kids' elementary school) it is just so very satisfying.


KSTP also describes this result as putting Clark “within striking distance,” but nine points is a long distance to strike.

I hope they spend a ton of money trying and failing to oust Bachmann.


I don't get any satisfaction, even though the majority of voters in my county are registered democrats, they vote republicans into national office. They are old school democrats that still believe republicans are the party of the rich people and democrats are the party of the poor people, or in my county's case, the farmer. The old "born a democrat, die a democrat" mentality, even though they are more socially conservative than I will ever be.


I will never vote for a Democrat again even if my "Dem." is okay. It gives the party power in committees to set the agenda. I am afraid of the Dem. agenda and their organizations and constituents.


The only problem is if Barry stays true to form, he will decide in 2011 he doesn't want to run again.

I could see him doing that, just basking in his "accomplishments," saying he's done all he's set out to do, now he wants to spend time with his family, etc. He will have visions of being a Clinton-style ex-president, making $250,000 per speech, playing statesman and diplomat, and getting and eight-figure advance on his next set of memoirs. The sad thing is, he probably will get all that. Well, anything to get him out of the White House.

Comanche Voter

Tom if you are feeling nostalgic about all that drooling in the press about Michelle and Barack's "date night in Manhattan" (Christ how much did that cost the taxpayer?), come on out to Los Angeles and read the Times. Ten days or so ago they had a gag inducing front page story about the "romance" between Washington D.C. "foodies" and the "power couple" in the White House. The Obamas like to eat out. And the President has a "magical ability to find the next "new" foodie hot spot before the foodies even find it." Well shut my mouth; when the King--oh sorry, we have a President, not a King, gives his favor and custom to a new restaurant, all the lesser nobility will immediately flock to said "temple of cuisine". It could be serving moose turd pie, but if Baracky baby loves it, well all the rest will declare that it "tastes mighty good". The love for Barack continues on the pages of the Times. But then they were always a bit dim.


rooting out the Pelosista scoundrels isn't a big deal.

I was talking about Holder not Pelosi.

Danube of Thought

For a measure of what an iron-brain O'Reilly is, last night I saw him say that if Hillary were to challenge Obama in 2012 and lose, she'd be a pariah in the Democratic party. Just like Ronaldus Maximus became a pariah for running against Ford in 1976, I suppose. Or just like Teddy Kennedy became a pariah for running against Carter in 1980.

Gasbag dunce.

Danube of Thought

The hits just keep on coming:

Mr. Obama’s approval rating on the economy has tumbled five percentage points from last month, according to a new CBS News poll, with just 40 percent of those polled expressing full confidence in his actions.

More than half of those questioned (54 percent) said they disapproved of Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy. Last month, 45 percent approved. The drop in approval has been seen mostly among independents, just 35 percent of whom now say they approve.

narciso the harpoon

I was watching an rerun of "the Closer" because it seemed more authentic

JM Hanes

If memory serves, we seem to like the same tv shows, narciso.



narciso the harpoon

Last nights episode was pretty good

Lanvin Shoes

Once again great post. You seem to have a good understanding of these themes.When I entering your blog,I felt this . Come on and keep writting your blog will be more attractive. To Your Success!

The comments to this entry are closed.