SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (80870)8/15/2010 2:39:03 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Respond to of 149317
 
From Ed Kilgore's Democratic Strategist blog.
--------------------------------------------
Polls Hint at Need for Stronger Dem Memes

Politico's Ben Smith presents a memo by Administration poll analyst Joel Benenson arguing that "Republican unpopularity could be the Democratic Party's best defense against its own unpopularity." According to Benenson's bullet points:

• Today's NBC/Wall St. Journal poll underscores the fact that with fewer than 90 days until the mid-term elections, the Republican Party's standing is at one of its lowest points ever and its competitive position vs. the Democrats looks much as it did in the summers of 1998 and 2002, neither of which were "wave" elections.

• The NBC/WSJ poll shows that not only is the Republican Party's image at its lowest point ever in their polling, their ratings are still lower than Democrats' and their party image has worsened much more than the Democrats when compared with the last midterm elections in 2006.

See also Ed Kilgore's post on the survey here. Further, Benenson adds,

• Only 24 percent of Americans gave the Republicans a positive rating while 46 percent were negative for a net of -22 (28 percent were neutral). This positive rating is not only a historic low, it is down 9 points since May -- just three months ago. In addition, in July of 2006, a year in which Republicans lost 30 seats, their rating stood at 32 percent positive, 39 percent negative for only a -7 net rating or a change in the net rating of -15. During the same period the Democratic rating slipped only slightly by a net of -4 points from 32/39 in July 2006 to 33/44 today.

• This overall outlook is also consistent with an ABC/Washington Post poll from a month ago (7/13/10) that showed Americans' confidence in Republicans in Congress to make "the right decisions for the country's future" lagging behind Democrats:

- 73 percent say they are not confident in Republicans in Congress while 26 percent say they are, for a net negative confidence rating of -47 points.

- Democrats in Congress are at 32 percent confident (6 points higher than the GOP) and 67 percent who say they are not confident (6 points lower than the GOP), for a net confidence rating of -35, which is 12 points better than the congressional Republicans.

• When asked in the NBC/WSJ poll whether they prefer Democratic or Republican control of Congress after the November elections, 43 percent said Democrats and 42 percent said Republicans. While Democrats had a 10-point margin in 2006 when they gained 31 seats, the previous two midterms also showed a deadlocked preference in the summers of 1998 and 2002 in the NBC/WSJ polls. In both of those elections, the gains were only in single digits: 5 seats for the Democrats in 1998 and 8 seats for the Republicans in 2002.

• In addition, a Pew poll from early July showed that Republicans have a significant image deficit among Americans on the question of which party is "more concerned about people like me." In that survey of 1800 Americans, 50 percent said Democrats were more concerned about people like them while only 34 percent said Republicans were.

Cherry-picked as Benenson's data may be, all three polls appear to be methodologically-solid. If Benenson is right, Dems are in a better position, image-wise than Republicans. There's plenty of room for improvement for Dems, but the GOP is in a deeper mess in terms of the way they are viewed by the public.

One Politico reader-respondent observes that President Obama's popularity is "nowhere near" Bush's abysmal 20 percent. or Cheney's 13 percent. Benenson's memo prompted another interesting reader comment by a poster named, "The Party of No Has to Go!":

It's no wonder that the republicans image is lower, especially when you consider that they more than doubled the national debt on their last watch, leaving this country with up to $8 TRILLION of debt that they did not budget for. And now they vote against unemployment benefits, health care for policemen and firemen who were the first responders of 9/11 and now have breathing and lung diseases, tax cuts for small businesses to spur job growth, etc. The only thing they would say "yes" to are more tax cuts for the rich.

Clearly, Dems have plenty of compelling evidence of GOP extremism, if they will use it.

Benenson's analysis of the data is encouraging. But it's important to keep in mind that turnout mobilization is a more potent factor in midterm elections, since the overall turnout is always smaller. It's possible for either party to be ahead, image-wise in polling numbers and still get whipped in the midterms because of the adversary's superior turnout effort, at least in some localities. That's when decisions about allocating party resources can make the difference.

Not all of the recent polling data suggest a positive scenario for Democrats. Concerns about Rasmussen polls' pro-Republican bias notwithstanding, in a poll Rasmussen conducted 8/9-10, 57 percent of LV's agree that the Dem's agenda is "extreme," with 34 percent calling it "mainstream," compared to 40 percent extreme and 45 percent mainstream for the Republican agenda. In addition to the possible bias by Rasmussen, the terms "mainstream" and "extreme" are loaded, subjectively, with individual definitions varying wildly.

The AP report on the Rasmussen poll notes that Republican Senatorial candidate Pat Toomey has been using the "extreme" meme to try and discredit Joe Sestak in the PA senate race. Expect more of this in other races during the next 3 months.

Assuming the worst case scenario, that the Rasmussen poll is an accurate reflection of the way the two parties are viewed at this political moment, it means that Dems should beef up a two-pronged strategy over the next three months: 1. Do a better job of defending Democratic policies as 'mainstream' and 2. Attacking GOP policies as "extreme" more persuasively. Dems should be accepting both of these challenges anyway.

Not to compare apples and oranges, because the three polls Benenson cites don't measure the exact same thing as the Rasmussen poll. All of them, however, suggest they are indicators of the parties' public images.

If the Rasmussen poll is dead wrong, however, Dems should still be attacking the Republican policy-mix as extremist, especially those races in which wingnuts are on record as calling for the gutting of Social Security, which is hugely unpopular with seniors -- nearly a third of midterm voters.

Posted by J. P. Green on August 15, 2010 12:25 PM

thedemocraticstrategist.org



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (80870)8/15/2010 2:48:42 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
Could it have something to do with the fact that Keith wears nicer ties around his neck than I do around my head?

Its the way he throws scrunched up scripts at the camera.......that's way cool!



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (80870)8/15/2010 7:10:25 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 149317
 
Engines of Growth

By Austin Ramzy Monday, Aug. 16, 2010

When I first rode the rail line between the eastern Chinese cities of Suzhou and Shanghai in 1996, it felt as if the passengers were fleeing a disaster. Hundreds jammed through the station doors in Suzhou and sprinted for the train. With bags held high or balanced on bamboo poles, they choked the entrances to the cars, jostling for a prime spot on board. Those like me who didn't have the gumption to do the same were left to stand or sit on the floor. I found some room between cars, put my bag down and perched on top of it. The metal floor had rusted through in spots, and I could see the tracks below. For much of the two-hour, 100-km ride, I could smell the tracks too. The train's toilets emptied directly onto them.

Today, rolling suitcases have replaced bamboo poles as the primary means of hauling loads, and the walk across Suzhou station's platforms is a leisurely stroll. My seat is assigned, so there's no need to battle for position. I find my spot and slip into the comfortable reclining chair. The next passenger listens to music on his new Nokia phone as the train accelerates. It feels as though we've hardly left the station when an announcement tells us to prepare for the next stop, Shanghai. When the digital speedometer in the car hits 231 km/h, the Japanese businessmen sitting across from me look up from their laptops and nod in approval. The trip takes 42 minutes and, thankfully, I don't smell a thing.
(See pictures of China's high-speed rail.)

In early July, an even faster line went into service linking Shanghai to Suzhou and Nanjing with trains that can run up to 350 km/h. That sort of relentless upgrading is typical of Chinese rail these days. Of all the infrastructural improvements this striving nation has made in the past three decades, perhaps the most impressive are those to the railway system. In 1981 China had 54,000 km of track; by the end of this year it will have nearly doubled that to 100,000 km. More importantly, China has gone from having one of the world's largest rail networks to also having one of the best. It covers some of the world's most difficult terrain — like the Tibetan Plateau, where workers laid track over a 5,000-m pass and 550 km of permafrost to link the Tibetan capital of Lhasa with the rest of China. The system has also seen a steady increase in average speed, from 48 km/h in 1993 to 70 km/h in 2007. On some routes, averages are phenomenal. The journey from the city of Wuhan in central China to Guangzhou in the south is now covered at 313 km/h. It's the fastest average speed in the world for a passenger train and cuts the trip time from 10 and a half hours to three hours.

Chinese authorities aren't satisfied, however. Spending on railroad construction increased 80% over 2008 totals to reach $88 billion in 2009. It will climb to $120 billion this year and exceed $700 billion over the next decade. The most ambitious focus of that investment is the expansion of China's high-speed passenger rail. Right now, China is the world's leader with 6,552 km of high-speed tracks (defined as those that can carry trains at speeds over 200 km/h). It plans to double that distance in two years.
(Read "A Brief History of High-Speed Rail.")

At a time when infrastructure in the U.S. and Europe is aging fast, China's railways may give it a competitive edge over the world's leading economies. Rail would move travelers around the country in large numbers at unprecedented speeds. Smaller cities in the interior would grow in importance as ease of movement allows for longer journeys between them and jobs in larger centers. Fresh passenger lines would also free up older tracks for more freight transport, sending raw materials and finished goods across the country more easily. "Why is it like this?" asks Yang Zhongmin, the director general of the Ministry of Railways Development and Planning Department. "Because we went through 30 years when [rail] development fell behind the national rate of growth. So now we have to go faster." One of the aims is to help fulfill a long-term goal of developing China's western regions, which have not kept pace with the eastern provinces and their export-led boom. High-speed rail will enable growth in the interior "to be almost the same as what it is on the coast," argues Jia Limin, a professor of what the Chinese term railway science at Beijing Jiaotong University. "It will push western development much faster."

Read "Can High-Speed Rail Get on Track?"

(See pictures of China's infrastructure boom.)

See pictures of the largest military parade in China's history.

1 2 NEXT PAGE »

Read more: time.com