It will most probably be a little bit colder.

I know that this is off point but, your viewers should have a chance to observe this so that they can better understand.

BILL CLINTON- The statesman and "THE MAN" with the plan for ALL America going forward. Gracious, humble, cool headed and all inclusive.
The man makes "the shrub" and his psychopathic fear factor ideology hellbent for greed and power right wingers look downright pitiful.

Republican Joe Scarborough wholeheartedly agrees with his former adversary on what is needed and seeks to find a way for America to re-appoint him for a 3rd term
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#39322630

part2
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#39322701

Loses almost always happen for the party in power in Mid Term elections.

But it is not a done deal yet once Americans know who wrote the new Republican plan.

John Boehner's top aide who is a former lobbyist for Wall Street up until April of this year.

CONGRESS OR THE STATE, ALBANY LEGISLATURES ARE PART-TIME EMPLOYEES WITH A BASE SALARY OF APPROXIMATELY $175,0000 PLUSSS-- PER DIEMS FOR FOOD AND LODGING, ETC.

LISTEN TO THIS CRAP! THE POLITIICANS SAY, YES, YOU WORKED BUT IT DIDN'T COUNT FOR YOUR RETIREMENT ACCRUAL AND MEDICAL COVERAGE.

THE POLITICIANS ARE TURNING FULL-TIME GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEEES INTO PART TIME, SO CALLED TEMPORARY POSITIONS--EVEN THOUGH THE EMPLOYEE WORKS FULL-TIME FOR CALLED TEMPORARY AND PENSION BENEFITS ARE DENIED FOR THE TIME EMPLOYED!THE FULL YEAR--THE POSITION IS STILL


The state governments, PARTICULARLY NEW YORK STATE, are tweaking their budgets--not rehiring permanent, full-time employees as they leave or retire--BUT, ARE HIRING AS MANY PART TIMERS, TEMPORARY, LABELLED 'SEASONAL,' TO REPLACE THE PERMANENT PEOPLE, SO THAT THE STATE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE BENEFITS AND IT LOOKS GOOD TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT THE STATE IS HIRING MORE EMPLOYEES BUT WHO ARE ONLY WORKING A MINIMUM OF HOURS.

THESE PART-TIMERS EVENTUALLY GO TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE BENEFITS AND ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PROVIDE FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES, WHICH IS ADDING TO THE FEDERAL DEFICIT.

WHO CAN BUY A HOUSE ON A PART-TIME JOB--EXCEPT CONGRESS AND THE STATE LEGISLATURES?


CONGRESS OR THE STATE, ALBANY LEGISLATURES ARE ALL PART-TIME EMPLOYEES WITH A BASE SALARY OF APPROXIMATELY $175,0000 PLUSSS-- PER DIEMS FOR FOOD AND LODGING, ETC.

LISTEN TO THIS CRAP! THE POLITIICANS SAY, YES, YOU WORKED, BUT IT DIDN'T COUNT FOR YOUR RETIREMENT ACCRUAL AND MEDICAL COVERAGE--even though you worked e.g., 3 years and were full-time, the position is categorized temporary and does not count for retirement accruals, etc.

THE POLITICIANS ARE TWEEKING THEIR BUDGETS--AND THE ECONOMY--REPLACING FULL-TIME GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEEE POSITIONS, AS THEY RETIRE OFFERING EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAMS TO INDUCE THE PERMANENT PEOPLE TO LEAVE, INTO PART TIME, SO CALLED TEMPORARY POSITIONS--EVEN THOUGH THE EMPLOYEE WORKS FULL-TIME BUT ARE CATEGORIZED TEMPORARY, AND PENSION BENEFITS ARE DENIED FOR THE TIME EMPLOYED--SOMETIMES YEARS!


Sometimes the state governments, PARTICULARLY NEW YORK STATE, are tweeking their budgets, AND THE ECONOMY--not rehiring permanent, full-time employees as they leave or retire--BUT, ARE HIRING AS MANY PART TIMERS, TEMPORARY, LABELLED 'SEASONAL,' TO REPLACE THE PERMANENT PEOPLE, SO THAT THE STATE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE BENEFITS, AND,

IT LOOKS GOOD TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT THE STATE IS TWEEKING THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS IN THE NEWS, HIRING MORE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ONLY WORKING A MINIMUM OF HOURS.

WHO CAN BUY A HOUSE ON A PART-TIME JOB--EXCEPT CONGRESS AND THE STATE LEGISLATURES?

THESE PART-TIMERS EVENTUALLY GO TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE BENEFITS AND ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PROVIDE FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES, WHICH IS ADDING TO THE FEDERAL DEFICIT.

As an independent I will vote out every Democrat I can. The Democrats hate the US. When have you heard any one of them praise the US for anything? Republicans are not great either but I'd rather have idiot Bush and them than bozo Obama and his clowns ruining this country.

WORKING NEW YORK AFLCIO: are you a part-time employee? what's your pay?

HOW MANY DUES PAYING (ROBBING) UNION EMPLOYEES TECHNICALLY HAVE A JOB, BUT CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY A HOUSE AT TODAY'S INTEREST RATES, E.G., 3.9%? ANY COMMENTS?



WHO CAN BUY A HOUSE ON A PART-TIME JOB--EXCEPT CONGRESS AND THE STATE LEGISLATURES?

IS THE FOLLOWING THEIR IDEA OF "CREATING JOBS?"

AND, THE STATE'S IDEA OF TWEEKING THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS TO LOOK GOOD?

SIMULTANEOUSLY WHILE TWEEKING THEIR BUDGETS AND TWEEKING THE ECONOMY? INTEREST RATES NEVER HAVE BEEN BETTER, BUT WHY CAN'T MORE PEOPLE BUY HOUSES?


CONGRESS OR THE STATE, ALBANY LEGISLATURES ARE ALL PART-TIME EMPLOYEES WITH A BASE SALARY OF APPROXIMATELY $175,0000 PLUSSS-- PER DIEMS FOR FOOD AND LODGING, ETC.

LISTEN TO THIS CRAP! THE POLITIICANS SAY, YES, YOU WORKED, BUT IT DIDN'T COUNT FOR YOUR RETIREMENT ACCRUAL AND MEDICAL COVERAGE--even though you worked e.g., 3 years and were full-time, the position is categorized temporary and does not count for retirement accruals, etc.

THE POLITICIANS ARE TWEEKING THEIR BUDGETS--AND THE ECONOMY--AND THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBER--REPLACING FULL-TIME, PERMANENT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEEE POSITIONS, AS THEY RETIRE-- OFFERING EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAMS TO INDUCE THE PERMANENT PEOPLE TO LEAVE, WITH SEVERAL, PART TIME, SO CALLED TEMPORARY POSITIONS FOR EACH PERMANENT EMPLOYEE THAT RETIRES--AND/OR, EVEN THOUGH THE EMPLOYEE WORKS FULL-TIME IN THE PAST, THEIR POSITION WAS CATEGORIZED TEMPORARY, AND PENSION BENEFITS ARE DENIED FOR THE TIME EMPLOYED--SOMETIMES YEARS!

THIS IS THE STATE'S IDEA OF 'CREATING JOBS!'

Sometimes the state governments, PARTICULARLY NEW YORK STATE, are tweeking their budgets, AND THE ECONOMY--not rehiring permanent, full-time employees as they leave or retire--BUT, ARE HIRING AS MANY PART TIMERS, TEMPORARY, LABELLED 'SEASONAL,' TO REPLACE THE PERMANENT PEOPLE, SO THAT THE STATE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE BENEFITS, AND,

THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS IN THE NEWS LOOK GREAT--BETTER--THAT THE STATE IS CREATING JOBS, AND, HIRING MORE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ONLY WORKING A MINIMUM OF HOURS.

WHO CAN BUY A HOUSE ON A PART-TIME JOB--EXCEPT CONGRESS AND THE STATE LEGISLATURES?

THESE PART-TIMERS EVENTUALLY GO TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE BENEFITS AND ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PROVIDE FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES, WHICH IS ADDING TO THE FEDERAL DEBT.

I tried to watch tonight as you tried your best to discredit the GOP's plans for America. Try as I might,..I just couldn't get past that overly emotional screeching from Richard French.

Sounds like 'ol Rich don't know whether to shit or go blind!! You progressive liberals sound hysterical. Last time I heard something like that rant, there was a mouse running around at the Ladies' bingo night!! Too funny!!

As a socialist I voted for Obama and fully support all of his programs and plans. No matter what it takes,..no matter how painful - we must endure to ensure that America becomes at the very least socialist. Like it or not Socialism is where we're going to take Ameica!!!!!

Viva Socialism

Whoa! Wait a minute. Bush created a paltry 2.3million jobs over an 8yr period during the time when he the expanded government bureaucracy and all of these redundant Homeland Insecurity & Surveillance Agencies as well as the military. Oooops... that about sums it up, don't it? Where was the private sector job creation? Hmmmmmmm! Let's think hard. First came the layoffs because of outsourcing and the cheap foreign worker discounts. Then came the second layer of layoffs to office personnel replaced by high tech voice recognition technologies and robotics. then came the third layer of layoffs in order to boost profit margins to stock holders. The fourth layer to make up for the PONZI SCHEMES OF LEVERAGING AND DEREGULATION. The fifth layer supposedly to stay in business which later turned out to be bonuses for upper management and CEO's.
Yeah right! Lets bring back Bush and Phil Gramm they knew what they were doing.
Private sector jobs created during the entire Bush era were not created by Bush at all but by individuals who ventured out on their own or who remain at home who created their own jobs.

Tell the truth now, don't I have it right down to crossing the very last "t" as in bankrup"t" in addressing the mores of our richest and most prodigeous corporate financiers?
DOES ABSENTEE FEUDAL LANDLORDS EVER CROSS YOUR MIND WHEN DEFENDING THE UPPER .01%
HOW ABOUT SHYLOCKS?

Gail: What the state and local governments are doing now is taking a page from the shennigans of the Home Depots, and Walmarts who have been draining the wage and the US skeleton crew job force with lab rat schedules and Catch 22 regulations for at least the past decade. Hmmmmmmmm! That's latent private sector too!

Remember guys, before unions all job pay below upper management and ownership were abysmal.
And you are all bickering amongst yourselves about how best we can return to the thrilling days of yesteryear.
While the robber barons are just like before licking their chops before delivering more "scabs".

Quick! Before it's too late. UNITE!!! Demand a 4 day work week for all. That takes off the tax burden from you and opens jobs for those on the dole so they can pick up the slack.

IS THAT THOUGHT TOO FAR AHEAD OF THE LEARNING CURVE FOR THOSE WHO HAVE YET TO BE AXED BY THOSE CARNIVAL BARKERS RUNNING "THE NO TONIC MEDICINES- FOR YOU" SHOW.
"Hurry, hurry step right up... sureender more of your wages to pay down the deficit- so we can release you sooner, rather than later."
Hurry cows, chew the cud, faster, faster,... CONSUME, SPEND... LEAVE WITH NOTHING!

"what do you care about them- they're serfs, peasants..." -nick the Rockyfella

John15:15
Romans8:2
1Corinthians6:19
1Corinthians6:17
1Corinthians3:14
2Corinthians5:21
Galatians4:7

...and that is quite an inheritance.

Of course there will be a rout. Brown in Mass and Christie in NJ, was just a glimpse of what is to come. Tea Party candidates unpolished with little experience, taking over and challenging the establishment, as the Democrats yell..Why is this happening!!

Does it make more sense that the country decided to move right OR does it make more sense that these Democrats are really just that bad? They've pissed off and totally ignored the will of the people because they had a set agenda they were going to follow, no matter what. In return the people will vote them out, no matter what. Even if Mickey Mouse was running against them the law of Physics would prevail. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". Yet, even to this day, this administration sticks to their agenda. The Democrats that are catching on have done so way too late.

We’ll Take the Pledge :

September 22, 2010


All year long, conservatives have been pressuring Republicans to release a Contract with America for 2010 — an updated version of the campaign platform that the party unveiled before its 1994 sweep of Congress. Thursday morning, Republican congressmen are responding to that pressure by making a “Pledge to America.” The inevitable question will be: Is the pledge as bold as the Contract?

The answer is: The pledge is bolder. The Contract with America merely promised to hold votes on popular bills that had been bottled up during decades of Democratic control of the House. The pledge commits Republicans to working toward a broad conservative agenda that, if implemented, would make the federal government significantly smaller, Congress more accountable, and America more prosperous.


The pledge divides its policy commitments into five parts. The first concerns jobs. The Republicans promise to stop tax increases, to require congressional approval of regulations with a large economic impact, and to give small businesses a tax deduction. To our minds, this section of the pledge is the least impressive. The first two policies would merely prevent government from destroying jobs, and the rationale for the third is elusive. (We like small businesses, but other companies generate jobs, too.) Still, these are better economic policies than we are getting from the administration or the current congressional leadership.

The longer-range policies are more compelling. The second section of the pledge promises budget restraint. Domestic discretionary spending would be cut back to “pre-bailout, pre-stimulus” levels, and then its growth would be capped — generating hundreds of billions in savings. The legislative budget, which has grown unjustifiably in recent years, would also be pruned back: Republicans know they cannot cut spending elsewhere if they will not cut spending on themselves. TARP would be ended, as would the federal entanglement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A federal hiring freeze would be instituted. And Congress would make “a full accounting of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.” If that means putting their long-term unfunded liabilities on budget, it would be an important first step toward reform.

Third comes health care, where the Republicans say they “will immediately take action to repeal” Obamacare. They also plan to work toward their own health-care reforms, including medical-malpractice reform, freedom to buy health insurance across state lines, and better-funded high-risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions. They also promise to enact a law banning federal funding of abortion. That would strengthen the existing Hyde amendment, which applies only to a portion of federal spending and has to be renewed every year. (Here, too, the pledge goes beyond the Contract, which steered clear of all “social issues.”)

Republicans, wisely, have responded to public dismay at congressional dysfunction by including a group of reforms to legislative practice. Bill language would have to be available online for 72 hours. All legislation would have to include a citation of its constitutional justification. Spending bills would have to be open to amendment: Programs that cannot get majority support on their own will thus no longer be able to ride along with popular items.

Finally, the Republicans turn to national security. The congressional role in this area is limited, but Republicans plan to do what they can with clean troop-funding bills, support for military courts where appropriate, funds for missile defense, and sanctions on Iran. They would pass a law explicitly making room for a robust state-and-local role in helping to enforce the immigration laws.

The rhetoric accompanying the pledge is also mostly praiseworthy. The pledgemakers note that federal spending has grown too much “over the last decade”: There is no pretense that this problem began with President Obama, or even Speaker Pelosi. They attempt to ground their policy proposals in “the permanent truths of our founding.” They express an appropriate humility both about the role of Washington, D.C., in relation to the rest of the country and about their ability to bring about the necessary changes quickly.

There are, of course, things we would prefer the Republicans to do differently. In some areas the pledge includes misguided policies, in others the Republicans could have been bolder, and in still others we need more details to evaluate it. But the pledge is explicitly a beginning to the lengthy task of providing conservative governance, and a very good one.

It is also a shrewd political document. Do the Democrats really wish to campaign on the proposition that bills should not be available for public inspection and should not have to cite their constitutional authority? That Social Security and Medicare should not be fully accounted for? That TARP should be continued indefinitely? Republicans looking to the elections should hope so.

Will there be a Republican rout in November?=I can only hope and pray

john. i see you have never been self employed.

"john. i see you have never been self employed."


Fred, John's problem is that he's never been employed.....Certainly for at least the ten years I've been posting on RNN. That is why he's always in favor of big government with big government handouts. Tax the rich so John doesn't ever have to work!!!

The big lie of the contract with america has now turned to the bit lie for the pledge to america. In their zeal to cut taxes for the wealthy they are adding 700 billions to the budget. reduce spending back to 2008 levels. This means slashing social security medicare and not improving these programs but try to privatizs them. The republicans will send moe job overseas by the unfair business treaties. They will repeal health care and turn this over to large health carriers who will raise rates and deny for pre existing conditions. They will also repeal consumer friendly laws like credit card regulations and financial regulations; theey say to remove impediments to business what this really means is to greed to get us in to another depression. When they were passing these regulations boehmer was working with the banks and investment houses to defeat this legislation.The republicans have done nothing to aid the middle class. The democrats will have trouble in this election on advertising for the campaigns since the new legislation passed by the supreme court by the new dictator john roberts in citzens united where he gave unlimited spending to corporations and 85% of new monies are going to the republicans;. The last election cost about 1 billion dollars and exxon makes that in 1 day and does not have to divulge their name on the ads. This take back america is all a bunch of talk because they intend to turn the us over to corporations. A foregin corporation with operations in the us can also spend on campaigns thanks to justice roberts and his merry crew. The only time republicans think about the deficit is when they were out of office. Remember the unfunded mandates for 2 wars. tax cuts and medicare part d. Voters must realize there is a global depression and 2 years is not enough to solve it. In the last depression 0f 1929 it took until 1941 before we got out of it. cutting taxes is not the answer so voters have a choice to go back to the failed policies of the bush administration or give two more years to the democrats. Or do they want these unqualified canditates from the tea party to get into office. The republicans are agains the middle class and consumer and if you do not believe it watch them at work on c span. If they get in welcome to the new world of incomptence

AFLCIO:


Headlines: PATTERSON WANTS 2,000 LAID OFF--WORK FORCE REDUCTION--THE UNION BALKS


AN ISSUE: PERMANENT, FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES--security guards* at Clermont State Historic Site HAVE RETIRED AND RECEIVE THEIR PENSION AND HEALTH INSURANCE(WITHOUT INCENTIVES FROM THE GOVERNOR TO DO SO), BUT, THE SAME RETIRED EMPLOYEE NOW WAS ALLOWED TO RETURN TO THE SAME POSITION IN THE NEW CATEGORY OF "TEMPORARY AND SEASONAL," WITH THE SAME SENIORITY, GIVEN WORK BEFORE TEMPORARY AND SEASONAL EMPLOYEES WITH FEWER YEARS OF SENIORITY.

THERE ARE LOTS OF PEOPLE IN A DEAD END PART-TIME JOB BECAUSE OF THESE RETIRED PERMANEMENT EMPLOYEES WHO COME BACK AS A TEMPORARY AND SEASONAL EMPLOYEE, WHO ARE CALLED FIRST TO FILL AN OPENING AND WHO HOLD DOWN THE TEMPORARY AND SEASONAL PEOPLE TO A MININIMUM OF HOURS.


IF A PERMANENT, FULL TIME EMPLOYEE RETIRES, WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED TO COME BACK AS A TEMPORARY AND SEASONAL, TAKING THE WORK AWAY FROM THE OTHER EMPLOYEES.


(note: the employees retiring with the governor's incentives must agree not to come back to the state for 5 years)


*the state calls this position "security services aid," but in the real world is known as a "security guard. Permanent, full time security guards do the same job as temporary and seasonal security guards.

Another example is the VUF Booth--"vehicle use fee." In the real world it is more commonly known as, e.g., the admission booth.

This is the state's use of words similar to the President when referring to the Tal-e-ban, instead of Tal-i-ban, projecting himself as worldly and making the public feel "small."

Peter, you make some really good points against the Republicans that are hard to defend. My vote in November is against the Democrats, rather then for the Republicans because these Democrats are just as irresponsible as the Republicans were, PLUS they have an agenda to spend our money growing federal government, rather then empowering us to do more without them.

If the Democrats were truly for the middle class they would have used their majority power to help the middle class. Obamacare breaks much more then it fixes for the middle class as a whole, so I want it repealed but the Republicans should be working on a better replacement right now as a prereq. The Democrats had the chance to be fiscally responsible if they tried I would support them but instead in a 2 year period they spent even more. The Democrats could have enacted legislation to keep jobs in America, they did not. They could have focused on helping the middle class in the private sector but they did not. They could have empowered us more by allowing individuals to buy cheaper medicine outside the country, still no. They could have worked on protecting our borders and listened to the Tea Party complaints but they chose to insult middle class Americans instead. The Democrats do nothing to help the average middle class worker against abusive money hungry CEO's but pass rules and regulations that make it harder for the small honest guy to compete.

I can sum up both parties this way. Rather then teach you to fish and be self sufficient these Democrats make it so you MUST rely on them to supply you food, you could never be prosperous on your own or self sufficient. On the other hand, the Republicans do neither. They leave you alone to fend for yourself and if you succeed you will be self sufficient. Where is the party that teaches you to fish then leaves you alone? That party is what is missing in America and is why we are in trouble.

Bill F: Again, what do you think that you know about me that I don't know having- lived my entire life in my skin?
What amount of charitable work or time have you donated on behalf of your community and nation?
I can easily state and certify at least 70 to 100hrs per wk of debunking MSM myths and omissions, and addressing politics from both parties that lessens the security of our citizens and their families.
This is done freely, without any need for state and your ass istance or approval.

What is a good work, if not labor performed to the best of ones abilities, borne of love.

No that was not a misprint.

John: Do you beleive your labor should be taxed?

fred: Nobodys "wage earnings" labor should be taxed, period. It is "unconstitutional" and there is no written law on the books that says you must pay what was specific when taxes applied to corporations was first levied, as the cost of incorporation (considered a privilege) to conduct business, as you well know. If not watch the Russo documentary FREEDOM FROM FASCISM.
Be that as it may, under the current system and the way it operates I would raise the ceiling on ending the taxbreaks from the $250,000 the President and Congress layed out, for the obvious reasons of creating a hardship squabble on the lower end of the 2% to $500,000 even 750,000 so that those in the upper middle class may attain a semblance of what is left of the American dream.
By having the taxes kick in at the $250,000 level, the establishment just made it virtually impossible for just about any upward mobility.

It's really too bad that Ron Pauls moderate Tea party was hijacked for the most part by by right wing numbskulls who bring little to the table but, anger.

By the way what do you think about a 4 day work proposal. Did you know theat it virtually would wipe out the FICA deductions taken from salaries.

"Bill F: Again, what do you think that you know about me that I don't know having- lived my entire life in my skin?"

What I know is ten years of you spilling your guts out on this board to anyone that would listen, especially in the early days until I started calling you out with your own memoirs. You think no one has a memory? Evidently you certainly don't. I have found you to be the most self serving individual I've ever come accross, whether the conversation was about charity, Vietnam, Iraq, the military, the world stage or the economy, your quests always had "a what's in it for me", with a personal reward or a personal drawback which directly lead to your jumbled positions.

Just like I said, you don't work for a living and haven't for some time. Cushy big government pensions have served you well as I recall. Yet, you have all types of ideas and commands on how the rest of us "workers" should be taxed and where those taxes should go. Why not cut out the middle man and just send you our salary checks directly? I bet that is more in line with John's world and how you believe it should operate. That's the way control freaks think.

Goodbye to the Clinton Majority, Those Lucky Dems, and More!

September 24, 2010 6:30 AM

1. Goodbye To The Clinton Majority? Recently, Franklin & Marshall College put out a poll of Pennsylvania’s 8th Congressional District, in the Philadelphia suburbs, that shows incumbent Democrat Patrick Murphy down an eye-popping 14 points to his Republican challenger, former Republican representative Mike Fitzpatrick.

What explains this?


All the way back in November 2009, Sean Trende looked at the off-year election returns, and noticed a fascinating pattern in New Jersey and Virginia: the Clinton majority was falling apart:

Clinton inherited a coalition consisting of minorities, liberals, urban voters, and a decent remnant of Jacksonian voters in the Ohio River Valley and the South, who still preferred a moderate-to-conservative Democrat to a Republican. This coalition became a majority coalition when Clinton used a combination of fiscal conservatism and social moderation to bring suburban voters on board. This was a huge innovation for Democrats; suburbs like Nassau County, NY, Orange County, CA and Fairfax County, VA had fueled the rise of the Republican parties in those states. Clinton moved them substantially toward his side. This coalition allowed him to win by eight points in 1996; absent Perot and a last-minute fundraising scandal, he probably would have won by more.

Trende’s article is over a year old, but it is well worth reading again in full. It points to an essential point about this midterm. I suspect that when the dust settles, smart commentators will draw two conclusions about the 2010 congressional elections. The first is that the Democrats were badly mistaken when they interpreted the 2008 election as a realignment (although Trende and I warned them to temper their enthusiasm!). It was instead the West and the Midwest doing what they have long done, swinging one way or the other. They swung heavily to the Democrats in 2008, now they are set to swing heavily to the GOP in 2010.

The second will acknowledge this phenomenon that Trende discovered nearly a year ago. Those upscale, socially moderate, fiscally conservative suburban voters in the wealthier cities are fleeing the Democratic coalition. That is an essential part of the story of how Deeds was gobsmacked in Virginia last year, why Kirsten Gillibrand in New York has a fight on her hands (and according to SurveyUSA trails by twelve points in the NYC suburbs!), why Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania is so far behind, and why Patrick Murphy is down by a baker’s-dozen-plus-one in independent polling. And if this pattern does indeed hold in the big urban centers in the East, it should also manifest itself in the Chicago suburbs, and be enough to make Mark Kirk the next senator from Illinois.

The Clinton coalition was a political winner, for a while. But liberal Democrats were none too pleased with Clinton’s style of governance. Al Gore had to fend off a primary challenge from Bill Bradley, then Ralph Nader played spoiler, blasting Gore and George W. Bush as "Tweedledee and Tweedledum," then finally the left rebuked Hillary Clinton in 2008.

Will President Obama and his Democratic allies adapt this time around? That remains to be seen. Staying the course might leave him with little more than the McGovern coalition, so the demands of electoral victory seem to require some genuine movement toward the center. But on the other hand, Obama is in office in part because of the McGovern wing of the party; all those liberals who hated Clintonian triangulation finally got the last laugh, triumphantly nominating him amid shouts of "Yes We Can!" What's more, I suspect that President Obama actually believes he is in the political center, that he doesn't see all the strawman nonsense as strawman nonsense. He looks over his left shoulder and really sees "the professional left," then looks over his right shoulder and really sees "dangerous" Tea Party "extremists." So, I don't know...

2. The Democrats’ Lucky Break In The Senate. Just about everybody now recognizes that 2010 is going to be a political wave election. It looks very likely that the Democrats are going to lose the most seats in the Midwest, where Gallup has the president’s job approval at just 43 percent. President Obama is also very weak in the South – Gallup has him at just 39 percent - but Republican gains will be muted there because the GOP is already dominant in Dixie. Interestingly, Gallup has president Obama’s job approval at 47 percent in the West, but he is generally thought to be above 50 percent in the more populous Pacific West (especially California), which means he must be doing terribly in the Mountain West states.


The president’s poor standing in these three regions – the Midwest, the South, and the Mountain West – should be sufficient to tip the House to the Republicans, as this is where the battle for Congress is usually fought. But the Democrats are very lucky in the Senate because so many of their senators from this region are not up this cycle.

Look at the terrible position in which Russ Feingold finds himself – that is a sign that pretty much any Democratic incumbent from the Midwest would find himself in grave danger this cycle, regardless of how well she or he has performed in office. Similarly, the pathetic condition of the Blanche Lincoln campaign in Arkansas is a signal that any Southern Democrat would also be in jeopardy. Ditto the paltry poll positions of Michael Bennet in Colorado and Harry Reid in Nevada, which point to Democratic doldrums throughout the Rockies.

But only a handful of these Democrats are up this cycle. Indeed, I count a whopping twenty-four Senate Democrats in seats in the South, the Midwest or Mountain West who are not up for reelection in 2010. Instead, the Democrats are mostly defending seats in the Northeast and Pacific West, where their position remains strong. Those lucky Democrats get to defend seats in Hawaii, California, Oregon and Washington in the Pacific West; then Maryland, Delaware, New York (twice!), Connecticut and Vermont in the Northeast. Really, they could not have been more fortunate. The fact that they are struggling to lock down several of these states – and, indeed, that the GOP might win a handful of them – is a testimony to just how brutal the national political climate is for the Democrats this year. If the 2012 class of Senate seats were up this cycle, pundits would have written off the Senate months ago.

3. A Tale of Two Polls. Earlier this week, both SurveyUSA and Siena were in the field in New York state, polling the Senate race. SurveyUSA found a one-point race, with Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand ahead of Joe DioGuardi by just one point, 45-44. Meanwhile, Siena found her running away with things, ahead 57-31.

Two reputable polling outfits in the field at the same time. What gives?

Most likely answer: Siena polled registered voters while SurveyUSA polled likely voters. That probably does not explain all of the differences, but it accounts for a lot of it.

I mention this not simply because it’s an interesting polling deviation in an important state. I also point it out to remind readers that most of the generic ballot numbers are still of nationwide registered voters, which are probably over-reporting Democratic strength just as the Siena poll is. In your average midterm year, there is going to be a notable difference in the Democratic position in registered voter polls versus likely voter polls, but it is probably greater this year because Republicans are much more enthusiastic about voting.

In years with high Republican enthusiasm – such as 1994 and 2004 – what we have seen is that the GOP and the Democrats pull even in terms of relative strength in the electorate. Both groups of partisans break heavily for their respective sides, and what that ultimately means is that independents decide the outcome. Right now, Gallup has President Obama at just 40 percent approval among independents, which is about the same percentage that voted Democratic in 1994.

Polls of registered voters are going to mask this phenomenon because of their over-sampling of Democrats. Registered voting polls make a lot of sense earlier in the cycle because it is unclear who is going to vote and who isn’t. But we’re now 40 days out from the midterm, and so from this point they should be taken with a grain of salt.

"It's really too bad that Ron Pauls moderate Tea party was hijacked for the most part by by right wing numbskulls who bring little to the table but, anger."-John

Your right John there is too much anger. I find myself getting angry when I should be more constructive on figuring out ways to resolve the problems we are facing. I think it all stems from lack of trust with those in charge.

It's not supposed to be this way. We should have faith in our leaders believing they are doing what is in our best interest and that our hard earned money will be put to good use but all evidence points to the contrary.

For me, the only way I could really trust again is if our politicians show the willingness to live by the policies they pass. You want to start a War then make sure your sons and daughters are enlisted. You want to pass health care then make sure you have the same. You want us to sacrifice more then you show a willingness to sacrifice more, cut your salaries, curb your junkets. You want us to be healthier then you be healthier, quit your smoking and cut your salt. In other words, serve your country and your country will follow, act like you're better and your country will reject you.

fred: Enjoy!

America: Freedom to Fascism-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLwHrxjPT5E&feature=related

ALEX JONES INTERVIEW- Full VERSION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGAaPjqdbgQ

p.S. SMALL WONDER THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS IN A MELTDOWN!

An employee use to work all his life and retire at age 65-- FOR ONE RETIREMENT from ONE job that the employee had all his life. That was it!

TODAY, AN EMPLOYEE RETIRES FROM HIS JOB AFTER HE PUTS IN WHATEVER YEARS AND AT WHATEVER AGE--RETIRES FROM THAT JOB WITH THAT PENSION AND THEN BEGINS WORKING ON ANOTHER PENSION AND RETIRING FROM THAT PENSION WITH BENEFITS--ESSENTIALLY BACKING UP PENSIONS.

TODAY, AN EMPLOYEE MAY EVENTUALLY RETIRE WITH TWO (2) OR THREE (3) PENSION-S, WHILE OTHERS ARE THE SLAVES ON CALL TO FILL IN FOR THESE PREVIOUSLY RETIRED PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE BACKING UP PENSIONS (and benefits), WHILE OTHERS CAN'T GET ONE AND ARE FORCED TO GO TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS.

Other inviduals in this category are the police and sanitation workers and the firemen, who after Mayor Kock, now work 20 years and retire from one job and on to the next job and pension--maybe upstate away from the big city and all its debacles or Florida or out west--the usual patterns.

p.S. SMALL WONDER THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS IN A MELTDOWN!

An employee use to work all his life and retire at age 65-- FOR ONE RETIREMENT from ONE job that the employee had all his life. That was it!

TODAY, AN EMPLOYEE RETIRES FROM HIS JOB AFTER HE PUTS IN WHATEVER YEARS AND AT WHATEVER AGE--RETIRES FROM THAT JOB WITH THAT PENSION AND THEN BEGINS WORKING ON ANOTHER PENSION AND RETIRING FROM THAT PENSION WITH BENEFITS--ESSENTIALLY BACKING UP PENSIONS.

TODAY, AN EMPLOYEE MAY EVENTUALLY RETIRE WITH TWO (2) OR THREE (3) PENSION-S, WHILE OTHERS ARE THE SLAVES ON CALL TO FILL IN FOR THESE PREVIOUSLY RETIRED PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE BACKING UP PENSIONS (and benefits), WHILE OTHERS CAN'T GET ONE AND ARE FORCED TO GO TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS.

Other inviduals in this category are the police and sanitation workers and the firemen, who after Mayor Kock, now work 20 years and retire from one job and on to the next job and pension--maybe upstate away from the big city and all its debacles or Florida or out west--the usual patterns.

John, you have such a short memory. A few years ago i gave you the video links to russo.

fred: Please accept my apologies, and thanks. Sorry!!!

Yikes!!! My mind must be melting.

Nice post

Nice Article

You ought to certainly think about working on expanding this site into a major authority in this market. You obviously have a grasp handle of the matters everyone is looking for on this website anyways and you could undoubtedly even make a buck or two off of some advertising. I would explore following recent topics and raising the amount of write ups you put up and I guarantee you’d begin seeing some amazing targeted traffic in the near future. Just a thought, good luck in whatever you do!

Awesome post

fun to read

good job

nice post

I am always thought about this, thanks for posting .

Regards for this grand post, I am glad I noticed this internet site on yahoo.

yay google is my queen aided me to find this outstanding web site ! .

Very interesting subject , thanks for putting up.

I like this web site because so much useful material on here : D.

Individuals have to be conscious of changes that can severely affect upon creativity in United States, the most current advancements with relation to the America Invents Act need to be followed.