[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Obama Wars Title: 55 Percent of Likely Voters Find ‘Socialist’ an Accurate Label of Obama? 55 Percent of Likely Voters Find ‘Socialist’ an Accurate Label of Obama? July 09, 2010 9:13 AM By Jim Geraghty The latest poll by Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, has Republicans leading on the generic ballot among likely voters, 48 percent to 42 percent. Deep in the poll, they ask, “Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all.” On “too liberal,” 35 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 21 percent say “well,” 21 percent say “not too well,” and 17 percent say “not well at all.” In other words, 56 percent of likely voters consider Obama too liberal. When asked about “a socialist,” 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 22 percent say “well,” 15 percent say “not too well,” and 25 percent say “not well at all.” In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 44. In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama. Since Republicans have been working overtime to pin the label on him, they should be pleased. Too bad they haven't done such a good job improving their own image.
#3. To: lucysmom (#2) 55 Percent of Likely Voters Find ‘Socialist’ an Accurate Label of Obama Further results reveal that 80% of voters don't know what the term means...
#6. To: war, lucysmom, badeye (#3) Further results reveal that 80% of voters don't know what the term means... Funny how the Socialist Party doesn't even claim Obama is a socialist:
But Billy Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, sees no reason to celebrate. He’s seen people with bumper stickers and placards that call Obama a socialist, and he has a message for them: Obama isn’t a socialist. He’s not even a liberal.
“We didn’t see a great victory with the election of Barack Obama,” Wharton says, ” and we certainly didn’t see our agenda move from the streets to the White House.” And here's what the Socialist Party said in a press release on March 29th about Obamacare:
"It is a corporate restructuring of the health insurance industry created to protect the profit margins of private insurance companies,” http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/03/tea-party-head-spinner-sociali.html
#11. To: go65 (#6) Take it up with Carville and Greenberg, well known 'neo cons' (laughing)
#14. To: Badeye (#11) Take it up with Carville and Greenberg, well known 'neo cons' (laughing) what's there to take up? They conducted a poll that shows that people are buying into Republican idiocy. Congrats.
#18. To: go65 (#14)
Really? Can you provide something to support this claim?
#21. To: Badeye (#18) Can you provide something to support this claim? The results of the poll you posted showed that respondents are buying the line of crap from the GOP that Obama is a socialist. Meanwhile, those who actually know what a socialist is, say he isn't and instead point to Palin as being one of them.
#33. To: go65 (#21) Meanwhile, those who actually know what a socialist is, say he isn't and instead point to Palin as being one of them. On the other hand, socialist (according to the GOP spin machine) California, the the third largest oil producing state, has no severance tax on oil and issues no wealth redistributing checks to its residents.
#35. To: lucysmom (#33) has no severance tax on oil and issues no wealth redistributing checks to its residents. The people of Alaska get dividend checks from oil revenue because those resources are legally owned by the citizens of the State, not because of some socialist program.
#36. To: no gnu taxes (#35) The people of Alaska get dividend checks from oil revenue because those resources are legally owned by the citizens of the State, not because of some socialist program. Yes, as has already been stated, that is precisely a Socialist position.
#38. To: lucysmom (#36) No, the socialist position would be for the State to keep the money and set up government programs complete with all the accompanying bureacracy for the "good" of the people. Returning the dividends to the people for them to spend as they see fit is a quintessential anti-socialist course of action. It's the people's money.
#41. To: no gnu taxes (#38) (Edited) Nope. The Socialist model is exactly this. The State would claim that the ownership of the resources is in the people and would determine what share of the profits gleaned from the development of those minerals the people would be entitlted to. The oil companies extract according to their abilities and the society benefits according to its needs. It does not get any more Marxist than that. Returning the dividends to the people for them to spend as they see fit...It's the people's money. WOW...what a GOOD little Marxist you are.
#44. To: war (#41) There is no "need" qualification for the issuance of the dividends.
Replies to Comment # 44. There is no "need" qualification for the issuance of the dividends. The need to survive is predicated upon money.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 44. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|