Axlerod wins the "Baghdad Bob Award" with this one..

A New Silent Majority? White House Says Health Care Protesters Not in Mainstream

A majority of Americans oppose the Democrats' health care reform plans, polls show. Tens of thousands of demonstrators hit the streets of Washington Saturday to protest the federal government. And summer town hall meetings were marked by the outbursts of noisy constituents confronting their lawmakers over health care reform.

In response, the Obama administration has called this discontent "manufactured," misguided and out-of-touch with the mainstream.

So is the administration banking on its own "Silent Majority?"

Just as President Richard Nixon built a crushing victory in 1972 on the so-called Silent Majority -- those supposedly well-behaved Americans who did not protest their government -- the current administration seems to be pushing the argument that its support is broad-based and quietly minding its own business.

"A quiet plurality," is how Georgetown University professor Stephen Wayne put it, declining to invoke the specific term for the divisive politics of the Nixon administration.

Whether the Obama administration enjoys, or will soon enjoy, such a plurality is unclear. Public opinion continues to shift. But the administration is claiming that support all the same.

"I don't think it's indicative of the nation's mood," senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday when asked about the weekend demonstrations, suggesting that the "tea party" protesters are not in the mainstream and not in the majority.

"My message to them is, they're wrong," Axelrod said.

The administration is tapping a familiar strategy to claim it has the support of the people, dispensing Spiro Agnew-style put-downs to marginalize the noisy opposition -- though it has yet to land on gems like the former vice president's "nattering nabobs of negativism."

"I will also say that in the era of 24-hour cable news cycles that the loudest, shrillest voices get the most attention," Obama said Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes," reacting in part to South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson calling him a liar last week on the floor of Congress.

Speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation," Axelrod called similar demonstrations over the summer an example of the "angriest, most strident voices." He pointed to a recent poll to prove "they don't represent a mainstream view."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/...ainstream/

55% support a public option according to a Wshington Post poll. It climbs to 76% when you take out the public insurance option but just reform by the administration 22% of Republican's support Obama reform. I'll link the poll tonight when I get home. Can't get to it right now. Polls can't be trusted though. You know that and I know that, it's all in the framing of the question. 85% of Democrats. Can't remember the independents but I think it was 45%. You have to trust me on that one, but I know I'll have to verify later. :)!!

Show me that link, Mach.

Waiting........

I guess silent means they don't answer their phones either.

Obamacare support falls back to pre-speech levels

As predicted, once people got over the emotion of Obama's sermon and thought about what he actually said and what the plan actually was, they still don't support it.

If we could have as good a care as we do now or better, and if everybody could have it, and if all services would be available as needed without economic or judgemental rationing, and if it would cost less, and if somebody else would pay that cost, and if that somebody would be willing to eat the cost and continue to invest and grow the economy, then even I would probably favor it. But I believe that every single one of those if clauses describes a fantasy that cannot happen.

Mach is right. When the poll question is worded so as to imply that all those fantasies can come true, you get support. When the poll question describes one or more of them as fantasies, support dwindles. When the question correctly describes all of them as fantasies, the is very little support. That's because it's a bad idea and people realize that when information is presented truthfully.

I specifically want to see Mach's link to determine A) who was sampled, and B) the exact wordage of the poll.

I'm at school. The site I have I can't get to. I explained that above. I'll link tonight. It was a Wasington Post poll I believe. Wa/Po was the acrynm.

(09-15-2009 09:27 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm at school. The site I have I can't get to. I explained that above. I'll link tonight. It was a Wasington Post poll I believe. Wa/Po was the acrynm.

Washington Post is blocked? Why is that hard for me to believe?

have no fear, Obama plans to hit up 5 different Sunday talk shows(all Liberal Bias shows of course) to continue the marketing blitz. So he'll likely get another short-term bounce next week, then it flop back to reality

If it's wa/po here's the link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol...9091400007

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...02962.html

But it is the public option that has become the major point of contention, with support for the government creation of an insurance plan that would compete with private insurers stabilizing in the survey after dipping last month. Now, 55 percent say they like the idea, but the notion continues to attract intense objection: If that single provision were removed, opposition to the overall package drops by six percentage points, according to the poll.

Without the public option, 50 percent back the rest of the proposed changes; a still sizable 42 percent are opposed. Independents divide 45-45 on a package without the government-sponsored insurance option, while they are largely negative on the entire set of proposals (40 percent support and 52 percent oppose). Republican opposition also fades 20 points under this scenario.

The decision to back away from the provision might hurt Obama among his base, but not dramatically so, as 88 percent of liberal Democrats support the reform plan as is, 81 percent without the public option.

The politics of the idea would also probably change dramatically depending on its scope: If it were limited to only those unable to get private insurance, support would rise to 76 percent.

(09-15-2009 09:43 AM)Paul M Wrote:  If it's wa/po here's the link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol...9091400007

Just as I thought. Here are the results from the latest poll:

Quote:This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone Sept. 10-12, 2009, among a random national sample of 1,007 adults (Wow, seriously Mach?) including users of both conventional and cellular phones. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

BTW, let it be known that the poll provided did NOT say "Public Option". Where WaPo extrapolated that from is as good a guess as any.

old, Dem slanted poll.

new poll, back to pre-speach levels.

Have you ever taken a stats class Reb? A thousand is pretty standard much closer to the norm than you think.

The random thing is what can foul pollsters.

(09-15-2009 10:01 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Have you ever taken a stats class Reb? A thousand is pretty standard much closer to the norm than you think.

Out of 320 million people? Yeah, right. Yeah, I've taken statistics. I also know how they can be skewed, especially when it's directed at a mere 1000 people.

I think everyone should be disgusted by this "silent majority" crap that bureaucrats use to justify their decisions. Look, I don't need or want some lunkhead trying to make decisions for me, or take care of me b/c I don't know how to take care of myself.

I do know how to take care of myself, and if I err, I figure I'll learn a lesson from that. Given how far the populace has tumbled from being self-sufficient, I'd say that the wider audience could use some of those same lessons. They do NOT need a government that promises to protect them from anything that might be "hard".

Well, either Coyote is now reading my posts, or there was something in the air that crossed the entire country.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/20...anism.html

As long as it's truly random your definetly within a margin of 3%.

(09-15-2009 10:05 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  As long as it's truly random your definetly within a margin of 3%.

My ass. Not with 1000. What, 20 people from each state? Out of those 20, are we determining what counties will be polled? BS. I could give you a poll that could show you 90% think Obama should be nominated for life. ...and hit most of the states, if that's the criteria.

Sorry, I don't trust WaPo and I DAMN sure don't trust a poll of 1000 f'n people.