The Republicans Are Worse!™

WH official: Obama struggling in polls because voters don’t know GOP opponents

President Obama is struggling in the polls against would-be Republican challengers because voters don’t know the GOP contenders well enough yet, a top White House official said Thursday.

Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer expressed confidence that Obama would perform better against former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney or Texas Gov. Rick Perry once Americans familiarize themselves with those GOP presidential candidates.

“My guess is that a significant portion of the people polled, the American people, don’t know what Mitt Romney’s economic plan is yet,” Pfeiffer said on MSNBC. “I’m confident they will know that he supports Cut, Cap and Balance, which would essentially end Medicare, end Social Security.”

The president has struggled in recent polling against both Perry and Romney, two of the leading candidates to snag the Republican presidential nomination and face off against Obama in the general election. Election polling shows Obama locked in a tight race against both men, and a Quinnipiac University poll Wednesday found that voters give Romney the edge over Obama in terms of handling the economy.

The numbers, Pfeiffer argued, show what they do because Obama is being measured against voters’ highest expectations rather than against a specific opponent.

“What I think is always true before you get into an actual contest of ideas in an election is the incumbent is judged not against his or her opponent, they’re judged against the ideal,” he said.

Actually, Obama does better in head-to-head match-ups than he does in approval ratings. None of the current GOP candidates is really that popular, even among Republicans.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to The Republicans Are Worse!™

  1. votermom says:

    Sounds like Palin is going to keynote her campaign by attacking cronyism in both the Republican & Democratic parties.
    And , uh, she’s not endorsing Perry.

    Palin to Rip “Crony Capitalism” in Iowa Speech
    DES MOINES, Iowa — Though she won’t be a candidate when she delivers a major address at a tea party rally in Iowa on Saturday, Sarah Palin will make it clear that she if enters the presidential race later this month she will vociferously challenge Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s engrained image of solidarity with the tea party movement.

    In her speech at the bucolic National Balloon Classic field in Indianola, Palin will lean on loaded phrases like “crony capitalism” and “permanent political class” in laying out her view of the U.S. political system’s deep-rooted ills, according to a source close to Palin and familiar with the content of the speech.

    Though she will not call Perry out by name, Palin’s carefully couched rhetoric will leave the impression that she may soon draw more overt attention to one of the Texan’s potential vulnerabilities as a candidate: his history of doling out plum positions and other benefits to generous campaign donors during his nearly 11-year tenure as the nation’s longest serving governor.

    “Part of what she’s going to be addressing is the frustration that many Americans feel that nothing gets done in Washington, D.C.,” a Palin source told RealClearPolitics. “We know that we have a debt problem and that we need to rein in government waste, and yet nothing ever gets done. Why is that? What special interests are involved?”

    …. the crux of her approximately 30-minute address will be to challenge the longstanding mores that have ruled Washington and the national Republican Party.

    “Part of what she will address is . . . that tea party-elected people want to get things done, and then they encounter an intractable political mentality in D.C.,” the aide said. “They’re impervious to real reform, and that can’t continue any longer.”

    • ralphb says:

      Sounds like music to my ears. Now if she will only run …

      • djmm says:

        Yes!! If she does not like cronyism (and one would think that from her record), she cannot endorse Perry. She should run.


      • insanelysane says:

        Sarah is quite powerful just from a podium. She doesn’t need the trappings of the Presidency to make change.

        Just from her talks, she shapes the conversation and the other actors scurry to accommodate that conversation. She is able to galvanize support and it’s felt by the PTB.

        It is a very unique way to affect campaigning and hopefully actual policy of whomever get the POTUS job.

        • votermom says:

          But she would be vastly MORE powerful from the Oval Office. Kicking butt, taking names, and putting perps in jail.

          She has to run even if she loses.

        • Good point. But it also reminds me of how she got to be Governor of Alaska. Worked outside the system, resigned from an ethics office in protest, held no office for a while iirc….

  2. WMCB says:

    Scandal breaking about how Soylara, the green energy company that just went bust after millions in taxpayer money. Seems that they ALSO got preferential interest rate loans that other, equally “green” energy manufacturers did not get. Other green energy projects paid TWICE the interest rate for govt loans that Solyndra did.

    Why? Could the fact that their major investor was a big Obama donor have had anything to do with it? This administration is so corrupt, it turns the stomach. I had said from the beginning that all that stimulus money was not going to go to the areas where it might actually help – it was going to be used as a big slush fund to reward friends of Obama. Which is exactly what they did.

    Congress requested documents related to the Solyndra loan from the Office of Management and Budget. After three months and zero documents produced, a hearing was scheduled. An OMB deputy director was asked to attend but didn’t show up, claiming a scheduling conflict. Finally, OMB allowed that congressional staff could view some of the requested documents on site, but when they arrived in mid-July not all the documents were available and some that were made available had been redacted. Specifically, the information on risk ratings had been lined out. Given that this was exactly the information congress had been looking for the entire exercise was becoming a waste of time. At this point the committee held a hearing to consider issuing a subpoena for the documents.

    Why would Solyndra get such sweet interest rates for what is obviously now — and also was obviously then — a high-risk investment? Well, maybe because one of its “prime financial backers” was an Obama 2008 fundraiser.

    The House Energy Committee wants some answers about all of this.

    In a letter to the White House, committee Chairman Fred Upton and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns requested a scheduled briefing on the matter by no later than September 12 and asked for all documents related to the loan guarantee between Solyndra and the White House.

    “We have learned from our investigation that White House officials monitored Solyndra’s application, and communicated with DOE and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials during the course of their review in 2009 and when those officials were restructuring the Solyndra deal this year,” Upton and Stearns wrote. “Documents received by the Committee also show that DOE and OMB officials were aware of the White House’s interest in the Solyndra loan guarantee. In addition, we are also aware that a major investor in Solyndra, George Kaiser, was a bundler for President Obama’s 2008 campaign.”

    • ralphb says:

      It’s not even limited to Obama. I would bet that almost all of the “porkulus” funds went to payoffs of some constituencies. Spending the money that way would never generate much economic growth.

      I remember some of us being against porkulus at the time for that very reason. A “real stimulus” package would have helped the economy, unless the law of supply and demand has been repealed.

      • Mimi says:

        It is the Chicago way. This is exactly what Rezko et al did.

        • ralphb says:

          Sure but the congressmen also got their slice of the pie to spread around in porkulus. That’s what I mean when I say it’s not limited to Obama or any “Chicago” way. Basic corruption has been in DC a lot longer than that.

          Bush/Cheney/Obama/Biden, it’s just one ongoing criminal enterprise.

        • WMCB says:

          Yep. Continuing the power of the legacy parties and their respective gravy trains is the primary focus. The supposed ideology of EITHER party always takes a back seat to that.

          Which is one reason why people are starting to look past ideology and want to vote for who they perceive to be honest brokers, whether they be lefty socialist or righty libertarian. People want genuine, honest human beings in office. Because the public is rightly surmising that until we break up the “system”, we are screwed no matter which purported “ideology” wins. The right/left battle has no meaning at all until we do that. It’s a debate for another day.

  3. I read this President Obama is struggling in the polls against would-be Republican challengers because voters don’t know the GOP contenders well enough yet, a top White House official said Thursday. and thought- Gee- there they go again- blaming something or someone for his failures.

    At least for me- Obama is struggling in the polls because he IS AN IDIOT! Not because I do not know the R challengers. No.
    They just can not face reality. Nor can he/they take responsibility. Always with the blame and the excuses.

  4. yttik says:

    The Republicans are worse, huh? I try to look at it from a backlash perspective. When Reagan was in office, we had 3 women’s health clinics in my dinky town, jobs were plentiful, people were out protesting, and there was freedom in the streets, I tell ya! Clinton was fabulous for the country, but not for the attitude of our local people here. Our health clinics died of neglect, we instituted styrofoam bans, we shut down fishing and logging, we closed our bars, we banned smoking, we fined people for plastic grocery bags. I now live in a really depressed and repressive area. I call it post liberal, post racial. There’s no resistance, no rebellion, because nobody is motivated to resist anything. We won. Ironically what “we won” is what we were always fighting against, invasive government, limited freedom, a lack of diversity. Even when Bush 2 was in office we had anti war protestors, we had soup kitchens, we had free medical clinics. I don’t know what happens to the left when they get into power, but it’s as if they can’t function unless they have something to be opposed to, to be resisting.

    It sounds kind of funny, but what is really good for this country is healthy, thriving dissent. Republicans are good at delivering that.

    • ralphb says:

      Since the Vietnam war protests, the Left has always been against something. I’ve never seen any sign they could be “for” much of anything successfully. Without outrage, they don’t exist.

      In some ways, the Tea Party looks like their mirror image on the right. I’ll be interested to see what happens when Republicans are in the oval office again. My guess is the Tea Party shrinks to a small quiet fringe while the Left rises again in protest.

    • 1539days says:

      So far, the best model seems to be a Republican Congress that doesn’t want to spend money for a Democratic president who takes the case to the people.

    • Hm. A DINO president is sure keeping the Dem politicians from doing much in Washington. I’m not sure how that affects local clinics and such, though. Were they defunded by the GOP House that just got in last fall?

  5. djmm says:

    Great post, myiq. Now where can I get that awesome Cthulhu poster?


Comments are closed.