BrentWil
BrentWil's JournalPPP Polls:Romney leads Santorum by just 3 in Arizona, 36-33. Gingrich at 16%, Paul at 9%
Keeps on getting more interesting... If Romney were to lose both AZ and MI....
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/romney-lead-small-in-arizona.html
The Republican race for President in Arizona looks like a close one, with Mitt Romney leading Rick Santorum only 36-33. Newt Gingrich is third at 16% and Ron Paul fourth at 9%.
Santorum is better liked by Arizona Republicans than Romney, but the gap isn't as wide as we're finding in a lot of other states. Santorum's at +34 (61/27), while Romney's at +24 (58/34).
One thing to keep an eye on over the next week is whether Newt Gingrich can hold his support. 16% is pretty good for him compared to what we're finding other places right now, but only 46% of his voters say they're solidly committed to him. 40% of his supporters say that Santorum is their second choice, compared to only 25% for Romney. If Gingrich's supporters see he's not viable and decide to jump ship the race could get even closer.
Santorum and Romney are both generally winning the same groups we find them winning in Michigan and nationally right now. The reason Romney's leading in Arizona but trailing in those other places is that he's at least staying competitive with the groups he tends to be weaker with. For instance he's only down by 11 points with Tea Party voters, 43-32. He's only down 13 with those describing themselves as 'very conservative,' 44-31. And he's down just 18 with Evangelicals, 45-27. Those are all groups he's losing by more than 25 points in Michigan right now.
Michigan's Democratic and Liberal Voters: Get out and Vote for Rick Santorum on Feb. 28th.
Rick winning the GOP nom will been this country will swing to the left, come November. The Dems will take back the House and the Senate. Go out and vote Santorum!!! Go Rick, Go.
Expanding the Safety Net: What new Program would be most useful?
I suggest a reverse income tax as the most useful new program.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002209412
However, if you could expand the social safety net in this country, what type of program would you add?
Daily Kos: Operation Hilarity... Urging liberals and Dems to go out and vote for Rick...
I think it is a great idea. I have said so in pervious posts.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/15/1065052/-Announcing-Operation-Hilarity-Let-s-keep-the-GOP-clown-show-going-?via=blog_1
It's time for us to take an active role in the GOP nomination process. That's right, it's time for those of us who live in open primary and caucus states—Michigan, North Dakota, Vermont and Tennessee in the next three weeks—to head out and cast a vote for Rick Santorum.
Why would we do such a crazy thing? Lots of great reasons!
Republican turnout has sucked, and appears to be getting worse by the contest. Unlike the 2008 Democratic primaries, which helped President Barack Obama and the Democrats to build a national organization, the GOP is an organizational disaster, with waning voter interest. That means that it takes fewer votes to have an impact than if Republican turnout was maxed out.
Note, if you want to give some money towards the effort:
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/operationhilarity?refcode=blog1
BrentWil on DU: I hope you die in a fire or How serious do you take DU?
This is another attempt at a thread I posted last night. I have edited on the suggestion of a host to take out links, etc. The basic point isn't about the person who wrote the post, it is about the sheer emotion expressed. I am someone that likes debate. However, one must take into account that other people on the internet may be much more tied to the arguments they are making. In other words, the internet actually involves real people and one can sometimes forget that.
However, the way this came up is that I was googling BrentWil and Troll. I got this for a title of a blog entry: BrentWil on DU: I hope you die in a fire . The opening lines of the blog were "I spent hours with several others debunking his RIGHT WING VOUCHER BULLSHIT this summer. I alerted the moderating staff to his RIGHT WING BULLSHIT views and still they did nothing." The amount of emotion is almost scarry from the poster. I honestly did not think that anyone would be that upset over my arguments.
With that said, the question comes to this: When we have discussions, how emotionally tied to the discussions are you? If you are very emotionally tied, is that healthy?
Could Federal Educational Vouchers Aimed at the Poor and Useable in Public Schools Work?
Vouchers, as currently envisioned by the Republicans, seem to be a means of funding certain private school and taking resources away from poorer school distracts. However, despite the bad imagine, I think a targeted voucher program at the federal level might work.
I would not and do not support giving vouchers to everyone. What I would suggest is giving vouchers that are means tested to the poor and lower middle class. In other words, start providing full vouchers (10K) for families making less then 30,657 for a family of four (133% of poverty level for a family of 4: http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html) and phase out completely when income reaches. $46,100 (200% over the poverty level for a family of 4). The vouchers would be usable at any school. In other words, it would be a Federal vouchers that could be used at a local public school or private school. It would not interfere with current funding streams and would work to add to them. This would provide a huge economic stimulus to poorer communities because they have a large amount of the student that would be enrolled in the program. Also, the vouchers would have to be significant, given the lack of resources many of these families have. I threw out the number 10K, but the real number would take planning and study.
To ensure that there is some quality in the standard of education, as a consequence of taking the vouchers schools would have to provide a statistically significant sample of their students to be tested. However, the test would be extremely board and something that most students would fail. The child would never know his score but it would provide some measure for the school. The effort here would not be to test the child, but see that a school is using curriculum that will aid the child and that the school is generally producing some results. In other words, you test broadly so no school can never teach towards the test.
Some thought would have to be put in place for how this would work with home schoolers. However, I think the general idea creates a flow of resources that parents can control for the benefit of their child. I think it could have some positive affect, even if the only effect is to provide federal dollars into local school districts.
The Capitalist Peace: Why a Capitalist World Means a World At Peace
I posted this awhile back. I have some other thoughts on it. I still think that Capitalism, in general, does produce a general reduction in warfare. I also think that in general, it means a reduction in human suffering. However, the government does have a role. Extreme concentration of wealth, for example, is a problem that only the government can solve. In relation to world peace, concentration of wealth creates concentration of political power. I would suggest that while there is certainly benefits of liberal economic policies, the extreme behaviors and consequences must be regulated against. This should be done in a way that doesn't destroy the underlying system.
That being said, when nations have have economic relationships with one another, they share common interests. For example, China and The United States depend on each other economically that a war between them would produce a major disruption in both economies. These type of relationship can and do lead to a reduction in armed conflict. In The Capitalist Peace, Erik Gartzke out of Columbia provides an analysis of this. It is a very good paper and thought it would promote discussion here. The link is below:
http://dss.ucsd.edu/~egartzke/publications/gartzke_ajps_07.pdf
I think he is rather convincing in his argument and the methodology he uses to show his argument.
I Love President Obama
I love President Obama.
The man has moved this country forwarded in a way that will only be acknowledged by historians. He took over with an economy that sinking, a country at war, and a culture that looked on the verge of going backwards.
On the economy, he has followed practical politics that limited the recession. He passed a Health Care Bill that expands coverage and will limit insane medical inflation that would have destroyed the economy. He passed a stimulus that stopped unemployment from reaching above 11 percent ( http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/02/cbo-unemployment-would-have-topped-11-without-stimulus/1 ) . He passed Dodd-Frank which begins to regulate dangerous trading and banking practices. He has practically given us policies that have helped us dig out of the economic gloom that he inherited .
He has taken our country out of Iraq and has followed sane policies in Afghanistan. He is beginning to restructure US defense policy to meet the future security environment, deal with threats to this country, and do so in a way this country can afford.
He has ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell, one of the biggest civil rights achievements in a generation. He has highlighted issues, such as contraception, and will use it to continue to fight for progressive policies. In a debate and a contract with Rick Santorum, I think that President Obama clearly represents the future of this country.
I love the President. I see many threads that call him "center-right" etc. He is not an "Eisenhower" Republican. He is a modern Democratic President and has done a great job in leading the government over the past 3 years. We should be thankful for what we have and understand that it isn't the 1950s (Eisenhower didn't really do much to stop what was going in the South, FYI) nor is it the 1930s. The policies that he has followed are politically possible in 2012 and are also good policies in 2012. The policies of 1930s or the 1950s will not work in 2012. We are living in a different World now and one should not keep their thinking static concerning what policies are “good” or “bad”. Much of what he has done would have been unthinkable for Americans during either the 1930s or 1950s and are huge moves forwarded.
I love the President, and I think DUers should also fully support him. He has accomplished a lot and I trust him to continue to lead the nation after 2012.
PPP Polls: "Santorum will be up by 10-15 on the Michigan poll"
This is interesting. If Santorum were to win MI and AZ, that would make super Tuesday very interesting.
http://twitter.com/ppppolls
PPP National Polls: Santorum 38, Romney 23, Gingrich 17, Paul 13; minus Newt 50-28
Very interesting:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/santorum-surges-into-the-lead.html
Part of the reason for Santorum's surge is his own high level of popularity. 64% of voters see him favorably to only 22% with a negative one. But the other, and maybe more important, reason is that Republicans are significantly souring on both Romney and Gingrich. Romney's favorability is barely above water at 44/43, representing a 23 point net decline from our December national poll when he was +24 (55/31). Gingrich has fallen even further. A 44% plurality of GOP voters now hold a negative opinion of him to only 42% with a positive one. That's a 34 point drop from 2 months ago when he was at +32 (60/28).
Santorum is now completely dominating with several key segments of the electorate, especially the most right leaning parts of the party. With those describing themselves as 'very conservative,' he's now winning a majority of voters at 53% to 20% for Gingrich and 15% for Romney. Santorum gets a majority with Tea Party voters as well at 51% to 24% for Gingrich and 12% for Romney. And with Evangelicals he falls just short of a majority with 45% to 21% for Gingrich and 18% for Romney
The really interesting thing is if you take Newt out of the Race.
The GOP has Santorum fever and the Santorum surge continues.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Apr 25, 2010, 11:54 PMNumber of posts: 2,384
