First, see the 45 second vid below of Scott Kleeb with his comrades raising money in New York City on September 19, 2008.
In it, you can hear Kleeb claim at the 32 second mark that there is a new poll that shows him:
"...up 22 points among women and 14 among men in a poll in Omaha (we think he yelps)..."
Now if those aren't nebulous numbers, we don't know what are.
- Up 22 points from...? Up 14 points from....?
- Why the breakdown between men and women?
- And what are the the final numbers then?
- And if he is "up", up from what? And when?
- And, by the way, no one in a statewide race cares what Omaha numbers show. What are the statewide results?
***
And from what we believe is an actual poll, ARG (appropriate the day after "National Talk Like a Pirate Day") has released statewide results for Nebraska in the Presidential race.
They are:
(* The ARG poll has these numbers as 56% and 47% respectively. Since these don't add up, we assume the second digit in each is a misprint)
Now of course these numbers don't give a breakdown by Congressional District as we are looking for these days. So it is difficult to make a guess about what the McCain-Obama or the Terry-Esch numbers may be with this is mind. Speculate at will.
We can only say though that we can't imagine that Mike Johanns is too far of off John McCain's numbers statewide.
Remember that Johanns was up approximately 60% - 34% in a July 31,2008 Rasmussen poll and about the same the month before that. And he hadn't even been on TV yet. We are expecting a new Rasmussen poll any day.
Happy Saturday everyone.
Posts
39 comments:
Sounded like 6 people in the background (tight shots and no panning of the crowd always means small numbers.) I like the way he funds his drinking trips...just keep those campaign donations coming in fools...er' folks.
(Meanwhile back at the ranch..Lisa Hannah stays home drinking milk with Johanns.)
How many points is he up with Law Students from Iowa???
He went from 1 to 23 among women and from 1 to 15 among men...in Omaha. Hey, if he won't be more specific, I don't see why we can't make up the specifics for him.
Since alot of people are of the opinion that CD2 could be the swing in an election, i am rather surprised that there isn't a local poll that would show the numbers. Is the OWH planning anything?
Two years ago Kleeb was telling us voters how the dem party was the party of PAYGO. Did I miss something or did I not understand that PAYGO meant that in order to spend on any worth cause there either needed to be taxes raised or cut spending somewhere else.
Without Scott in DC Nancy Pelosi did not get this concept.
We know here in Nebraska that only the courage, intellect, and not being tainted by politics of DC of Scott Kleeb can cure the decades of fraud of Washington.
We know that Kerrey couldn't do it, Exon couldn't do it and Ben Nelson cannot do it ----- ONLY SCOTT CAN CHANGE THE PLANET!!!!
In case you haven't noticed, we are presently in the middle of an economic melt down. Any solutions out there? Am I understanding this correctly, on top of paying for a trillion dollar war we the middle class tax payers must now pay a trillion dollar bail out. Who knows what Monday will bring. Thank you Bush! Why anyone would vote to continue Bush politics is beyond me! I know people are often afraid of change but come on now ... get real!
In case you haven't noticed, we are presently in the middle of an economic melt down. Any solutions out there? Am I understanding this correctly, on top of paying for a trillion dollar war we the middle class tax payers must now pay a trillion dollar bail out. Who knows what Monday will bring. Thank you Bush! Why anyone would vote to continue Bush politics is beyond me! I know people are often afraid of change but come on now ... get real!
Anon 2:18: I'm sure you meant Obama, but your plea for change points towards McCain. Obama has never stood up for anything in his life. He has done a whole lot of go along to get along including taking tens of thousands of dollars from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and then blocking any attempts at reform. Remember he is on the Banking committee...oh, my mistake. He only claimed to be on the Banking committee. He specifically voted against redirecting the money for the Bridge to Nowhere to the good citizens of Louisiana after Katrina. He has not ever criticized anyone or tried to do anything to clean up the cesspool that is Chicago politics, which was his district. He has voted present over a hundred times in the Illinois state legislature. He has directed over a billion dollars in earmarks to Illinois in 3 short years as a Senator.
McCain, on the other hand, has spent a career trying to get things cleaned up. He has not been afraid to go against his party. To characterize his election as a continuation of George Bush is obtuse. Obama would be much more likely to continue Bush's policies, although recast as his own, because he's really not all that smart.
Yes, I trust a member of the Keating 5 who couldn't figure out if it was the SEC or FEC involved in the current situation, and who has admitted he really doesn't understand economics. I trust someone that has voted 90% of the time (by his own admission) with the economic policies of the Bush administration. He may have been somewhat of a "maverick" in 2000, but he got his gonads chopped off and has gotten in line with those that have brought us to this point. So, yes, McDaddy, keep voting for the same people over and over because, of course, that will result in "change".
Can I have some of those drugs you're taking?
By Change I meant Obama of course! McCain helped get us into this mess! I do not trust anything he says. So many lies this past week!
Can you be more specific please? Exactly what has McCain cleaned up? He is a Bush man all the way!
He will say anything now if it will get him elected but once elected we are in for more of the same. I know that I can not afford more of the same.
McCain was certainly thinking of the country when he selected his running mate. I admire her story but she is not ready to be President of this country. He selected her to help him get elected and that is all.
You guys might want to actually read about what goes on rather than getting spoon-fed from DailyKos. If you did, you'd know that Obama does not have a plan for the current mess. You'd know that McCain does. You'd know that McCain warned about what was going on at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a couple of years ago. You'd know that Obama has gotten over 100K from Freddie/Fannie and that the former CEOs, you know the ones that employed Enron-like accounting practices, have been busy bundling more contributions for Obama. Oh, and you'd know that his running mate was Joe Bidem=n, you has been in the Senate for 36 years. So if you want more of the same insider/cronyism-screw-the-taxpayer, feel free to vote for Obama. But issue after issue, Obama hems and haws like a guy who has no clue while McCain is ready to go with some pretty darn good plans. But then, wht do you expect when Obama has to drag his teleprompter to the rodeo ring so somebody else can type in what he has to say.
Anon 3:25 Do you think that Biden has experience that we need???
He voted against the first Alaska pipeline. He voted against the first invasion of Iraq when the Iraq troops were looting, raping and killing the people Kuwait!!! What a compassionate guy!!!
He continued to vote for the Bridge to Nowhere rather than fight irrational spending!!!!! Wooow --- what a backbone????
JFK said we, the U.S., would defend freedom at whatever the price. I guess we know JFK and Biden is no JFK!!!!!!! The only freedom he likes is the freedom to tax and spend more and more!!!
Anon --- can you tell me any redeeming characteristics of Biden? This man is so empathic for the poor and downtrodden he gives almost 1/2 of a percent of his income to charities.
We should all be sending Joe a get well card ------ if the Blog prophets are correct, poor Joe is going to get so sick he cannot continue to run for the Vice President --- but only after the debate will he step down so Hilary won’t have to debate Palin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And what gives you the idea that this arg poll is somehow accurate? Does anyone know who runs that poll or how accurate it is? It's a little pathetic when a poll is cited with an asteric, and in tiny letters it says "the numbers don't even add up, so we'll go ahead and guess at what the poll says." I took a poll the other day...85% of the people I ask think Sarah Palin is a moron and a liar (she never said thanks but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere) who increased her state's budget by 18% in year one and more than 20% in year two. And 90% of the people I asked think the only reason she has a high approval rating is because she put a windfall tax on the oil companies and sent back the money to alaska residents. Do you right wingers support that sort of tax on businesses? And 89% of people think that she must have been drunk when she picked the names for her kids.
mac, maybe you should get away from the Faux News/Rush Limpball talking points. Obama's had a plan for a long time. There are no Freddie/Fannie people on the Obama staff. Matter of fact, one of the FMFM lobbiests (his name is Charlie Black) is now on the McCain staff (which is made up mainly of lobbiest). Both Obama and McCain have received donations from FMFM employees (FMFM doesn't give donations, only the employees), and those donations for both equal approximately .005% of the total money raised for both campaigns. McCain has had no plan.
As for that bill McCain is trying to claim, guess what - S.190 was introduced in the 109th Congress on January 26, 2005. It went to committee and had a hearing and was approved, but never received a vote. That hearing too place on 7/28/05. Who was in control of the Senate? Oh, that's right. It was the Republicans. They didn't bring it to the floor for a vote. Oh, and another thing. The sponsor of that bill? SEN. CHUCK HAGEL. Two other co-sponsored at the time of introduction: Elizabeth Dole and John Sununu. As for John McCain, he didn't sign on until 5/25/2006 (Yep, that's right....2006).
So Mac, you were saying about talking points? Guess what. I had already done my own research looking at the facts on record. You just repeated lies that have been said over and over again because Republicans know when they repeats lies over and over again, people like you will believe them and never question.
Anony at 12:31,
Try clicking on the link.
600 likely voters.
+/- 4% MOE
So McCain signed onto the bill. Obama...did...not. The bill was reintroduced in this Congress (April, 2007 to be exact and again by Chuck Hagel, the Dems favorite Republican) as S.1100 and so far, Harry Reid, D-Nev, the Senate Majority Leader, who was recently quoted as saying, "Nobody knows what to do!" in reference to the current financial crisis, has yet to do anything with it. This is a bill that had made it out of committee during the previous Congress. Seems like low-lying fruit to me. But, you know, if you want to argue over when McCain supported it, fine, because Obama, who has taken over $120K from Freddie/Fannie, and whose former CEOs have committed to raising hundreds of thousands more for him, has nothing to say on any of this. Awesome leader, that Obama!
I never said Raines or Johnson were on Obama's staff. I don't think Obama's that dumb to have them on his staff. Oh, wait, Johnson was going to pick him a good VP. Does that count as staff? And as for the rest of my previous post, anytime you'd like to put up a rebuttal, with, you know, some actual facts, feel free. Here, I'll give you one: Biden hasn't actually been in the Senate a full 36 years, this is his 36th year. I'm especially interested in Obama's plan for the current financial crisis. So's the rest of the world.
Did everyone read Lee Terry's boneheaded answer on Joe Jordan's blog? Joe asked him why he should be re-elected after Terry admitted our economy is tanking while on his watch the last 10 years.
Lee's answer? "I can't read a crystal ball..." {guffaw guffaw}
What a doofus!
Did everyone read Lee Terry's boneheaded answer on Joe Jordan's blog? Joe asked him why he should be re-elected after Terry admitted our economy is tanking while on his watch the last 10 years.
Lee's answer? "I can't read a crystal ball..." {guffaw guffaw}
What a doofus!
Oh, wait. Mea culpa. I didn't realize that Nancy Pelosi got a bill through that did essentially the same thing as Hagel's bill and got passed in a Dem Congress in July of this year. Neither McCain nor Obama voted on any of it. Therefore, Pelosi for President, 2008!
Mac, you obviously don't know how it all works. Look at how many bills are introduced. A small percentage actually get to committee hearings. Harry Reid had nothing to do with S.1100 not getting a committee hearing in the 110th. That's up to the individual committees and the sponsors of the bills to push those committees. Oh, by the way, McCain's not a part of S.1100. And unless you think Obama should sign on to every single bill that comes out (I don't expect McCain to), or that have anything to do with any given subject, then maybe you should look at the fact he signed on to a bill that also dealt with banks and real estate transactions. Wait...your talking points don't mention the truth, do they?
By the way, I'm sure while you keep harping on FMFM employees (individuals) giving donations to Obama that you want to be truthful and acknowledge FMFM employees giving about the same amount in donations to McCain. After all, if one is guilty of receiving legal, individual donations, then so is the other. And if you want to tie Obama to FMFM people who have not been a par to FMFM for years to Obama as somehow making him guilty and fully responsible for the current mess, then you certainly want to be fair and say the same for McCain for all the FMFM lobbiest and the 86 other lobbiest that have benefitted from these bad policies that he now has working for him.
Look forward to hearing you latest BS statement made up of lies and misdirection, Mac.
You're right, Mac, Dems did do somthing and got it passed into law in July. Neither McCain or Obama were present for the final vote. Oh, and Lee Terry, Jeff Fortenberry and Adrian Smith all voted against it, while Hagel and Nelson supported it.
In other words, Lee Terry was against trying to reform the subprime mortgage system. No wonder he had no clue about the economy when asked. He couldn't even see the writing on the wall 2 months ago while most could!!
Hey, don't blame Lee Terry -- he doesn't have a crystal ball, remember?
I just read an AP story that the Obama campaign is pulling out of N. Dakota and sending the staff to Wisconsin and Minnesota. It says they took the action right before the start of early voting.
Is Nebraska 2 next?
You know what? I take back my kudos for the Dems based on this column on Bloomberg.com: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
The Dems torpedoed reforming Fannie/Freddie in 2005 and now we get stuck with the bill. Obama got over $125K from employees and their PAC. I do not know how much came from the lobbyists and how much from employees, but I do know that the former CEO, Jim Johnson, maxed out his giving to Obama's campaign and pledged to do much, much more. For that money, he got the privilege of heading up Obama's VP search committee. How's that for BS? Or are you accusing the entire MSM, the FEC, and Obama's own website of making this stuff up?
So you want to stick to the fact that FMFM employees donate money to candidate. Okay. Let's just make sure you apply those very same standards to John McCain. Lobbiest who earned over $2 Million working for FMFM now one of his top advisors. Plus he got just about as much in donations for FMFM employees. So if you condemn Obama, condemn McCain. But then you're a Republican and Republicans can do whatever the want.
As for your claim Democrat blocked things, think again. Republicans had control. If you think Dems have control now, then Reps had control then. But then, hypocrisy is the Republican code of ethics.
By the way, that opinion article you showed, Mac, is one of the whiniest pieces of crap I've seen so far. The Dems were against it in committee? But Republicans had the majority? But they were so scared of that minority they did nothing? Really. Well, they set the agenda and they could have done it. They chose not to. But then, Republicans never do anything wrong in the Republican world of thinking.
Once again, giving Obama lots of money seems to get you an enormous amount of access. For Jim Johnson, it got him the head of the VP selection committee. I don't know what it got the janitor at Fannie Mae who gave Obama $100. If you want to make the case that McCain is just a sock-puppet of his advisors, go ahead, but that's just not believable. In Obama's case, it was the candidate himself, not an advisor, who took the money.
As for the why didn't it come to a vote question, since you seem to have been living in a cave for the last several years, I'll explain. The GOP, continuing a tradition started by Tom Daschle (and that tradition continues today), wouldn't bother bringing legislation up for a vote if it didn't have 60 votes. In other words, the mere threat of a veto could shoot something down. This was a great source of annoyance among Republicans who wanted to get the Dems on record being against things. The GOP didn't bring it up because enough Dems didn't go along with it. (If you want to ding the Republicans for being cowards, please be my guest. But if you do, then you also ought to point out the bipartisan support that the Dems' bill got. In other words, the problem in 2005 wasn't on the Republican side of the aisle. I am sure that if Senator Obama had thrown his weight behind the 2005 bill, that would have gone a long way towards getting it to a vote. As it was, he was busy taking money from Freddie/Fannie even as several oversight groups were ripping them new ones.) And this is how the Senate, the most august deliberative body in the world, now works. Gone are the days of Senators reading from the phone book. You can thank CSPAN for that. BTW, Mr. Esch, I see that the Schoolhouse Rock Election Edition will be available on DVD later this month. You may want to check it out.
Mac continues to ignore the facts and keeps spout the same things over and over. He avoids acknowledging McCain also taking FMFM money in his campaign. Thanks for proving Republicans are hypocrits yet again. FYI - Johnson was not head of the VP selection. He was initially but then backed out. He was also a FORMER FMFM exec. Now let's remind you about McCain. According to Newsweek:
The real problem here is that McCain's campaign is swarming with 26 advisers or fundraisers who have lobbied for Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac--including nearly a dozen who lobby right now. As the Washington Monthly's Steve Benen wrote last week, "one of McCain's top policy advisers, Charlie Black, was lobbyist for Freddie Mac for 10 years, while his campaign manager, Rick Davis, lobbied to help Fannie and Freddie steer clear of additional federal regulations [and earned $2 million in the process]... Tom Loeffler, who serves McCain's campaign co-chairman, also lobbied for Fannie Mae. Aquiles Suarez, a McCain economic adviser, was a Fannie Mae executive. Dan Crippen, a McCain adviser who helped craft the campaign's health-care policy, lobbied for Fannie Mae (and Merrill Lynch). Arthur B. Culvahouse, who helped lead McCain's VP search committee, also lobbied for Fannie Mae." According to former Fannie Mae executive William Maloni, "photographs of Sen. McCain's staff... loo[k] to me like the team of lobbyists who used to report to me." Without these ties--which are far more extensive than Obama's--McCain would have every right to say that associating with officials from troubled financial institutions is a sign of bad judgment. Again, it's not like Obama's hands are spotless. But with them, McCain offers Obama an otherwise unavailable opportunity to remind voters that McCain's own judgment--at least by McCain's own standards--is worse. So much for "no seat... at the table."
"FYI - Johnson was not head of the VP selection. He was initially but then backed out." That's putting it euphemistically. Obama got caught putting the fox in charge of the henhouse and suddenly he wasn't the Jim Johnson Obama knew. We won't even get into the sweetheart deals Johnson was getting from Countrywide.
Again, last time, McCain has been advocating better oversight of Freddie/Fannie and even co-sponsored a bill to that end. This is not what Freddie/Fannie wanted. Obama, while taking money from them, is not on record supporting that legislation. If you want to try to tag McCain with doing lobbyists' bidding, feel free, but it only highlights just how filthy Obama's hands are.
Woooow!!!! ANON ---- quoting Newsweek impresses us all.
Mac - thank you for confirming you're a hypocrit and hide from the facts. Maybe someday you'll wake up and hear yourself and cringe.
Yawn.
Lobbyists ... it's lobbYISTS, ferchrissake !! NOT "lobbiest" ... and you wonder why people don't take you seriously ....
UW:
Lobby, lobbier, lobbiest. Gosh darn it, don't you understand the superlative?
Whoever wrote this original blog post obviously has no idea how campaigns and how polls work, or they do know and still feed cheap talking points with nothing to back 'em up besides "...?"'s to the readers.
C'mon, republicans! You're smarter than that! Demand actual evidence, not just claims and hints from your bloggers.
Well...I wrote the "original blog post".
Pray tell, what "...?"s would you like to answer?
This is a BLOG not the friggin' Wall Street Journal. Blogs are about opinions, have you checked out the NNN (AKA New Nebraska Nutjobs) blog? It is all opinion and sadly, not even a consensus of opinion of the Democrat Party.
BTW, why do the Dems try to call themselves the Democratic Party? Isn't the word democratic when associated with the word Party just an adjective? A descriptive word? And, as a describer, it doesn't even describe their Party since they prefer to nominate their Presidential nominee via an exclusive group of people called "caucusers". The number of people participating in the Democrat Caucuses was a pathetic percentage of registered Democrats(even if you count all the ones left standing out in the cold and sent away after being told that their "vote" won't count because they weren't first in line).
Talk about disinfranchised voters! Since this is obviously my opinion, how about one of you Democrats that likes to opine here anonymously, do the research and let all of us lazy people know just what percent of Democrats nationwide were permitted to partake in your neat little Caucus system. FYI, that means number of caucus goers over total number of registered Democrats.
Someone posting anonymously complaining about others posting anonymously? Oh, that's rich.
No, Jim Esch is rich. He has a trust fund and must live off of it because you can't live in Nebraska and South Eastern Colorado on $10, 000 income in 3 years time-remember he QUIT his job in mid 2005 to run for Congress full time.
I am going to guess that you don't want to answer the questions I asked regarding your Party disenfranchising voter in this District, State, and Nationwide for the first 6 months of this year? Or, are you off doing research to validate your claims? Good luck with that one!
Not Anonymous, just not telling you my name.
It's not "my" party. I'm a registered Republican who is voting for Jim Esch. Lee Terry's days are numbered!
Post a Comment