Udall holds edge over Schaffer in new Senate poll
But voters appear frustrated with both candidates
By Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News
Published August 14, 2008 at 8:43 p.m.
Photo by Javier Manzano © The Rocky
Colorado 2031 show host Ron Zappolo breaks the debate off at the end of a taped show with the two U.S. Senate candidates at left and Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall.
Please download the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, or enable JavaScript for your browser to view the video player.
Suburban women, Western Slope residents and younger voters could hold the key to Mark Udall's ability to win Colorado's U.S. Senate race, according to a Rocky Mountain News/CBS4 News poll released Thursday.
The Democratic congressman from Eldorado Springs has a six- point lead over Republican Bob Schaffer, getting 44 percent of respondents' support in a poll conducted this week.
Schaffer, a former U.S. congressman from Fort Collins, was at 38 percent, with independent candidate Buddy Moore garnering 5 percent of the vote. Green Party nominee Bob Kinsey took 2 percent. Other respondents were undecided or refused to answer.
The statewide poll of 500 registered voters was taken Monday through Wednesday by Public Opinion Strategies and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.38 percentage points.
Public Opinion Strategies generally polls for Republican candidates. RBI Strategies, a firm that generally works with Democratic candidates, consulted on the creation of the questionnaire and its analysis.
Udall's lead comes largely from a 14-point advantage among women overall and a 15-point lead among the traditionally swing group of suburban women. Schaffer leads by 3 points - 42 percent to 39 percent - among men.
Young voters
The Democrat also holds a large edge among younger voters, 47 percent to 29 percent. He is tied with Schaffer on the Western Slope, a one-time Republican stronghold that has begun to swing Democratic in recent elections.
The poll results come at time when many voters haven't yet formed solid alliances with either candidate: 39 percent of respondents said they have no opinion of Schaffer and 29 percent said the same about Udall.
Also, voters appear frustrated with both candidates. Udall has just a 34 percent favorable rating and Schaffer 27 percent. Five percent of respondents said they would back the largely unknown Moore.
With so much room left to shape opinions, Lori Weigel, a partner with Public Opinion Strategies, and RBI Director of Research Craig Hughes said they expect both campaigns to flood the airwaves with ads that call their opponent's character into question with undecided voters.
"I see nuclear winter coming in terms of the negativity of this campaign," said Weigel.
The latest poll follows a month of wildly varying surveys that have shown everything from a 10-point lead for Udall to a dead heat.
Weigel and Hughes said several findings from this week's poll should be bothersome to Schaffer.
First, Weigel noted that while Schaffer maintains a 12-point lead among rural voters, he and Udall are tied among voters identifying themselves as small-town residents, who typically tend to lean Republican.
Statistical tie
Also, Schaffer and Udall are in a statistical tie among men over the age of 65. That same group supported President Bush by 20 percentage points and GOP senatorial nominee Pete Coors by 10 points in 2004, Hughes said.
Udall's biggest concern, the pollsters said, should be his inability to gain an advantage among independent voters. He holds just a one-point advantage over Schaffer with that large group (34 percent to 33 percent), while 14 percent remain undecided and a surprising 12 percent said they back Moore.
Respondents gave Udall a six-point advantage (36 percent to 30 percent) when asked which candidate has good ideas about America's energy situation.
sealovere@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5438
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
August 14, 2008
2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Shaggy,
Its assumed it could be three times as large as Saudi's, however, private industry suggests it could be even larger, I read as high as five times the size. I agree, let's not continue funneling money to regimes that support an ancient fascist belief system that wants us all (non-muslims I mean, sorry) dead or in a state of submission (semi-slavery).
Let's do something with that vast untapped resources at the disposal of the American Tax paying people.
I.
August 14, 2008
2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
BurgandyWine writes:
Shaggy? Like the musician? You make about as much sense. Who is estimating that there is three times the amount of Oil here as there is in Saudi Arabia?
August 14, 2008
2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
dakar writes:
Udall doesn't offer anything to the average Colorado worker. He is a complete follow the party leader and I don't see him doing anything specifically for Coloradans. I think Schaffer will be more like Allard and will serve no more than 2 terms and get out and let someone else do it.
August 14, 2008
3 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Burgandywine,
Aside from the Federal government, its associated sub agencies, private industry, and several 'independant' experts, I suppose no one has been. Type that question into google, along with the letters F....e.......d......and it should answer that silly lil' question.
and I've heard as high as five times the proven reserve is the estimation. Though even just three or four times the amount would be fine, in my book.
I.
August 14, 2008
3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Say hello to high gas prices no matter who gets elected.
High gas prices can have a beneficial effect. Americans are now consuming less gas because it's so expensive. The quickest way to become energy independent and not have to rely on foreign oil is to consume less of the stuff. Sure worked for the Netherlands--they taxed the heck out of oil and rather than depending almost completely on oil from the mid-east in the early 70s are now virtually 100% energy independent, with gas costing them $10 per gallon. Now they lead the world in the production of electricity producing windmills and have a growing economy, not to mention being a heck of a lot healthier than Americans since, in part, so many people commute by bike to work (which was not the case in the early 70s).
August 14, 2008
3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Higher gas if Udall gets elected?
Isn't that like telling a pregnant woman that sex makes babies?
The deed has already been done, my boy.
If you're going to vote for Bob Schaffer then why don't we just disband the Senate and let the oil companies run America? Oh wait, they're already doing that! Leave the Senate be.
The price of oil is high because of price fixing by way of market manipulation. It's the same thing that Enron did to California. They would deliberately shut off the flow of fuel to California's power plants, cry shortage, and jack up the price. In any other country, they'd call it robbery, bring the perpetrators to trial, convict, and put them in prison where they belong.
Come to think of it... justice happened to a bunch of those Enron crooks. If we cast our votes for he who shall represent his oil companies then let's buy our hankies now because we'll be doing lots of crying later. No justice for the stupid.
If we want to have someone in the Senate who we can talk to and will represent our interests then vote for Udall. He may not be Mr. Personality but he'll do the job and listen to us.
August 14, 2008
3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Joggle,
what a break for them! sadly they whole heartedly imported the Muslim immigrants that are currently eroding, destroying, and trying with all efforts to undermind and conquer the state of the netherlands. And if several buds who moved out of there are correct, apparently are being tremendousily successful! One had his lover stabbed to death because two men "shouldn't be holding hands.''
Sad. But your right, we need to liberate ourselves from this.
I.
August 14, 2008
3:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
Get ready to be even deeper in debt if another republican gets elected. They just love to spend money that we dont' have.
Every record deficit has occurred under a republican president.
August 14, 2008
3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
As a Republican, I'm disappointed that Bob Schaffer keeps coming back like a bad penny. When are we going to get rid of this guy? Why was there no one else on the ballot in the primary? At the very least, we should've had a write-in line.
I know at least a dozen Republicans who would be vastly superior to Bob Schaffer. They just don't have wealthy special interests throwing money at them but they're good people. They have solid principles and are not beholden to the oil companies.
Bob Schaffer doesn't give a hoot in Hell about working middle-class Coloradoans. He's said that the slave colony in the Mariana Islands is a model guest worker program. I suppose putting people in barracks behind barbed wire is Schaffer's idea of good treatment. I won't talk about the young women who were brought there and forced into a life of prostitution. It's so ugly that people have a hard time wrapping their minds around it.
August 14, 2008
3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Zivo,
UP for debate there! remember that the big boom was the direct result of heavy investment in the military technology that spurred the 90's massive tech launch to the public. So?
You have to sacrafice for the long term benefit of the people. Even if some are to short sighted to recognize that fact. The dems were lucky that they ALWAYS manage to come into being when things are turning around because of those policies you ridecule so very much! Dont worry, the Dem's will continue to erode America, but you can keep voting ;)
Hope my vote voids yours.
I.
August 14, 2008
3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Holier,
say it how it is man! Your right. I can name about five other Republican's who have NOT compromised the principles that led them into political life. Sad. We should all write in "Other" and just put another name there in Defiance.
I.
August 14, 2008
3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
independentenergy writes:
Mark Udall has a "0" rating from the Independent Producers Association of America. And now he is suddenly getting religion about domestic drilling. A former extremist who has always voted against anything that would have helped increase oil and gas production now wants a "balanced energy policy" and is encouraging domestic drilling... Mark's in the dark about energy.
August 14, 2008
3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
UrNotAnyone'sFriend,
Tired old regurgitated conservative rhetoric.
"Everything bad that happened bad our reign is the fault of the democrats who were in office before and everything good that happens when a democratic is in the White House is only because of all the things we did."
That's a whole lotta of hooey!
The first time the U.S. deficit hit $1 trillion was under Ronald Reagan.
It was FOUR TRILLION by the time Bush the First left office.
It took this country more than $200 years to build up to a $1 trillion dollar deficit.
It took Reagan and Bush less than 12 years to quadruple it.
Clinton was the first president in more than 30 years to create a budget surplus and start paying down on the deficit.
George Bush the Last erased that surplus in his first years in office and we are currently in the deepest debt in history.
These are facts.
You got nothing but unsubstatiated rhetoric.
You lose.
August 14, 2008
3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Republicans generally come into office under a bad situation. But the government is too big and unwieldy for anyone to manage. It's an oil tanker reversing engines a hundred miles from port. Speaking of oil, there are alternatives. Republicans, conservative fuddy-duddies, wouldn't try this, but Democrats are adventuresome and environmentally conscious.
When your tank runs dry don't pull up to a gas pump. Fill your tank with your garden hose. Now, if you don't have a garden hose, as many Democrats don't have yards, use several buckets from the bath tub. Fill your tank with water. Then drop in two aspirin tablets.
Wait 20 minutes. The acidity of the aspirin mixed with the hydrogen molecules of the water turns it into a fuel that burns as hot as gasoline and converts to water vapor. The fuel is called hydrospirin. The oil companies don't want you to know about it.
August 14, 2008
3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Holier---I can't image ... and I know I kid around a little ... that oil companies could possibly do a worse job managing the government than the Senate. I'm as serious as a heart attack. I would cast my lot any day with a conglomerate of oilmen running America than Harry Reid's Senate. I mean really, man, think what you're saying.
August 14, 2008
4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
BurgandyWine writes:
You mean the same Oil Shale that Shell says can't be brought to market for 15 years and that will require five coal fire power-plants and most of the West Slope's water to harvest?
I guess I still love Colorado enough to not want it to be strip mined so the rest of the country can delay investing in renewable energy technology that, unlike oil, will be useful when I retire.
August 14, 2008
4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Here's something fun to consider. A 100 mile by 100 mile solar collection array located in New Mexico could supply the entire energy demand of the USA with some to spare. This is with using existing low-efficiency photo-voltaic collectors.
Don't believe me? Then I invite you to check my math.
Incident solar radiation at the surface in the American southwest is approximately 1-kW/sq-meter.*
Electrical power production for the entire United States of America was 789,475-MW (megawatt) at the summer peak in 2006. I'll round up to 1,000,000-MW just for fun.
One mile is equal to 1609.34 meters. So, a square mile is equal to 1609.34 squared or 2589988 sq-meters. At 15% conversion from incident solar radiation to electrical power, each square mile of collectors provides 388.5 MW of power.
To provide 1,000,000 MW of power you need 2574-sq-miles of collectors. Because the Earth is not flat and the Sun goes round the other side, we want to double the number of collectors and store that energy for use at night. Storage in chemical batteries is not very efficient but we could build a steam reservoir or other large loss-less electric current storage system built of things like superconducting rings.
I doubled the size of the system again just for fun. Maybe Mexico or Canada might want to buy power from us. So, I gave you 100x100-miles or 10,000-sq-miles, which is nearly the same amount of land area that has been strip-mined for coal in the USA.
*Actually, the incident solar radiation is closer to 1.3-kW/sq-meter but I rounded down for an average as the Sun is not always directly overhead.
August 14, 2008
4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
you betcha, shaggito...drill here, drill now....on the millions of acres of land and outer coastal shelf that are already approved for it.
big oil bob is a bit of a victim of the times i'm afraid.
he is paying some of the toll laid upon the table by the republican track record of the last 8 years. the nov06 beatings were a great wake up call that went largely unheeded as the republicans went on to obstruct initiatives and legislation in congress with the support of the majority of americans. considering this consistent refusal to enact the will of the people...it is no wonder that big oil bob's job here in colorado is that much harder.
he's simply suffering from ripples caused by the negative job performance reviews given conservatives nationwide by the citizens of this country.
August 14, 2008
4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Shaggy, would you please read this informative article: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_... before going on with more nonsense about getting cheaper oil from oil shale in Colorado? Quote:
"Since the 19th century, we in the West have been trying to extract oil from the vast oil shale riches that lie under our feet. It is no easy task, and past efforts have failed miserably. Commercial oil shale development would require not only immense financial investments but also an undetermined quantity of (scarce) water from the Colorado River basin and the construction of several multibillion-dollar power plants.
Sometimes it seems that we are getting close to overcoming these barriers. But each time we near a boom, we bust. The last bust, the infamous "Black Sunday" of 1982, left Western communities holding the bill long after the speculators, Beltway boosters and energy companies had taken off. "
August 14, 2008
5:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Well, sounds like our energy problem is taken care of, 6.4 million acres of solar collectors in New Mexico. Why not Arizona?
August 14, 2008
5:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"We should let them spend billions drilling dry holes and not on areas that actually contain Oil."
shaggy, do you have a short term memory problem that you haven't told us about?
we've debunked that myth several times now.
August 14, 2008
6:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
BroncoDan writes:
Schaffer is a sleazy, self serving, gas bag...always has been, always will be. Never had an honest job in his life...
August 14, 2008
6:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Bronco---Can you point to something specific, something to back your assertion? I know some of these characters. I know some sleazy, self-serving gas bags. For example, I can bring evidence to bear on Coffman matching your description. Here's a guy so out for himself, he's rolled two of his own party, Hillman and Dennis and now he'll roll his political appointees at SOS who will lose their jobs. Morale in that office is the lowest anyone can recall. Would you agree that's sleaze? In my mind, that's 22-carrot sleaze.
But Schaffer, I've never run across anything but integrity. Mark Udall lives in Eldorado Springs, a fictional city, because he won't be associated with Boulder. That's sleaze, you agree?
August 14, 2008
7:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
HopiMedicineMan: Seems to be a town to me: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&h...
I think you need to lay off that 'medicine' there man. If it's sleazy to live in a town and refer to that town by its name then your definition of sleaze is different than mine.
August 14, 2008
8:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Eldorado Springs is not a town. It's a swimming resort. If I didn't want to be from Thornton, I could choose to be from Water World using the Udall logic.
August 14, 2008
8:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Eldorado Springs was platted in 1908 with 400 lots. Today there are few homes in a valley that endures some of the fiercest winds in North America. It is essentially a ghost town because of the wind. Udall, fast on his heels, claims no wind generation on his property. I doubt he lives there.
The "town" is not compliant with state or county waste treatment, nor does the town want to develop a compliant system having voted it down.
August 14, 2008
8:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
No, using the Udall logic you would need to build a house in Water World, incorporate it into a city and live there. Eldorado Springs is an incorporated town and he does, in fact, live there and has an office in Westminster.
August 14, 2008
10:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dustoff76 writes:
Ladies and gentlemen, isn't there a war on or something? I know we're all concerned about paying more for gas, but I cannot understand why that is the only topic being discussed while we still have troops in harm's way. Schaffer's oil dealings in Iraqi Kurdistan have demonstrated a complete lack of regard for troop safety and for the efforts they've made in the region. He can talk all he wants about domestic oil production, but he has made a fortune by drilling in Iraq while troops have died to protect his company's investment. His motives have been entirely based on personal profit, he has contributed to the instability of Iraq, and he has demonstrated that he has no business in congress.
August 14, 2008
10:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
For all you Udall fans that can't wait to have a wind turbine in your back yard, you might want to check out a nasty little surprise call "Wind Turbine Syndrome". It seems they give off ELF sound making people that live near them sick.
OOOOOPPPPSS!!!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...
August 14, 2008
10:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
ColdShot writes:
It is really hard to decided who is the lesser of the evils!!
August 14, 2008
11:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
"It seems they give off ELF sound making people that live near them sick."
According to one researcher with a very small sample size. I haven't seen anybody else mention this in two years.
August 15, 2008
8 a.m.
Suggest removal
GetaReal writes:
HolierThanThou,
Your nickname is well taken. I see you claim to be a republican. If you are a registered republican it is not because you have conservative beliefs. You talk like a far left wing moron.
August 15, 2008
8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
GetaReal writes:
Zivo,
First question when someone starts throwing around big numbers is: What are the percentages (stated as a component of GDP in this case)?
First question when someone starts throwing around percentages is: What are the raw numbers?
If you don't state both percentages and the raw numbers you are trying to lie about something.
One wonders if you even know the facts or are just farting in the wind.
August 15, 2008
9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dinty writes:
Don't really care about all the typical political banter. But, Udall is from BOULDER, OK? They can spin it as Eldorado Springs all they want, but we know that's just an attempt to hide his Boulder Liberal routes. He is not representative of Colorado. If you throw out Denver, Boulder, and Aspen (and I wish we could), you'd get the real Colorado, and it doesn't support Udall.
August 15, 2008
9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
RightDownTheMiddle writes:
Shaggy......
Go ask Scooby how exactly you get oil from oil shale. Then get back to us why you're touting a solution that isn't feasible.
There is no known feasible option to extract oil from oil shale.
While you and Scooby are having your Scooby snacks ask yourself why you are a shill for Big Oil.
Or perhaps, you're a "shale" for Big Oil.......
August 15, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
GetaReal writes:
Charles_B,
Nice twist of words. "If you (the actual meaning of the pronoun as used is HolierThanThou, not everyone or anyone, but specifically a single individual) are a registered republican it is not because you have conservative beliefs."
I know those pronouns are tough for those for whom english is a second language.
Could you please enlighten us all exactly what conservative beliefs and values are? My guess is you haven't a clue and only know a stereotype promoted by those wishing to take totalitarian control of America.
Thank you for demonstrating exactly the type of spin and twist used by Socialist, Marxists, Communist and liars of all persuasions.
August 15, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
Udall is an environmental obstructionist. He is prime backer of the immoral Democratic Oil Blockade. This policy has the intention to artificially create a shortage of oil by deliberately withholding large amounts of oil from world markets. Private industry is anxious to develop oil reserves in Alaska, the outer continental shelf, and Rocky Mountains but the Democratic Oil Blockade has prevented development. The energy resources can be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner.
This immoral policy is responsible for chaos in the travel, transportation, and manufacturing industries. Thousands have lost employment in these industries, school district budgets are busted over diesel fuel costs, and the average citizen struggles with high fuel and heating prices. The attitude of Udall and many other Democrats is high oil prices are good.
If you agree that high energy prices are good, vote for Democrats. Democrats with their delusions of independence from fossil fuels in 10 years, will lead us into an energy meltdown with high energy prices and energy shortages. If you agree with a "do everything, mandate nothing" policy, vote for Republican candidates. Private energy development without an oil blockade and energy mandates will lower energy prices and ensure stable supply.
August 15, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
For the record, clean energy is creating lots of jobs in Colorado right now: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnew...
(in pretty conservative areas like Brighton no less)
August 15, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
LearnToSwim writes:
If We the People continue to send candidates from either of the two major parties to Washington, you can expect that nothing fundamental will change. We will continue to lament the fact that our "representatives" don't seem to be as interested in their constituents as they are in the interests of trans-national corporations and financial firms. Send a message to the entrenched power structure - vote (and think!) independent -
http://buddymoore4senate.com/
August 15, 2008
10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
mmannino: The "Democratic Oil Blockade" was implemented under Bush Sr. It's funny that it's now a Democrat oil blockade because some Republicans want to immediately remove the ban of offshore drilling in some areas for political points. If you think that passing the legislation would instantly lower gas prices you need to get informed. For starters, it takes years to get those up and running. There's also a shortage of the type of ships needed to make the oil platforms because of a worldwide boom in the construction of similar platforms (it would take years before the oil companies could start to increase their American fleet because of a backlog of already existing orders).
August 15, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ian74 writes:
Does anyone here know all of Udall's positions? Because it seems like a lot of you, including the young ones may think twice when mr. Mark votes for the misleadingly named employee free choice act. How would any of you like having political elections without the private ballot (as in voting behind a curtain)? You'd probably think that's absurd, or even undemocratic. And Mark Udall supports this? Please guys, don't waste your time.
August 15, 2008
11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Ian74: What the heck are you talking about? That's bill's purpose is "To amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes."
The text of the bill is here (as passed by the house): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D...
I don't see any mention of political elections in there whatsoever.
August 15, 2008
12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
getreal, i think you've chosen to dismiss a good point.
modern conservatives/republicans truly have abandoned their roots in favor of something else altogether.
this graph is a pretty shocking illustration of this point:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
furthermore, considering that mccain's policies call for more debt (just like bush's) than do obama's...it's tough to call yourself a "conservative" and still justify a vote for the republicans this fall.
August 15, 2008
2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetaReal writes:
Jay,
What are conservative values? I have asked this question many times and you, hmmm, (what term do you prefer? Liberals, communists, socialist, Marxist or just plan MORON?) never have anything but some shlock stock answer.
And your claim about McCain is absurd the face of it. Obama has proposed $307.2 billion per year in new spending which is about 40 times more than the $6.9 billion proposed by McCain.
The graph on zfacts did not come from WhiteHouse.gov. The data used included things in the national debt which are not part of the debt. Figures never lie but liars sure can figure.
August 15, 2008
2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"What are conservative values?"
i think the definition charles b provided is pretty clear cut, wouldn't you agree, gettruthy?
furthermore, either you're aware that mccain's plans produce more debt than obama's or you aren't.
which is it?
hint: willful ignorance isn't the answer and you need to consider mccain's tax plans as well as spending plans because starve the beast politics doesn't work unless you actually cut spending.
btw...the data doesn't lie.
either it is debt or it isn't...including war costs. just because the conservatives have chosen to fund the unnecessary war in iraq through emergency spending bills instead of normal budgetary channels doesn't mean we can leave that debt out of the mix.
August 15, 2008
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetaReal writes:
chucky,
Good definition. I actually missed that post. Now what part of that definition don't you guys like?
I agree with the "cut spending" part of Jay's statement.
Explain why $307.2 billion in spending will not produce more debt than $6.9 billion, please.
I will tell you this. Should you guys succeed in electing his Holiness you may get to live through those Carter years again. 12-14% mortgages (if you could get one), double digit inflation, and the price of gas didn't matter because there was none to buy. Higher taxes didn't work because the unemployment rate was so high no one was making any money and business was so depressed there was nothing to tax. The reason the national debt was so low is because no one would lend us anything. I know, I survived it.
As for me I don't care. I will go on the government dole (I will not tell you how this is possible because if you don't get it by now, well never try to teach a pig to sing), you guys will pay and I will laugh my ___ off living off your wages. Not what I had hoped for in this county but, because those of us who understand economics will always figure how to fleece the flock.
"btw...the data doesn't lie" but cooked books do. Enron tried that and look what happened to them.
August 15, 2008
3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
GetaReal: "Explain why $307.2 billion in spending will not produce more debt than $6.9 billion, please."
I'm not saying your numbers are right, but the answer is obvious. If you increase spending by $300 billion but increase taxes by $350 billion you have a tax surplus. If you increase spending by $6.9 billion but decrease taxes by $300 billion then you would have a huge deficit. I'm making these numbers up but if you don't consider what your income is you have no idea if you have a deficit or not.
My question to you is why the heck would you believe McCain's budget plans when his plan is formed by the same people that formed Bush's and their plan was total baloney from the beginning (in 2000), forecasting continued budget surpluses for another eight years (despite it being pretty obvious that many stocks were overvalued, as stated by Greenspan himself at the time, which would significantly curtail capital gains taxes once the bear market returned) and despite massive tax cuts without a corresponding cut in spending. It was obvious to anybody that knew anything about macro economics that his plan would not work and would only lead to deficits. The only surprise (to me anyway) over the last 8 years is just how stupid his administration is and their absolute unwillingness to pay the bills. Absolutely the most fiscally irresponsible administration ever.
August 15, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
it sounds like you're in danger of educating yourself on the candidate's plans for our national debt, gettruthy...all you need to do is read...and include the parts about mccain's tax cut plans...corporate and personal.
as far as the second carter term myth...we've debunked that many many times....do we really have to go through it once again because you're cornered?
oh well...here it is again....as established, obama's platform most closely resembles a third clinton term...just as mcsame most closely resembles a third bush term.
here are those numbers once again for the far right cheap seats:
REAL GDP GROWTH1
4.09% Over Prior 8 Years
2.65% Over Prior 7 Years
NATIONAL DEBT
$5.7 Trillion
$9.2 Trillion
BUDGET DEFICIT/SURPLUS
$431 Billion Surplus over the Previous Three Budget Years
$734 Billion Deficit over the Previous Three Budget Years
JOBS CREATED
1.76 Million Jobs Per Year
369,000 Jobs Per Year
AMERICANS IN POVERTY
31.6 Million
36.5 Million
AMERICANS UNINSURED & CHANGE IN UNINSURED LEVEL
38 Million Uninsured
47 Million Uninsured
4.5 Million Less in 2 Years
8.5 Million More in 6 Years
ANNUAL TOTAL PREMIUM COST
$6,230 for Family Premium
$12,106 for Family Premium
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME & CHANGE IN MEDIAN INCOME
$49,163
$48,023
$6,000 Increase in 8 Years
$1,100 Decrease in 7 Years
PRICE OF GAS
$1.39/Gallon
$4.07/Gallon
COST OF COLLEGE
$3,164 per year
$5,192 per year
PERSONAL SAVINGS RATE
+2.3%
-0.5%
CONSUMER CREDIT DEBT
$7.65 Trillion
$12.8 Trillion
U.S. TRADE DEFICIT
$380 Billion
$759 Billion
STRENGTH OF U.S. DOLLAR
1.07 Euros per Dollar
0.68 Euros Per Dollar
COMBAT READINESS
All Active Duty Army Divisions Were Rated At The Highest Readiness Levels
Not A Single Active Duty Or Reserve Brigade In The U.S. Considered “Fully Combat Ready.”
FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCY
52.75% of U.S. Liquid Fuel Consumption is Imported
60.38% of U.S. Liquid Fuel Consumption is Imported
VIEW OF AMERICA ABROAD
PEW POLL OF TEN NATIONS
58.3% Viewed America Favorably
39.2% Viewed America Favorably
GREAT BRITAIN’S VIEW OF U.S.
83% Favorable
56% Favorable
INDONESIA’S VIEW OF U.S.
75% Favorable
30% Favorable
TURKEY’S VIEW OF U.S.
52% Favorable
12% Favorable
GERMANY’S VIEW OF U.S.
78% Favorable
37% Favorable
now...as far as your conspiracy theory about "cooked books"...can you substantiate it with any facts whatsoever?
which numbers do you believe to be "cooked" and why?
August 15, 2008
3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetaReal writes:
Ok, you guy's. I am no apologist for the Bush administration. I agree that they spent money like a drunken sailor. Not a conservative value I hold to be sure.
Given the differences in the two parties I would be forced to go republican on ideology alone. At least with the republicans there is a conservative element which might be able to achieve some fiscal responsibility ,as stated in Chucky's dictionary definition. The Democrats do not now nor have they ever done anything but Tax and Spend. Not a chance of any fiscal responsibility.
You can not tax yourself rich, If you could we would have done it long ago and we would all be happy. When you try to raise taxes to achieve that $350 billion increase in revenues be sure to use a dynamic model not a static one. The static model has always produced a net reduction in revenues when tried. When you use a dynamic model the tax rate increase is from 3 to 5 times the amount predicted in the static model. Remember it is you guys who are going to be paying those taxes.
August 15, 2008
3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetaReal writes:
Jay,
Wrong! Obama's platform most closely resembles and Enron board meeting.
I'd rather see America save her soul than her face.
- Norman Thomas
August 15, 2008
5:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
GetaReal---Holier is no Republican. He considers himself a McCain Democrat. He was at one time a Republican while training Move.On
people in how to take over a Republican caucus. You got it right.