http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245520/Novak-Djokovic-buys-worlds-supply-donkey-cheese-400-pound-new-restaurant-chain.html

Duuude…….

You can see that in all the national polls. A lot of them undercounted Obama’s result this time, but that is because for the last three months before the election, they were all applying “likely voter” screens to the data – i.e. trying to guess who amongst the registered voters would actually turn out. And the conventional wisdom there was off.

It is commonly accepted that a likely voter screen pushes results a few points in the GOP direction. If you remove that factor from all the polls done near Election day, you get the likely result that polling all registered voters nationwide gives you the same result as the actual election.

Same with these approval polls. Go to RealClear and look at their approval charts. They have nine polls in their average now – some likely voters, some registered voters, some just adults – all positive, with the average being net +9.8. In fact there has not been a single approval poll since September showing a net negative for the President.

Are you trying to somehow convince yourself that Obama didn’t really win, or something? Refer back to my original comment to you…

The numbers are what they are. 29% of the registered voters cast theirs for Obama. The “people at large” have not, in fact, “spoken” in favor of Mr Obama.

28% of the “people at large” voted for Romney, and the remaining 43% essentially voted for ‘none of the above’.

It is what it is, Joe, as much as you and the rest of the left would like to believe that he is wildly popular.

The general feel of “Orphans” was of a society that had become pretty primitive (again, IIRC), whereas “Star Seekers” was more just a feel of stasis and ennui.

First off, there is something about the Rasmussen poll you seem not to understand. In addition to reporting the basic approval/disapproval numbers for the President, he has an additional measure – something he oddly calls the “Presidential Approval Index” which is not what it sounds like – it is not the simple approval minus disapproval value. Rather it is “strongly approve” minus “strongly disapprove”. It is a relatively meaningless measure, but one that Rasmussen invented 4 years ago, the day Obama took office, no doubt so that he could present an approval number than grossly misrepresented Obama’s true popularity. He is an advocacy pollster, after all. For example, a couple of days ago Ras had Obama’s approval at 56/42, for a net +14 – but the “index” was -1. Someone who was not paying attention (not mentioning any names here Bill) might read that -1 and think that Obama had less than majority approval. Which is obviously not the case. Don’t you just hate it when you get lied to by your own side?

As you can see from the quote you included, it is this silly “index” which has gone positive for the first time in 3 1/2 years. Obama’s actual approval has been over 50% since before Election day, was bouncing around above and below it throughout the fall, and was above it at several other points over the past four years (bin Laden time most notably).

Anyway, to your large point, which I still think is really quite silly – you mention that turnout amongst registered votes was down to 57.5% this time, thus undermining the legitimacy of any mandate from the people – is that your claim? You mention the higher turnouts in 08 and 04, but fail to mention that this year’s turnout was either higher, or roughly equal to that of every other previous election going back to the seventies (excepting 1992).

If you want to make the claim that “the people” have rejected American democracy, and thus Obama’s presidency, along with most all others, and that they all suffer illegitimacy from that, then make that argument explicitly. But it makes no sense to pin this on Obama alone. In any case, I don’t think that you can argue the point that however you assess Obama’s popularity or support, it is significantly higher than any support for your ideas, or candidates on your side.

Section 8 housing has a stigma because of the behavior of the type of people typically taking advantage of it, not because of their skin color or the fact that they “need assistance”.

THIS is why people don’t want S8 in their neighborhoods, or even near their neighborhoods.

I live on the border of an S8 area.

A neighbor of mine was the victim of a breakin during broad daylight in her first-floor condo. There’s a fence around it which allowed the burglar to work relatively un-observed. The stuff was recovered about an hour and a half later, as the burglar was noticed by some cops walking home with the goodie bag… a large sheet he’d wrapped it all up in.

Needless to say, he was walking to the S8 housing from the non-S8 housing.

Peeps need to stop pussyfooting around it for PC reasons. The people who need S8 housing for an extended time are generally NEVER going to be anything but social drains. You can be in a bad state and need a hand up to get on your feet, but if you keep needing “hands up” you’re really asking for “hand outs”. And there SHOULD be a stigma to that.

Ummm, Rather than pointing people to the guy who ripped Heinlein off, why not point to the guy who wrote the original use of that plot… I mean, almost to the jot and tittle…?

LOL.

(Note: Star Seekers was published in 1953 according to Amazon. Also, amusing OT add-on, he had far, far more success as mystery writer Stephen Marlowe, though it appears he was remarkably prolific in the short SF realm)

Hint: If there’s an SF plot that could have existed before 1960, Heinlein wrote the first example of it. That’s true amazingly more often than you’d believe.

========================

Orphans of the Sky
Orphans of the Sky is a science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein, consisting of two parts: “Universe” (Astounding Science Fiction, May 1941) and its sequel, “Common Sense” (Astounding Science Fiction, October 1941).

…Over time, the descendants of the surviving loyal crew have forgotten the purpose and nature of their ship and lapsed into a pre-technological culture marked by superstition, wherein the word “Ship” is become a synonym of “cosmos”, so that “To move the ship” is considered an oxymoron, and references to the Ship’s “voyage” are interpreted as metaphor. They are ruled by an oligarchy of “Officers” and “Scientists”, whose head is the putative heir of or successor to the original captain. Most crew members lead a simple illiterate life of agriculture, seldom or never venturing to the “upper decks” where the “muties” (an abbreviation of “mutants” or “mutineers”) dwell.

Can you say: ‘Blue State Red State’?

How about this: We let the BLUE states secede and form their own country and stop screwing up ours?

Then we restore the laws and the Constitution to what it was in 1900, and quickly add in some of those smart additions like the 18yo vote and Women’s suffrage… and then go from there.

Just thinkin’…

Thanks for teaching me the word “puling” with your comment. I learn something every day from this blog.

“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 55% of Likely Voters at least somewhat approve of President Obama’s job performance. Forty-four percent (44%) at least somewhat disapprove.

Today’s figures include 34% who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 33% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +1 (see trends). Yesterday and today mark the first time the president’s Approval Index has been in positive territory since June 29, 2009.

55% of likely voters … he got anice bump from the excelent job he did yesterday in his talk at the interfaith gathering in Conn.

If you think 55% of likely voters riding a temporary emotional high putting him above 50% for the first time in three+ years is the “people at large” speaking then I sincerely hope you are enjoying whatever self-created reality you live in.

You have my sympathies. It really sucks, I know. I have been through this from the other side in years past.

The Rasmussen poll (yes, even them) today has Obama’s job approval rating at 57%. That is on this planet, this country, believe it or not…

The first step in coming back to claim the center is to acknowledge how far out on the tail you are. Its the hardest part of the process, because it galls…

What planet did that happen on?

“The Center for the Study of the American Electorate put 2012 voter turnout at 57.5% of all eligible voters, compared to 62.3% who voted in 2008 and 60.4% who cast ballots in 2004.”

Your man Barack received the support of 29-30% of the eligible voters. What happened last month was a resounding rejection of Mitt Romney and of the political process in general, but do not delude yourself into thinking the “people at large” support Obama and your nonsensical ideology.

There was no “dispute” to end. Psy did the cheap and easy thing by engaging in and amplifying the anti-Americanism that he clearly expected was saleable among his fan base.

Accepting an apology is a way to not only end a dispute, but to cement the transition of the apologizer from enemy to friend. It exhibits magnanimity, and self-confidence. To shun someone permanently even after they apologize seems quite unwise and self-defeating. One would send the message to all the other mistaken people out there that pursuing a path to reconcile yourself with America is a waste of time.

In no way does acceptance of an apology from a former enemy constitute disrespect to our troops.

“What is pretty clear is that we have a substantial number of people in this country who simply do not identify as Americans.”

Yes – all those conservatives who seem to indulge fantasies of seccession, now that the people at large have spoken. A PPP poll found 25% of Republicans felt so in the days after the election. LINK,/a>

I went through this on the local planning commission. There is a well funded nexus between developers, “public interest law firms” also known as community organizers, and the city officials. The PI law firms always fine a need for more “affordable” housing in suburban communities. Developers come up with plans for such developments, always separated from unsubsidized housing. The hearing comes and we get lots of propaganda about “nurses and firefights” who need this subsidized housing. I spent 25 years living with a nurse who now has her own house, and my fireman son has a very nice four bedroom home.

The subsidized housing is intended for the illegals who gather across the street near the lumbar yard looking for jobs. When I proposed that a certain percentage of the developer’s next project be reserved for affordable units, I got nowhere. That would be the simple solution and avoid the stigma of “section 8 housing.”

The nexus rejects this. One development that was considered when I was on the panel but is being built now actually has a fence between the subsidized apartment, which have kids, and the other half which was marketed to over 55 adults.

It’s a racket but not one soon to be ended.

It is too bad, because she can rock, which is a rare quality in a woman, and she has a wonderful voice, which is a rare quality in a rocker.