Hahahaha. Rasmussen has the CA Senate race as a toss-up now, with Boxer and Fiorina statistically tied at 44% and 43%, respectively. And Whitman's leading Brown 48% to 40%.

Wisconsin is statistically tied, too: Johnson, 47%; Feingold, 46%. This is starting to get really interesting.

In two close races, endangered Democrats are even running ads touting how they oppose their leadership.

“Democrats kept thinking: ‘We’re going to get better. We’re going to get well before the election,’” said one of Washington’s best-connected Democrats. “But as of this week, you now have people saying that Republicans are going to win the House. And now it’s starting to look like the Senate is going to be a lot closer than people thought.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41469.html#ixzz0xhlv7X5B

Who's yer daddy?? :D

Michale.....

Actually, that IS a shocker, no sarcasm intended ... quite pleasantly so, though. :)

Now THERE'S a shocker.....

{/sarcasm}

Michale.....

I'm going to assume that "B" stands for "Blogger" and not think about what else it could stand for.

Heh.

Choice #1 has been very popular since the 100 tally, just for everyone's info, over at HuffPost.

-CW

What sort? Virtual, of course. I hereby award the MIBOTW medal.

i'm willing to walk up to that ledge with you and say obama hasn't been much of a leader so far, but i'm not willing to jump off and call it an inherent character flaw just yet.

Fair enough...

I'll happily concede that you might be right. Obama still might come thru and prove himself to be the great leader we thought he was..

my current working hypothesis is that he just ran for president five to ten years too soon, before really understanding the full workings of government and how the executive role would best be handled. most of us knew he was very inexperienced as an executive, and maybe we were a bit naive about just how long it would take him to grow into a real understanding of the job. to me, the deficits in leadership can be traced to someone who (though it pains me to echo a slogan from hillary's primary campaign) was simply not ready on day one to efficiently handle the mass of troubles heaped upon his plate.

That's a pretty spot on analysis that I can find no logical fault with..

Time will tell if Obama will rise to the occasion or not.

Michale....

He is not a leader.

i'm willing to walk up to that ledge with you and say obama hasn't been much of a leader so far, but i'm not willing to jump off and call it an inherent character flaw just yet.

my current working hypothesis is that he just ran for president five to ten years too soon, before really understanding the full workings of government and how the executive role would best be handled. most of us knew he was very inexperienced as an executive, and maybe we were a bit naive about just how long it would take him to grow into a real understanding of the job. to me, the deficits in leadership can be traced to someone who (though it pains me to echo a slogan from hillary's primary campaign) was simply not ready on day one to efficiently handle the mass of troubles heaped upon his plate.

to me, this is what the evidence seems to suggest. as always, i'll adjust my opinion as more facts come in.

He is not a leader.

Obama is all about theory. He is the professorial type who would make a great advisor to a real leader. Even his campaign, effective though it was, was all grounded in theory.

"In THEORY, I would make a good president" was what the Obama campaign was all about.

Even the decision to continue and expand Bush era CounterTerrorism policies (which ya'all know I FIRMLY support and agree with) isn't a sign of leadership, as he is simply following in the footsteps.

The only task left up to Americans now is to try and limit the damage that Obama can do in the next 2 years when he attempts to play with his theories and use the country as a giant petri dish...

Michale.....

Then again, you have to consider that Baucus knew as well as Obama that the public option was already out the door, given Ignani's terms. I don't suspect Baucus (or Obama) would want anybody at the table pushing for the public option at that point.

There was no bargaining over that. Those were insurance lobbyist Karen Ignagni's non-negotiable terms, which Obama immediately agreed to — once he'd decided to even BOTHER pursing HCR, that is. On the campaign trail, it was just the most important thing in the world. But once safely inside the White House, they discussed whether they should even go for it, with Biden dead-set against it all along.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PwqSCJmbxk&feature=player_embedded

Here's the whole gruesome story: http://chris11962.com/videos/pbs%20frontline/obamas%20deal.html

Okay, that was laugh-out-loud funny and I will retire tonight with a big ole grin on my face. :) It was also a very long time in coming and, I guess we’re now officially even on that score!

I noticed that error, which I will chalk up to my own rapidly deteriorating eyesight, not long after I posted it and have been laughing ever since.

As for #8, consider the audience. I bet if I polled only independents (if that were somehow possible for me to do), #8 would have rated higher.

I may have lumped too many into the first composite group, but I thought grouping them was interesting, too.

Lia (heh) -

Yeah, it's astounding how many people can't follow simple instructions, I agree.

Harry Reid bears a lot of blame for #4, I would warrant. Reid -- at least what the public hears of him -- is not a very good negotiator as he gives in immediately on the toughest stance, without bargaining anything for it. He does get things through in the end, though, I have to give him that, so maybe his public image isn't a full and accurate one.

nypoet22 -

I think the whole giving-up-the-public-option bit would have gone down a lot better with the Left if they had just been allowed to make their case, but instead Max Baucus arrested a bunch of doctors. Sigh.

-CW

i disagree wholeheartedly with your analysis of the causes for #4. until the public option was bargained away with the assent of the president, my impression was that most lefties (as well as centrists and even a smattering of social conservatives) were basically on board. no matter what the pundits said, the public option was something that most people wanted, and only upon its demise did public support really start to wane. sure, there are always nitpickers, but the health-care hole is, for the most part, one the administration dug for itself.

in general, i find CW's analysis of the aggregate data to be spot on; namely, not standing up for a clear agenda. i'm not suggesting he should have been completely inflexible, but there are some things that can be compromised and others that never should. regarding what to stand up for and what to compromise, the president chose poorly.

First off, you deserve some sort of medal just for tallying all of these results which must have taken you infinitely longer than you might have expected since lefties apparently are unable to follow simple instructions.

Not surprisingly, therefore, they don't, generally speaking, follow what Obama/Biden/Geithner have been accomplishing before their very eyes over the course of the last 18 months and so they are not the best judges when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of this administration.

Secondly, it is more than ironic that option #4 would have ranked so high on their list of disappointments since it is the very lack of support from lefties, professional or otherwise, that is most responsible for allowing the Republicans to sustain their opposition to everything the administration has tried to do and which has prevented legislation from being even stronger than it is.

And, so, ironically, the lefties have no one to blame but themselves for option #4.

I also liked the second analysis, lumping category answers together. That's a smart way of identifying "underlying" sentiments and attitudes.