You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: New Poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy
CNN Poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy, Obama gains
Posted: 04:03 PM ET
From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser
The nation's economic woes appear to be taking a toll on McCain.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll suggests that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans blame Republicans over Democrats for the financial crisis that has swept across the country the past few weeks '” one factor that may have contributed to an apparent increase in Barack Obama's edge over John McCain in the race for the White House.
In the new survey, released Monday afternoon, 47 percent of registered voters questioned say Republicans are more responsible for the problems currently facing financial institutions and the stock market, with 24 percent saying Democrats are more responsible. One in five of those polled blame both parties equally, and 8 percent say neither party is to blame.
The poll also indicates that more Americans think Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, would do a better job handling an economic crisis than McCain, the Republican presidential nominee. Forty-nine percent of those questioned say Obama would display good judgment in an economic crisis, 6 points higher than the number who said the same about McCain. And Obama has a 10 point lead over McCain on the question of who would better handle the economy overall.
These numbers appear to be affecting the battle for the presidency. Fifty-one percent of registered voters are backing Obama, who now holds a 5 point edge over McCain, at 46 percent. McCain and Obama were tied at 48 percent apiece in the previous CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey. Obama's advantage, while growing, is still within the poll's sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Where did Obama make his gains?
"In two core McCain constituencies: Men, who now narrowly favor Obama. And seniors, who have also flipped from McCain to Obama," says CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.
When including only those people most likely to vote, the results are pretty much the same: Among likely voters, Obama has a 4 point lead, 51 percent to 47 percent.
Re: New Poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy
Like you said in the other thread.....lets wait. Things have happened which this poll might not recognize yet. Not everyone knows that some of Obama's economic advisers are the same people who have practically bankrupted Wall Street.
They'll learn this fact in the debates.
Re: New Poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.
But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex … l=s109-190
Re: New Poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy
Like you said in the other thread.....lets wait. Things have happened which this poll might not recognize yet. Not everyone knows that some of Obama's economic advisers are the same people who have practically bankrupted Wall Street.
They'll learn this fact in the debates.
McCain's already been running this ad for a few days now. It isn't news & won't be a shocker in the debates..
$125,000 isn't really alot considering McCains advisor took in $2 million. Also, Obama's not taking any funding from lobbyist for his campaign, something like 80% of his donations have been $200 or less. McCain has 11 lobbyists IN his campaign.
Re: New Poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy
$125,000 isn't really alot considering McCains advisor took in $2 million.
Its a LOT when you consider the fact you have to compare the number to McCain's adviser.
Obama's not taking any funding from lobbyist for his campaign
These 38 fundraisers for Barack Obama's presidential campaign work for law firms that have lobbying operations in Washington, D.C. The dollar figure reflects the minimum amount each has pledged to raise for the campaign.
BUNDLER MIN. PLEDGE LOCATION FIRM
Scott Harris $200,000 DC Harris, Wiltshire and Grannis
Allan J. Katz $200,000 FL Akerman Senterfitt
Michael Lawson $200,000 CA Skadden, Arps
John Levi $200,000 IL Sidley Austin
Karol Mason $200,000 GA Alston & Bird
Thomas J. Perrelli $200,000 VA Jenner & Block
Thomas A. Reed $200,000 VA Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston
Gates Ellis
Christina Tchen $200,000 IL Skadden, Arps
Tony West $200,000 CA Morrison & Foerster
Mark L. Alderman $100,000 PA Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen
Timothy M. Broas $100,000 MD Winston & Strawn
Peter Bynoe $100,000 IL DLA Piper
Gregory B. Craig $100,000 DC Williams & Connolly
Norman Eisen $100,000 DC Zuckerman Spaeder
Nicole Lamb-Hale $100,000 MI Foley & Lardner
Andrew Schapiro $100,000 NY Mayer Brown
Charles C. Adams Jr. $50,000 Switzerland Hogan & Hartson
David Burd $50,000 DC Arnold & Porter
Tom Cole $50,000 IL Sidley Austin
Michael H. Dardzinski $50,000 China Reed Smith
Howard W. Gutman $50,000 MD Williams & Connolly
Jeff Horwitz $50,000 NY Proskauer Rose
David C. Jacobson $50,000 IL Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal
Hrishi Karthikeyan $50,000 DC Covington & Burling
Ronald Kirk $50,000 TX Vinson & Elkins
William T. Lake $50,000 DC WilmerHale
Edward Lazarus $50,000 CA Akin Gump
Jack Levin $50,000 IL Kirkland & Ellis
Kenneth G. Lore $50,000 DC Bingham McCutchen
Charles B. Ortner $50,000 NY Proskauer Rose
Susan Pravda $50,000 MA Foley & Lardner
Paul N. Roth $50,000 NY Schulte Roth & Zabel
John Schmidt $50,000 IL Mayer Brown
Robert M. Sussman* $50,000 DC Latham & Watkins
Kathryn Thomson $50,000 VA Sidley Austin
Barry B. White $50,000 MA Foley Hoag
Steven M. Zager $50,000 TX Akin Gump
Robert S. Litt n/a MD Arnold & Porter
OBAMA FUNDRAISER NUMBERS
38
Members of law firms that lobby in Washington
31
Partners
10
Former federal lobbyists
6
Manage lobbyists
$3.5 million
Minimum the lawyers pledged to raise
$138 million
Lobbying fees earned last year by their firms or subsidiaries
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-ILL.)
LOBBYIST EMPLOYER REGISTERED FORM OF PAYMENT
Teal Baker Podesta Group 2007 Salary
Emmett Beliveau Patton Boggs 2007 Salary
Ertharin Cousin Polk Street Group 2006 Salary
Stephen Geer Center for American Progress 2006 Salary
Steven Hildebrand Hildebrand Tewes Consulting 2006 Salary
Brandon Hurlbut B&D Consulting 2007 Salary
Michael Lake National Foreign Trade Council 2005 Travel, lodging payment
Hans Riemer Save Our Security Coalition 1996 Salary
Buffy Wicks United Food & Commercial Workers 2006 Salary
International Union
sources:
Re: New Poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy
work-for-law-firms-that-have-lobbying-operations-in-Washington, D.C.
ie: Not Lobbyists
Irregardless they both have their hands dirty with Fannie Mae. Neither one's going to win the election or change the polls with that issue alone. As I've stated before, it's going to be point/counter-point. It'll be a wash.
Re: New Poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy
You conveniently exclude the bottom examples of actual lobbyists on his payroll.
I've said all along they are both knee deep in Washington shit. Its the liberals who try and claim Obama is pure as snow. He isn't, and when you take into account he was all about "change" and despised "politics as usual", he's quite possibly the biggest hypocrite this decade.
Re: New Poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy
That;s where I disagree with you on him. Obama always says he "wants" to change the way Washington operates (unlike somebody who will remain nameless). He's seen how politics & the machine of it all works, yet he's only a few years removed from being a neighbor of you or me. For starters, he's a smart guy, so there's no denying that. As a result, I trust his decision making skills. Moreso than my own. Second, he understands the drastic difference between the rich & poor in this country. As opposed to John McCain & his $150 Million dollar family who thinks people who are worth $5 million are middle class?? How far removed from real America can some people possibly be. We just had a multi-millionaire in office, that didn't go so good. Joe Biden has said Americans may know that politicans can't solve all their problems, but want to know they understand them.
Re: New Poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy
My biggest issue with him is that he is yet to back up any of this change mantra with action. Its just talk. He cant even get anything done on a legislative level, but we're supposed to trust him at an executive level?
I understand McCain only has legislative experience as well, and thats also one of my issues with him. However, the big difference between the two is McCain's vast Senate record, and there are very few negatives in that record(notice how liberals dont attack his record?). All they can do is generalize the "he voted with Bush 90% of the time". That tells me his record is near perfect or he'd be citing specifics. The dems vote with Bush as well. Lets have specifics.
I know what the liberal strategy is. Focus on Bush and avoid Obama's microscopic record. It'll work on some people but wont work on others.
If Obama had presidential aspirations this early in his career, he should have ran for governor and after one term went after the presidency.
Re: New Poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy
lol. It's been fun reading the debates between you two in different threads. 
Regarding who is going to win, I remember people saying it was going to be one sided when it was Kerry v. Bush... all I heard was "Bush sucks he's gonna get blown away" and since I was younger and in 10th grade I bought into it... and then Bush won.
Now I hear alot of "Obama is definitely a favorite" sort of talk (living in California a liberal state)... and I have to question it.
Part of me thinks he's (Obama) going to get slaughtered this election. Again, that's just MY feeling... so I'm sure it could go either way. Sometimes I think Obama could have a surprise surge when people actually are in the booth and need to choose between the two evils.
Either way, I still really don't know who to vote for. Can't I just write in Ron Paul? 
