*I'm* grasping at straws? When's the last time exit polls showed Dems with 41 percent party ID?

Here we go again.

Here we go again.

If you have a great house in early 2008, it burns down in late 2008, and it's only 75 percent rebuilt in 2012, you're not better off.

I'll spoon feed you Joe.

Dems were +7 in 2008 right?
for shits and giggle
Dems 40
Repubs 33
Indies 27 (14 go Dem and 13 go Repub)
total 54-46 in favor of Dems
Then in my #1, some Dem leaning indies may actually move from Indy to Dem- Dem's go up from +7- but the actual vote doesn't move

Dems 42 (include 2 who used to be indy)
Repubs 33
Indies 25 (12 go Dem and 13 go Repub)
total is still 54-46 in favor of Dems even as their "advantage" went from +7 to +9
if 1 of those Dem voting Indies votes R, then the Dem's overall total will go down 53-47- even while their partisan identification edge went up

Since then, the same thing has occurred in every election: The losing side objects to the partisan composition of polling. The polls then proceed to get the final result roughly correct.

it would yield more than the net Dem+1 shift you claimed in your example.

Joe, I'm not a lefty by any stretch but surely you don't think 2008 was rollicking good economic times? The #### hit the fan in 2007 and was seen hurtling toward us earlier than that. I don't think Obama has handled it brilliantly, but 2008 was not good times, in any sense.

So you posted thousands of words, only to make the very same point I've been making for weeks.

that's not grasping at straws that was a ####### math hypothetical- are you being deliberately obtuse or is reading comprehension not your strong suit?

That's right. You continue to argue that America was better off smack in the middle of the greatest economic meltdown in 80 years.

You don't need to spoon-feed me. You need a refresher on second-grade math. Your posts are high in snarkiness but very low in basic math competency.

Aside from the basic math problems, your examples are also historically illiterate. Obama won independents by a wide margin in 2008, not the *1 point* you used in your 2008 example above.

Yeah, you're right. It's much better to be unemployed while the stock market rallies than to have a house and job while the stock market declines. You guys are out of your minds.

Joe, I'm not a lefty by any stretch but surely you don't think 2008 was rollicking good economic times? The #### hit the fan in 2007 and was seen hurtling toward us earlier than that. I don't think Obama has handled it brilliantly, but 2008 was not good times, in any sense.

I claimed nothing, I was simply showing how partisan voting shifts between D/R and I can produce the patterns you claim to be counterintuitive.

I don't claim to know what is actually going on, but I am trying to show what could be going on to explain current polling results- but I guess the only possible explanation inside your thickhead is that pollsters are cooking the books- in which case all speculation is useless since its all proceeding from a false assumption.

Those links have nothing to do with the basic math problem in Johnny's example.

Why anyone continues to engage Kehoskie on this subject is just beyond me.

You concede that the markets are strong — something that was not true in 2008. You're also conceding that supply side economics doesn't work. Awesome. Thank you.

I see you have trouble both with reading comprehension and elementary grade math, somehow the fact that you are a Romney supporter goes hand in hand with that, but I have now wasted several minutes of my life arguing with a moron, so I guess that means you win
congratulations.

trickle-down economics that lack the trickle.

Someone needs to submit a link for October.

How does this matter? Lefties like you have spent decades mocking the idea of trickle-down economics. Now you seem to love trickle-down economics that lack the trickle. Funny stuff.

34.3% 33.1% 32.6%

34.3% 34.9% 30.8%

Maybe Kehoskie and JSLF can settle this by taking an IQ test (insert winking emoticon here).

They do have to do with the larger set of arguments you're apparently trying to make. Do you have the party ID numbers from the 2008 election? I can get them from the CNN poll. I'll be happy to step through the math from there.

It's only funny because of how badly you misrepresent the opposing argument. The entire lefty argument for decades has been that trickle-down economics lacks trickle. That's why it's bad.

The above is Rasmussen's party identification for October 2011 (order is R-D-I)

here is November 2011:

34.3% 34.9% 30.8%


what happened? 1.8% moved from I to D
as a result, the partisan edge went from + 1.2 Repub to +0.6 Dem

Those Is wwho moved were probably already D leaners/voters anyway, so the shift in "edge" may have no effect on an actual vote- in fact the vote could actual go the other way if some Is who leaned D, still stay I, but now lean R.

So what are the actual numbers? I can't do anything with the fact that you *know* them. You want a hypothetical with numbers, then please give me the numbers.