Basically, Republicans are attacking Obama where he is least vulnerable and at a time when they have minimal credibility. It isn’t working. By trying to turn everything into a scandal rather than saying Obama’s policies are wrongheaded—and rather than fixing their own image problems with minority, female, younger, and moderate voters—Republicans are focusing on attacking a guy whose name will never again appear on a ballot.Polling guru and political analyst Charlie Cook, explaining why Republicans’ attacks on President Obama may ultimately fall flat. Despite the media feeding frenzy over the three concurrent scandals to hit the Obama White House, the President’s approval rating has hardly suffered at all: In general, it’s hovered around 51%, with one poll even showing an uptick since April. Meanwhile, a recent CNN poll showed the Republican Party with the highest negative ratings—59%—that either party has received in more than 20 years. “Americans may not be ecstatic about President Obama and his policies,” Cook writes, “but compared with the Republicans, they think Obama doesn’t look so bad.” source
In the same poll: Voters trust Hillary Clinton on Benghazi more than congressional Republicans by a 10 point margin; a net +18 percent of respondents would rather congress focus on immigration reform than Benghazi; and voters were split 45/45 on whether Benghazi is more or less of a scandal than Watergate (although that broke down mostly on partisan lines).
I was really checking her out, if you know what i mean?Just-retired Secret Service agent David Randall Chaney • Joking on his Facebook page about … wait for it … Sarah Palin, who he was protecting during the 2008 campaign. He left that comment on a photo that shows him keeping watch over the vice presidential candidate. Not exactly a good look for a guy who was forced to retire as a result of a scandal allegedly involving prostitutes in Colombia.
If senior management was aware and it wasn’t a rogue operation, that’s a huge problem. There’s nothing they own that compares to the reputation of a news company, especially the Wall Street Journal.Yale University School of Management senior associate dean Jeffrey Sonnenfeld • Speculating on the danger News Corp. faces over a circulation-inflation scandal involving its most-known upmarket publication, The Wall Street Journal — particularly its European operations. The scandal has already led to the resignation of Andrew Langhoff, the paper’s publisher, but with word that the scandal was known amongst higher-ups at the company but ignored, things could get significantly messier. It’s been a bad year for the company, already: A hacking scandal took down the company’s most-known downmarket publication, News of the World.
orioninacobweb-deactivated20110 asks: I have no questions; I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your latest post on Anthony Weiner. I thought you went about in exactly the right way, particularly noting your bias at the very beginning. I think keeping biases in mind in the best way to try to approach things from an analytic point of view. I should, of course, admit my bias as well and say that I also sincerely hope there is no truth to this scandal. So, thank you very much :)
» SFB says: Thanks for the comment. We know that tackling the Weiner story might be a little tough considering the guy has a big fan base among the left, but the analysis at least offers something to go by, instead of just denying it out of hand. I’d like to think that even if something goes against our own political lean, we at least air it out. I think it’s important to note that the guy who first retweeted Weiner’s tweet had been looking for a way to hang the guy out to dry for a long time. I err on the side of Weiner getting hacked (it’s too perfect not to be), but there isn’t any firm proof of it. — Ernie @ SFB