Voters dissatisfied with Bush, Congress (NBC/WSJ poll reveals 'angry elect

[Pirate Smile]

Voters dissatisfied with Bush, Congress
NBC/WSJ poll reveals 'angry electorate'

WASHINGTON - As the Senate marches closer toward a nuclear showdown over President Bush’s judicial nominees, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that the American public is dissatisfied — with Congress and its priorities, with Bush’s plan to overhaul Social Security and with the nation’s economy and general direction. Moreover, a majority believes that the Senate should make its own decision about the president’s judicial nominees, rather than just generally confirming them.

And while all of this might suggest bad news for Republicans, since the political party in charge often gets blamed when things aren’t going well, the survey also indicates that the public isn’t quite embracing the Democrats either. “It is just a sense of unhappiness with where we’re at,” said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff.

Perhaps the most revealing finding in the poll is the attitude toward Congress. Just 33 percent of the respondents approve of Congress’ job. That’s down 6 points since a poll in April and 8 points since January.

“The public is exceptionally displeased with the Congress,” Hart said. “It is lowest set of numbers since May of 1994,” the year when congressional Republicans defeated their Democratic counterparts in the midterm elections to take control of both the House and Senate. According to this poll, by 47 percent to 40 percent the public says it would prefer Democrats controlling Congress after the 2006 elections.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7899754/

[July]

1. I'm hoping this is good news for us.

Dissatisfaction w/Congress is dissatisfaction w/a Republican-majority Congress, no?

[Miss Chybil]

10. Except that it says people aren't exactly thrilled with the Democrats,

either. I hope the Dems will step up and start acting like leaders, instead of reactionaries. Ideas and solutions is what we need to be putting forth now. Really good ideas so the majority can shoot them down and thereby sever their own throats.

[Pirate Smile]

17. Hopefully, when the Dems start pressing their own agenda in the Senate

those numbers will improve.

We need to stay focused on 2006. We need to control one of those branches (hopefully the Senate) so we can start investigations and stop Bush's agenda.

[KittyWampus]

23. Does Anyone Really Expect The Media To EVER Report People Thrilled

with Democrats?

This is a serious question.

Do you really expect the media to ever issue a report or poll saying that the American electorate are happy with or leaning towards the Democratic Party?

With Electronic Voting all the Mediawhores need to do is keep reporting how the people aren't accepting or excited with Democrats and they'll have an excuse for why the GOP keeps winning.

[Zhade]

45. Damn good point.

NT!

[okieinpain]

43. can't blame them, dems are all over the map.

[0rganism]

12. Nope. Few will change their voting habits because of this.

Remember, this is an off-year, there are no congressional elections, no presidential election, and relatively little political advertising as a result. The propaganda spewed by the GOP is remarkably effective, especially when combined with issue advocacy from the pulpit and undermaintained urban voting precinct equipment. Those few republican officials deemed too weak to hold their seats due to corruption or personal weaknesses will be replaced by wealthy-but-unknown candidates. Once 2006 rolls around, we'll be lucky to gain as many seats in the House as we lose in the Senate.

The tide is a long way from turning.

[Lexingtonian]

22. A defeatist theory

whose warrants and evidence seem, uh...just pessimism?

[0rganism]

26. How about a theory that explains the evidence we see?

You're remarkably quick to diss my theory precisely because you don't like what it says. So would you care to offer an alternative theory that both accounts for previous events and makes verifiable predictions based on current ones?

More to the point, if you're certain I'm wrong, how much are you willing to bet? How about $50 gets you $100 to the charity of your choice? No one would be happier to pay up than me.

[Lexingtonian]

33. No problem.

What level of detail would you like?

[0rganism]

37. Whatever level of detail you care to provide

My main inference from the post in question was that Democrats will lose at least as many seats in the Senate as we gain in the House in the next election. Let me clarify that to avoid any potential confusion over mathematical inversions. Whether or not we gain seats in the House, I predict a net loss of zero or more seats in the senate. Furthermore, if we do gain some seats in the house, we will lose at least that many in the senate. Sound like a stretch to you?

That is the prediction I'm making based on my "defeatist" theory, using "only pessimism" as evidence. Your theory, should you choose to elaborate, can be as vague or as detailed as you care to make it. All that it should contain, especially if you'd like to take me up on the wager, is a measurable prediction about the outcome of the 2006 conressional election which can be compared to the one I made. For instance, you could use your theory to predict *exactly* which seats will be won or lost, as long you predict enough to make a full tally possible.

If, by some trick of fate, we turn out to both be right, no one wins. If we both turn out to be wrong, we both donate to each-others' charity picks. Fair enough?

[Lexingtonian]

44. No stretch at all.

I'm sure enough at this point of what will develop and the evidence and the trends that I feel sort of bad even wagering against you.

In the Senate we have 7 variously vulnerable Republican seats with 3 more potential ones to consider, including the possible resignation (if not worse) of Arlen Specter. There are at most six Democratic seats as vulnerable as those, probably only two genuinely.

In the House the story is an excess of vulnerable Republican seats of between 20 and 30, not counting in any (3-4) Texas districts that might come within reach if/when the re-redistricting is reversed by the courts. 10-12 of these lie in the Northeast corridor, 10 in cities/suburbia in the West, a half dozen in the area around Chicago and Minneapolis, a couple in Florida suburbia. A couple in Southern suburbia.

I'm basically predicting a scenario of one more intensification of the Red-Blue map, this time with results in our favor, with a few singletons- i.e. Burns losing in Montana. Not because of revolutionary sorts of turnout for Democrats, just high midterm kinds (say, 38-40%). It's a lack of Republican turnout- 34% or 35%- because the moderates stay away out of inability to support failed policies that tips things to Democrats all over the place. A kind of 1994 phenomenon, smaller in outcome but similar in effect. Or, Democrats achieving mostly in the Blue States what Republicans did to Blue Dog Democrats in the Red States in '02 and '04- the clearing out of the great bulk of the more or less contemptible and obsolete sorts of opposition party incumbents.

No, I don't believe that the Republican rallyings of 2002 and 2004 (2004 was more about deferring judgment, perhaps) can be repeated. That's a lot of polling analysis to argue, but it boils down to that the policies implemented will continue to fail- there's no scenario under which enough of it can go right to save them. The Bush people simply can and will not back off the hard line they're invested in, it cannot possibly work, and the net result is inevitably that more people will leave them.

[Zhade]

46. Great analysis!

Too bad you failed to take into account the damnable voting machines...

[leftchick]

50. That is what I was thinking

Georgia, Florida, Ohio and NC are all locks for the repukes unless something is done about the DREs.

[0rganism]

52. OK, I don't feel bad at all about taking you up on it

In fact, I hope you're right, and it will be my pleasure to write that check if we win. Imagine, gains in both houses of congress with a potential pickup of both!

I'm seeing it quite a bit differently than you, of course. It looks to me like there are at most 3-4 vulnerable republican senate seats in 2006, and as many as 10 vulnerable Democrats, not counting Sen. Byrd who's getting to be very... old. In the house, well... I don't see the courts undoing the Texas re-redistricting for starters. We'll find out soon enough.

If I read your statement right, you're predicting a Democratic gain of at least 20 in the house and 1 in the senate, right? That leaves us some middle ground in which we'd both be donating, and that suits me fine.

[Lexingtonian]

59. Okay

Let's call it a wager. $50 on my end for your charity. And if you want to change your bet six months from now, that's fine with me.

[darkism]

57. No, the defeatist theory would be

that the elections are rigged and we'll never win again.

Why else would the pukes want to eliminate the filibuster, a tool THEY used when they were the minority? They must KNOW they'll never lose again.

[Mark Williams]

32. Possibly

but the Democrats in Congress need to appeal to the American people where the GOP is lacking. Sen. Reid is one hell of a leader and I'm sure he's got something up his sleeve to get the American people on our side. Personally I think healthcare would be a great issue to hit on. Sen. Kerry has recently taken up the issue with his 'Kids First' legislation.

[AndyTiedye]

34. They Won't Touch Health Care With a 10000 Foot Pole

Personally I think healthcare would be a great issue to hit on.

Not after what happened the last time we tried to do that.

[Mark Williams]

35. Unfortunatley

your right but wouldn't it be great to enact Kerry's plan? I know they won't touch it but it's terrible that so many have to suffer b/c of greed in DC.

[AndyTiedye]

36. Not Greed So Much as Fear of the Power of the HMOs & Pharmaceutical Cos

[Pirate Smile]

41. Right. Bring it up so we can get the Republicans on record as against

health care for all the children in this country.

Why should kids be punished because their parents don't have a good job or a job that offers health insurance?

Why should they be punished even if their parent is a criminal, addict, lazy or anything else?

Giving them health care as kids makes them more likely to be healthy, productive, tax paying citizens later - if people need a reason other then that it is humane, responsible and moral.

Part of Reid's plan if the nuclear option passes is to place the Democratic agenda into the Senate calendar for passage instead of just letting the Majority Party try to pass their agenda which is precedent in the Senate now.

[Chomskyite]

54. I disagree

I think there just might be enough moderate Republicans who would be open to a proposal to extend universal insurance to all children and to take action to make Canadian drugs more available in America. The knuckle-dragger David Vitter in Louisiana actually ran on the latter issue.

We push health care in response to the nuclear option. Then we push campaign finance reform, specifically the curtailing of what independent PACs can spend, so that the contest is more or less even.

[Rainscents]

2. Oh, Duh!!!!

[killbotfactory]

3. but why? everything's going great!

If you're a ridiculously rich, that is.

[deadparrot]

4. Ha ha!

[rodeodance]

24. yeah--just greato greato greato!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Is this coming from the Duh Desk?

[Arugula Latte]

6. War, corruption, fascism, deficits up the wazoo

What's not to like? Why do these responders hate America? :shrug:

[Renew Deal]

9. lol

My dad says something funny in his greek-english. "It's not to laugh, it's to cry." Indeed

[Renew Deal]

7. Of course. Congress FUCKING SUCKS

A load of useless fucking idiots. There are a handful of good people and that's it. Our side is much better, but both sides are taking too much corporate money.

[earth mom]

You got that right! eom

[natrat]

8. matters not; all counteracted by electronic vote

that being said i will still vote

[Renew Deal]

11. Why, what's the point?

Why are you going to vote if you don't believe in the system?

I (barely) believe in the system and I plan to vote.

[0rganism]

20. Why not vote? What alternatives do we have?

Short of civil disobedience, tax refusal, general strike, and outright revolution, all we can do to change our government is work hard for the candidates and issues we support and vote in the nominal elections.

The real question is, if we have so little confidence in the American system, why do we stay here? I don't know a good answer to that; emigration is hard work, and a lot of us have family ties we're reluctant to give up, but at some point if the system proves to be thoroughly corrupt and completely immune to change, a lot of us will be leaving. It's nothing new; many of our ancestors came here under far harsher circumstances to escape the oppression of monarchs and totalitarians. How long will we stay on to endure what they rejected?

[Gloria]

13. If the Dems became a real opposition party, they might get a

more positive response. Right now, they don't seem to be really fighting. Of course, on some things they do....but lots of them also sell out on things like bankruptcy, war spending, etc.

Their image is muddled. What do they stand for? That's still the problem.

[Erika]

31. The GOP is shocked because we are now fighting!

The GOP don't know what to do. Reid and Pelosi have been great. We are definitely headed in the right direction.

We do have plans. We stand for betterment of our society and the rights of our people to live in safety, with good education, health, and economic prosperity for all.

[KansDem]

14. Corporate Pravda always has a barb for the Democrats...

This poll spells big trouble for the Republicans, but leave it to American Pravda to put a bad word in for the Democrats as well:

...the survey also indicates that the public isn’t quite embracing the Democrats either...

So what about this part of the poll?:

According to this poll, by 47 percent to 40 percent the public says it would prefer Democrats controlling Congress after the 2006 elections.

47%? That's on par, if not better, than Bush's approval ratings...

[Daphne08]

15. I'm definitely unhappy! We are paying exorbitant

prices for gasoline, food, homes (rent) and they don't really seem to even notice! They give us lip-service, but they don't do anything.

Even when our Democrats try, they are rebuffed and walk away like sheep!

Our jobs are being outsourced, our workers' pensions are being destroyed and 50 million people don't even have health insurance.

I called Allstate yesterday to make a payment, and guess who answered my call? Someone in India! I was furious! I did not feel comfortable giving my credit card information to somewhere halfway around the world, so I called my agent and let him have it. When this policy expires, I'm looking elsewhere.

They also have shred our precious Bill of Rights and one has to ask,

"When is enough ... ENOUGH?"

[Eloriel]

16. Sounds like "malaise" to me

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

However, I'm THRILLED about this: Moreover, a majority believes that the Senate should make its own decision about the president’s judicial nominees, rather than just generally confirming them.

[foo_bar]

18. they always let their ratings slide on odd-numbered years

Hated in '01, embraced in '02, proven liars in '03, re-elected in '04, dissembling in '05...

[Zynx]

19. People are pissed off and are ready for a change.

We should have a very simple message, "The Republicans cannot govern.".

[Wright Patman]

21. 'Manufacturing consent'

is not going so well for the elites in the two plutocratic parties.

That said, it is no cause for alarm. The agenda is moving forward and there will never be another honest election. And it is time to renew the Patriot Act(s) and prepare the states for REAL ID by making them offers they cannot refuse.

[Doctor_J]

25. That would be good news - if we HAD an agenda

but, sadly, I certainly haven't heard one.

[YvonneCa]

39. Then you Ain't been listening. n/t

[GetTheRightVote]

27. It has to be good news for the Dems, since it is negative against Repubs

:kick:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

28. Day Late, meet A Dollar Short.

[zoeb]

29. Someone called Randi's show tonight with the info

I thought that was the best caller I had heard all day!!:applause:

[Erika]

30. WSJ is conservative- This is fantastic news for us!

The WSJ is as right wing as you can get without being completely radical. If they put their name on this poll, they'll stand behind the data.

People are finally waking up to the ineptness of this administration and the fact they have hurt this country badly through its policies on the economy, SS, foreign, etc.

Can democrats step up to the plate? You bet. Many of our fine presidential candidates had excellent plans for an agenda that would help us, not corporate globalists. I am very optimistic.

[struggle4progress]

38. "the survey .. indicates .. public isn’t .. embracing .. Democrats"

It WOULD be nice if the Dems really showed some backbone ...

[BadGimp]

40. it don;t matter

The GOP machine and the evil bastards behind it control all the right voting technology providers and swing state Sec of State positions etc.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

42. That's the tip of a rapidly growing iceberg.

[SoCalDem]

47. These are the SAME angry people who "voted" in 04

and got snookered AGAIN.. Just like they might in '06.. Phony polls tell us "how popular" *² is and Golll-lee, another "close" election and the right wingers win again... Until we correct what's wrong with the WAY we vote and the way we COUNT the votes, nothing else really matters much..

We will continue to have the "wrong" people assume offices they did not legitimately win, and the public will just have to continue to "accept" it.:puke:

[Zech Marquis]

48. 8 fucking months after the fact

now the other morons are upset :argh: wetold them what would happen, didn't we?

[0007]

49. America is waking up along with the gas prices, the housing industry

and the market prices. OMFG! What's next?

[Puglover]

51. Could the Sheeple

possibly be pulling their heads out of their collective asses?

[oasis]

55. I'm not for letting them off the hook so quickly. They need their noses

rubbed in Bush's failure. They too, are failures. They failed their country by keeping their heads buried in the sand and backed a no good, lying criminal. The sheeple knew Bush was a loser but they went along for the ride.

:dunce: x 60 million.

[viva la resistance]

53. I can't believe his approval rating is that high!

[nolabels]

56. It don't matter what they, you or anybody else thinks, and just remember..

http://homepage.mac.com/rcareaga/diebold/adworks.htm

[darkism]

58. Love it! n/t