|
Post by kitkat on Nov 11, 2009 16:00:54 GMT -5
From our friends at Gallup: November 11, 2009 Republicans Edge Ahead of Democrats in 2010 Vote Registered voters prefer Republicans for the House, 48% to 44%The story in pictures... And go back further, to scale the democratic fall this year: And also of note--the republicans swept the 2004 election cycle --while the dems were *up* one percent in this same type of poll (also done by Gallup). Also, the dem rout of the repubs in 2006 and 2008 accompanied a double digit lead in this type of poll. (Gallup will not begin to model likely turnout until much closer to the 2010 elections, but given that Republicans usually have a turnout advantage, if normal turnout patterns prevail in the coming election, prospects for a good Democratic showing appear slim.) ---------------------------------------- Unfolding moral of this story? Never underestimate the power of propaganda... (or the marked vulnerability of the US electorate thereto.) Of course, considering the "generic" nature of the choice presented, an argument may be made that the stated "republican preference" may be for a republican party that, in reality, exists primarily only in the fond imaginings of the voters polled--and not the *real* Republican party of Palin/Limbaugh/Hannity these days... (hope's cheap) Anyway, best not to forget (imho) that this is the country that elected GW----- *twice*... so one must admit, at least, that such levels of mass irrationality that this gallup presentation portrays are, at least, possible...
|
|
|
Post by jamesadie on Nov 11, 2009 16:07:56 GMT -5
I hear Mexico's nice...
db
|
|
|
Post by baldheadeddork on Nov 11, 2009 16:15:54 GMT -5
It is way, way, way too early to do likely voter polling for an off-year election.
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 11, 2009 16:19:26 GMT -5
ah, but not 'too early' to assess the effect upon trends that the variant political party PR strategies have had...
|
|
|
Post by baldheadeddork on Nov 11, 2009 16:27:36 GMT -5
ah, but not 'too early' to assess the effect upon trends that the variant political party PR strategies have had... ...on a generic Congressional ballot for an election that is 51 weeks away. That's what the question is, and it's pointless to poll likely voters this far out.
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 11, 2009 16:46:10 GMT -5
Actually the question is "If the elections for congress were held TODAY..."
What this is is a scoring of the sum effect upon the electorate--to date--of democratic party and republican party acts and rhetoric. In which the dems are trending fastly and furiously to a big fat reversal of fortune next year.
Now, you dem folk can just *ignore* this trend (as you seem determined to do ("Pah! Irrelevant I say! Harumpf!") and once again allow the repubs to crash your party and take your candy--or take what the electorate is trying to tell you seriously (we think you dems are sucking) and come up with a counter strategy to reverse the flow--which is *not* what ya'll have been doing (which beyond obviously just isn't working in the "how to make friends and influence people" dept.).
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Nov 11, 2009 17:19:51 GMT -5
Did it just get really cloudy in here?
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 11, 2009 17:36:37 GMT -5
Nice to see you too, sunshine... ;D
|
|
|
Post by baldheadeddork on Nov 11, 2009 18:59:16 GMT -5
Actually the question is "If the elections for congress were held TODAY..." Which they're not. Hence the point - likely voter polling a year out is as accurate as a Ouija board. You use likely voter polling to measure who is engaged enough to get out and vote. At this point it's a worthless measure. Now, you dem folk can just *ignore* this trend (as you seem determined to do ("Pah! Irrelevant I say! Harumpf!") and once again allow the repubs to crash your party and take your candy--or take what the electorate is trying to tell you seriously (we think you dems are sucking) and come up with a counter strategy to reverse the flow--which is *not* what ya'll have been doing (which beyond obviously just isn't working in the "how to make friends and influence people" dept.). It's impossible to take you seriously as an honest observer when you've been predicting the collapse of the Democratic party since HRC lost the nomination a year and a half ago. Do everyone a favor and quit masquerading as a impartial observer.
|
|
|
Post by will on Nov 11, 2009 20:03:52 GMT -5
HRC would have been president if the election was held in late 2007, too. Things happen. If the economy and employment situation improves before next November, a whole lot of things will change in the electorate.
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 11, 2009 21:35:32 GMT -5
At this point it's a worthless measure. I see...apparently concepts like "trend of public opinion" are quite beyond your partisan grasp. I'm one hell of a lot more impartial and honest than you are BHD. And more accurate in this prediction, matter-of-fact: The public support for the democratic party *has* collapsed. Gone are the double digit favorables over the opposition party that brought the dems to power last year --and in 2006. Ditto Obama's public ratings. Address *that* why doncha? All I ever hear is some variation on "the ghost of George Bush". Hate to tell ya, but that pony has been back in the barn for sometime now... Tell us what's gonna change PO between now and next fall... with virtually every soul associated with the economic world seeing nothing but sustained high unemployment and "pain on mainstreet" through 2010. (accompanied by fatter fatcats and national debt doing a good imitation of a Saturn V launch...) Passing the health care "reform"-- think that'll do it? 67% of the electorate polls as viewing passage of *any* healthcare reform bill as resulting in no improvement over their present situation-- with the majority of those polling "worse". (gallup, Nov. 8th). Yeh, that'll get lotsa votes. How about the wars? The economy? Environment? Deficit? Energy? Taxes? Immigration? Unemployment? The latest edition of the monthly AP polls tracking the public perception of the Obama admin's handling of all these issues show a sum double digit drop/rise in approval/disapproval since this spring in every single category. *Including* the category "Relationships with other countries". (Ouch, that's gotta hurt!) Show us some democratic highlights in this data... Now all this has nothing to do with questions of the innate right wrong or otherwise of any of these policies-- it has to do with public support--which, in a political system like ours happens to factor into the future life of these policies and the future power of the party which represents them (regardless of innate policy rights or wrongs). The question is this: what can the dems do to reclaim public support for their increasingly unpopular policies? *Hope* for miraculous developments? (like the repubs somehow reversing their steadily increasing popularity?) Or is the "plan" just plugging your ears and saying NANANANANA real loud until you're the minority party under a repub admin again? In a two party system, if one party loses public confidence, guess what? The *other* party gets the votes--as protest or whatever, the result is the same--losses for the party of "no confidence". It doesn't even matter that the opposition may be a collection of "nuts"--they are the only alternative to an unpopular staus quo. I swear, talk about dems and fuckin up a wet dream.... cripes, the only way Obama gets his precious "bipartisanship" is in his own party's *opposition* to his "landmark" initiatives. The dems better pull something new out of their hat--cause the clock is ticking.
|
|
trash
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by trash on Nov 11, 2009 21:47:47 GMT -5
At this point it's a worthless measure. I see...apparently concepts like "trend of public opinion" are quite beyond your partisan grasp. I'm one hell of a lot more impartial and honest than you are BHD. And more accurate in this prediction, matter-of-fact: The public support for the democratic party *has* collapsed. Gone are the double digit favorables over the opposition party that brought the dems to power last year --and in 2006. Ditto Obama's public ratings. Address *that* why doncha? All I ever hear is some variation on "the ghost of George Bush". Hate to tell ya, but that pony has been back in the barn for sometime now... Tell us what's gonna change PO between now and next fall... with virtually every soul associated with the economic world seeing nothing but sustained high unemployment and "pain on mainstreet" through 2010. (accompanied by fatter fatcats and national debt doing a good imitation of a Saturn V launch...) Passing the health care "reform"-- think that'll do it? 67% of the electorate polls as viewing passage of *any* healthcare reform bill as resulting in no improvement over their present situation-- with the majority of those polling "worse". (gallup, Nov. 8th). Yeh, that'll get lotsa votes. How about the wars? The economy? Environment? Deficit? Energy? Taxes? Immigration? Unemployment? The latest edition of the monthly AP polls tracking the public perception of the Obama admin's handling of all these issues show a sum double digit drop/rise in approval/disapproval since this spring in every single category. *Including* the category "Relationships with other countries". (Ouch, that's gotta hurt!) Show us some democratic highlights in this data... Now all this has nothing to do with questions of the innate right wrong or otherwise of any of these policies-- it has to do with public support--which, in a political system like ours happens to factor into the future life of these policies and the future power of the party which represents them (regardless of innate policy rights or wrongs). The question is this: what can the dems do to reclaim public support for their increasingly unpopular policies? *Hope* for miraculous developments? (like the repubs somehow reversing their steadily increasing popularity?) Or is the "plan" just plugging your ears and saying NANANANANA real loud until you're the minority party under a repub admin again? In a two party system, if one party loses public confidence, guess what? The *other* party gets the votes--as protest or whatever, the result is the same--losses for the party of "no confidence". It doesn't even matter that the opposition may be a collection of "nuts"--they are the only alternative to an unpopular staus quo. I swear, talk about dems and fuckin up a wet dream.... cripes, the only way Obama gets his precious "bipartisanship" is in his own party's *opposition* to his "landmark" initiatives. The dems better pull something new out of their hat--cause the clock is ticking. Well maybe Obama and the other Democrats will get the message because there IS a LOT of disatisfaction out there among Democratic voters. I hope so. I'm still optimistic though and would still vote for Obama over Hillary. You would make the same criticisms of Hillary if she was making he exact same decisions right?
|
|
|
Post by will on Nov 11, 2009 22:38:25 GMT -5
You are right up to a point, KK. The country is screwed, and those in power are the target of disaffection. It's pretty simple. The GOP screwed the country, the Democrats took over the mess, and the mess will take a long time to clean up. Hence, the Democrats are in charge of a mess, and will get tarred with it. Rightly so in a democracy. So, we may have some one-term Democrats. All the more reason for Obama to start being a Chicago politician and breaking kneecaps if he doesn't get healthcare reform through.
Here's the kicker, though. If the economy turns around and starts growing, as it will eventually, all bets are off. The incumbent party takes credit as well as blame.
So, a bunch of idiot behavior by the GOP won't prevent their gains next year if the economy still sucks. But, eventually, they will marginalize themselves.
|
|
|
Post by john on Nov 11, 2009 23:17:10 GMT -5
Well maybe Obama and the other Democrats will get the message because there IS a LOT of dissatisfaction out there among Democratic voters. I hope so. I'm still optimistic though and would still vote for Obama over Hillary. You would make the same criticisms of Hillary if she was making he exact same decisions right? I think there is a lot of dissatisfaction, but not enough to vote Republican. If this country puts those idiots in office, we might as well resurrect Nero and hand him a fiddle.
|
|
trash
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by trash on Nov 11, 2009 23:25:25 GMT -5
Well maybe Obama and the other Democrats will get the message because there IS a LOT of dissatisfaction out there among Democratic voters. I hope so. I'm still optimistic though and would still vote for Obama over Hillary. You would make the same criticisms of Hillary if she was making he exact same decisions right? I think there is a lot of dissatisfaction, but not enough to vote Republican. If this country puts those idiots in office, we might as well resurrect Nero and hand him a fiddle. I agree not enough to vote Republican but to certainly complain like hell and vote for other Democrats in Primaries.
|
|