Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Evidence of MAJOR Political TECTONIC SHIFT (ASTONISHING Poll Numbers!)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 10:41 AM
Original message
Evidence of MAJOR Political TECTONIC SHIFT (ASTONISHING Poll Numbers!)
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 10:44 AM by Beetwasher
Voters Remain Angry at GOP, NPR Poll Shows

Morning Edition, December 15, 2006 Voters are feeling more positive about the Democratic Party than about the Republicans as the GOP prepares to hand over control of Congress in January, according to a new NPR poll. And with his approval rating remaining low, President Bush will find it tough to keep Republican lawmakers on his side, the numbers suggest.

Democrat Stan Greenberg and Republican Glen Bolger conducted the survey of likely voters. They found that unlike some previous elections, the 2006 midterms were not a release valve. In other words, according to Bolger, voters are still angry, mostly at Republicans.

Sometimes when voters get the result they want in an election, they feel better about the country. But the survey showed that although the number of voters who believe the country is on the wrong track stayed the same as before the election, the number of voters who think the country is on the right track dropped.

And while President Bush's approval rating is still around 40 percent, Bolger points out that the president's strong approval is at 17 percent, and his strong disapproval rating is at 45 percent. That suggests that the president will be facing an increasingly difficult challenge keeping Republican members of Congress on his side.

--snip--

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=66...

I really think it's over for the GOP as it currently is. The public HAS woken up and they are ON to their bullshit. Too many people get it now about their malignant games and phony divisive issues. They overplayed their hand so obscenely that they have turned into parodies of themselves and it's too late for them to turn it back now.

The public has snapped out of it's 9/11 induced manic trance and they are pissed. The same tricks will NOT work anymore for the GOP and that's all they've got.

And even though this is going on, don't expect many in the traditional media to acknowledge it. You know, liberal media, blah blah blah. This is bigger than any idiotic "Republican revolution", and the media couldn't shut up about that for a dozen years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. I agree with your conclusions but
I have a hard time imagining that bush has anyhwere near a 40% approval rating. Most polls show him almost breaking the magic 30% floor as he drops toward Nixonland.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. This is a poll of likely voters
That's by definition a more conservative group than registered voters or adults. Comparing this poll to the others is like comparing apples to oranges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. Except that likely voters ain't anything ike they used to be. Millions more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CompassionateLib Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
30. What is there to approve of?
I really wonder what the 40% who express approval for Bush are approving of exactly. What is it they are even thinking of when they say "I like that?" It boggles the mind.

Even if you are a Republican, he doesn't seem to do anything that Republicans say they want except cutting taxes and that was in his first term. What would even they point to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #30
47. Actually, Junior's approval rating is more like 36.5%
NPR's 40% presidential approval rating, as well as their strongly approve of 17% and strongly disapprove of 45%, is similar to results or Rasmussen polls that were conducted during the same period of time. But if you average results of the six most recent polls you get a 36.5% approval rating for The Decider.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls /

He was this low around May this year but improved to about 39% in September, possibly due to his pre-election PR tour that you and I helped pay for. Nixon was at about 25% before he resigned, and I predict Junior will match that after the Congressional investigations get geared up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jus_the_facts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
3. They snapped out of their "9/11 induced manic trance" after KATRINA....
....that's the ONLY reason...I sincerely want to believe. :hi: :loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. That Was Definitely A Big Part Of It
Sometimes a "slap" is needed to break a trance.

Hey darlin'!! :hi: :loveya:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jus_the_facts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Katrina was more than a slap....it was a knock down drag out of epic perportions.....
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 11:21 AM by jus_the_facts
....and shewed the US and world that these people DO NOT GIVE A FLYIN' FUCK THRU A FLAMIN' HOOLA HOOP about it's own people much less the rest of the planet...I think it woke up the masses to that reality better than anything else that's happened in the last 7 years.

How are you and yours doin' my friend?! When are the twins due?! :hug: :loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Doing Well!
Thanks! They're due probably in Feb. Officially in March but they usually don't carry to full term.

How about you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jus_the_facts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I'm fine....
...glad to hear all's well with you and yours and best wishes for ya'll in the new year!! :) Keep me updated...K?! :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Happy Holidays To You Too!!
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 01:53 PM by Beetwasher
:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zambero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #5
24. Unless it's a close presidential election year in a swing state...
and your kid brother happens to be the governor. Witness Florida in 2004, with 4 hurricanes slamming into the state during the campaign. The gov't pulled out ALL the stops back then. Wonder why?

Florida 2004: "Y'all want a bag of ice, for starters?"

Gulf Coast 2005: "Y'all can fuck off now!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. That was one of three things that hit bush directly in the nuts at about
the same time. One was the war - VISIBLY AND UNAVOIDABLY going to hell by then. By late summer, 2005, when he was off vacationing AGAIN, enough time had elapsed after the nice long month-off he took just before 9/11, and people were only reminded about how much vacation time this fucker took, WHILE OUR TROOPS WERE SITTING DUCKS in an increasingly shitty-looking dead-end in Iraq.

Two was Cindy Sheehan. All of a sudden you had this plain, simple, Average-Jane solitary figure who was written about, spoken about, and referred to - CONSTANTLY as the "grieving mom." "Grieving mom." Stop and think about that for a minute. It is ONLY a positive. It is an EXTREMELY SYMPATHETIC descriptive term. It was hard to attack her. Made her attackers look like mean, cold-hearted, unsympathetic shit. Made bush look like shit because all she wanted to do was meet with him. Even Pox "news" had to occasionally refer to her as "grieving mother." She put a human face on the bad side of the war - mothers who are left with nothing to hold in their arms but their grieving. And worst of all for bush, she wouldn't go away. She refused to go away. She became a cause celebre. She was an almost irresistable David against the cruel, warlike, negligent, haughty Goliath who couldn't find time in his busy schedule to see her. She made him react. She put him on the defensive, so he had to respond to her - her very presence. Hell, she didn't even have to speak out all that much. All she had to do was show up. And soon others joined her. And so did the camera crews.

Three was Katrina. Need I say more?

By God I think we hit the trifecta. And it left bush permanently disabled, politically. That was the beginning of the end. The war and Cindy Sheehan opened the negotiations. Katrina closed the deal. They pitched. Katrina smacked it out of the ball park. And bush has NEVER been the same since. He's NEVER recovered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #17
36. You're two-thirds right, LOL
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 12:04 PM by rocknation
And I think you owe me a royalty payment. I wrote this on 12/31/05, exactly eleven and a half months ago:

Terri and Cindy and Katrina: We hit the trifecta, too.

Nothing's been quite the same for the Bush empire since that trinity of neo-harpies began blowing through their hallowed halls. And what they've blown away is Bush's only real leverage--his ability to ward off critcism with both the flag and the cross. The MSM who have so faithfully aided and abetted him are now the subject of speculation as to whether they're being paid, and the stories they've ignored are now bypassing them on the internet. The situtation is so bad the Bush is once again unearthing his wife because criticizing her is indefensable. But what else can he do--complain that he's the victim of a vast LEFT-wing conspiracy?

...Happy new year, DU? You'd better believe it!


Another example of great minds thinking alike!

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #36
50. Hot damn! Terri Schiavo also! Man, did that one punch holes in the
levee - pardon the pun.

That shook a few "true believers" out of their stupor, for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelly Rupert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
6. Thank God.
Perhaps the people are a bit brighter than I've given them credit for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alhena Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
9. All the Republicans did with their power ...
was pander to religious wackos with crap like the Schiavo nonsense and outlawing internet gambling (don't get me started on that one.) Meanwhile they spent more money than we ever did and had rampant corruption. My only question is why it took the people so long to catch onto their act. I expect we will have a semi-permanent majority, especially as the Latino voters get more involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. They didn't know, because most of them do not scour the Net
the way we do for information. They get what news they get from the MSM and, in some cases, their pastors. When I tell people about stuff they are amazed, because they have never heard of it.

For example, one college student said we had to go to war with Iraq because Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in, and that's why we didn't know he had no WMDs. When I explained that the inspectors were in Iraq and had unfettered access, but that Bush forced them to leave so he could start bombing, because he was afraid that if he let them compelte their job he wouldn't have any excuse to invade, the boy was astonished. He had simply assumed that since the president said it, and the major network news programs showed video footage of him saying it--and without saying anything to contradict what he was claiming--then what the president said must be true. I sent him links to read about the truth, and he went out and voted a straight Democratic ticket as a result.

It is very difficult for people raised in our educational system, where US history is jingoistic exceptionalist myth-making rather than history, to wrap their minds around the possibility that their president will stand in front of the nation and tell such a bald lie, especially since if it is a lie, it would be so easily refuted. It also doesn't occur to them that the MSM might let such a bald lie slide, without even bothering to refute it, even when they have all sorts of video footage and print records to show it to be blatantly false.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CompassionateLib Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #15
34. Not exactly true
I'm totally against the Iraq war, but I am confident I am right and have no reason to slant. When you have truth on your side and slant anyway you lose credibility.

It is true UN Inspectors were in Iraq, but they did not have "unfettered" access. I'll let you argue that with Hans Blix who kept going to the UN complaining about Hussein's failure to cooperate and threats to Hussein he would be invaded if he didn't stop impeding the inspectors.

What Blix said I think you are referring to is they could get the job done without an invasion. But no one at the time said they were not having significant access issues, so let's remember it the way it was.

The issue is we went into the Middle East which did not support our cause and still don't. We were setting ourselves up to be sitting on top of a powder keg with no way off and that's what we got. And that's the inevitable result of using military power in other's affairs. We should be using it only for direct Defense of the US. And if we would militarily leave the Middle East entirely, as we should, the hatred towards us making us a target of lunatics would go down. And we would probably lose nothing in the deal as we accomplish so little there now.

I'm a stickler for the truth because the truth is on our side. When we slant, we hurt ourselves and gain nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Saddam gave them unfettered access, then Bush pulled them out.
I watched the whole thing. But it doesn't matter because the whole WMD thing was just one big hoax.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lieofthecentury.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CompassionateLib Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #37
52. Is Bill Clinton a criminal?
Bill Clinton: December 17, 1998

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Is Bill Clinton a criminal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. The inspectors had UNFETTERED/UNRESTRICTED access.
You remember it wrong.

Look it up...

There was no "slant" to that statement. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CompassionateLib Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #39
51. I have researched, please do the same
OK, on your side, Saddam "agreed" to provide unfettered access.

On my side, Hans Blix kept going to the UN saying he wasn't getting it.

Now, is unfettered access someone saying you have it or actually providing it?

If I promise you a new car and don't give it to you, are you going to go around telling everyone I gave you a new car?

That is reality, my friend. We had no unfettered access. We had delays and impediments.

BTW, I'm against the war and want to get out. With our without unfettered access we should not have invaded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #34
42. Welcome to DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. Propaganda by the corporate media has hidden the truth from people
My only question is why it took the people so long to catch onto their act.

The American people have bee systematically lied to. That makes it hard to figure out what is going on, even if you're educated and relatively bright.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CompassionateLib Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #9
31. I hope we learn from this
Let's not repeat that mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
41. Welcome to DU!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
11. It may be silly, but I think the "fact" that not a single Dem incumbent
lost his or her seat was one marker of this.

I also think voters have been trying to get politicians' attention for a long, long time. I know lots of people worked really hard, for example, trying to stop the war and for some reason elected Dems in Congress didn't get it. It was as if they'd become deaf and dumb. It wasn't that they didn't get lots of communication on the subject, but that it was invisible to them.

And, voters' wishes didn't register like they should have in 2004, either, due to the stolen election.

ThIS time, voters had become SO angry at not being heard that we made sure we were -- with a vengeance.

I think politicians ought to look long and hard at what has gone on and tread very lightly. Fortunately, I think Nancy Pelosi is at least speaking as if she's heard the voters -- except on the issue of Impeachment, that is. On that one she's become deaf and dumb, sadly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. To be "deaf and dumb" on impeachment is to COMPLETELY MISS the voters message. . .
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 03:40 PM by pat_k
The Election was about One Thing

That one thing is a Person.

Bush.

He wasn't on the ballot, but had he been, voters would have sent Bush Co. packing with a resounding vote of "No Confidence." At least that's what the real excerpts tell us:

Curtis Gans
Director
Center for the Study of the American Electorate

On Politically Direct with David Bender
MP3 -- Interview start time approx 18:30

Bender: Joining me now is Curtis Gans. He is the Director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University and he has just released a new study analyzing the turnout this past Tuesday, and there's some interesting and there are some very, very interesting shifts in the turnout from previous elections. Welcome to Politically Direct . . .

Gans: It's very good to talk to you David.

Bender: Curtis, I'm holding the study in my hand right now, and clearly one of the things that all the exit polls showed was that Iraq played a part and your own work bears that out -- that Iraq helped propel some degree of an increase in turnout in this last election.

Gans: I think that it is not simply Iraq, although Iraq started Bush's downhill. But it is a gestalt around George Bush. it's being a pariah to other countries; it's people dying in what they increasing find is a vain fight; it's massive budgetary imbalances; it's a lack of compassionate conservatism; it's insecurity in jobs; it's the feeling that people have not been leveled with.

Bender: You've been doing this for almost 30 years; studying the American electorate. And there is probably no greater expert than you. It's just a real pleasure to have you on this program. . .


It is the nation's outrage at what Bush has done to our country that drove Democrats to victory on Nov. 7th.

As a general proposition, Americans want the ideal of a bipartisan Congress in which reasonable people on "both sides" work together to find reasonable solutions. But on Nov. 7th, the voice of the people declared that the most essential ingredient of that ideal -- reasonable people on "both sides" -- doesn't exist in Bush World.

When they rejected Bush, his administration, and his rubber stamp Congress as intolerably incompetent/corrupt/extreme they were not calling for "bipartisanship" with Bush at the helm.

Their message was loud and clear: "We want out of Bush-World!"

Apparently DC Dems didn't get the message that was delivered. If they had, they'd be implementing strategies that tap into the power of the outrage that drove the "wave," instead of doing their best to suppress it.

The "conventional wisdom" and exhortations we've heard since the election -- "impeachment is off limits," "it's about issues, issues, issues," "suppress anger," "don't overreach," etc. -- aren't new. We heard them last month. We heard them last year. We have been hearing similar admonitions to be "pragmatic" and "tactical" or to "keep our powder dry" for decades because such admonitions are grounded in assumptions and patterns of thought that have resisted change for decades.

For the sake our national soul, the best thing the drivers of Democratic strategy could do would be to Get Out of Town, reconnect with reality, and listen to people like Curtis Gans and others who are calling on them to take a step back from tactical politics and get clear about the principles they are committed to and the goals they are passionate about:

Gans: Traditionally, at least for the last 30 years, they have essentially been very tactical; very programmatic. I don't think either one of those works. I think they have to have an articulation of Central American principles and what that means within a progressive Party.

. . .You know, what is a Democratic definition of liberty? What is Democratic definition of the common welfare? Etc.

Bender: This is a moment, clearly -- the people voted for accountability, there's no question about that. And the opportunity to show that the Democratic Party is the Party of the Constitution, I think will be a very popular position across the board, particularly with Independents, and maybe even some Republicans who still love this Constitution.

Gans: The concept of the Constitution and the People's Government is something that can unite the Democratic Party in ways it hasn't been united since the late 1960's
. . .


It will always come back to the same bottom line. The Constitution is under attack; Congress is sworn to defend it, impeachment is the weapon be gave them.

With great crises come great opportunities. The failure of our Democratic leaders to stand up and fulfill their oath is deplorable, but what makes it so heartbreaking is that they are failing to seize an unprecedented opportunity. Impeachment is not just the right thing to, it is the winning thing to do.

Democratic leaders may never have a greater opportunity to engage and inspire the public

The biggest problem the Democratic Party has is the perception that Democrats are weak and unprincipled. It is hard to imagine a more effective way that Democrats can prove they are the party of strength and principle than to stand and fight for the Constitution.

What better time than now, when the principle of consent and the dictates of our Constitution are so desperately in need of a champion?

The Nov. 7th "wave" demonstrated the power of the public's growing dismay at the arrogant, irresponsible, and autocratic Bush Cheney White House. But the election could only give voters an indirect means of venting their anger, and as such, it did not fully tap into the anger or bring it into focus.

If they have the courage to stand up and make their case for impeachment, Democratic leaders would provide a voice and a focus that could energize voters across the political spectrum.

Countess elected bodies, good government groups, and citizens already recognize that the only way the nation can restore the institutions and Constitutional principles that Bush and Cheney have abused and subverted is through impeachment and removal. The numbers that are looking to Congress to act are growing.

Instead of being champions of the People and the Constitution, they choose the path of "responsible" and tactical appeasement. (As they wipe their foreheads in relief, believing they have dodged the Impeachment "bullet.")

The Democratic Party's failure to take up the fight for impeachment is symptomatic of a deeply ingrained pattern of self-defeating behavior. (We have seen the enemy, and it is us). Their failure stand up and fulfill their is deplorable, but what makes it so heartbreaking is that they are failing to seize an unprecedented opportunity.

Every day that Members of Congress do nothing they betray their oath and demonstrate contempt for the concerned citizens who are calling on them to act. They may find that the price of their contempt is high. The citizens who are taking up the fight for impeachment are a very active bunch who will not quietly accept the dismissive contempt of their elected officials for long.


Democratic Do's and Don't
In These Times
By Rep. Jan Schakowsky
July 2005

. . .do what your mother saidor at least what my mother saidstand up straight. What people like least about progressives and Democrats is that they think were squishy. They think Bush is tough, knows what he believes and is willing to fight for it. Americans like tough, even when they dont entirely agree with the substance. Voters like tough; voters dont like tentative.


Even if they can't shake their belief that impeachment is a loser for the party, their duty remains. We take oaths and make commitments to do hard and frightening things in advance so that when the time comes, we Just Do It, win or lose, however scary or difficult "It" may be.

And, if you are still not convinced, see

We're Doomed! Doomed I Tell You! (An Impeachment Intervention).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. No, the election was about 2 main things -
in order, according to exit polls:

1. CORRUPTION IN WASHINGTON and
2. IRAQ WAR

there were other things, but those occupied the top two spots.

Good post otherwise. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. As Curtis Gans points out, those are just part of "a gestalt around George Bush"
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 04:27 PM by pat_k
And Curtis Gans, Director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, is someone worth listening to. As David Bender put it:

"You've been doing this for almost 30 years; studying the American electorate. And there is probably no greater expert than you. It's just a real pleasure to have you on this program."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
40. It was about that AND doing what is RIGHT and that is PROTECTING theCONSTITUTION
from the abuses of the REPUKE party by IMPEACHMENT if necessary.

ALL the polls show this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Oh, I think that once the investigations get underway,
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 05:29 PM by tblue37
she and the others will be willing to hear the calls for impeachment. The Dems don't want to push it hard before the investigations. If it arises naturally because of the investigations, well publicized by CSPAN, then they won't have to push it--they will just have to go along with it.

Leahy, Conyers, and Waxman have all been pushing for official investigations for a very long time. They are going to take BushCo and their Republican enablers to the woodshed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #11
29. Katrina did it. Then the corruption just added a ton of ruel...
onto the fire. Also, I do not believe that Bush has a 40% approval rating. It's more like 33-35%. His disapproval is around 57-60%, not 45% as the poll suggests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildflowergardener Donating Member (863 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
18. track
I took a similar poll from Zogby - wasn't sure exactly how to answer some of the questions.

I was unsure of how to answer, I said yes, that I think we are on the wrong track. I feel hopeful again because of the election, but we are still going the wrong direction. I sort of feel we are getting closer to the track but haven't gotten there yet.

I can't recall if there was a question about satisfaction with congress - I think there might of been - if so I wouldn't know how to answer cause it was still the old congress at the time of the survey.

Meg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
21. The MSM did it's job too well...the "teardown" of the House Republicans
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 10:44 PM by autorank
generalized into a broader willingness of the public to suspect and judge the worst.

I never hesitate repeating this: the American public deserves a great deal of praise for
sorting through the lies and disinformation to gather the accurate information and make the
appropriate judgment, which is: BUSH AND HIS COHORTS ARE GUILTY OF THE WORST LIES AND THE
WORST MISTAKES IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY.

kr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 05:30 AM
Response to Original message
22. I'd say the plates have separated but no movement as yet
The DC Dems have just been given a honeymoon to respond to the message of the electorate (impeach) or go back to business as usual.

With all signs pointing to the latter -- "bipartisan" service of special interests, boring aimless hearings, incremental progressiness -- we can expect very little real change. And consequently no pressure on the plates to move.

---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
23. This certainly hints that voting fraud continues to be a major problem.
Both houses of Congress should have a Democratic super majority. (Imagine the damage that could be undone if Bush's veto were meaningless.) The fact that Dems only just obtained control speaks to the continued malignant influence of Diebold and it's ilk.

Talk of impeachment and subpoenas is all well and good, but the 110th can't take their eye off the ball.

Meaningful election reform is of the utmost importance. Or else, this may be the very last chance American citizens have any say whatsoever in their government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sallyseven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
25. Where are they getting 40% rating for bush?
Disapproval at 45% Who is doing the math. Where do they get this figure. More like 30 or less of the insane approve and 70% of the sane disapprove. Lets get real here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elperromagico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
26. Katrina did it.
It showed that this administration does not care. It showed that this administration cannot handle a crisis, even when they're warned of the crisis well in advance. It brought all of the Republicans' rank incompetence and rampant cronyism to the fore.


It seems that, since then, nothing has gone right for Bush and his crew.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #26
44. W showed his lack of caring about Americans in distress
He simply snubbed Katrina victims. He left them in distress with no plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
27. Modern Hardcore Republicans are racists.
This is their current base. I'd give anything to have an opposition that is only conservative and greedy like in the old days.

Grand Old Racist Party of Hate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #27
45. Visiting the right wing sites show their racism
Big time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
28. This is what happens when you stifle the voice of the people (ie, 2000)
We mustn't forget that over a half million voters were given the finger when the corrupt Supreme Court gave the White House to Bush and a minority of voters. The Corporate Media never acknowledged this, and instead portrayed Bush as having a "mandate." The facade simply didn't work: Bush failed, the Corporate Media failed to keep him propped up, and the minority of voters who chanted "Sore Loserman" during the "recounts" have remained just that: the minority.

So much destroyed and extracted from the American experience just for the benefit of the Bushistas.

So sad...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
32. thee were several polls this week---The WH is in Deep shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
33. "the 2006 midterms were not a release valve."
I concur with that. I've seen evidence not just here on DU, but offline as well. People want Bush's reign over with, already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
35. Ya think?
Jeez, why on earth should the voters remain mad when Bush has basically said, "I don't care what the public thinks. I am president and I will do what I want."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpunkMonkey Donating Member (27 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
38. I wish I could feel like these numbers mean anything....
...but so far I haven't seen any deep specifics about how the numbers were gathered, how the questions were posed, etc. And even if we did review that, the mass public is easily swayed by the next swift-boat attack. A single well produced advertisement, no matter how illogical or fabricated, can counter that pole as immediately as rolling a jingly ball toy in it past a cat.

"I hate Bush's policies, the Republican cronyism, rampant corruption
and fraud, and will use my vote-- >>LOOKIE THAT!!<<"

We still have a lot of work cut out for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woodsgirl Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. Now
that it has come out that Rahm Emanuel knew about the Foley
scandal at least as early as '05..I hope he is toast as a
leader of the democratic party. George Steph. asked him
several times if he had prior knowledge and he said he
didn't. I think WE would have won bigger if it weren't for
his particular brand of republican values in the guise of the
dem. party. Corporate Hill went conservative because WE were
supposedly conservative. Well, she hasn't said she was
mistaken about the Iraq war vote. John Edwards has higher
numbers in Iowa polls than Hill. But all you hear on MSM is
she is the favorite. I don't know anybody who likes her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. Basic 101. The GOP elected him
They should answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #43
53. That's One Of The Dumbest Things I've Ever Heard
WTF does Emanuel have to do w/ Foley? The whole fucking Repub Congress knew and did nothing about Foley, it's THEIR responsibility not Emmanuel's.

What a load of horseshit. Go peddle this assinine crap somewhere else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #38
54. They Tried
This last campaign was one of the dirties, slimiest ever. They tried swiftboat tactics and it didn't work. Read the poll for the details, it's there and the shift is real and significant. Their tired old tricks won't work anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 06:28 AM
Response to Original message
48. NOT over for GOP, BUT Dems have a REAL opportunity!!
One election and one point in history certainly don't spell the end of any political party by any means. The GOP still has mountains of cash, a huge media advantage, and a very well organized campaign operation. This period also does not mean a huge national shift to the far left. It is a cry for a return to the mainstream which the GOP leadership structure has abandoned in favor of neo-con far-right politics and policies. We won the mid terms because middle class folks, moderates, independents, and suburbanites returned to us, at least for now. But they have by no means married us until death do us part. Dems must seize on this opportunity, continue to build its bottom-up organization in ALL 50 states, advance a mainstream/progressive/reformist/problem-solving agenda in how they govern at all levels, show that we can be strong and SMART on national security, move forward with a real plan to phase us out of the Iraq debacle responsibly, and convince wealthy progressives that we need to build a permanent national media presence to rival that of the R's. And VERY IMPORTANTLY, we MUST be a mainstream, big-tent party that has room for moderates as well as traditional liberals. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY IF WE ARE TO REMAIN THE DOMINANT NATIONAL PARTY IN THIS VERY LARGE AND DIVERSE COUNTRY!! NO! The "conservative movement" is not over by any means, but it is certainly stalled and we can move moderate R's into our ranks thus splitting their party coalition into pieces for a long time to come IF we are SMART and realistic going forward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diane in sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. If we have honest voting
we never have to have a Republican majority again. Their policies are acutely harmful to at least 85% of the population (and that is leaving out the whole environmental thing!).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jcrew2001 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
55. half
Well half the country voted for Gore and Kerry, so its about convincing the independent moderates to switch. In the 80's, Reagan won over moderates due to economic growth of the middle and upper-middle class. I think a lot of moderates today are sick of the religious right prothlysizing over the laws and Bush's idiocy over Iraq and what will be an economic crisis with paying for the Iraq war. These are long-term issues that will push more moderates into the Democratic Party.

As long as the Democratic Party offers a saner alternative to the Republicans, then I believe Clinton will be president for the next 8 years.

The Republican party is equivalent with the Iraq War, everyone knows it and everyone disagrees with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 29th 2014, 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC