Harry Reid approval rating 19%

[OzarkDem]

I'm not taking a position one way or the other on how effective Reid is as Dem leader in the Senate, but a 19% approval rating is NOT good, and it hasn't changed in over a year. This is unacceptable.

If he can't turn this around, it will be a drag on the party's candidates in November. Why in the world is he so ineffective and unpopular and should we be advocating for change?

http://www.pollingreport.com/P-Z.htm#Reid

[TheFarseer]

1. Yes

Reid is almost as useless as Dachele. What's wrong with Feingold or Boxer?

[Kahuna]

4. I think he's more useless than Daschle. Tom messed up big time

on the 2002 election, and the IWR vote. But other than that he was quite vocal against bushco.

[Rose Siding]

20. Harry's a fighter. He was calling Bush a liar years ago.

-and refusing to back down. He speaks out against him every time he takes the Senate floor. Doesn't anyone ever watch C-SPAN?

The dems have thwarted one extreme bush assault after another, and with the exception of some very foolish compromises on confirmations, pressured by the gang of 15, the extremists have been held at bay by a *minority*.

There's no prob w/ Feingold or Boxer at all, afaic, except that leadership positions must enjoy the support of a broad coalition within the caucus. There is a greater chance of getting someone more like Feinstein -or any of the dems in the gang- than those two. I'll take Harry.

I don't like his position on choice, but I do agree with the tactic of approaching the issue as one of controlling the number of unwanted pregnancies, via education and all forms of birth control. As for that whole flag amend fiasco, I think he'll see the light on that.

Reid has stood up to bush way more than Dashcle did. All the rules have changed and he knows it.

[WCGreen]

2. No one knows who he is....

[KoKo]

18. Everyone knew who Tip O-Neil was and Dan Rostenkowsky.....

Daschle and Reid are the unknowns. Wonder why that is... when we Dems have been losing election after election...including the stolen ones...without a peep from the "leadership."

[WCGreen]

46. Cause Tip O'neil and Dan Rostenkowsky were

the speaker and the chairman of the Ways and Means committee.....

Two high profile position....

[drbtg1]

60. I remember Dan

Back in the 80's, when the country was trying to raise the drinking age to 21 to stop drunk driving, he was arrested for drunk driving.

Not sure of his age then, but certainly over 25.

[blondeatlast]

3. "Never heard of" is 51%. It's not like the American people can say that

about the President.

No, it's not that good on the surface, but let's put Bill Frist or Trent Lott's name in there and see if the responses aren't comparable.

[OzarkDem]

7. Frist is 23%

and he's been involved in scandals recently.

Oops, edit to add link

http://www.pollingreport.com/E-F.htm#Frist

[blondeatlast]

9. The rating is job performance--23% EXCELLENT, 55% FAIR/POOR.

Not quite the same question, but I'd consider the results similar.

As with your OP, I'm not offering an opinion on Reid, but I think we need some perspective on these polling numbers.

[SharonRB]

5. Check out this post about his appearance at YearlyKos

More people need to hear him say things like this. I think his approval ratings would skyrocket.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2673070&mesg_id=2673070

[benddem]

6. did you look at the dates on the polls

on Harry Reid. All 2005 and before. Not very instructive.

[Gatchaman]

8. He's misrepresented in the media

Face it, the only time this man is mentioned in the media is in a derogatory manner of faux news or hate radio. He's never presented himself as a national level politician, and has let the righty-tighties determine how he is viewed by the general public.

Granted, he's not an incredible statesman, but he doesn't derserve these bush-like approval numbers.

[Skinner]

10. I think that the The Harris Poll is basically meaningless.

It doesn't give respondents the option to admit they've never heard of him, which would explain why so many people responded "Fair."

Based on the responses to the Fox News Poll, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, and the NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, I think it's safe to conclude that somewhere between 60 and 80% of Americans don't know anything about the guy. All of those polls show that among people with an opinion, he's polling about 50-50. Or, he was back in October.

[Placebo]

12. Thank you!

:applause:

[blondeatlast]

13. Precisely; we need to keep these nmumbers in perspective.

Break out the percentages of the people who've never heard of him and he looks much better.

[KoKo]

15. Thanks for the clarification..

but, what about the people who DO know who he is? :shrug:

How many of them would think he's effectual. Maybe a poll of DU'ers might come up with the same results. :shrug:

[blondeatlast]

22. Ask and ye shall receive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2673187

[OzarkDem]

21. Shouldn't we try

to see to it that people DO know who he is? Isn't being an unknown leader when waging the biggest battle in decades to retake Congress something that needs to change.

[blondeatlast]

25. It isn't important that the majority of Americans those polled, for instan

know who he is.

It's important for Democrats to know who he is.

Again, I'll bring up the opposition: how many Americans know who the majority leader is?

[OzarkDem]

27. In November 2006 its important

that voters know what Dems stand for in Congress.

The biggest job we have is getting people to show up at the polls in November and vote for Democrats. Candidates alone can't do the job, we need for the average voter to know more about what we have to offer, what our vision is and feel motivated enough to join us.

[xultar]

35. People knowing you and effectiveness as a leader in the Seanate are

2 entirely different things.

Working under the radar allows you to do things and maneuver way more than being out in front.

Reid is smart. He's been around for a while. He knows what he is doing.

[OzarkDem]

36. Then who should be the Dem standard bearer, if not Reid?

Our Dem candidates running for Congress in November need to have a strong, effective and visible franchise behind them.

There are only 2 Dem Congressional leaders at the national level - Reid and Pelosi - to represent the Dems Congressional franchise.

If we write Reid off as someone who doesn't need to lead or have a high profile, does that just leave us Pelosi?

Shouldn't we expect more of our Senate leaders in a crucial congressional election year than to have them "working behind the scenes" to convince voters to show up and vote?

[xultar]

38. Yeah, they should stand in front of the cameras jawboning instead of

working.

NOT!

The only people who need to know them for their effectiveness are...the people who voted for them and the people in the Senate.

That's it.

Who else should know them? Hallibuton lobbyist? NRA lobbyist? Fred Phelps? Fox News? KKKarl?

The only people who need to know them are the people they serve and the people they work with.

People didn't know that Congressman Jefferson until they took that 90k out of his freezer. I bet he is wishing no one knew his ass right about now.

Being known isn't always the way to effectiveness. Knowing what you are doing and maneuvering within the government is where the action is.

[OzarkDem]

40. Then who should be the standard bearer?

Who should be the visible leaders of the Dem Congressional franchise?

[xultar]

44. Their policy should. Their votes should. The Dem leaders in

the house are there to lead the members help them to plan strategies to vote.

Their votes are our voices. That is who the Standard Bearer should be. When they block a vote.

That should be the voice. When they stop a candidate from making it to the floor that should be the voice.

When they shut the senate down...that should be the voice.

Not a single man or woman jaw boning to the media.

[OzarkDem]

50. Disagree, strongly

That strategy is great if Dems want to stay a minority party.

At a unique time in history when every branch of government is controlled by the GOP, Dems need SOME leadership.

Unless you can provide me with the name of someone else who should be our standard bearer and represent the interests of the party to the public...

[enough already]

53. No, it makes much more sense for us to let Rove define him

Apologies for the sarcasm. Well, not really.

[w4rma]

23. Agreed, Skinner. (nt)

[xultar]

33. Thanks for posting this.

[Placebo]

11. This is such bullshit.

Did you even look at the dates on that poll?

And the majority of democrats think he is a great Minority Leader in the Senate. I'm sure proud of him.

[OzarkDem]

16. The date is current

June 2 through 5th, 2006.

As I said, I'm not insulting him, I'm just asking a valid question. Should Reid do more to improve his image and that of Dems in the Senate?

Dems approval rating in Congress isn't that good either. While we all know they can't advance an agenda there because of GOP control, is there something we can do to encourage them to improve their image? Don't we want to find a way to give voters a positive choice, a vision, in November?

[AtomicKitten]

14. A good portion of Dem-bashing at DU is epidemic, unfocused,

just parroting rhetoric. Anything that might be construed as good or positive is either overlooked or ignored. It would behoove people to broaden their horizons, stop considering opinion blogs as gospel, and digest actual data themselves.

[KoKo]

17. That's simply not true... n/t

[AtomicKitten]

24. I'm sorry to say it is.

Misinformation is passed around and offered up as proof of a scorched earth opinion.

Blogs are deified as the truth and the light rather than what they really are ... opinion. George Clooney has been quoted as saying he doesn't like blogs because they are dangerous, and I can see that if not viewed in their proper context.

The venom toward Democrats is viral here.

People set up strawman arguments and force posters to take sides; when they don't they are labeled. Here is a perfect example http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2670220#2670865 of someone who sees their world as so black and white that if you don't hate the DLC they way they do, you are declared either on their payroll or a DLC apologist, when you are in reality neither.

Here's a poll http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2673028 where a good majority of DU'ers say they would vote third party.

DU as well as other internet communities can choose to be a breeding ground for malcontent - as opposed to discontent which is healthy - or not. A step back to get a better overview would make this difference more apparent.

[OzarkDem]

34. You owe some people here an apology

No one is putting out false information, we're trying to have an honest discussion here. If you can't participate in a constructive way, perhaps you should stay out of the discussion.

[AtomicKitten]

39. or maybe they owe me one

You seem to be trying to run the discussion according to your rules; that's really not the purpose of a message board. What's been posted here at DU is already out there. If you have a complaint as to the content, perhaps you should take it up with the OP of whatever you have a problem with instead of trying to blame the messenger. You see, I read what people write here, actually I've studied it, and there is something to be gleaned from the general direction people move. When people post opinion polls, there are a myriad of reasons for the results, some of which I was exploring.

I'm sorry this discussion isn't going the way you want or expected.

On edit: Regarding misinformation, I have seen all sorts of false information here, i.e., that Hillary voted yes on the bankruptcy bill, that the 9/11 hijackers were US citizens, etc., and that's just off the top of my head.

[OzarkDem]

42. I'm just referring to this thread

I've tried to post accurate and truthful information here and engage people in an honest discussion about a very important topic.

Whether people want to hear it or not isn't the point. We have to have these discussions now, because we don't want to have them in October or November.

[OzarkDem]

19. This isn't bashing, just having an honest discussion

Would it help to push our Dem leaders to develop a common vision to promote? Dean has done a good job putting an agenda together, but I don't sense that we have a unified message among all our leaders in DC. Wouldn't it help if we did? Is there a better solution? How do we get them to work together on it?

November isn't far away and its an issue we need to address.

[AtomicKitten]

30. As always, there are too many cooks in the kitchen.

Dean has an overwhelming task at hand trying to satisfy all factions within the party. I actually feel sorry for him.

It would help if people would understand the concept of a genuine democracy within the party and that opposing opinions must reach a common ground and not seek to annihilate the other. There are some that want their way 100% of the time, and that just isn't possible. One misstep and there are calls to eviscerate the offender. It's simply not realistic.

Write to Dean and tell him your concerns and your hopes for the party.

The only way the Democrats can be successful is by compromise within the party. It is clear some here at DU will NEVER go with the flow and will bolt third party; I only hope their influence is not infectious. The only solution of ridding the US of the Republicans is by a strong majority Democratic party. Be there or be square.

[OzarkDem]

32. thanks for the suggestion, but we're beyond writing letters

We need to raise awareness of a problem and help stimulate our leaders to work together for a winning strategy. Its not as hard as it seems, if everyone works for the common purpose of getting a Dem majority in Congress.

This should be a netroots effort to stimulate discussion and persuade our leaders to focus on a common agenda, vision and message.

[AtomicKitten]

37. the only real solution is moving the herd to where you want it to be

That takes perseverance and dedication, and it is a slower process. Currently the so-called netroots make loud noises at the edges, but become impatient when the results aren't instantaneous. The truth is that isn't possible. At some point the netroots will decide to change what they can and whether to go with the flow - or not. Choosing compromise now as opposed to after the fact would give the netroots more of a voice in the process when it would make a difference. It's the difference between hope and guaranteed disappointment.

[OzarkDem]

41. Valid point

its still very new and not fully formed.

[welshTerrier2]

55. "Be there or be square"

you wrote: "There are some that want their way 100% of the time, and that just isn't possible."

many on "the left" feel very alienated by the Party's continuous float to, as they see it, the right ... they also see a power structure in the Party that is very resistent to sharing that power with others in the "big tent" ...

it is very disturbing to constantly hear that this means "we" are inflexible or impractical or any of the other stereotypes i frequently see ...

from my view, "rigidity" is no less common from those who demand allegiance to the party "no matter what" ... that is not a conciliatory, flexible, pragmatic approach to growing the base ... "be there or be square" is no less "purist" than "i won't vote for Democrats unless x, y or z" ...

my point is that rather than demanding loyalty to the Party, the Party would be far better served looking for ways to earn it ...

i strongly support this statement that you made: "The only way the Democrats can be successful is by compromise within the party."

but, as that relates to "loyalty", it's important to understand that if compromises are not sought, if those currently with the most power choose not to be more inclusive, and if at least some "meeting of the minds" does NOT occur, the consequences may legitimately result in those who are dissatisfied voting third party ...

unity is critical if we are to succeed ... but if the compromises you rightly called for are not made, by ALL parties, to demand loyalty seems unjustified ... in the end, you can't just tell people "everyone should compromise for unity but if you don't feel like the Party bargained in good faith, represented your views (at least on key issues), and worked for compromise, you should vote for them anyway" ... that just isn't going to fly ...

[AtomicKitten]

56. I called for compromise, not loyalty.

Never even mentioned loyalty much less demanded it.

Ratchet down the rhetoric and don't put words in peoples' mouths. You have something important to say and you can just say it without twisting my words to use as a springboard.

In the final analysis, we are in agreement.

[welshTerrier2]

59. perhaps i misunderstood you

just to be clear, i think we are in agreement ... and i didn't mean to suggest it was you who "demanded loyalty" ...

what i did take issue with in your post, perhaps due to a misunderstanding on my part, was the phrase "be there or be square" ... if this means "recognize the value of unity", i'll "be there" ... if it means "recognize the value of unity even if it means selling out your core beliefs", then i'll be square ...

perhaps my sensitivity on the subject was more heightened than it should have been ... please accept my apology ...

[Rose Siding]

43. I don't know - I see unity here-

Reid, on the floor last mo-

We should have the opportunity to offer amendments relating to postponing the May 15 cutoff line of the eligibility for Medicare drug benefits. That is not going to be allowed.

We should be able to offer legislation dealing with the ability of Medicare to be competitive and bid for drugs at a lower price. That won't be able to be offered.

We should be able to offer an amendment dealing with stem cell research, giving hope to millions of Americans. We won't be able to do that. That is unfortunate.

Walking into the Chamber today, I was asked by someone: Tell us what you stand for. I think, rather than what I stand for, what we stand for as a minority, it is who we stand for. I think that is the direction we should be focusing: Who do we stand for?

There are lots of people we stand for. We stand for parents with no health care. We stand for those people with maladies who are crying out for some research on stem cells so we can move forward finding cures for these diseases--Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes.

We stand for children who are attending failing schools because the Bush administration refuses to put money into the schools that needs it. It is reported today that very soon there will be 10,000 schools in America that will be failing. I don't think that speaks well. Why are they failing? It is because of this Leave No Child Behind Act that the President pushed so hard.

We stand for the soccer mom who, today, someplace, is going to fill up her vehicle with gasoline and find the price is prohibitive. Rather than filling up her tank, she will fill it half full, enough to get through maybe the rest of this week, because the cost of gasoline is so high.

We stand for the high school graduates putting off being able to go to college because they simply can't afford the tuition. During the last 5 1/2 years of this administration, college costs have gone up 40 percent. Student aid has been cut. Pell grants have been cut.

We stand for the guardsman who is concerned because he has been called back for the second tour of duty in Iraq. Reading the Washington Post today, I find that two Nevada soldiers were killed in Iraq yesterday, both from Las Vegas, a 46-year-old man and a 26-year-old man--killed yesterday.

We stand for the grandparents who are concerned about the debt this country is accumulating, recognizing their grandchildren will be forced to pay this debt. How big is the debt? During the 5 1/2 years President Bush has been President, the national debt has almost doubled, now approaching $10 trillion. We just raised the debt ceiling to $9 trillion, and through some shuffling in the Republican-dominated House they have, in the last few days, raised that to $10 trillion.

We stand for senior citizens who are unable to have the proper medicine to take care of themselves.

The part that is so concerning is that we are doing nothing in this Congress to address the issues. There are editorials running around the country today talking about the majority, the Republicans, not raising issues of any kind because the debate is one they know they can't win. We need to be focusing on the high cost of energy and high cost of education. We need to focus on global warming, and we are not. It is being ignored because in the minds in the White House, it doesn't exist. We need to focus on this staggering debt. Remember, during the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, we paid down the debt. We were spending less money than we were taking in. That is certainly not the case now.

We are going to have a so-called debate on health care this week, but it is a so-called debate. It is really not a debate because we are being prohibited from offering amendments of significance. We are going to be forced to focus only on the Enzi legislation, which is a flawed bill.

I look forward to maybe a change of heart. Maybe there will be the ability for us to offer amendments. That doesn't appear to be the case. I hope that it is the case, that we will be allowed to offer amendments. That is the way we should deal with Health Care Week and not be stymied at offering amendments to this legislation, amendments that would really help--help those people who need help, not only with the hope of curing dread diseases but with the hope of 46 million people in America who have no health insurance, the senior citizens who hope they will be able to get prescription drugs at a lower rate, but because of the Medicare bill passed by this Republican-dominated town, Medicare cannot even negotiate for lower prices. They have to go to Rite Aid and buy their drugs like everyone else. HMOs can negotiate to lower prices because the legislation was directed toward managed care, not those Medicare recipients who badly need help.

http://democrats.com/node/8893

[Placebo]

26. Exactly.

It's sick.

[OzarkDem]

29. Sorry you misunderstand

and don't feel like participating in an honest, frank discussion. Fortunately, some of us prefer to be more proactive and don't deserve to be vilified for trying to help the party advance its profile, candidates and issues.

[blondeatlast]

28. Indeed, and I'm disgusted with it.

I thought we on the Left were above blindly following the "pundits" and treating their words as gospel, but I am apparently mistaken.

[OzarkDem]

31. Sorry you misunderstand also

We're not doing anyone any good by hurling insults. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, don't.

To write off an honest discussion as something it isn't is mistaken or dishonest on your part.

[sandnsea]

47. Exactly right

In everything you posted. It's not surprising that Reid has those numbers. Every Republican is automatically going to give him negatives. The constant negativity in the blogs feeds the negativity in the media which feeds the negativity with those who don't pay a lot of attention, whether Democrats or Independents. Then you add in the negativity from the left. I'm surprised there's 20% left to say anything nice about the guy.

[OzarkDem]

52. Give us something to work with

I'd be more than happy to rally behind a group of Dem leaders who are launching a coordinated effort to unify the party and get our message out. We're not seeing that. Reid's numbers reflect that.

We're not going to win if all we represent is the lesser of two evils.

If we don't have leaders to define us, the GOP will do it for us.

[sandnsea]

62. Those behind Webb

Even though many are very concerned about Webb's support of Reagan and Vietnam, the unity behind him has caused others to pretty much keep those concerns to themselves. Webb may well be a lesser of two evils, but he beats the hell out of George Allen. There isn't an election in the country where the Democrat isn't leaps and bounds ahead of the Republican. The only ones who don't get that are the ones who either aren't paying attention or have a personal agenda they are exploiting. Pretending that Mark Warner is a better candidate than Hillary goes precisely to the point. They're both sucky centrists but Warner gets support because Jerome can make a name for himself as a consultant. Meantime, those who are really fighting right now are kicked to the curb because supporting those fighters would get in the way of the outsider agenda Jerome and Markos want to build their credos on.

[Strawman]

45. What was LBJ's national approval rating when he was Master of the Senate?

No idea? Me neither.

Exactly. It means jack dick. Average person doesn't even know who he is.

What matters is how well he holds the caucus together, which is tough for any Senate leader. All in all I think he is fine.

[Vidar]

48. Harris Poll--complete fiction

[pnwmom]

49. The national media has paid little attention to him. He's a good guy,

therefore not much of a story.

People who know him -- especially people in Nevada -- tend to like him. I think we should get behind him, especially after this KOS speech. We need to let him know that we're hearing him. And to demand coverage from the mass media, too.

[OzarkDem]

51. Who should be our leader?

Hiding behind a rock in Congress isn't leadership. Candidates for 08 squabbling with each other aren't leaders.

Who should do it? Should we launch a national search and hire someone? :sarcasm:

[Rose Siding]

54. Those are baseless, provocative statements

Who's "hiding" in Congress? How does one even do that? Which candidates are "squabbling with each other"? I've missed that.

[Deja Q]

57. You know, there's a reason...

Dems are not standing up consistently or adequately to what is going on.

19% is even more a concern than Twit*'s 30%. For Reid is in the minority party. If they can be called "minority", they seem to be almost consistently the "me too, I'll just stay in your shadow" party.

Why?

Why are they not being the opposition party? What's in it for them?

[Norquist Nemesis]

58. Point #1, the polling is nationwide

"Sen. Harry Reid (D - Nevada)
The Harris Poll. June 2-5, 2006. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3."

Point #2, Let's see...Nevada, Nevada...oh, here it is! Even if the poll were among his constituents in the state of Nevada:
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/one_item_and_teasers/nevada.htm
John E. Ensign (R)
Harry Reid (D)

and the House http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml#nv
Nevada

Berkley, Shelley, (D) Nevada, 1st
Gibbons, Jim, (R) Nevada, 2nd
Porter, Jon (R), Nevada, 3rd

Point #3 - Republicans don't like him because he's from the 'Democrat' Party; Democrats aren't thrilled about him because he allows us to get our powder all loaded and ready, but has the infuriating tendency to make us keep it dry. Democrats who like him do so because he's a Democrat; and Republicans who like him do so because he keeps telling us to keep our powder dry.
:sarcasm: on Point #3

[gasperc]

61. yeah, and 60% never heard of him

which is sad in and of itself, but it really shows that the 19% approval is pretty meaningless

[LittleClarkie]

63. Most folks haven't heard of him though

and by the same criteria there are several we could get rid of who I kinda like.