Approval of Republicans at record low: poll

Commy

inmytree wrote:

stay the course....???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061019/pl_nm/congress_poll_dc_1



Wed Oct 18, 11:31 PM ET

With congressional elections less than three weeks away, the Republican party's approval ratings are at an all-time low, with approval of the Republican-led Congress at its lowest point in 14 years, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.

Forty-seven percent of respondents said they were less in favor of keeping Republicans in control of Congress, compared to 14 percent who were more in favor of maintaining the current congressional makeup, according to the poll.

Only 16 percent of respondents approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest level since 1992, NBC said.

In October 1994, when Democrats held congressional majorities, Congress had a 24 percent job approval, NBC said. Democrats lost 52 House and 8 Senate seats in the 1994 midterm elections.

NBC said the poll indicates people have been paying attention to the issues they are hearing about -- from Iraq and Bob Woodward's new book on the Bush administration's handling of the war to the unfolding scandal over former Florida Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record)'s e-mail messages to teenage congressional aides.

The poll numbers and President George W. Bush's own job approval ratings, which have been mired in the 30 percent range, are an ominous sign for a party trying to maintain control of Congress, NBC said.

Bush had a job approval rating of 38 percent, down 1 percentage point from a previous NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released earlier this month after the Foley news first broke, NBC said.

Asked who they planned to vote for in the congressional election, 37 percent of those polled said Republicans and 52 percent said Democrats. The 15 percent difference was the highest disparity ever in the poll and up from a 9-point difference a month ago, NBC said.

The poll of 1,006 registered voters was taken from October 13-16 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

suite.

John Budge

farfromglorified wrote:

Umm...paper voting isn't secure either.

Why is that people think technology is so insecure? They'll freak out if they give an encrypted credit card number to a computer, but won't think twice about handing the actual credit card to a human being at a restaurant....

Yes, but you can't change thousands of paper ballots with a few lines of code.

Purple Hawk

polaris wrote:

i'm guessing that the GOP will continue to hold control and that any voting irregularities reported will be dismissed and those that question the legitimacy will be considered sore losers ...

edit: as for the credit cards, i have a paper trail that tells me where i've used that credit card ... there isn't one for the voting machines ... huge difference

have you ever considered that the polling methodologies used are flawed? wow, what are the chances that these polls, and the way they are reported and believed have no basis in reality? is this the left's strategy? to use generic ballots which mean absolutely nothing, to use completely worthless questions like do you approve of the GOP in congress...which has absolutely NOTHING to do with how people vote for their own member of congress. to use samples that include people all eligible adults instead of likely voters which skew the results towards the dems....to build up all this hype...and IF things don't go your way to blame it all on voting machines? do you realize how unattached from reality you are?

Purple Hawk

just for people's information....

these types of polls offer abolutely NOTHING into our insight of congressional elections.

first, this poll is of registered voters. how many of them will vote? about 35% And another thing...did this poll actually ask people if they could IDENTIFY the majority party in the House? because only 60% of americans can consitently do so.

second, this poll is a national poll. congressional elections are local. we don't get to vote for majority party status. it is clear that dems will pick up some seats b/c most of the close races are held by republicans. but there are only about 30 - 40 seats in play.

these are the races we should focus on, and will actually lend some insight.

i'm not sure why anyone would pay ANY credence to a question that ask's "do you approve of reps or dems in congress?" because you can only vote for or against your member. God i hate the media's coverage of elections.

ThumbingMyWay32

polaris wrote:

yet somehow this will not translate into election results ...

Of course it wont. Keep telling yourself the old media is just shooting it to ya straight. It wont translate because almost every public opinion poll is imbelished if not an outright lie. It would probably stupify even the brightest of the uninformed by simply looking at polling data alone over the past 30 years. One would think there hadn't been a Republican president since Nixon. Then again, funny how he's the newest Democratic poster child isn't it? Prepare yourself for another round of "We must have underestimated voter turnout" on November 3rd. These guys laughably leave out the "...again" ending to that statement each year. It makes Bush's use of the term misunderestimated somewhat justified.

If Democrats intend on ever winning elections they must somehow find a way to inform the public of what they honestly believe in and stop trying to win elections by pointing fingers, calling for resignation after resignation and by just simply telling the American public that they can "do it better." The Democratic party is a party of empty ideas. I'm sure PJ put on some great shows during the Vote for Change tour. But simply put, "voting for change" is no reason to vote for change. It's elementary.

Good luck at the poles Jackasses.

Vedderlution_Baby

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Of course it wont. Keep telling yourself the old media is just shooting it to ya straight. It wont translate because almost every public opinion poll is imbelished if not an outright lie. It would probably stupify even the brightest of the uninformed by simply looking at polling data alone over the past 30 years. One would think there hadn't been a Republican president since Nixon. Then again, funny how he's the newest Democratic poster child isn't it? Prepare yourself for another round of "We must have underestimated voter turnout" on November 3rd. These guys laughably leave out the "...again" ending to that statement each year. It makes Bush's use of the term misunderestimated somewhat justified.

If Democrats intend on ever winning elections they must somehow find a way to inform the public of what they honestly believe in and stop trying to win elections by pointing fingers, calling for resignation after resignation and by just simply telling the American public that they can "do it better." The Democratic party is a party of empty ideas. I'm sure PJ put on some great shows during the Vote for Change tour. But simply put, "voting for change" is no reason to vote for change. It's elementary.

Good luck at the poles Jackasses.

Jackasses are the ones who are more concerned with whether the asshole they're voting for is a dem or a rep. It cannot be said enough...drop party titles and maybe, FUCKING MAYBE, we'll get people in there that will actually make a difference.

ThumbingMyWay32

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Jackasses are the ones who are more concerned with whether the asshole they're voting for is a dem or a rep. It cannot be said enough...drop party titles and maybe, FUCKING MAYBE, we'll get people in there that will actually make a difference.

I'm sorry, but do you have any figures on the number of democrats that voted for Bush in '04? How about '00? I hear a lot of so-called "Republicans" who voted for Bush in '00 that hate him now... Do you know of anyone who voted for Gore in '00 that voted for Bush in '04?

Who cares wether politicians have titles or not? Most lie consistently. Most run on platforms that become nothing more than an election grab.

Also, 8% of this country actively serves in the military. Would it be irrational to believe that the reason that the 3%-6% leads that a democrat may carry into no particular election results in loses by 2%-3% points because those personnel are never polled. Look no further than the results of '06. Is it not laughable Democrats wanted oversees military votes tossed in '00?

Vedderlution_Baby

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

I'm sorry, but do you have any figures on the number of democrats that voted for Bush in '04? How about '00? I hear a lot of so-called "Republicans" who voted for Bush in '00 that hate him now... Do you know of anyone who voted for Gore in '00 that voted for Bush in '04?

Who cares wether politicians have titles or not? Most lie consistently. Most run on platforms that become nothing more than an election grab.

Also, 8% of this country actively serves in the military. Would it be irrational to believe that the reason that the 3%-6% leads that a democrat may carry into no particular election results in loses by 2%-3% points because those personnel are never polled. Look no further than the results of '06. Is it not laughable Democrats wanted oversees military votes tossed in '00?

They point I'm trying to make is way too many people vote down the line, simply because they think that (insert title) is a better choice. If we actually got rid of the titles, then more people would be forced to pay attention to what politicians are saying. I'm not saying everyone does it. I think it's awsome that registered dems and reps actually care enough about the cause to vote who they see fit. It's early and I doubt I'm explaining myself very well.

polaris

Purple Hawk wrote:

have you ever considered that the polling methodologies used are flawed? wow, what are the chances that these polls, and the way they are reported and believed have no basis in reality? is this the left's strategy? to use generic ballots which mean absolutely nothing, to use completely worthless questions like do you approve of the GOP in congress...which has absolutely NOTHING to do with how people vote for their own member of congress. to use samples that include people all eligible adults instead of likely voters which skew the results towards the dems....to build up all this hype...and IF things don't go your way to blame it all on voting machines? do you realize how unattached from reality you are?

ha! ... i'm unattached?? ... firstly, i have considered all your options but have you considered that someone might actually tamper with these machines in order to win? ... if you do not think that is possible - then maybe you should check your own reality ...

secondly ... ebizzie's post pretty much sums it up ... common sense would indicate that these polls however they are worded all say the same thing: discontent with this administration ...

Hope&Anger

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Is it not laughable Democrats wanted oversees military votes tossed in '00?

Just one little eensy-weensy clarification.

The Democrats in 2000 were happy to have absentee ballots from military personnel overseas counted -- when they arrived by the legal deadline. The overseas absentee ballots they were trying to "toss" were those that arrived *after* the deadline. (Oh, and Katharine Harris is learning that what goes around comes around. It's Karma.)

And there was plenty of evidence that the ones that arrived *after* the deadline were "arranged" by military personnel who encouraged voter fraud because the Florida election was so close. (Cable news at the time was showing videotape of an officer addressing a room full of soldiers and telling them that it was not too late, even though it was a couple days after the election.)

Also, I know that the military vote traditionally breaks Republican. But I wonder how long that will last. Republicans threw our soldiers into harm's way without knowing what we were getting into or how to get out. Not to mention the way they've just decimated veteran's benefits -- taking money and medical care away from those who've served their country. There's only so long that people will keep voting against their interests.

RainDog

Hope&Anger wrote:

Also, I know that the military vote traditionally breaks Republican. But I wonder how long that will last. Republicans threw our soldiers into harm's way without knowing what we were getting into or how to get out. Not to mention the way they've just decimated veteran's benefits -- taking money and medical care away from those who've served their country. There's only so long that people will keep voting against their interests.

It still broke Republican in 2004, but the margin narrowed. According to an after election poll (exit maybe? Done by CNN) I read (now this is going by memory here), the military voted 60-40 in Bush's favor. This year, I'm not so sure.

By the way, good post. I had no idea about that little bit of attempted fraud.

ThumbingMyWay32

Hope&Anger wrote:

Just one little eensy-weensy clarification.

The Democrats in 2000 were happy to have absentee ballots from military personnel overseas counted -- when they arrived by the legal deadline. The overseas absentee ballots they were trying to "toss" were those that arrived *after* the deadline. (Oh, and Katharine Harris is learning that what goes around comes around. It's Karma.)

And there was plenty of evidence that the ones that arrived *after* the deadline were "arranged" by military personnel who encouraged voter fraud because the Florida election was so close. (Cable news at the time was showing videotape of an officer addressing a room full of soldiers and telling them that it was not too late, even though it was a couple days after the election.)

Also, I know that the military vote traditionally breaks Republican. But I wonder how long that will last. Republicans threw our soldiers into harm's way without knowing what we were getting into or how to get out. Not to mention the way they've just decimated veteran's benefits -- taking money and medical care away from those who've served their country. There's only so long that people will keep voting against their interests.

The largest federal aid convoy ever assembled should have been turned away because it arrived 2 days after Katrina hit N.O. The billions should've already been spent prior to hurricane season and that convoy should have been sitting at the gates of the city before Katrina even had a name is what should've happend.

............The 17th recount would've produced a Gore victory, right?


Please leave your wondering to yourself. Marines do not need your wondering involved in their decision making. Being a Marine is a career decision. Being a reservist is a calculated-risk. Signing up for the reserve hoping not to be sent to war is a gamble. Thinking 'you' will never be sent in intellectually dishonest. Military personnel do not need to be reminded that peolpe die as a result of warfare. Wars, as battles, are won and lost. Victory is never assured. But that is no factor of one's will to fight. That's part of Democrats problem. And it isn't shocking that that arrogant mindset encourages strong Republican turnout. Your interests aren't the American public's interests. Your interests do not sway public opinion and most certainly do not define American culture.

McCarthy was a villain, the Tet offensive was a vietcong victory and Saddam was just misunderstood. As long as people continue to believe that the country will continue to be severly polarized. Any guesses as to which party pushes these ideologies? Blaming Bush for polarization is silly. I believe the country was nearly as polarized the day after 9/11 as it is today. Show me the evidence that things were ever different. Pictures of Nancy Pelosi smiling alongside Tom Delay on the Capitol Hill steps on 9/12 will not be accepted.

RainDog

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

The largest federal aid convoy ever assembled should have been turned away because it arrived 2 days after Katrina hit N.O. The billions should've already been spent prior to hurricane season and that convoy should have been sitting at the gates of the city before Katrina even had a name is what should've happend.

What the hell are you even talking about? I assume this is some sort of allegory, but I think you've missed the mark.

ThumbingMyWay32

RainDog wrote:

What the hell are you even talking about? I assume this is some sort of allegory, but I think you've missed the mark.

No, that was just a little story for the children. I prefer to get my bleeding hearts started young.

Vedderlution_Baby

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

McCarthy was a villain,quote]


He wasn't?

Hope&Anger

Okay, I'm going to try to keep this as moderate as I possibly can . . .

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

............The 17th recount would've produced a Gore victory, right?

What does this have to do with the military encouraging voter fraud in the immediate aftermath of the initial vote count in Florida? God, when you guys get backed into a corner, you change the subject.

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Please leave your wondering to yourself. Marines do not need your wondering involved in their decision making. Being a Marine is a career decision. Being a reservist is a calculated-risk. Signing up for the reserve hoping not to be sent to war is a gamble. Thinking 'you' will never be sent in intellectually dishonest. Military personnel do not need to be reminded that peolpe die as a result of warfare. Wars, as battles, are won and lost. Victory is never assured. But that is no factor of one's will to fight. That's part of Democrats problem. And it isn't shocking that that arrogant mindset encourages strong Republican turnout. Your interests aren't the American public's interests. Your interests do not sway public opinion and most certainly do not define American culture.

First, your attitude towards reservists is disgusting. They are putting their lives on the line no less than the career officers and enlisted men. I feel nothing but sorry for the fact that they might actually find themselves under your command or serving with you given your appalling lack of respect for them and their sacrifices. And really, your willingness to impugn their will to fight is a scar on the uniform that I assume you wear. Maybe this is based on your own experiences? But I have heard many stories of reservists playing an important supporting role and exhibiting great courage while doing so. If the reservists you've been around aren't doing that, maybe it's a failure of leadership.

Second, your assumption that only the reservists are Democrats while the "true military" are Republicans needs fact checking. The bravest person I know -- the baby brother my mother never gave me -- made a career choice to enter the Army. He was guarding the convoys providing supplies in and out of Fallujah during the siege (suffering the same levels of casualties as the Marines but no one was talking about him and his men). He's NOT a Republican. In fact, my anger about the military operations in Iraq comes straight from him; he's my fact-checker. And he had alot of company among his fellow officers in being appalled by the Bush Administration and its slap-dash handling of this whole thing. (Oh, and he's the one who told me great things about reservists under his command.)

So is he not "really" military because he doesn't conform to your political views? Because he didn't drink your own brand of Kool-Aid?

Third, don't assume that because I'm anti-war, I'm also anti-military. Some of us with loved ones serving in the armed forces are driving ourselves crazy about the war out of fear for those we care about. I know -- he chose that life; he wanted to serve his country. And I couldn't be any prouder of him. Which is what makes me furious with Bush and how easy it was for him to pursue this action. So you can lose your patronizing, "you-don't-know-about-the-military" tone with me.

Finally, you're more than welcome to malign "my interests" as a Democrat. Here are some of "my interests" that you seem to find so repugnant and unAmerican:

-- Providing returning veterans with all the health benefits they need, including mental health treatment.
-- Paying our soldiers enough so that their families don't have to go on food stamps.
-- Making sure that soldiers and their families have adequate housing.
-- That crazy thing called the Powell Doctrine -- you know, objectives, exit strategies, planning, support of the American people and the international community. Or don't they tell you guys about it anymore?

Purple Hawk

polaris wrote:

ha! ... i'm unattached?? ... firstly, i have considered all your options but have you considered that someone might actually tamper with these machines in order to win? ... if you do not think that is possible - then maybe you should check your own reality ...

secondly ... ebizzie's post pretty much sums it up ... common sense would indicate that these polls however they are worded all say the same thing: discontent with this administration ...

that's interesting (actually it isn't.). you are assuming that each competitive congressional election will be decided as a referendum on george w. bush. and that's simply not the case. i understand it's difficult for many here to discuss politics without the cloud of george w bush hanging over them, but he is not the focal point of most americans, like is with you people.

my point about the polls is that they are of all adults. well, only 35% of these people vote in congressional elections, and republicans vote more than dems. so they are really meaningless in the aggregate, and even more meaningless when considering there are only about 40 races up for grabs.

as for being unattached from reality, seriously, you are believing these polls as solid gold, and have an excuse already ready if the Dems can't win the house. Seriously, where were you in Montana in 2002? I just think it's telling that your side has nothing to run on, no positives, it's all Bush, all the time, and if anyone supports him, they are either stupid or have been manipulated by the system. Seriously, take a step back, and you'll see how ridiculous it all sounds.