Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Poll Numbers And Indicators

Harry Reid has said that the President’s poor poll numbers are indicative of his failures as a President:

“The poll numbers we’ve seen of the president, who has a 34 percent approval rating, masks the approval of the vice president, which is down to about 18 percent. But these poll numbers are indicative of the failures of this presidency.”

So then I wonder what the Senator makes of this poll number:

According to the May 10-13, 2007, Gallup Poll, 29% of Americans approve and 64% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job.

And, probably more importantly since those polled are the Democrats’ base, this number:

[Harry Reid’s] approval rating sank to 33 percent [in a Daily Kos poll]

I’m sure there’ll be all sorts of media stories about the President’s low approval numbers, but don’t expect to hear much about Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the congressional Demcorats’ poor numbers.

Comments

Avatar for dallas

According to the May 10-13, 2007, Gallup Poll, 29% of Americans approve and 64% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job.

I believe it.  The Dems only came into power 5 months ago.  A little more time is needed to overcome the sorry job the Republican Congress did.

dallas on May 30, 2007 at 01:02 pm

dallas, I agree with you about the sorry job done by the last (Republican-lead) Congress…

But this Congresses popularity has nose-dived primarily due to their own actions, or lack of them.  It is patently obvious that they don’t intend to keep any of the promises they made during the primaries, for example their lie about not trying to impose a surrender date on the Iraq War.  No ethics overhaul.  Pork-barrel spending has gone through the ceiling.  Almost no passed legislation, but plenty of payback at the Republicans. etc etc

What a bunch of losers.

Carrick on May 30, 2007 at 06:36 pm

Carrick/dallas: For all the bashing of the Republican-led Congress, no Dem has taken the position that he or she would have spent less.  As a matter of fact, the looming Dem $400 billion dollar tax increase tells us they would have spent even more.  Nice try, though.  The “sorry job” is only in comparison with Conservative standards of limited govt.  It isn’t a “sorry job” by Dem standards, so once again, the Dems are being hypocritical to criticize Republican spending.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 30, 2007 at 07:38 pm
Avatar for Dallas

Carrick: We do agree that the Republican congress has done a sorry job.  I do have a feeling though that if the situation was reversed, you would make the arguement that the Republicans have only been in power 5 months.  Reality is government moves slow.  While I will wait to pass judgment on this Dem-congress, they have at least raised minium wage; but those sissies also caved with the Iraqi funding bill.  They were elected mostly to end the quagmire in Iraq.  I will give them a year, before I totally make up my mind. 

After all, the Republicans ruled congress for over 10 years and had the White House and Congress for 6.  Apparantly this was th best they could do while they were in total control - The American people were “polled” last November and voted the Republicans butts out.  Good thing for you conservatives not more were up for re-election.

As for the pork-barrel spending....Check out what the Republicans have done over the last 6 years.  The Dems have had virtually none.  Talk about the pot and the kettle...HA

Robert: You can say what you want, but a sorry job is a sorry job.  Obviously, the biggest bashing the Rep-led congress took was last November.  You can anticipate the the new congress WILL BE sorry, but the last one WAS. The fact that we have a new one PROVES that it was.

Dallas on May 31, 2007 at 06:09 am

The fact that we have a new one PROVES that it was.

One-sided MSM propaganda barrage about corruption, plus Dem candidates running way to the right.  All it proves is that the MSM is an effective propaganda tool for the Dems.  Even with the constant barrage of lies, half-truths and fabrications about Iraq, the American public still recognizes the need to fight the terrorists in Iraq until we win.
The big Dem majority in th Senate is composed of one guy who can’t attend, due to brain damage.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 31, 2007 at 06:53 am

Dallas:

I do have a feeling though that if the situation was reversed, you would make the arguement that the Republicans have only been in power 5 months

It’s a poor argument regardless of who makes it.  I understand that good legislation takes time, but the Democrats have wasted much of their political capital trying to leave a mark on Bush.  Plus they promised an insane amount in the first 100 hours.  Of that 100 hours, what do they have to show in terms of legislative progress? Virtually nothing.

After all, the Republicans ruled congress for over 10 years

Do you mean “held a majority in both House and Senate for over 10 years”?  That’s not true.

As for the pork-barrel spending....Check out what the Republicans have done over the last 6 years.  The Dems have had virtually none.  Talk about the pot and the kettle...HA

You need to check your facts.  Yearly “pork” for the Republicans was about $20 billion over all sources.  The Democrats matched that with a single emergency funding bill. And I’m sure we can anticipate a continuation of that pattern.

Under the Republicans, pork was not the budget buster many people gave it credit for being.  In fact, it is arguable that we generate more federal revenue from this type of spending, properly controlled and monitored, than it costs for the spending. The main honest, informed complaint has been the corrupting influence of hidden earmark measures, where the money is neither scrutinized for sensibility (for example, duplicate awards to the same RFP have occurred in the past) nor for quid pro quo arrangements or even Murthaesque political payoffs.

The BIG budget problem has been runaway entitlement spending.  We have gone from 50% to nearly 70% of our budget being eaten up by entitlements.  Unlike pork, much of this spending actually is anti-growth.  Namely it encourages people to NOT work, because the federal government is paying for their costs of living for them.

I actually think the Republicans were punished for failing to adhere to their conservative ideals.  This includes not only not controlling entitlements, but actively dumping more gasoline on the fire.  And it includes turning their back on accountability in pork-spending, and for turning their back on the the security issues associated with porous borders.

Carrick on May 31, 2007 at 07:02 am
Avatar for dallas

One-sided MSM propaganda barrage about corruption, plus Dem candidates running way to the right.  All it proves is that the MSM is an effective propaganda tool for the Dems.  Even with the constant barrage of lies, half-truths and fabrications about Iraq, the American public still recognizes the need to fight the terrorists in Iraq until we win.

Are you saying there was no corruption.  The last time I checked no Dems were recently (past 4 years +/-)in jail for corruption (cunningham) and there are far more republicans under a “corruption cloud” than Dems.  That is not propaganda. That is fact.  I do have to give you the Dem that had $92,000 in his freezer - F***ing idoit (I can be objective).  Also, please give me an example of a Dem running WAY to the the right.  At most some have become a little more moderate.  The right should take a lesson, because most of America is around the middle.  You can preach propaganda all you want, but the fact remains, the American people put a lot of conservative congressmen out of a job.  And that slim majority in the Senate… as I said before, the republicans are lucky more of them were not up for re-election.

My prediction on what the American public thinks about Iraq war...come fall many more Republicans will go against the president on this issue. Why you ask, because election time is coming around.

To put the war in perspective - Virtually nobody disagrees with the war in Afgahnistan.  Why you ask, because they were directly responsible for 9/11.  Iraq - not so much.

dallas on May 31, 2007 at 08:10 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.