Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Congress, MA Sen (CNN 1/22-24)

Topics: poll

CNN / Opinion Research Corporation
1/22-24/10; 1,009 adults, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(CNN release)

National

Do you think it is good for the country or bad for the country that the Democratic party is in control of Congress?
45% Good, 48% Bad

Favorable / Unfavorable
Democratic Party: 46 / 46
Republican Party: 44 / 45

Which of the following statements comes closest to your view of the way the Democratic party and Republican party have been dealing with the country's problems:
48% You are angry at both parties
9% You are only angry at the Republicans
11% You are only angry at the Democrats
32% You are not angry at either party

Now here are a few questions concerning the special election in Massachusetts in which a Republican won the seat in the U.S. Senate to replace Ted Kennedy, who died last year...

Until that special election, the Democrats had sixty votes in the U.S. Senate which allowed them to pass legislation without any votes from Republican Senators. Now the Democrats still have a large
majority but cannot pass bills without cooperation from at least one Republican Senator. Do you think this change will be good for the country or bad for the country?

70% Good for the country, 28% Bad for the country

Would you describe the results of the special election in Massachusetts as a major defeat for the Democratic party, a minor setback for the Democratic party, or something that does not affect the
Democratic party at all?

38% Major defeat, 44% Minor setback, 17% No effect

 

Comments
sjt22:

Do you think it is good for the country or bad for the country that the Democratic party is in control of Congress?

I call BS on this questions. Since when are the Democrats in control of Congress? Especially after last week's election gave the Republicans a majority in both houses.

____________________

Xenobion:

What planet do you live on?

____________________

LordMike:

Voters don't reward failure, and the congress has not been able to pass any meaningful legislation and wasted their mandate for change by being more of the same.

Of course the village will interpret it differently, but these polls never ask "why" people are dissatisfied, letting the cable media fill in the blanks. And since the village is wired to be Republican, guess what their answer is.... then it becomes self fulfilling as congress moves to the right and loses even more support 'cos no one respects a coward.

____________________

Cyril Washbrook:

@Xenobion: I'm pretty sure sjt is being ironic - i.e. ridiculing the reaction by Democrats (and the media) to Brown's win in MA. As Village Voice pointed out in one of its headlines, such is the nature of the overreaction that you could be forgiven for thinking that the story was "Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate".

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/01/scott_brown_win.php

____________________

Uchenna Oguekwe:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your view of the way the Democratic party and Republican party have been dealing with the country's problems:
48% You are angry at both parties
9% You are only angry at the Republicans
11% You are only angry at the Democrats
32% You are not angry at either party

This proves that this isn't a Dem problem,but an incumbent problem.

____________________

JMSTiger:

Uchenna Oguekwe,

The Democratic Party has complete control of the Federal Government. When there is this much anger and anxiety out there, the party in power will be the one to take the beating in the off-year elections. This is what happened in 1966 (to the Democrats), 1974 (to the GOP), 1982 (to the GOP), 1994 (to the Democrats) and 2006 (to the GOP). I agree that the people dislike both parties greatly, but they will punish the Democrats much more in 2010 because they are the ones with all the power. This is what happened in '94. Not one Republican incumbent lost, while the Democrats got destroyed. The media attempted for a short while to call the 1994 bloodbath an election against incumbents, but they had to drop that line after it became obvious who was getting hauled out of town on a rail. A handful of Republican incumbent House members, Senators and governors will be tossed this November, but the mass of the carnage will be on the Democratic side.

I continue to maintain that if the elections were held today, Democrats would lose 30+ seats in the House, 6-7 seats in the Senate and 5-6 governor's seats.

____________________

Uchenna Oguekwe:

@JMSTiger

Doubtful. There are more Repub choosing not to run for re-election than Dems and there are places out there were Dems can pick up as well as save some seats, like CT and NH. In some cases, they may have to run someone else instead of the incumbent, but yes they can still win. The party that wins the most victories this time around is the party that can run the most Washington outsiders and capture the populous message. Look for thing to heat up as the Dems push jobs, regulatory reform, and taxing wall street. The American people will see where both sides really stand based on these three things.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I honestly think the Democrats will lose quite a few seats next November, but if they play their cards right, they can pick up One non-incumbent seat like Missouri or NH. Perhaps the independent voters will use their common sense and vote for the better candidate, not against the party that is in power. Just a little trivia for you, Democrats got killed in 1994, yet Tom Dashle was elected for the first time in a Republican state of SD. Of course he lost 12 years later as an incumbent, but if Daschle could do it in SD in 1994, the Democrats can do better than expected if they have good candidates.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I like the idea of Goodman running as a fresh face in NV and Harry Reid stepping down. Blanche Lincoln should be challenged as well. The goal of the party is to have the most winnable candidate. This guy running against Mccain in Arizona is seriously out of his mind. Hayworth is a talk radio guy, telling people that torture is good, and said that Mccain doesn't believe in the term "Islamofascism". What does that phrase mean? Left Wingers still can't figure it out, so some of us used Islamofascists as meaning people who believe in Christian superiority against all Islamic people, and that means it is okay to use torture against Islamic people but, for non-islam aliens, they have more rights in judicial courts. It is true; a Mexican guy trafficking drugs who is caught in NYC is tried in a civilian court, but if a Islamic guy attacks the CIA or something, many conservatives think he should be tried by the military? Isn't there a double standard there? I think if the terrorist is caught on foreign soil, try him or her in a tribunal, but if it is on American soil, try him like any other suspect who isn't an American citizen.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR