Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Generic Ballot (Pew 6/16-20)

Topics: National , poll

Pew Research Center
6/16-20/10; 1,802 adults, 3% margin of error
1,496 registered voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Pew release)

National

2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
Registered voters: 45% Republican, 45% Democrat (chart)

Would you like to see your representative in Congress be re-elected in the next congressional election, or not?
Registered voters: 49% Yes, 34% No

Regardless of how you feel about your own representative, would you like to see most members of Congress re-elected in the next congressional election, or not?
Registered voters: 31% Yes, 56% No

Do you think of your vote for Congress this fall as a vote FOR Barack Obama, as a vote AGAINST Barack Obama, or isn't Barack Obama much of a factor in your vote?
Registered voters: 23% For, 28% Against, 47% Not a factor

Generally what is MORE important to you this year...
Registered voters:
41% Having new faces in office
50% Having experienced people who know how the government works

Job Approval / Disapproval (among all adults)
Reps in Congress: 31 / 55
Dems in Congress: 35 / 53

Party ID (among all adults)
34% Democrat, 27% Republican, 34% independent (chart)

 

Comments
StatyPolly:

And these are ADULTS, not even RV's. By a pollster that usually has one of the largest leftist house effects.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Okay, they are RV's where it matters..

____________________

Farleftandproud:

You never know how the generic ballot really breaks down at the state level. The Democrats if they are well organized can perhaps have a year like the GOP had in 2002. They lost governors all over the country; we'll lose in a lot of gubernatorial races, but turnout will be what will make the difference. Strong turnout and organization among the Democratic base, and the GOP getting winning the independent vote by less than 10 percent, we'll still have control of the house and senate.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

This was conducted during a bad Obama week. It was conducted before Boehner's arragant statements about taxpayers paying for the oil spill damage instead of BP, and his quest to raise the age of social security. I would say it isn't as bad to raise the age of social security as it is to kill it like R. Paul and S. Angle, but it was really a thoughtless comment and I think many moderates will see that as well.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

Last Pew poll taken on the day the healthcare monstrosity was shoved down our throats: Dem 44 Rep 44.

Wow! Look at that healthcare bump.

They talk about that troublesome enthusiasm gap again, too. Republicans have a +14 in enthusiasm over Democrats.

Democrats are losing voters under 30 (57% democrat) plus only half of those voters say they are likely to vote this year.

The democrats have also lost independents. Now, 44% of independents plan to vote for republicans - the same number as 1994. They also have a 20% enthusiasm gap for voting for republicans over democrats.

Other turnout problems - only 60% of voters under 50 say they are likely to vote. 79% of voters over 50 plan to vote and the majority of them plan to vote for republicans.

But don't worry, dems. The democrats have a better approval than the republicans (35% vs 31%). I'm sure none of these other numbers mean anything. The public is going to fall in love with HCR, unemployment will drop 5 points, deficits will all be gone, the stock market is going up 5,000 points, we won't have any more illegal immigrants, and the democrats will have a great election in November.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Farleft,

How many people do you think heard the statements by Boehner? Probably less than 1% of the population.

Does anyone know what the enthusiasm gap was in 2002?

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

I can't wait for the democrats to be in the minority. It's much more fun to complain incessantly while accepting no responsibility whatsoever.

____________________

Country Club Repub:

Aaron in tx:"It's much more fun to complain incessantly while accepting no responsibility whatsoever."

That sounds like a description of our little president.

____________________

vincent106:

LOL. Yeah I guess the far left loons dont like the tides turning on them. They were content to complain about Bush starting before he got into office and now, just 15 months into Obamas term, they are whining about the criticism. What wimps.

____________________

StatyPolly:

FM,

Looks like a slight GOP adv in 02.

10 trumps 94 gap by a healthy margin.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/140819/republicans-midterm-voting-enthusiasm-tops-prior-years.aspx

People often fall into the "seat gain" trap. It's a brand new game every two years. Sure, incumbents normally have a campaign advantage, but for 'rithmetic purposes, incumbents numbers are irrelevant. For GOP not to pick up 40 seat minimum required to gain majority, Dems would have to win congressional popular vote. Based on almost every poll the past few weeks, FOR NOW, this is not at all likely to happen.

____________________

Field Marshal:

So it looks like enthusiasm is a big driver and possibly has a higher correlation to seats gained than the generic ballot. Just looking at 2002, the Dems had a small lead on the generic while the GOP had higher enthusiasm and the GOP gained seats.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Aaron,

What do you think of the corrupt Dems in congress not passing a budget this year?

____________________

StatyPolly:

Enthusiasm = turnout.

In 08, voters didn't magically see the light and became more liberal. It's just that higher percentage of liberals than probably EVER before came out, while cons were depressed by "perceived" poor performance and a few scandals of GOP, combined with low enthusiasm for the McCain/Palin ticket.

Looks like the reverse is shaping up in 10. FOR NOW. Libs are pretty disheartened and cons are as riled up as ever.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Right wing bloggers on pretty much every site are incredibly enthusiastic about the '10 elections, and this enthusiasm gap is certainly evident in the polls. Imagine for a second, however, a month after a new congress takes over (the GOP having won say 100 seats in the house and 15 in the senate). We now have divided government with the face of the Dems being Obama, and the face of the GOP as McConnell and Boehner. Ouch. Nothing gets done at all, and the parties are held more or less equally responsible. Obama has the bully pulpit which he uses to make intellegent arguments and actually attempt to engage in debate. McConnell and Boehner attempt to govern using bumper-sticker-ready platitudes. It doesn't take the public all that long to catch on to who is actually serious about governing. The '10 elections become the blatantly obvious and ultimately infamous dead-cat bounce of the GOP. Be careful what you wish for right-wingers.

____________________

Field Marshal:

You mean like in 1994 and 2001? Oh wait....

Its unbelievable to me what people believe.

____________________

vincent106:

A majority of people are against what this government is doing so the republicans could and should do nothing and will win the praise of a majority of voters.

____________________

dpearl:

I wish the question about whether they would like to see their own representative re-elected (49% yes, 34% no) was broken down by which party held their congressional seat. SImilarly for the enthusiasm questions. Doesn't the key to understanding how many seats will change hands lie in knowing something about whose districts these folks are in.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Check out Lombardo's post under Article and Analysis.

/blogs/obamas_summer_window_of_opport.html

____________________

Crimsonite:

First of all, it should be obvious that generic ballot doesn't translate into seat gain, it should more or less translate into percetage of seats won in total, because it reflects what percentage of people will vote for each party, giving a rough estimate of the percentage of seats they should win out of the toal 435. It makes sense that enthusiasm plays a greater role in seat gain because it more strongly reflects which party is going to do better than the last election. However, seat gain can never absolutely be or really ever even generally be predicted by anything because house seats are based on districts that are often gerrymandered or obtusely formed. Eg. Massachuestts nor the whole North East certainly is not 100% democratic and look at their congressional representation in the house.

Second, as FM has repeated, gridlock, such as under Bill Clinton from 1995 to 2000 is when stuff actually gets done and compromise happens because each party is given partial responsibility for governing. Unfortunately, from 2007-08 when Dems had Congress, they were too focused on political gain that they wouldn;t even try to compromise. Thus, the economic situation went from not so go, to horrendous.

____________________

sjt22:

Unfortunately, from 2007-08 when Dems had Congress, they were too focused on political gain that they wouldn;t even try to compromise. Thus, the economic situation went from not so go, to horrendous.

Sure, it was the Dems 2 years in power, and not the 6 years of Republican dominated government, which lit the fuse for all the disasters which we are now dealing with.

____________________

melvin:

The Republicans will not take back the Congress if the generic ballot is tied,they have to be leading by 6% or more to win back the House. This is not 1994 the Demographics have changed.

____________________

melvin:

The only website who shows the significant change in the Demographics is CQ politics,go checkout their map for the House of Represenatives.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Crimsonite said: as FM has repeated, gridlock, such as under Bill Clinton from 1995 to 2000 is when stuff actually gets done and compromise happens because each party is given partial responsibility for governing.

The biggest difference is that there are very few moderate members in the GOP caucus. Pretty much all but 3 GOP senators are as far to the right as Pelosi is to the left, and if they are not, they are required to pretend to be and act as if they are. They need to play to the hard right base in order to avoid primary challenges. They will feel obligated to base their behavior on the intense personal hatred that their base feels toward Obama (since he is a Kenyan muslim terrorist/communist). This is exactly how they will govern, unable to do anything except take on Quixotic hard right causes which he will rightfully veto. The GOP will need quite a bit of luck not to get blamed for a govt. shutdown like in Clintons presidency. And if they don't shut down govt, their base will be furious. In addition the face of the GOP will finally be defined...as McConnell and Boehner. Quite a bad situation I would say.

____________________

Field Marshal:

The biggest difference is that there are very few moderate members in the GOP caucus. Pretty much all but 3 GOP senators are as far to the right as Pelosi is to the left, and if they are not, they are required to pretend to be and act as if they are.

There will be more moderate members of the GOP than in the Democratic party after 2012. That excuse and the rest of the post, is pure BS.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

The GOP could moderate, and be competitive, or they could be held hostage by a hypothetical group of crazy people who wear funny hats. Which seems more likely? If by some miracle there is a significant caucus of moderate republicans, they will quickly be driven out by the Tea Party. I mean look at Bennett in Utah, 84% conservative rating and kicked out for not being crazy enough! The GOP can either moderate and survive, or go out in crazed blaze of tea party glory. They seem to have made their choice.

____________________

Crimsonite:

Tea Parties are not necessarily conservative, they want less taxes and smaller government. And they don't really have a general opinion on social issues. So don't expect tea parties to pull anyone solely to the right.

And there can still be compromise, such as the welfare reform under Clinton and the Repub congress, even if the parties are opposed in general. THey both at least say they want to reduce the budget. I think they would find somethings to cut if they had to create the budjet together.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

FM said: There will be more moderate members of the GOP than in the Democratic party after 2012 (translation: I know you are but what am I?). That excuse and the rest of the post, is pure BS (translation: I refuse to listen, and if you keep trying to convince me I'll hold my breath!!!). Did your toddler take over while you went to the john?

Crimsonite: I do not believe the Tea Party will be pushing anyone to be more moderate any time soon. Look at the evidence the gop caucus has provided for how they will govern! The inescapable fact is the the Obama health care plan greatly resembles the GOP provide alternative to Hillarycare from the 90's, yet it got not a single GOP vote in this congress. The GOP is in a vastly different place now.

____________________

tjampel:

When conservatives go after Bennett (successfully) and Lindsay Graham (would have been successful had he been up for reelection this yr) you know that something is fundamentally wrong with the right wing of the party. These are the folks they should be keeping. They are reliable and principled conservatives. There crime? Wanting to EVER have anything at all to do with Dems.

Now there are of course also plenty of venal and unprincipled ones. They seem to have just as much or more support.
For example:

Vitter (one word...diapers), Ensign (let my folks pay off the woman I was banging; I'll get her hubby set up with a nice lobbying gig and we'll even hire the not-so-swift son), Blunt (he bedded a tobacco lobbyist while still married, dumped the wife and wedded the woman he'd bedded...I wonder how he will vote on tobacco subsidies?).

These people are having no problems with the base.

Something is wrong there. And it's hurting our country; it's not just a sarcastic rant by a lib. Graham was (past tense of course, he's kind of shut down lately as his favorables have dropped off the map) one of the few Republicans unafraid to work with Dems on important issues. Today there's virtually no bipartisan action; everything's hyperpolarized. I expect it to get still worse... until things just start to fall apart, that is.

Gridlock may be great for some spending initiatives where one side thinks the other's policies are costing the country too much. It sucks when the fate of the planet is in the balance, as with energy policy/climate change. It further sucks when you have the likes of John McCain introducing an Immigration bill in 2006 and now behaving as if this same bill was introduced by Hugo Chavez...all because he has to go harder and harder to his right just to beat an unlikable Congressional loser and infomercial pitchman

____________________

melvin:

I feel sorry for the Republican party

____________________

Field Marshal:

bigfoot/tjample,

You speak about the GOP moving right as if the same EXACT thing is not happening in the democratic party. Look at Lincoln being challenged from the left for not being liberal enough. How about Spector and Bennet?

The Dems are so far left you can no longer see them. I mean, you have that dingbat/moonbat Pelosi as speaker. The most liberal senator in the house according to this website is president! You have the nutty Frank, Dodd and Franken destroying this country's financial sector.

Take off the ideological blinders. But really, i hope the left continues to think the right is moving too far right. It will continue to prevent them from seeing what's really going on- and which every poll has been showing- that they are losing the moderates VERY quickly.

Melvin, and they feel sorry for you...

____________________

lfivepoints69:

This was taken before the Republicans started apologizing to BP and calling the Great Bush Recession an 'ant'.

____________________

seg:

Aaron_in_TX:
Will being in the minority be a blessing?
I have said so, myself, but that assumes the majority can and does take responsibility.

The democrats did not take responsiblity for problems in 2006-2008, and that worked well for them, mostly because people knew a Republican was president.

Gingrich was an enormous help to Clinton, helping him pivot to the middle. I wonder if Obama will pivot to the middle. Do you think so?

I think what we will see is the House passing bills that demos in the Senate kill or Obama vetoes. If the Republicans look like they are passing bills that are both constructive and moderate, Obama will lose by vetoing them. If Obama vetoes bills that seem off-base, he will win.

If Obama signs and takes credit for constructive bills, he will win (as did Clinton). But only if the economy improves.

It may not. In 2000-2001, we had a modest double-dip that pulled out into a sustained recovery thanks to easy money. Currently, we seem to be dipping again after already having sustained easy money and a much high debt load.

Worse, Obama has convinced the business community that he will demonize them and throw them under the bus even if they suck up to him. They have nothing to lose by fighting him. Furthermore, they are more and more convinced that it is time to hunker down and wait out the tax increases and regulatory assault. It is not the time to expand or hire as long as it lasts.

In conclusion, I am increasingly doubtful that we will see a replay of the benign Republican congress/moderate demo President scenario.

It is extremely difficult to unseat a president running for re-election, but it has happened before to a very similar democrat: Jimmy Carter.

As to sneers about the Republican House and Senate leadership. If trends continue, there will be a LOT of new Republican congressmen. I would not be surprised to see them dump Boehner for Ryan. After all, they will be told incessantly that Obama is coming for them with energized young voters in 2012.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"The GOP can either moderate and survive, or go out in crazed blaze of tea party glory."

"dingbat/moonbat Pelosi as speaker. The most liberal senator in the house according to this website ."

"Tea Parties are not necessarily conservative"

The problem here is that we have no objective standard of "left" or "right," which imo, is one of the primary drawbacks of our two party system. The democrats are "centre-right" from a global perspective, while the republicans would be "hard-right," although there's really not THAT much space between them (in some cases hardly any space at all). They're all in the same ballpark playing the same game, just arguing about the speed or style of play.

Our elections are generally the moderate right vs. the somewhat less moderate right in a global perspective. It'd be as if Nicholas Sarkozy and Phillippe de Villiers ran against each other in France (with a little of Jean Marie Le Pen's anti-immigrationist sentiment thrown in to the Villiers side). Of course those two represent the same slice of the electorate in France - more than 65% of the people have other positions.

It's really laughable to hear people call Barack Obama a socialist. Socialists don't even think single payer health care is adequate. They certainly don't agree with trade agreements like NAFTA, as Obama does.

This site helps puts things into perspective.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

I love this quote:

"While a commitment to universal healthcare shifts the candidate to the left, what are we to make of tax-payer funded corporate healthcare ? The United States seems to be in the throes of a unique political formula: socialism for some corporations and private enterprise for most individuals."

Or as Jon Stewart put it: "if Obama's a socialist, he's dyslexic." No real leftist would be for the corporate welfare both our parties have engaged in. Leftists fundamentally distrust corporations and would rather 1) end their existence or 2) change their philosophy to such a degree that they place human welfare above profit margins

The U.S. doesn't have NEAR the political diversity of say, the UK.

A major part of the problem is the lack of civics education in America. We cut that from the schools so they can learn how to do enough algebra to pass a test (then forget it), while we let cable news "edutain" us about politics, which is all blather.

____________________

tjampel:

Field Marshal:

I was talking about the right. I guess your non-response regarding the right (your method is to say...the other side does it too) means that I'm correct or that you don't care to address anything happening in your party. You're quite happy to address the flaws you see in my party, as usual.

In the case of Blanch Lincoln you're right. There was a definite desire to purge her from the party by the left and unions. However another big concern was that she was DOA in the general and Halter might have had a fighting chance (before Boozer got in and blew away the field) because he wasn't an entrenched Washington politician like Blanche. With challenges from the right in your party electability is not an issue from what I've seen thus far.

Bennett isn't a true incumbent at all. He was appointed to fill the seat vacated by Salazar. He's only slightly to the right of Romanoff. This isn't a grassroots take down of an entrenched incumbent. It's the campaign of someone who was spurned for the seat taking on the guy that got it. It's wrong to include this race here. It's a poor example because, given the dynamics of this race it would have happened the same way in 2002,2004, 2006, 2008.

Specter's opponent is a moderate Dem. I posted from a Time mag blog on that a few days ago on this. His liberal rating is far lower than many of his peers (it's 77%). Indeed he won the more conservative Dems in the primary while Specter was winning the inner city vote. The issues were personal with Specter as they were with Parker Griffin. Switchers don't always get the best reception from the new constituents (who used to be the opposition).

I don't think these races compare qualitatively (or quantitatively, as we shall see) with the challenges faced by say, Lindsay Graham, because there we're talking about his own constituency abandoning him for a generic conservative by something like 52/35 at this point and sinking. Graham is a true conservative in my book; no one's currently challenging him; yet SC Republicans appear fed up. What gives? None of the 3 candidates you mentioned have had such abysmal favorables within their own party. Something deeper is at work here. I wanted to explore that. You avoided even addressing it. Do you have any opinion on this? Or do you refuse to speculate on your own party?

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Will being in the minority be a blessing?"

It makes it where you can play offense and not defense, where the majority has to do both. Plus as long as you've got more than 40 votes in the senate (hard to go under that) you can stop pretty much whatever you want.

Being in the minority means you can complain and complain about health care, the deficit, etc... but offer nothing more than vague pronouncements on what to do about them.

The democrats did it well. After a good number of them supported the wars, they then started to cheer in triumph over every casualty in Iraq once people started to perceive the war as a mistake. All the while none of them had a specific exit strategy of their own...just opposition to Bush.

"a very similar democrat: Jimmy Carter."

I don't know what similarities you see in those two men. Carter was 1) deeply religious, 2) uncharismatic, 3) waaay too honest for his own good, 4) former military, 5) a micro-manager, 6) brought in mostly his own people - not former JFK/LBJ staffers

Obama is 1) not very religious, 2) charismatic, 3) good at the normal political obfuscation - neither more or less of a liar than other politicians (imo somewhat less of one than Bill/Hillary Clinton), 4) no military background, 5) a delegative leadership style 7) two-thirds of his admin are Clinton admin veterans

An NYT story from March indicated that Obama was ready to capitulate on health care after the Brown election and basically do anything the 2-3 moderate republicans wanted to get some sort of package through. It was Pelosi who didn't accept that. So yes, I think Obama will blow with the wind. He's no ideologue and has proven it several times.

"Obama has convinced the business community that he will demonize them and throw them under the bus"

How is he hostile to business? By wanting them to (gasp!) help pay for their employees health care expenses?

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

To further comment on the Carter comparison:

Everything bad that could have happened to Carter happened in 1979-80. The Iran-hostage crisis, fuel shortages, Soviets invading Afghanistan, rising interest rates & inflation. If those things hadn't happened so late in his term, he likely would have won.

Carter was also an "outsider" and had very bad relations with congress (else Ted Kennedy would not have challenged him for the nomination - an extreme insult). This is why I'm skeptical of "outsider" candidates. You have to work within the system to effect change. If you want domestic legislation to pass, you should vote for an insider.

Can you name me signature domestic legislation signed by Carter?

All that matters for the 2012 election is what happens in 2012. If the economy remains bad, Obama will probably lose, but I find it unlikely for it to stay bad for that long. What's happening right now really doesn't matter. Ask George H.W. Bush how much your approval rating matters when you're 2 years into your term.

____________________

Bigmike:

A day or two ago I stated that my own prediction, as it stands today, is that the GOP will make gains but come up short of taking the house or the senate. Here is my reasoning that in Nov they will take both.

The economy: Everyone is downgrading their growth forcast. I saw a CNN headline about the bottom falling out of the housing market. And even modest regular gains in employment will not get us where we need to be by Nov. There are only 4 monthly unemployment numbers that will come out before Nov. While I don't like the idea of conservatives gaining from other peoples misfortune, that is the world we live in. Face it, without the 08 economic meltdown BO vs JM would have been a lot closer. BOTH sides use the economy to their advantage.
Best case for Dems - Small bump from minor improvements in economy
Worst case for Dems - Double dip
Most likely - They lose a few extra seats because economy gets slightly worse than today

Scandals or stupid comments: The worst that can hurt the GOP is a small number of candidates get caught up. There is no on member of the party who can really hurt the whole group, no matter how stupid they get. The Dems on the other hand have BO, Pelosi, Reid, and the GOP's bestest buddy, Joe Biden.
Best case for Dems - Two or three GOP candidates shoot themselves in the foot.
Worst case for Dems - Major gaffe by BO
Most likely - Biden says something stupid, dragging them down a point or two.

Turnout: In 08 BO brought as many as 10 million people to the polls. Libs and minorities came out in record numbers. BO isn't on the ticket this year.
Best case for Dems - Small drop in turnout
Worst case for Dems - Huge drop in turnout
Most likely - Closer to worst case than best case.

Immigration: Still no action from Washington. One side wants the border closed and no amnesty. The other side wants open borders and amnesty. Neither side is gonna get what they want. And the Dems are in power.
Best case for Dems - Nothing changes
Worst case for Dems - Both sides are mad at them
Most likely - They lose a few extra seats for making no one happy.

Disaster: If the govt does a bang up job, they are just doing their job. And whatever they do, it won't be enough to please everyone.
Best case for Dems - Nothing happens
Worst case for Dems - Major disaster
Most likely - Lets hope nothing happens. The oil spill continues to drag them down a little, but it is not really the govts fault.

Bottom line - Little or no possible upside for Dems, the with possibility of a lot of downside. The GOP takes both houses of Congress. It's just a question of by how many.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Biden's been saying stupid stuff since he plagiarized that speech back in 1988. Everyone knows he puts his foot in his mouth, no one cares.

During the campaign he said FDR got on the TV after the stock market crash or something ridiculous like that. It meant nothing.

A lot of the problems with the economy lately appear to be global. There's little either party can do about that but it will drag down the dems, for sure.

Again, it's not as if this is unprecedented. Just look back at 1982. Reagan had 10% unemployment, problems in Lebanon, increasing deficit, his detractors hated him more than ever, people protesting about jobs, etc... It looked very bad. Then things started to get better (the detractors thought it would never get better).

I'm not convinced dems will have terrible turnout. It will be reduced, but not catastrophic. They've shown they can still turn out votes in house districts. That will save some of them.

____________________

docboss:

The Republican party must be the most pathetic political party on Earth. After a year of telling the world how horrible has Obama has been, how a revolution is brewing, how they are guaranteed to win back the house, etc, they ARE tied with the party that has control of both legislative branches and the presidency, in the midst of a recession. Brilliant job GOP.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Tjample,

I was talking about the right. I guess your non-response regarding the right (your method is to say...the other side does it too) means that I'm correct or that you don't care to address anything happening in your party. You're quite happy to address the flaws you see in my party, as usual.

I said that BOTH parties are pushing farther away from the center. Its undeniable. But to criticize the GOP for it while not mentioning the Dems doing it, and have been doing it for much longer time, is disingenuous.

docboss,

The generic ballot was tied in 1994 as well. How'd that work out for the Dems?

____________________

hoosier_gary:

The democrats new tactic of actively searching for gaffes, embarassing moments on camera, and petty little statements to throw mud on republicans is going to bite them in the ass. People are looking at the issue the dems are trying to make with Boehner and saying, "You idiots! We have 10% unemployment and you are playing these kind of stupid childish partisan games?"

The democrats don't look like leaders right now - they look like a classroom full of spoiled bratty 13 year old rich kids. Obama is starting to look like a little boy throwing tantrums. You expect him to start stomping his feet and calling people booger heads.

Obama has a 45% approval and congress has a 20% approval. Obama has They aren't helping it by looking like a bunch of nasty arrogant elitists.

Only 29% believe that the stimulus helped the economy. 43% believe that it hurt the economy.

If the democrats don't get off of this binge of screamy-meemy nastiness they are going to make their losses even worse. They don't want to hear an argument about what Boehner did or didn't say. They want plans, answers, and solutions. Their attempt to fix the economy was a total failure. They need a new plan - fast.

____________________

Field Marshal:

New pew release shows enthusiasm for June. 56% of republicans are enthused to vote, higher than in 1994. The GOP advantage is +14, 1 point shy of 1994.

http://people-press.org/report/630/

____________________

hoosier_gary:

And what do you have today? Instead of taking an initiative on immigration reform, Obama is stomping his feet and whining that the problem is all the republicans fault.

Obama is trying to convince people that the Bush immigration plan, that people hated in 2006, and he openly mocked and opposed, is now his plan and they should love it now.

I didn't like the Bush plan when Bush proposed it and I still don't like it now that Obama has proposed it.

But instead of doing something positive that people can get behind, he is acting like a spoiled brat again and playing politics instead of being a president.

He needs to fire whatever idiots are programming his teleprompter and hire someone who knows the difference between a president and a presidential candidate. The campaign is over. Stop campaigning!

What does he think he's going to do? Push republicans below their current 31% approval?

We lost 125,000 jobs last month and he can't do anything but whine and complain about those big bad republicans.

He got the stimulus bill he wanted, every dime he wanted to spend, he took over the auto companies, he had a super majority in the senate, a huge majority in the house, and he rode into town with an 83% approval rating. Does he think that republicans have the power to block one single thing he wants to do? He is just making himself look like a weak little girly man.

____________________



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