Another Stupid Poll But Getting No Attention from the Right

I have railed against polls in this forum often and loudly but I am always aware of the selectivity involved in either posting or not posting these polls. I personally think polls are just momentary snapshots that have little if any meaning and even less predictability of the outcomes they try to foresee. Just because I felt that this one would never see the light of the PRWE, I've decided to post it for your viewing pleasure. I know that there are several of you who live or die by these things so have a nice death.

AP-GfK Poll: Dems disliked, but so is GOP
By ALAN FRAM, AP

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20100924/US.AP.Poll.Unloved.GOP/

WASHINGTON — If anyone is scorned as much as Democrats these days, it's Republicans — the party that may recapture the House and perhaps the Senate in November's elections.
Yet Democrats trying to exploit the GOP's unpopularity in hopes of hanging onto control of Congress face a problem: People who dislike Democrats seem ready to vote in greater numbers than those with little use for Republicans.
In an Associated Press-GfK Poll this month, 60 percent disapprove of the job congressional Democrats are doing — yet 68 percent frown on how Republicans are performing. While 59 percent are unhappy with how Democrats are handling the economy, 64 percent are upset by the GOP's work on the country's top issue. Just over half have unfavorable views of each party.
Most say President Barack Obama isn't cooperating enough on the economy; yet even more accuse Republicans of the same thing. Former President George W. Bush and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — the only two Republicans the AP-GfK Poll tested — are both viewed negatively by more than half in the survey, worse than Obama's marks. And people overwhelmingly fault Bush more than Obama for the recession.

 

It should really come as no surprise, unless unless one is a hard core partisan, that the polls show both are heavily disliked. It is an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment election cycle not just a anti-Dem or anti-Repo one. The media plays up the 2 sides for good ratings but in reality, a large chunk of the country is swing voters and independents. And, unlike the die hard party faithful (like what is found on this forum and highlighted in the news), these people aren't happy with or trusting of either party and don't see much of a difference or a good choice in the mix.

It should also come as no surprise to anyone that the poll shows the Repos are more active this year. The Dems aren't denigrating and belittling the Tea Party folks 24/7 for no reason. The right is much more motivated than the left going into these elections and both parties know it. I thought the "Exhausted of defending you..." comment that was made to the President recently pretty well summed that up better than that poll ever could.

 

I completely agree. I was told by Bill Foster that the Tea Party isn't any kind of threat to the Dems, apathy was the real enemy of the Dems during the midterms. Many of those dissatisfied voters aren't people that want to see this country swing to the Right, they are simply people that want Obama to act more deliberately and swing harder to the Left. You never see the dissatisfied voters broken down into those that are against Obama because he is too far to the Left and those that are against Obama because he hasn't moved far enough to the Left. That poll I would be interested in seeing.

Democrats should have every advantage this election except that they refuse to use the gifts that the Right has handed them. A wide majority of Americans blame George Bush for the recession. The economy has begun to turn around. The Republicans have been nothing but asshats for the past 2 years without any ideas except "no". The Dems should be holding their own in a midterm with few losses but they will probably manage to snatch defeat from what should have been a minor bump. I'm almost rooting for the GOP because 2 years down the line, the economy will be worse than ever if they go back to the Bush policies which are all they really have.

 

I don;t think a shift to the left would help the Dems at all except with their party faithful. In fact, it might eliminate them as a party for quite a while.

Here is another poll that should surprise no one and goes along with part of what I said above...it is the independents that are at stake. They are shifting away from the President and moving to the Repos. And in a huge swing at this point. Those people aren't moving because they want the Dems to go more left.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/23/AR2010092300299.html?hpid=topnews

And it also says...these people are much more motivated to vote.

 

Good. Now you admit that 2 years is enough time to take responsibility for policy, and for it to take effect. We have had near 2 years of the progressive policy. What is the state of our nation. I think you can now stop blaming Bush.

I have even added to my sigline to help you out Mr Moen

 

Not exactly Jack. Two years is enough for the public to blame the current administration/congressional leaders. It isn't nearly enough time to turn around a recession this deep.

Obama said that the day he took office. He said that it would be a long and tough recovery. People just forget those things and tend to blame whoever they can. A pretty solid majority of Americans blame Bush for this recession still. I will blame Obama if his recovery fails but I'm not stupid enough to think that there is some magic bullet that will do it painlessly for everyone. And like I said earlier, why would the Dems take advice from those that drove us into this ditch?

In my opinion, if you voted for George Bush once or even twice, you have only yourself to blame for your problems. I didn't vote for him and I am unwilling to be lectured by those that did. I will listen politely as I can and remember that these were the same folks that thought Bush had the answers. If Obama is unable to turn the economy around, then I figure that they have good reason to question my choice. If it doesn't happen fast enough for them, I really can't have much in the way of pity for them since they chose the circumstances that got them where they are...I didn't.

 

You don't think it would excite the base just a little?

As I stated in the OP, I think polls are stupid. You have dueling polls on the same day come to different conclusions. They simply ask the questions a different way. Polls won't win this election, turnout will be the key factor. Midterms aren't usually known for their high turnouts.

 

On the motivation side, it might get the base more excited but I think it would also drive independents even further away than they are already running. So while they might take a step forward, it would be at least a step back, I think.

And yeah, polls are polls and I don't put a lot of stock in them. But they are a piece of the puzzle. Just like (good) reporting is. And even personal experience.

 

We have to wait 2 years? Didn't all of our problems begin with Obama's inauguration? I'm pretty sure the right started their whining almost instantly...the party of no, after dumping Bush's financial nightmare in our lap on the way out.

 

Can I ask why on earth you have your mid term elections in the middle of winter? just look at the normal conditions for a great many states in November and tell me it makes any kind of sence??

 

Because it is the law...

By federal law since 1792, the U.S. Congress permitted the states to conduct their presidential elections (or otherwise to choose their Electors) any time in a 34-day period[1] before the first Wednesday of December, which was the day set for the meeting of the Electors of the U.S. president and vice-president (the Electoral College), in their respective states.[2] An election date in November was seen as useful because the harvest would have been completed (important in an agrarian society) and the winter storms would not yet have begun in earnest (a plus in the days before paved roads and snowplows). However, in this arrangement the states that voted later could be influenced by a candidate's victories in the states that voted earlier, a problem later exacerbated by improved communications via train and telegraph. In close elections, the states that voted last might well determine the outcome.[3]

A uniform date for choosing presidential Electors was instituted by the Congress in 1845.[4] Many theories have been advanced as to why the Congress settled on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.[5] The actual reasons, as shown in records of Congressional debate on the bill in December 1844, were fairly prosaic. The bill initially set the national day for choosing presidential Electors on "the first Tuesday in November," in years divisible by four (1848, 1852, etc.). But it was pointed out that in some years the period between the first Tuesday in November and the first Wednesday in December (when the electors met in their state capitals to vote) would be more than 34 days, in violation of the existing Electoral College law. So, the bill was amended to move the national date for choosing presidential Electors forward to the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, a date scheme already used in the state of New York.[6]

In 1845, the United States was largely an agrarian society. Farmers often needed a full day to travel by horse-drawn vehicles to the county seat to vote. Tuesday was established as election day because it did not interfere with the Biblical Sabbath or with market day, which was on Wednesday in many towns.[7]

 

LOL then the law requires changing