GALLUP: Democratic Party Image Drops to Record Low

[yurbud]

Source: GALLUP

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' favorable rating of the Democratic Party dropped to 41% in a late March USA Today/Gallup poll, the lowest point in the 18-year history of this measure. Favorable impressions of the Republican Party are now at 42%, thus closing the gap between the two parties' images that has prevailed for the past four years.



Gallup last measured party images in late August/early September of last year. At that point, the Democratic Party enjoyed an 11-point favorable image advantage over the Republican Party. Now, the favorable ratings of the two parties are essentially tied.

The images of the two major parties have particular significance in a midterm election year. For example, the favorable rating of the Democratic Party exceeded that of the Republican Party by 52% to 37% just prior to the 2006 midterm elections, in which the Democrats gained 31 House seats.

Americans' current 41% favorable rating of the Democratic Party is five points lower than the party's previous low, recorded twice in 2005.

Read more: http://www.gallup.com/poll/127262/Democratic-Party-Image-Drops-Record-Low.aspx?version=print

---

Passing a health care bill that ignored overwhelming public opinion in favor of a public option and against a mandate to buy private insurance (and even greater numbers of Democratic voters who held those positions) doesn't seem to have helped the Democratic Party. Nor did continuing Bush's Wall Street bailouts, appointing past architects of our economic destruction to run our economy again or continuing Bush's War on Terror bullshit.

When are they going to learn, we don't need two corporate parties, and we won't settle for only as much change as their corporate donors won't be offended by?

It is clear that the Democratic Party and even Obama would rather lose public support and even elections than bite the hand of the financial elite.

[polichick]

1. "The Democratic Party's favorable image has dropped among all three partisan groups"

That wouldn't happen if the party BOLDLY went for progressive policies - both Dems and indies (who are really trend followers) would be pleased.

[superconnected]

2. Yep, out of Iraq and Afghanistan(why are we there?), get rid of the patriot acts altogether

Trim down the H1 visa program to a skeleton, get out of the WTO, put very high tariffs on goods sold in America that are not made here, give all people equal rights, not just straight Christians. And now that I'm in my 40's, I've changed my position on abortion - which I've always supported. I no longer believe men should have _any_ say in it. Guess I'm getting less liberal in my old age.

[polichick]

7. Also, a real green energy plan, public option, real financial reform. nt

[Ignis]

17. People voted strongly for the 3 listed in your title in 2008.

And yet here we are.

[No Elephants]

57. Unless the pregnant woman's doctor is a male, you're probably correct.

Such wisdom before reaching the age of 50! Good for you.

[Davis_X_Machina]

8. A simple declaration that property is theft...

...would soon have that number up in the 70's...

[superconnected]

14. Property is theft? You're way more liberal commie than I am.

[FBaggins]

28. That's not liberal/commie ... It's anarchist.

And there isn't a shot in he11 that such a statement would do anything but ensure an electoral devestation.

[No Elephants]

58. I don't think so.

Steal this post!

[Codeine]

90. Yyyyyyyyyeahhhhh. nt

[prolesunited]

98. No, it would have people in the streets

I don't think the majority of Americans or the Democrats would approve of that statement.

[yurbud]

21. Dems don't seem to understand that lack of conviction doesn't build trust or make them look tough

The reason the party establishment was so afraid of Howard Dean in 2004 wasn't that he was some far lefty but that he wasn't bought and looking for ways to enact Republican policies with progressive wrappers.

[polichick]

26. I think you're absolutely right about Dean - and it was mostly establishment Dems...

...who took him down after that edited clip of video - in fact they were probably behind the removal of the background noise.

[yurbud]

27. that was the lamest take down ever too, but I guess it beats a bullet or plane crash.

[No Elephants]

59. I remember the media playing it over and over and questioning his mental stability, either

outright verbally or by a combination of innuendo and facial expression.

They played it more than they played the Swiftboat video, and with more editorializing about Dean.

[MisterP]

38. the leadership blames Nader for '00 rather than Jeb, Dubya, or Katherine Harris

because they're as con as the former on many issues, and want to lay the blame on the "far left"; they want to be bipartisan with their ideological cousins

likewise, Cobb and Badnarik were more interested in Kerry winning Ohio '04 than Kerry himself was...

[No Elephants]

62. I don't suppose Clinton, Gore, Lieberman or Democrats had anything

whatever to do with Democrats losing the 2000 Presidential election?

[Psephos]

47. Dean is principled, smart, has good political instincts, and unafraid of corporatists.

What further explanation is needed for why he was marginalized?

Good people like Dean could pull the party up from these dismal numbers. We've had way too much focus on whether a politico's positions rigidly fit the template (whatever it is this week), and way too little on the quality of the person him/herself. As long as people of Pelosi's and Reid's caliber represent the ascendancy, don't hold your breath for improvement.

I want my party back. I'm urging everyone to just put those litmus tests DOWN like a crack pipe, and take the measure of the person instead. It's how we run our personal lives, and it's how we should run our national life.

[No Elephants]

65. Works great if you can read minds. Otherwise, you have to judge a person by

what positions they say they have and, if they have a voting record, how they;ve voted on positions.

Besides, I think whether a person is for gay marriage--and willing to say so, or at least willing to say it's for the states (as did Kennedy)--speaks volumes about his or her caliber. If you opposed equal rights for all human beings--and/or are willing to say that you oppose them in order to get elected, that, too, speaks volumes about what caliber person you are. So does whether you think you have a right to force a woman to bear her father's child for nine months, even if her doctor says her health cannot withstand it.

[Lorien]

54. Exactly. This is the very reason that many of us on the Left can no longer stand with

a party that at best stands for nothing and at worst has adopted nearly every GOP policy. It's only the "nearly" part that keeps us at all, and that's not enough for many voters. One would think that having the Dems in control of the House, Senate and Presidency would make it a great time to be a Democrat, but instead it's been soul crushing and demoralizing. We're faced with the ugly truth that the people no longer matter and that corporate profits are the only thing that anyone works for or cares about on the Hill.

[No Elephants]

64. I think what may keep some is

that (a) reality is hard to face, especially when (b) there is no realistic alternative.

Hence, the view that what you do to the left doesn't matter: they have nowhere else to go. They don't see us as like to form a Tea Party type movement, I guess--and, for a lot of reasons, they're probably correct. For one thing, we don't have the networks of the NRA, the churches and the youth organizations they have. For another, we seem to be lazier. Not sure why.

Realistically, the only way I can think of is to support the most liberal candidates you can find and hope to heaven that the DNC and Congress will eventually fill up with lefties and shift again. It may happen one day, but it will take a long, long time. And meanwhile, be vocal. I have become VERY pessimistic about that working, but I don't think being vocal can hurt,

[No Elephants]

60. Not being bought and not wanting to enact Republican policies

is looking pretty far looney left these days.

Fucking retarded, you might say.

[Bandit]

33. Notice how it has fallen since Obama took office..

We wanted Democrats to establish Democratic policies and yet we get the same old shit...I am one of those that has an unfavorable opinion of Democrats but yet would never ever ever vote for a Republican..

[polichick]

39. I'm in the same camp - sick of Republican-lite Dems and wouldn't...

...vote for a Republican - I will support true liberals/progressives only.

[beardown]

75. We tried starting this back in 2000.

And anybody who did not tow the repub-lite line and vote for a ticket with Lieberman on it has been accosted as badly as the worst of the worst of the rightee nutcases around here.

The big two have established a system where it's nearly impossible for a third party to get any traction and then like the guy who kills his parents and then calls for mercy from the judge because he's an orphan scream that you're wasting your vote if you don't vote for them.

We are now seeing that voting for one of the two wings of the corporate money party is also wasting your vote. When you always are forced to vote for the lessor of evils, your destination never changes, only the route. It will take time and multiple messages (voting non-big two) to get them to take progressives seriously and it will be a voting strategy equivalent of Russia's Napoleonic invasion and WW II Scorched Earth policies which will painful, actually helped them win the conflicts.

Vote for the progressive candidates and hopefully more and more will be the old school democratic party candidates and we can slowly move the party back to it's progressive roots. We've got to do an intervention on the current democratic party's addition to corporate money and interests. The repubs are a lost cause and are sinking deeper and deeper into a self induced madness.

[Lorien]

55. +1. nt

[ShortnFiery]

109. Same here. It's such a horrible position to be in. eom

[okieinpain]

3. i think all of this is because people are misinformed. the repugs

are the ones doing all of the squeaky noises.

[defendandprotect]

5. Liberals/progressives aren't "misinformed" . . .

[okieinpain]

20. well i would hope not, but the so-called independents probably

are.

[HuckleB]

50. Not true.

There are plenty of people who post statements at DU stating that Obama has not done one decent thing in office, repeatedly.

[No Elephants]

61. That is not being misinformed. It's having a different view of Obama's activities than you have.

Or a different opinion of the value of most of Obama's activities.

Not less info or bad info, just a different opinion.

[HuckleB]

63. Wrong.

These posters don't even know what he has done.

That's being misinformed. They claim he's done one thing or no things, and then you offer them a list of what he has done, and they don't reply.

There's a reason for that. They have not informed themselves.

[No Elephants]

66. Well, If that is really the case, they are uninformed, not misinformed.

Im still inclined to think it's a difference of opinion, though. I've seen posts Obama's fervent supporters post of his accompplishments. I have a different opinion of the items on list--and the list in its totality-- than they seem to have, though.

[okieinpain]

104. too funny. I just finished stephen kings "under the dome" and I'm

not sure what to make of it. it's almost like he's making a political statement with the book about how stupid people can be.

[ShortnFiery]

116. Perhaps, if I were spoiled & filthy rich, I'd be loving-up me some Corporate Democratic Leaders.

Paris Hilton, et. al., must love both parties now?

[sabrina 1]

45. I am not mis-informed. I just didn't fall for all the excuses

as to why the WH fought AGAINST a PO instead of for it, despite the best efforts of DLCers to shove their excuses down people's throats. I also didn't buy their excuses for off-shore drilling, their support for the worst educational system ever, NCLB, their war on teachers, their escalation of a war that is killing people every day. And a few more things besides. Not to mention the Wall St. cabinet that was installed to fix the very problems they caused. Or the excuses for bailing out corrupt institutions.

If we wanted those policies we would have voted for Republicans.

The problem is that we WERE informed and we didn't like being told to STFU by Rahm Emanuel either.

[defendandprotect]

4. Amazing that Dems can't beat imperialism and torture, wiretapping -- and stolen elections!

Had Obama moved to MEDICARE FOR ALL, the Dems would be set for next 40 years!!

As long as Rahm/DLC has obama's ear it will be a downward corporate trend --

DLC is poison for the Dem Party -- it's there to destroy it.

[yurbud]

24. the same thing has happened around the world: left of center parties get corporate moles

so no matter which major party is elected, people get the same policy.

This was most noticeable in New Zealand, when they elected a leftist PM who then proceeded to cut education and other social spending, and of course in Britain with Tony Blair, who is essentially a DLCer with better enunciation.

[defendandprotect]

84. Ouch re NZ . . .

and, yes, we were all expecting better things from Blair --

He and Bush ended up looking like birds of a feather!

:)

[Uncle Joe]

56. Yes but it would have meant long term damage to the Corporatist Party.

"Had Obama moved to MEDICARE FOR ALL, the Dems would be set for next 40 years!!"

Obama cited Reagen as his example of a transformational President, not FDR.

[No Elephants]

68. Self Delete. Posted twice.

[No Elephants]

69. In fairness to duped voters like, oh, I don't know. let's just say like me.....

When Obama cited Reagan (as did Hillary), Obama was talking about Reagan's appeal to people of all Parties AND the collapse/nned or bailout had not been announced yet. I thought he was praising Reagan simply bc Reagan had won so decisively. Saying you admire him too is a way of winning over people who had voted Reagan, including "Reagan Democrats."

Obama did have FDR on his list of top ten Presidents AND Obama did campaign on a strong public option and no mandates.

[Uncle Joe]

80. That's not the way, I interpret this.

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263

This seems to reflect an underlying ideological connection to Reagen and I find the idea of applying Reagen to the virtue of accountability highly ironic considering Iran/Contra, the explosion of national debt under his watch etc. etc.

1932 was different as well, the idea that private entrepreneurship could solve the nation's economic woes had long since evaporated, it became obvious that some needs and tasks could only be or were best met by government and yet FDR was one of the most optimistic Presidents in U.S. history, he inspired the nation and his clarity far surpassed that of Reagen.

I wish Obama had more FDR than Reagen in him, but if Obama continues with Reagan's central theme of government vs for profit corporations as being the answer, then he can never be a transformational President in his own right, just a continuance of decades long failed policy, for transformation requires change.

[defendandprotect]

85. Also on the list as . . .

"duped voter" --

and found your post very interesting --

Had never seen this ....


I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.

I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.

I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263


Well, Nixon and Reagan both worked behind the scenes illegally, treasonously to try to ensure a

win by, in Nixon's case keeping any peace talks from going forward - and in Reagan's case by

pulling an "October Surprise" by arranging for the hostages to be held until he was sworn in --

for a better deal, evidently!

Nor do I think any voters were voting "ABC" because they wanted Reagan -- they simply wanted

"Anybody but Carter." Used to have an ounce of sympathy for Carter, especially with the red-hed

on TV every night -- NIGHTLINE -- dum-de-dum -- Hostages still being held. Also that his rescue

missions went down in desert -- 3X? -- found out later that Ollie North was heading up that

rescue operation! And, Secord was second in command!

By the way, what "excesses of the 1960's and 1970's" was Obama talking about?

Certainly he doesn't mean battles for civil rights by women, African Americans, homosexuals ...

does he? Nor could he mean the anti-war movement, could he? What grew in the 60's and 70's --

and 80's and 90's and 2000 and 2010's has been MIC and violence.

Now we have a people's government that is too weak to stand up to corporate power and corruption!

How is that better?

No one asked for the Disney show that we got from Reagan -- and that's certainly what it was

with the release of the hostages. And few Americans thinking about what really went down!

Gates was also a big time player in that scheme.

And I completely agree with your comments about Reagan -- though after the attempted assassination

many say that Bush was actually president/?


Apologies for jumping into your conversation --




:)

[Uncle Joe]

96. That's what I love about D.U.

anybody can jump in whenever they want, I view that as a good thing.:)

[defendandprotect]

102. Did you have an opinion on this . . . .

By the way, what "excesses of the 1960's and 1970's" was Obama talking about?

Certainly he doesn't mean battles for civil rights by women, African Americans, homosexuals ...

does he? Nor could he mean the anti-war movement, could he? What grew in the 60's and 70's --

and 80's and 90's and 2000 and 2010's has been MIC and violence.


??????

[Uncle Joe]

106. I believe he's bought in to the corporate media projected myth of Reagan and

that private for profit corporate endeavors trump government's ability or right to serve the public good.

Maybe he views drug use during the 60s and 70s as excess and he's a strong supporter of the so called "War on Drugs."

I can't help but believe that by this statement Obama views him self as being to the right of Nixon and Clinton.

I'm curious what is "MIC"?

[defendandprotect]

108. We agree, evidently, that what he actually meant is still to be discovered . . .!!

:)

[defendandprotect]

86. Agree with you as well . . .

which I think points more to the many ways that Obama can be understood than

to what he might actually mean when he is saying these things!

I don't listen to his speeches -- but I usually try to read text -- haven't kept

up with that since the many disappointments!

:)

[Jennicut]

6. The Repubs are not doing all that spectacular either. The #'s are practically tied.

The public is generally disliking incumbents right now.

[defendandprotect]

9. You're optimistic that Dems are tied with the party that gave us wars, torture, wiretapping ... and

bankrupted the Treasury?

As long as Obama is running a DLC agenda it will be a downward trend!

[Jennicut]

18. It will be a downward trend no matter what because of the economy.

It doesn't matter what happened in the last 8 years for the general public, what matters is what happens in the last 6 months. People generally don't care that Rethugs may have been totally responsible for the economy collapsing to begin with. Remember, attention spans are short.

The Dems are going to lose seats no matter what, the question is how much. Repubs in 1994 had much higher approval ratings then they do now. But with Dems also low and being the party in power, they will lose seats. The question is will it be enough losses to give the Rethugs control of Congress again?
This is the issue with a two party system. The public is angry at both parties for good reasons but to vote out the party in power the party that sucked just a few years ago when they were in power will be put back in again. An endless unhappy cycle.

It is the collapse of the economy that has pissed people off and if Rethugs were in control of Congress right now, they would be hurt as well. There is no great love of the Rethug party was my point. Just unhappiness at the two party choices we have offered. Did anyone in Mass really love Scott Brown? Think again. I am also not optimistic. I just don't buy the bs that the public loves Rethugs again. .

[defendandprotect]

22. Obviously, public doesn't love Repugs . . . but they did recently love Dems/Obama ...

and that's what you need to concentrate on, IMO --

What will Obama/Dems be doing pre-election to bring Dems out again?

Had they passed public option or MEDICARE FOR ALL, Dems would have been out --!!

And, probably mid-terms would have had little impact for Dems!

Can't say that now...

[Jennicut]

29. Healthcare is not the most important issue, even among Dems.

And 81% of Dems approved of the bill passing.



Honestly, I don't understand some people's reluctance here to realize that the economy is the issue. I don't think health care will have much of an effect on the midterms. If Obama had failed to get it passed it would fit into the Repub argument that he would could not accomplish a big bill with a majority. Other then that, it will not have a big effect. The majority of Dem voters approve of it.

Per Gallup:

Much of Congress' work this year has focused on healthcare, and Americans have been divided on the legislation both before and after it passed. But it is unclear how much of a voter backlash there may be against the Democratic Party this fall because of this issue. Republican and independent voters are much less likely than Democratic voters to say healthcare will be important to their vote for Congress. Moreover, among voters who say healthcare is extremely important to their vote, roughly equal percentages say they would vote for the Democratic (47%) and the Republican (48%) candidate in their district if the election were held today.http://www.gallup.com/poll/127247/Voters-Rate-Economy-Top-Issue-2010.aspx

The biggest issue is whether people will have jobs. And yes, it was the Rethugs ultimately responsible. But the Dems got the problem by being in the majority in Congress and by Obama winning the election. Reagan lost seats in 1982 because of the economy as well. There has been a small improvement in the economy this past month. But there needs to be a much bigger improvement in order for image of the Dems to go up. The public wanted Obama to fix the economy that Bush and co broke.

[defendandprotect]

43. You are showing it as the 2nd most important at 58% vs 55%...3% difference ...!!!

Of course it was a major voting issue -- !!

And continues to be as important as the "economy" because they are connected ---

and not only for the individual and families -- but for the government which faces costs

of trying to treat people who are uninsured and not sufficiently ensured because of

corporate corruption!

Among the public there is a 74%+ majority for single payer health care --

However . . .

If the public truly understood what was going on Global Warming would be the most important

issue -- I don't know if the poll even asked about that -- I'll recheck it.


PS: I see environment/GW at 34% which means they've interviewed people who probably are not

very well-informed.

[Drunken Irishman]

78. And you ignore the fact that almost all Democrats approve of the healthcare bill.

Which flies in the face of your belief Democrats are mad at Obama for not including a public option. Get a goddamn new talking point. This ridiculous one has been swatted down countless times with polls. Jesus Christ.

:eyes:

[No Elephants]

81. That's not what she said.

[Drunken Irishman]

83. It was implied.

Suggesting healthcare was the reason the Dems numbers were sagging. I guess it is. But it isn't because Democrats are angry at the party.

It's because Republicans and independents are. Now until you provide a poll that shows independents are angry at the Democrats for having 'too conservative' of a healthcare bill, it's pointless to speculate THAT is the reason for it.

54% of independents opposed the bill passing. Okay. But how many of them oppose it from the left and how many oppose it from the right? Those numbers aren't included.

What this thread is doing is taking a legitimate issue and speculating without a shred of proof.

Okay. Democrats are at an all-time low because they're too conservative. If you're going to make that claim, back it up.

Or could it be the Democrats are at an all-time low because they're the party currently in power across the board and many Americans are wary of the economy? Yeah. That's probably it.

But continue speculating...

[No Elephants]

72. 58% economy and 53% health care AFTER the bill passed is pretty impressive as to health care..

And a poll shortly before the bill passed showed 77% of people of all parties wanted a strong public option.

Do many think the POS we got was better than no bill at all? But, that's about the best you can say about it.

Don't know why you post that poll at the same time you say people here can't admit the only issue is the economy Bushco broke.

BTW, truth be told tt wasn't only Bushco that broke the ecconomy. Bad as 2000-2008 were, they weren't bad enough to break the economy. This has been a long time coming. Democratic Congresses and Deocratic Presidents have contributed. And I don't think the fixes Obama has attempted have been the wisest or most effective.

[No Elephants]

70. Yes, I would say the Republicans in Massachussetts DID really love Scott Brown.

And not only the Republicans in Massachusetts. People came from as far away as Oregon and Washington to attend his rallies. And he collected money from all over the country on the Internet.

Were Democrats anywhere near as excited to vote for Coakley? Obvously not, bc Massachusetts has far more Democrats than it does Republicans.

[Enthusiast]

10. But they should not be tied.

We should have had the upper hand but we gave it away when we enacted HCR without a public option and without changing pharmaceutical re-importation.

[Fumesucker]

11. Look at the trend lines..

The Dem one is negative sloping while the Repub is sloping positive, give it another six months with the same trends and the Repubs will be ahead again.

[FBaggins]

13. Tied isn't nearly good enough.

Democrats tend to underperform these generic numbers. You'll note that they were "practically tied" in '94 as well.

This is also a poll of "adults" - "Likely" usually leaning a bit toward the other side as well.

Lastly... the hope was that we would get a bounce out of passing HCR. It's going to be that much more difficult to whip together a majority for other issues by telling wavering Dems that passing SOMETHING will still help.

[sabrina 1]

46. I don't know why they thought that passing that

bailout of a corrupt insurance industry would give them a bounce. They were told, over and over again that people did not want that bill to pass. When a party ignores the people who elected them, they tend to lose support.

All the cheer-leading for something that no real progressive supported, was fake, there very little support for that bill.

If they ever thought that Republicans would give them a bounce, then they are too stupid to be in politics. Republicans would complain if Democrats handed each one of them a million dollars.

[grahamhgreen]

16. No, they dislike the crap polices we are pushing as real reform, duh.

[jefferson_dem]

37. The only ones out there calling them "crap policies" are Repubs.

Guess i'll count you as helping promote that meme. The alternative is to stand up and fight for progress. Defend your party. Do the right thing.

[grahamhgreen]

42. OK, and please help us get the fixes to HCR we are promised.

[defendandprotect]

89. Nonsense . . go back and read the posts by DU'ers pre-the vote for HCR ....

And you can include Howard Dean among the critics -- he's told us this isn't

HCR . . . correctly.

And, he's made clear it is a "Romney-like" plan -- a Repug plan!!

[defendandprotect]

88. Agree . . . America wanted single payer -- MEDICARE FOR ALL --

And look at the flaming lies -- even by the US Catholic Bishops who had to lie

their way thru to the abortion issue --

Catholics want by a large majority single payer -- but whether single payer or

private insurance they want reproductive care included -- including HIV testing,

Condoms, birth control products -- and abortion.

Just as many Catholic women have abortions as any other women -- but the church has

to hide that reality from the world!

[defendandprotect]

87. From what I've heard a while back, only 20% of voters were identifying as Repugs ...!!

[DoBotherMe]

12. Jail a few banksters, make oil and health ins companies

(along with their execs) pay taxes (or nationalize one or both) and Democratic Party numbers will skyrocket. I hope they get the message. Dana ; )

[okieinpain]

23. do you really think so, that's with the repubs say dems are doing

now. raising taxes and running private industry.

[DoBotherMe]

30. Well we know that's not true

so why not really do it where it will make the greatest impact on the majority of the electorate --- health care costs and fuel costs (not to mention taking it out of the hands of those who will squander what natural resources we have remaining) and raise taxes on the corrupt to reduce the debt. Dana ; )

[girl gone mad]

101. Giving unlimited amounts of unfettered money to bailout private industry..

is not at all the same as running private industry.

What Federal taxes have been raised, specifically?

[yurbud]

32. jail a few health insurance execs, and hold hearings on how oil industry influenced war decisions

or rather ordered them.

[grahamhgreen]

15. Solutions :Fix HCR, Out of Iraqistan, prosecute Bush crimes, financial crimes, end rendition,etc....

[florida08]

19. I get why the demos

numbers are going down but why in the world are the repos going up??!

[yurbud]

31. they're standing their ground, even though they are dead wrong

[No Elephants]

77. The Republican numbers are going up because they are not taking the blame

for anything that is going wrong--and a stalled Washington, D.C. is what most Republicans think they really want.

Remember Reagan's "worst nightmare?" A man who knocks on the door and says, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

Government that can't get anything done is a government that is not getting "bigger" or finding new ways to "spend your money" or tax you.

[florida08]

25. Well this is interesting

The Fox News network has miraculously disproved itself by producing a new poll that finds Americans think more highly of the Internal Revenue Service than they do the vocal conservative minority.

Atop the fourth page of a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll released April 8, the questioner explains that respondents would be read a series of names and asked whether their opinion is positive or not. The most popular among the names is Barack Obama, who scored a 50 percent approval rating. Second was the Internal Revenue Service, at 49 percent.

Down below Democrats and even below Republicans is the "Tea Party," at 36 percent approval....


The only single politician who scored lower than Democratic leadership was House Minority Leader John Boehner, one of the GOP's top men and a key public face for the party, with just 12 percent approval.


http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0408/fox-news-poll-finds-irs-rates-americans-tea-party/

[No Elephants]

79. I'm not sure what FOX said specifically about what percentage of approval the Tea Party has,

but 36% in under a year for a splinter group is nothing to sneer at, IMO.

Where is the counterpart liberal group, insisting that Democrats either stay true to Democratic principles or face its wrath?

If there is a Tea Party serving as yet another force that is pushing or dragging this country to the right--and no countervailing force, in time, our two choices may well be far right or Nazi.

[Yo_Mama]

34. Well it's not good news for the GOP

After all, the Dems are only falling to where the GOP already was.

The big bank bailouts are a huge reason for this.

[Psephos]

48. That's a good point.

So far, they seem to be clueless about how to capitalize upon the political opportunity.

Independents will determine the fortunes of both parties in November, and so far, shrinking Democratic Party approval has not translated into rising GOP approval.

Independents, by their nature, loathe being told what to do. That's where I'd start: focus on how Democratic initiatives are freeing them, not on how they are restricting or ordering them. We've had too much mandate this, mandate that in the popular perception of the legislative and executive actions of the past year.

Independents also want fiscal responsibility. That's been AWOL, to put it lightly. Time to raise taxes if that's what it takes, and to seriously discipline spending. Time, in other words, for some courage.

[riverdale]

105. being told what to do

The Dems lost that argument when they went with mandates.

[Odin2005]

35. That's what happens when you piss off Liberals by pushing Corporatist policies.

[jefferson_dem]

36. The numbers are not good.

That being said, your explantions for them are pretty funny. In the same breath you announce that we shouldn't be like the Republican party while promoting Republican positions on healthcare and "Wall Street bailouts" (whatever that means).

Our problem is that the right wing echo chamber is winning the message battle. It's a failure of communication. There's no rational explanation for why Obama and the Democrats have such low approval on the economy, for example. The reality should be clear. Frankly, your :crazy: spin doesn't help our cause. So if that was your goal... mission accomplished.

[NeoConsSuck]

51. The right wing echo chamber

is *always* going to win the message battle. MSM is corporate controlled. They decide what message gets out.

[jody]

40. Voters are fed up with both Dems & Reps because both are controlled by corporatists but there is no

viable third party.

[Vinca]

41. Democrats have been voting for Democrats with the expectation

they wouldn't act like Republicans. After ignoring the wishes of the majority re health CARE reform and adopting a health INSURANCE bill that should be loved by Republicans everywhere, it's no wonder their rating has dropped.

[depakid]

44. Ignoring overwhelming public opinion isn't exactly how one would go about generating enthusiasm

[bvar22]

49. Whats that, Paul?....Oh Yeah....

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."--- Paul Wellstone


Massachusetts Poll taken after a Republican took Kennedy's seat:

* Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?

Favor 82%

Oppose 14%

Not Sure 4%
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010010320/poll-shouts-message-massachusetts-voters-were-sending

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans."---Paul Wellstone

"When given the choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the Republican every time." ---Harry Truman

QED Massachusetts

[Political Heretic]

53. Paul Wellstone was 100% correct and that quote should be burned onto the minds of every Dem.

[No Elephants]

67. FWIW, I think that quote may well have been misattributed to Truman.

I'd like to think he said it, but I am not at all sure he actually did.

[mix]

93. great post

:thumbsup:

[Political Heretic]

52. Told ya so.

:shrug:

[DCBob]

71. This just means the GOP & RW media have been very effective in running disinformation campaigns..

and a large percent of the electorate are ignorant enough to believe it all.

[ShortnFiery]

115. Can't blame it ALL on the GOP when our party only stood up for corporations. eom

[PoliticalOne65]

73. If you look at the chart.

It doesn't mean the Republicans numbers are going up. There are as many Democrats stressed right now as independents. This stress doesn't correlate to republican votes though.

[No Elephants]

76. "Many Democrats are stressed right now as independents." What does that mean?

[No Elephants]

74. Um, how come the chart shows Democrats higher in '04 than in '08?

I love it. The chart doesn't use red for Republicans and Blue for Democrats. It uses Green for both Parties.

[JackRiddler]

82. Match this against election results to see it's completely meaningless... although...

I'm sure the real mood at the moment is sour on both of the corporatist parties: the lame one and the crazy one.

[mr_liberal]

91. Its the economy and its the democratic party

appearing too liberal. The health care bill, bailouts, GM takeover, the deficit.... expansion of government in general has caused it. Partisanship has too. People want policies that come from Democrats and Republicans working together. They feel that brings about moderate policies thats arent too left or too right. Thats what they expected from Obama and they dont feel that thats what they got.

[newspeak]

99. Too liberal my ass!

The health insurance reform bill is a Republican concept during Clinton. Also, it's also from the right wing Heritage Foundation. The bank bailout started with * after his war profiteering buddies raided the Treasury. Now if you really look at Reagan, he's the first president in the twentieth century to lower taxes for the rich and infamous to 28%, while spending like a drunken sailor. The deficit increased under Reagan up to 128%. And, some want to make him into a fekkin God. Also, deregulation has been an ongoing exercise since Reagan, be it Repug or Democrat. Yeah, let those "too big to fail" businesses police themselves.

Nothing but theater for the masses. The health care bill is a bi-partisan bill no matter what you think. Except, most of the insurance bailout ideas came from the repugs. Mandatory private insurance? Heritage Foundation. And Obama is so liberal that he kept Gates, kept all those peace lovin * generals, appointed people like Geithner and Summers, who are not liberals!!! Obama is a corporate centrist, as he calls himself, "New Democrat," which is a republican. Now someone who may be a down right commie for today's standards, would be someone like FDR or even LBJ (without the MIC). But, I figure Clinton and Obama are turning out to be the best damn republicans the republican party will ever see (besides Lincoln).

[ShortnFiery]

112. WTF! eom

[unkachuck]

92. "...rating of the Democratic Party dropped to 41%..."

....not surprising....when you clam to be liberal and pass a healthcare bill to the right of richard nixon, to take affect in four years (maybe); like who in the hell is this bill supposed to please?....

....the right didn't want it because it was government sponsored and the left didn't want it because it kept wall street skimming a percentage of every healthcare dollar....and one more thing, contrary to corporate media propaganda, this country is more progressive than they claim....

....most people I know think the healthcare bill is too little, too late, to be that meaningful in their lives....covering the uninsured is great, but they wanted more, and they got less....and they're not going to idly wait twenty years to do it again....they are mad and they feel betrayed....

[lovuian]

94. there is only one party and that is Corruption and Greed

Obama is a huge disappointment

[ShortnFiery]

113. The democratic party does throw us a few scraps like the Student Loan deal ...

but these tidbits are few and far between.

[andym]

95. Most likely due to conservatives ability to "tar and feather" democrats in the MSM

coupled with slow recovery from recession.

[ShortnFiery]

114. If the democrats would do the MORALLY correct actions that would help average Americans

financially, all the bad press in the M$M would be drowned out by OUR VOTES.

They don't get it. The chattering classes may be busy but they are not stupid. Especially since the lies during the run up to the Iraq war, VERY FEW people place VERACITY in our USA M$M.

[Zorra]

97. Corparasite Dems are succeeding at their mission to destroy the party.

At this point, they're just marking time until their corparasite republican comrades take over the House and Senate, and the Democratic party will be totally neutered into submission once again.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time" - Harry S Truman ...

[girl gone mad]

100. Thanks DLC, Neo-libs, Third Way New Democrats.

Fantastic job!

[yurbud]

107. they really know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

[ShortnFiery]

110. That's because the party leaders are already wealthy.

What's going to happen to them personally if the party loses? They'll still have their position and if they get tired of that, they retire and then, after the waiting period MAKE THE BIG BUCKS as corporate lobbyists. They also glean automatic pay raises and a hefty pension.

I'm in a voting out incumbents mood lately and that includes Senators Webb and Warner.

[old mark]

103. Media has consistantly bashed the Dems since before the election

and the stupidity hangover in the media from the Bush era is a big factor in this.

They got used to a pinhead president and they are lost with a smart one, plus there is more going on in congress than they have seen in years. Plus the Dems ARE too wishy washy and still need a spine implant.
Pelosi seems to be standing up pretty well, reid only on occasion, but it's still fun to see....we need this all the time, guys...
Remember Harry Truman...

mark

[ShortnFiery]

111. Pelosi folded before the vote and so did ALL the progressive democrats.

I know that the M$M is united against us, but at some point you have to stop worrying about re-election and serve the people who voted you into office. :(