The Democrats Gloat Thread

nimh wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
nimh - I think Scott Ott's take on polls most closely resembles mine

Somehow I dont remember you being as sceptic back when the polls still spelled good news for Bush ... ;-)

The only poll that counts is the one we had on 11/02/04 and that indeed spelled good news for Bush and his supporters Smile

What makes me a bit skeptical of the current poll is that 50% of the respondents indicated that if elections for Congress were held today they'd vote for a Democrat.

Yet nearly two-thirds (65%) indicate they're satisfied with their current representation.

Hmmmmm.

This thread is up to 75 pages and I'm still waiting for some gloat-worthy news of a Democratic accomplishment. So far, it's only been more Bush-bashing and cheering over his low poll numbers. You can call it rhetoric all you like, nimh, but if you polled a thousand people and asked them to name the Democratic solutions to any of the problems that are high on their list of priorities, you'd be met with a deafening silence.

'Tis a simple fact and one that will keep the Republicans holding the majority of both houses for years and years to come.

0 Replies

Don't know where you're getting your poll numbers from:

"Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with George W. Bush on the issues that matter most to you."

.

.................... Agree Disagree Unsure
.......................%.........%.........%
10/21-23/05....41..........57.........2

5/20-22/05......40.........57..........3

10/22-24/04....49.........49..........2

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

This thread is up to 75 pages and I'm still waiting for some gloat-worthy news of a Democratic accomplishment.

It's kind of hard to achieve any political "accomplishment" if your opponent is in charge of the Presidency, the Senate and the House...

JustWonders wrote:

You can call it rhetoric all you like, nimh, but if you polled a thousand people and asked them to name the Democratic solutions to any of the problems that are high on their list of priorities, you'd be met with a deafening silence.

'Tis a simple fact

I think you need to look up the word "fact".

Ie - "let me assert that if you would do something hypothetical, I am personally convinced that the result would be that ..." Not Equal

"a fact".

It's an assertion. A wild one, in this case, since it's based on nothing but your personal opinion.

Rhetorics, thus, unless you can actually come up with some corresponding numbers to back up your argument here.

I've already presented some that suggest exactly the opposite, meanwhile. The Battleground poll, for one, did poll over a thousand people, and found that clear majorities of them were in fact convinced that the Democrats had better solutions than the Republicans to most of the problems that they stated as being high on their list of priorities: from holding down federal spending to improving education.

All you seem to have left is bravado - assertions about what "most people in this country think" without any kind of actual back-up. Can hardly take that seriously.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Don't know where you're getting your poll numbers from:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2005-10-21-poll.htm

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

It's kind of hard to achieve any political "accomplishment" if your opponent is in charge of the Presidency, the Senate and the House...

Yes it is, nimh. Yes it is.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I've already presented some that suggest exactly the opposite, meanwhile. The Battleground poll, for one, did poll over a thousand people, and found that clear majorities of them were in fact convinced that the Democrats had better solutions than the Republicans to most of the problems that they stated as being high on their list of priorities: from holding down federal spending to improving education.

That's my point, nimh. They indicated the Dems had better solutions, but the pollster was smart enough to not ask them to name one LOL. That might have proved embarrassing :wink:

The poll actually indicates general disgust with both parties (which is a bit of a miracle in itself when you consider the relentless lying, distorting and spinning events to destroy Bush coming directly from the Democratic moonbats and leftwing media).

Explain, please how 50% of those polled can say they'd elect a Democrat if an election were held today yet nearly two-thirds are pleased with their own representatives.

It's slightly amusing to me how the word "stupid" was used by many to describe the electorate that put Bush into power for a second time by over 3 million votes. Now all of a sudden a few who took a poll are seen as wise and incredibly prescient by the same people who insulted them mere months ago.

I don't have the answers to what it will take to end the incredible bile that has become our political discourse in this country. I suspect it will only occur once the names Bush and Clinton are no longer a part of the political scene.

In the meantime, I'm thinking of submitting the following question to Gallup for future polls:

"Please name ONE SINGLE THING the Democrats have done or seriously proposed doing since the 2004 election."

:wink:

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't have the answers to what it will take to end the incredible bile that has become our political discourse in this country. I suspect it will only occur once the names Bush and Clinton are no longer a part of the political scene.

That imagined change will not do anything at all to alleviate your political discourse problem.

If it is held that 'truth' and 'facts' are merely a reflection of one's political bias (thus objective reporting and an independent press are romanticisms or delusional) and if it is held that what is truly important in political discussions is for one's (inevitably partisan) argument to 'win', then it will not matter in the least whether it is a Bush or a Rice or an Obama whose name is involved.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
I don't have the answers to what it will take to end the incredible bile that has become our political discourse in this country. I suspect it will only occur once the names Bush and Clinton are no longer a part of the political scene.

That imagined change will not do anything at all to alleviate your political discourse problem.

If it is held that 'truth' and 'facts' are merely a reflection of one's political bias (thus objective reporting and an independent press are romanticisms or delusional) and if it is held that what is truly important in political discussions is for one's (inevitably partisan) argument to 'win', then it will not matter in the least whether it is a Bush or a Rice or an Obama whose name is involved.

More than anything, though, I think the names "Bush" and "Clinton" represent each sides' darkest fears about the other (both being somewhat polarizing personalities). We may not see that if it's, perhaps, Giuliani vs. Edwards in '08, or some other new faces.

One thing that's certain, though, is there aren't any serious candidates from either party (so far) who oppose staying the course in Iraq and it may take several election cycles before we see less "noise".

0 Replies

Wake up call. This is 2005. Let's get pass the mid-terms and the Traitorgate investigation first before we start speculatiing on 2008. Giuliani? Condi Rice has a better chance and her chances are minus infinity.

0 Replies

The title of this thread makes me wince every time I see it -- I'm from Minnesota, I don't like gloating, even if there's reason. (And I'm sitting on a few "remember when you said ____?" gloats that I'll only uncork if they're really, really provoked... ;-))

But it's interesting how things have developed just since this thread was started -- then there were a few things that looked bad for the Bush administration, and now it's a train wreck.

SO curious what we'll learn today.

And so curious about long-term effects -- what will things be like in 2006, say? (We have to get Craven to make more predictions, he's as good as a crystal ball...)

0 Replies

soz, this is such a dynamic situation, speculating about 2006 is even is foolhardy. JW does make one good point. The electorate isn't happy with Congress at all. Maybe 2006 will see a wave of incumbents going down in both parties.

Wanna arm wrestle? Smile

0 Replies

You don't have a chance, <squinting> Supergirl. (Supergirl?)

Right, that was pretty much my point -- things are looking bad right now but things looking bad right now is much, much different from things looking bad this time next year.

Plus there's the eternal "throw the bums out!... uh oh, but I don't want to vote for THAT bum on the other side, either" problem.

We'll see.

0 Replies

Like I said earlier, I so bet there will be a rash of terror alerts and different, scarier, colour stuff going on right around then.

Seems to be an old trick that just keeps on workin'.....all over the world.

0 Replies

Yeah, prolly.

<sigh>

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

That's my point, nimh. They indicated the Dems had better solutions, but the pollster was smart enough to not ask them to name one LOL. That might have proved embarrassing :wink:

Hey, JW. I already pointed out (twice, I think), that the (Battleground) poll in question is produced in collaboration by two polling agencies: a Republican one and a Democrat one, overseen by GWU.

Since the poll was a co-product of a Republican pollster, what actual ground do you have to think that "the pollster" was deliberately passing on questions that "might have proved embarrassing" to Democrats?

Or is this just the usual knee-jerk, "any news I dont like must just have been the product of bias" kind of reaction?

JustWonders wrote:

Explain, please how 50% of those polled can say they'd elect a Democrat if an election were held today yet nearly two-thirds are pleased with their own representatives.

That one's simple.

In the poll you just linked in, 65% says that the U.S. Representative in their Congressional District deserves re-election. People mostly like the guy that's representing them now.

But that doesn't say anything about whether they also like the fact that, in slightly over half the cases, he is a Republican. When faced with a choice between a generic Democratic candidate and a generic Republican candidate, after all, as you point out, 50% chooses a Democrat, and only 43% a Republican.

Ergo, it's not that they necessarily dislike the guy that's representing them now - but everything else being equal they'd rather have a Democratic Congressmen.

The consequence of that is that most incumbents may still be popular - but if they're Republican, then that fact alone will be dragging their chances of re-election down.

No rocket science here: we all determine our vote on several different levels, after all. Which guy do I like better, yes. And which guy do I agree with more? But also: which party is he going to support in Congress, will he toe the President's line or oppose him? What do I feel about that?

Each of those considerations play a role in people's choice - and while it looks like the first one will advantage any incumbent, it looks like the third one will be disadvantaging any Republican.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Yeah, prolly.

<sigh>

Except that dog won't hunt because the boy has cried wolf too often.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

You don't have a chance, <squinting> Supergirl. (Supergirl?)

Yeah maybe, if you have some kyrpto on you. But I bet you would die for my abs. Smile

0 Replies

Two further things to keep in mind here.

- The satisfaction rate with their current representative is not broken down by party. It's 65% overall.

Considering that, 1) "the Republicans in Congress" in general are judged more harshly still, if you look at the balance between approval and disapproval (-20) than Democrats are (-12); 2) faced with a generic choice, voters prefer a Democrat, and 3) in the last Survey USA poll ranking individual Senators, most all the Senators on the bottom of the popularity ranking turned out to be Republicans, there is good reason to believe that for Republican representatives, the average is less than 65%.

- The advantage of personal popularity, even if judgement about (Republicans in) Congress overall is harsh, does not apply in cases where a seat is open, and there is no incumbent.

Finally, the challenge that even Congressmen who are personally polled to be doing satisfactorily face is actually twofold.

The first challenge is covered in the post above: when one party is significantly less popular than another, even relatively popular Congressmen can end up submerged in a wave (or wavelet) of change that sweeps out a layer of incumbents in swing states.

But there's a second one. Regardless of whether the opposition party is itself polling much better, a general sense of malaise makes any incumbent vulnerable.

Although 65% polled said their own Congressman deserves re-election, respondents turned lukewarm at best when asked about "most members of Congress": only 46% says they deserve re-election. The perception of politics in general is much worse than that of the one politician they know best.

You will claim that this means the Republicans have little to worry about. And to some extent, you're right: most of the time, local familiarity trumps general malaise. However, ever so often, when general disgruntlement is large enough, even quality Congressmen have had to make place in defeat when the wave of discontent overtook them.

Since there are more Republican incumbents, they will bear more of that challenge too.

Is such a wave of discontent forming? Dunno. But that's where those other poll data come in, see a few pages back. In a sharp increase compared to earlier this year, a whopping 68% of Americans now says they're are "dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time".

That's pretty disgruntled.

0 Replies

Yep, I remember that from Kerry, too, a certain self-fulfilling prophecy in that people are more willing to vote for a candidate they see as "stronger", and part of the "stronger" equation is how much support the candidate has. I could see how that would work for the party as a whole -- if the Republican party as a whole is reeling, that could impact the perception of strength (or lack thereof) for an individual Republican candidate.

0 Replies

nimh - if I understand you correctly, you're saying that even if a Republican likes the job his Republican representative is doing, in the next election, he'll most likely vote Democrat because he thinks overall they'd do a better job?

We disagree, if that's your take on it.

I know my comments regarding the poll in general sound like sour grapes to you, but really, I read the questions and some of them made me laugh. Especially the one concerning the Supreme Court, which made me wonder if the people being polled could even name 4 of the 9 justices or could even come up with one landmark case (other than Roe v. Wade).

I keep thinking I should be more worried and especially today when there seems to be a catastrophe around every corner for this administration. Oddly, I'm feeling the same confident calm that washed over me two weeks before the election in November. Try as I might, I can't even work up a good case of "nerves" over any of the stuff the Dems are gloating over.

I have said it before and haven't changed my mind. The Dems may pick up a couple of seats in '06 but we'll remain in firm control of both Houses. 2008 will see a president who is in favor of staying the course in Iraq (nominees from both parties will run on that platform).

0 Replies

The Democrats Gloat Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know