Is Congress There For The Taking?
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Congress — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I keep hearing all of these stories stating that the Republican Party has no chance of taking Congress back or even making significant gains in the 2008 elections. I'm almost prepared to believe in such pessimism.
And then, I read this:
A new Gallup Poll finds Congress' approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll.
That 18% job approval rating matches the low recorded in March 1992, when a check-bouncing scandal was one of several scandals besetting Congress, leading many states to pass term limits measures for U.S. representatives (which the Supreme Court later declared unconstitutional). Congress had a similarly low 19% approval rating during the energy crisis in the summer of 1979.
Americans' evaluations of the job Congress is doing are usually not that positive -- the vast majority of historical approval ratings have been below 50%. The high point was 84% approval one month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when Americans rallied behind the federal government. Since then, Congress' approval ratings have generally exhibited the same downward trajectory seen in those for President George W. Bush. Currently, 32% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing as president, a far cry from the record-high 90% he received in September 2001. Bush's current job approval rating is just three percentage points above his lowest.
There was a slight interruption in the downward trend in congressional approval ratings at the beginning of this year when party control changed hands from the Republicans to the Democrats following last fall's midterm elections. In January 2007, 35% of Americans approved of Congress, a significant increase from the 21% who approved of Congress in December 2006. That December rating tied the lowest in the 12 years the Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 to 2006.
But that "honeymoon" period for the new Democratically controlled Congress was brief, as its job ratings dropped below 30% in March 2007 and have now fallen below where they were just before the Democrats took over.
I have to think that stories like this will embolden Republicans as they work to recruit candidates. Few people will not at least be tempted to take on a Congress with 18% approval ratings. To be sure, individual candidates may stand higher in esteem, but an 18% approval rating will pull down a number of vulnerable candidates, thus at least whittling away at the Democrats' majorities in both chambers.
It's too early to determine anything certain. But it's not too early for Republicans to start planning on how to take full advantage of the Democratic Congress's diminished standing in the public eye.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Can Conservatives Stop Socialized Medicine? — Comments (57) »
Is Congress There For The Taking? 28 Comments (0 topical, 28 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
We share a name and a geographical location. :-P
Personally, I'm glad the GOP establishment has its head up its behind. Leaves room for the grassroots to work... see the special election in Georgia.
The problem is nearly half of congress are Republicans.
All politics is local. People may hate Congress but they tend to like their own Representatives and Senators. Don't get excited.
Check the rest of that poll and don't forget to look over at Rasmussen.
People are saying their Reps and Senators are putting Party Politics before them...
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
Did that mention people's own reps by name, or just in general?
We'll see if we start seeing some incumbents poll badly by name, I guess...
It's funny, because when you ask specifically about parties, the numbers jump a good bit. Republicans poll between 20-30% approval and Democrats from 30-45% approval.
And, as always, these polls are dumb because they don't ask why people don't approve. It is a given here that the disapproval for Democrats comes from being too liberal or from opposing the war. I'm not sure that is the case.
How bad has it gotten? Even the normal partisan split has all but disappeared. In April, there was a 15-point difference in approval ratings between Democrats and Republicans (43-28). Now the difference has been reduced to the margin of error (21-17), with independents at the average 18%.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
I'm not sure why you are replying to me, as your point is complete different from mine.
Your data looks at the political party of the person polled. My data looks at the political party polled about.
In fact, your graph could support my assertion that Congressional approval ratings are so low because Congress isn't acting liberal enough.
Currently, Congressional Democrats are more popular than Congressional Republicans by 10-15%. If Congressional Democrats started acting more liberal, presumably their support among voting Democrats would go up, which would drive their overall support higher.
If the Republicans can nominate a widely-respected, center-right consensus candidate like Giuliani, and the Democrats nominate Hillary, I can see the Democrats losing Congress as the result of a lopsided election in Giuliani's favor.
Democrats are already expressing concerns about how candidates will do down the ticket with a Hillary nomination. If the contest isn't even close, a lot of Democrats will just stay home. This will especially hurt a lot of the Congressional Democrats in the Red States.
I think the Republicans would have a much harder time taking back Congress in '08 if they nominate someone like Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson, which would make it a much closer Presidential contest.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
The national telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports August 1-2, 2007.
If the Congressional Election were held today, 47% of American voters say they would vote for the Democrat in their district while 37% would opt for the Republican.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/congressional_ballot
Recent Numbers From Gallup.
How bad has it gotten? Even the normal partisan split has all but disappeared. In April, there was a 15-point difference in approval ratings between Democrats and Republicans (43-28). Now the difference has been reduced to the margin of error (21-17), with independents at the average 18%.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
the name of the candidate they voted for and why,most are programmed to vote dem.Ask what led them to vote dem,i'm still waiting for one good reason.I know,some celebrity told them with there vast knowledge of the bluecollar guy they played in a movie that republicans don't care about them.Don't be fooled,the same old uninformed dem voter will still place the same uninformed vote.
Assuming that Republicans hold every seat - a huge assumption -we still need to retake two Senate seats to retake the body (assuming, as I do, that we lose the White House) and fifteen House seats to take that back. In the Senate, there is one vulnerable Democrat, Mary Landrieu, along with a slew of vulnerable Republicans. If Democrats take down only one Republican, Sen. Sununu, as it now appears they will, that means we'd need three seats. The numbers aren't there in the Senate.
In the House, there is a chance we can do it, but we still need to count to fifteen, and hold every seat we currently have. Being extremely charitable, let's assume that we take back FL-16 and TX-22, both of which are heavily Republican districts in which Democrats won under special circumstances. That's thirteen that we need. Now run and hide Rep. Nancy Boyda is especially vulnerable, but we have a primary on our side. Call it twelve for the sake of argument anyway. Given the current environment, which includes poor ratings for Republicans, where do the rest come from?
Realistically, I see the probability of significant Republican gains in either House or Senate as declining daily. And I have absolutely no illusions of holding on to the White House after what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have done to our party. Frankly, I no longer believe that Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney represent anyone but themselves. They do not represent my political views, moral values or standards for leadership, or what it means to me to be a Republican. Not that I don't believe in miracles, but it is my perception that the degree of discontent voters are expressing towards congress is about its failure to stop the carnage, destruction and financial waste in Iraq, which Democrats blame Republicans for even though they are also clearly angry with their representatives for backing down rather than starting a fist-fight with Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. The Democrats undoubtedly have a history of fighting amongst themseleves, but I do not believe they are capable of changing their spots and voting for a Republican candidate anymore than I am likely to vote for Hiliary Clinton. It is my view that today's Republican party lacks acceptance of divergent points of view and discourages the vigorous exchange of ideas. I am not opposed to reasonable compromise. I believe that passionate disagreement leads to inclusive government. Clearly, elements of our party do not agree in some areas, but instead of trying to reach a mutually satisfactory accommodation, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have repeatedly said to everyone, "It's my way or the highway." Their approach has been extremely alienating and destructive. I believe we need to recognize, accept and understand that the elements that divide our party today and have led and are leading to the political gains of the Democratic party, have been created by Mr. Bush's and Mr. Cheney's rigid and uncompromising use of the power of their elected offices. I don't feel that we've been beaten by Democrats. I feel that we've been undermined and betrayed by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. Rather than unify and strengthend our party, they have embarassed, divided and weakened it. How many election cycles will it take us to take our party back? Your guess is as good as mine. I want to be optimistic, but I have no illusions about the obstacles that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have created for us. The youth of America have become overwhelmingly anti-war/Bush/Cheney/Republican. What are we going to do to regain their trust? That is our challenge for the future!
seperate his distinct talking points via the paragraph.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
Get over it.
>>>It is my view that today's Republican party lacks acceptance of divergent points of view and discourages the vigorous exchange of ideas.<<<
Uh oh, the "I" word. Must be another RonBot.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
I agree with Jacob Coulter. We probably can't retake the Congress, but we could certainly pick up 3-4 seats in red districts by nominating Giuliani to go up against Hillary. Even Indiana democrats have publicly stated she will be a drag on the down ticket races! But we need someone who can bring in independent and democrat votes.
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
"But we need someone who can bring in independent and democrat votes."
Most independents/moderates have no core principles upon which they steadfastly stand. My observation leads me to conclude they seek only consensus and acceptance. At least many conservative dems believe in lower taxes and readily identify national security as one of their top priorities.
Many hope Fred can fill those shoes. That will depend on his ability to abandon the mindset of a legislator, and whether he can grasp the concept of inherent constitutional authority and the power of the executive, and if he is uncompromisingly driven to defend Article II. Most legislators spend their entire political careers trying to usurp those powers and weaken the office of the President.
Running toward the middle is not the answer. It is a recipe for electoral defeat.
The answer begins with a strong individual who can unapologetically defend conservative principles and will not assume the electorate knows what it truly means to be a conservative.
The answer, and electoral success, lies with convincing most of the American people that they too, regardless of party affiliation, are conservative.
Unfortunately, the most capable and reliably conservative individual will not seek the presidency.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Giuliani talks out of both sides of his mouth and will be a highly vulnerable target for Democrats. He was a Democrat up to 2007, he didn't oppose Roe vs. Wade, he didn't oppose gay marriage, he's been an unfaithful adulterer and failed Catholic, and a grand-standing mayor who has and is using the 9/11 tragedy for personal political gain. Now why would a loyal Republican vote for a "man" of such clearly flawed moral character? Why?
...that the problem was supposed to be that "today's Republican party lacks acceptance of divergent points of view and discourages the vigorous exchange of ideas."
Kid, I just got to see my boy almost completely stand on his own for the first time today, so I'm going to be exceptionally merciful: restart from zero, stop trying to play divide-and-conquer, and you will be permitted to participate in this forum.
No, no thanks needed: it pleases me to be magnanimous.
Moe Lane
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Sadly, it is not I who has divided our party. It's Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and an oppressive "you're either with us or against us" approach to politics. It disappoints me that some members of our party consider the acceptance of constructive criticism as being "mericiful" and "magnanimous". Where does the arrogance come from that causes someone to believe that his or her "permission" to exercise my freedom of speech rights is required or necessary? You must be a "Bush" Republican.
But that got completely overridden by your inability to read Standard English.
Blam.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
lol, hard to see that one comin'. I saw a dirty diaper heading toward Osceo's head faster than a Johnny Bench throw to second base.
a "Clinton" republican,I say talk all you want.Constructive criticism should be constructive don't you think.I'm sure if you look really hard you could find some other people who might have helped devide the party.I think your freedom of speech might even put you right there with Mr.Bush and Mr.Cheney.
We're all dissatisfied. I, personally, am dissatisfied with my man Bond. He voted for the watered down version of ethics reform that essentially continued the bribe fest indefinitely. Sigh.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Congress's approval rating has been in the toilet for some time now. You'd think the Republicans would take advantage of this but it appears the GOP establishment has its head up its ass as usual. They should be out there slamming the Dems on anything and everything, yet all we hear are crickets.