Democrats Lose Their Edge
Poll Shows Congressional Approval Ratings Have Returned to Pre-Election Levels
ANALYSIS by GARY LANGER
ABC News
The Democrats in Congress have lost much of the leadership edge they carried out of the 2006 midterm election, with the lack of progress in Iraq being the leading cause. Their only solace: President Bush and the Republicans aren't doing any better.
Six weeks ago the Democrats held a 24-point lead over Bush as the stronger leadership force in Washington; today that's collapsed to a dead heat. The Democrats' overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now -- with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War.
Yet the Democrats' losses have not produced much in the way of gains for Bush or his party. The president's approval rating remains a weak 35 percent, unchanged from mid-April at two points from his career low in ABC News/Washington Post polls. The Republicans in Congress do about as badly, with just 36 percent approval.
(Continued here.)
ANALYSIS by GARY LANGER
ABC News
The Democrats in Congress have lost much of the leadership edge they carried out of the 2006 midterm election, with the lack of progress in Iraq being the leading cause. Their only solace: President Bush and the Republicans aren't doing any better.
Six weeks ago the Democrats held a 24-point lead over Bush as the stronger leadership force in Washington; today that's collapsed to a dead heat. The Democrats' overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now -- with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War.
Yet the Democrats' losses have not produced much in the way of gains for Bush or his party. The president's approval rating remains a weak 35 percent, unchanged from mid-April at two points from his career low in ABC News/Washington Post polls. The Republicans in Congress do about as badly, with just 36 percent approval.
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
A couple of comments on the poll.
#1. Troop levels
#2. "Six for '06" policy agenda and '100 hours' agenda versus the Iraq Supplemental
#3. Negativity is so easy
First, followers of the stock market know to either buy for the short term or the long term but don’t fight the trendline. The consistently rising trendline in this survey is the response to the question “Preferences for US force levels in Iraq”. After Rumsfeld and Bush were saying that there are enough troops despite calls from Senators Biden, Luger, and McCain, the numbers of respondents that believe more troops are needed are steadily increasing since 2005. In some ways that may be due to Bush’s campaign to promote the “surge” and some Republicans to unquestionably “support the President”. The survey data over time shows that the number of people who advocate an immediate withdrawal is steadily decreasing … from in the 40s to the 20s. The most inconsistent trend is by the people who responded that there should be a decrease in troop levels but not a total withdrawal. That group’s response is like a sine wave and is currently on the upswing. So if you’re a long term player, you might be tempted to Buy on the Increase Troop stock, but I am afraid that stock will not sustain in this uncertain market.
That said, the overall significance of the Iraq issue is so overwhelming that it hurts both the Congress and the President.
Second, the Dems set some legislative agenda items which put too much pressure on the timeline and not enough effort to solicit support from the Republicans. Sure, the House got its target bills through … but without significant Republican support. Although the House did its job, the rules and the agenda in the Senate allow the Republicans more say. If the Republican House membership participated in the drafting of the legislation, it could have helped motivate the Senate.
That said, the Supplemental War Funding bill, that many anti-war activists were distraught over, included $4.8 billion funding for veteran health care, $3 billion for disaster aid to farmers, $1.1 billion for military housing, $1 billion for homeland security projects such as protecting ports and $650 million for health care for poor children. The bill also increases the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. These issues were part of the critical issues of the 2006 midterms. So by using the Iraq Supplemental Funding, the Dems were able to achieve some of its goals that Bush and the Republicans did not want. But the Dems are not getting any of the credit. Realistically, the Dems should have been stressing that many of these programs will impacted by the future Federal Budgets. For example, the House has just approved an increase in FY2008 funding for domestic security despite a promised Bush veto.
Now that the Iraq Supplemental has been approved, the Republicans are leaping off the “Surge” bandwagon … conservative Republican Senator Jeff Sessions said on Face The Nation "By September, when General Petraeus is to make a report, I think most of the people in Congress believe, unless something extraordinary occurs, that we should be on a move to draw that surge number down” …. And fellow Republican Senator Richard Shelby said on CNN
“I think we've had some marginal success, [SNIP]. I don't see a big breakthrough over there at this time. Maybe we will stabilize the area, but we can't do anything other than marginal successes unless the Iraqi government steps up. And I don't see big signs of that. There was always hope. I've been hearing this two years. I'm very doubtful.”
When Sessions and Shelby are wavering in their support for Iraq, you know that there are problems.
We are an impatient nation and when foolish politicians promise quick results, their poll ratings suffer.
Third, it’s a lot easier to see the negativity than the positive.
Remember that 49% of the voters in 2004 voted against Bush. The highest approval rating that Bush should realistically expect is 51 %, so being at 35% that is probably down to the hardcore Republicans who will never waver (oops, forgot about that immigration question.) Were all the people that voted for Bush really supporters? I suspect not, as some just did not want Kerry but since elections force a decision, so Bush got their votes.
The same analogy can be made for Congress. It’s a lot easier to complain/blame than promote.
Besides, don’t you think that many respondents were just “sending a message” to Congress, but come November 2008 will be back in their respective parties or forced to make a decision?
Post a Comment
<< Home