More than ever, Americans are looking for someone new to replace their current member of Congress, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll (PDF). From ABC News:
Registered voters by 62-26 percent are inclined to look around for someone new for Congress rather than to re-elect their current representative–the broadest anti-incumbency on record in ABC/Post polls since 1989. Backing for incumbents has lost 11 points since February, an unusually steep decline.
This is historically bad news for incumbents, and since Democrats currently hold large majorities in both chambers, this is also bad for the Democratic Party. Voters have every reason to despise their current members of Congress. We have nearly 10 percent unemployment, no economic turnaround in sight, an overwhelming feeling that Washington is filled with corruption to benefit Wall Street at the expense of regular people, and a Senate stuck in endless gridlock, incapable of passing simple laws to help people.
That said, one of the poll questions receiving a lot of attention is too badly worded to be meaningful.
A year and a half into his presidency, 51 percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll would rather have the Republicans run Congress “to act as a check on Obama’s policies,” vs. 43 percent who want the Democrats in charge to help support those policies.
The phrase “act as a check” is far too leading. We have the wisdom of our Constitution’s set of “checks and balances” hammered into us in school. We are universally taught that the words “checks” and “balances” as related to government are very good things. That’s skewing the poll. I think the question should have been a more accurate variation on one of these: “Would you rather Republicans run Congress to: block Obama’s policies, force Obama to abandon some of his policies or force Obama to change his priorities?”
The generic ballot question is more useful. Instead of using a loaded question and a vague reason, it asks voters who they are actually planning to vote for to control Congress. The poll found 47 percent of registered voters would select a Republican candidate, and 46 percent would choose a Democrat. This is still bad news for Democrats and an indication they will likely lose most of their majorities in November.
The only real silver lining for Democrats is that the Republican brand is still in terrible shape after eight years of George W. Bush. Few Americans really trust Congressional Republicans to make the right decisions for our country’s future. Only 26 percent have a great amount or good amount of confidence in Congressional Republicans to make the right decisions, compared with 32 percent for Congressional Democrats.



57 Comments
I guess I’m coming around to the “keep kicking the bast*rds out until they learn to get it correct”
Of course, the Rs will be exponentially worse in most cases.
I am reluctantly coming to the same conclusion. I actually think voting out blue dogs is worth the little added pain of real Republicans. To vote the “least bad” just gives the message, at least here in the South, that “least bad” is a viable political philosophy.
Lucky me, I don’t have to worry about an incumbent this time.
That asshole Blue Dog Brian Baird is retiring.
I don’t want the lesser of two evils, I want an end to the two-party system. If independents and dissafected conservatives and liberals got together, we could change the rules.
There was a lot of “throw-the-bums” out sentiment in 2006 and 2008, yet almost all of the incumbent Democrats seeking re-election were able to retain their seats.
Obama chose poorly. Rahm Emmanuel doomed his Presidency and the hopes of the U.S. public.
The sad thing is that Democrats could have put through some of the most liberal legislation ever seen and not been any worse off than they are now.
I’d like half the Blue Dogs to lose, just enough to scare the remainder into acting like real Democrats and stop pulling Nancy’s caucus into deficit peacock territory. We don’t need half those Blue Dogs and New Dems, they ruin the party.
Seems like Southern states never kick anyone out. They end up disproportionally powerfull because of seniority.
O’bama choose wisely. He has excellent prospects of making a fortune after leaving office, because he has pleased Wall St and the Healt Syndicate.
Many directorships will be coming his way.
Good,The whole damn bunch are corrupt.
Let’s get vote progressives instead of these corporate creeps.
And Jon,the unemployment # is something like 13-15%.The Govt won’t tell us the truth….remember according to Obama we are making progress even though more Americans are unemployed and losing their homes,and being cut from unemployment insurance…..I guess he is right,we are moving to serfdom which is what they seem to want.
Yes, he has young kids,who I am sure will get a nice kick back from the Banksters when they are of working age.
Same deal with Chris Dodd…
Anyone remember Chelsea Clinton being given a nice payday just out of college from Wall streeters….
32% versus 26%…
Whoopee. We’re gonna kick ass.
Some old: “Vote for us! We’re not as fucked up as the republicans!”
Democratic party…on the morning after the mid-terms:
“Wha hoppen??? We were so securely in the center!!!”
I took that survey; one question I flatly said “that’s just not true!”
It was way too much leading information, on both sides. But it confirmed for me that I sure don’t want the Republican. Especially when the poor womon going thru the questions told me My guy got campaign contributions from ( gasp!) pornographers….:^)
I don’t think Obama cares. He likes the republicans better than the dems anyway. Plus, then he won’t have to get ANYTHING done..which is just what The Corporation/IMF wants.
No chance that Chelsea actually earned her way, right? That’s only possible for the unfamous.
“The sad thing is, the democrats could have put through some of the most liberal legislation ever seen, and not been any worse off.”
What a terrible, truth-filled sentence. It throbs with veracity.
In fact, we’d have been BETTER off. The voters wanted someone to mount the salvage operation, and no bullshit about it. Instead, the only thing that Obama has salvaged is the fucking republican party and the wingnuts whose bloody, idiotic, policies he inherited and is sustaining.
November is going to be political euthanasia. Why not?
I’ll be glad to see the ass-end of Diane Feinstein once and for all, but would gladly vote for Boxer any and every time she decides to re-up, and will hold the nose in a vote for Pelosi until a better candidate emerges.
Kassandra; as an old friend used to say:
“You’re as right as a snake.” :o)
I think that O. and Reid and Pelosi and the “leadership” will quietly heave a sigh of relief to have those big Senate and House majorites cut to the bone. The expectations that came with them were an onerous burden for the democratic party to bear. It’s about to be lifted, thanks to Barack Obama boldly going where George Bush went for 8 years, and calling it “Centrism”.
The unabated bashing of Obama and the Democrats by commenters here has contributed to a Republic resurgance.
Did anyone else see Ed Schultz, the host of MSNBC’s “The Ed Show”, completely destroy Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on tonight’s show? Ed was upset with Senator Reid’s comment that President Obama has been to reluctant to confront Republicans.
It was priceless to watch Ed’s first guest, DCCC Chairman Rep Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), realize that he’d rather be anywhere else but where he was.
Next up, pundit Bill Press, who promptly agreed with Harry, pointing out that no one, Democrat OR Republican…is afraid of President Obama.
MSNBC has, once again, proven that no one can match their pitch-perfect coverage of the political scene.
Punksheep: “I don’t want the lesser of two evils…”
And neither do one hell of a lot of amurkan voters. Arguing that our political hacks aren’t as bad as their political hacks is going to get our asses handed to us, in 15 weeks.
For a while I was getting upset about it. It was really angryfying and frustrating. No more.
Now, I’m taking my cue from Cool Hand Obama, as he enjoys the helicopter rides, the White House meet-and-greet with winning sports teams, and being called “Mr. Preznint!”.
I say, “leadership” is where you find it, and no one can fault Obama for being callous or hard-hearted: who else would so willingly share the Exxon-Valdezful of political clout he came in with, with the people who nearly ruined us, when they had none, after November of 2008?
Badwater; the truth hurts. Deal with it?
I hope your emotional state about our situation is not reflected in worsening health, but if it is, just enjoy the rock-solid public option that Obama got for us when he hammered out the great populist healthcare reform with the robber barons, and rejoice in the lower drug prices that Obama’s courageous and unstinting support of Sen. Dorgan’s amendment to re-import cheap generic drugs, brought us.
What would be nice would be to have a strong progressive candidate in every damn district, and not a Dem if no Dem is available. But to do that we would have had to start after the 2008 election, and to do that we’d have to blow off the ‘give-em-time’-ers. And to do that we’d have to be willing to stand on principle, to take some losses to build our movement, to take a lot of heat from folks we once might have thought of as allies (eg. Nader-Haters), and we’d have to be willing to see through Democratic Party talking points and strategies meant to keep progressives and lefties aboard as the Party pursues relentlessly corporatist policies.
And so?
ModerateX, was that sarcasm?
Did Harry Reid really speak the damning truth that Obama has been reluctant to confront republicans, and then Ed Schultz got after him for SAYING it?
I apologize, if I somehow missed the snark in your “voice”, but if it’s true, then it means that Harry Reid has gone off the reservation, and that Ed Schultz, instead of commending him for it, has turned into a full-on Obamabot. Have you got a link for that?
…been the result of the continuation of Bush policies and the corporate friendly reform-free “reforms.” It was completely within their power to make it otherwise.
How’s that?
Through some kind of psychic voodoo osmosis?
Not trying to be snarky to you, or this website, but there have been 3,000 something visitors to the fdl family of websites in the last hour (scroll down and click on sitemeter) subtracted by the 300 million (a guess) eligible voters in this country. And this post and those like it are responsible for Obama and the Democrats poll numbers taking a suicide dive off a cliff?
Really?
Call me crazy, but I think it’s his, and their wannabe Bush/Cheney neocon war continuing and corporate fallatiating (made up word I know, but I’m trying to be polite) policies that have done it
But that’s just me
Badwater2: WADR, I think you’ve misjudged just how sick of “bidness as usual” to preserve the status quo, are americans. Anyone with two synapses to rub together knows that we needed to make some big changes in our government policies, relative to the giant corporate leeches who’ve attached themselves to us, over the years. That’s why we hired Barack Obama; he sounded like he’d at least be willing to try.
Alas, we were mistaken, and the repubs who were shitting green nickels when he took office with those big margins and that clear mandate for change, needn’t have worried. He’s done rehab on them and their perverted failure of a worldview, as surely as if he were zapping Frankenstein, to get him cranked up again.
The situation with BP is just one of the bellwethers: It’s painfully obvious that Obama believes that he can speak loudly and carry a little fur-covered vibrator in his dealings with these environmental assassins, and that the voters will buy it. At this point in his long-running Kabuki theater what could be fairer and more useful than having he and the rest of the “leadership” get shellacked in the mid-terms?
The people on here who are angry about the sellout are being scolded by a few others for being willing to see Obama and the dems stripped of political power that they have studiously avoided using. In fact, it’s rotting away in the White House cupboard. What are we supposed to do; sit on what’s left of it and jerk off?
I would settle for half. Yes maybe it would wake up the malleable. I would also hope also it woujld encourage authentic Progressives to run for office and state and county Democratic parties to support them..
I was just over at HuffP0 and got this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/noaa-hoarding-key-data-on_n_645031.html
It’s a good example of what we’re talking about. NOAA is squatting on a LOT of hard evidence about the catastrophe in the GOM. They’re doing it by taking weeks to “vette” the studies. If Obama had really wanted to put the screws to BP, he would never have allowed the USCG and NOAA to play Heckle-and-Jeckyll-for-British-Petroleum.
Your tax dollars at work, under the Obama administration.
It’s worth noting that if this had been the Bush administration using NOAA as an evidence-dump for hard science about what’s going on in the Gulf, the howls from the progressive ‘net would have been deafening.
Tanbark-
First…
There’s at least a fair amount of sarcasm in all my posts. And yes…you’ve got it about right.
Second, Reid’s original remarks were to Jon Ralston, host of “Face to Face”, a political show on Channel 3 in Las Vegas. No link, but you should have no difficulty finding the relevant video segment on the net.
The Ed Schultz part of the equation was live on tonight’s “The Ed Show”, on MSNBC. At present, the video of both Reid’s original remarks, and Schultz’s response is up on MSNBC’s website.
I respectfully disagree.
Progressives have been speaking out loudly since Bush began to gut the various climate science related agencies. Jim Hansen is one of our heroes. As to the BP crimes committed on the Gulf progressives have been outspoken in their mistrust of the government as well as BP.
David Dayen is upstairs!
BP Begins to Cap Well; Legacy of Failure Remains
Moderateextremist; I’ll check it out. Thanks for the comeback.
Talkingstick:
Thanks for your reply, but Barack Obama sat on his centrist ass for 16 months and did nothing about the sweetheart offshore drilling regs. There was hardly a word of that, from most of the progressive ‘net. They talked about his inheriting it from Bush, which was true, but they didn’t want to talk about his willingness to let the regs roll.
Three weeks before Deep Water Horizon blew he signed off on more offshore drilling, and since then his administration has exempted a number of new wells from having to file environmental impact reports.
Every time that BP has lowballed the hell out of the amounts of crude pouring into the GOM (there have been at least 5 “upgrades”, that I count)…Obama has allowed the USCG to put their seal of approval on the bullshit. It’s been an integral part of BP’s defense strategy, and the complaints about this from liberals and progressives
have been few and far between.
I don’t dispute that progressives went after Bush on environmental issues. We did, and rightly so. What I’m saying is that Obama has done precious little to change those policies, and we’re seeing the results in the GOM. (and in Afghanistan, to use another horrible example)
And the fact is, most progressive bloggers have bent over backwards to avoid assigning any blame to Obama for this.
Welcome to FDL. It sounds like you have not been finding the genuine progressive blogs. I see few regular posters here who disagree with your description of Obama’s behavior and have been saying so for a long time. There have even been some on some of the more progressive friendly cable news shows.
btw I took the liberty to post your link to David’s article upstairs. It just confirms what we have been suspecting..
Edit You also might be interested in Kris Kromm’s Facing South http://www.southernstudies.org/
Cindy Sheehan probably would have been a better candidate when she ran in 2008. Did you vote for her then?
just curious
I’ve been posting at FDL for years. Jane does a great job, and it’s a great site.
One of the most honest of the progressive blogs.
It’s exceptional…literally, in that as far as I can tell, they are leading the curve, in talking about Obama’s feckless shit…but they ARE the exception.
Would you like to find a piece on Kos, THE progressive blog, talking about the things I talked about, in my post? It it’s there, it’ll be so rare as to be tokenism, and not much else.
And that holds true for most progressive blogs. On most of them, the posters are ahead of the bloggers, in airing the problems that we face with Obama.
I agree about Kos and rarely go there anymore. I do see some good articles, among the others, on Huff Post, Salon, OPEd News and Truthout.
Eli is upstairs!
Tales From Bizarro World
I haven’t found Reid’s comment about Obama’s not wanting to confront the republicans. I have no doubt that he said it. I think he’s trying to put some distance between himself and Obama, despite the fact that Obama came and campaigned with him in Nevada. How would it have looked if he didn’t? Of course, how would it look if he campaigned for him, and Reid lost? :o)
I think we’ll see Obama showing up mainly in “safe” democratic districts and states. His ratings keep tracking downward, and the dems in the close races are going to think twice about appearing with him.
In fairness, HuffPo is starting to pull no punches in going after Obama.
tanbark:
Maybe this will help.
Reid: I Wish Obama Had Backed Me Up More On Health Care (VIDEO)
Harry Reid is just stating the obvious…too little, too late.
I don’t know whether she earned it or not but I wouldn’t want my daughter to grow up and work for a greedy arbitrage firm, and marry another arbitrage agent.
Ha!
Anyone buying this shit from Reid is pathetic.
Reid did everything to accomodate the POS legislation that we’ve got.
What balls to whine about Obama.
He took his marching orders from Corporate King Obama and happily carried them out, just like the rest of the Dem party.
Keep rewarding failure ensures more failure.
I see you’ve read this: The Sensible Liberals Guide to Sensible Liberalism in the age of Obama
I think you’re ignoring the growing (though still too-small) number of voters willing to take a chance on voting third party this year. Fewer and fewer people trust either major party, and with actual unemployment hovering around twenty percent (when you factor in those who are no longer counted even though they aren’t working, and the severely underemployed), that’s a recipe for third party growth.
Spoeakingup: Thanks for chasing that down. I wanted to see the whole thing, and get the context in which Reid put it.
Reid, of course, is too easy on Obama, and Clemenza is right, too. For example, who was yanking on whose chain, to kill the Dorgan amendment?
I think it was…excuse me…IS…a case of Reid saying:
“You’re a gutless wimp, and boy, am I glad of it.”
The bottom line is, there is just no stomach from either O. or congress, for going after the corporate ethic that dominates our government now…which is why I’m willing to risk the repubs getting back in power by yanking the rug from under these bidness-as- usualshitbirds. I think that every week, more and more of us are. To me, Obama and the dems are at the point of being more valuable to us as sacrificial political goats, than they are, in office.
How about this: I think he’s going down in 2012, whether we back him or not. The reality chickens are coming in to land, whatever progressives do:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20100714/D9GUQP3O0.html
That Reid would get in a dig at Obama for being soft on the repubs, just 6 days after Obama was in Vegas to campaign for him, is both funny and telling. Maybe he just…mis-spoke. :o)
Reid apparently likes to speak all bold and progressively when election season rolls around.
If he’s still in office by 2011, he’s going to make the TV dad in Alf look like a badass.
Check this out!
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003700161
Along the same lines as what we’ve been talking about with Reid; Pelosi is going after Robert Gibbs, Obama’s WH press secretary, for his statement two days ago, that the democrats could lose the house. (they have a 77 seat majority there…)
It’s clear as a bell what Gibbs was doing: he was ringing the FEAR! bell, and telling democrats that if we don’t shut up and send money and get out the vote, the assholes on whom his boss has worked miracle-rehab are going to make a comeback.
(My immediate reaction: “Robert! Thanks to Obama providing them with a leadership vacuum the size of the Grand Canyon, they already HAVE!”)
In a way, it’s good that Pelosi is calling him out for doing it. She, at least, has some political survival instinct left. Obama has been so conciliatory to the republicans and their warped world-view that he seems bereft of it.
I can get right behind the Kick the Bums Out sentiment… in theory. But who do we replace them with? More bums? I don’t see anyone in the wings who isn’t, or who isn’t soon to be, in the pay of Wall Street and corporate America. Our problem is a fundamental one. The money has won the battle, and until the people start sending the message that no one doing the money’s bidding is fit for public office, we’ll just be trading one scoundrel for another, again and again and again….
I think the most salient point to be taken from Gibbs’ statement about the dems possibly losing the House, is that 15 weeks before the mid-terms, Obama is getting drenched in flop-sweat as he looks at the prospect of becoming a one-legged duck for the last two years of his term, and now, he’s frantically buying into the new campaign slogan (it was old, the moment it was first talked about…) of:
“Vote for us! We’re not as fucked up as the republicans!”
What’s sad and depressing, is that if, as he took office in January of 2009, someone had predicted THIS scenario of abject fear and failure, we would have hooted them off the site. :o(
Until we get money$$$$ out of politics-”we little people” are screwed. We vote out one set of criminals$ and replace them more of the same$.
I voted for obama’s “change we can believe in.” You would think as a 67 year old i would know better than believe a politician.
We are run and controlled by the corporations and the media(adds$$$from corporations)get the picture!!!!!
Where is a respected national leader(no politician, pundits need apply)who would lead a march on washington to demand that money exit our political system.
This is not a conservative, liberal movement-it’s “we the people.”
XT; it’s a fair question. I don’t have a comprehensive answer, but if Alan Grayson even twitches in the direction of a challenge to Obama, I’ll send him some bucks. He’s said the right things, to me. Which is to say, he’s said what Obama should have been saying.
Given that, I think Obama has created the situation for one of the quickest and biggest political reverses in our history. The republicans did not do this to him; he has no one to blame but himself.
Whether he did it knowingly, in the service of the people who nearly ruined us during Bush’s 8 years, or whether he is, in fact, such a political cipher that he actually believes (He should certainly be disabused of it by now…) that the republicans would join with him to try to salvage something from their 8 years of fuckups, we can argue about, but it is what it is, and again, I think he’s become more valuable to us as bus-throwing material than as a president with a desire for progressive change.
We need to illustrate that the best part of the democratic party, when THEY go under the bus, will crawl out and do a little political hurling, ourselves.
“You would think as a 67 year old…”
You’re too hard on yourself. Obama didn’t double John McCain’s electoral vote because american voters thought he was marginally better; we were FIRED UP. And we should have been.
A handsome, articulate black man, who, in 2002, made that great speech against Bush dragging us into the ruinous clusterfuck in Iraq, and making it at a time when Bush’s numbers were going through the roof, and most of the country was drinking the koolaid???
He was irresistable.
I don’t beat up on myself for that, and you shouldn’t either. And the people who scorn us for believing in him are full of Monday-morning shit.
He was a bright ray of hope. That we were excited about it, is no shame at all.
The only shame will be if we are too blindly loyal and and too dishonest to admit that, for whatever reason, he has almost completely funked the job. Let’s get him out and move on.