Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Democrat Strategy for November: all about Bush
Posted by: McQ on Friday, April 07, 2006

It appears that Chuck Schumer is positive that a Democratic attempt to make the Congressional mid-terms "a referendum on President Bush" will lead to impressive Democratic gains in Congress come November:
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said yesterday that the 2006 midterm elections would be a referendum on President Bush and expressed optimism that Democrats could make substantial gains this November.

“Eighty percent of the election will be a referendum on George W. Bush,” the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) chairman said at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor.
I don't think so. Call it instinct. Call it a gut reaction. But I don't think the Dems will be successful in their attempt to make this a referendum about Bush.

To do so, they have to do certain things. They have to nationalize certain topics and make them issues in local races.
But Schumer said that several themes would carry Democrats at the polls, including their “culture of corruption” message, labeling Bush and Republicans as incompetent after the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina and the prolonged war in Iraq. Democrats, he said, will focus on issues that “help the average middle-class person.”
Now relate that to local races. Seriously. What impact does wasting your breath on charging the President with a "culture of corruption" and incompetence relate to Congressman X's record in his district? If Tip O'Neil's maxim that "all politics is local" is true, why in the world are the Democrats taking this approach?

There are certainly ways to nationalize this election. As is usually pointed out (ad nauseum) the Republican effort in 1994 is a perfect example. Short on trying to make it a referendum on Bill Clinton and long on point out that it was a legislative race and if the country gave the Republican party a chance in the House, they had a list of specific things they wanted to get done.

They certainly didn't base their strategy in attacking the President.
“The midterm elections will be decided in places like Washington state and Michigan, not in Washington, D.C.,” said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). “Our candidates will have a clear message and clear vision. That’s not something you see from Democrats either in D.C. or from their challengers in the states.”
Maybe it is the tendency of Democrats to see solutions for all things to be found in Washington DC that's at work here. But I have to go with Brian Nick on this one. This isn't a smart strategy for the Democrats. And while it may yield some gain, it is not a strategy which will yield a majority in either chamber of the Congress. As an official member of the "gridlock is good" party, I'm not happy about that.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
The Democrats will literally do anything they can think of to avoid facing the fact that they have no tangible suggestions, proposals or policies to put forth. Their recent "national defense plan" was a typical example - "there ain’t nuthin’ in there", as a colleague used to say.

If they really had a case against Bush, part of the case would be "Here’s where we would do things differently". On Iraq, what would they do differently? According to their vaunted defense plan, nothing really. "Redouble our efforts." And if that doesn’t work, presumably redouble them again.

On immigration, what would they do differently? Build a wall? Bush supports amnesty - are they against it? On the economy, what would they do differently? Do they really think we can have much better economic performance or lower unemployment than we have now, considering the load government takes out of the economy?

Education - Bush co-authored his main education bill with Ted Kennedy. What could the Dems possibly want that’s different? Well, probably a few things to appease their teacher’s union supporters, but they’re not going to talk about those payoffs because the public doesn’t want to pay off any more unions.

Social Security? Finally, they have an obvious difference. They don’t want to do a thing, claiming that there’s no need to. There are a few problems highlighting that difference in an election campaign, though. First, they’ve changed their tune since Clinton. Second, more twenty-somethings believe in visitations from space aliens than believe they will receive Social Security. Finally, every proposal they’ve brought up in the past for "solving the problem" involved tax increases, which won’t go down well with the voters.

Healthcare is the one place where they could carve out a difference, though Bush adding about trillion in future debt for prescription drugs makes it impossible to claim he’s uncaring, or whatever. And at least some voters, such as those in Tennessee, have seen what a disaster well-intentioned efforts towards universal coverage can cause. (Canada gives us a nice case study, too.) So they could appeal to their base there, and maybe some independents, but staking out a policy that wins them votes also risks losing other votes.

These folks are stuck between a base that’s delusional and refuses to drop their attachment to a failed vision of a welfare state that grows ever more socialist, and voters who got tired of that stuff long ago. There’s nothing they can say that won’t anger one of those two sides. So they don’t say anything of consequence.

Since they have to have something to put on the talking head shows, they’ve chosen Bush bashing as a substitute for thinking and analysis. That’s like investing in a company in 1999 whose sole business was doing Y2K conversion projects - you better get a heck of a short term return because in the long term that investment will be completely vaporized.

"We can do better", "Better we can do", "We better figure out a way to do better", "Bit of butter makes bitter batter better"... These guys risk being seen by the electorate as vacuous posers, and losing ground instead of gaining it. Faced with opponents that would charitably be called mediocre, the Democrats seem intent on proving themselves worse.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
"vacuous posers,"

Naw...

Vacuous, opportunistic posers.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Healthcare is the one place where they could carve out a difference, though Bush adding about trillion in future debt for prescription drugs makes it impossible to claim he’s uncaring, or whatever.
I volunteer at an agency that assists persons with disabilities. It would be impossible to overstate the anger, frustration and despair the Medicare D program has engendered among the elderly, the disabled, those who provide assisted living services to them, and their friends and families. That program is the worst bureaucratic mess I’ve ever seen, and that’s saying a lot.

People go through the Byzantine enrollment protocols (most need professional help such as the agency I volunteer at provides, to navigate the system), and then are told they are not enrolled even tho they have confirmation numbers. They cannot determine which among 50 different plans they are supposed to be in, and many, many end up spending more on prescriptions than they did previously, on very limited incomes. Many are being turned away at the pharmacy — without urgently needed scrips — because The System tells the pharmacy the party is not enrolled. Pharmacists sit on hold with whatever agency is supposed to clear things up for 45 minutes, and then nothing can be done.

Over a month ago I read a poll saying this program had sent the elderly scurrying out of the GOP, and I believe it. Nothing could produce better results for the Dems than to announce how they would fix it. Even if they actually can’t achieve that, the Will to Believe among the electorate is strong, and the disaffection of the elderly/disabled and those who love them vis-a-vis the GOP is a weakness the Dems could and should exploit.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
"...even if they cannot achieve that."
Mona: another vacuous, opportunistic poseur.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Mona,
"It would be impossible to overstate the anger..."

You just did. I get angry filing my taxes, but I still do it.

BTW, the forms are a cinch, and the gub’ment has a program to help applicants fill out them out. These "complaints" about the Medicare Prescription drug bill remind me of the local stray cat: it’s not enough for me to open up a can of tuna fish and put on the stoop. He wants me cut it up for him, too.

To McQ’s post, Schumer is demonstrating a time-worn tactic used by politicians to divert the local electorate from issues germane to the politician’s jurisdiction, by highlighting issues distant from his jurisdiction. A politician uses this tactic when he doesn’t want his electorate to consider his party on its local record.

The same delicious motive is what drives the globe’s transnationalists to devise secondary and tertiary supra-national "shells," such as the E.U, the U.N, and the myriad of over-weaning "multi-lateral" bodies they construct. A politician like Chirac enjoys the insulation from accountability that these supra-jurisdictional bodies provide. What politician wouldn’t find a perfect absolution when U.N. commissions and Environmentalist NGO’s do more to rule your govenment’s legislation and foreign policy than its elected legislators do?

It’s a weird form of district gerrymandering: if you dissolve district lines, even natioinal boundarie, you can absolve yourself of any bounded jurisdictional accountability, and thereby insure your re-election.

To restate McQ’s excellent point in this post, it boils down to those famous words bespoke by Al Gore: Plausible Deniability. Schumer thinks his party’s local politicians can plausibly deny their responsibility for on-the-ground conditions in, say, Baton Rouge, LA, or Broward County, FL, all because "Bush lied!", or "Bush Spied!", or Bush’s Illegal War!"

Schumer is advising his party to follow in the well-todden path of its sister progressives in Old Europe. Why he thinks this is a winning stategy is beyond me. It hasn’t worked in Canada, Britain, Australia nor Germany. Why does he think it will work in America in 2006?
-Steve
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
Mona: another vacuous, opportunistic poseur.
Insulting me is not a substitute for facts. And the facts on the ground are that there is widespread anger about the intolerably confusing and incoherent Medicare D program. If the point of McQ’s post is that the Dems need some issues to beat up the GOP with in a convincing manner — and that is what I took from his post — little could be better for them than exploiting the dissatisfaction and frustration with the Medicare D program.

I want some federal gridlock, and a Dem majority in the House is a way to get there. Democrats are perceived as better on entitlement programs, and the GOP’s debacle with Medicare D is an area where Dems could argue "we do that kind of thing better."
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
"exploiting the dissatisfaction and frustration"... "Democrats are perceived..." "Dems could argue..."

Mona: another vacuous, opportunistic poseur.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Call it instinct. Call it a gut reaction. But I don’t think the Dems will be successful in their attempt to make this a referendum about Bush.
Call it wishful thinking.
Since they have to have something to put on the talking head shows, they’ve chosen Bush bashing as a substitute for thinking and analysis.
What’s the GOP’s plan? The Dems have no plan!

Some plan. Some thinking. Some analysis.

Oh Billy. BTW, what is the GOP’s thinking on immigration?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
If the point of McQ’s post is that the Dems need some issues to beat up the GOP with in a convincing manner — and that is what I took from his post — little could be better for them than exploiting the dissatisfaction and frustration with the Medicare D program.
It was and you’re right ... but their problem is distancing themselves from something they sponsored in this particular case (won’t sell nationally or locally).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Oh Billy. BTW, what is the GOP’s thinking on immigration?
They (and I emphasize "they", not "we") can’t figure out what to do. Which gives the Democrats room to craft a coherent message. But they won’t, for all the reasons I mentioned.

You did read my whole comment, right? How about the part that said:
Faced with opponents that would charitably be called mediocre, the Democrats seem intent on proving themselves worse.
You can’t get away from the fact that the Democrats have no policies at all by pointing out that, on some issues, the GOP doesn’t have a policy either. That’s the same kind of thinking that has sent the Democrats into minority status and kept them there.

Of course, you really, really don’t want to face up to that, just like your other colleagues on the Democratic left, so you ignore what I actually said and point out irrelevancies instead of offering ideas or refutation. Really, mk, you are becoming entirely too predictable.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
What’s the GOP’s plan?
To use the power of incumbency in an essentially local election.

Why?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
You cannot nationalize these elections by making it about Bush? Why? Because (incumbency issues aside) too many of the GOP have run counter to Bush just enough to neutralize that strategy.

The Dems yell about Bush and the Dubai/Ports thing? Well, the GOP sure went against him on that. Yell about immigration? Maybe it will work a bit, but it sure puts the Dems in a bit of a bind as well- I bet they don’t mention this much. Yell about "corruption"? Yeah, but unless the local GOP Senator/Rep. is corrupt, it won’t carry. What does that leave- Iraq? Oh man...I DARE the Dems to try to make this election about Iraq.

And we know they won’t yell about the economy, which is still something Bush can point to as a strong point overall.

So honestly...what’s the Dems message going to be? More of the same we’ve heard from them for 6 years.

Yeah, that sounds like a winning formula. PLUS, since they’re so ham-fisted, I seriously doubt it will take more than a few ill-advised comments (calling Mr. Feingold) for the GOP to be able to turn this into a referendum about Bush- specifically how the Dems want to impeach. And trust me, the Dems will get destroyed if it goes down that road.

You nationalize an election like the mid-terms by making an issue of what your senate and house candidates will do that is not being done, ala the "Contract with America", not "Bush = bad"

Please give Chuck Schumer more leadership in the Dem party please!

PS- If Bush gets through this election with his GOP majorities, will the Dems FINALLY admit that this guy basically took everything they threw at him for 6 years and still beat them like a drum?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Mona...You mention the absolute absurdity of Medicare D. I agree. I work for a LARGE county agency (against my will..LOL) that deals with the aging population. And our clients are absolutely in dismay over the bureaucratic mumbo jumbo that is Medicare D. However, your comment indicating they may think that since the republicans are responsibile for this tripe, that the democrats can do better is kind of funny. Do you mean like those great solvent programs such as Social Security, Medicare Parts A, B, & C? You’re correct about some seniors using that against the Republicans (or are they really Republicans?), but that doesn’t make them right. It only makes the Libertarians and other proponents of less governmental interference right.
 
Written By: RFN
URL: http://
You can’t get away from the fact that the Democrats have no policies at all by pointing out that, on some issues, the GOP doesn’t have a policy either. That’s the same kind of thinking that has sent the Democrats into minority status and kept them there.
As I have said before, and as I will say again, the current government is more or less the Democratic plan. We are all Democrats now, Billy. It’s sort of like saying on August 15, 1945, the United States had no plan to win World War II. They didn’t need one. All they needed to do was maintain the peace.

And even if the Dems proposed some new, big ideas or plans, it really wouldn’t matter to a guy like you anyway. Whatever it would be, you would be against it. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

What frustrates persons such as you and McQ is that the Dems aren’t announcing any big plans. The frustration pores out of everything you post. Wingers long for a return to 1993, when they had a big target - HillaryCare - that they could rally against. The GOP was able to define itself by establishing what it was against. Now, they have nothing to rail against. Nowhere to direct their unchanneled angst. That’s why persons such as yourself are forced to offer all this insincere, unsolicited advice. You want Dems to take it only because you want a fat target shoot. It makes you mad that Dems have wised up.

Look at Social Security. Look at immigration. Look at education. Look at all these issues - has the GOP changed anything? Nope.

For the GOP, power is the end. But you make the mistake of thinking that Dems think the same way. They don’t. Power is a means to an end. But it is not an end in and of itself. So if they are in the minority status for a moment, big deal. That will change eventually. It always does.

What is important now for Dems is to keep the GOP from turning the governmental landscape to the right. When it comes to domestic issues, that simply hasn’t happened. As for foreign policy, well, one can only hope that Bush continues to screw up. The more he screws up, the less likely he can effect domestic change. Do his screw ups in foreign policy hurt America? Of course. But hey, I didn’t vote for the guy, so don’t blame me.

Sorry Billy, but the last person in the world the Dems should be taking advice from is you. So keep offering it. If the Dems don’t take it, then we are on the right track.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
For the GOP, power is the end. But you make the mistake of thinking that Dems think the same way

Stop drinking the kool-aid. BULLSH*T. All political parties have 1 end- power. Please don’t dare to insult our intelligence by sitting here and acting like the Dems have some more noble or higher purpose here. Because it’s a load of sh*t and you’re a fool if you believe it. As it is, you’re already a moron for even floating the idea.



As for foreign policy, well, one can only hope that Bush continues to screw up


Thanks for admitting it. You want soldiers to die in Iraq (and elsewhere) because you want to see Bush fail.

It’s only taken years, but you’ve given up the game.

We’ll all remember this comment MK.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
RFN writes:
...our clients are absolutely in dismay over the bureaucratic mumbo jumbo that is Medicare D. However, your comment indicating they may think that since the republicans are responsibile for this tripe, that the democrats can do better is kind of funny. Do you mean like those great solvent programs such as Social Security, Medicare Parts A, B, & C?
Believe me, I am no defender of Parts A, B & C. But as you affirm, there is widespread dismay at the egregious incompetence reflected in the nightamrish Part D, and that has a lot of the elderly and disabled population ready to "vote the bums out." Part D is affecting them very severely, right now, and many are deeply frightened about their drug coverage, both its cost and continuance; and even those at my agency (where I volunteer) who have gone to myriad training sessions to learn how to shepherd folks throught the Part D maze, still often cannot get people properly enrolled and secure in their coverage. The job frustration levels are running quite high.

I’ve never seen such pervasive anger and fear on the part of both the recipients of the entitlement, and the professionals and volunteers who are trying to help them. So, I just think as a purely political matter, since "the bums" in power when this monstrosity was passed were GOP, it could be a good issue for the Dems.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
But as you affirm, there is widespread dismay at the egregious incompetence reflected in the nightamrish Part D, and that has a lot of the elderly and disabled population ready to "vote the bums out."


Well, the bums that wrote it reside in Congress Mona, not the White House, and therein lies the problem for the Democrats.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Good show "Timex" (Mona). I am beginning to see why you made it through law school. BTW, how many Democrats voted for it? Just askin’...
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Well, the bums that wrote it reside in Congress Mona, not the White House, and therein lies the problem for the Democrats.
But McQ, it was Bush’s baby, and a GOP-controlled Congress passed it. So how is the pervasive disgust with it not an advantage for the Dems if they want to make it one?

Notherbob: What, exactly, is your problem with me?
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
But McQ, it was Bush’s baby, and a GOP-controlled Congress passed it. So how is the pervasive disgust with it not an advantage for the Dems if they want to make it one?
Because you’ll find their names right next to those of the Republicans on the bill’s dotted line.

Hard to explain away. Equally hard to call it a Republican or Bush mess when the majority of Democrats in Congress signed up too. And, Medicare is a traditionally Democrat issue/program. How much success do you think they’d have running away from it now?

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
We are all Democrats now, Billy.
You keep using this mantra, but I don’t see the Democratic dominance of foreign policy. At least not any post-Vietnam Democrats that I know. They’re all scared spitless of doing anything that really flexes military muscle. Our present foreign policy is clearly at odds with that, and we see the results - borderline hysteria from the left.

Foreign policy is one of the most important responsibilities of the federal government, and the Democratic record there is unbroken failure back to JFK. The GOP has problems there too, but on balance the voters realize that the Democrats are clueless in that area and the GOP is not. So let’s dispense with this myth that only the Democrats have had any effect on the state of the nation.

On the domestic side, you have a point. The Democratic program is pretty much in place. And yes, I don’t like it. The feeble Republican efforts to blunt that program have all failed, except for Reagan’s success as eliminating confiscatory tax rates and the GOP Congress’ success at eliminating permanent welfare in the mid-1990s (remember how your friends said that would put millions of impoverished people out on the street?). The GOP on the domestic front has indeed bought into much of the Democratic domestic agenda.

But as shark points out, politics is about power. The Democrats have not been winning elections. No matter what you think of their policies, it takes a real kool-aid drinker to believe they are maximizing their chances on that front.

If you think Harry Reid, et. al., are sitting around going "Hey, we won, guys! Let’s take it easy now." then you’re delusional. They want to win elections. So let’s get back to the point (always a tough thing for you, granted). They need a message to win with, and it needs to be something besides "We’re not Bush." They don’t have one.

And they should. You’re right that I would probably be against it. But our political system would be much better served with a real debate instead of vacuous posturing. We have the looming insolvency of Medicare/Social Security due to an aging population, a healthcare system that’s clearly broken (I think because of too much government meddling, but we can all agree that it’s broken), and an education system that’s an absolute disgrace.

So there’s the results of your "we are all Democrats now" world. Even if one stipulates that on balance the program has been a success (I do not, but let’s put that aside), then it’s still obvious to even the most partisan that there are still problems to be solved. And the Democratic Party has nothing useful to say on any of those fronts.

And, of course, neither do you. Which is why you continue to resort to irrelevancies.

 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Hard to explain away. Equally hard to call it a Republican or Bush mess when the majority of Democrats in Congress signed up too. And, Medicare is a traditionally Democrat issue/program. How much success do you think they’d have running away from it now?
I don’t think it is at all hard to explain. They are not in power and control no branch of govt. They could say: "Were we in charge, that boondoggle would not have happened." And they further say: "Medicare is traditionally our issue; see what happens when the GOP controls the Congress?"

What I hear is anti-GOP sentiment vis-a-vis Medicare D. People know which party is in control.

It is all BS. But in terms of raw political leverage, there is fodder there for the Dems.

 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Shark’s drawing blood.

I think I can boil the Dem’s congressional strategy down to one word: avoidance.

The real issue for every states’ congressional candidates this year is spending. The skinny is the Dem’s want to defund the WOT to fund their domestic social agenda, and the Republicans don’t.

Avoiding saying this outright at all costs is the motive behind Schumer’s "deflection strategy."
-Steve
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
I don’t think it is at all hard to explain. They are not in power and control no branch of govt.
That has zip to do with my point. If they claim it’s the Republican’s fault, the Republicans simply point to the Democrats who voted to authorize the bill.

It’s just not a winner like "tax cuts for the rich" or any other stock and trade Demo points if they want to attack the GOP. And attack seems to be their strategy, if you believe Schumer.
They could say: "Were we in charge, that boondoggle would not have happened."
No, they can’t. Again, they participated in the "authorship" of that boondoggle. Each and every bill in congress has a Republican and Democrat sponsor. McCain/Feingold, etc., etc. They were on committees that authorized it’s passage out to the House and Senate. They were on committees which put the final compromise bill togther. They were a part of the committees which wrote the final "boondoggle". They can’t make that claim with any credibility and the GOP will be the first to point that out.
What I hear is anti-GOP sentiment vis-a-vis Medicare D. People know which party is in control.
And good luck on separating Medicare D from Medicare in general ... a traditionally Democratic program. "Medicare is good, well, except for part D, which sucks. And it’s all Bush’s fault."

Yeah, that’ll work
It is all BS.
Heh ... we agree there.
But in terms of raw political leverage, there is fodder there for the Dems.
With the leadership they have it isn’t. As inept as the GOP is, the Dems are even worse.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
"there is fodder there for the Dems."
Mona, yes, this is the type of fodder the Democrat base eats up. For the Independents they need to influence to win....not so much. I meant to compliment you on your tenacity. Is that a bad thing?
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
I don’t know how this election is going to turn out because the poll numbers are all over the place but people like MK seem to be pretty confident the Democrats are going to cruise to victory. I say people put their money where their mouth is. Pick a side to win. Say $200. It can be a collective bet and payment can be made via PayPal. If the Democrats take back control, the winner takes the Republican money and donates it to the DNC and vice versa. Taking a side doesn’t necessarily mean you support them, you can just bet on who will win.

Come on MK, how sure are you that the Republicans are going down?

Congress has abysmal approval ratings as a whole but a solid majority seem to like their own congress person.
Associated Press/Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. April 3-5, 2006. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way Congress is handling its job?" If "mixed feelings" or unsure: "If you had to choose, do you lean more toward approve or disapprove?"

Approve Disapprove Mixed Feelings Unsure

30% 67% 3% 0%
Time Poll conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs. March 22-23, 2006. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Congress is doing?"
2005: "Do you approve or disapprove of the job that Congress is doing?"

Approve Disapprove Unsure

39% 49% 12%

"Do you approve or disapprove of the job that your own member of Congress is doing?"

Approve Disapprove Unsure

63% 26% 11%
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. April 4-5, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the job Democrats in Congress are doing?"

Approve Disapprove Unsure

29% 51% 20%
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. April 4-5, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the job Republicans in Congress are doing?"

Approve Disapprove Unsure

29% 53% 18%


 
Written By: Jt007
URL: http://
there is widespread dismay at the egregious incompetence reflected in the nightamrish Part D, and that has a lot of the elderly and disabled population ready to "vote the bums out."
I don’t know Mona, there are some polls that disagree with your personal experience. These say 51% of all adults strongly approve or approve of the plan and 59% of people over 65 years of age say they are more likely to vote for someone who supported the plan or it makes no difference. Maybe these polls are wrong; maybe you’re wrong. We’ll see.
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 8-12, 2006. Adults nationwide.

"There is now a new Medicare law that includes some coverage of prescription drug costs for seniors. Overall, would you say you strongly approve, approve, disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the way Medicare will now cover prescription drug costs?" N=1,405, MoE ± 3

Strongly Approve 12% / Approve 39% / Disapprove 22% / Strongly Disapprove 10% / Unsure 17%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 20-22, 2006. N=1,006 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

Asked of adults 65 & older (N=229, MoE ± 7):
"Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a member of Congress who supported the Medicare prescription drug benefit program?"

More Likely 53% / Less Likely 34% / No Difference(vol.) 6% / Unsure 7%
 
Written By: Jt007
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider