More bad poll news for Democrats

Obama: Is he leading Democrats to disaster? (AP)

Memo to Democrats: There’s trouble in Potomac City and that starts with “T” and that rhymes with “P” and that stands for “polls.”

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds more and more independents turning their backs on Democrats and looking for salvation on the Republican side of the political fence.

The poll shows 38 percent of self-described independents saying they will vote for Republicans in this year’s mid-term elections while just 30 percent lean Democratic. Four years ago, 40 percent of independents liked Democrats and just 24 percent favored Republicans.

In head-to-head, Democrat vs. Republican questions, a clear majority of 56 percent favor Republicans and only 36 percent Democrats. That’s a growing split that spells bad news for the party of the jackass.

But Republicans share an obstacle with Democrats: A strong anti-incumbent feeling among angry voters. The approval rating of Congress is down to 21 percent.

Republicans, however, benefit more from voter anger against the Democratic leadership Congress and what they see as the lackluster performance of President Barack Obama. The poll numbers aren’t so much an endorsement of Republican policies as they are a rejection of Democrats.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

12 Responses to "More bad poll news for Democrats"

  1. griff  May 13, 2010 at 11:54 am

    And the cycle continues…

  2. Thomas Bonsell  May 13, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    Really appreciate the Founders who restricted voting to those they thought might actually know what is going on.

    Have the independents (those without any philosophical basis of government) forgotten the two recessions of the 1920s and the one Great Depression of the 1930s, brought to us by a conservative Republican Party?

    Have they forgotten the massive recession of Ronald Reagan with 10.8% unemployment, a 33% increase in poverty and close to $5 trillion in debt added to the nation’s credit card? Also by the right-wing GOP.

    Have they forgotten the renewal of Reaganomics by George Bush the Deluded that led to the present mess? That also is a Republican Party present to the nation.

    Apparently they have also forgotten that the second Great Depression was averted by the same “politicians” they are now turning against and bringing back the same doctrinaire but economic-illiterates who caused the problem in the first place.

    These independents, now so upset about the condition of the nation, voted for that very condition by empowering Reagan and two George Bushes to inflict their “voodoo economics” on us all. Now, it seems, they are hell-bent of making us a banana republic, without any bananas, of course.

    • griff  May 13, 2010 at 10:49 pm

      Just one side to the coin, eh Thomas?

      • ra  May 13, 2010 at 11:28 pm

        No, it just looks like a response to the tone of the thread.

        • griff  May 14, 2010 at 3:49 pm

          Oh that’s right, I keep forgetting that our history only dates back to 1980 – my bad. There was no such thing as the Johnson administration or the Carter administration, and certainly no Bill Clinton. Must be my imagination playing tricks.

          All spending measures must originate in the House of Representatives, so blaming presidents for running up the deficit is disingenuous to begin with. But since that seems to be the way that most folks see it, for the sake of argument I’ll continue along that faulty line of reasonong.

          Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, gave us the income tax and the Federal Reserve. He also led us into World War I and the failed League of Nations. This means he also presided over the recession of 1921, which lasted until the middle of Republican Warren Harding’s shortened administration.

          As far as the Great Depression goes, there were many reasons for that happening. Even former Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan and current Chairman Bernanke have acknowledged the Federal Reserve’s role in not only causing the Great Depression, but also its role in perpetuating it.

          In a speech in 2004, Bernanke had this to say of the Great Depression…

          “During the major contraction phase of the Depression, between 1929 and 1933, real output in the United States fell nearly 30 percent. During the same period, according to retrospective studies, the unemployment rate rose from about 3 percent to nearly 25 percent, and many of those lucky enough to have a job were able to work only part-time. For comparison, between 1973 and 1975, in what was perhaps the most severe U.S. recession of the World War II era, real output fell 3.4 percent and the unemployment rate rose from about 4 percent to about 9 percent. Other features of the 1929-33 decline included a sharp deflation–prices fell at a rate of nearly 10 percent per year during the early 1930s–as well as a plummeting stock market, widespread bank failures, and a rash of defaults and bankruptcies by businesses and households.”

          Sound familiar to any one? Also notice that the “most severe recession” since WWII occured during the Carter administration. Also, when Reagan took office the unemployment rate was already near eight percent and rose steadily until mid-1982. By the end of Reagan’s term is was back down to around five precent. So to borrow from today’s Democrat talking point, one could argue that Reagan “inherited” Carter’s economy.

          What really makes me laugh is the ridiculous idea that George Bush is responsible for today’s economic crisis. I don’t seem to remember Bush doing much in terms of economic policy, but he did give us two wars. Thanks George!

          No, you can mostly thank Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton for our current crisis, not to mention NAFTA and GATT. During the Clinton administration the federal deficit rose from 4.19 trillion (rounded) to 5.73 trillion (rounded) while Graham-Leach Blilely legalized the fraud that precipitated our current – and ongoing – crisis. The dot-com bubble also burst on Clinton’s watch, mainly due to Federal Reserve policy and speculation.

          So those “economic-illiterates who caused the problem in the first place” are at the helm right now.

          When it comes to assigning blame, history shows that both parties have played significant roles over the decades. So if Independents are to blame for empowering the Bushes and Reagan, then it stands to reason they also gave us Carter, Clinton, and now Obama.

          I also enjoy when Democrats take Bush to task for his deficit spending while fully embracing the fact that the Democrats have tripled deficit spending since they took the Congress in 2007. All this,of course, with unemployment at Reagan-era levels and the country mired in near-depression. We won’t mention the trillion-plus dollar Obamacare or impending cap-enslave legislation.

          • Thomas Bonsell  May 16, 2010 at 1:52 pm

            Let’s see. The “most severe USA recession since the World War II era” was in 1973 and 1975, but was Jimmy Carter’s fault because he was elected in 1976 and inaugurated in 1977. The 1973-75 years contained the Nixon-Ford fiasco.

            During Carter’s four-year term 10 million jobs were created, poverty hit an historical low of 11.4 percent (since broken by Clinton down to 11.3 percent) and we were alerted to the impending energy crisis. Carter left Reagan a struggling economy coming out of a recession (the shortest and mildest of them all since WWII) caused by the oil embargoes from the iranian revolution. And that revolution was a result of the 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected president of Iran to install the murderous Shah, an Eisenhower gift to us all.

            During the Reagan-Bush 12-year run 18 million jobs were added (well below the rate under Carter), poverty skyrocketed to 15.1 percent and Reagan eliminated all efforts to avoid the energy problems so prevalent today.

            Johnson left Nixon with a budget surplus he immediately squandered, a 4.5 percent average annual growth in GDP, 4.1 percent job growth. Clinton left George Bush the Unfit four years of budget surpluses, 2.6 percent job growth and the greatest sustained economic growth in history. Incidentally jobs will growth about one percent a year to keep up with population increases, so anything above that is real growth, and no GOP administration can match any Donkey administration on this matter.

            If you would do some honest research you might find the income tax actually protects residents of low-income states. Think about it.

            While spending bill “originate” in the House, that doesn’t mean the House writes the bills, it only starts the legislative process after the White House composes its plans and give them to the House.

    • woody188  May 14, 2010 at 3:26 pm

      Where do you get off saying Independents don’t have any philosophical basis of government?

      I’m willing to bet most of those Independents would sooner vote for an Independent than either Republicans or Democrats. I’m also willing to bet they weren’t given that choice on this poll.

      I’d also like you to explain how Obama giving bankers public money to loan out isn’t voodoo economics.

  3. Almandine  May 13, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    It’s not about what has been forgotten, but about what has happened lately.

    http://johngaltfla.com/blog3/2010/05/10/the-new-world-order-is-now-complete-2/

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fed-pretends-it-preparing-soak-excess-reserves-even-liquidity-swaps-are-sure-add-about-500-b

    It’s also not just about Dems, but incumbents.

    This time the change will be real.

    • Carl Nemo  May 14, 2010 at 1:07 am

      Thanks Almandine…! : )

      It’s as if I, and John Galt are one when it comes to calling the “endgame”.

      The upside to this is: regardless of their engineered contrivances they cannot stem the tide of angry, disenfranchised citizens of planet earth ferreting them out and dealing necessary, swift justice.

      In the end it will there will be a massive bloodletting with the focus on ferreting out those that have dissed the peoples of earth with their money-grubbing schemes of never-ending enrichment at the expense of their fellow beings.

      They’ve sown the wind, and shall along with us the victims reap the mighty whirlwind of their duplicity and corruption. : |

      Soon it will be the end of Rothschild, Rockefeller et al.’s transgenerational hegemony over the peoples of the earth.

      Carl Nemo **==

  4. Carl Nemo  May 13, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    Thanks Thomas Bonsell for the spot-on assessment of our national plight as a function of the so-called, conservatives; ie., the Republicans during the past 100 years. To me the Dems are nothing but the holding party betweeen republican regimes.
    We’re now in the clutches of a duopolist system of government both publicly displayed parties reporting to the same shadowy corporatist controllers.

    Twenty of the past 29.5 years have had this flagship party of wealthy ‘conservatives’ in power and they’ve managed to slap twelve trillion dollars of public debt upon us with most of it being fed to the MIC and their patrons in the “oil patch”.

    When Ronald Reagan took office the public debt was around 909 billlion dollars now we have 12.8 Trillion dollars of unpayable debt grinding us into the ground.

    Carl Nemo **==

  5. griff  May 17, 2010 at 11:16 am

    Hey Thomas, kudos for catching the Carter brain fart. I’m surprised no one else caught it. Poor, forgettable Gerry Ford. Oh well, to err is human; to blame others shows political potential.

    What also occured under Carter was unemployment rising from 4.9% to 7.2% by the time he left office, so those ten million jobs created were far overshadowed by the losses.

    I’m afraid Clinton had little to do with the prosperity enjoyed by the dot-com boom, which would have occured regardless of who occupied the oval office. Furthermore, the fabled Clinton surplus was due to looting entitlement programs and did nothing to reduce the deficit, as Treasury statistics bear out.

    I won’t get into a debate about the income tax but to say that I’m opposed to the very idea of it, and always will be. It’s robbery.

    My main point in all this was not to assign blame or dissect every administration’s contribution to our woes, because there are far more variables to consider when it comes to the economy. Consider that it took eight years for the fallout from Gramm-Leach-Blilely to be felt. Bush gets the blame for policy enacted before he was (s)elected.

    In your original post you conveniently omitted the fact that indeed Reagan’s 10.8% unemployment was due to Carter hangover and a year and a half into Reagan’s first term unemployment plummeted to around 5% and stayed there for the remaining six years. Honest research, or selective amnesia?

    I never implied that the House writes the bills. Frankly I don’t believe most of them are intelligent enough. The President has his bully pulpit, but that doesn’t mean that the Congress has to pursue such legislation.

  6. Thomas Bonsell  May 17, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    Here’s what various reliable sources say about unemployment in the mid-1970s:

    “Under Gerald Ford, the deficit soared and the unemployment rate grew from 5.3 – 8.3% in just 2 years. His “WIN” (Whip Inflation Now) buttons were no match for economic inactivity.
    ” It was under Richard Nixon that inflation started to spiral out of control, from 4.4% to 8.6%, and the deficit shot up from $2.8 billion to $73.7 billion.”

    So how could unemployment under Carter rise from 4.9% to 7.2% when it was 8.6% when he took office?

    Looting the entitlement programs was a result of the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act given to us by the Reagan cabal, a Republican Senate and a Conservative House.

    If taxes are robbery, how come they were the first powers the Founders gave to government in the Constitution?

    The hangover from Carter to Reagan was a slow-growing economy struggling to recover from what I mentioned above; the oil embargo from the Iranian revolution. Reagan’s record began after he got taxes on the aristocracy cut by Congress by hundreds of billions of dollars. increased unnecessary defense spending by hundreds of billions of dollars and increased the payroll taxes on working middle-class Americans by more than he cut taxes for the aristocracy. That’s the looting you attribute to Clinton, who only had the constitutional duties in Article II to faithfully see that laws were enforced, the 1984 law.

    No; Bush gets the blame for turning the regulatory agencies over to the very people who should have been regulated but instead protected those special interests from any scrutiny. There were plenty of people in both the Clinton and Bush administrations who could see what was going on, but it was in the Bush administration when the problems were most noticeable and most ignored. It does take some time to see the results of a law or the elimination of the law.

    When I was in grad school at Georgetown U Grad school of government, a professor said that all regulations exist to address an evil present in the system, and when those regulations are removed, the evils come back. That was years before Reagan began this idiotic campaign of deregulation which allowed all the 1920s evils to come flooding back.

    I have done the research and there definitely is an economic pattern. The left outdoes the right on EVERY SINGLE economic area there is to research. So it matters much who occupies the oval office.

Comments are closed.