It's nice to see that reality isn't a dead concept. In your "GOP talking big game, numbers don't follow" article, you correctly note that the Democratic Party, while dropping in its support, is still doing better than the Republican Party. There is, however, something you, in your "we're doing bad but they are worse" article, you failed to consider; just where is all of this lack of support going.
Let's talk turkey...
Do you remember that New York district-20 special election where Democrat Scott Murphy defeated Republican Jim Tedisco in a heavily Republican district barely seven months ago? Look at the history of that district and timeline:
- The district went to Bush by 8 points in 2004.
- The district leaned conservative until 2006 when Gillibrand (D) defeated Sweeney (R), turning that district into a swing district despite leaning conservative merely two years before.
- From 2002 to 2008, GOP identification in the district decreased by 22,705 voters. Much of that decrease, I would venture, came between 2004 and 2008.
That swing, and election victories, came not from Democratic voters, but, from independents and moderate conservatives who left the GOP and voted Democratic. The third party candidate, Eric Sundwall, couldn't even get enough signatures to make the ballot.
Now, let's fast forward in time a mere seven months.
It's the governors race in New Jersey. The latest polling shows Corzine and Christie pretty close. It also shows the third party candidate, independent Daggett, polling 11-16% of the vote. Just three months ago, Daggett was lucky to poll around 6%. In 2008, NOBODY from a third party was polling more than 1-2%.
Sure, it's a Governor's race, not national. But, I remember the outrage at the "Naderites" in 2000 when a mere 2% of the vote in Florida was just enough to swing that election into recount giving us George W. Bush. And, that was only 2% of the vote.
Do you remember when an independent in a national polled at 18% of the vote? How about Ross Perot in the 1992 election. Bill Clinton won that election with 43% vs George H.W. Bush's 37%. People weren't happy with the Republican Party after 12 years, and Democrat's weren't fairing much better.
So, let's look at your poll again, shall we?
- At inauguration time, President Obama was polling just under 80% favorable. He's now in the mid-50's. With independents? He went from 67% to 22%.
- While the congressional Republican's are at 17%, the congressional Democrat's are at 38%. And, you have a total of 20% in the "don't know" category.
- Wrong track of the country graph? 55% say WRONG direction.
That's your own poll, Markos. Now, let's look at your words:
Now it's obvious that Republicans have had some success in dragging down Democratic favorabilities. Heck, some of that the Democrats have done to themselves. The GOP's problem is that they've done nothing to improve their own standing.
Actually, the GOP doesn't have to improve their ratings, they simply can watch the Democratic Party bleed support by their own incompetence in order to have a shot at winning elections in 2010.
Aha! Finally evidence that the Democrats are slipping, with Dems dropping eight points from 42 to 34 percent support since we first started asking this question in May. But what about the Republicans? Take out those minor gains and losses as statistical noise, and they've pretty much stayed at their floor in the 27-30 percent range. In fact, they have yet to crack 30 percent in this question.
And, where do you think that loss of support will turn? The GOP? Hardly. The past eight years of GOP and Bush are still too fresh. So, where do you think that support is going, Markos? Here's a hint... look up at the New Jersey race for Governor where an independent is grabbing 18% of the vote. But, you already know this...
Given the GOP's inability to raise their levels of approval or support, it's clear that they've done nothing to sell their agenda to the American people beyond their core base of supports. The Democrats are suffering from self-inflicted wounds, most likely their (to this point) inability to deliver on campaign promises to deliver real change -- in health care, climate policy, the economy, and the wars. Democrats benefited from discontent with GOP policies, and won big promising "change". But except for a few minor edits at the margins, those promises remain thus far unfulfilled nine months into the Democrats' control of the White House and Congress.
Quite right. Some of us saw this coming.
I authored this at docudharma.com on Nov 7th, 2008. Geithner and Summers in the Treasury? That wasn't about to change Wall Street.
Out of this list, and it is ONLY on the economic team, we have:
A) Six... count them 6... Clinton retreads.
B) 1 Reagan retread.
C) 2 Bush retreads.
D) 2 individuals who were part of the bank/financial meltdown with JP Morgan and Citicorp.
E) 1 individual who was part of the net nuetrality fiasco with Time Warner.
I mean... come on... wtf! Out of 17 people, you have 10 that have ZERO business being involved with trying to straighten out the economic mess we are in, 3 who seem to no qualification whatsoever other than being a politician, and CEO/Chair persons of big business who have lapped up Bush's tax cuts/breaks for the wealthy AND big corporations!
Where are the Harvard economic scholars? Where is Paul Krugman? Where are new faces that have a clue?
But, hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Here's what I wrote in December 2008.
Well, for the past two elections, the Independents have soundly voted for the Democratic Party, and, for the past two elections, the Democratic Party has made huge gains.
Do you want to know why that is, not might, but is, going to change?
***************************************
There are some who say that we should not judge President-elect Obama by his cabinet picks or appointee's, but, on his actions once he becomes President. This statement always includes the disclaimer that any appointee will simply follow the President's wishes and not their own agenda. What it fails to address is that to make that appointment, the President-elect must somehow agree with that individual on an ideology level. There is also another choice; that the President-elect has come to realize that there are other players in the game -- and they cannot be ignored.
The first team we got word on was the economics team. I have already written about my thoughts on those picks -- horrible -- yet, the "Left" punditry and bloggers have fallen all over themselves to praise those picks. As I wrote, 10 out of 17 of those picks had absolutely zero reason to be picked. None. They were either part of the problem, had extended the problem, or, had no qualifications to be on that team, whatsoever.
This doesn't even take into account that President-elect Obama has already caved to pressure with his vote on the FISA Bill, a bill that had provisions that he stated he would filibuster only to vote for it in the end. Or, that he has stated in public that he would end torture, only to advance the name of John Brennan until an overwhelming outcry halted it.
The GOP played games too long. They lost the support of thinking voters. Now, it is the Democratic Party's turn to do the same, and, they are starting long before Barack Obama is even sworn into office.
Wall Street is doing fine. Goldman Sachs is giving out huge bonuses. Geithner and Summers are wailing how nothing is wrong, really, as unemployment remains high despite tossing hundreds of billions of dollars at Wall Street.
As I wrote in December;
If you wonder what losing the Independent vote means, just look at the last two elections to figure it out. If both Party's lose the middle, the GOP wins by default due to the gerrymandering.
But, hey, why stop at the independent vote when you can lose the LGBT community and progressives all in a few months time because you tossed DADT under the bus and held secret backroom meetings with Big-Insurance after trying to compromise the public option?
And, it's not like Steve Singiser hasn't already said:
The bottom line is this: there is no consistent evidence to support the theory that the off-year elections in New Jersey and Virginia have any "bellwether" status vis-a-vis the following year's federal elections. That connectivity has been there some of the time, has been completely absent some of the time, and the connection the other times has been tenuous, at best.
Which, presumably, will do nothing to stop the chattering classes from drawing sweeping conclusions about 2010 based on November 3rd, no matter which party winds up being left smiling on that day.
Except, we are talking about what hasn't happened after November 3rd, and, just how much support has bled out already. Sure, IF President Obama works to have DADT and DOMA repealed, he could win back the LGBT community. Sure, IF President Obama works to pressure the Blue Dogs instead of threatening progressives and progressive organizations fighting them on health care, he could win back the independents and progressives.
Yeah, you crashed the "gate" and got a successful blog that Democratic politicians love to come to for support. Of course, the latest little problem out of the White House about bloggers didn't really inspire faith. Nor, did the "official" White House response.
Hey, wanted to get something out on this tonight. Obviously it’s the kind of thing where, as a blind quote, there’s an inclination to believe "that’s what they really think." And obviously there have been other quotes along these lines over time, even if nothing so blatant. It goes without saying that this quote and others indeed reflect what *someone* actually thinks (who we haven’t been able to determine), but I want to say flatly that it is not what "the White House" or for that matter the President thinks.
But, as I said about Geithner and Summers, that someone had to be a person that President Obama wanted, or, they wouldn't be there, and, if he wanted someone who disdains the blogs and bloggers, well, don't expect any White House invitations anytime soon.
You've gotten on television as a pundit, but, how long will that last if the Democratic Party loses in 2010 due to its own incompetence and loss of support? It's not like with 60 votes the Democratic Party has inspired a lot of faith in getting stuff done.
What's your answer to turning 60 votes that can't govern into a majority that will? Support for both Parties is bleeding away.