Okay, 2010 voters, I’m officially confused.
ABC and the Washington Post have released a new poll suggesting that Republicans are surging yet again, ahead of the 2010 midterm election.
Republicans are heading into the final weeks of the midterm campaign with the political climate highly in their favor, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Americans are increasingly frustrated by a lack of economic progress, deeply dissatisfied with the federal government and critical of President Obama’s leadership.
When asked if they would vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate, registered voters said by a 53-40% margin that they preferred the GOP’s alternative.
A whopping 55% of Americans now want Republicans to control congress. Those are landslide-level numbers, no question.
But here’s where the political climate gets weird.
When asked which party they trusted more to handle “main problems the nation faces over the next few years” those same voters chose the Democrats by 40-37% margins.
When asked which party would best handle improving the economy — the top issue on everyone’s minds — voters again chose Democrats by a 42-40% margin.
Asked about handling health care, perhaps the most controversial issue of Barack Obama’s first term, people again chose Democrats, by a 44-39% margin.
Yes, Republicans “won” the poll by similar margins on other issues, including the handling of Afghanistan, immigration, and Federal budget deficits, but not by landslide margins.
And when asked which political party “represents your own personal values” or “is more concerned with the needs of people like you,” voters again chose Democrats (by 45-42% and 48-39% margins respectively).
Even Barack Obama comes off looking pretty good in this poll, with 55% of people polled suggesting that he’s either “just about right” or “too conservative.”
So I’ll admit it: I’m stumped.
Americans seem hungry for a big change in November, but more than ever before in my years of watching politics, I can’t figure out what exactly it is that they want.
There is one thing that I think is abundantly clear:
The GOP’s decision to not put forward a specific platform, but to instead be the party that critiqued, questioned and raised doubts about the Democratic agenda, turned out to be pitch-perfect.
Democrats assail Republicans for being the “party of No,” but in the end “No” may be the one word that symbolizes the mood of most voters.
Tags: election10
Join the club Brian. I swear, the polls are no more accurate than reading the grounds left in my coffee pot. Most of the time they seem to reflect what the sponsor wants then to say.
Brian,
The margin of error in this poll is 3.5 percentage points. That means that only the 48-39 margin you mention is the only one you should bother thinking about. The others mean that they could just as easily prefer republicans to democrats on those questions. Given that, it isn’t really all that confusing is it?
Democrats are failing miserably, that is what people understand. Can republicans do any better, probably not, but maybe they will stop trying so hard to bankrupt the nation.
Seems like change for the sake of change to me.
It doesn’t matter to voters that the party they want to change back to is the party that was in control when the car went into the ditch in the first place… all that matters to them is that they are not happy with the party currently trying to get the car back on the road.
When you only have two choices, this is bound to happen. People are uncomfortable with the state of things and they need to feel like they can do something about it. There is only one way to do that in our political system… vote for the other side… whether it actually makes any sense or not.
The Republicans have already bankrupted the nation – they put quite a bit of effort in that during the Bush years… although maybe it wasn’t the Republicans as such but primarily the Bush administration (Republican) but without enough push back from Republican/Democrat Congress thereby allowing the Bush Administration to borrow so much money to make up for the difference in a record spending vs the actual income resulting in a record deficit. I am absolutely not in favor of handing the reigns back over to the GOP after what they did in the years before Obama. Will the Dems do better?… I don’t know but do think it is too early to tell whether what’s been done so far is affective. This economic mess we are in is something that is not going to be turned around quickly and anyone that thinks it should have by now is very naive when it comes to the economics of this magnitude.
Paul is correct in pointing out that all the polls except the one (48-39) are virtually an even split with maybe only a slight lead by Democrats in the fact that all the polls consistently show that slight lead… but Brian is right in that the even split “does not compute” with the 53-40% poll that says the electorate prefers the GOP over Democratic candidates. Go figure.
It surprises me that so many folks feel that the federal government can somehow fix the economy, or that the federal government under Bush somehow “broke” the economy.
One thing they CAN do to right the ship is stop spending money that we don’t have. Mark, you are correct Bush spent too much. Obama and the current congress is making him look like a miser! What is the latest 50 billion dollar program to rebuild some rails and runways?? Dave, if you want to keep her out of the “ditch”, as you and the president like to say, is this the way to do it? It is called buying votes, plain and simple. Sooner or later folks better wake up.
The truth is the way a quetion is phrased has a substantial impact on a poll’s results
Paul,
Is what the way to do it? Stimulating the economy through the recovery? Do you really think those efforts are a vote buying conspiracy, as opposed to an economic philosophy?
Regardless, the point I was making was a broader point about our political system. I wasn’t suggesting that the current drivers are doing the best job at getting us out of the ditch… I was stating that the previous drivers are the ones who put the car in the ditch in the first place. That voters seem willing to go back to them so soon after the accident happened strikes me as both a sign of desperation, and a sign that our political system lacks options.
Of course, if you really think the government has no influence over the economy than I can see how this conversation (and that analogy) would be hard for you to swallow.
The government has very limited influence over the US economy, that isn’t my opinion that is just how it is.
Sorry, I disagree that spending 50 billion dollars that we don’t have is an “economic philosophy”. It is a waste of money and will further grow the deficit which will continue to make investors uneasy and they will continue to sit on the sidelines and the economy will continue to flounder.
It isn’t a conspiracy, it’s politics. Dave, I agree the options are limited.
I still wish it were a felony to take a poll.
That said, a change from what to what? I think it’s the same old same old and probably will be. Snafu. Or is it ah – choo.
Maybe we would have some real change if a lesbian, atheist prostitute were to run for president and get elected.
That would be interesting, especially if she were hot and invited Islamic heads of state to the White House.
Paul,
I’m surprised you can’t see the contradiction in your argument.
In one paragraph you say that the Government can not affect the economy.
In the very next paragraph you say that if the Government spends money on a stimulus package it will make the economy flounder.
I don’t think they want the establishment Republican party.
I think they want a redo of the Republican party.
If the Republican Party had some sort of positive message for the past two years it would be a landslide in their favor. All they have managed to do is get everyone disgruntled but they haven’t been able to take advantage of the anger because the anger on the left doesn’t want them and the anger on the right has spawned the Teabaggers. Not smart thinking.
khl:
I want to take this opportunity to agree with you.
And I will add that the Republican leadership is, and has been, lacking a backbone.
They have jellyfish for leaders, and that’s most of the problem.
Neither party has had a coherent ideology (aside from corporatism) for the last several years and yet… still few people consider voting for smaller parties.
I have to agree with Paul, the Federal Gov’t can’t “make” the economy work. All it can do is get in the way or out of the way. Currently, and for the past several years, it’s pretty much gotten in the way. Look at the Stimulus, “Oh it’s all going to shovel ready projects” What a load of garbage. $800 BILLION borrowed dollars if all put into shovel ready projects should have made a big difference in things according to the experts. Instead it just gave us a lot more debt and it’s lack of effectiveness depressed things even more. And now Obama want’s another $50 Billion??? Where’s it come from? He says he wants to “close corporate loopholes”, that’s political speak for “crush those industries not supporting us”. GGGAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You guys wanting to blame Bush or Obama go right ahaead, but think about this- according to USA Today unemployment for those under 25 yoa is at 52%!!! Less than 61% of college grads will move into a job, and that includes ANY job- Walmart, McDonalds, etc. We have a problem. You can blame Bush or blame Obama but you darn sure better be blaming Congress right along with them and in this State you’d better blame the State Gov’t too. We have a business and investment unfriendly State in a business and investment unfriendly country. We have a debt load that makes buying our products infeasible for the most part in the rest of the world and a debt load that makes it look like we’re headed for some really tough times, times that make today look pretty darn good. And yet, every morning I hear about this new grant, or this new subsidy or this pork coming to our area. It’s taxpayer borrowed money used to buy votes to keep the same old schlubs in office. It’s borrowed money that can’t be paid back.
We have an unsustainable paradigm. We either cut spending and our debt load or we raise taxes and ignore our debt load. We cannot borrow our way out of debt. We cannot currently tax our way out of debt. The sad part, or rather the irritating part, is that there isn’t one politician anywhere with the backbone to stand up and say, “Look, we need to establish long term plans, 20-30 year plans.” Instead they’ll promise overnight fixes that will both not work and make things worse.
Until we get some people willing to work to establish long term goals and plans, move the Congress back to their home districts, cut the power and perks of Congress, bring back the idea of “public service” and demand responsibility from our leaders we’re going to straight off the cliff. Whether it’s a Donkey or and Elephant driving makes no difference.
Bret,
I see the same contradiction in your arguments as I just saw in Paul’s.
In a more recent post on this website you are having a conversation with another visitor about who is to blame for the housing crisis… republicans, or democrats. That person blamed the republicans and you (rightly, I would say) stated that some dems also had a role.
But I’m confused. I don’t understand how you can say the government can not make the economy work or fail AND then say that our government officials had a role in the housing crisis.
Dave,
The “role” that Bret is describing is that the government got involved in something they did not understand. In an effort to spur home sales the government basically forced banks to lend money to folks that could not afford to pay it back, that was a recipe for disaster. The democrats spearheaded that effort. Yes, Bush should have done more to stop it. He tried but he should not have given up. See this NYT article for one example:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
The government never should have gotten into this business, then we would not have needed another agency to fix the problem! But yes Dave I should modify my earlier comment. The government can have a very negative effect on the economy at times.
Dave, Paul more or less laid it out but to put more of a point on it, the gov’t in the housing debacle got involved in something they shouldn’t have. They were attempting to dispense some “social justice” by law. This is an example of gov’t getting in the way rather than helping. Both sides had players in the game, I’m sure. If there was money, power or influence involved I’m sure of it.
And to be clear, what I said was the gov’t can’t make the economy work, cripes FDR had basically total control for over a decade and he couldn’t “make” it work. What gov’t can do is get in the way or get out of the way. They can get in the way by over regulating, over taxing, sticking their fingers in bowl to an extent that the producers involved just get sick of it and go elsewhere or simply fail because they can’t make it with all the garbage. Or they can get out of the way and not over regulate, over tax, not insert themselves too far into the mix. Finding a happy medium seems a lot harder than it should be. But, between greedy politicians and greedy mega corp types… well, it only goes to figure it’d turn out screwed up half the time.
Just in case you didn’t have a chance to read the article I gave a link for at the New York Times, let me paste and exert:
” Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Dave are you sure you still want the democrats driving the car??
Please explain to me why on earth I would want these folks in charge?? “Not facing any financial crisis”??? How many billions of dollars have we had to give these 2 entities? Why has the democratic congress not done anything yet about them? Dave, help me out, what am I missing here?