A poll is a poll is a poll.
But this one IS interesting. And should give the people who were crowing the loudest over last November's congressional election some pause:
Obama’s approval rating sits at a comfortable 53%-42%, above the national average, and a nine-point improvement in the poll from November.
(In November -- after the Democrats' shellacking in the midterms -- the president’s approval in the poll was split at 44%-43%.)
By contrast, Walker’s approval rating is upside down – with 43% approving and 53% disapproving of how he’s handling his job.
Walker’s “strongly disapprove” is a sky-high 45%; Obama’s is 26%. Walker’s favorability rating – also 43%-53% -- mirrors his approval.
His negative rating is up 18 points from November, when his rating was 45%/35%.
His “strongly unfavorable” is up to 41% from a “very unfavorable” rating of just 19% in November.
Question: Who's crowing now?
h/t Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish
"Wisconsin's Democrats have been filibustering with their feet, and it's not clear how much longer they can keep it up. That's how it's supposed to be: thwarting the will of the elected majority is supposed to be difficult, not routine. What the Democrats have is the next election, not to mention the recall effort they've launched against a handful of Senate Republicans. "It's really up to the public to be engaged in carrying the torch on this issue," Jauch told the Journal. And shouldn't it be? The Democrats have shown the voters exactly what it is that they voted for in Walker. His effort to quietly gut collective bargaining in Wisconsin has been a huge failure. Democrats have turned up the volume in the Capitol to "deafening." But at some point, the state will have to move on. The question between now and then is whether the voters can persuade some of the Republicans to come to the middle, and if the Republicans refuse their entreaties, what sort of retribution the voters will visit on them for their stubbornness."
13 comments:
Here's where republican succeed though when it comes to party politics. Loyalty and discipline.
The Democratic Party possesses neither of these. It took a nut like Walker trying to break unions to get union members off their asses and doing something.
If they'd all voted for someone that supported Working Americans a few months ago this would not be going on now.
In the end, it may be a good thing fore the Democratic Party. Wake up Working America. The republicans are not your friends.
Silver, you may be right regarding the outcome.
But this is what i cannot understand...
When the GOP wins at the ballot box, as in 2010, it is because the people have expressed their will and to resist that is tantamount to treason, and almost certainly unpatriotic and undemocratic.
Yet when the Dems won at the ballot box in 2008, what was the attitude of the GOP in regards to the will of the people?
Clearly, from day one of the Obama admin, the stated goal of the GOP has been to stop the Obama agenda, regardless of the "will of the people" expressed nationwide at the ballot box.
It is this kind of shenanigans, perpetrated by both sides, but in this case, the GOP, that pisses people off and gives politics a bad name.
Well Dave, I'm biased, but I think many in the middle felt that they were sold a bill of goods. Obama was supposed to usher in a new era of good feeling and moderation, but he quickly took a hard left turn.
The Democrats thought they had a mandate and rammed it all up our wazoos, and they got punished for it in 2010.
GOP candidates all over America ran on slashing the irresponsible spending, and that's what they are doing.
Time will tell if, like the dems before them, they have misread their mandate.
Dave's correct, Silverfiddle.
Less than 3 months after Mr. Obama won the 2008 presidential election, the tea partiers were bellowing about taking back their country.
Why is it that it is the will of the people only when Republicans win elections?
Mr. Obama was very clear about health care reform when he was campaigning. And when he passed the reform the GOP characterized it as "shoving it down the voters' throats."
To contrast that, Scott Walker said NOTHING about doing away with public sector unions' collective bargaining rights when he was campaigning for the governorship. But he is insistent on doing away with it, no matter that the majority of Wisconsin voters do NOT want him to do so.
Why isn't that "shoving it down the voters' throats?"
See, we perceive that it is the GOP that decides what is "shoving" and what is not "shoving."
Do elections and the will of the people count only when the GOP wins?
This country is just about evenly divided, but you would never know that when one observes the behavior of the tantrum throwing right. They believe THEY are the majority.
They're not. And Wisconsin has proved this to be so.
I can't speak for everyone right of center, I haven't even heard the argument couched in this language of "will of the people," so I can't answer your question.
When Obama was elected it was the will of the people, just like Walker and every other election. I don't know what to say besides that.
It is a fact that dems were slaughtered in November 2010, at the national, state and local level. I leave it to you to draw your own conclusion as to why.
It is supposition that the GOP will meet the same fate in 2012, and therefor not worthy of arguing over. Who knows? I don't have a crystal ball.
SF: It is a fact that dems were slaughtered in November 2010, at the national, state and local level. I leave it to you to draw your own conclusion as to why.
We know why. It was a collapse of voter turn-out. The left has always been infested with perfectionist idiots who make the imaginary perfect the enemy of the attainable good. In 2010 those people were disgusted with Obama's excessive bipartisanship and compromise, and stayed home.
Now, people are waking up. The poll Shaw cites is not an outlier. Even Rasmussen now shows Walker turkeying out. The middle class, even many who vote Republican, are starting to understand the reality of the class warfare being waged against them.
Don't count on more apathy in 2012. People stayed home because they thought the Republicans couldn't be any worse than the Democrats. Now Walker and others like him have shown everyone but the most impossibly obtuse that they can.
Polls are indicators, and like the nations electorate change as circumstances change.
Given the current situation in the Middle East {Saudi Arabia is heating up}and the resulting increase in heating oil and gas,as well as all commodities affected by the rise in oil prices, combined with a rapidly growing national debt, and more states facing fiscal crises like WI. I'm not sure which political party will benefit at the ballot box come 2012.
I wouldn't be getting to comfortable If I were Obama. he just might find 2012 a tougher fight than the 2008 election presented.
As to Walker, ultimately the voters of WI. will decide his fate, as it should be. Unfortunately, Walker,who has sound fiscal idea's may not get to see his idea's come to fruition.
Walker needed to do something and initially had support. A wise politician would have determined how to accomplish the task without totally alienating labor.
Silver is right. It will indeed be interesting to see the voter's verdict in 2012.
Well put Infidel.
There is all kinds of speculation as to why no GOPer has declared that he/she is running for president. This is the first time in decades that no one has officially declared this late.
Huckabee is currently the leader in polls, with Romney and Palin tied for second.
Oh please, please, please!!!
In 2008 I never imagined that, just a few years later, Huckabee would actually seem like one of the less-crazy candidates in the Republican field.
Huckabee is currently the leader in polls, with Romney and Palin tied for second.
Oh please, please, please!!!
Almost, Shaw.
To clarify... Please God No!
There is all kinds of speculation as to why no GOPer has declared that he/she is running for president. This is the first time in decades that no one has officially declared this late.
It would actually be a tactical error for whichever faction's candidate is nominated, since the nominee will almost certainly lose the general election.
If someone from the sane faction, like Daniels or Romney, is nominated and loses, the nutty faction will say it's because a "RINO" can't win. This is what happened in 2008 when the moderate McCain lost, even though in fact Bush had made in an impossible year for Republicans and any other Republican candidate would probably have done even worse.
Conversely, if someone from the nutty faction (Palin, Paul, Huckabee, etc.) is nominated, that person will likely lose in an Electoral-College blow-out and enable the sane faction to re-take control of the party. The nutty faction wouldn't want that to happen.
Post a Comment