America to Congress: "meh"

Posted at 10:54 AM on July 11, 2007 by Bob Collins (6 Comments)

A series of polls out over the last month (actually, ongoing polls) shows that America's message to Washington is simple and consistent: "you stink." But unlike the last election cycle, there's an additional comment, "and we love you for it."

For example: According to CBS in late June, the job approval rating for Congress was just 27 percent -- a number that is pretty closely reflected in other polls and continuing a trend that no matter how poorly rated the president is, Congress' rating is almost always worse.

How is that different from when the Republicans were in charge? In November 2005, Congress' job approval rating was only 34 percent, lower than -- at that time -- President Bush's critique.

So why isn't anyone predicting a Republican "wave" when America next gets a crack at the Congress it doesn't like? And why aren't sitting Democrats -- especially those who promised, you know, change -- worried?

To recap: Republican dominated Congress: bad. Democrat dominated Congress: bad, according to the polls.

Sounds like the time is right for a third party, right? Wrong. If you look at the poll numbers, it's always -- technically -- been time for a third party. And, in fact, the CBS poll showed people claiming they wanted a third party. They want to vote for a third party candidate, usually right up until the time they get to. In Minnesota, a third party candidate has never even come close to carrying a county, let alone the state.

In Minnesota, changing your name to Anderson to get an election "bump" is standard practice. Maybe this is the year someone will change their name to None OfTheAbove.

---

Comments (6)

Incredible. Bob asks the questions:

"So why isn't anyone predicting a Republican "wave" when America next gets a crack at the Congress it doesn't like? And why aren't sitting Democrats -- especially those who promised, you know, change -- worried?"

The Democrats aren't worried because it was a Republican president who got us into a needless, disastrous war, and because it was a Republican majority Congress who backed him all the way. No one is predicting a Republican wave at this point because up until about twenty minutes ago when Lugar and Voinovich and Domenici bailed, the GOP was the "let's keep fighting this failing war" party.

The Dem numbers are low because they *didn't* end the war this year, as many voters expected them to. But there is no viable alternative to them at the polls except the GOP, who are in incredibly bad odor with their own base: the war, again.

You should put the domestic impact of the Iraq occupation into your political calculus, Bob. It will clear up a lot of these big questions that puzzle you.

Do you know that the Iraq war isn't even mentioned in your post?

Posted by Bill Prendergast | July 11, 2007 12:08 PM

---

And given the opportunity to change the direction of the war in Iraq, Bill, the Democrats have done exactly..... what?

According to my abacus, the U.S. commitment in Iraq increased, not decreased, as folks were led to believe my happen with a change in congressional power.

If the Republicans -- who were in the majority -- were held accountable for their part in not stopping a war, then why aren't the Democrats when they are in the majority -- similarly held accountable?

642 Americans have been killed since the Democrats took control of Congress, compared to 425 in the same period a year ago. Now, clearly those opposed to the war blame Bush. But they also blamed the Republican congress for not doing more to stop it. If the blood was on the Republican congress' hands, why is it not on the Democratic congress' hands too.

You are, perhaps, correct that there's no viable alternative to the Democrats. But you missed my last sentence. Clearly there is and the polls suggest that: other democrats.

Why aren't SITTING Democrats more worried about that?

Walz and Ellison, for example, counsel "patience." But they didn't counsel that a year ago, of course. As far as I know, no Democrats campaigned on an "elect me, and eventually, maybe, possibly, someday years from now, things will be different."

So what's different? Listen to Democrats now, and you'd think Republicans were still in power. What good is their majority?

Warm regards

Posted by Bob Collins | July 11, 2007 12:19 PM

---

Bob asks:

"If the Republicans -- who were in the majority -- were held accountable for their part in not stopping a war, then why aren't the Democrats when they are in the majority -- similarly held accountable?"

They *are* being held accountable, Bob--that's why their poll numbers are low, as I already pointed out to you. The reason they do not fear an overthrow by the GOP is that the voters think the GOP are even worse, as I already pointed out to you.

Please do not mistake me for someone who showed up here to spin the Dem side of the story. I'm simply trying to explain why Congress' poll numbers are low, and likely to remain low as long as a deeply unpopular war is going on.

But don't lose your reportorial objectivity by excoriating Democrats. Your political philosophy, as I always understood it, is that it really makes no difference who gets elected--it's all just some kind of corrupt entertaining circus, so far as you know. If you take a side, you can't maintain that view.

Posted by Bill Prendergast | July 11, 2007 12:56 PM

---

Congress' polls numbers are almost ALWAYS low, regardless of whether there's a war going on. I don't discount the war as an effect, I wonder why sitting Democrats don't seem particularly concerned for their seats. Why wouldn't there be a "throw the bums out" wave being felt in Washington. Who said the next set of bums had to be Republicans.

BTW, there's no such thing as objectivity by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Nor should there be.

And, yes, I generally think it doesn't matter which politicians get elected. I refer you to the infamous Tim Penny appearance on McNeil Lehrer when he announced he wouldn't run again, and I would refer you to the announcement by Mike Ciresi two years ago on why he wouldn't try to be a U.S. senator from Minnesota.

It would appear that the hardest thing for a congressperson to do... is make a difference.

Posted by Bob Collins | July 11, 2007 1:07 PM

---

Bob asks
"So why isn't anyone predicting a Republican "wave" when America next gets a crack at the Congress it doesn't like? And why aren't sitting Democrats -- especially those who promised, you know, change -- worried?"

Perhaps the voters have brains for which they are currently uncredited. When the GOP controlled the Congress and the White House, the people threw out the people they could - Congress, largely Republicans. Since then, sure enough, the Dems have failed to live up to their promise - but not for lack of effort. The President vetoed legislation that would have forced a course change in Iraq. Why would voters punish Dems for this failure? Dems seem to think they will not; while the GOP is apparently starting to rethink its unfailing support for the Bush plan in Iraq.

In the end the sad truth is that Bob is right - even when we're fed up with politicians from both the major parties, we aren't brave enough to pull lever number three (metaphorically & collectively speaking).

Posted by bsimon | July 11, 2007 3:24 PM

---

//Why would voters punish Dems for this failure?

Because if they wanted to force a course change in Iraq, they could have without subjecting it to a presidential veto. The Democrats are not without power, though admittedly there is political risk in wielding it.

Posted by Bob Collins | July 11, 2007 4:06 PM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

Email Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Save to Delicious
• Submit to Digg
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories

Become a Sponsor