HERE COME THE REVERSALS

WP:

Americans oppose changing filibuster rules.

But by a 2 to 1 ratio, the public rejected easing Senate rules in a way that would make it harder for Democratic senators to prevent final action on Bush’s nominees.

Americans oppose private social security accounts.

The biggest changes in opinion came on Social Security, which Bush has made the principal domestic priority of his second term. Three in 10 (31 percent) approved of the job Bush is doing on Social Security, while 64 percent disapproved, an eight-point increase in disapproval in a month.

Tom DeLay is finished. Even if he doesn’t resign he’s effectively neutered.

four in 10 said that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, under fire for alleged ethics violations, should resign his leadership post

President Bush’s approval ratings fall to his all-time low.

The survey found that Bush’s overall job approval rating stood at 47 percent, matching his all-time low in Post-ABC News polls. Half disapproved of the job he is doing as president.

And the understated conclusion:

Taken together, the findings suggest that Bush is off to a difficult start in his second term

Remember how the Republicans flip-flopped on the Schiavo issue when polls came out showing that Americans didn’t want Congress to intervene? Expect the same here, especially with the filibuster rule. Republicans are doing more to lose 2006 seats on their own than the Democrats could ever do, all because they think a 3 percentage point win in the Presidential election gives them a mandate to push through extreme measures. Other than the fight against terrorism, the majority of Americans disapprove of everything Bush and the Republicans are doing. I love it.

30 thoughts on “HERE COME THE REVERSALS

  1. The Senator

    Here, here!

    Excellent post.

    It’s all about ebb and flow, man, and the pendulum has to swing back to the center. It’s the nature of it all.

    By the way, I have to say that my fellow Democrats should tread lightly with the ethics attacks on Delay. Certainly, I am not a fan of him. But, the GOP did the same with Clinton when they were out of power. It creates rampant, and almost hateful, partisanship, which is not good for our country.

  2. greg

    I love how totally wrong you will be when we pick up more seats in ’06. Left wingers like you *just don’t get it*.

  3. greg

    GOP dominance will continue for at least another cycle. Until the Democrats come up with their own competing ideas instead of just being *against* everything the Republicans do, they will be stuck as a minority party. I mean, sure they’re against SS reform, but what is their solution to the crisis? Sure they oppose the filibuster rules, but they supported such a nuclear option under Clinton. Sure Delay is a crook, but he’s not rubbing off on other Republicans. The Dems still have some regrouping time. Moreover, the seats that are up in ’06 seem to favor the republicans in the senate and the house is too decidedly republican to switch.

  4. The Senator

    Arrogance will be the end of the GOP’s dominance, my friend. Don’t get cocky in the political arena.

    But, if you’d “listen,” you’d see that I generally agree with you. The Democratic Party is in the middle of a makeover.

    We used to be the party of ideas.

  5. DCB Post author

    “I love how totally wrong you will be when we pick up more seats in ?06.”

    With the way things are going?

    :laugh:

  6. Bub

    Love how greg says *crisis*…showing that he is a total Republican sycophant with 0 reasoning skills…only 30+ years left to fix the *crisis* Congress fixed in a single session last time this happened back in the 70s…boring greg boring…see you in ’06…

  7. greg

    DCB, your side has been a broken record since before 2002, but Republicans have continued to make electoral gains, not losses. Most recently, poll numbers were similar before the 2004 election, and your side was saying the exact same things, but Republicans still continued to make electoral gains. Simply put, the voters have already considered these things and decided who they want (and it’s not the Dems).

    I maintain that until Democrats actually put forth innovative ideas and their own plan for this country, instead of just opposing everything the Republicans do or proposing watered-down versions of the same thing, Republicans will continue to make gains. ’08 is the absolute earliest that Democrats may make gains.

    I question your ability to gauge political trends and analyze the electoral makeup of this country. Didn’t you think Bush was going to lose in ’04?

  8. greg

    Bub, you have to be kidding me. Sycophant? 0 reasoning skills? I think I’m pretty even-handed when it comes to political analysis. This is my field, after all. That said, there’s nothing in your post to indicate that you actually possess any of these reasoning skills which you speak of. I may have my own political leanings, but they are tempered by rational analysis.

    Also, if Congress *fixed* the SS problem in the 70s, why is it a problem now? I don’t know about you, but I actually want my money to be there when I retire.

  9. The Senator

    Greg,

    You’re getting cocky again….if you want to analyze trends, then clearly you should know that speaking arrogantly, off the cuff, like you have in your 4 or so posts, will spell your doom.

    Like most Republicans I know, who are “in the field,” and many of whom work in the White House, you are taking this whole “mandate” thing way too seriously.

    Don’t forget that about 50 million people didn’t vote for your guy. So, when you speak on behalf of Americans, just remember to temper your language. Otherwise, you sound like a rookie.

    And, don’t end sentences with prepositions.

  10. J.P.

    I feel Greg misses the point here in terms of the pendulum that the Senator spoke of swinging the other way. I see the present trend leading to the backlash against Clinton that occurred in the Congressional elections in during his first term, I believe, that led to a massive shift to GOP majority. Unlike the presidential election, we are not referring to a 2 horse race, but rather many many districts across the country that are GOP vs. Dem. for vastly different reasons than in the presidential election. I think, in fact, that DCB is spot on in this regard, because you have already seen more moderate republicans, such as Lincoln Chafee of RI and John McCain, distance themself from Delay for both his ethics violations and his stance on the philibuster change.

    In districts such as the northeast, issues that have won GOP Congressional candidates a seat are very different from those that won Bush the presidency and the bottom line is that these candidates have a different mandate than Bush. My personal belief is the vast majority of supporters on both sides are basically moderates and that the sort of rash changes that Delay and company favor in order to ease their chances of packing the Supreme Court only frighten moderate voters.

    One more point Greg, I believe voters are inherently fickle. You claim that the democrats will not pick up more seats in the long run simply by claiming the GOP has been unsuccessful in fixing problems with social security. I think you grossly misread voter behavior. If one group fails to make desired changes voters tend to try someone else– even if someone else is inherently very similar or even not incredibly qualified.

  11. greg

    JP: First, I completely agree that voters are fickle. This is why we’ve seen President Bush have the highest approval of any President in history as well as having the lowest approval rating of any President on re-election. You’re right that voters will often choose someone else if the people in power are failing in following the people’s will, and eventually this may kick the Republicans out of power. It’s just too soon for that. As I said before, ’08 is the earliest Dems will be able to really mount any effort at changing the house, senate or white house. Even then, that is the earliest and it assumes that in the interim Republicans are unsucessful at acheiving their goals.

    As far as Delay, I am on your side too. He is corrupt, and we need strong voices in the Republican party to stand up and say that we won’t accept his kind of behavior. Delay isn’t really my type of Republican anyway. That said, I doubt Delay’s troubles will be remembered when people finally go to the polls in 06 or 08 (except maybe in his district).

    Basically, I still think the trend is for more Republican dominance. It will end eventually, but I am confident that it won’t be for at least another couple cycles. After all, the Dems held on to power starting with FDR for decades, I predict the same will be with Republicans.

    The Senator: I’m not being cocky, nor am I speaking arrogantly. I know continued Republican dominance is not something you like, but that has little bearing on reality.

    Also, yes I am well aware that 50 million people voted against Bush, but more people voted *for* him. If winning a majority of the vote doesn’t qualify as a mandate, what does? 55? 60? Heck Clinton never even got a majority and I certainily concede that the voters still gave him a mandate to govern.

    Simply put, the fact that voters decisively chose bush over Kerry and strengthened Republican margins in the House and Senate is a pretty clear indication of a mandate.

  12. O-FACE

    Good observations. So the question is??? Who the fuck voted to re-elect this asshole and his cronies. Bunch of Jesus Freaks turned the country upside down. I can’t get a job with jesus. I can’t feed myself jesus. I can’t retire on Jesus. I don’t get why america is falling for this religous bullshit. How tragic. The supposed red-states…aka jesus freaks, also happen to be the same states that supported segregation and slavery. Interesting.

  13. James

    It’s not like Dubya did much in his first 4 years either, but he still got re-elected. So I can’t imagine this affecting the GOP until the Democrats actually get someone who can win, not just take the opposite view of whatever the Republicans decide.

    Kerry actually had a pretty big lead in the summer prior to the election and the attack ads. And he took the “high road.” His election team must have been Dubya supporters, because the high road immediately brought it back to a close race. He didn’t deserve it, and neither did Dubya. Gotta love politics.

  14. The Senator

    Cocky words: dominance; mandate.

    If the GOP dominated, as you say, then why is the Chairman of the Ethics Committee reversing and admitting that he has to overturn his silly rules?

    If the President has a mandate, then why do more people than not think his social security plan does not hold water?

    According to your logic, Greg, the people of the U.S. have a mandate to overthrow him; does this make them dominant?

    Do you get my point now–that is, do you now see how silly it is for your puffery and overuse of arrogant terms like “mandate” and “dominance?” Or are you still too cocky to see that?

  15. Liz

    I love it when you all get your panties in a twist over disagreeing political views. It amuses me.

  16. greg

    Senator, I’m sorry you don’t like the terms I use. Perhaps you perceive them as charged words, but that was not my intention. Besides looking at single issues and their related polls, how about we simply look at the makeup of the government:

    -President-
    Republican
    -Senate-
    Republican: 55
    Democrat: 44
    -House-
    Republican: 231
    Democrat: 200
    -Governorships-
    Republican: 28
    Democrat: 22

    The numbers clearly speak for themselves. If Democrats controlled one of these categories, I wouldn’t have used such strong language, but since Republicans have majorities in every federal category, I think this qualifies as dominance.

    I’m not sure if you’re even still reading this post, but please answer this question: If such majorities do not qualify as a mandate than what does?

  17. Marc

    Having a mandate does not mean “Go run rampant and do whatever you want”.

    I think this is fairly indicative of what’s been happening based on current popularity polls. The Republicans are doing a fair amount of back peddling and pissing people off.

    I’m not going to pretend to be as into politics as anyone else here. Because I’m not. I do however pay enough attention to see the trends.

    And for the record, I don’t think the Dems would be doing any better if they had the “Mandate”.

    We need more viable parties in our government, two just isn’t enough.

    Liz, you’re right I haven’t. Though if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.

  18. The Senator

    Three things:

    1. A mandate is an authoritative command or instruction. The American people did not authoritatively give anyone any command or instruction. When 49% of the country votes the other way, this kind of takes the “authoritative-ness” out of the mandate. Ergo, Bush, nor Clinton, nor any other President in recent history ever had a “mandate.”

    However, I would go so far as to say a 60% / 40% vote difference could be considered one. But, claiming a mandate is still the winner’s way of saying, “Look at me! I won! You lost! Ha, ha, ha…” Not that cool, right?

    2. Greg, Your data is riveting; but, your question should be posed not on whether these numbers represent a mandate, but whether they represent dominance. Clearly, these numbers are impressive. No one can take that away from your party.

    However, don’t rub noses in it. That, my friend, equals arrogance. And, you have been acting arrogant on this thread.

    3. Marc, I agree with you.

  19. DCeiver

    President Bush’s mandate, real or imagined, has exactly zero to do with who was elected governor of North Fuckall or who gained what handful of seats in the House of representatives.

    Which isn’t to say that the numbers you cited aren’t impressive. But don’t take, say, John Kyl’s mandate and say it belongs to Bush.

    The only thing harder, historically speaking, that obtaining power is keeping it. Right now, America typically undergoes two massive paradigm shifts every two decades or so. So the pendulum will swing back the other way given enough time. That’s why I’d think twice about ending the judicial filibuster. Unless you fancy judges being pulled from the Code Pink ranks once the game board flips again.

Comments are closed.