Newsweek Poll

[ThePhysicist]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15167150/site/newsweek/
Looks like the bleeding continues. The Highlights-
*The public trusts the Dems more than the GOP on every single issue now, including moral values and terrorism
*Bush's approval rating has collapsed back from his recent bump to 33%
*A majority now believe Bush delibrately lied the United States into war.

Right now, there are two outcomes for this election as it stands today (as I see it)
Option one- The Democrats take the house by a small margin, and narrowly fail to take the senate.
Option two- low GOP tournout/high non GOP tournout results in an electoral route, adding up to 50 seats for the Dems in the house and 6-7 in the senate.

This is truly something I haven't witnessed before. The GOP is falling apart before election day, rather than closing the gap. And it's becoming harder for them to turn things around- too many of their leaders are involved in scandles or are extremely unpopular.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Is Congress's approval rate still at around 20%?

 

[JollyRoger]

I think the Dems make gains, but the GOP will still narrowly control both houses. Everybody hates Congress, but they like their own Congressperson. The way Congressional Districts are drawn, most of the House seats are relatively safe for the incumbant. Only a third of the Senate seats are up for a vote, so it is difficult to get a big change in one election. The scandals may help the Dems if enough traditional GOP voters lose the motivation to actually get out and vote. Still, though I hate to say it, I predict the GOP keeps very narrow majorities in both Houses.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Here's a link with some info on that:
http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

I'd like to see some more of those come out soon.

 

[ThePhysicist]

I think the Dems make gains, but the GOP will still narrowly control both houses. Everybody hates Congress, but they like their own Congressperson. The way Congressional Districts are drawn, most of the House seats are relatively safe for the incumbant. Only a third of the Senate seats are up for a vote, so it is difficult to get a big change in one election. The scandals may help the Dems if enough traditional GOP voters lose the motivation to actually get out and vote. Still, though I hate to say it, I predict the GOP keeps very narrow majorities in both Houses.

Actually, I saw a poll recently that seperated approval for Democratc Representatives and Republican representatives. The average approval for all was about 55% approval as usual, but the average republican was something around 44% That's bad news for the GOP.

The bad thing is, I can't find the poll now. So maybe it was messed up or incorrectly reported.

 

[JollyRoger]

Actually, I saw a poll recently that seperated approval for Democratc Representatives and Republican representatives. The average approval for all was about 55% approval as usual, but the average republican was something around 44% That's bad news for the GOP.

The bad thing is, I can't find the poll now. So maybe it was messed up or incorrectly reported.

I think that just means that Democrats will win their races by wider margins than Republicans will win their races. I don't think it will necessarily lead to the Republicans losing a massive number of seats.

 

[sonorakitch]

If the Republican party would revert back to its more traditional roots of limited government and low spending, they wouldn't be bleeding right now.

I for one am rather apathetic this time around.

~Chris

 

[JollyRoger]

If the Republican party would revert back to its more traditional roots of limited government and low spending, they wouldn't be bleeding right now.

I for one am rather apathetic this time around.

~Chris

When has the Republican party ever stood for that? Reagan and both Bushes were notorious spenders and all favored laws where the government intruded on basically private and victimless acts.

 

[Neomega]

When has the Republican party ever stood for that? Reagan and both Bushes were notorious spenders and all favored laws where the government intruded on basically private and victimless acts.

reagan? Big spender? you sure?

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

If the Republican party would revert back to its more traditional roots of limited government and low spending, they wouldn't be bleeding right now.

I for one am rather apathetic this time around.

~Chris

I agree with this.

 

[JollyRoger]

reagan? Big spender? you sure?

Absolutely. Despite his tax cuts, we were running, for that point in time, record deficits under Reagan.

 

[sonorakitch]

When has the Republican party ever stood for that? Reagan and both Bushes were notorious spenders and all favored laws where the government intruded on basically private and victimless acts.

Ronald Reagan was only considered a big spender because of the great defense realignment of the 1980's, which was forced upon him by a decade of neglect for the armed forces. It is this funding that is credited in part to the rather quick collapse of the Soviet empire. Subtracting his defense build up, Reagan cut spending drastically most everywhere else.

But, the Republican party stood for this with the birth of the Goldwater conservative revolution, a revolution I am proud to support. And in reference to your intrusion comment, I really don't think this is true when subtracting the evangelical movement...a movement real conservatives despise. Realize, however, conservatism wouldn't be where it is today without the social aspects (unfortunately). Goldwater lost because he wouldn't include the social planks...Ronald Reagan won because he did.

And W....well, he really has turned things around a bit.

~Chris

 

[Cuivienen]

reagan? Big spender? you sure?

Until Bush II, Reagan was the biggest spender in the history of the US, inflation taken into account.

 

[sonorakitch]

Until Bush II, Reagan was the biggest spender in the history of the US, inflation taken into account.

Not by a long shot, if you look at percent of GDP (per capita). Again, the Reagan spending was overwhelmingly due to military defense build-up, and in terms of domestic programs he slashed and slashed.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0308-16.pdf#search=%22reagan%20spending%20%22

~Chris

 

[sonorakitch]

This illustrates the point above a bit.

~Chris

 

[JollyRoger]

[This illustrates the point above a bit.

~Chris

Looks like Clinton got back to the Republican roots so far as spending went.

 

[sonorakitch]

Looks like Clinton got back to the Republican roots so far as spending went.

You are right...he did and I loved him for that. But only that!

~Chris

 

[Cuivienen]

Not by a long shot, if you look at percent of GDP (per capita). Again, the Reagan spending was overwhelmingly due to military defense build-up, and in terms of domestic programs he slashed and slashed.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0308-16.pdf#search=%22reagan%20spending%20%22

~Chris

Cato? Please.

 

[sonorakitch]

Everybody has their own charts it seems. The point is taking a debt figure without considering the per capita GDP of that particular year. It is something they will teach you in your upcoming economics college course. Following is a good example of how the Reagan administration was not, by a long shot, the greatest producer of debt per capita in US history, which has been my point from the beginning (you can look above Cuivienen if you want). While Reagan did increase national debt, again it was purely a matter of defense. As my previous link exposed (yes it is Cato and yes the research is easily disputable by anybody, but it hasn't been ), Reagan's spending, subtracting military outleys, was actually dramatically lower than previous Presidents, and certainly Mr. Bush's.

Charts can really be misleading if you don't think about the info being presented. Not including the GDP per capita is really misinformation, as the debt moves according to government spending but doesn't take into account receipts until it is a total budget figure. Calculating the per capita GDP places into perspective that some years, the government will spend a great deal more than the previous year, but the economic growth can also offset this spending number. Population growth also plays into this.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-isnt-us-national-debt-per-capita.html

~Chris

 

[Godwynn]

Does anyone have some polls from before the 1994 election? It would be interesting the compare the predictions from both.