Random political crapFollow

Sure Joph. But you're missing my point. That there isn't any correlation between approval rating and rate at which folks will vote for one party or another. That's all I was saying. When a sitting president's approval rating drops 15 points in a year, but the rate at which people will vote for his party versus the other party does not change, that's a strong indicator that regardless of whether people like the president or agree with his policies, they have no faith that "the other guy" will do better.


And that's in an environment where "the other guy" isn't a solid firm person standing in front of us, stating his/her views and subject to scrutiny and debate. Yes. I'm aware that Bush himself isn't going to be up for re-election, but that makes matters *worse* for Dems rather then better. Dems seem to be banking on how badly they can make Bush appear to the public in order to gain support for themselves. But that tactic doesn't seem to be working. That's really the point I was making.

You were the first one to even mention a correlation between the two:I never once said there was a correlation -- you implied that there should be.Another question in the poll, independant of the question about Bush's approval ratings, was whether voters would be more likely to vote Democrat or Republican if the Congressional elections were held today.
10% more said Democrat. Yes, it's the same percentage as last year. And, just like last year, it still means that (all things being equal) if the Congressional elections were held today the Democrats would win by 10%. So, 10% more people think the "other guy" would do better.

See? The second statement had nothing to do with Bush's ratings going up, down or spinning in cartwheels. It's not a question of whether people would vote for Bush or Kerry, it's a question of how they would vote in the non-Bush-related Congressional elections.

gbaji said



Well, the plan didnt work very well!

also..


What? Like this one?

Gbaji said


Thanks. I will.. i'll also call it stupid and ineffectual and an utter failure as I amm sure these people would agree.

But if you reckon that thats a good plan, thats just great. Me I'll continue to protest and be angry.....

Lol. Heh. Ok. I didn't phrase that well.

They need to have 60% or higher of those polled. I meant 10% over the half point. Dems really should be polling higher then 50% given the massive bad press Republicans have recieved. This speaks volumes about the lack of relevant platform in the Democrat party.


Heh. Paulsol. Third times the charm. Tell me what the Democrat's solution is.

I'm still finding it amusing that you responded to my post by simply listing off how crappy the Republican plan is. Sigh. This is why Dems lose elections. Not only do you not have a plan. Not only do you not realize that you don't have a plan. But even after someone points out to you "Hey! You don't have a plan", you blindly continue to bash the other side cause his plan isn't perfect...

Typical.

Again. You're still only criticizing the success rate of "the plan". This does not change the fact that Republicans have one and the Dems don't.

And I'd question your criticism itself. Here's a list on Wiki of Al Queda members. Doing a quick head count, I see the following:

Total known members alive and uncaptured: 40
Total known members alive and captured: 142
Total known members killed: 57

I'd say your argument that "we have yet to find, capture, and punish those responsible" requires a pretty serious ignoring of actual facts. The *fact* is that the Republican plan for dealing with Global Terror has been pretty darn successful. The plan most certainly has prevented several terrorist plots and attacks. The plan most certainly has resulted in the capture and/or death of many members of Al-queda.

Has it prevented all attacks everywhere? No. It's not perfect. No one claimed that.

Has it resulted in the capture or death of all members of Al-queda, especially those involved with the planning of the 9/11 attacks? No. It's not perfect. No one claimed that.


However, it's at least a plan. It's a course of action. It *is* seeing results. Criticising it's success without once providing an alternative is silly. Where's the alternative? When voting, you don't just have one name and mark whether you like how he's doing things. When voting, you have multiple names and you pick the one you think will do the best job. If the Dems can't come up with a platform and a plan, why will anyone pick their candidate's names?

Fact is that while you could say that the Republicans aren't fielding the best team, Democrats aren't even on the field. Heck. They haven't even suited up yet, and don't have a playbook to use if they did.


I'll ask again: What is the Democrats plan to deal with Global Terror? Should be a simple question. If you can't answer it, then perhaps it's because the Dems don't have a plan. And if you don't think that's a problem. Think again...

It's not like it's a secret. Heck. Let's look at the address Bush gave on Sep 20th, 2001:




There's your plan. Note. He does not promise that no terrorist attacks will ever occur. He does not promise that there will be no US military casualties (in fact, he implies the opposite). He does not promise a quick and decisive result (in fact, he blanketly states the opposite). It's very clear that taking the fight to the terrorists is the plan, rather then just sitting back and trying to defend against them. It's also very clear that holding other nations responsible for aiding terrorism is part of the plan as well.

Again. It's not perfect. And it's not been perfectly executed. But the Republicans have had a plan literally since day one (ok, 9 days after 9/11 in this case). The Dems, 4 and a half years later still do not have an alternative. They're quick to criticize Bush's plan. They're quick to point out every failing and every cost. But at no point have they *once* presented a clearly defined alternative.

The closest they've come is to argue that we *shouldn't* do the things that Bush and the Republicans have pushed for. Um... Not doing anything puts us in the same condition that resulted in the 9/11 attacks in the first place. Clearly, there's a need for a change in our approach to terrorism. The Republicans have come up with one and are implementing it. The Dems simply haven't bothered to show up...

Right about what?


Heh. I missed this beauty in your earlier post:




Just an observation. That appears to be the Democrat tactic as well. Don't take a stance. Don't say what you're *for*. Just attack the other guy for his stance, and sit back, impervious to counter, because you haven't taken one yourself.

My whole argument is that while this does a great job at running down the other guys approval ratings, it doesn't win elections. Hence my observation about the poll results earlier in this thread.


The secondary observation is that many Liberals don't seem to get this. They see the constant media barrage of negative press about the Republicans and the Bush administration. They observe what appears to be an overwhelming belief that the Republicans are "failing miserably". They assume that because of the portrayal of Republicans in the media and in the polls, that this means that Dems are going to do well in the next election (whichever one that may be). And when they *don't*, they are shocked. They can't see the obvious fact I've outlined above and instead start clamoring about stolen elections instead of addressing the problems of their own agenda and platform.


The proof that this is true? Well. The best proof is the direct response (or lack thereof) in this very thread. I've asked for someone to list off the Democrat's plan for dealing with Global Terror about 5 times now, and every single time I do that, it's met instead with lists of what the Republican plan is doing wrong. I didn't ask what's wrong with the Republican plan. I asked where the Dem alternative is. Even after I very clearly state this, posters continue in an almost pavlovian way to ignore the question and instead respond with attacks on the Republican plan.


Again. What is the Dem plan? It took me all of 2 minutes to google and find a direct quote where Bush outlines his plan. Where's the alternative from the Dems? The fact that it's so hard for anyone to answer this question should be a *huge* tip off that there's a serious hole in the Dem platform.

*cough* Excuse me? Global War on Terror was first mentioned by *you* in this thread. Not me. I was making an observation about the relevance of polls to election results and pointed out that the Dems don't have a plan to deal with Global Terror and that this is one of the many reasons they're having trouble winning elections.


That was my observation, to which you argued by spinning off about how the Republican "plan" (aka: "The Global War on Terror") was a failure. But that doesn't refute my original statement at all (Dems don't have a plan at all, so they don't offer voters a real alternative to Republicans in national elections).

Look. We can debate the pros and con's of the GWOT all day long. But that's *not* the issue here. The issue is that the Dems can't hope to win widespread national support until they fill the gaping hole in their platform that is a lack of *any* kind of policy designed to deal with global terror. They can certainly affect polls by arguing about how bad the Republicans are doing. But they can't win elections until they can convince the public that they could do better. I didn't think this was such a hard concept to grasp.


And since we're on the topic. Let me rephrase your "solution". You're basically saying that we should undo everything we've done and go back to doing what we were doing prior to 9/11. Um... Not to be obvious, but apparently you didn't pay attention when I said that's *not* a viable alternative. That's exactly the policy that got us 9/11 in the first place.

You are aware that groups of Islamic terrorists (like Al-queda) were pissed off at us enough to fly planes into several large buildings on 9/11/2001, right? That was *before* we invaded Afghanistan. That was *before* we invaded Iraq. How on earth does undoing those two actions fix the problem? It can't.

Here. I'll make it even easier for you. Let's pretend you've got a time machine. You go back to Sept 10th, 2001. You assume full control of the US government. You're the president and you've got a congress and people who'll do anything you want (since this is your fantasy). What would you do? What policies would you enact to prevent a future attack like the one that just happened? If you have all the answers, this should be an easy question.


It's easy to criticize the other guys choices. It's a lot harder to come up with a viable alternative. Feel free to try though.

What I'd be most concerned about if I were a Democrat is the fact that despite losing 15 points on the approval rating over the last year, people are no more willing to vote Democrat today then they were a year ago.
-------------------------------------------------------

this pile of crap the american people have been handed has gone way beyond dem vs repubs. and btw, more dems voted for Kerry last election than any president in the history of this country, including Clintons reelection. SOMEHOW, the peperless automated voting machines placed in key states voted .....1.....percent more for Bush.

here are the facts. an american president is authorizing the release of classified information for the purpose of political payback.

this addministraition has "redifined" the word torture to allow for the torture of prisoners in our care.

this addministraition has started a war that even today can not be justified by any laws set down in this country.

this addministraition helped pass a energy bill that gives away over a billion dollars of OUR tax dollars to the oil industry already setting nation wide records for profit in this coutnry.

the people who attacked us are still walking free..............

this is not about democrat ot republican. this is about wholsale negligent mismanagement of this country.

there SHOULD be accountability for the loss of life we have committed and can not justify. there SHOULD be accountability for authorizing this country to commit torture. there SHOULD be accountability for selling our tax dollars to a private industry in no need of any type of help what so ever.

SHOULD.

what is happening at the top of our leadership is criminal. most people dont give a crap about who gets it next. most people just want the pain to stop.....NOW.

and the worst part? it was done in the worlds eyes in OUR name. ALL of us. in America,s name. the world doesnt give two spits about red or blue, right or left. all the world sees is AMERICA torturing people and justifying it, America attacking a country we had no reason to attack, America killing more people in the last two wars against Iraq than the crimminal Hussin we over threw.

the world sees the American "cure" as a whole lot worse than the desease ever was.

this is not about left and right, this is about right and wrong.

Ok. But I don't see the "any plan" the same way you do. I don't find it at all unusual or telling that people might prefer "any other plan" at relatively high rates. Because unless there's a defined alternative plan, "any plan" can include any of a number of different approaches that different people might prefer.

Let me take immigration as a topical example. Let's say you've got an incumbant that currently ensorses building a big'ol'fence to solve the problem. You take a poll, and 75% of the people polled disapprove of the plan and state that they'd prefer a different one. However, out of that 75%, maybe 25% think that raising the "living wage" is a better solution, and 25% think that a guest worker program is a better solution, and 25% think amnesty is the right course of action. Prior to a real opponent with a stated plan, the incumbant will poll *really* poorly. However, as soon as a real opponent appears and states which of those plans he prefers, those numbers will change. It appears as though "any opponent" with "any plan" should beat the incumbant easily, but in actual fact, no opponent will have any more support for his specific plan then the incumbant. Each will have 25% of the population that agree with their plan, 25% that agree with the other guy's plan, and 50% that don't like either one but will have to choose between them somehow anyway.

That's the observation I'm making. In this case, a 75% "would vote the other side" poll really equates to an even race on that issue once an actual opponent with an actual position appears. I'm simply extrapolating that if you start out with only 50% prefering "any other plan" or "anyone from the other party", that number is pretty much always going to shrink as election day gets nearer *unless* the other guy actually has a platform that can garner higher *real* support. When you're starting at 50% when that 50% can each individually imagine a candidate that exactly matches their specific "ideal platform", it's unlikely that you'll gain numbers over time and very likely that you'll lose them.



They're flip side of the same thing though Joph. You're looking at is as though I'm assuming the side with the higher approval will drop over time. But that's not the case. I'm saying that as we approach an election, poll numbers will rise for the incumbant and drop for the opposition as the actual platform and agenda of that opposition becomes known. So polls stating that 10% more voters would vote in a Dem for congress *today* will drop as actual candidates appear and the issues become firmer. Similarly polls stating that 4% more votors think Republicans are better at fighting the war on terror will *rise* over time (actually those thinking Dems are better will drop).

In both cases it's because the actual platform and agenda of the Republicans is treated as the incumbant (they've got control of congress so it's their policies that are assumed to be running things both pro and con). The people taking those polls are comparing the known Republican platform and its results (again, both pro and con) against an unknown platform that can in the mind of each polltaker be assumed to be an "ideal" alternative (ie: It'll match exactly what that person wants). But as we move closer to the election and that unknown platform becomes a known one, those numbers *must* drop.

Which is why I'm saying that Dems need to have more then 50% numbers if they want to make a serious run at changing Congress this term. That's not to say it's impossible. We wont know until the results come in. But unless they can win some serious "real" policy points, those undecides are going to shift back to the Republicans, and some of those saying they'd vote Dem will as well (because some percentage of those people will *have* to have ideas that don't match what the Dem candidates offer them).


While I don't feel like digging through election and pre-election polling numbers, I'd expect it's pretty common for an unnamed opponent to poll well against an incumbant and then gradually lose that lead as election day gets closer. I don't think it's unreasonable to extrapolate that into a general "party versus party" poll situation.

Gallup Sez:

"Do you think the Republicans in Congress or the Democrats 
 in Congress would do a better job of dealing with each of the 
 following issues and problems? How about terrorism?" 
						 
            Republicans  Democrats  No Difference (vol.)  Unsure 
		 % 	    % 	          %                 % 	  
3/10-12/06 	45 	   41 	          7 	            7 	  
10/21-23/05 	49 	   38 	          9                 4 	  
7/18-20/03 	55 	   29 	         10                 6 	  
1/03-05/03 	55 	   27 	         13                 5 	  
10/21-22/02 	52 	   23 	         14                11 	  
9/20-22/02 	56 	   27 	         10                 7 	  
6/28-30/02 	57         22            13                 8 	  
5/28-29/02 	51         19            19                11

Huh. The most interesting thing, to me, is that the attrition number from the Republicans is maybe 10% but the ranks of those who think the Democrats would do better climbed 22% in the last four years. From the looks of it, about half of the people who originally thought it'd make no difference who was in charge are now of the opinion that the Democrats have to be able to do a better job than the "plan" the Republicans have implemented since the aftermath of 9/11 and the beginnings of the Iraq war.

Edited to repair tags and screen wrap

Edited, Thu Apr 27 19:16:31 2006 by Jophiel

*Shrug* I wouldn't expect you to say differently, to be honest.

I doubt there's a single user here who'd take you at your word when you begin spouting off about how the Democrats are doomed and the Republicans are smooth sailing

And, no, don't tell me to look stuff up. If you can't back your "facts" up, accept the fact that you have zero credibility. I'm not even saying there's a 100% chance for a Democratic win or anything. But at least I've put up numbers showing how people think today. The bits where you come in and say "Those numbers mean nothing! Everyone knows you need a 20% lead!" that are laughable.

You know what it reminded me of? There was a recent news story about the governor here deciding something or another and his Republican opponent saying that it showed that the governor was scared and his campaign was in shambles and he was grasping. Funny thing is that, in the primaries, there were twice as many Democratic ballots cast as there were Republican ones and his challeneger only received about 35% of the Republican ballots (split between five people). But you'd never expect here to admit that she was way behind so his lead was proof that he was in trouble.

Wow.. that sounds familiar

Edited, Thu Apr 27 22:15:41 2006 by Jophiel