Democrat Controlled Congress Approval At A Record-Low 14%

Democrat Controlled Congress Approval At A Record-Low 14%


The Democrat party controlled congress has reached a record low approval rating. Will the Pelosi-Reid partnership continue for another 2 years? Is the electorate still asleep?

The Democrats promised CHANGE in 2006. CAN WE AFFORD ANY MORE DEMOCRAT CHANGE IN 2008?

I heard someone say last night it was at 9%. When did it increase?

I wouldn't read too much into that. Objectively, I'd say there is a "throw the bums out" sentiment, but for most "the bums" are the GOP.

Even when these polls get taken, the responders are usually referring to someone else's representatives. So it's really a "throw YOUR bum out" sentiment.

That, and most Americans don't really know how their Government works. Rightly or wrongly, they usually ascribe far too much failure and success to the White House.

I think you are wrong Craig. I think many Americans are keenly aware of what Democrats campaigned on in 06 (stopping the war and reducing gas prices to name a few) and those Americans are aware that THIS congress, which they elected on the promise of change, has failed miserably.

While Americans are very angry at GWB and the Republican party for what they've done with the WH, they are just as aware that Congressional failures can and should be laid at the feet of democrats.

And just as they will likely make a change in the WH, I believe they will make that same change in Congress.

We'll see. I expect, as do most of the chatterers, that the Democrats will have an even larger majority in the House and Senate, along with Governorships.

The GOP will be back in their lonely, white wilderness.

When I fantasize, it's generally about money or women, not politics.



Of course if you’re certain, I'd be willing to place a small wager on the table.

I am certain. What do you have that I would want? The dog?

You're not worthy of my baby.

How about the $10.00 Sherman owes me for his lost bet?

Now how many seats are you talking about? A gain in both the House and the Senate or just a net gain?

SFCraig wrote:We'll see. I expect, as do most of the chatterers, that the Democrats will have an even larger majority in the House and Senate, along with Governorships.

The GOP will be back in their lonely, white wilderness.

Craig, I don't think so, ....... but wouldn't that be a "HOOT" if the Dems did?



.

I predict we get the White House, and pick up seats in both the House and the Senate.

The GOP has already lost in former Republican strongholds, including Hastert's seat. The GOP brand is a bad one right now, tantamount to the Dems in the 70s.

The GOP is struggling to keep a lock on their Cuban votes in Florida even! Armstrong Williams said he may vote for Obama too.

You could be looking at the Democratic Revolution.

And, like the one back in 1917 or so........

Well Obama seems to have more enthusiastic support.

And the press elite are all for him it seems.

But when you add it up state by state it is still close.

SFCraig wrote:I predict we get the White House, and pick up seats in both the House and the Senate.

The GOP has already lost in former Republican strongholds, including Hastert's seat. The GOP brand is a bad one right now, tantamount to the Dems in the 70s.

Is this the same democrats that was handed the WH in 76 only to lose it for a very 12 long years. Or is it the democrats that had control of HOR for 40 years and the Senate for 34 of 40 years including the entire 1970's?

I think Craig's predictions are correct.

What I don't think is that it will prove to be good news for the country. I'd like to be wrong.

I disagree Mike. First I'm not entirely convinced Obama is going to win the WH. In polls of registered voters, he does very well with double digit leads in some cases. But in polls of likely voters, that lead shrinks dramatically with the ones that will hurt him the most the young vote.

That is the same young vote that was going to sweep GWB out of office and Kerry in with as many as 45% saying they would definitely vote. If I'm not mistaken, there was a 7% turnout.

I'm not saying he won't win, I'm saying it's not the lock some want to think it is which is sad considering just how bad Republicans have screwed the pooch.

As for Congress, especially in the HOR, I think many of the newbie’s from 06 have got a lot of splainin to do Lucy...

Of course, if you trust the Gazette, they'll give the WV 2nd to Barth. Speaking of which, I think the extremely liberal media will have a lot to do with this year's election.

One thing is for sure, it will be an interesting fall.

I would rather Obama lose, but I don't think it's going to happen (and I'm not about to pull the lever for Johnny Mac). My only optimism is that the Dems win everything and then have no one to blame but themselves when they screw us all. Or we see a repeat of 1994 in 2010.

And the press elite are all for him it seems.

How about that Tory press folding like a cheap suit?

I think a repeat of 94 would be good. The contract saved America once. Perhaps something similar can again.

I would not be interested if I did not believe they would follow through on every contract item. Because in '94 they most certainly did not.

Term limits and a balanced budget amendment stick out as notable failures.

However, I do think that if the Dems had been in control between 1994 and 2006 it would have been much worse.

SheikBen wrote:I think Craig's predictions are correct.

What I don't think is that it will prove to be good news for the country. I'd like to be wrong.

I knew there was still some objectivity out there.

Truth is, we don't know what will happen. We've not had a liberal in office since Nixon. I think it will be a nice change but will admit that we liberals may be surprised. We haven't had our stuff implemented for decades. Maybe some of our ideas are antiquated or untenable?

I'd agree that democrats are likely to increase their majorities in both houses of Congress and in governors' offices and state legislatures. But looking at the 2006 majority change and the model of Colorado this year, it is rather a curious tactic to run conservative democrats and paint the republican imcumbents as big spending liberals. That's not true across the board: Sherrod Brown (brother of disgraced WVAG Charlie Brown) was very open about his left-wing anti-NAFTA agenda. But then DeWine had never established his conservative bona fides either.

Pennsylvania's Casey, a democrat pro-life candidate. I think Pennsylvanians will be surprised and disappointed as time goes on.

Va's Webb was a pistol-packing tough-talking Reagan appointee running against macacca mouth George Allen.

Indiana's Hill vs Sodrel - in the third edition it would have gone any way the wind blew... It blew Hill's way and Sodrel was painted as a liberal.

Heath Shuler in North Carolina. Ditto.

Democrat support is like the Rio Grande - a mile wide and an inch deep.

I don't know if I could support a republican now. I'm not sure I agree we're better off having had republican control for twelve years. Their performance was pretty bad. I believe we would not have benefitted one iota from democrat control those years either.

Plus, I think the public is cognizant of the fact that one of Pelosi's premier promises was the return of the 40 hour work week. Reflecting their constituents work ethic. What a novel concept. Going into week 30 this year, the Pelosi House has worked exactly three (3) forty-hour weeks to date.

Hasn't Casey Jr already betrayed his pro-life convictions? It's a pity; his dad was really a good man and didn't hedge.

The Democrats have decided that the way to win is to sound like Republicans, and in many cases it has worked. Now, if these yellow dogs actually stand up to their deep blue leaders, such ideological diversity is a very fine thing. If, however, they just sit back and contribute nothing but another "D" to the Democratic majority in either house, then they should be defeated for re-election, and their opponents need to have los cajones necesarios to stand up to them and to their records (or lack thereof).