How limber do you think President George Bush needs to be in order to duck under his all time low approval rating at 29% or the Congress to duck their approval number of 23% out today from the Wall Street Journal/NBC joint poll?
The President’s poor showing especially seems to have reflected on his republican party as well. The poll also showed that Americans by 52% to 31% express that they want the Democrats to win the presidency in 2008. I would think that has something to do with the numbers also showing that by 49% to 36% people surveyed said that the democrats share more of their values than republicans when it comes to the issues. Which makes me wonder – does the Congress’ approval rating of 23% reflect poorly on the republican members who have been seen as obstructionists, the democrats who are struggling to end the war due to the President’s veto pen or both? Regardless of the answer to that question it is a stark reminder to those inside Congress that 2008 will be just as pivotal on the local and well as the national stage.
So numbers aside, what do we really make of this? Some polls become more controversial than their results and let’s face it, politicians herald polls when they are helpful and they brush them aside when they’re not. (Programming note to self: Watch replay of White House press briefing tonight on CSPAN for the brush aside). Today as these numbers came out in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times over at the Washington Post there was a story “No Drop in Iraq Violence Seen Since Troop Build Up” from a study released by the Pentagon (not left wing bloggers but the Pentagon). Some steadfast republicans will point to that and say – there it is, the liberal media shaping the hearts and minds of voters across the country. But if that were true would we not have had President Al Gore or President John Kerry the last two elections? There are bias’ everywhere we walk in life but just like references for a job or second opinions when it comes to the safety of botox – we should look to more than one media source and talk with more than one friend or colleague when it comes to forming our own opinion. But enough of us and how we form our opinions – we all have them, let’s look instead at how these polling companies find out our opinions.
Here’s how the survey breaks down:
1. The survey was done by telephone: Seems smart as long as the do not call list doesn’t get in the way and seems way better to me that asking the depressed and inebriated fans leaving a Cubs game.
2. The survey consisted of 1,008 adults: Okay, given that there are about 216 million* adults in the country eligible to vote that averages to a sampling of .000005% of voting age population and I guess its better than only sampling .000004%.
3. The survey was conducted June 8-11 – That is recent enough to reflect current events.
This seems pretty standard and it’s reputable too as it was conducted with both a republican and democrat counterpart. So with these 3 characteristics in mind I decided to host my own poll today. It was by email and consisted of 10 friends made up of 5 republicans, 3 democrats and 2 independents. Even though I intentionally weighted it republican heavy (to see if they were defecting) it came out pretty close to what the other 1,008 polled by the WSJ/NBC thought. Iraq and the overarching price the United States has paid in deaths and causalities as well as tax payers dollars was most daunting. Then the concerns were health care and education and the fact both have gotten pricier in the last few years. A majority was happy with their own member of congress but not the President and one friend didn’t know who their representative was (trust me he’s looking it up right now). Eight of them read at least one “real paper” a day while supplementing it with the free “fun” pop culture newspaper on the train, another read the satirist Onion and the last admits only to reading the sports leaving the rest behind on the bus for someone else. So there was no "liberal media bias" involved, I think it was well weighted politically and they were pretty open about why they thought what they thought… So that’s my poll – individual friends with different backgrounds and allegiances. My experiment worked and was fun along the way.
It was interesting last week to hear how you all would have structured your own debate among primary candidates, now I want to ask you about polls. How would you run yours? How many people, from where and what questions would you ask in order to provide a sampling you would trust to speak for the majority of the American people?
In a country where we treasure the fact we can speak for ourselves, it’s sometimes nice to see what others are thinking as well!
Thank you for what I hope will be some good polling comments!
Laura
*Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey,
November 2004.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 37
We currently have term limits for Congress and the President. It's called voting. We can terminate any member of the House's term any time on two-year cycles. For Senators it takes 6 years. For Presidents it's four. Guess what percent of Congress we re-elect each term?
If any of you have any thoughts you'd like me to or think I should address, respond to this article by Laura. Or, if you'd rather it was private, send me an e-mail.
Again, Laura, great article as always. I'd give it a ten again, but I think I'm only allowed to rate a publication once.
OK, that was boring, but moving right along, my sample of one says that the poor rating for Congress has to be attributed, at least in part, to despair over the capitulation of Democrats to the supplemental war funding. I don't believe Democrats can successfully dance with GWB all the way to 1/20/2009 without going to the mat over Iraq. Maybe GWB wants to "stay the surge" and let the chips fall on the next president, but there are too many lives being lost, to many brain injuries and amputations, for the Democrats to roll over on this. It's a crushing disappointment and must be addressed.
Excellent article and comments! The poll that counts is still over a year away.
But seriously, there are two things that people over time have found out about George Bush, from when he was running, when the guys thought he was tough and the girls thought he was cute.
One is that Bush is incompetent and a poor administrator. This was known in his performance in business, and at school if one cared to look. What kind of a guy can go almost 2 years losing men in a war and not try many differing strategies to turn the tide? To not be able to explain it and rally people. He is incompetent as a leader, and as a delegator just look at the many people he has fired, and the many incompetent people he had stood behind. I have never seen the reaction to a president so bad, even Nixon, and the government still backs him. Hmmm, where's the money?
The second is that his real agenda has been an almost anti-American agenda that he has cloaked behind a facade that makes Reagan's acting ability, and support personal look like idiots. Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, the new reactionary-revolutionary right-wing are nothing short of poltical guerillas who have been pushing since Reagan an agenda that makes this country and its Constitution and social contract almost unrecognizeable and ultimately will tear is asunder. In short, as people find out what Bush really stands for, they reject him.
As time passes we ought feel stupid and scared about what we have let happen in this country.
Yeah! Purge the whole lot.
The polling results' consistency and trend line indicates the enormous degeree of dissatisfaction with the abyssmal performance of both branches. Dave A. is exactly right. The Democratic majority in Congress demonstrated its lack of intestinal fortitude--not to mention conscience--in knuckling under to Bush's recalcitrance. They are all complicit in the carnage that will result over the next four months before they have another opportunity to apply the brakes to Bush's runaway train. When are these guys going to start paying attention to the will of the people?
>> When are these guys going to start paying attention to the will of the people?
When they get their reelection money from the people.
Interesting article and I'll check back to see if anyone conducted polls of their own!
We pay these folks in Congress whether they are the ones that we voted for or not and they are responsible to us. That's why I am actually happy that this campaign season is underway. Granted it's not so great for the candidates – the lead time gives them plenty of opportunity to get caught in a bad figure as to how they are going to pay for one of their programs or time for too much history to be revealed But this lead time let's us be a nudge to all those that are running for the Presidency. It allows us to go to events, town halls and now in the age of the Internet – ask tough questions on line. Even if it is not the candidates themselves sitting at the keyboard – the staff of the campaign will see the message and if you send it often enough they will hear it loud and clear - and Mickey your questions on health care especially need to be heard and heard often.
Think of yourself as not semi-retired but in a new job of a full time nudge to our political process!
Thanks so much Mickey!
You raise a really good question about the polls not being a part of the story but the story itself. In terms of full disclosure, I often use polls when I'm trying to make a point when they are from credible pollster organization that uses both a democrat and republican counterpart. I especially like to use polls in terms of the actual polls where people go in and vote but that information is only available as we go every two years for midterms and every four for the general – so in between we do need something.
As for the polls becoming the story – in our day and age of cable, Internet and mobile technology we need content to a 24-hour news media are always looking for a story or a hook and yes…polls. When I discuss polls I like to put a face on the percentage – either way from a personal story of someone I know or someone I have read about. These are after all just numbers until you put them to a face of someone who cuts their insulin in half each day because they need to stretch it out or they take cancer medication every other day instead of every day. Those are the faces of real people with real hardships looking for a hand up – not a hand out. That to me is very important. I grew up in Wisconsin outside of the rhetoric of Washington and in the reality of the heartland and that is why I personally feel that bringing a reality to these polling numbers is the best way to show that they are real and should speak change to the politicians.
Thank you Troy, for being a part of this conversation.
Laura
I really do not go by polls,because if you go by polls that shows little leadership by the politican,but you have to stop and think,what party goes by polls the most.The Democrats or the Republicans?My answer would be the Democrats,but out of disappoint there has been some Republicans too.
Have a Good Day,
Donald
I have to mirror Stacey's comment. In fifty years I have never been polled, or known anyone who was. It is so annoying to hear pollsters (from any affiliation) say, "The majority of American people think, feel, know, want . . ." when I don't see it in my friends or family.
Namaste, Wayne
You referenced the far left and the far right in these polls. Now most pollsters do as much as they can to secure a demographic and political spectrum that is representative of the country overall as well as including age and ethnicity…that's some polls. With that said I too believe that when you poll the far wing of either party its outcome can be skewed and not representative of where this country is headed – more to the middle. For example, I consider myself as more of an Independent Blue Dog Democrat, it is a kind of label the then Governor Bill Clinton made a bigger part of the political vernacular. A Blue Dog is essentially fiscally conservative but socially progressive can support big business in its role for the middle class and recognizes the sometimes-overlooked strength and backbone of the small business owners in our country. I really think that as we meld as a country it becomes harder to select participants for a poll that accurately reflect it. I do however support responsible polling to set a gage for others of us that wonder – are we the only ones with our opinions?
Thanks for being a part of this article Carol!
By imposing term limits, we force politicians to go find a real job, and we force people to actually think when they're in the voting booth instead of voting for the familiar name (if they even know what it is or if they showed up to vote). Our apathy will be the demise of America.
You say: "...let's us be a nudge to all those that are running for the Presidency. It allows us to go to events, town halls and now in the age of the Internet – ask tough questions on line. Even if it is not the candidates themselves sitting at the keyboard – the staff of the campaign will see the message and if you send it often enough they will hear it loud and clear."
I'm not so sure about that Laua. One Presidential candidate, John Edwards, makes a pretense of being a Gather member. One of "his" recent posts concerned his
grand strategy for dealing with the international terror threat. In response, I posed two pointed questions about his proposed initiative to create a 10,000-person strong "Marshall Corps" to swoop in on hot spots around the world in order to negate the danger that they will spawn more terroristas lusting for our blood. My questions provoked no response, either from Senator or staffer. If this medium is not going to be used by candidates as a channel for two-way communication, then it will serve as nothing more than a resource for unpaid advertising for these aspirants for our votes. (And, speaking from my own perspective, the failure to address tough questions about their positions and plans tends to incline this voter to look elsewhere for a viable candidate.) Following are the questions I posed to the Senator:
"I will launch a sweeping global effort to provide education, fight poverty, increase democracy and create a 10,000-member strong "Marshall Corps," all to ensure that terrorism does not take root in weak and failing states."
Well, Senator, that's all very high-minded, and EXTREMELY ambitious. I'd be interested in hearing a LOT more about exactly how you intend to go about achieving all of those strategic objectives. I don't think 10,000 "Marshall Corpsmen" are going to quite be up to that challenge.
We are in the process right now of creating one of those "weak or failing states" you mention, which will likely, regardless of the outcome of Bush's "surge", be a hotbed for radical Islamic fundamentalist extremists (and potential terrorists) for years, if not decades, to come.
How, exactly, do you plan on coping with THAT particular threat?
Paul G., Jun 8, 2007, 11:22am EDT
One other, related, question for you senator. You say:
"Civilians with training and experience need to be involved in stabilizing states with weak governments, and providing humanitarian assistance where disasters have struck. We need bankers to set up financial systems, political scientists to implement election systems, and civil engineers to design water and power systems. As president, I will create a "Marshall Corps," modeled on the military Reserves, of up to 10,000 expert professionals who will help stabilize weak societies, and who will work on humanitarian missions."
We have spent four years, and, literally, mountains of money trying to "stabilize", or rebuild, Iraq now. I wonder, where do you expect to find 10,000 highly-qualified, and experienced, civilian wonder workers? I suppose there is a core of such people who have worked in Iraq (Paul Bremer?), or are working there now, who have learned a great deal about how NOT to go about it.
Paul G.
Bryon Harrelson
Whiteville,NC
Paul G.
Good points. I trust you're not holding your breath waiting for answers? Yes, purge them all -- just to get their attention -- since we're going to be dealing with a great deal of blowback no matter what and no matter who's at the trough -- er, the helm.
Welcome to Gather.
I'd like to see poll results from a lesser known but highly respected opinion polling company, like OpinionWorks in the Baltimore-D.C. area.