Poll: Majority Thinks One-Party Dem Rule Will Be Good For Country

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Industrialsize, Nov 11, 2008.

  1. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,285
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,150
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    I guess the myth that the American People are afraid of having one party control the Presidency and Congress has been proven false:



    TPM Election Central | Talking Points Memo | Poll: Majority Thinks One-Party Dem Rule Will Be Good For Country



    In the closing days of the campaign, lots and lots of Repubs sounded dire warnings about the liberal stranglehold one-party Dem rule would put on Washington. But it turns out that a solid majority of voters rather likes the idea:
    In the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Tuesday, 59 percent of those questioned said Democratic control of both the executive and legislative branches will be good for the country, compared with 38 percent saying such one-party control will be bad.​
    Obviously Dems are enjoying the fruits of the GOP's badly damaged brand here. More broadly, though, it suggests that Dems have a big opportunity.
    The public is not prejudiced against the idea of one-party rule. They want successful rule, not empty pundit-approved gestures of "bi-partisanship" for its own sake. If the next two or four years are judged at the very least a modest success, and the public concludes that one-party Dem rule has been far more effective than the disastrous six years of one-party GOP rule have been, then the possibility of an enduring Dem majority looks more likely.
     
  2. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    879
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    I guess the American people don't assume the Democrats well act as idiotically as when they gave republicans one party rule.
     
  3. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,371
    Likes Received:
    2,102
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    One thing is certain ANY act that follows Bush will be a success.
     
  4. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Imagine if they did: The Democratic donor base is made up of lots of small donations from "regular people" like you and me and real plumbers. (The RNC raised a big stink over this, because donations under $200 don't have to be tracked the same way that large donations do.)

    The Republican party, well-funded by oil, banking, telecommunications, and pharmaceutical interests don't have to retain the confidence of the American public in order to raise significant funds. Even with Bush's approval ratings in the low 20's, the Republican party raised hundreds of millions of dollars for their candidates.

    The Democratic party has more to lose strategically by governing badly than the Republican party does. The American people don't have to make the assumption you cited, because they have a check on Democratic abuses.
     
  5. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,456
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    There is a reason why a small percentage of the population is intelligent, wealthy, and healthy. Regardless of party, one party rule = not good. The Dems have had 2 years of "half control", me thinks they'll fuck this up, and we'll see a swing in 2 years, and then another swing in 4.
     
  6. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,456
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    Dems are funded by bankers just as much, as you forgot BO funded by the coffers of Freddie and Fannie... not to mention the Democrat-led Congressional approval ratings lower than Bush's.

    So easy to spin the numbers/facts. You belong on Fox kiddo.
     
  7. ledroit

    ledroit New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    854
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Interesting. I don't think people would feel like this if the GOP were actually interested in governing, and had some real policies.

    In fact, they've been anti-government, anti-governing. So we really don't have much of a choice, unless the GOP decides to become pro-active instead of re-active.

    If you get some nut cases who Believe, and are focused primarily on themselves and their own beliefs, insisting (just to take one example) that global warming is not a problem, or to use Palin's reformulation--that no one really knows the cause, or insisting as McCain did that there is nothing wrong with the economy, then you have a party that basically thinks we do not need a government, and don't need to work together, to solve our problems.

    The reason people are OK with one-party rule by the dems is not because everyone thinks they are saints and geniuses. Nobody thinks that. The reason is that we have nothing from the GOP. No leaders, no policies--nothing but emotional reactions and, basically, hysteria.

    I loved the Onion's headlines about a month ago: "Bush Calls for Nation to Panic."

    That's about it from the GOP, as far as I can tell.
     
  8. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    879
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    More lies- Dems have not had HALF control.
    They have had a one vote majority- with LIEBERMAN being the one vote.

    Bush has vetoed EVERY attempt by that majority to pass democratic led legislastion.

    So, NO the dems have not had any actual power, because we have the most partisan and myopic president in history.
     
  9. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    879
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    The congressional approval rating fell BEFORE dems got congress.
    Due to Republican failures.

    They have stayed low because Bush and the republican minority are preventing the majority form enacting substantive change.

    Congressional approval rating is not aimed at dems, but at INACTION.

    THey were PUT in power to STOP Bush... but they couldn't... cause Bush does not comply with the will of the people, nor the rule of law.
     
  10. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Jezuz, Phil. Are there scabs on your keyboard? What change, exactly, did the Dems introduce?

    ???

    ???
     
  11. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    According to FEC records (source), you're nearly right this year. During the 2008 election cycle (and these numbers are incomplete), 53% of campaign funding from the banking industry went to Republicans, 47% to Democrats. This is the first year since Bush I was in office that the Democrats broke 40%.

    To the tune of $6000 over his entire political career (source), along with an additional $120000 from individuals who worked for one of these organizations. Adding these together, we get 0.02% of his total 2008 contributions.

    I've seen this canard before: One's a rating of a group; the other's a rating of an individual. If you're willing to make an apples-to-apples comparison, SurveyUSA polled residents of 15 states in October, asking for approval of President Bush and of their two senators. Approval numbers are listed first, followed by disapproval numbers. (source)

    Alabama: Bush 44-55; Shelby 61-32; Sessions 60-32
    California: Bush 24-73; Feinstein 52-40; Boxer 49-42
    Iowa: Bush 28-68; Grassley 63-29; Harkin 55-38
    Kansas: Bush 36-62; Brownback 51-38; Roberts 56-37
    Kentucky: Bush 37-61; McConnell 44-49; Bunning 40-44
    Massachusetts: Bush 20-78; Kennedy 73-25; Kerry 56-39
    Minnesota: Bush 29-69; Coleman 38-58; Klobuchar 59-32
    Missouri: Bush 30-69; Bond 51-42; McCaskill 44-49
    New Mexico: Bush 28-69; Domenici 61-31; Bingaman 56-31
    New York: Bush 18-79; Schumer 60-31; Clinton 68-30
    Ohio: Bush 29-68; Voinovich 51-39; Brown 43-44
    Oregon: Bush 26-70; Wyden 54-34; Smith 41-52
    Virginia: Bush 31-66; Warner 60-30; Webb 50-37
    Washington: Bush 27-70; Murray 55-35; Cantwell 55-35
    Wisconsin: Bush 30-68; Kohl 57-38; Feingold 53-43

    I most definitely do not.
     
  12. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,371
    Likes Received:
    2,102
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Mindseye we LOVE that new avatar of yours. Keep up the GOOD work!!!
     
  13. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    And you were trying to call me a sorry, angry man in a previous thread... :rolleyes:
     
  14. 1BiGG1

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Yes, he obviously dreams of having his face on my ass but I can assure you that will just remain a dream of his :wink:
     
  15. SilverTrain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,582
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    I thought these were the "educated elites" that the Republicans railed against for the entire Presidential campaign, as being out of touch with the concerns of "real Americans"?
     
  16. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks. I won't keep rectal Krusty up for much longer, but I have to admit I kind of like it too:

    I've given 1BiGG1 several opportunities to prove his mettle: I've asked him direct questions about his stance on the Iraq war (who is the enemy and what does it take to win), but he refused to give a direct answer, and I've asked him a direct question about his attitude towards Obama (since he's never referred to "NOsama bin Laden", does he favor bin Laden over the president-elect?), and he's refused to answer that, too.

    He's repeated the same lie over and over and over and over that Democrats tried to kill an economic reform package two years ago, despite the lie having been disproven via links to the actual congressional record.

    The French have a wonderful phrase for guys like him, pet de lapin, which literally means "rabbit fart": He's lightweight and without substance, unable to demonstrate a serious grasp of any real issues, clinging to disproven talking points, with the barest command of written English, and using puerile comebacks to make up for his lack of mental ammo.

    Once I gave up trying to take him seriously, it struck me when HazelGod called him an "assclown" just how appropriate that name is: both an ass, and a clown, all wrapped up into one.
     
  17. Pitbull

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,753
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    This is as WRONG as it gets.
    Are you lying or just making up facts when you don't know them?

    Bush has vetoed less legislation than ANY PRESIDENT in modern history.
    Only 12 times and 3 of those were overridden.

    Bills Vetoed by President Bush (2001-2008)
     
  18. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Only one of these vetoes came during the first six years of his administration when Republicans had a majority in the House of Representatives. 11 out of 12 vetoes came during the two years when the Democratic Party was the majority party in Congress. That not only belies his lip-service towards bipartisanship, but the 5.5 veto-per-year average is higher than that of any Democratic president since Truman. (Ford and Bush '41 were even higher.)

    But the veto wasn't Bush's tool of choice. Bush was an abuser of the infamous "signing statement", which he used to simply ignore (rather than veto) the laws he didn't like.

    As of September 2007, Bush issued a total of 1118 signing statements which purported to modify some portion of the law he signed (source is a PDF). By comparison: Reagan: 86; Bush '41: 107; Clinton: 70; ALL presidents through Carter combined: 75. In other words, three out of every four objecting signing statement in our country's history came from the Bush administration.
     
  19. D_Davy_Downspout

    D_Davy_Downspout Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fun Fact: He's also signed more executive orders than every other president combined.
     
  20. Pitbull

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,753
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks for the 30 page document.
    I'm not sure what your point is. I guess that Bush accomplished a "Veto" without using one. They are not the same.

    However, nothing you have written makes Phil's statement true.
    And from 2001-2006 - any democratic sponsored legislation which passed in congress was signed by Bush. Come on now - the democrats weren't just sitting on their asses waiting for 2008.

    Phil - you have absolutely no idea of how things work in Washington.
    the Democrats have had plenty of power with the numbers they had.
    In spite of all the complaining they did about the President and the Republicans there was enough cooperation & complacency to put us into the mess we are in now.
    Finger pointing is preferred to sharing the blame.
     
    #20 Pitbull, Nov 12, 2008
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2008
Draft saved Draft deleted