Getting radical change
by Jerome Armstrong, Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 01:00:57 PM EDT
8 percent opt for Libertarian or Green. That seems much higher than I've seen before at anytime among registered voters:
If you had the choice in your congressional district, would you be more likely to vote for a (ROTATE:)
Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, or Green Party…candidate for Congress?
Republican candidate 41
Democratic candidate 44
Libertarian candidate 5
Green Party candidate 3
Not sure 7
That's via the WSJ-NBC polling out yesterday. Gallup had a poll a few weeks ago that showed the "Call for Third Party" poll. An Oct Hill poll found something even stronger numbers, and from the analysis:
“That’s probably the strongest number I’ve seen in a poll of people in America saying that they're interested in a third party,” said pollster Mark Penn.
“There’s a record number of Independents and a record number of people looking for a possible third party,” he said. “And that’s a big finding. There’s an opportunity here.”
The Hill’s poll was conducted by Penn Schoen Berland, which surveyed 4,047 likely voters in 10 open districts. The overall sample has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.5 percent.
“I think there’s a greater potential for a third party than perhaps [at] any time in our history,” said Mark McKinnon, a Republican strategist and former adviser to George W. Bush. “There is a very broad level of dissatisfaction throughout the electorate — right, left and middle.
“I think what’s happened goes beyond general dissatisfaction with the economy,” he added. “They want a new way — they want to feel empowered again.”
Here is an insightful article into why "Had enough?" has basically become the default slogan for recent elections. I don't see that changing:
When we are stuck in a bad place, whether that bad place is a marriage, a traffic jam, or a weak economy, it is very tempting to try something new. Psychologists call this the action bias—and it turns out to have surprisingly broad ramifications.
When a company starts losing money, or a whole industry starts losing ground because of a new technology, most of us follow leaders who call for revolutionary change—even if no one really knows what change is needed. Leaders who advocate the status quo look like dinosaurs.
This is why tough times produce radical measures, radical leaders, and radical change. The call for revolution sounds weird in good times, but when things are bad, upending the status quo feels irresistible.
I don't think that most Democrats understand how terrible Obama's re-elect looks at the moment. There's a sort of denial at work, both because the '10 results are not in and with the hope that Palin gets the nomination making all things possible. But he's not looking good at all:
The Oct. 14-17 Gallup poll also finds that, at this point in his presidency, 39% of Americans believe Obama deserves re-election and 54% say he does not. Earlier this year, between 46% and 48% of Americans said Obama should be re-elected.
The current results for Obama are remarkably similar to what Gallup measured for Clinton in October 1994, at which time 38% of Americans thought he was worthy of a second term as president and 57% disagreed. That was just before Clinton's party lost its congressional majority in the 1994 elections, but two years later voters re-elected Clinton by a comfortable margin.
By comparison, in September 2002, 62% of Americans thought George W. Bush deserved re-election. Two years after his party's strong showing in the 2002 midterms, Bush won a narrow victory over John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.
What that tells is that its too early to tell. But the landscape around the corner looks like continued radical upheaval.
Tags: (all tags)