MyDD :: Mandate watch

Mandate watch

by Chris Bowers, Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 03:35:48 PM EST

Bush's job approval over the last month is, um, not overwhelming:

       Approve	Disapprove   Date
AP	 49	   49	     1/5
Gallup	 52	   44	     1/5
ABC	 48	   49	     12/19
Pew	 48	   44	     12/16
Fox	 48	   45	     12/15
Zogby	 50	   50	     12/15
Time	 49	   43	     12/14
NBC	 49	   44	     12/13
Q-poll	 47	   48	     12/12
Mean	 48.9	   46.2

Less than half of the country approves of Bush's handling of his job, which should serve as a constant reminder of how our crippling institutional weakness allowed a golden opportunity to be wasted in November. However, our fight begins anew and in some ways I relish the fight over Social Security. If we are first successful in painting the Republican plan for what it is, a naked attempt to destroy Social Security, and then we are successful in defeating that scheme, our victory, combined with tepid job approval numbers for both Bush and Congress, could prove to be exactly what we need to make large Congressional gains in 2006. Fortunately, with Max Baucus now on board, we are one step closer to defeating the Republican plan. After all, the last time Congress tried something this ambitious it was also defeated in the Senate. That was 1994, and the legislation in question was Clinton's health care plan. We all know what happened that November.

Tags: Senate 2006 (all tags)

Permalink :: 31 Comments :: Post a Comment

The Democrats huge chance (none / 0)

The Republicans are trusted on National Defence, not on Social Welfare. The President is proposing a massive change in a Social Welfare system. His popularity is still pretty low. And none of his budget numbers add up, nor does his proposal make logical sense.

If the Democrats force him to the mat on this and other issues his popularity will plummet. It was a tough fight for Kristol 10 years ago to destroy the Clinton health plan, so it takes work from the Democratic side this time.

The opportunity is there - will the Democrats take it?

by Samuel H Knight on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 04:42:06 PM EST

Numbers? Logic? (none / 0)

What are these strange things you speak of?

Once the bull$#!+ machine kicks into high gear, everybody will be screaming for somebody to do something about Social Security, and to heck with the details and those obstructionist Dems.

When Dubs finally signs the deform bill, he'll probably get a boost in his popularity rating for taking the initiative to solve the crisis that his cronies invented.

Get yer head out of the reality-based community, dude.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 08:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Doom? Gloom? (none / 0)

Value added?

Perhaps you should read the post above this one which shows that relentless attention to numbers and logic sliced 42 points off Bush's approval numbers.

Some people are putting their shoulders behind the wheel trying to get this party on track, others are sitting on the sidelines throwing sandbags on the load and grit in the wheel grease.

Catch a clue. It wasn't a "49 state blowout". Which is exactly what people sounding exactly like you were predicting a year and a half ago.

Cynicism is fine. Doom is for losers. Only you can make the final decision on which side of the line you want to stand.

by Bruce Webb on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 08:36:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Too many sandbags? Sorry. (none / 0)

I've only got one issue right now, and it's how to counter the aforementioned bull$#!+ machine. Without that, I don't see any value in gloating over numbers or pointing out flawed logic.

The comment that "this is a golden opportunity" for the Dems could have been made about any administration policy over the last four years, if the Dems had demonstrated any capacity for actually getting in the ring and fighting in a meaningful way. If and when they actually do so, I'll re-examine my attitude.

That's right -- the White House has been selling imaginary goods for four years now, and the Dems have caved time after time, either because they're so badly outgunned on the PR front or because they're complicit. I'm not quite cynical enough to believe that they're all complicit, so the problem I see is that they have no viable message machine. Without one, they don't stand a chance. It's not a doom and gloom thing, it's my version of realism. Although I can see why you'd think otherwise from what I posted.

So far, I haven't seen anything that suggests that the decline in popularity reflects anything other than the fact that they no longer need public support either for re-election or to get their war on, so the PR machine is not focused on those areas.

And for the record, I predicted that Bush would officially win by a smaller margin than actually came to pass. Although I did underestimate the degree of Dem willingness to object to the electoral fraud.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 04:05:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too many sandbags? Sorry. (none / 0)

"he'll probably get a boost in his popularity rating for taking the initiative to solve the crisis that his cronies invented.

Get yer head out of the reality-based community, dude."

Show me a single kick in Bush approval from exactly anything under his control. Dude.

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_8911_image001.gif

Try the Reality. Based. Community. His numbers suck now and will suck worse once we (not necessarily including you) kick his butt on a couple of issues. Like Social Security, which we are going to wrap around his neck with a boat anchor.

by Bruce Webb on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 10:01:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice imagery. (none / 0)

"Show me a single kick in Bush approval from exactly anything under his control."

Check March through May of 2003. That was just after many of us spent months running ourselves ragged opposing this disgusting lie of a war and the Dems, uh, CAVED. Because there was no medium to carry the opposition message effectively.

Now check out the Reep game plan for selling Social Security annihilation, and tell me if this sounds at all familiar:

The White House, along with allies such as the Club for Growth, is planning a PR blitz to promote Social Security reform, including the introduction of private accounts. The campaign will include presidential speeches, broadcast and print media, and rallies. Bush's goal is not to set the specifics for reform, but to create the political space necessary for Congress to present him with a plan that meets his broad outlines and that he can sign.

Gee, why on Earth would the Reeps recycle the same old tactics they used to sell America all that other crap we collectively bought and are still paying for? Could it be because our wonderful opposition party continues to be completely ineffective when it comes to actual opposition? Because they still have no answer to the Reep media blitz? Like I said, if this changes, I'll re-examine my attitude. Until then, this is the only issue that really matters, because it's a prerequisite to getting anything else done.

Having reality on your side is NOT SUFFICIENT. Reality alone does not shape opinion. Perceptions shape opinion. But have fun with Dubya's butt and your boat anchor.

"Dude."

Fer sure.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 04:45:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jeebus, I suck (none / 0)

Here's the link I meant to paste in above.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:06:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

2008 UP TO TERRORISTS (none / 0)

if we have no terrorist attacks by the next election the democrats should be able to win.the only reason bush won this year is because people were scared to death by the republicans.notice how we hardly hear about terror threats anymore.

by temple1954 on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 07:12:02 PM EST

Re: 2008 UP TO TERRORISTS (none / 0)

Yeah, but with these numbers, would it surprise you to see a new Terror Alert...especially since they have a built in excuse with the inaguration.

by yitbos96bb on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 08:54:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HOW HOW HOW (none / 0)

HOW IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT'S HOLY DID THIS ALFRED E NEUMANN LOOK ALIKE GET RE-ELECTED? Was Kerry that unlikeable? This makes me believe in fraud more and more, cause at this point, there doesn't seem to be any other logic to the man's re-election.

by yitbos96bb on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 08:52:04 PM EST

He was (none / 0)

Cheney's scare tactics worked.

Basically, drooling warmonger > intelligent war protestor, during a time of war. We should have nominated Clark, a warrior, if we wanted to actually win. Kerry knew that he had to frame himself as a warrior, hence the Vietnam crap. It was working up until the Swift Boat crap, who successfully reframed Kerry as a liberal weiner pinko commie war protestor.

by Geotpf on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 06:10:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Harry, Louise and WTF (none / 0)

Ten years ago the Rep noise machine spent $150 million on the Harry and Louise ads to derail Clinton's health plan. This time they plan to spend much less (50 to 100 million) to dump social security. I never heard a single comment about these insipid ads but congress shivered like they were hit by a tsunami.

If this sell job does work, it will only be because people are pre-sold, not because the dollar volume of the ads is enough to hammer it home.

by David Kowalski on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:01:06 PM EST

Just Like Pre-9/11 2001 (none / 0)

Anybody living in New York City should be shaking in their boots right now. Dubya needs some political capital to spend on his dubyous programs and the best way to scare some up is to kill some citizens. It worked great the last time. Besides, they didn't vote for him anyway, so screw'em.

by VizierVic on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:54:26 PM EST

Social Security not popular with the young (none / 0)

Most are convinced that they will never get anything anyway. The media feeds into this by talking up "greedy baby boomers". So do Dems who talk of means testing. The Republicans want to replace Social Security with Government mandated IRA's and the Democrats want to replace it with a new welfare system. GaaaHHYH!

Let's pitch real reform. Replace the regressive SS & Medicare taxes with progressive income tax and inheritance tax, or at least a VAT that could be charged to imports under GATT. Replace the income based benefit with a fixed benefit, the equivalent of a living wage. But SS MUST remain a bedrock benefit for EVERYONE or we will have destroyed it.

by antiHyde on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 02:18:56 PM EST

Re: Social Security not popular with the young (none / 0)

Because they have been lied to. Let's try telling the truth, it already worked with Matt Yglesias. It isn't broke, we don't need to fix it, still less with radical changes in the tax structure, particularly ones that fly in the face of reality, like "progressive income tax and inheritance tax".

The fact is that we do not need rich people's money. Social Security is fully funded forever under any conceivable economic forecast that doesn't include an asteroid smashing on to the planet. 2.2% growth more than fixes everything forever, and nobody is predicting less than that.

Look at a graph, read a table, extrapolate a number. It just isn't broke. And BTW tell the youngens.

Alternative ( I ) is so reachable given Low Cost Assumptions which we have been exceeding and which produce the receding numbers seen here: It just gets cheaper and farther out in time

by Bruce Webb on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 10:15:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Eliminate the 80k cap on the witholding tax.. (none / 0)

Eliminate the 80k cap on the witholding tax..

the so called FICA earnings...

That would make Social Security solvent for the forseeable future. Currently no earnings above around 80k are taxed towards Social Security. Ending that cutoff rate and allowing those higher earnings to be taxed like the lower ones are...would do it ...

And it would only effect those making more than 80,000 a year, and them, in a predictable way.

I don't know why they never mention this...

Bluntly, I think that the GOP wants to eliminate Social Security.

Or, They just want to steal it..

The lies are a campaign to prepare the younguns for a future without safety net - or jobs.

Spending money on infrastructure here in the US, on education so US workers can work in the robotic industries of the near future, on modernized equipment for our ports, etc. would require

by ultraworld on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 11:38:50 AM EST