Nancy Pelosi, Wildly Popular Speaker of the House

Last week when CNN released polling that found Nancy Pelosi's approval rating to be above 50 percent and her disapproval rating in the low 20s, I marvelled at her relative popularity, both in comparison with President Bush, whose approval rating was 16 points lower than hers in the polls, and with the last high-profile House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, whose approval spread at the same point in his tenure (January, 1995) was significantly lower at 39 approve/35 disaprove.

Of course one poll does not make a trend. It might not even, in and of itself, represent a reliable data point given the inherent potential for statistical error in representative surveys. For that reason, the release of two subsequent polls in recent days by well-established national pollsters showing similar results is rather newsworthy.

The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, in the field January 16 through 19 with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, pegged Speaker Pelosi's approval rating at 54 percent, with just 25 percent disapproving. This compares with an 43 percent approval rating for Congress, overall (up 7 points from immediately before the election), President Bush's 33 percent approval rating (with 65 percent disapproving), and the 40 percent approval rating (and 48 percent disapproval rating) Newt Gingrich hit in the same poll in late January 1995 (or his high-water mark for the poll -- 41 percent approve/44 percent disapprove -- achieved twice in the summer of 1998).

Also in the field late last week (1/16-18; MoE +/- 3.0%) was an Ipsos poll commissioned by the Associated Press and AOL News. Like The Post/ABC poll, the AP/AOL poll found that many more Americans approve of Speaker Pelosi than do of the President, too. Specifically, 51 percent approve of Pelosi, with 34 percent disapproving, whereas just 36 percent approve of the President and 61 percent disapprove.

In short, it's clear that Nancy Pelosi is a widly popular Speaker of the House, her high ratings hitting historically high levels. And, just to echo Markos, these numbers just underscore the fact that no one should pay heed to the Beltway bloviators who were so quick to write of Pelosi's Speakership back in December -- even before she was sworn in.

Below the fold... Do you approve of the job Nancy Pelosi is doing as Speaker of the House of Representatives?


Poll
Do you approve of the job Nancy Pelosi is doing as Speaker of the House of Representatives?
Yes, Strongly Approve
Yes, Somewhat Approve
No, Somewhat Disapprove
No, Strongly Disapprove
Mixed/Unsure/Don't Know

Votes: 82
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Re: Nancy's Great - She Should Increase Size of Ho (3.00 / 1)

I'd be all for it, if only for the fact that it would make the Electoral college more representative


"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 05:20:51 PM EST

lessons (3.00 / 2)

This wonderful story carries the kind of lessons that are worth remembering in the future.

1 Middle America does not resent urban coastal blue-staters.

2 Congress will win the public's respect when it functions properly.

3 Dogmas expire.


by JoeFelice on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 05:44:56 PM EST

Re: Dogmans expire (none / 0)

because they are either inconsistent or detached from reality.  Or both.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 06:22:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nancy's Great - She Should Increase Size of Ho (3.00 / 1)

Even numbers in the House of Representatives could be ugly, in the event of a tie between two parties that don't like each other. So as a general principle, I prefer odd numbers.

Ignoring that tidbit, I see the following issues:

  1. Increased cost (salaries, benefits, and support staff) to taxpayers.
  2. The present facilities may be too small; the present building may have to be expanded and/or another building added. This would add more expense.
  3. Basic activities (such as deliberations, votes, etc.) presumably take longer when more people are involved.


by Zimbel on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 05:48:14 PM EST

Re: Nancy's Great - She Should Increase Size of Ho (none / 0)

Another potential pitfall--the smaller the district, the easier it is to gerrymander the district.


"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 06:02:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nancy's Great - She Should Increase Size of Ho (none / 0)

If I were to attempt to increase voter turnout, I'd try to work to increase the number of viable political parties; smaller parties tend to have a narrower set of issues, which tends to energize voters more.

If I were to want to make money less important, I'd try to work for public-financed campaigns.

I think that increased voter contact and smaller constituencies both have some value, but I'm not convinced that they are greater in value than increased times to perform basic activities alone (never mind direct economic expenses).

(Negative) Issue 4: Roughly triple the number of people in Congress may result in nearly triple the number of earmarks from Congress.


by Zimbel on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 06:14:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nancy's Great - She Should Increase Size of Ho (none / 0)

One way to deal with gerrymandering and also increase the number of parties would be to use "super districts", where within some geographical unit, you can vote for multiple candidates, and the top 5 vote-getters are seated. (or whatever number)

We definitely need a bigger House. Not that I have much hope that it will ever happen...


by tatere on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 09:15:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Increase Size of House - adding 2 new seats (none / 0)

If DC were to get a voting member in the House, I thought a second new seat would come from Utah. The Repubs wouldn't agree to add one sure Democrat without adding one sure Republican.

I recall reading just how the district lines were to be decided, somewhere outside of Salt Lake City.

Anyone else remember this proposal?


by Books Alive on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 05:59:46 PM EST

Re: Increase Size of House - adding 2 new seats (3.00 / 1)

Here is a recent January 2, 2007 article from the International Herald Tribune describing the proposal to give DC residents a vote as well as add another district (which would go to Utah). It has this interesting quote:

Prospects are also good in the Senate. Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who calls himself an independent Democrat, will chair the committee of jurisdiction there. Lieberman is a leading supporter of the measure, and Utah's two Republican senators have endorsed it as well.

The group DC Vote is promoting this proposal.

While we're increasing the size of the House, let's double the size of the Senate too and have more Senators from populous states like California (and keep small states like Wyoming and Alaska at 2). It is crazy that some Senators represent 70-80 times as many people as others.


John McCain wants to make abortion illegal
by RandomNonviolence on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 10:35:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Increase Size of House - adding 2 new seats (none / 0)

Thanks for the confirmation on the DC vote plan, and for the link. Delegate Holmes Norton was on Washington Journal this morning. She mentioned that when Hawaii and Alaska sought statehood, the balance of adding one perceived as Republican and one as Democratic was crucial to them being admitted as states.

While we're increasing the size of the House, let's double the size of the Senate too and have more Senators from populous states like California (and keep small states like Wyoming and Alaska at 2). It is crazy that some Senators represent 70-80 times as many people as others.

The idea that Rhode Island senators have an equal voice with California senators sometimes leaves me in amazement. There's not been any sign of trying to amend the Constition on this matter, so I think we're stuck with the House of Representatives being the body which reflects population shifts.

A recent history of the Constitution by Akhil Reed Amar recounts that under the Articles of Confederation, the Senate gave each state equal representation, and each state legislature chose their senators. The new Constitution carried this forward. It wasn't until 1913 that the 17th Amendment was passed, and senators were now to be elected by a direct vote of all the registered voters.  

Amar points out, also, that when the Constitution was being drafted, the geographical size and population disparity among the states wasn't a big factor, not like it is now!


by Books Alive on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 10:57:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Increase Size of House - adding 2 new seats (none / 0)

It is impossible to amend the Constitution on this matter.  There is only one issue which Article 6 of the Constitution forbids amendments, and that is "that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."  In order to do that, we would either need to convice the states to consent to lessened representation in the Senate or we would need to write a whole new Constitution.


"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."--John McCain
by lorax on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 03:17:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am pleasantly surprised by her confidence (none / 0)

I have been critical of Pelosi in the past. She has always sounded wishy washy and weak to me. But man, she has been pretty impressive over the last couple of months.

I hope she keeps it up. She is exhibiting some serious leadership. Maybe Hillary can buy a clue?


by Pravin on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 09:22:50 PM EST

Re: Nancy Pelosi, Wildly Popular Speaker of the Ho (none / 0)


One way to deal with gerrymandering and also increase the number of parties would be to use "super districts", where within some geographical unit, you can vote for multiple candidates, and the top 5 vote-getters are seated. (or whatever number)

You're almost there.  You left out the last bit: proportional representation.  Instead of just voting for a single candidate, you order the candidates according to your preference (you do need to be able to count to ten to do this).

There is a quota, based on number of votes cast, that candidates must reach in order to be elected.

When a candidate is elected (passed the quota), the surplus of his/her votes are distributed among the other candidates, distributed according to the second preferences on the votes.

If no one passes the quota, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their second preferences distributed among the remaining candidates.

You keep iterating this process until there are no more candidates left.

Benefits of this approach:

  • A party gets a number of representatives that is proportional to the number of actual votes it received (unlike the current crazy first-past-the-post system here and in the UK).
  • It makes for a very exciting post-election day vote count, as you see how surplus votes are distributed.

This is used in some countries.  Ireland is one I'm familiar with.  They would have ended up like Franco's Spain without it.


by Taylor26 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:12:27 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.