If a pollster asked me 'Do you approve of Congress?', I would answer NO.

Why? -Too many frigging Republicans in it to get things done and/or to override vetos.  

I believe the majority of Democrats are on the right track.

In fact, it wouldn't matter if Bush were at 10% if our congress keeps acting like they are.

What good is it for us if Bush's approval is in the total shitter?  As long as guys like Emanuel, Hoyer, and, to a lesser extent, Reid keep running around and capitulating like pussies, it doesn't matter.

At this point I don't care what Bush's ratings are.  It hasn't changed one damn thing.

Credit where credit is due.  Those guys (and a few women) really do stick together.  I mean, really, how much lower does Bush have to go before his party revolts against him?   If a Democratic President was at 26% his fellow Democrats on the Hill would be through with him.  Republicans are still largely sticking by Shrub.

When you think about, they are really just thumbing their noses at America.   Don't like our guy?  To hell with you then, that is sort of their attitude.

Per PollingReport.com.

Today's Newsweek poll (26%), last week's NBC-Wall Street Journal (29%) and Quinnipiac (28%) polls, and the Pew poll (28%) from the beginning of the month.

Nixon numbers.  Sweet.

But what dpANDREWS said.  They're staying with Mr. 26%, at least until they know they won't have primary challengers next year.  

GOP to America: Up yours.

Several pollsters including Harris, have been smart enough to differentiate between Democrats and Republicans in congress. It's misleading to assume that because Democrats have more congressmen/women than Republicans, it follows that Americans blame Democrats more for its failures.
In fact, the opposite is true: In 100% of the polls conducted so far this year, Republicans in congress have a lower approval than Democrats in congress, in polls that separate both groups.
Americans don't like the fact that Republicans are blocking every good bill, thus enabling Bush to veto them.

I demand that pollsters start asking the question, "do you approve or disapprove of the job done by Republicans in congress?"

Strangely, most Republicans are not at risk.  What is at risk is the Republicans as a national party.

There is little incentive under the present rules to change.  Let's say six republican Senators lose in 2008.  Are we that much closer to the magic 60 that is suddenly needed to get anything done?  Which six?  Say Allard, Collins, Sununu, Warner, Coleman, and Gordon Smith.  Four of the six (Collins, Warner, Coleman, and Smith) are among the nine least conservative Republicans.  On the matter of Iraq, we are likely to lose Chuck Hagel (who otherwise is pretty conservative).  That's not much movement. We'd need another gain of six in 2010 to really seal the deal (say Specter, Gregg, Bunning, Voinovich, Thune, and Murkowski for sample purposes).

They are counting on holding on till the public gets fed up whether it is one, two or three cycles.  And for many, the threat of a primary from the right is still stronger than the threat of a general election loss.

This would have interesting consequences.  Republicans in the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Pacific Coast would become even more of an endangered species.  The above scenario would leave them with no representaives and only one senator from the eleven Northeastern states (Snowe), and probably just  a dozen representatives or fewer from the whole northeast (maybe as few as six or eight).  Those would come from extreme rural PA, the Eastern Shore, western Maryland, the Jersey Shore.  

Democrats have needed massive majorities and a rock solid Presidential approval to get things done.  Since the House solidified on 435 members following the 1912 elections, that has been the FDR early years (the elections of 1932, 1934, amd 1936) and the single election of 1964.  In those years, Democrats won at least 295 House seats, 59 (of 96) Senate seats, and over 470 electoral votes.  One other election (1976) delivered similar congressional numbers (292 in the House) and a Democratic President. Jimmy Carter slumped in with 297 electoral votes (more than Bush in either term) and got little done.

These jerks may give us what we need to get another golden era of accomplishment.  In 1934, Republicans and their business allies pulled the same crap and FDR whupped them bad.  They doubled down and reached a low of 88 House seatsand 16 Senate seats.  And 8 electoral votes.  

The Congress question is important.  I need some help here - everytime I look at what is happening with Congress, I hear about some new filibuster by the Republicans, so that votes don't even get to the floor.

Did the Democats do this?  

I distinctly remember the howling of Republicans when ANY filibuster was contemplated.  Things like, "democrats sabotaging the work of government", "dictatorship of the minority", things like that.  Especially around the "Gang of 14", this was a big deal, and there was all this news chatter about "obstructionist democrats".

It is absolutely clear that the republican minority is to ACTUALLY sabotage.  Like the Gingrich act during the 90's, use  every lever of power, every vote, every chance to obstruct - to render the capability of Congress to do anything productive - moot.

But I haven't been hearing the same stories, as previously, where the Democrats were reviled in the cable press for being obstructionist.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Republicans ARE purposely being obstructive, to render Congress ineffectual.  (And example, all the last-minute amendments, points, so effectively derided by Barney Frank.)  This particular form of obstruction doesn't have to do with the merits of any particular bill, but only with the merits of political sabotage.

We have to start doing a database, a sort of congress obstruction-raking site, to raise this awareness.  

The good news:

Franklin's trend indicator is now at 29.2%, the first time it's been under 30%:

Newsweek has a new poll taken 6/18-19/07 that finds approval of President Bush at 26%, disapproval at 65%. With this new data point the approval trend estimate stands at 29.9%, the first time the trend has fallen below 30%. The sharpness of the decline is striking. The change-point for approval is April 23, corresponding to the week of the Congressional vote for deadlines and a fund cutoff in Iraq and the President's subsequent veto. It precedes the immigration debate, though that debate may have sustained the decline. (On the other hand there is little evidence that immigration accelerated the decline which was already underway.)

The bad news: You really can't compare this 26% to Nixon's 23% in the Gallup poll, because of house effects.  Franklin doesn't directly point this out, but you can clearly see the difference in his discussion:

A look at the last six polls is revealing. Newsweek usually has a "house effect" of about 2.2 percentage points below the trend estimate, so finding it below trend is no surprise. But look also at NBC/WSJ. Their house effect has been around -.6, only a shade below trend. But the new NBC/WSJ poll 6/8-11/07 found approval at 29%. And Gallup's house effect is +.55, and their latest reading was 32%. That makes it awfully convincing that approval has now fallen to very nearly 30%, plus or minus 1.

Expect the Versailles media to continue blowing this off, the way they've blown off his prolonged stay in the 30s.  That's a good thing. Because the objective now is to discredit the media.  And holding onto to Mr. 20s is a great way for them to help us out.

It's a fascinating aspect of American politics that every incumbent president retains - no matter what - substantial support among members of their own party.  That's not true in the rest of the world.

We're impressed by Nixon's legendary 23% approval rating, and we are all watching the calendar to see if Shrub can eke out the last 19 months of his term without eclipsing it.

I never had any great problem with (Bill) Clinton, but I'm sure Republicans were shocked that even as he was soiling Monica's pretty dress, his approval rating stayed near 50%.

But Brian Mulroney, in Canada, hit 9% without ever starting a disastrous war or whoring his Department of Justice.

In Israel, Olmert is supposedly at 2% today.  Granted, things haven't gone well there, but has Shrub's reign really been ten times more successful?

Similarly, there doesn't seem to be a floor under previous Japanese prime ministers - if the public turns against him, nearly EVERYBODY piles on.

I really don't understand why Americans are so loyal - it doesn't seem like we hold our political parties or leaders in great respect generally?  Does anybody have a theory?

Based on my analysis, it appears that Nancy Pelosi is first in line should Preznit 26-Percent fail to complete his term.