What Are Polls Worth?

by DemFromCT

A back-and-forth between Kevin Drum , Chris Bowers and Armando highlights this Democracy Corps poll from 9/27 on the generic congressional races (48-39 Dem lead) and discusses the meaning of having a lead at all. Kevin says we always lead, so what? Not so, says Armando (via Chris' data). This is different.

What's really different is the part about the Presidential findings:

The country has lost confidence in George Bush's leadership, direction and plans for the country and indeed, seems to have closed down on him personally and his conservative project. In this survey - the 2nd after Katrina - 45 percent of American voters say, they are "finished with him." This is about his performance, about him personally, and his priorities. With growing passion, voters are upset about Iraq, the neglect of America, Bush's leadership and Katrina, the economy, deficits and gas prices. The result is a growing bloc of voters intent on change, and a diminishing bloc enthusiastic about Bush or his priorities. That is reflected in a major swing to the Democrats in the congressional contests - with a lot to be done to make that real.

More:

That Bush’s numbers continued to weaken after his Jackson Square speech and expressed determination to rebuild the Gulf Coast is particularly telling. After the speech, 63 percent said they are losing confidence in Bush, including 51 percent who say “a lot.” While Bush’s decline is the force behind the Republicans’ congressional troubles, there is also a congressional dynamic too. Both parties have faltered, as well as the “Republican Congress” in this poll, suggesting the power of anti-Washington messages.

That last line is one of the keys. On the one hand, incumbency and redistricting is a powerful tool to keep things aligned. On the other hand, every once in a while, a "new broom sweeps clean", "throw the bums out" mentality surfaces, as it did with Ahnuld in CA. Sure, it helps to have star power and money. No one likes voting for someone they don't like and can't warm to (see 2004).

The trick is predicting the tsunami before it hits. There are too many variables yet to come (with ethics issues, especially... we're all on scandal watch guessing whether DeLay, Rove or the Republican Party gets indicted first). However, what's happening here is a rotting from the top, as the D Corps poll clearly shows.

About 60 percent of the country now wants the country to change course and wants to go in a “significantly different direction than Bush.” Only 38 percent want to continue with Bush’s direction. (Recall that eleven months ago, 51 percent voted for him.)

...

This is about George Bush – though voters are taking out their discontent on the Republicansin Congress. That is why this will be difficult to fix.
Bush’s approval continues downward, now at 43 percent. But more important is the total shift in mood around this. A growing group not only disapprove, they feel very strongly about it (43 percent strong disapproval); the thinning number who approve of Bush’s performance, includes ever fewer who are really enthusiastic supporters.

Nothing fires up the base and turns off the swing voters like a trifecta of Iraq failure, high gas prices and scandal. In fact, on the last page, the one thing Americans agree on is that we need to be less dependent on oil. 73% strongly agree and 92% agree; it's no surprise Bush suddenly wants to put on a cardigan and turn the thermostat down. (Okay, not quite, but having this President suddenly talk about conservation would be like Reagan suddenly giving a speech about the wisdom and fairness of entitlement programs... who is he kidding?).

As to netroot partisanship, Kevin paints a broad brush of hostility to Roberts leading the public to think of Dems as intransigent. I would point out that there's nuance spoken fluently on the internets. The real issue is whether cautious Dem politicians are right in their reading of the timing of when to oppose. That's an issue for the next SCOTUS appointment, and an even bigger issue with the Iraq war.

The Hillarys of this world have decided to let Iraq sort itself out before declaring anything but support for the troops. Presumably, everything changes after the October referendum or the civil war starts, but IMHO, there are too many people dying to be President, and you can take that statement any way you want. Whether it's a proactive policy on Iraq or bird flu, Dems need to show the country what support for a culture of life really means. Whether it's the Gulf Coast or Mesopotamia, there are already too many avoidably dead people on the Republicans' watch.

Comments

[DemFromCT]

Of course, Michael Brown appears to be the Repubs' gift that keeps on giving.

Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican, called Brown's account of events "feeble," "clueless," "shocking" and "beyond belief." Said Shays: "I'm happy you left, because that kind of . . . look in the lights like a deer tells me that you weren't capable to do the job."

Rep. Kay Granger, a Texas Republican, told Brown: "I don't know how you can sleep at night. You lost the battle."

Here's an example of shutting up and letting the R's eat their own. Doesn't always work, but this time it did.

[DemFromCT]

P.S. This how Shays gets himself reelected in CT:

But the lecturing continued -- in a way even Pelosi would have approved. "I have come to the conclusion that this administration values loyalty more than anything else," Shays said, "more than competence or, frankly, more than the truth. And you have reinforced that view. . . . I'm left with the feeling [that] the administration feels they have to protect you."

Note that he freely says this to the disgraced Brown, not to the disgrace of a Defense Secretary, for example.

[janinsanfran]

Yes indeed -- this is how it works. Eventually, when absolutely everyone is clammering for the Democrats to lead, maybe they'll get around to working to stop this war and turn the country around. In the meantime, it is all just personal ambition and fluff. How many polls does it take for the pols to get it?

[DemFromCT]

it's about timing, not conviction.

[Mimikatz]

You can't beat something with nothing.

The Generals are already starting the pullback, even though there will be no announcement. Again, the Dems now followig Bush better wake up and see the withdrawing tank before it runs over them. They don't have to be strident; just lay out a few simple principles such as: Whatever the original intention, things haven't worked out as planned. The war is brutalizing American troops. We aren't helping and there is no way our continued presence makes it better. We need the resources at home. Begin an orderly pullback now.

Then a sensible plan to fund our obvious and growing infrastructure needs through a fairer tax system that puts the burden back on those who have profitted so handsomely from the last 10 years. End corruption. Take the pressure off the states so they can provide the kind of education and other services people want.

Did I mention end the culture of corruption?

Start slow. There is time next year to talk about health care and the rest of it. For now the theme should be "America for all of us not just the few." And from every candidate, "we will restore the safety net and provide real homeland security."

[rj]

Great link, Mimikatz. And great overall point: I know timing is important, but there's no reason not to make some start already. As so many of us have argued ad nauseum, we need to be laying the foundation now for all the work that'll have to be done by a Dem congress (and eventually President, knock wood). That means articulating an overarching theme and some policy particulars clearly and soon. (Plenty of material at TNH if they're still looking...)

And just acting on the (eminently reasonable) assumption that '06 will be a "throw-the-bums-out" year isn't enough. The Republicans are nothing if not politically opportunistic: Chris Shays is a no-brainer, but I can unfortunately imagine a scenario in which many Reps adapt an "independent" "reform" position sooner than many Dems. They won't be able to shake off the association completely, of course; but does anyone doubt the possibility that another '74 could be followed by another '80? As Mimikatz said, you can't beat something with nothing: the Dems have got to start crafting their positive message now.

[DemFromCT]

rj, i agree. i understand the Dem dilemma about timing. shutting up today, forexampole, is a good idea. But sooner rather than later, we need to hear Dem policy, where Dems stand on the war in particular.

[lukery]

DemFromCT - this is slightly OT - but speaking of polls, you left a comment over at my place the other day about the zogby impeachment poll - i just wanted to let you know that we have upscaled our plans, and afterdowningstreet has taken over and we plan to hire *all* of the polling companies to ask the impeachment question(s) - details at www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling - hopefully some polls *are* worth something. by all accounts, the repugs dont want this question asked, so maybe they think that some questions are best not asked