Elections Have Consequences

by DemFromCT

This from Gallup:

Democrats Have Upper Hand for the Moment

Majority want Democrats rather than Bush to have the most influence

A new USA Today/Gallup poll reflects very positive positioning for the Democrats in the minds of the American public -- at least for the moment. Americans are almost twice as likely to have a favorable opinion of Democrats as they do of Republicans, and a strong majority says they want the Democrats in Congress to have more influence over the direction of the country than President Bush.

Additionally, Bush's job approval rating, now at 33%, is just two points away from being the lowest of his administration.

Who Should Control?

Data from the weekend USA Today/Gallup poll ratified the basic results of the election: Americans want Democrats to be in control.

Asked who they want to have more influence over the direction the nation takes in the next year, Americans by a two to one margin said the Democrats in Congress rather than Bush.

While we debate the nuances of the exit polls and this group of voters, or that candidate's positioning ofr 2008, let's not miss the forest for the trees. Elections have consequences, and this election puts enormous pressure on the Bush WH that even the media can't gloss over. Suddenly Democrats have a platform, and that means they have a voice.

Bush Faces New Calls to Shift Policies On Mideast

New Pressure as President Meets With Iraq Study Group

President Bush came under new pressure yesterday at home and abroad to alter his policies in the Middle East. British Prime Minister Tony Blair pushed for a broader Arab-Israeli peace initiative to help stabilize Iraq, while the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee pledged to take a hard line on seeking early troop withdrawals.

Bush offered little indication that he is planning to adjust his approach, telling reporters gathered in the Oval Office that "the best military options depend upon the conditions on the ground" in Iraq. The president also met for more than an hour with former secretary of state James A. Baker III, former representative Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) and other members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which is looking to chart a new course in the war.

Stories like that don't happen in a vacuum. We're a week out, and while Bush remains President and C-in-C, the terrain has shifted both in DC and in the media. All of a sudden there's new ideas and new directions on the table. Whether they're obvious or brilliant or unworkable, the election is already beginning to pay dividends. Making the most of it is the next set of tasks, and knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em remains an art form. Nonetheless, for the moment, the public wants Democrats to do what they're doing, and there's no harm in letting Republicans know that about, say, every hour.

Comments

[Jodi]

I would say:

ANYBODY BUT BUSH!
ANYBODY BUT BUSH!
ANYBODY BUT BUSH!

That is the real sentiment.

[Kagro X]

"Elections have consequences?" That's retarded. Who said that?

[demtom]

Dem, do you have any comparable numbers for voter sentiment after the '94 election? I'm curious whether this is typical post-change sentiment, or if the margins of preference are greater or smaller this time around.

[DemFromCT]

i don't have that at my fingertips, demtom, but I'll check Gallup's archive later.

[DemFromCT]

2006 Nov 9-12

Now that the Democrats have won control of Congress in this November's elections, do you think the country will be better off, worse off, or will it not make any difference?

Better off 48%
Worse off 16
No difference 33
No opinion 3

Trends for Comparison 1994: If the Republicans win control of Congress, do you think the country will be better off, worse off, or will it not make any difference?

Better off 34%
Worse off 18
No difference 45
No opinion 3

1994 Oct 7-9

[DemFromCT]

speaking of the memory hole:

Question qn10 (Pre - 104th Congress Poll) 12/28/1994-12/30/1994
Nearly all Republican candidates for Congress recently signed a statement about their political goals which they call a Contract With America. Have you heard of this Contract With America before now, or not? (1009 answered question)

Yes, heard (36.04%), No, not heard (63.11%), DON'T KNOW/REFUSED (0.85%)

[Mimikatz]

My recollection of post 1994 election talk was Clinton famously saying he wasn't "irrelevant." There are three big differences (at least) between now and 1994:

1. Bush is in his last 2 years; Clinton was still in his first term, and had every incentive to succeed so he could be reelected, while Bush is a very lame duck.

2. Clinton was smart, flexible and a master communicator and politician. 'Nuf said.

3. Bush has totally screwed up Iraq and the public knows that, along with Katrina, the deficit and you name it. Clinton had failed with health care, but at least he had tried to solve a problem and no one else had a better idea except "stay the course."

In short, Bush is caught by the short hairs without Clinton's reservoir of support with the people and his communication skills. This is why I think Bush will fold on Iraq, and on some other issues as well. He. Has. No. Choice. That will be made plain to him in many, many ways.

The military is broken, we desperately need the money to plug the hole his tax cuts caused and everyone but him sees that the situation is completely FUBAR.

I think that the reason less attention is being played to the Gates nomination is that everyone in DC sees that his job is to rein in the DOD intel apparatus and preside over the exit from Iraq. Probably via the Baker-Hamilton recommendations, with Levin and others nipping at their heels to move up what is not called a timetable but in reality is.

The wild card is Cheney. He is losing his grip, and how he reacts will be telling. He certainly can't be counted out, but he is terribly weakened now with the loss of Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby gone, and his and Rumsfeld's proteges bailing right and left to land cushy gigs while they still can. I would not be surprised to have him replaced before the end.

[demtom]

And one other big thing, Mimikatz: in 1994, the economy was still slowing coming out of the trough of the 1990 recession; within a year or so, it had started to fly. (As Clinton himself has commented about '94, the public had by then seen the steps taken -- i.e., tax increases -- but not yet any results) There's no indication Bush will benefit from such a turnaround; in fact, the opposite is more likely.

My feeling is, the GOP's best hope for the remainder of Bush's term is to somehow contain the damage; take what steps they can to marginally ameliorate bad situations. The combination of Daddy's team and furious/frightened Congressional GOPers leaning on Bush should, as you say, cause him to change course.

Unless he's even more delusional/pig-headed than our worst nightmares.

Dem, thanks for those numbers. While it's dangerous to extract too much from one poll -- and noting that the '94 result was prior to, not after the election -- one can observe that the GOP takeover essentially pleased their base number, while the Dem takeback comes nearer to making a majority happier.

[James]

Ideally, the public will say "Hey, we voted for Democrats and all the sudden the economy is better. Yay Democrats!!"

But of course then the gas prices will probably go up to $20 a gallon in the weeks before the election, and the Democrats will take the blame...

[smiley]

I live in Oregon. Gas is 45 cents a gallon more expensive today than it was on Monday before the election, just 7 days ago.

[Redshift]

knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em remains an art form.

Not to mention knowing what to hold off on until you can put together a veto-proof majority vs. what to make him veto to demonstrate why more Republicans need to be voted out, and why we need a Democratic president.

[Mimikatz]

Speaking of that veto-proof majority, there is already talk of which GOP Senators annnounce resignations before the 2008 elections--mentions of Warner, Stevens, Domenici, Dole, plus strong challenges already materializing to Coleman and Allard. Sununu will have to move left to survive in NH. This is why we have relatively little to fear from Lieberman at this point. No incentive to join the R's for 2 years and facing irrelevance sooner than that.

[demtom]

I agree with virtually all of this, Mimkatz. Warner was already thought to be glancing at the door; losing his chairmanship will only hasten his departure. And surely Domenici will wonder what's the point of hanging around to be in the minority. We have clearly excellent hopes of taking both those seats (via Mark Warner in the first case, and solid demographics in the second).

NH appears to have had a deep-blue conversion over the past few years -- are that many MA expats flooding in? The problem is, with both House Reps newbies, there's no obvious promotion-prospect. Might Shaheen -- mindful there were criminal aspects to her defeat, even beyond '02 being a GOP-slanted year -- be persuaded to give it another try?

The only one I hadn't heard about previously is Dole. Why would she have put such effort into gaining a seat for just one term? Is there a health issue (for her or Bob) of which I'm unaware?

[Roco]

Bill Clinton and James Carville were in Toronto during the local elections. NDP admitted it was working closely with Bill on the gun issue(ye, too bad it happened everywhere he went)and used the threat of hiring freeze for city employees to through the challenging candidate off and get ther boy in the mayors office. NDP is socialist and doesn't care about all the taxes wasted going to Ottawa, but hey, their socialists and the Mayor's 'Toronto Unlimited' tax is going into affect(more taxes going to Ottawa, who cares?) now that he's been elected and maybe the condos crashed because of the americans, not the taxes.

Liberals had not much to say, except they are in charge of Quebec leaving instead of the Bloc, which they squished in a day, but, hey, it's kinda like how non NDP(commis from China who are mad at the PM right now, but that's because they use trade as a weapon unlike Russian commis)/city employees feel, not sure how New New York is going to turn out, except for the Dems visits making sure that they are involved and so is old New York, but that's nothing new.

Clinton and Carville. Liberal Democrats. Now, New democrats! Just like those deals in the old days, but, hey, wasn't that Bin Laden at Tora Bora or was it that movie...........

[Mimikatz]

Liddy Dole, by all accounts, performed terribly as head of the GOP Senate election effort, which makes her seem weak to any opponent, and certainly doesn't put her in line for much support in a lean year. The election of Shuler and near-election of Kissell shows that NC is trending bluer, and I'd expect that there is at least one Dem eyeing what might be a pickup in a Dem year. Plus, she is younger than Bob, and maybe she wants to spend her twilight years with him.

I have heard that Carville and his foirm have been absolutely unconscionable in Latin America and elsewhere. He isn't a liberal.

[Paul Lyon]

``NDP is socialist and doesn't care about all the taxes wasted going to Ottawa, but hey, their socialists and the Mayor's 'Toronto Unlimited' tax is going into affect(more taxes going to Ottawa, who cares?''

The NDP used to be socialist, but not any more, or so it seems to me. As for taxes, y'all had an innovative proposal in the Carter Commission report forty years ago, but it was treated as a dead letter the moment it came out.

[realestateglendaleca]

he NDP used to be socialist, but not any more, or so it seems to me. As for taxes, y'all had an innovative proposal in the Carter Commission report forty years ago, but it was treated as a dead letter the moment it came out.