Nov. 2, 2006
Will Anger At Congress Sway Voters?
Public Approval Of Congress Is At Its Lowest Level In More Than A Decade
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Sluggish Support For Bush
President Bush is on the campaign trail. hoping to help Republicans maintain control of Congress. But the latest poll numbers show sluggish support for the president himself. Aleen Sirgany reports.
-
Video
Who Will Control Congress?
When the dust settles, who is likely to control Congress? Amy Walter, of Cook Political Report, shares her insight with Harry Smith.
-
Photo
(AP / CBS)
-
Interactive
Campaign 2006
Complete coverage and analysis of Senate and key House races, plus gubernatorial elections.
-
Interactive
The 109th Congress
Meet the leaders and follow the action in the House and Senate.
In the wake of the Mark Foley congressional page scandal, Congress' already dismal job performance ratings are at their lowest point during an election season in more than a decade — just 29 percent in the most recent CBS News/New York Times poll. But what effect, if any, will low congressional approval ratings have on Election Day?
Democrats fervently hope that voters will take out their frustration with Congress on candidates from the majority party. Republicans hope that Americans' disapproval of Congress will not lead to any significant losses.
With Republicans clinging to only a slim margin in the House of Representatives — a change of only 15 House seats out of 435 would tip the balance to the Democrats — disapproval of Congress could prove pivotal in determining which party controls the next House.
Despite its potential importance, very little is commonly understood about the role played by public evaluations of Congress. Nevertheless, history does contain a few significant clues for what we might expect on November 7.
Since 1980, four Congresses clearly stand out as the most unpopular — all averaging below 34 percent approval in the months preceding the election — 1980, 1982, 1992, and 1994. At first glance, these elections don't appear to offer a clear verdict on whether the majority party should worry about public disapproval of Congress. On one hand, despite intense congressional unpopularity, the majority party lost only a small number of House seats in 1992 (eight), and actually gained 28 House seats in 1982. If the 2006 elections are like either of these, Republicans can be confident that they will retain power in the House.
On the other hand, congressional unpopularity also coincided with the two biggest electoral disasters for the majority party in the last 30 years — the elections of 1980 and 1994. In 1980, the Democratic majority lost 30 seats in the House; in 1994, the Democrats lost 52 seats and majority control. If the 2006 elections are like either of these two, Republicans should prepare for life as the minority party once again.
This begs the question: Which of these types of elections is the model for 2006? It turns out that the biggest difference between status quo elections and minority party landslide elections is the difference between unified versus divided party control of government. Both of the "landslide" elections occurred when both the presidency and the Congress were controlled by one party, while both of the "status quo" elections occurred when the House was controlled by a different party than the presidency.
The effect of unified and divided government revolves around a party's ability to deflect blame. When the president is from a different party than the majority in the House, as in 1982 and 1992, the House majority can mitigate the damage done to their party by blaming the opposition party in the White House. This is precisely what enabled the Democratic majority to gain seats in 1982, at a time when Ronald Reagan was saddled with low approval ratings as well.
But when the majority party in Congress also controls the White House, the buck stops at that party's door. Americans' negative view of the majority party’s handling of Congress is reinforced to the extent that they also hold a negative view of that same party's handling of the presidency. In 1980 and 1994, Americans disapproved of Democrats' performance in both the White House and Congress — and Democratic congressional candidates suffered dearly as a result.
If there's a lesson to be drawn from these four elections, it is that the most dangerous electoral environment for a party is to control both branches of government and be viewed as performing poorly in each. With President Bush's own approval ratings at 34 percent in the most recent CBS/NYT poll, Republicans can only hope that history does not repeat itself.
David R. Jones is an associate professor of political science at the City University of New York, Baruch College. Monika L. McDermott is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Connecticut.
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Video and Galleries from Politics
-
Video
G8 Summit On Environment
-
Video
A Presidential Mistep
-
Video
Washington Unplugged 7-9-09
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 73 CommentsThe hope is that a new congress will at least prevent bush&co from getting a blank check when they try to implement actions that are not in the best interest of the country - at least a semblance of checks-and-balances.
But they won't let it go on the way it has been
Public Approval Of Congress Is At Its Lowest Level In More Than A Decade.
A.) YES!!!
What ever happened to HASTERT must keeping low profile otherwise hiding got to keep him out of the news everybody will forget heh heh
2006 WorldNetDaily.com
JERUSALEM - Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. - including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.
The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."
They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.
They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.
"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.
"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.
I certainly hope so.
Vote him out of office along with all the other unscrupulous louts.
This is your chance to make a difference. Don't muff it.
Vote on Tuesday, Nov. 7th.
But sadly, the Republican fear-mongering is losing its hold on America. We know we're less safe than when we were before Bush dragged us into Iraq, leaving Bin Laden safe and Afghanistan languishing. We need a new direction, and some hope, rather than the Republican "endless fear" approach.
WASHINGTON Sep 27, 2006 (AP)%u2014 The White House refused Wednesday to release the rest of a secret intelligence assessment that depicts a growing terrorist threat, as the Bush administration tried to quell election-season criticism that its anti-terror policies are seriously off track.
In the bleak National Intelligence Estimate, the government's top analysts concluded Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for jihadists, who are growing in number and geographic reach. If the trend continues, the analysts found, the risks to the U.S. interests at home and abroad will grow.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2498008
The war in Iraq has become a global "cause celebre" for Islamic jihadists and is "shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/w
ireStory?id=2498008
"Boehner: Let's not blame Iraq woes on Rumsfeld"
Apparently Boehner is blaming the generals on the ground for the Iraq disaster and poor Rummy was led astray by them. They told him how they could take Iraq with no problems, and he believed them. How pathetic! These experienced military men, who told Rumsfeld he was dreaming when he said 3 months and 135,000 men are now being blamed for the disaster Iraq has become.
Too bad Rumsfeld isn't in the military. They would probably loved to deal with his *** personally.
Yes he is blaming the generals. So if Kerry's bungled joke P.O.'d the right so much, this is bound to blow their gasket. Right?
Are they angry because we have not had a terrorist attack in 5 years?
Are they angry because of the laws that were past that allow us to capture and punish terrorists?
Are they angry because laws were past that allow us to listen to terrorists phone calls?
Are they angry because we havent lost the Iraq war yet and that we are winning every day we are there? (That's according to the soldiers who are in Iraq)
Are they angry that our deficit is the lowest it has been in years?
Are they angry that our unemployment its at 4.6% lower than it ever was under Bill Clinton?
Whats all the anger about, I say relax.
Voters cite Iraq as the most important issue affecting their decision next Tuesday, and majorities of Republicans and Democrats said they wanted a change in the nation's policy in Iraq. Only 20 percent of Americans said they thought the United States was winning the war, down from a high of 36 percent in January.
In most people's opinion, the war is the top issue, and only the Democrats have a plan to actually make progress in Iraq. That, if anything, is going to change the landscape in Congress in five days.
Fox news gave the election to BUSH...that is hilarious...do you guys on the left really believe this stuff?
How does Fox give the election to BUSH? That is quite an undertaking, are they going to give the election to the republicans this time around too? I think you are just mad that CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, and company have won it for the dems for the past 6 years despite their best efforts. Lets not kid ourselves when it comes to debating issues republicans win EVERY time. Democrats are good at digging up dirt and occasionally they are successful. That's the best excuse you could come up with for the democrats consistently loosing?
Maybe you heard the latest study 72% of the major media (CNN, CBS, NBC) report positive stories about democrats and only 12% positive about republicans...lol. Dude you are crazy, Heck, I dont even think most liberals would agree with you on that statement.
Fox news gave the election to BUSH...that is hilarious...do you guys on the left really believe this stuff?
How does Fox give the election to BUSH? That is quite an undertaking, are they going to give the election to the republicans this time around too? I think you are just mad that CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, and company because they have been able to win it for the dems for the past 6 years despite their best efforts. Lets not kid ourselves when it comes to debating issues republicans win EVERY time. Democrats are good at digging up dirt and occasionally they are successful. That's the best excuse you could come up with for the democrats consistently loosing?
Maybe you heard the latest study 72% of the major media (CNN, CBS, NBC) report positive stories about democrats and only 12% positive about republicans...lol. Dude you are crazy, Heck, I dont even think most liberals would agree with you on that statement.
Fox news gave the election to BUSH...that is hilarious...do you guys on the left really believe this stuff?
How does Fox give the election to BUSH? That is quite an undertaking, are they going to give the election to the republicans this time around too? I think you are just mad that CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, and company have not been able to win it for the dems for the past 6 years despite their best efforts. Lets not kid ourselves when it comes to debating issues republicans win EVERY time. Democrats are good at digging up dirt and occasionally they are successful.
Maybe you heard the latest study 72% of the major media (CNN, CBS, NBC) report positive stories about democrats and only 12% positive about republicans...lol. Dude you are crazy, Heck, I dont even think most liberals would agree with you on that statement.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has flip-flopped again. After adamantly stating that he would "apologize to no one" for his comments about the intelligence of individual members of the U.S. military, Kerry is now saying - or writing - that he is sorry.
In a blog entry that appears at his JohnKerry.com Web site, the junior senator from Massachusetts offers this statement:
"As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.
"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended."
Kerry's mea culpa continues with an attack on the Bush administration:
"It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don%u2019t want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops."
Kerry's low-key apology stands in sharp contrast to his vocal press conference Tuesday in which he blasted his critics for even implying that his comments were controversial.
Perhaps the apology came after some arm-twisting from members of his own Democratic Party less than one week before the midterm elections. Since the story broke, leading Democrats have been trying to distance themselves from Kerry's comments, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, who called his comments 'inappropriate.'
President George W. Bush, who soundly defeated Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, and many others have demanded an apology from Kerry. Bush called Kerry's comments 'insulting and shameful' to U.S. military veterans and their families.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/1/164110.shtml?s=lh
Incorrect. We had a $236 billion surplus from Clinton until 2001, but in five years since then the Bush Administration has taken the surplus and turned it into the largest deficit in US history, currently at somewhere between $300 and $400 billion dollars.
And you know what? With a fair portion of that spent on things like federal mismanagement of disaster relief and an uncalled-for war in Iraq, yeah, I'm angry.
By soldiers, do you mean the generals in Iraq telling us that Iraq is on the edge of civil war? Are you defining "winning" with news stories like the bloodiest month to date for US troops being just last month? NIE estimates of Iraq being a 'cause celebre for terrorists'? Pentagon reports of Iraq being on the edge of "Chaos"?
I think people are angry that it's gotten to the point where the Pentagon is starting up a propaganda offensive to try and trick people into thinking that the best estimates of our intelligence agencies, our generals in Iraq and the Iraqi people (not to mention we Americans) are wrong and that we're actually winning. People are bound to be angry at being lied to - no one likes that.
Well, it looks like that's how it works:
"...Estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 8 percent of its audience to shift its voting behavior towards the Republican Party, a sizable media persuasion effect."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/03/AR2006050302299.html
It's like when Bush says "the war is going well" when what he means is 2 less American soldiers were killed this month as there were killed last month.
THEIR NAMES THE SAME
WE SPELL IT %u201CLAME%u201D
THEY PREACH AND SCOLD
THEIR LIES ARE OLD
WE DON%u2019T BELIEVE
ONE THING THEY%u2019VE TOLD
ITS UP TO USH
TO MAKE THEM SHUSH
CAUSE WHAT THEY GUSH
SHOULD MAKE THEM BLUSH
BUT LET%u2019S NOT HUSH
THAT ONE%u2019S A LUSH
THEY%u2019LL MAKE A FUSH
AND TALK PURE MUSH
SO KISH MY TUSH,
PILL POPPIN RUSH!
It already has
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 73 Comments