Poll suggests 2012 change in power in Washington

[defendandprotect]

Poll suggests 2012 change in power in Washington


Prior to the elections of 1994, 2006 and 2010 when party control changed hands in the House or Senate, many Americans said incumbents didn't deserve re-election.

Now, we're seeing the highest number of Americans in two decades who agree with that sentiment, spelling another potential "wave" election for 2012, USA Today reports.

Only 24 percent of all adults surveyed in the USA Today/Gallup poll said most members of Congress deserve re-election "the lowest percentage since Gallup began asking the question in 1991" the newspaper reports. USA Today notes this is similar to the level of support polled prior to the 1994, 2006 and 2010 elections. In 1994, Republicans won control of both the House and Senate. In 2006, Democrats won control of both the House and Senate. And last fall, Republicans won control of the House.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-suggests-2012-change-power-washington-131541841.html



--------------



This is a liberal nation looking to move government to the LEFT --

However, if we don't primary Obama, we could end up further to the RIGHT --

[Vincardog]

1. Can I get a witness? This is a liberal nation looking to move government to the LEFT --

[defendandprotect]

5. If it wasn't a liberal nation, would Koch Bros have needed to fund the DLC ...

to infiltrate the Democratic Party and move it's agenda and candidates to the right?

We've had 50 years of out in the open rw political violence because this is a liberal

nation --

We have a corporate-press, but a free press is a threat to the right/elites--

Everything that the rw has and does is bought and paid for --

because this is a liberal nation.

[MineralMan]

2. To successfully primary an incumbent President,

you're going to have to find a very, very strong candidate who is willing to run. So far, no names have appeared. Lacking a powerful and popular candidate with outstanding name recognition, no primary effort has any chance of succeeding.

[gateley]

4. It only succeeds in splintering the votes for the other candidates.

As we well know.

I understand peoples' frustration, but I don't understand their inability to be pragmatic and realize the disastrous outcome. :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

7. Remember 2010 ------ It is Obama who is destroying the Dem Party and chasing away Dem voters -- !!

[gateley]

14. Regardless, look at the outcome. That's what happens when

we take our votes elsewhere. How did we benefit by that?

Yesterday I heard Randi Rhodes talking about how we got what we deserved in 2010. She told her RW friends "don't vote when you're angry" and told her LW friends "Obama HAS done some things we wanted" but they would respond "well GITMO is still open" or "DADT hasn't been repealed", and didn't vote or wrote someone in. Now we have the Boehner Boys running the show. That did NOT advance our agenda.

I'm not in disagreement that a Progressive President would be fabulous, a kick-ass, mow 'em down we're not gonna take it any more leader, but I don't believe we can achieve that by primarying. Not enough time, people aren't involved enough, a myriad of reasons. But it's not achievable and taking away votes from the Democrat is giving it to the Republicans.

[defendandprotect]

17. Can't wait until Dem control ONLY the House ... then they can "run the show" ... !!!

:rofl: -- if it wasn't so sad --


Actually, what's happened over these decades of voting for "the lesser evil" is that

Congress has been moved to the RIGHT -- has it not?

Democrats didn't "take their votes elsewhere" -- they didn't come out to vote!

That's simply Democrats suppressing their own voters --


80% of the public want an end to the wars --

76% and more of the public want government-run health care -- MEDICARE FOR ALL!

And that includes 83% of Catholics, who not only want universal health care, they

want reproductive services included -- with abortion for simply CHOICE to be covered!

So much for the game-playing by Pelosi with the US Catholic Bishops and Stupak!


Obama is not only ignoring the will of the people -- he's defying it!

[gateley]

19. Agree -- it's moved to the right. And again, I don't disagree

with your frustration and fed-up-ness(!).

So if Obama is defying the will of the people, how do you suggest we change that? Seriously. I don't see a solution between now and the end of this term. I think it's unrealistic to believe we can convince millions and millions of Americans.

[defendandprotect]

21. Rather, it looks more like reality is that Dem voters are convinced that Obama

should not run --

Let Obama move out --

and don't try to move Biden in, either --

Biden's been calling for Israel to attack Iran for more than a year now!

Biden says, "Israel would be JUSTIFIED" in attacking Iran -- !!



:nuke:



PS: And let's just keep straight who is controlling government right now --

Democrats have the presidency and the Senate -- !!

Let's not distort that reality by suggesting that Repugs are "running the show" --

They are only "running the show" because from the first after the 2008 election

Obama has worked to resurrect the GOP from the ashes --


And that includes making SUPERMEN of the likes of Liebermann and Boehner --

In fact, someone likened to it to watching "wrestling" on TV in its fakery.

[gateley]

31. The House holds the power, and we're impotent there.

Your calls for change are unrealistic. Let Obama move out? You think that's going to happen? Your idealism is clouding your logic.

Carry on, and have fun. You seem to enjoy going off on rants that aren't germane to the discussion, except possibly in your own head:

Biden's been calling for Israel to attack Iran for more than a year now!

Biden says, "Israel would be JUSTIFIED" in attacking Iran -- !!

Do what you have to do. I wish you well.

[defendandprotect]

57. I'm sure that's what W would have said if he had Presidency and Senate -- !!!

:rofl: -- :rofl: -- :rofl:

[MineralMan]

35. Some Dem voters. Most disagree with that sentiment, you'll find.

You're not talking to everyone. In fact, if you believe that, you're not talking to most Democrats.

[defendandprotect]

58. Maybe you better look at the polls -- nation is disgusted with both parties --

and ready to dump both of them!


You want to praise Obama still for leading as the "lesser of evils" -- ?


:rofl:

[kctim]

41. Can I ask what poll shows 76% want govt run health care?

[defendandprotect]

59. It was common knowledge at time of Baucus Panel ... but here are some links ....

At the time the discussions ended it was up to 76% and still growing --

for MEDICARE FOR ALL!!


Later, Koch Bros. DLC Rahm Emmanuel "crowed" about how Obama had "preserved the

private health care system" and how grateful business should be to him!

Obama did this in back room deals with Big Pharma and the private H/C industry --

betraying the public which certainly weren't fooled as we saw in 2010!


Needless to say I didn't pick up all the stories -- you can probably find many more

if you google --


NYTimes, June 20, 2009: 72% support Medicare-like program for all
Posted by RainDog
This was a New York Times/CBS News poll.

In Poll, Wide Support for Government-Run Health

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll....

The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.

The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan — something like Medicare for those under 65 — that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

...Sixty-four percent said they thought the federal government should guarantee coverage, a figure that has stayed steady all decade. Nearly 6 in 10 said they would be willing to pay higher taxes to make sure that all were insured, with 4 in 10 willing to pay as much as $500 more a year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html


and ---


Majority of Americans Want Swedish-Style Democracy and Income (Tax) Redistribution
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/poll-wealth-distribu... /


Americans generally underestimate the degree of income inequality in the United States, and if given a choice, would distribute wealth in a similar way to the social democracies of Scandinavia, a new study finds.

For decades, polls have shown that a plurality of Americans -- around 40 percent -- consider themselves conservative, while only around 20 percent self-identify as liberals. But a new study from two noted economists casts doubt on what values lie beneath those political labels.

According to research (PDF at link) carried out by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University, and flagged by Paul Kedrosky at the Infectious Greed blog, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the US, choosing Sweden's model over that of the US.

What's more, the study's authors say that this applies to people of all income levels and all political leanings: The poor and the rich, Democrats and Republicans are all equally likely to choose the Swedish model.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/25/poll-wealth-distribution-similar-sweden/

[kctim]

62. I seen that poll

just thought you might have one that didn't say less than half of those favoring a govt plan are not willing to pay for it.

Thank you though.

[sabrina 1]

40. Randi is wrong. The Democratic Party got what they deserved

We warned them. But since when does the Democratic Party Leadership listen to real Democrats?

Blaming voters for exercising their right to elect who they think best represents them, is like blaming consumers when they buy a product advertised to be something it turns out not to be. What would happen to such a business if they kept blaming the consumers and refused to fix their product?

The voters are NOT to blame for what happened in 2010. And to keep saying that and ignoring the real reasons for that disaster, will only ensure a repeat of it.

The leadership of this party does not want, obviously, to start doing their job and it's easier to blame the voters, but it couldn't be a worse strategy. Someone needs to tell them that.

[defendandprotect]

6. Sen. Bernie Sanders should be the candidate -- think you're familiar with him -- ?

[MineralMan]

10. I like Bernie Sanders very much. He is not a Democrat, nor does

he have any plans to become one. He also has a very limited following, other than among people who are close to the left edge of the party. Nationally, his name recognition and knowledge of who he is is limited. I would vote for him for Senate in any election. He would stand no chance of succeeding as a candidate for President. No chance whatsoever.

[defendandprotect]

15. Who knew Obama until he was nominated? Sanders can run on a Dem ticket ....

and we have tons of democrats who are better demcorats than those

elected Democrats who have sold out to corporate power for $$$$$$$$$$$ --

We need two strong anti-war candidates -- Obama has taken these wars into the

second decade --

If we ignore the huge liberal bloc we will end up with another 2010 --



Corporate candidates are supported by the radical right and rw $$$$$ --

Obviously the public wants a liberal leader --


80% of the public wants an end to the wars --

76% and more -- 83% of Catholics -- want government-run health care -- MEDICARE FOR ALL!!

Obama is ignoring the will of the people --

[MineralMan]

18. Anyone who was paying attention to Democratic politics in 2004

knew about Barack Obama.

[defendandprotect]

22. Yes -- wasn't it his "meteoric rise" --- We are given the candidates corps want us to vote for" --

that couldn't be clearer --

Especially from more than 20 years of Koch Bros funding the DLC and infiltrating

and influcing the party --

Let's also remember some of the other criminal contributors --

Pfizer and Chevron!

[MineralMan]

25. I'm just relating the facts. You're the one who wants a primary,

and I think you have selected a potential candidate who hasn't a prayer, even in the unlikely event that he considered trying. Again, if you want a successful primary, you're going to need a candidate who can win, and who is eager to run. Find one, and we'll talk again.

[defendandprotect]

29. I'm relating how many saw thru the "meteoric rise" .... too bad so many didn't ....

Rather I think it would be easier for everyone if Obama simply stepped aside --

the polls are suggesting that would be best --

We have tons of democrats who are better than the pre-bribed and pre-owned Democrats

in Congress --

Alan Grayson is also a good bet --

[MineralMan]

33. He's not going to step aside. And Grayson lost his own

Congressional seat. That bodes poorly for him as a presidential primary candidate. Truly. Same with Wisconsin's Feingold. The candidate can't just be someone you like. It has to be someone capable of broad support in all of the states. Unseating an incumbent President in the primaries is a big challenge. It doesn't take much to make it impossible.

[defendandprotect]

56. And Obama lost 2010 ---And ... why give him another crack at Social Security and Medicare ...

If not Grayson there are tons of other democrats who would

do a better job than Obama --

[MineralMan]

60. Name some who are interested in running in primaries

against President Obama.

[Renew Deal]

13. If you were familiar with him you'd know he's currently uneligible.

Minor detail.

[defendandprotect]

23. Sanders can run on a Dem ticket -- we need candidates who aren't pre-bribed and

pre-owned by corporations ---

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. This country is more than ready for a Bernie Sanders Presidency!

They would LOVE that man.

[Vincardog]

8. We will succeed when wemove Obama to the LEFT. The point is that every move has been to the right

for the last 30 years. We have to start the momentum to the left IMMEDIATELY

[defendandprotect]

24. Voting for the "lesser evil" moves the party and Congress to the RIGHT ....

[Raksha]

27. I think that's a lost cause because I doubt that Obama CAN be moved to the left.

He's pretty shown his true colors these past three years and lost a lot of credibility...hell, he's lost ALL his credibility! Sure, he could pretend to be moved to the left and say all the right (or left) things...but who would believe him at this point? I know I wouldn't.

I don't think there's any turnaround once a president is widely perceived as a weak, spineless capitulator or closet Republican, which is how I see him. Any primary challenge would have to be a serious challenge with the intent of winning the presidency.

[Vincardog]

28. Who can we run "with the intent of winning the presidency."?

[defendandprotect]

30. Think we need to tell Obama to stand down ... for a first ....

Then we need to put the ad out for a democrat who isn't pre-bribed

and pre-owned by corporations -- !!

[Vincardog]

32. Does Obama take your calls? He regularly refuses my advice

[MineralMan]

34. +10

For debunking pipe dreams.

[defendandprotect]

50. Actually, I've kinda noticed that Obama doesn't give a Flying Fig for what voters think ....

Follow the money ...

[MineralMan]

38. Who is the "we" to whom you refer?

Is it a "we" that President Obama is listening to a lot?

[sabrina 1]

42. No, now you are getting it. That is the problem, he only listens

to Wall St. Maybe if we pretended to be Republicans or Goldman Sachs alumni, he might listen.

But that's fine, it's not the first time a politician turned his/her back on those who elected them and refused to listen to their concerns.

At least we know now how things stand and will make sure to put all the energy previously devoted to his campaign, into Progressive Democratic condidates for Congress.

Thanks for pointing it out, in case others had the mistaken idea that this WH listens to the people.

[MineralMan]

44. Which White House listened to small segments of the party? Ever.

And don't trot out FDR. You aren't old enough to actually remember his Presidency. Nobody on DU is.

[sabrina 1]

46. Again, thanks for helping people, who might otherwise

have thought they had elected someone who shared their values and was willing to fight for them, as promised, that they were mistaken.

Just a word of advice, from one of the 'lesser people not worth listening to'. Telling people their president doesn't consider them worth listening to and that they are a 'small segment of the Party' is a very bad political strategy.

Those 'small segments' you speak of, got this President elected last time. I sure hope he instructs his supporters to refrain from slapping those who worked so hard to do that, in the face.

Personally I think you are actually expressing truthfully his attitude towards the voters who elected him. Still politically speaking it isn't going to help him get reelected and then we will be saddled with a lunatic from the right.

If that happens, I know who will be to blame, and it won't the 'lesser people' so despised, as you point out, by this administration.

[MineralMan]

47. I did not use the words "not worth listening to," now did I?

Nor would I. I also helped get President Obama elected, as did every segment of the Democratic Party. Presidents end up having to do lots of things they don't want to do, based on the makeup of the Congress they have. It's often either that or accomplish nothing. Presidents in this country have zero power to get any legislation passed. Just about anything can override the little power they have in that regard.

They also cannot create a single payer healthcare system in an environment where such a thing has no hope of congressional passage. So, they do what they can manage to do - often hinging on a single voter or two in Congress.

So, does a President do what every segment of his or her party wants? No. Never. Presidents in the United States do what's doable. They pass crappy debt ceiling limit increases that are loaded down with garbage because a debt ceiling increase is absolutely essential at the time. Presidents can only sign bills. Congress creates them. Right now, we have a very shitty composition in Congress.

Presidents, for the most part, have their hands tied by many things. It's the way it works here. That's our system of government. I often don't like the results, either. But, that same system can control a Republican President as well. It's how our system is designed.

So, will I be supporting President Obama in 2012. Absolutely, along with a bunch of other people running for office as Democrats. Some, like my Congresswoman, Betty McCollum are stellar. Others, like Amy Klobuchar, my Senator are just so-so when it comes to progressivism. But, all three of those will be the Democratic candidates on the ballot, and will get my vote, and I'll talk them all up as I walk my precinct. Politics is not about absolutes. It never has been, and never will be in this country. You can either deal with that or reject it, but it will remain the case.

So, will President Obama do the things you think he should do? Sometimes, he will. Sometimes he will do the things other parts of the party want him to do. Other times, he will do what he CAN do.

[sabrina 1]

49. I don't think anyone here was naive enough to expect

that any president, no matter how progressive, could fix all the damage done by the Bush administration. That has never been the problem, nor is it now.

Everyone understands the difficulties. What was expected was to see someone fighting for the very basic issues, like the New Deal programs.

In early 2009, this president should have, like any Democratic President was expected to do, taken those programs off the table regarding any discussions of the Deficit. A line in the sand on that issue was probably even expected by Republicans, it is such a core Democratic issue, (see what happened to Bush when he tried, even with Dems out of power).

Instead, right after his inauguration he made it clear that he was not about to do that. He immediately went back on his campaign statements about not using Commissions to discuss the deficit and set up a conference in Feb. 2009 with the most well-known enemies of SS to discuss setting up a Deficit Commission after all. Nancy Pelosi immediately rejected the idea, but Pete Peterson, Norquist et al apparently had far more influence over this president than his own party member and at the time, Speaker of the House.

Congress was over-ruled. The American people were over-ruled, the Heritage Foundation won. And ever since then, SS, Medicare and Medicaid have been falsely tied to the meltdown of the US Ecomomy, not just by the far right which is normal, but by this Democratic President, at the G20, through his choice of people on the Commission, to his 'Grand Bargain' and in his many references to it in the same context as the Deficit/Debt.

No one trusts him anymore to fight for them. We don't expect it, and it's better that way. Even members of his own party are now speaking out, John Conyers the most recent, rather than remain quiet any longer.

So, what can be done by the people? We now have two horrible choices, Republicans who will most certainly attack those programs, and a Democrat who will go along, who has opened the door for them when it should have slammed shut.

I don't believe it's because he 'coudln't' have drawn a line in the sand on those programs. No one does. It's worse than that, he has expressed many times that he is in agreement with the Third Way on this issue, even appointing some of their members to his cabinet. So, we know now. And we have a choice, a pretty bad one. But as long as they have to keep the illusion of a two party system, with a Democrat we will get some crumbs, with a Republican their side will get the crumbs.

Our focus now is on Congress and on the local level. We will have to begin the retaking of this party starting now and probably have to elect a president that few have much faith in as far as what his core values are. But disappointing as it is, I prefer to know where we stand, rather bury my head in the sand and expect him to 'just what is right'. He will do what HE thinks is right, and that's too bad because is so wrong on so many issues, like Offshore Drilling as another example.

[defendandprotect]

54. The mask is off -- it's over --

Meanwhile, you're now being asked to debate not the chess game or magic wand --

but the POKER game!!


And they'll try to alibi and delay until there is no way to hold corporations/elites

accountable --

We have Global Warming breathing down our necks and three years of this "holding action"

here at DU to deny what we've all seen with our own eyes --


Time to tell Obama to "move on" -- we need a different future!!



:nuke:

[defendandprotect]

53. Obama trampled MEDICARE FOR ALL with back room deals w/Big Pharma + Private H/C Industry -- !!

And then Koch Bros. DLC Rahm Emmanuel "crowed" about how GRATEFUL business

should be to Obama for "PRESERVING THE PRIVATE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY" -- !!

Follow the money --


And -- Let's just say we're talking about the voters who gave Obama the LANDSLIDE victory --


Or let's just say we're talking about the 80% of the nation which wants an end to the wars --!!


Or let's just say we're talking about the 76% and more of Americans who want MEDICARE FOR

ALL -- 83% of Catholics, btw, who not only want government-run health care but they want all

reproductive services included -- plus abortion for simple CHOICE!


Let's also say probably a huge majority of Democrats who volunteer and contributed $$ to

Obama -- $280,000 alone coming from DU'ers here as Obama entered the White House!


And, let's just say, the "fringe" in the nation who are wholly dissatisfied with BOTH parties

enough to overturn the whole Congress!

[defendandprotect]

52. And who are you suggesting are "small segments of the party"?

The entire nation wants this Congress overturned -- both parties --

We should get busy with out own party and invite Obama to step down -- !!

[defendandprotect]

51. The vastly dissatisfied "we" liberal voters --

Think there's a new poll up right now --

looks like the country is ready to dump both parties!!

[bemildred]

3. We need to throw them all out. nt

[xchrom]

9. +1

[Arugula Latte]

26. Not all. My Senator, Jeff Merkley, kicks all kinds of ass.

So does Al Franken.

There are some good eggs among the rotten, stinking ones.

[MineralMan]

36. Franken wouldn't even think of running against Obama.

Jeff Merkley isn't someone familiar to me. He probably should be, but he is not. That's not a good sign.

[Arugula Latte]

39. No, I was just saying that not all the bums should be thrown out of office

There are a handful of good ones. But only a handful.

[MineralMan]

43. That's definitely true. I missed the connection with the post

you replied to. On the other hand, after Franken voted for the debt ceiling increase bill, several people responded to a post I wrote revealing that to say he should be primaried and kicked out of office. It's a lot of people who make their mind up on single votes on individual issues and don't even bother to look beyond them. It's very frustrating to see support wax and wane with every vote in Congress. Very frustrating.

Living in the moment means you have no sense of history or the future. That's no way to live, I think.

[loyalsister]

11. If it is a simple anti government move

I will lose my dem senator and there is no chance of getting a dem rep because my district is being eliminated so that there is much more RW territory.
There is also a chance of switching to a republican governor after barely and very luckily elected a Democrat in 2008.

This does NOT imply a move to the left.

[Renew Deal]

12. A lot depends on who people blame.

Obama is a Dem and most of the senate is full of Dems, so that could be bad. OTOH, the House is overflowing with republicans and the House has taken much of the blame for the Debt mess.

I think people should fear the Angry Middle. That's where Americans Elect comes in, and if they find a credible candidate, then there could be an issue for both parties for the presidency.

As far as your fantasy of primarying Obama...Good luck with that.

[Shandris]

20. All the talk I'm hearing is laying the blame directly on Obama.

And by 'talk' I mean from low-information voters, not people actually involved in the political process or with a desire to follow it. Remember though, I'm in a red state, so SOME of that is to be expected.

However...I'm afraid that a bit more blaming of Obama than I would find reasonable even in a red state is what I'm hearing. A lot of it seems to stem from his inability to actually SAY anything. He makes wonderful speeches...until about 3 minutes after he's done, when you realize he hasn't actually said anything that is actionable.

[MineralMan]

37. Unless Obama carried your state, the thinking of the voters there

is pretty irrelevant, I'm sorry to say.

[defendandprotect]

55. Greatest threat to us is Global Warming -- and Congress is under control of OIL and COAL industries

according to Al Gore in his Rolling Stone article --

where he also describes fascism having over taken the nation --

and our Goebbels' style press without ever using those words!!


Many of us don't need to be told any of this --

Meanwhile, it's time to figure out what to do and to move on --


There are tons of democrats who can run on the ticket who are better

democrats that those we've elected -- let's move on --


Obama needs to step down --

[Doctor_J]

45. Yet another chance for the president to grab some populism and right the ship

but he won't

[mmonk]

48. Which rightwing party will win power this time?

[Unvanguard]

61. In 1994, 2006, and 2010, we had unified government. We have divided government now.

We have no way of knowing what will happen in 2012.