Americans trust Dems more than Pubs on all major issues but terrorism

[KingOrfeo]

And they're not "angry," either.

New poll:

NEWSWEEK Poll: Anger Unlikely to Be Deciding Factor in Midterms
Self-described "angry voters" no more likely to vote; Democrats trusted more than GOP on key issues.

Anger is dominating the current political conversation—especially if you're an older, whiter, economically anxious voter who dislikes President Barack Obama and tends to prefer Republicans to Democrats. But according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, there's little reason to believe that anger alone will be the determining factor in November's midterm elections.

Self-described "angry" voters fit a rather predictable political and demographic profile. The survey found that only 14 percent are Democrats. The rest are either Republicans (52 percent) or independents (29 percent), with 42 percent of the angry voters declaring themselves Tea Party supporters. For the midterms, angry voters favor Republican candidates over their Democratic rivals, 73 percent to 19 percent. Three quarters want the GOP to win control of Congress. More than seven in 10 specifically describe themselves as angry with Obama and congressional Democrats, and a full 60 percent see their vote in November as a vote against the president. Compared with voters in general, angry voters are 21 percent more likely to say they're worried about their economic future. They are 10 percent whiter than voters in general and 7 percent less likely to be under 30.

But the NEWSWEEK Poll's most revealing finding is that despite months of media coverage insisting that voters are "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore," anger is unlikely to decide this year's elections. For starters, self-described angry voters constitute only 23 percent of the electorate, and there's no reason to believe that they're more likely to cast ballots in November than their calmer peers. Why? Because the percentage of angry voters who say they will definitely vote in the midterms is statistically indistinguishable from the overall percentage of voters who say the same thing (84 percent vs. 81 percent). In fact, majorities of voters say they would not be more likely to vote for candidates who express anger at Washington incumbents (60 percent), Wall Street bankers (52 percent), the illegal-immigration problem (53 percent), the Gulf of Mexico oil spill (65 percent), or health-care reform (55 percent). Fifty-three percent of voters see Obama's unemotional approach to politics—his "coolness"—as a positive, versus only 39 percent who don't.

Anger isn't the only factor that's been overhyped in the run-up to Election Day. The president, for example, appears to be a neutral force rather than a negative one. His approval rating stands at 48 percent, roughly where it has remained since January of this year, and far better than where George W. Bush stood before the 2006 midterms (33 percent) or where Bill Clinton stood in 1994 (36 percent). Meanwhile, the percentage of voters who say they will be voting "for Obama" in November's congressional elections (32 percent) is statistically identical to the percentage who say they will be voting "against" him (30 percent). Voters dissatisfied with the country's current course are more likely to place "a lot" of blame on Bush (39 percent) than on his successor (32 percent).

Another factor that has garnered a lot of potentially unwarranted attention is "the issues." Simply put, in the NEWSWEEK Poll, voters said they trust Democrats more than Republicans to handle pretty much every problem currently facing the country: Afghanistan (by 6 points), health care (by 12), immigration (by 2, though that figure is within the margin of error), Social Security (by 14), unemployment (by 12), financial reform (by 14), energy (by 19), and education (by 19). Voters even prefer Democrats to Republicans on federal spending (by 4 points), taxes (by 5), and the economy (by 10)—the GOP's core concerns. The only area where Republicans outpoll Democrats is the issue of terrorism, where they lead by a 6-point margin.

Still, voters are split on which party should control Congress after November—44 percent went for Republicans, 46 percent for Democrats—and most experts are predicting sizable Republican gains in both the House and the Senate. So if not anger, the president, or the issues, what will be the deciding factor in the 2010 midterm elections? According to the NEWSWEEK Poll, the condition of the economy, and the inability of anyone in Washington to improve it, is by far the most important force at play in this year's congressional campaigns.

Compare 2010 with 1994, the last year a new Democratic president lost control of Congress to the GOP. While the overall percentage of Americans who now say they are dissatisfied with the country's direction (68 percent) is slightly lower than the percentage recorded in August 1994 (71 percent), the economy is a much stronger source of discontent than it was 16 years ago. In 1994, for example, only 52 percent of voters named "economic conditions in general" as a primary reason for their unhappiness. Today, that percentage has shot up to 75 percent. In 1994, 45 percent cited "not enough good-paying jobs" as a major factor. Today, the number has climbed to 56 percent. (Social issues, meanwhile, have lost much of their impact: only 41 percent of dissatisfied voters now complain about "low moral and ethical standards," versus 59 percent in 1994.)

As a result, voters are desperate for greater economic security, and willing to try something new to achieve it. With 59 percent assigning "a lot" of blame to Congress as a whole—and 42 percent placing that blame on congressional Democrats, compared with only 30 percent for congressional Republicans—it's only natural that Democrats are likely to be the ones losing seats in November.

 

[unregistered]

 

[MeeMie]

OMG! Now he's pretending NEWSWEEK is a reliable news source!

Next he'll be quoting Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

A real glutton for punishment, isn't he?

 

[richard_daily]

V seems to think that he's the thermometer for this countries opinions on politics... Good thing he's just a wingnut, or this country would really be fucked.

 

[KingOrfeo]

State controlled media source.

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

 

[WriterDom]

Wasn't Newsweek sold for a dollar? Man, someone got ripped off!

 

[MeeMie]

V seems to think that he's the thermometer for this countries opinions on politics... Good thing he's just a wingnut, or this country would really be fucked.

Still refused to inform yourself with the comments, huh?

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=35499152&postcount=21

http://thehill.com/house-polls/the-...staste-for-healthcare-law-crosses-party-lines

You might realize that it is YOU who is the wingnut ... of the loonie variety.






...

 

[JohnnySavage]

State controlled media source.

It's a silly poll. Half the tax filers don't pay taxes - and that's just the people that actually file returns.

You could make a proposal that everyone earning over $200,000 per year has to pay an extra tax so the government can buy cars for everyone making under $50,000 and probably get a happy majority of people that would support that idea. The reason is, people always want something for nothing. If the evil rich folk are paying for it, give me give me give me give me.

Now, if you were to ask how many people thought EVERYONE should have to pay some amount of taxes to pay for all these programs, I bet the numbers would change.

As you know Californian's kept voting themselves benefits but refused to vote for the taxes to pay for them. Same thing is happening now at the Federal level.

GIVE ME, GIVE ME, GIVE ME!!!

 

[Worm]

Rasmussen did a similar poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues

 

[MeeMie]

Why don't we just wait and see what the REAL POLL says in November when the Dems leave office in droves.

 

[JohnnySavage]

It's a silly poll. Half the tax filers don't pay taxes - and that's just the people that actually file returns.

You could make a proposal that everyone earning over $200,000 per year has to pay an extra tax so the government can buy cars for everyone making under $50,000 and probably get a happy majority of people that would support that idea. The reason is, people always want something for nothing. If the evil rich folk are paying for it, give me give me give me give me.

Now, if you were to ask how many people thought EVERYONE should have to pay some amount of taxes to pay for all these programs, I bet the numbers would change.

As you know Californian's kept voting themselves benefits but refused to vote for the taxes to pay for them. Same thing is happening now at the Federal level.

GIVE ME, GIVE ME, GIVE ME!!!

Wrong thread... but, eh.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Still refused to inform yourself with the comments, huh?

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=35499152&postcount=21

http://thehill.com/house-polls/the-...staste-for-healthcare-law-crosses-party-lines

You might realize that it is YOU who is the wingnut ... of the loonie variety.






...

The comments section of a blog is no guide to public opinion.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Rasmussen did a similar poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues

Well, whatever else you might say about Newsweek, it certainly beats Rasmussen for credibility.

 

[MeeMie]

The comments section of a blog is no guide to public opinion.

Sure ... and neither do these articles relate to "public opinion" either.


AP-GfK Poll: Working-class whites shun Dems
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101006/D9IM5PT80.html


Middle Class Slams Brakes on Spending
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...41401915382.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories


Private sector sheds 39,000 jobs in September
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Private-sector-sheds-39000-rb-1277482169.html?x=0&.v=1


Oh and ... this recent one

‘Likely Voter’ Gap Favors G.O.P. by 6 Points; Gallup’s Model Sees It Bigger

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...o-p-by-6-points-gallups-model-sees-it-bigger/

Well, whatever else you might say about Newsweek, it certainly beats Rasmussen for credibility.

To you and yours maybe. To the rest of the world ... no contest.

 

[Worm]

Well, whatever else you might say about Newsweek, it certainly beats Rasmussen for credibility.

Well there is always Gallup.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142730/Americans-Give-GOP-Edge-Election-Issues.aspx

 

[Luk]

OMG! Now he's pretending NEWSWEEK is a reliable news source!

Next he'll be quoting Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

A real glutton for punishment, isn't he?

This coming from the idiot that uses UK tabloids as sources. Too fucking funny.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Every time I see you I think of a weak mind with a crutch under each ear. You could be twice as smart and still be dumb.

I'm not the idiot calling Newsweek "state-controlled media" -- which I would classify as hyperbole rather than idiocy, save that you seem actually to believe something of the kind despite your winkey-smiley.

 

[scott_harris70]

Wake up and smell the coffee!!!!

On any given day, you can read a topic in any news outlet, presented as fact and backed up by data and poll numbers, and the very next day you can read the same topic, in the same news outlet, but presented with the exact opposite viewpoint, backed up by data and poll numbers.

Today, the news is neither truth nor fact, it is a product sold to the suckers, and as long as you buy it, they will sell it!

If you want to know what is going on today, look at what people do, not what they say, or what is said about them.

Don’t be a sucker for what you read in the news!

 

[KRCummings]

If the news source is saying what you want to hear then it's reliable. If it's saying what you don't then it's biased and/or state controlled or simply a bunch of lies. What category a source falls into is subject to change from day to day.

 

[KingOrfeo]

If you want to know what is going on today, look at what people do, not what they say, or what is said about them.

Yes, well, it's not all that easy for an individual to "look at what people do" in the larger scheme of things. That's why we usually leave that job to specialists, i.e., journalists.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

And they're not "angry," either.

New poll:

NEWSWEEK Poll: Anger Unlikely to Be Deciding Factor in Midterms
Self-described "angry voters" no more likely to vote; Democrats trusted more than GOP on key issues.

Anger is dominating the current political conversation....blah, blah, blah and more blah.

...As a result, voters are desperate for greater economic security, and willing to try something new to achieve it. With 59 percent assigning "a lot" of blame to Congress as a whole—and 42 percent placing that blame on congressional Democrats, compared with only 30 percent for congressional Republicans—it's only natural that Democrats are likely to be the ones losing seats in November.

So if that was their conclusion, what was the point of all that other crap?

 

[KingOrfeo]

So if that was their conclusion, what was the point of all that other crap?

That most of the reasons usually given around here for drawing a similar conclusion are bullshit.

And, more importantly, that the actual reasons Dem might lose ground in November have no implications for future elections, as the bullshit reasons would.

IOW, this election cycle is not the beginning of any RW revolution. It is, if anything, the last loud melancholy withdrawing roar of the Reagan Revolution.

 

[firespin]

Well, whatever else you might say about Newsweek, it certainly beats Rasmussen for credibility.

Here's an example of where your bias shows.

fivethirtyeight.com rates Rasmussen as more accurate. Why do you beg to differ? Because of your inherent expertise or something?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/pollster-ratings-v40-results.html

 

[Colonel Hogan]

That most of the reasons usually given around here for drawing a similar conclusion are bullshit.

And, more importantly, that the actual reasons Dem might lose ground in November have no implications for future elections, as the bullshit reasons would.

IOW, this election cycle is not the beginning of any RW revolution. It is, if anything, the last loud melancholy withdrawing roar of the Reagan Revolution.

Well, hell, I tried to tell you and others much the same thing two years ago when everybody was proclaiming the ascension of Obama as the death knell of conservatives in general and the Republican party in particular.