Lambro selectively cited poll data to downplay Democratic public support
Washington Times chief political correspondent Donald Lambro selectively cited data from a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll to claim that Democrats "aren't doing any better" in the polls than Republicans. In a November 10 column, Lambro argued that the Democratic "attack strategy" will not help the party in the 2006 elections, and cited one piece of data from a Washington Post/ABC News poll indicating Americans believe Republicans have "stronger leaders." However, the single piece of data Lambro cited stands against a preponderance of data in the poll indicating that Americans feel more in touch with Democrats, place more trust in Democrats than Republicans to handle most issues facing the country, and would like to see Democrats assume control of Congress in 2006.
From Lambro's November 10 Washington Times column:
But that was then, this is now -- two months before the start of the 2006 election season when the Democrats think this new and much more aggressive attack strategy will put them back into control of Congress.
But as weak as Mr. Bush and the Republicans may seem now, according to all the polls, the Democrats aren't doing any better.
"The public sees the Democrats as disorganized, lacking in clear ideas or a positive alternative to the GOP agenda, and bereft of appealing leaders," The Washington Post reported Sunday in a story about their latest party preference poll.
When The Post's poll asked which party has stronger leaders, respondents chose Republicans over Democrats by 51-35 percent. That's a convincing reason why the Democrats need to spend more time developing a national security agenda and less time playing political war games.
According to the Post/ABC poll*, conducted October 30-November 2, 53 percent of respondents would vote for the Democratic candidate from their congressional district if elections were held today, versus 36 percent who would vote for the Republican candidate. Overall, 49 percent of respondents trust Democrats "to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years," as opposed to 37 percent who trusted Republicans. With regard to specific issues facing the nation, higher percentages of respondents expressed more trust in Democrats than Republicans on almost every issue (percentage for Democrats listed first): the economy (56-34); Iraq (48-37); education (55-32); Social Security (56-29); gasoline prices (47-26); health care (54-29); taxes (48-38); the federal budget (48-34); and ethics in government (42-36). Democrats and Republicans drew equal support (48 percent each) on "the U.S. campaign against terrorism." The poll data also demonstrated that pluralities of respondents believe that Democrats better represent their own personal values (50 percent); are more concerned with their needs (56 percent); and are more open to the idea of people who are political moderates (60 percent).
Hitler and Musolini were strong leaders, boy what a legacy they left huh? But I would love to see more foreceful leadership on the left; but I think we're seeing a turn around in that area; and 2006 will provide a great opportunity to augment what I hope I am seeing.
"Hitler and Musolini were strong leaders, boy what a legacy they left huh? But I would love to see more foreceful leadership on the left; but I think we're seeing a turn around in that area; and 2006 will provide a great opportunity to augment what I hope I am seeing" -Lynn-
Lynn, I think we're seeing the tide turning. Granted it might be due more to the Republicans performing Hari-Kari than any real strong leadership on the Democratic side, but let's take what we can get!
If things don't turn around soon for the Republicans (Iraq, oil prices,etc) we could make some real strides in '06. Then hopefully field a strong candidate for President in '08.
I'm still not sure Hillary will be the best nominee, but the very idea of Bill Clinton returning to the White House (if only as First Gentleman) is enough to make her nomination appealing.
If not Hillary there are others, Mark Warner (out-going Virginia Governor) Evan Bayh (Senator Indiana) and Tom Vilsack (Governor Iowa) are all viable candidates and anyone of them would be an excellent choice.
I am an admire of Hiliary Clinton,d I think she has the correct combination of intellegence and temperament to be a good president; but she's been so demonized I don't think she could win. We need a less polarizing person.
new york is heavily democratic but has no problem electing republicans to statewide office. hillary remains extremely popular, and for the same reason that she was elected. the right attempted to paint her as the dragon lady, yet she comes across very well when you actually listen to her on something like meet the press. the gop takes her lightly at their own peril. having said that, it was a mistake to nominate kerry after dean faltered. i think wes clark could have defeated bush by prying away some of the southern states.
I agree. I like Wesley very much. Wesley was booted out due to former GOP chairman, Ed Gillespie's lies/spin about him. I can't believe Democrats were so gullible to pay any attention to what Ed Gillespie said.
On the Republican side, I have always liked McCain. If either one of those guys makes it next time, I will vote for them.
Wesley Clark was my initial choice for the Democratic Presidential nominee as well, largely because of his military background and the fact that he was a southerner. I however did support John Kerry in the end and it wasn't reluctantly so. I liked Kerry's platform very much, but Northeastern Democrats have been so smeared in the South that they can’t get support in that region. Kerry’s defeat in that region reaffirmed that belief. Maybe Southerners are still getting even for the civil war and the civil rights movement; whatever the reasons are they seem to hate Northern Democrats. Of course I take great exception to that since I am a Northern Democrat, but it’s a sad reality. As far as John McCain is concerned, I respect him but I could never vote for him for president. He is still too conservative for my taste and his stance on the Iraqi war is very bothersome for me. I watched him on Larry King the other night and I just kept thinking there is no way I could support this guy for president.
I think what a lot of people do not understand is that we have a Republican controlled White House,Congress and Senate.It is very difficult for Democrats to get their vision out.Republicans have continued to squelsh the voices of the Democrats on all issues that relate to the American people. So,the Democrats have looked to other means of an outlet,namely,the Media.In doing so,it is becoming increasingly more difficult for Republicans to continue feeding the American people that "They don't have a plan" line.The truth is,the Democrats do have a plan,but,they do not have a platform.I credit the Media for figuring this out which is why we are seeing and hearing more from Democrats.I feel that the Democrats,along with the Media,have leveled out the playing field and in doing so,will bring about more of the same victories we have already seen in Virginia,New Jersey and California.But that's just my opinion of course.
The dems nominating Kerry after the "demonization" of Dr. Dean showed me that they had no guts..
Not standing up to Bush with the bogus intelligence to lead us into attacking Iraq showed me they have no guts..
They really NEED to get their house together with regards to communicating a message to the American people that it's not just about corrupt conservative crack-heads taking this country in the wrong direction, but also offering legitimate ideas that balance between providing for the needs of all Americans and the promotion of the economy and corporate America.
They need to approach corporate America and tell them that they have to be better socially. No one takes the corporate side of this country to task with regards to being good citizens. They have all this power and responsibility yet in this environment where they recieve massive subsidies and breaks from the current congress/administration, they choose to take advantage of the climate to wring all the profits they can out of the rest of us yet they have their way with us both with what is sold and their influence in government to change laws to prevent us ordinary people from protecting ourselves from them abusing their power and control.
The longer things go like this, the more this society looks like what William Gibson laid out in his fiction (If anyone has read "Neuromancer")
Point being that you can look at polls all day and try to extract what you want to see out of them. Until there are people in place that truly address issues affecting all of us and there being a conscious effort to strike a true balance, things will be out of whack whether its conservative controlled or liberal controlled...
but
I do not believe in cutting social programs to fatten the pockets of the wealthy...
If that's the "conservative" way - you've got problems..
That's what your congress is trying to do right now.
That IS plain wrong...
The problem is the mid-terms are a year away, and the Republicans might turn it around enough so Democrats won't get the "anything is better than total incompetance" vote. It isn't the the Democrats don't have plans--they have lots of plans--they don't have A PLAN--in the way Republicans do. The Democrats need something that unites them all together such that it will seem important they they as a group have control of one branch of government, and so they don't cannabalize each other so brutally in primaries. Unless the Democratic party comes up with something like "The Contract With America," to run on in the mid-terms-- its going to be every Dem for himself in elections and though that will probably get us more seats that we currently have--it won't give us the decisive control that will be necessary from preventing the republicans from running as amok as they have been.