Wash. Post claimed "congressional approval ratings ... a notch below Bush's," but Post poll says Dems above Bush
SUMMARY: The Washington Post reported that "Democrats are trying to prove that they can be an equal partner to [President] Bush" and that "congressional approval ratings dropp[ed] this week to 32 percent, a notch below Bush's 33 percent, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll." But according to the Post's own polling, congressional approval is not dropping, and the approval rating for "Democrats in Congress" is seven percentage points higher than Bush's in the latest poll.
A December 13 Washington Post article by staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane stated: "As they wrap up their first year in control of the entire Capitol since 1994, Democrats are trying to prove that they can be an equal partner to [President] Bush. But their first 11 months have been politically and legislatively brutal, with congressional approval ratings dropping this week to 32 percent, a notch below Bush's 33 percent, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll." In fact, Congress' approval is higher in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, conducted December 6-9, than it was in the previous Post-ABC News poll, taken October 29-November 1, although the difference is within the margin of error. Moreover, while the overall congressional approval rating is one percentage point lower than Bush in the poll, the approval rating for "Democrats in Congress" is seven percentage points higher than Bush's in the latest poll, a fact not noted in the article.
In the December 6-9 poll, Congress received a 32 percent approval rating, up from 28 percent in the October 29-November 1 poll and 29 percent in a September 27-30 poll. Additionally, the Democrats in Congress received a 40 percent approval rating in the December 6-9 poll, in contrast with "Bush's 33 percent," as the Post article noted. All three polls had a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points. Below are the approval ratings for Bush, Congress as a whole, Democrats in Congress, and Republicans in Congress in the three most recent Washington Post/ABC News polls:
|
Congress |
President Bush |
Democrats in Congress |
Republicans in Congress |
|
|
Dec. 6-9 poll |
32% |
33% |
40% |
32% |
|
Oct. 29-Nov. 1 poll |
28% |
33% |
36% |
32% |
|
Sep. 27-30 poll |
29% |
33% |
38% |
29% |
From a December 13
Washington Post article:
Asked about his decision on government funding, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) groused to the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call: "I'll tell you how soon I will make a decision when I know how soon the Senate sells us out." Senate Democrats have fired back, accusing Pelosi and her liberal allies of sending over legislation that they know cannot pass in the Senate, and of making demands that will not gain any GOP votes. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) noted that, this summer, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid [D-NV] employed just the kind of theatrics [Rep. Charles B.] Rangel [D-NY] and other House Democrats are demanding, holding the Senate open all night, pulling out cots and forcing a dusk-till-dawn debate on an Iraq war withdrawal measure before a vote on war funding. Democrats gained not a single vote after the all-night antics.
"I understand the frustration; we're frustrated, too," Bayh said. "But holding a bunch of Kabuki theater doesn't get anything done."
As they wrap up their first year in control of the entire Capitol since 1994, Democrats are trying to prove that they can be an equal partner to Bush. But their first 11 months have been politically and legislatively brutal, with congressional approval ratings dropping this week to 32 percent, a notch below Bush's 33 percent, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. Their support plummeted as the liberal base grew outraged over the Democratic inability to counter the president on any war issue, while moderates and centrists looking for bipartisan kitchen-table accomplishments instead saw partisan gridlock. The disputes have at times taken on starkly personal tones. In closed-door bicameral leadership meetings, [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi [D-CA] has questioned Reid's intentions on issues such as war funding tied to troop withdrawal timelines and an alternative minimum tax fix that is fully funded by tax increase offsets, suggesting that his words have not always matched his actions.
Reid has let his own frustration show. After Republican senators accused Pelosi of lying about her intentions on a comprehensive energy bill, the majority leader offered a backhanded defense.
"I can't control Speaker Pelosi," he said on the chamber floor. "I hope everybody understands that. She is a strong, independent woman. She runs the House with an iron hand. I support what she does, but no one needs to come and tell me I didn't keep my word."
So the public likes the Democratic Congress a skosh more than the Republicans, yet in totality they still sink below Bush's.
The focus should be on getting those numbers up, not quibbling over who is more unpopular, when they all suck.
errrr. its not quibbling. The WaPo is trying to conflate 'democrats in congress' with 'congress' in this context, which is totally inaccurate. you can see the little tweak being done here to make angle the story. lets not pretend its not there.
What MMFA is trying to pretend is not there is when people speak of the Congress and opine on their approval rating, they also know that the Democrats now run it.
So the WaPo could have been more specific, but when your mired with such lousy approval ratings, seems getting them raised would be the more important focus.
fair. in the wider context. but in the MMfA context, which is highlighting falsities and biases etc, this is well within the mission statement imo. If you think, because statistically its a relative nuance, that its not relevant, I think thats incorrect. It's not within MMfA's mission to improve congressional approval ratings.
Then why did they bother to report on it?
The Democrats have the majority of both houses of Congress but they hardly control it.
Congress can only be controlled by the majority party if they have a veto proof majority or if they have a simple majority and the presidency.
They control the agenda, they contol the committees, they control what is brought to the floor and what isn't, they should be able to control plenty - especially when the POTUS in the opposing party is so incredibly unpopular.
Unpopular yes, but still supported by most of the Republicans in the House and the Senate.
There are a few who are more independent now, but not enough to break the logjam of a presidential veto.
Hopefully their constituents will remember how their elected representatives supported the party before the country and it's citizens.
"especially when the POTUS in the opposing party is so incredibly unpopular"
His popularity, or lack of it, wields NO influence on his veto pen
So, make your case to the American people then, that shouldn't be hard since the war is also so unpopular.
But the reason they can't make their case is because they have no idea what that is, do you?
Right. As if Bush with all of his usurped executive authority has ever had to listen to the people.
Democrats do not hold a majority in the Senate. It is evenly divided 49-49 with two independents caucasing with Democrats. An equal split does not allow either side to set the agenda, especially when one of the Independents is radbidly pro-Iraq war.
Hey Tommy:
This a MEDIA WATCHDOG group, not a congressional oversight group. Thake your critique of congress somewhere else. We all know you're trying to control the agenda here.
exactly what i was attempting to point out...
Facts take an exceedingly long time to sink into Tommy's brain.
It's so unfair.
With Democrats in too small a majority to override vetoes or end filibusters, the GOP is doing all it can to make sure the Dems cannot get anything meaningful done.
By engineering a "do-nothing Democratic Congress", the GOP are supposed to be rewarded with popularity and a return to majority, but something unexpected has happened: The GOP is sinking ever lower in the polls. A record number of incumbents are now announcing they won't be running again. Of course, many others are caught up in scandals and corruption.
It seems obstructionism isn't working its magic for the GOP. They HAVE managed to stalemate the Dems for a while, but it's not going to go well for them this next election. THE PEOPLE are seeing that the Dems need that VETO-PROOF majority to actually accomplish the WILL OF THE PEOPLE (like ending the war).
Backfire.
Tommy, by a 2-1 margin Americans blame Republicans incongress for congress' inaction, according to a recent WAPO poll. Your comments please.
My comment is I could care less. Neither impress me so I am not surprised either way. When the Republicans were in charge they spent our money foolishly, and our time even more foolishly with issues like Terri Schaivo. Now the Democrats are in charge because the voting public wanted the war ended, they campaigned on it, and now they whine they can't do anything about it.
Neither party has my sympathy, although both have earned litte more.
Yeah - this is pretty much inline with the 40-0 vs. 39-1 story on Iraq resolutions covered here not too long ago. Neither is anything to be proud of.
Good job Media Matters (end sarcasim)
Good point Tommy, Americans are fed up with the current system and that includes both parties. To me I think both parties are a disgrace and Bush is as much a failure as Harry Reid and Pelosi. That is why I have hope with Obama but I worry the Hillary Machine will reduce him to nothing in a few weeks.
That may be the case, but the big problem here-- and the point of this article-- is that the media tries to make it seem that dislike of Congress means Bush is more popular. They conflate the Congressional poll ratings to make it appear that people prefer Bush a little more--like Congress vs. the President-- and that's dishonest.
SUEELD, and who are Americans more fed-up with? Democrats or Republicans?
So phony. Not even three weeks ago you spouting a bunch of nonsense about Hillary's superiority over Obama. What changed?
I think you missing something here. Those that don't approve fall into basically two categories. 1) Republicans. 2) People who think the Democrats aren't doing enough to kick republican @$$. Either way - I don't think that Congress' approval rating bodes well for the republican's. Who, with a president that suddenly remebered that he was a fiscall conservative, just as soon as it was the Democrat's writing the legislation, are basically still the party in power.
The Democrats promised to end the war, that is what they campaigned on, and what got them elected. Their either lied, shafted their voters, or are completely inept. Are you satisfied?
"Their either lied, shafted their voters, or are completely inept. Are you satisfied?"
No. Democrats have been unable to end the occupation (we can't 'end' someone else's civil war) but that doesn't mean they're either liars or inept.
You can parse words all day long, fact is the majority of voters voted for the Democrats because they were promised to get us out of Iraq......that is the truth.
The rest of my post still stands on what happened since.
There are 49 Republicans in the US Senate today. There are also 49 Democrats. The GOP have desperately tried to court both of the independents at one time or another. Lieberman is pro-Iraq war, and he practically drove the school bus down to Terry Schiavos hospice with a band full of GOPers intruding in their personal affairs. But he still won't caucus with the party brethren, probably because he can read the writing on the wall, like Lott, Frist, Hastert and a few others who couldnt stand the idea of minority status (08).
Care to comment on the Washington Post's inaccuracies?
I didn't think so.
I did, 3rd post from the top right now.
It's MMFA, not Congressional Matters for America.
ohhhh i can parse words? thanks for your permission. you suggested democrats are either inept or they're liars. My point is that its a false dichotomy, because you know as well as I do that the occupation of Iraq is more complicated than being something you can simply 'end.' Democrats can call for troop withdrawals and use congress to promote that, as they promised they would, but they can't force withdrawals on a President who will not allow them, especially amidst claims reducing funding means 'failing to support the troops.'
Then why did the Democrats run on ending the war if they knew they couldn't do it? So they didn't lie, and they aren't inept, and they didn't shaft anyone? What exactly would you call it when politicians promise something knowing full well they can't deliver?
They promised to work to end the war if they can take control of Congress. They have been working towards it and no progress has been made. What they probably underestimated was Bush's veto power, the stubborness (being "stubborn" though isn't necessarily a bad quality) of Republicans, and the probably OVERestimated the control they would actually take. Had they won every single election, we probably wouldn't be in Iraq right now. Well that's actually quite a stretch, but if they had won every single election, then there would already be plans implemented for ending the war in the near future.
Republican fillibusters in the senate and a President who will veto any military funding when a timeline for withdrawal is even proposed pretty much ends that debate, don't you think?
Yeah - and very few republicans support this, and W. has vetored every effort. So what you're calling a "lie" or a "failure" on the part of the Dem's is, in reality, merely a sign that we need MORE dem's in congress and/or one in the WH to get anything done because you people will continue to go against the will of the electorate. Say what you will, but things don't look good for the 'Pub's in '08.
Tommy, it's a shame it's taken so long for MMFA to really look at this closely. What is IRREFUTABLE is the fact that congressional republicans are dragging down the poll numbers for Congress. And doing so purposefully for purely political reasons since Dems are in control. The media is not reporting this accurately, so its a fair topic for this Website given their mission. What is also clear is that it is down right shame that they are putting politics above the wishes of the vast majority of the electorate on legislation such as stem cell research, Iraq, SCHIP, and host of other issues. It's a sad state of affairs and the media is complicit.
So the Democrat controlled Congress has such crappy poll numbers because of those pesky Republicans? Ok.
Does the reverse hold true for the Republican controlled Congress before 2006 and its low numbers, is that the Democrats fault then too?
Because by your logic, it has to be.
Whatever. Republicans are playing block and blame and you know it. The Republicans had a veto proof majority with a scorched earth White House fully in their corner.
Don't even try to pretend your argument is equal on both ends.
Good analysis, MMFA, and another example of the low standards in the Post's political reporting department. This is a constant talking point on Planet Wingnut radio.
Of course, the fundamental concept of comparing the approval ratings of Bush with the ratings of a group of over 400 individuals is completely fallacious. The appropriate comparison would be between a. the approval ratings for Bush by those who were eligible to vote for him, and b. the approval ratings for an individual member of Congree by those who were eligible to vote for him/her.
Comparing Bush's approval numbers with those of Congress would only be meaningful if Congress were heavily dominated by one party. Without that there are simply too many counteracting factors.
There are people who disapprove of Congress because they are pursuing the Democratic Party agenda. There are those who disapprove because they aren't pursuing the Democratic agenda forcefully enough. There are those who disapprove because Congress isn't supporting certain programs. There are those who disapprove because Congress is supporting certain programs. They're spending too much. They're not funding goals. They're caving in to Bush in support of the war. They're opposing Bush too much on support of the war. They're wasting their time investigating the Bush administration. They're dragging their feet on investigations and not pushing impeachment. They're not doing anything constructive on undocumented workers. They're not getting tough enough on illegal immigrants.
I could go on and on. The fact is that there are lots of people who disapprove of Congress for any one or combination of the reasons I gave and many more. In a Congress as closely balanced as this one it would be idiotic to interpret a flat disapproval number as simply being against the majority party.
On the other hand, the President's numbers are pretty directly associated with his performance. You might find some small factor of disapproval among some conservatives who don't believe he is conservative enough, but mostly it's a condemnation of his conservative policies.
Apples and oranges, folks.
Spot on, Bill.
Whew...I almost thought that Congress was doing a lousy job. Thanks for setting me straight, MMFA - those congressional poll numbers are just terrific.
(so where does an honest progressive go to get accurate info? I'm starting to think that MMFA is NOT the place. this topic is very discouraging. I mean, talk about trying to parse the language to death.)
Try firedoglake, they don't allow obvious wingnut posts to stay though. They have some good links. but so do some of the MMFA columnists.
This just in at fdl, Bain Capital, founded in 1984 by Mitt Romney, has just bought Clear Channel. Rush, Beck, and Hannity now have a new boss. Wonder what the price tag was.
If the brain dead sheeple can't figure out that Shrub is an obstructionist to Congress and most of the time their hands are tied this country is possibly past the point of fixing. We need a President that leads and gets to the common ground of most people, thats why a repug is not needed.
In addition to the problems with the article already noted by Media Matters, there is another.
While Congress has a one-point lower approval rating than bush, 32% to 33%, the article failed to mention that Congress also has a lower DISapproval rating than Bush, 60% to 64%. The reason is that 3% have no opinion on Bush, while 8% have no opinion on Congress.
If the numbers are adjusted to reflect the percentage of those who have an opinion, Congress' approval rating is better than Bush's. Congress' approval is 35% (32 out of 92), while Bush's is 34% (33 out of 97). Similarly, Congress is disapproved by 65% of those with an opinion (60 out of 92), while Bush disapproved by 66% (64 out of 97).
It is important to look at the numbers as a percentage of those who have an opinion. It would be very misleading to say that since 100% of the U.S. population has no opinion about Joe McGonagal, his approval rating must be 0. That misleading information is compounded by failing to note that McGonagal also has a disapproval rating of 0.
The actual percentage is really immaterial. Whether it is 31% or 35% or some other number means little. The bottom line is 1/3 of the Senate and 100% of the House is up for re-election. Bush is not. Lets hope they can all do something (anything?) to raise their approval ratings in 2008 otherwise kick the bums out.
I am disappointed with the Democrats and I'm one. I understand that they don't have a majority to move legislation WITHOUT help from the Republicans but I want them front and center each and every night pointing out the things they want to do and who is stopping them. Perception is the key and for Democrats is appears that while they hold a majority they are not doing anything. Nightly news and cable keep repeating that they have the majority but they failed to note that in order to actually pass legislation they MUST have Republican support. I want Harry Reed, Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emmanuelle to state each and every night how they have majority numbers but they need Republican support. I want them to let the public know that Republicans care much more about party loyalty than passing legislation. Use the same tactics that Republicans have been using for the last 7 years.
Democrats do not have a majority AT ALL in the US Senate. But because the two independents both caucus with the Democrats, Reid is Senate Majority Leader...again, with two non-Democratic votes.
Perhaps you could help us out by identifying how many actual times Sanders and Liebermann have voted with the Republicans, and obstructed Democrat sponsored legislation.
Perhaps you could tell me which group of 49 representatives holds the majority?
How many Democrats are there in the United States Senate? pssst...thats a rhetorical question.
I guess your non-answer means the two Independents I mentioned must have voted consistently with the Democrats, which makes your 49-49 point just a numbers irrelevancy.
Dems control the Senate.
It's not as though all of the Democrats in Congress march in lockstep. On any given issue you're always going to find some who oppose the majority of the party. That was also the case when the Republicans controlled Congress, but they had a significantly larger majority and the rebels had less influence. It's naive to believe that simply holding a slim majority represents absolute control.
With any luck, the Democrats will hold a similarly strong position after the next elections.
It's easy for some to forget that Sanders is a socialist. It's quite simple to really to garner who he votes with. Let us also not forget the liberal record Lieberman ran on during the 2000 election. He is pro Iraq war, but has been by and large a Democratic vote that can be counted on. It's not as if LIeberman is some rabid conservative in independent clothing, if that was the case then what the hell did Gore choose him for?
Thank you Chris, another dead on post.
As one of Joe's former constituents, and former supporters, other than his votes on the war, he's always been well liked by the people of CT.
But lately with a lot of his stands on conservative issues, he has little support.
He was returned to the senate as an independent due to the Republican Party supporting and working for him and not for their own candidate, Alan Schlesinger.
Easy, Sanders votes Democratic and Lieberman votes Republican so they don't have the numbers but how many people really know that?.
I remember seeing Delay, Frist and the rest of those guys almost each and every night. They weren't saying much but the perception was they were working hard and doing the people's business. That's what reporters were saying even though it wasn't true. Democrats have allowed the perception that they have a majority that can actually pass legislation and they need to put the actual truth front and center.
Show us where Lieberman votes GOP most of the time.
IRAQ WAR
I just named two issues...the war and terry schiavo. so one of the independents is rabidly pro-war (Iraq and Iran) who was also rabidly pro-Bill Frists videotape diagnosis of schiavo. Lieberman crossed over both times. That's why he's not a Democrat.
Approval ratings in Congress would be a lot more worthwhile if ppl could just name their congressional reps, which many cannot do. There are 49 Democrats in the US Senate, Tommy, and that's a fact that's got you in a stranglehold. There are also 49 Republicans. Any tie brings the Cheney into the voting. 49 Democrats do not control the Senate.
So was JFK a Democrat since he failed to adhere to your seemingly rabid ideology? What about other Democrats who have supported issues you are opposed to? Talk about kicking the definition of Liberal, your closeminded approach does just that.
Is JFK pro-Iraq war and pro-Iran war? Did he rush to create a national issue over a very private family matter in Florida?
Lieberman did.
Next election you can blame as many as 59 Democrats in the Senate. But today, you can only blame 49. I blame 49 GOPers.
Don't forget that in the Senate, the minority party has the power of the filibuster, which the republicans have used to obstruct legislation brought forth by the democrats time and time again since the democrats took the slim majority in the Senate. But do we ever hear about how the republicans are being obstructionist in their filibusters like we heard so much about the democrats filibustering a few judge candidates? Nope. All we hear from the republicans, and hence the media, is how the democrats don't have any ideas, and get anything done, which is complete and utter BS.
The House has passed a lot of the legislative priorities that the democrats promised, only to get stalled in the Senate, and then discarded because the Senate can't break the filibuster because they don't have 60 votes to close debate on an issue, or legislation being proposed.
To say that the democrats aren't doing anything is total BS, as mentioned above, and well, it's just wrong. With a highly obstructionist bitterly partisan republican side of the Senate, and W finally finding out where he hid his veto pen for the first 6 years of his presidency, and without a "super majority" in Congress, yes, the democrats are having a hard time getting things done. Not to mention, everytime they actually do accomplish something, they get called terrorist supporters, anti-American, non-Patriotic, and non supporters of the military by the President and his cronies, but never you mind those little pieces of information. Keep believing that the democrats aren't doing anything, but it's just not true.
To say that the democrats aren't doing anything is total BS
Mag, I didn't say that they weren't doing anything they are not making their case publicly. News media portrays Reed and Pelosi and the Dems as weak and always"caving in" to Junior even with his low approval rating.
Here is a paragraph from MSNBC article:
As with many of Bush's battles with the Democratic-led Senate, the president may ultimately prevail since his fellow Republicans may be able to block the citations with a procedural hurdle.
It's not true but until the Dems stuff this untruth down the throats of reporters they will continue to report it. Reporters should be noting how the Republicans operate, voting always to follow Junior, even with a 30% approval rating and 60% of the country thinking we're headed in the wrong way but they don't, they focus on the lie about a Democratic controlled congress. We have to start to force the truth to be heard and IMO, we simply aren't doing that.
PEARL:
Isn't it AMAZING how closely the "Liberal Media" adheres to all Republican talking points? If we didn't know better, I'd swear the Media across the board is doing the bidding of the rightwing, carrying their water, acting as echo chamber for their every narrative.
I just can't understand why a LIBERAL MEDIA would so consistently, day after day, act as if they are a paid political arm of the RNC.
Oh, and on the subject.
Congressional approvals, to my knowledge, have never been all that great, or all that high. I don't ever remember seeing one that was above 50%, but I haven't been a political junkie for all that long, so I'm not saying it's impossible, or hasn't happened I just haven't seen it personally.
Counter that with the approval ratings for each different representative or Senator from their home districts. All in all, it's generally a case of "my guy/gal is doing great, and yours stinks."
The President on the other hand represents us all. So a low approval rating for the President, is much more damning than a low approval rating for the ENTIRE Congress.
Maybe I wasn't as focused as I could have been, to those who believe my posts arent related to the Post's misinformation.
I think it's directly related to point out that any congressional disapproval supposedly directed at Democrats has to be balanced by the fact that there are an equal amount of Republicans in one of the congressional bodies.
So why wouldn't any negativity in the Senate be applied to the 49 Repubs as opposed to the 49 Democrats? I think it's an important point.
Magnolia your so sharp! I agree with most of your post, I would add the Republicans hyprocrisy concerning this filabuster issue by highlighting their position when they were the majority party in power by calling the use of the filabuster as unconstitutional and branding it "un-American" and threatening to outlaw it altogether by using the "nuclear" option! Remember that! Tables turned now thry reflexively block anything that comes to the floor,refusing to allow an up or down vote. My only disagreement though is that if 60 votes are needed in the Senate to pass anything then hoow come Michael Mukassey was approveed as A.G. with just 53 votes? I think the Democrats should make it clear for all to see who it is exactly that is obstructing the peoples will.
So What?
Why on earth would they have tanked all the way down in approval to the goon squad?
Could it possibly be their failure to get those creeps out of there?
Those polls were Dec 6-9 today the congress is the lowest in history of 19% The Democrats gave us a change alright they made things worse than the republicans. Nancy and Harry have made us look stupid haven't they. We can blame it on the Reps all we want but we have control of the House and Senate and it is manipulation by the majority leaders that make it work. That is of course if they are good. Go figure. The war is getting better and we look completely foolish. Soozy
If I had to guess, I'd say you were an Iraqi Shia? Cuz that's the side that its getting better for, right?
Really, if you are an american, it's hard for me to imagine how the war could get better when americans are dying to install an Iraqi theocracy. I am an american...I don't think its a good idea for our soldiers to fight and die for an iraqi theocracy. Al Queda and the Shia think the war is getting better.
Another question for Tommy. Why are Americans willing to vote Democratic in the congressional elections in 2008 according to all polls on the subject? Please analyze why your party is in such a disastrous condition.