Carville: Outlook Bleak for Democrats

[rushmc 23]

The poll is not that surprising. The organizer and commenter on the poll, Mr Carville, can hardly be said to have a conservative bias. What I do find interesting is there is only one on line news org reporting it (for now anyway). NewsMax. NewsMax and a few bloggers.

Oh, and by the way, I dont buy it.

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Carville-Outlook-Bleak-Democrats/2010/04/02/id/354625

Quote

Friday, 02 Apr 2010 01:32 PM


By: Theodore Kettle

A new wide-ranging poll from the architect of Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign finds layer upon layer of bad news for Democrats this election year.

James Carville’s Democracy Corps and Tulane University paired up to sponsor a survey of just over 1,000 voters, conducted by Greenberg-Quinlan-Rosner March 15-to-18. The poll found that over a year into his presidency, Barack Obama “continues to get mixed reviews on his economic policies; just as many see them averting a crisis as see them adding to the deficit without creating jobs.”

It also discovered that “voters are wary of raising taxes, even if the revenue raised goes to something they deem important, like paying down the deficit.” “Important” is an understatement: a momentous majority – more than nine in 10 voters – considered the budget deficit “either a crisis or a major problem.”

Yet a majority of 51 percent opposed raising taxes to reduce the deficit, with only 43 percent saying the country might have to raise taxes. Such concern for the deficit while at the same time opposing higher taxes indicates that the public has identified the big problem to be over-spending.

“When asked as a forced choice,” Carville’s poll says, “voters overwhelmingly pick spending cuts over tax increases as the most effective way to reduce the deficit (71 to 18 percent).”

More bad news for Democrats in the poll was the answer to the question of what caused the deficit. Just 9 percent blame the Bush tax cuts. Far more blame Democratic policies like the stimulus (20 percent) and the bank and auto industry federal bailouts (blamed by 17 percent). Consequently, voters trust Republicans more to handle the budget deficit by 44 to 31 percent – “the largest gap they’ve held on the budget deficit since Democracy Corps started asking this question nearly two years ago.”

On government spending, not surprisingly, Republicans were preferred to Democrats by 43 to 32 percent.

Asked by U.S. News for his advice for Democratic candidates this year, Carville’s made the desperate prospects clear by recommending “a couple of novenas.” Even if Democrats “boost their voter intensity” and other things go right for them, the midterm election losses for the party this year would still be at least six Senate seats and 25 House districts, according to Carville.

Carville’s partner in Democracy Corps, Stanley B. Greenberg, who was pollster for President Clinton, attended a Christian Science Monitor breakfast along with Carville on Wednesday. Greenberg noted that President Obama’s boast in the State of the Union that “our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt” was deplored by swing voters.

“The dial meters went through the floor,” according to Greenberg, who arranged a focus group to watch the speech in January. “People hate it. They think it is arrogant. It means you are not in touch with their experience.”

Greenberg also pointed to the Democrats’ big problems with white blue collar males. He warned that “as the elites try to make the case that this thing is coming back and the economic policies work, they are going to be angrier and angrier about the elites not getting what is happening to them.”

Carville and Greenberg believe the message of the President and congressional candidates can be adjusted to improve Democrats’ electoral chances; their own poll suggests the problem is policies – specifically unprecedented spending and taxes.

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

And then there is this CBS poll reported on NewsMax

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/barack-obama-cbs-poll/2010/04/02/id/354651

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

W/o researching all the data, I did read thru it, but w/o impeaching it, let's say it's legit, WHAT OPTION DO THE VOTERS HAVE THIS NOV AND IN 2012; THE REPUBLICANS?

So this is a good news / bad news situaation for R's. The party that got us into the housing mess, the mortgage scandals, hyperinflation, Iraq / AFG Wars, etc. What are teh options; the party that got us in or the one that's getting us out? Most politics are a least bad scenario rather than a best good scenario. Altho I love the Obama Admin, I realize most people don't keep abreast to data like:

- Unemp
- GDP
- Stock Market
- US Dollar vs other currencies
- etc (both current and historical)

Also, as for Carville, he may be acting humble in order not to seem too brash and overconfident. But it would be unusual if the Dems don't lose seats in a vacuum sense. I think voters are more likely to elect/retain Dems than R's, but it pretty much boils down to jobs; the admin needs to get us to 8.5% tops, preferably <7% and it's a lock. So far the timing is working well, but it could pop. Remember GHWB's 90% popularity right after the Gulf War? It fell to shit, so could Obama's.

The job for the right is also precarious, they have to try to sabotage the US, LITTERALLY, but act as tho they want the best for us. They have to quietly sob if teh US gets into trouble, yet cheer inside and not let on. It really comes down to jobs, as everything else is well on ots way to recovery. Even if teh Dems take hits/loses, they still have 2012 to focus on for Obama's reelection, so all is not lost even if we lose seats in Nov 2010.

Hopefully, if Obama wins in 2012 and will, of course fix things as Clinton did, the voters won't doa 2000 election and forget the horrible Republican years. Of course teh majority did vote for Gore in 2000, it shouldn't have been close.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

W/o researching all the data, I did read thru it, but w/o impeaching it, let's say it's legit, WHAT OPTION DO THE VOTERS HAVE THIS NOV AND IN 2012; THE REPUBLICANS?

it's been the lesser of 2 evils for as long as I can remember. why should that change now?

***
Hopefully, if Obama wins in 2012 and will, of course fix things as Clinton did, the voters won't doa 2000 election and forget the horrible Republican years. Of course teh majority did vote for Gore in 2000, it shouldn't have been close.

ah yes... the majority of the popular vote... if only we were a democracy. but we're not.

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

it's been the lesser of 2 evils for as long as I can remember. why should that change now?

Right, so that means the Dems aren't looking so bad.

Quote

ah yes... the majority of the popular vote... if only we were a democracy. but we're not.

We are, at least our system of election works that way. Of course enter thej electoral college and we're a bastardized democracy. Here come the representative Republic fanatics. We elect our representatives in a quasi- democratic way.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

it's been the lesser of 2 evils for as long as I can remember. why should that change now?

Right, so that means the Dems aren't looking so bad.

There you go again assuming you know what I think.

Remember what Benny Hill said what happens when you assume? It makes as ass out of u and me. (just the way it's spelled)

Quote

***
ah yes... the majority of the popular vote... if only we were a democracy. but we're not.

We are, at least our system of election works that way. Of course enter thej electoral college and we're a bastardized democracy. Here come the representative Republic fanatics. We elect our representatives in a quasi- democratic way.

ah... so you DO know how it works. So you also know that the national popular vote means crap-all. Anything beyond that is noise.

--
Rob

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

We elect our representatives in a quasi- democratic way.

Which has nothing to do with the form of government - but thanks for playing.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[tkhayes 348]

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_106/ma_congressional_relations/44307-1.html

touche.....

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

You're right. To my chagrin, I agree with the article y'all linked. The Democratic party's constituency is growing. Why is it socialism looks so good to them?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You're right. To my chagrin, I agree with the article y'all linked. The Democratic party's constituency is growing. Why is it socialism looks so good to them?

Control.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

Quote

Quote

You're right. To my chagrin, I agree with the article y'all linked. The Democratic party's constituency is growing. Why is it socialism looks so good to them?

Control.

Agree... sort of.

To the constituency of the Democrats, no. They wouldn't be in control.

To the leadership of the Democrats, yes. They're all over this because of the control they seek.

They've passed forced "Health Care". Not sure what the order will be, but next will be things like "Imagration Reform" (read: amnisty) and "Gun Control", to garner them support and soldify the control they seek.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

We elect our representatives in a quasi- democratic way.

Which has nothing to do with the form of government - but thanks for playing.

The process in which we elect the people who control the government has nothing to do with the form of gov we have?

Sure and if a country is a Monarchy that has nothing to do with their form of gov either, right? Welcome to reality.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

You're right. To my chagrin, I agree with the article y'all linked. The Democratic party's constituency is growing. Why is it socialism looks so good to them?

Control.

Or that fascist Capitalism has taken a shit, every time we get more Capitalistic we get more in debt; more Socialistic, more toward being of less debt. Right, Mikey, it's a grand conspiracy.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're right. To my chagrin, I agree with the article y'all linked. The Democratic party's constituency is growing. Why is it socialism looks so good to them?

Control.

Agree... sort of.

To the constituency of the Democrats, no. They wouldn't be in control.

To the leadership of the Democrats, yes. They're all over this because of the control they seek.

They've passed forced "Health Care". Not sure what the order will be, but next will be things like "Imagration Reform" (read: amnisty) and "Gun Control", to garner them support and soldify the control they seek.

So Reagan's amnesty was about control too, then. I guess "forced" HC was preceded by "forced" tax cuts, my friends and all the many, many times the R's used reconcilliation was a product of being, "FORCED" unless this is a 1-way street.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're right. To my chagrin, I agree with the article y'all linked. The Democratic party's constituency is growing. Why is it socialism looks so good to them?

Control.

Agree... sort of.

To the constituency of the Democrats, no. They wouldn't be in control.

To the leadership of the Democrats, yes. They're all over this because of the control they seek.

They've passed forced "Health Care". Not sure what the order will be, but next will be things like "Imagration Reform" (read: amnisty) and "Gun Control", to garner them support and soldify the control they seek.

Agreed - I was speaking to the leadership and not the constituency.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We elect our representatives in a quasi- democratic way.

Which has nothing to do with the form of government - but thanks for playing.

The process in which we elect the people who control the government has nothing to do with the form of gov we have?

Sure and if a country is a Monarchy that has nothing to do with their form of gov either, right? Welcome to reality.

It's ok, lucky - we don't expect you to understand stuff like this.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

Lucky,

However we feel about Regan, he's dead. Let's stop invoking "Reagan".



Yeah, I kinda like "tax cuts", "fewer government hand-outs", "less government bureaucracy", "no amnesty for ILLEGAL immigrants", "fewer social welfare programs", "people standing on their own two feet", "I'm not particularly pro-abortion, but not so much so that I think it should be illegal" and much more politically. I also like guns, big boobs and big cars, but that's a different thread. Anyway, does all of the a fore jive with everything either party says and does? No. Do I know that? Yes.

Just because I'm pro-Republican party doesn't mean I like everything they do or push. But I do think they're fucking up this country less than what the Democrats are. An emphatic, YES!

Do I think this:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

... is a truism? A double emphatic YES!

Do I think that's the way the U.S. has been going since the 60s? A triple emphatic YES!

Do I expect you to disagree with and belittle me more... I expect nothing less.

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

OBTW Lucky. I'm not sure how old you are or if you are or aren't a citizen of the U.S., I've cared not to keep track.

But I'm in my 40s and I am a citizen of the U.S. My generation is going to take the hit for the previously largest social welfare program ever enacted in this country. Social Security.

If you're in your 20s and live in the U.S., your generation is going to take the hit for the now biggest social welfare program ever enacted. Health Care. Those of you that voted for "Obama's Change", should be thinking about that one really hard. Hope you don't like the idea of keeping what y'all earn for you and yours, but would rather turn it over to the government to "redistribute" to those who can't be bothered to earn their own way.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Why is it socialism looks so good to them?

By 'them' do you mean the party or the people?

The Democratic party does not have control over its own 'control'. Control freaks or not, the PEOPLE elect them and the 'people' them are tired of capitalism, they are tired of the 'american dream' that it will all work out for them just like it did for Bill Gates or Howard Hughes....

What they want is a government and a country that looks after AMERICANS as a people.

And for that reason primarily, people will tolerate and accept more government 'control' as long as the programs that are being put into place are steered towards the 'general welfare of the people' not for the wealth and benefit of the few and the corporations.

Very very simple. Health Care, Education, Food and jobs - that is what people want right now.

Less corporate taxes, bail-outs, wars and cut-throat reductions in services they DO NOT want.

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

Quote

By 'them' do you mean the party or the people?

By "them" I mean the people.

Quote

The Democratic party does not have control over its own 'control'. Control freaks or not, the PEOPLE elect them and the 'people' them are tired of capitalism, they are tired of the 'american dream' that it will all work out for them just like it did for Bill Gates or Howard Hughes....

What they want is a government and a country that looks after AMERICANS as a people.

And for that reason primarily, people will tolerate and accept more government 'control' as long as the programs that are being put into place are steered towards the 'general welfare of the people' not for the wealth and benefit of the few and the corporations.

Very very simple. Health Care, Education, Food and jobs - that is what people want right now.

Less corporate taxes, bail-outs, wars and cut-throat reductions in services they DO NOT want.

Generally speaking, I don't disagree with what you're saying. I just find it sad that for what ever reason the general populace in the U.S. would rather elect a government that "provides" the general welfare rather than "promotes" it.

I do disagree that that "big business" and successful people that have amassed a large sum of wealth, like Bill Gates (or from the past) Howard Hughes, are inherently the "Boogeyman", but it suits the Democratic party's agenda for their constituency to think so. That somehow they've been jipped out their share of "free money" by the wealthy. It garners them votes, which gets them public office, which gets them power, which gets them control. Of course, the same can be said of both parties, one way or the other.

You're right about the American Dream. Most folks today don't want to work for it. They want it handed to them.

[tkhayes 348]

I disagree that people do not want to work for the American dream. But for so many the dream in non-existent and not even possible. We have decimated the middle class, lowered wages , removed practically all foreign tariffs, all in the name of big business.

This does nothing to 'promote' nor does it 'provide' for the welfare of the people. The guy who works at Wal-mart has NO CHANCE of achieving the American Dream, he cannot afford it and is working hand-to-mouth and we promote it. because we all want WalMart and low prices. Get a better job you say, go to school, whatever.

But we cannot all be upper management executives. The world needs janitors too. My point is that we need to provide for the janitors because we need them as well. Society is a mix of people all doing various things to make it all work. All the pieces fit together. Does paying minimum wage and making me rich mean that the people that work for me are more worthless in their lives because they choose to do so?

Taxes are what funds society. period. Name your standard of living, divide it by the population and you get what needs to be paid in TAXES.

It is so fucking simple it makes me sick that the obvious cannot be implemented.

Now what is the 'minimum' for the government to provide? IMO, education, food and healthcare. A great investment in our people. Lowering corporate taxes so people can get jobs? That is one solution we have been doing for 30-40 years now......

Does it appear to be working to you? Sure does not to me.......

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Not sure what the order will be, but next will be things like "Imagration Reform" (read: amnisty) and "Gun Control", to garner them support and soldify the control they seek.

I think we might see a stab at amnesty or some other immigration reform towards the end of this term to get the "look what I did" sound bites... I don't know that there would be any gun control try until a possible second term. Even then, There's so much "do what's good for the party, to keep the party in control" as opposed to "do what you believe is right" that I think any gun control ramp-up would be put down by the Dem Party leaders.

--
Rob

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

Really? Have you heard what Pelosi has said about gun control?

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Very very simple. Health Care, Education, Food and jobs - that is what people want right now.

Simple to say, sure. Aside from the fact it can't be paid for, implemented, or sustained. The people writing and voting on the bill don't even understand it. The problem is that dems don't understand health care, education, food, and jobs don't just appear out of thin air when you sign a piece of paper in Washington.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Very very simple. Health Care, Education, Food and jobs - that is what people want right now.

Less corporate taxes, bail-outs, wars and cut-throat reductions in services they DO NOT want.

You know, you'd think so. The "bread" part of "bread and circuses". But I think people are more interested in "circuses". You know- gay marriage, flag burning, the war on the Christian minority in the US, the war on scary Muslims and other turrurists, and being a faithful soldier in the American religion against the blasphemy of Demon Socialism. Oh, and guns are in there somewhere.

[tkhayes 348]

It actually can be paid for - very simply as well. reduce the cost of the military. We cannot afford two wars. Something that is also so fucking painfully obvious that it amazes me how we continue on that beaten path.

dozens of other 'modern progressive economically sound well-developed' countries around the world are already doing it.

We could learn a few things from them.....