WSJ/NBC Poll
Fascinating couple of data points on some recent polling on the President, Congress and the political parties:
"In the Journal/NBC poll, approval of Mr. Bush's job performance inched up to 39% from 37% last month, but a 56% majority disapproves of the president's job performance. Congress fares even worse, with 25% approval and 60% disapproval. The telephone survey of 1,010 adults, conducted July 21 to 24, has a margin for error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
More threatening to Congress's Republican majority is the public's desire for a change in direction. By 48% to 38%, voters say they prefer that Democrats win control of Congress this fall; by identical proportions, voters say it is time to "give a new person a chance" in Congress. By 38% to 21%, they say their vote will register opposition to Mr. Bush rather than support.
Underlying those sentiments is a public mood that Mr. Hart labels "as...depressing as I can remember" in more than three decades of polling. By 60% to 27%, Americans say their nation is headed "off on the wrong track" rather than "in the right direction."
John Harwood says both Republicans and Democrats received low approval ratings in the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.That stems largely from the Iraq war. Amid sectarian violence that in recent days has caused American and Iraqi officials to shift security strategy, 58% of Americans call themselves "less confident" that the war will end successfully; 32% say they are "more confident." Though Americans say stabilizing Iraq should be Mr. Bush's top foreign-policy priority, just 34% approve of his handling of the matter.
Approval of Mr. Bush's handling of the economy edged up to 41% from 38% in June. Yet by 38% to 14%, Americans expect the economy to get worse rather than better in the next year; 45% say it will stay the same. More than seven in 10 Americans across all income groups say they are "uneasy" about the economy, with 65% predicting "life for our children's generation" won't be better than today."
Interesting take on the public sentiment.
Fascinating stuff . . .
>
Source:
Both Parties Post Low Approval Ratings in Poll
Iraq, Economy Top Worries As Public Disenchantment With Lawmakers Persists
JOHN HARWOOD
July 27, 2006; Page A4
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115394837951418255.html
Thursday, July 27, 2006 | 06:12 PM | Permalink
| Comments (50)
| TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00d834dbb63f69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WSJ/NBC Poll :
Comments
Underlying those sentiments is a public mood that Mr. Hart labels "as...depressing as I can remember" in more than three decades of polling. By 60% to 27%, Americans say their nation is headed "off on the wrong track" rather than "in the right direction."
I hate this question. I voted for Bush, but I would be lumped in with the 60% who think the nation is headed in the wrong direction. Not that I regret my vote at all (Kerry should have been hanged in 1971 for treason for his trip to Paris), but the right/wrong track doesn't measure accurately my sentiment that President Bush and Congress aren't conservative enough in their policies.
Posted by: DH | Jul 27, 2006 6:32:29 PM
yeah, really, DH, that's what i call real conservatism: hanging john kerry for being correct about the war in vietnam. pathetic.
as a serious matter, if you look at presidential approval by party affiliation, you'll discover that the "he's not conservative enough" critique in the sense you mean it (as opposed to the sense that bill buckley meant it a couple of days ago) is a very small body of opinion: otherwise, there'd be a lot more republicans bailing on bush.
meanwhile, barry, this is how people feel with a still-strong housing market, adequately good economic growth, and dow 11,000: imagine if (when) those go south....
Posted by: howard | Jul 27, 2006 7:08:21 PM
I just hope the net result of dissention on the Iraq issue does not lead to more douche bags like the councilman from Chicago that was on Kudlow tonight. The last thing we need is move towards socialism and retarded economic policy.
Posted by: ML | Jul 27, 2006 7:18:40 PM
---
The last thing we need is move towards socialism
---
Socialism? You mean government operating to maximize the public good?
And doesn't the military provide a service in pursuit of the public good? Courts too, it would seem.
Which makes the military and court system socialist, I guess. And any party that supports the military and courts would be socialist as well.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | Jul 27, 2006 7:26:22 PM
How do you equate justice and defense with socialism? No one would argue that a capitalist system requires the rule of law and freedom.
No, socialism is the Chicago City Council mandating a minimum wage that is almost double the national statute for a handful of employers. Chicago politicians obviously do not believe in free markets. They believe in mama government, economic stagnation, and high unemployment.
Posted by: ML | Jul 27, 2006 7:35:02 PM
---
How do you equate justice and defense with socialism?
---
Conservatives have this habit of labeling anything they don't want the government to do 'socialist'.
Maybe you could provide your favorite definition of socialist so I know what you mean.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | Jul 27, 2006 7:45:10 PM
I'm eager to see how the Chicago big box law works out. One official in favor of it said it would not keep the stores out of the city because those stores are saturated in most markets and they need to enter urban markets to keep growing (as wall st demands). Interesting take.
Of course, the incremental pay that floor workers will get could easily be offset if top execs weren't payed so excessively. Damn "mama directors".
Regardless, Chicago just did what should be done at the federal level: increase the minimum wage.
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=361
Posted by: 23 | Jul 27, 2006 7:55:52 PM
our government is a corrupt group of cronyists all feeding off the big business trough that feeds them. they're long ago stopped supporting the citizens of this country in favor of power and one upsmanship. sad indeed.
Posted by: Richard | Jul 27, 2006 8:09:44 PM
hmm. Speaking out against an unpopular war -- treason, punishable by hanging. Outing an active CIA officer -- the pinnicle of patriotism, I presume? worthy of the Presidential Medal of Freedom? Gosh, this compassionate conservatism thing is really tough to swallow.
Posted by: noname | Jul 27, 2006 8:11:36 PM
I know, Barry, that you heart is in the right place but just for the record:
There's no point in preaching to the choir. The choir may be too polite to complain, but they don't like it -- the just want to sing, get a few mild compliments, go home and watch the game.
People who care enough to not hang up on pollsters are unhappy with (yawn) the President and (yawn) Congress, and (yawn) the "war." More (yawn) than (yawn) ever. Out with the old bastards, (yawn) in with (yawn) the new bastards.
Yawn. If typing "(yawn)" wasn't so strenuous, I'd be asleep by now.
Don't care. Wake me when I can sell my TIE way deep in the money way out there calls for a huge profit.
"Chicago big box law"?
Jim B.
Posted by: Jim Bergsten | Jul 27, 2006 8:14:04 PM
What we should be focusing on is how these sentiment polls could affect Wall St. which does not want to see the Democrats take back the house.
Posted by: Craig H | Jul 27, 2006 8:28:28 PM
Speaking out against an unpopular war
Ok noname, that's what I said, and not for his meeting with the enemy in Paris .....{/sarcasm}
Link for those who don't want to Google it for themselves
Posted by: DH | Jul 27, 2006 8:32:55 PM
Dems in office = Higher minimum wage, roll back of cap gains and dividend tax cuts and increase in income taxes for higher wage earners. Regardless of affiliation, someone try to explain to me how these mechanisms are good for business.
I can't remember if I saw this quote on this board or not, but it bears repeating. The story is of a blue collar worker making a very modest living. Asked if he was in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy, he responded: "Hell no." Why not he was asked. "Because no poor man has ever offered me a job."
Posted by: ML | Jul 27, 2006 8:50:39 PM
ML writes: "No one would argue that a capitalist system requires the rule of law and freedom."
The Chinese would. They've demonstrated that you can have a booming capitalist system in which you're only as free as the government says you can be, and the rule of law is decidedly shaky.
I frankly think the US is headed in that direction.
Posted by: Jon H | Jul 27, 2006 9:11:26 PM
"you think things are bad now, God forbid if the Dems/sh!tfux win the house in November."
Yeah, god forbid we ditch the imbecile-in-chief and go back to the sensible policies, booming business environment, good economy, and budget surpluses of the 90s. God, that sucked.
Posted by: Jon H | Jul 27, 2006 9:12:53 PM
---
"Because no poor man has ever offered me a job."
---
You know those government guys who collect the taxes?
They *hire* people. Lots of 'em during the Bush II administration.
Check the BLS stats some time.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | Jul 27, 2006 9:18:16 PM
I guess I should have known better than to post something political only 4 months before a mid-term election . . .
As to the markets, historically, the best returns are out of divided government (Pres/Congress) Reagan/Dems, Clinton/GOP, Eisenhower/Dems
Centrist policies with Paygo is ideal for markets
Posted by: Barry Ritholtz | Jul 27, 2006 9:29:51 PM
---
Those were phony numbers were the LUs/ENEs/WCOMs...and it led to 23 straight months of over 400,000 in the unemployment lines.
---
If Bush had those numbers you guys would have his face on the dollar bill and Mt. Rushmore.
The slow ramp up from recession was exacerbated by Bush's stimulus program which was built on the notion of cash for the top .1% and cheap debt for everyone else.
And that debt overhang is going to make the Bush recession much longer and more painful than the last one.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | Jul 27, 2006 9:37:00 PM
does "65% predicting "life for our children's generation" won't be better than today." strike anyone else as a ghoulish kind of schadenfruede?
How many of those folks voted for the s.o.b.?
And, yes, any withering of our kids prospects are DIRECTLY tied to the econ policies of this heckuvajob administration.....
Posted by: brion | Jul 27, 2006 9:39:57 PM
---
I guess I should have known better than to post something political only 4 months before a mid-term election . . .
---
Yeah, you naively thought that just providing the data with no personal comment would allow you to escape a flame war.
You must be new to the internets thing.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | Jul 27, 2006 9:42:25 PM
---
"65% predicting "life for our children's generation" won't be better than today."
---
Bush has a plan for that; make 'today' so hellish that there's nowhere to go but up.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | Jul 27, 2006 9:47:21 PM
Conservative slogans never balanced a budget.
It takes taxes to run a government, and it takes honest patriotism to realise this.
Today those in power, the codpiece conservatives, the chickenhawks, and those who support them, the fighting keyboarders and the wingnutteries rhetorical warriers all bloviate about the need for a stronger military. But they are silent about the need to raise taxes to pay for it.
But that is just one example. of the fecklessness of those in charge. A distain for science, a fetish for Armegennon, along with corruption, graft, and mendacity are all prominately on display as if to challenge the the fates to set things right.
Is all this good for the economy? I don't think so. Never before in human history has a society as unbalanced as ours is today escaped its foolishness without the invisible hard hand stricking it down. Hard.
Posted by: ken | Jul 27, 2006 9:50:25 PM
After reading all the comments two things come to mind.
1) Websters Definition of socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Key word I noticed is "owned"
2) Is the polls reflect reality or what people percieve? Does it come down to are you better off now than you where 4 years ago. I'd say if you were the top 2% you would say yes, the rest might have a different opinion.
My 2 cents.
Posted by: mDave | Jul 27, 2006 9:51:31 PM
Higher min wage would result in more retail spending. At the margin, a poor person is much more likely to spend extra income than a wealthy person. Fact. Given that retail makes our economy go round...you do the math.
You say a dem agenda is bad for business. Tell me how a republican congress and president running enormous deficits, handing out pork like candy on halloween, and dumping $300B on a bullshit war that creates more terrorists than it kills and adds $20/bbl to the price of oil is good for business. Good for GD, HAL, UTX, and XOM's business maybe. For the rest of us...umm not so much. It's like maxing out the credit card for a 3 day bender in Vegas. Only problem is the cc bill eventually comes due, the coke makes you paranoid, and you have to figure out how to get rid of the dead hookers.
But what do you expect from the same assclowns who still peddle the bullshit line "but,but, but the tax cuts pay for themself!" Laffer indeed...or I should say laugher.
Posted by: Alaskan Pete | Jul 27, 2006 10:02:07 PM
---
Key word I noticed is "owned"
---
Bingo.
Wage regulations are not 'socialism' any more than banking regulations are 'socialism'.
Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | Jul 27, 2006 10:04:20 PM
