Congress Approval Rating: 16%

well can you blame them when they get vetoed by the president anytime he feels jesus would cry about or gets blocked by republicans that vote along their party lines.
 
HOLY CRAP! YOU'RE SO TOTALLY RIGHT! EVERYONE HATES CONGRESS MORE THAN THE PRESIDENT; THAT MEANS DEMOCRATS ARE SOMEHOW BAD!

'scuse me: what about trend lines?

Oh, you mean these?

APcong.GIF

NWKpres.GIF


:whistle2:$

http://www.pollingreport.com/national.htm
 
Myke, with massive super combo of non-sequitur, misreading the original post, and RUNNING WITH THOSE IMAGINARY GOALPOSTS to another imaginary endzone!

Damn man. Sometimes an elaborate leadup to a personal attack is JUST an elaborate leadup to a personal attack.
 
The thing about Congress is that just about everyone hates them most of the time, yet they like their own congressman. That's why Congress consistently gets terrible poll numbers and incumbents get reelected at 98% clips all the time. Although you would be correct to point out that the numbers are even worse now than they were when voters kicked out the Republican majority last fall, perhaps indicating displeasure with Democrats' war posturing (both Right and Left on this one), extreme hypocrisy on the #1 issue last fall (ethics), or both.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']1: How exactly did Myke shift the goalposts on this one?[/QUOTE]

Methinks I moved them into 'context' or 'relevance.' My mistake. :lol:
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Methinks he was simply expecting you to read and follow the description of this forum. Just look up. Second sentence. Starts with "This is a place for mature..."

I know most of us do a piss-poor job of it, but this is taking it to a new level of dinkishness.[/quote]

Selective enforcement is hardly convincing enforcement, and you know it, Crotchy. You don't get to bitch me out and not evanft or cheese simply because I am the only contrarian in the echo chamber.
 
How would you rate the way Congress is doing its job?
Excellent - 2%
Good - 14%
Fair - 35%
Poor - 46%
Click to expand...

"Fair" is not a negative, making congress' positive rating 51%, you dolt.
 
[quote name='Cheese']"Fair" is not a negative, making congress' positive rating 51%, you dolt.[/QUOTE]

By most accounts, with a 4-scale measure, 'fair' is included below the halfway point. The way these questions are asked are as follows: "How would you characterize the way the current Congress is handling their job? Would you say 'excellent,' 'good,' 'fair, or 'poor'?

The way 4-item scaled questions are worded, the meaning of 'fair' is pretty evident, even if you disagree with it. By thinking 'fair' means approval of Congress, you're not questioning RollingSkull's obnoxious baiting of you post, but, rather, the methodology of those who made the survey to begin with.
 
I think most people when asked that question would see 'Fair' as meaning 'average' or 'not bad'. Which isn't the greatest of compliments, but is positive none the less.

"How's that sandwich?"

"Eh, fair."
 
[quote name='Cheese']I think most people when asked that question would see 'Fair' as meaning 'average' or 'not bad'. Which isn't the greatest of compliments, but is positive none the less.

"How's that sandwich?"

"Eh, fair."[/quote]
Cheese, that's actually quite logical, but I think that ALL such measures discount Fair in the lower margin when the poll is finessed into a headline, so right or left (And, contrary to Myke's caricatures, I thought I framed it in a both sides to blame perspective anyway.), we'd be reevaluating the headlines of a lot of polls.

And, furthermore, I think it is kinda ridiculous to assume that Congress is faring well. Like I said, between the immigration reform act and the half-assery surrounding stopping the Iraq war, I have to wonder, who would like Congress?

elprincipe nailed it. Everyone hates Congress, but everyone loves their own Congressman.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Like I said, between the immigration reform act and the half-assery surrounding stopping the Iraq war, I have to wonder, who would like Congress?[/QUOTE]

I've been wrestling with this myself lately. I don't think shooting for the political fringes is a good idea, but if this is supposed to appeal to moderates, they're doing a real shit job of it.

I also wonder about Bush's approval ratings: who watches the news today and decides he's kind of a crap president? If you're a liberal, you didn't like him to begin with, and there are still enough conservatives who support him, and who've supported him from day one. So who the hell is that swing percentage in the middle, who's surprised this far in that he's pretty much the exact same guy he was seven years ago? "I was really behind this war up to year three. But year four? Too much."
 
[quote name='trq']I've been wrestling with this myself lately. I don't think shooting for the political fringes is a good idea, but if this is supposed to appeal to moderates, they're doing a real shit job of it.

I also wonder about Bush's approval ratings: who watches the news today and decides he's kind of a crap president? If you're a liberal, you didn't like him to begin with, and there are still enough conservatives who support him, and who've supported him from day one. So who the hell is that swing percentage in the middle, who's surprised this far in that he's pretty much the exact same guy he was seven years ago? "I was really behind this war up to year three. But year four? Too much."[/quote]
Bush PUSHED for the immigration reform/amnesty bill. It was his baby. National defense cons will hate him and the party for that for as long as their attention spans or pragmatism (Depends on whether they hate the GOP or detest what a Democrat administration led by Hillary or Obama will bring to the table more.) will allow. Hell, many conservatives feel he fought the conservative base for that bill harder than he has fought against the "Culture of Corruption" narrative, the Plame affair, the district attorneys affair... you name it.

EDIT: Furthermore, I don't see anything wrong with playing to the fringes merely on principle. Just because there are two ends of a spectrum doesn't mean that the correct answer is right between the two. While Olbermann likes to pretend that the Dems took Congress on a wave of anti-Iraq sentiment (Which may be partly true, all things considered...) and proceed in maximum dudgeon from there, he does nail something in his typically spittle-soaked, O'Reilly-ish ramblings: The Democratic Congressmen cannot possibly hope to reconicile their anti-war positions without actually defunding the war. In so doing, they are committing themselves to being ideologically opposed to the war in Iraq without actually stopping it, proving that "We support the troops by bringing them out of harm's way" is nothing more than bumper sticker fodder.

Now, what they're actually doing is avoiding taking the flak for decisively ending the war, and it would be enough flak to make the entire next election cycle even more of a nailbiter than most of the recent ones. They can have their cake and eat it too, in this case, so long as the war effort can continue to be painted as a failure. Risible, yes, but the correct move for those more interested in power than ideology, and what Congresscritter isn't?
 
"pleasing in appearance; attractive"

"an exhibition, usually competitive, of farm products, livestock, etc., often combined in the U.S. with entertainment and held annually by a county or state."

"the price of conveyance or passage in a bus, train, airplane, or other vehicle."
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Bush PUSHED for the immigration reform/amnesty bill. It was his baby. National defense cons will hate him and the party for that for as long as their attention spans or pragmatism (Depends on whether they hate the GOP or detest what a Democrat administration led by Hillary or Obama will bring to the table more.) will allow. Hell, many conservatives feel he fought the conservative base for that bill harder than he has fought against the "Culture of Corruption" narrative, the Plame affair, the district attorneys affair... you name it.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps "today" wasn't the best example, rhetorically. Bush's approval rating has been steadily shrinking for months, if not years, so if this trend is, at the moment, about the reform/amnesty bill, what was fueling it before the bill was on the table?

[quote name='RollingSkull']EDIT: Furthermore, I don't see anything wrong with playing to the fringes merely on principle. Just because there are two ends of a spectrum doesn't mean that the correct answer is right between the two.[/QUOTE]

I get that you're not giving an inch on Cheese's point, but I wasn't making an oblique reference to it.
 
[quote name='trq']I get that you're not giving an inch on Cheese's point, but I wasn't making an oblique reference to it.[/quote]
Actually, I wasn't connecting that with Cheese's point. I merely spoke of it as a matter of principle so that I could bring up the example where, in this case, the fringe is correct, given certain premises.
 
[quote name='level1online']low approval rating, eh?

time to stage some more fake terror alerts...[/quote]

Er... right. Yes, that's exactly how these things work. Don't forget chem trails!
 
hy[quote name='RollingSkull']Er... right. Yes, that's exactly how these things work. Don't forget chem trails![/quote]

then why did all this bullsh*t in the UK start on the heels of the new PM coming into power? you need to understand, whatever anti-terror laws that got shot down while blair was in power, is now determined to get passed with the new PM in power.

why is there always a terror alert in the US everytime fatherland security, errrr... homeland security is up for more funding?
 
Yeah... the new PM has issued an edict banning the word "Muslim" in descriptors of terror. Pardon me if I'm not convinced in this fascist fantasy. If you're whipping the people up into a frenzy, don't you want a phantom, easily named scapegoat enemy?

Or have trans-governmental conspiracies entered the post-modern age as well?

Wait a minute, you said when homeland security is up for more funding? That... that can't be! Olbermann told me that terrorist attacks happen whenever another page in the "Culture of Corruption" meme is nearing the front page.
 
[quote name='level1online']hy

then why did all this bullsh*t in the UK start on the heels of the new PM coming into power? you need to understand, whatever anti-terror laws that got shot down while blair was in power, is now determined to get passed with the new PM in power.

why is there always a terror alert in the US everytime fatherland security, errrr... homeland security is up for more funding?[/QUOTE]

One world government
has outlawed war among nations
Now social control requires
population termination
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top