Americans like Pelosi and the Dems in Congress

[RTFirefly]

Or so says the WaPo/ABC poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_041607.html).
4. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Nancy Pelosi is handling her job
as Speaker of the House?

Approve Disapprove No opinion
4/15/07 53 35 12
2/25/07 50 31 18
1/19/07 54 25 21
Meanwhile, Bush has an approve-disapprove of 35-62. Awwwww.

Even better, she's a far more popular Speaker than Newt Gingrich ever was:
Compare to: Newt Gingrich
11/7/98* 38 58 4
7/12/98 41 44 15
5/12/98 41 44 15
1/19/98 40 52 7
4/24/97 26 62 12
3/9/97 33 61 7
9/15/96RV 39 54 7
1/7/96 30 61 8
11/19/95 27 65 8
6/8/95 35 50 15
3/19/95 37 48 15
3/5/95 38 51 11
1/29/95 40 48 12
1/4/95 35 37 28
12/20/94** 35 43 22
Just warms your heart, doesn't it?

And the Congressional Dems are popular too:
7. Do you approve or disapprove of the way (ITEM) are doing their job?

4/15/07 Summary Table

Approve Disapprove No opinion
a. the Republicans in Congress 39 59 2
b. the Democrats in Congress 54 44 2
While the Congressional Publicans aren't.

It's worth comparing this to how people feel about Congress as a whole:
3. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the U.S. Congress is doing its job?

-------- Approve -------- ------- Disapprove ------ No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
4/15/07 44 8 36 54 25 29 3
2/25/07 41 NA NA 54 NA NA 5
1/19/07 43 NA NA 50 NA NA 8
It's almost as if people knew there were two parties in Congress. Congress as a whole - people think it's doing kinda so-so. They like the Dems, but the Pubbies - not so much.

IMHO, this is the genuinely interesting fact worth pulling out of this poll. People have been saying, over the past few months, "Look - people don't think all that well of Congress." No, they're kinda so-so about Congress. But almost nobody's asking about the Congressional Dems and Pubbies separately from Congress as a whole, and that skews the perceptions.

This isn't the first poll in the new Congress that's had that result. In early February (Feb. 8-11), a CBS poll showed "Congress" with 32-52 job approval/disapproval, but Congressional Dems with 54-35 approval-disapproval. (Cong. GOP was 41-49.)

Around the same time, there were two polls that just asked about the parties and not about Congress generally. A poll by Harris (Feb. 2-5) showed Cong. Dems with 41-52 a-d, and Cong. GOP with 26-69 a-d. Another by USA Today/Gallup (Feb. 9-11) showed Cong. Dems at 41-50 and Cong. GOP at 33-59. And one more poll, Pew (Feb. 7-11), asked just about Congressional Dems and got a 41-36 a-d.

(Links to polling data on Congressional Dems (http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm) and Congressional Republicans (http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm).)

Meanwhile, approval ratings for Congress as a whole (http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm) have been in the 30s and occasionally the low 40s.

So nobody should be making much of Congress' mediocre approval ratings, at least not as a proxy for the new sheriff in town. People really do like the Congressional Dems a lot more than they like Congress as a whole, and clearly like Pelosi too.

One more:
9. Who do you think is taking a stronger leadership role in the government
in Washington these days, (Bush) or (the Democrats in Congress)?

Both Neither No
Bush Democrats (vol.) (vol.) opinion
4/15/07 34 58 2 4 2
1/19/07 36 56 1 3 3
Sweet. Taking some stands is good for the Dems.

[Martin Hyde]

Interesting, what's the debate?

[elucidator]

Is this good news, or great news? I"m leaning to "good", there's a long, long way to go.

[XT]

Is this a debate or is it witnessing? :p

-XT

[Martin Hyde]

Is this good news, or great news? I"m leaning to "good", there's a long, long way to go.

Yeah, I can't wait til the day when one of the two-parties wins permanently and the other disappears forever, I've known that was just around the corner for years and years.

[BrainGlutton]

I suppose the debate would be,

1. Do the people, at present, support the Congressional majority as against the president, particularly WRT foreign and military policy?

2. If so, what does it matter? Regardless of whether this is a "republic" or a "democracy," aren't our officials elected to do what they think is best for the country by their own lights, not what the polls say the people want at the moment? Once the election is done, it's done, and then the officeholders are on their own. The proper balance of power and the proper division of functions between the executive and legislative branches should be determined by the Constitution as interpreted by the courts, irrespective of which party controls either branch and irrespective of how much public support the administration or the Congressional majority has at any given time. Right?

3. But what does this portend for the 2008 elections, congressional and presidential?

[Martin Hyde]

I suppose the debate would be,

All valid points, and none raised by the OP.

1. Do the people, at present, support the Congressional majority as against the president, particularly WRT foreign and military policy?

I think so, as much as one can surmise such a thing from polling + other indicators. What this all means in the long run is hard to say, wasn't too long ago the Republicans were winning decisive congressional victories despite popular impression being they were on the way out. The public is fickle.

2. If so, what does it matter? Regardless of whether this is a "republic" or a "democracy," aren't our officials elected to do what they think is best for the country by their own lights, not what the polls say the people want at the moment? Once the election is done, it's done, and then the officeholders are on their own. The proper balance of power and the proper division of functions between the executive and legislative branches should be determined by the Constitution as interpreted by the courts, irrespective of which party controls either branch and irrespective of how much public support the administration or the Congressional majority has at any given time. Right?

Definitely yes. But elected officials tend to want to be reelected, so more often than not they'll do what they believe is going to help them get reelected, not what they believe is right. It keeps them accountable to the people, but works to contradict the whole reason we don't have direct democracy in the first place. The idea was supposed to be, you pick someone who is more qualified than an average Joe to work at legislating/governing as a profession in hopes that they can make better decisions than those of the mob.

3. But what does this portend for the 2008 elections, congressional and presidential?

That things look good for the Dems. Hard to say how it will all pan out of course, as is always the case.

[XT]

Ah...a debate!

1. Do the people, at present, support the Congressional majority as against the president, particularly WRT foreign and military policy?

I don't believe so. IMHO (and its just that), I think such polls show dis-satisfaction with the Republicans...not necessarily satisfaction with the Democrats. Or, I suppose another way to say it is...the Dems are the lesser of two weevil's. At the moment. :p

2. If so, what does it matter? Regardless of whether this is a "republic" or a "democracy," aren't our officials elected to do what they think is best for the country by their own lights, not what the polls say the people want at the moment? Once the election is done, it's done, and then the officeholders are on their own. The proper balance of power and the proper division of functions between the executive and legislative branches should be determined by the Constitution as interpreted by the courts, irrespective of which party controls either branch and irrespective of how much public support the administration or the Congressional majority has at any given time. Right?

Right. Not that this is realistically what will happen, mind. :p

3. But what does this portend for the 2008 elections, congressional and presidential?

Nothing...or maybe a better way to put it is, gods know. I doubt these kinds of polls are more than Dem porn at this point. I don't think they reflect how things will go in 2008...necessarily. It will all hinge on a few things. A) WTF is going on in Iraq next year. B) Whats the economy doing? C) How closely associated is the Republican candidate to Bush and the current administration...or, more importantly, how closely can the Dems associate the candidate with Bush et al? D) Who will the Dems throw up (and I use that term advisedly ;) ) as their main mellon?

I don't think that what the Dems in Congress do or do not do in the time before the next election will matter as much as the above...or will really be that much of a factor in the next Presidential election. YMMV of course.

-XT

[Captain Carrot]

I've seen some polls that say while Republicans are firmly behind the President and GOP Congresscritters (to the tune of 80-19 a-d), Democrats are much more critical of Congress, saying that Pelosi, Reid, et al., are not being forceful enough with Bush in ending the war.

[BrainGlutton]

The idea was supposed to be, you pick someone who is more qualified than an average Joe to work at legislating/governing as a profession in hopes that they can make better decisions than those of the mob.

Well, you won't find that in the DoI nor in the Constitution. Nor in The Federalist Papers, AFAIK, though I have no doubt whatsoever Hamilton and Madison would have agreed with that statement without reservation.

[BrainGlutton]

I don't believe so. IMHO (and its just that), I think such polls show dis-satisfaction with the Republicans...not necessarily satisfaction with the Democrats. Or, I suppose another way to say it is...the Dems are the lesser of two weevil's. At the moment. :p

Probably true, but that comes down to the same thing -- popular support for the Congressional majority as against the president.

[elucidator]

Tom Paine had better kung fu than either of those aristocratic weenies.

[BrainGlutton]

Tom Paine had better kung fu than either of those aristocratic weenies.

Thomas Paine did not attend the Constitutional Convention. (Nor did Jefferson, who was ambassador to France at the time.)

[XT]

Probably true, but that comes down to the same thing -- popular support for the Congressional majority as against the president.

True enough. The problem being, Bush ain't running again. :p

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

Thomas Paine did not attend the Constitutional Convention. (Nor did Jefferson, who was ambassador to France at the time.)

I sometimes wonder what kind of constitution we would have ended up with, if they had been in attendance.

[Martin Hyde]

Well, you won't find that in the DoI nor in the Constitution. Nor in The Federalist Papers, AFAIK, though I have no doubt whatsoever Hamilton and Madison would have agreed with that statement without reservation.

Federalist Paper No. 10 touches on it in a roundabout way, in arguing that the greatest threat to democratic forms of government are factions (defined as small groups of like-minded, powerful types who do not have the country's best interests at heart.)

In Federalist Paper No. 57 Madison advocates the election of "men who possess the most wisdom to discern, and...pursue, the common good of society."

[Martin Hyde]

I sometimes wonder what kind of constitution we would have ended up with, if they had been in attendance.

Thomas Paine would never have been elected to the Constitutional Convention--Jefferson might have, but it's questionable, if he had been, he would have been ostracized as a radical and have had little say in the proceedings.

The Constitutional Convention was so successful because America's most prominent moderates actually forced compromise by reigning the more radical elements on both side in.

[Captain Amazing]

Well, you won't find that in the DoI nor in the Constitution. Nor in The Federalist Papers, AFAIK, though I have no doubt whatsoever Hamilton and Madison would have agreed with that statement without reservation.
The sentiment is Burke's, though.

[BrainGlutton]

Thomas Paine would never have been elected to the Constitutional Convention-- . . .

Was anybody?

[BrainGlutton]

The sentiment is Burke's, though.

Well, that's one strike against it . . .

[elucidator]

Thomas Paine would never have been elected to the Constitutional Convention--Jefferson might have, but it's questionable, if he had been, he would have been ostracized as a radical and have had little say in the proceedings...
These proceedings were the proper place for men of substance, men of mature judgement who understood that the the inviolate right of Property was the axis of civilization. Egalitarianism is all very well as an inspirtation to the people in the hour of crisis, but who needs a rabble rouser when its time for the rabble to be polite, industrious, and compliant?

[BrainGlutton]

Federalist Paper No. 10 touches on it in a roundabout way, in arguing that the greatest threat to democratic forms of government are factions (defined as small groups of like-minded, powerful types who do not have the country's best interests at heart.)

IIRC, the argument was that the Constitution, designed for the first big republic in human history, would prevent threat that by providing representation in Congress to such a wide range of factions and interests that no one faction could hope to win a dominant position. Which is not the same thing as putting government in the hands of an elite of career politicians. (Of course, no modern republic has been able to function without an elite of career politicians.)

In Federalist Paper No. 57 Madison advocates the election of "men who possess the most wisdom to discern, and...pursue, the common good of society."

I'm sure he was also foursquare in favor of good weather and a healthy economy.

[Evil Captor]

True enough. The problem being, Bush ain't running again. :p

-XT

Problem for the Repubs is, whoever's running will either have to repudiate Bush -- hardly a move likely to endear him or her to the Pubbie base -- or embrace Bush -- hardly a move likely to endear him or her to the 65 percent or so of Americans who think Bush stinks on ice. It's heads I lose, tails you win for any Pubbie candidate so long as most Americans despise Bush and a significant portion of the Pubbie base continues to worship him.

[Martin Hyde]

Was anybody?

I believe all of them were. "Election" isn't synonymous with "a public election of the entire populace of the state." In all the historical writings I've read about the Philadelphia Convention/Constitutional Convention the manner in which States appointed delegates is always referred to as "elected so and so" or "selected so and so", both seem correct to me. In general they were elected by the state legislatures.

The Constitution, likewise, refers to the "election of Senators" even when, at the time, Senators were chosen by State Legislatures, it was still viewed as an election, just with a very small group of voters.

[Evil Captor]

Thomas Paine would never have been elected to the Constitutional Convention--Jefferson might have, but it's questionable, if he had been, he would have been ostracized as a radical and have had little say in the proceedings.

The Constitutional Convention was so successful because America's most prominent moderates actually forced compromise by reigning the more radical elements on both side in.

You are referring of course, to the more moderate American revolutionaries.

[BrainGlutton]

It's heads I lose, tails you win for any Pubbie candidate so long as most Americans despise Bush and a significant portion of the Pubbie base continues to worship him.

But how much of the Pubbie base does continue to worship him?

[BrainGlutton]

The Constitutional Convention was so successful because America's most prominent moderates actually forced compromise by reigning the more radical elements on both side in.

Including Hamilton -- his proposal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention#Hamilton.27s_plan) was for a centralized, unitary state where the president and senators would hold office for life "or on good behavior" and the national (not federal) government would have the power to redraw states'/provinces' boundaries and appoint their governors.

[Martin Hyde]

IIRC, the argument was that the Constitution, designed for the first big republic in human history, would prevent threat that by providing representation in Congress to such a wide range of factions and interests that no one faction could hope to win a dominant position. Which is not the same thing as putting government in the hands of an elite of career politicians. (Of course, no modern republic has been able to function without an elite of career politicians.)

Bit off target. Partly true, though--I should note that yes, the dispersion of factions across a large Republic was party of his plan, but not entirely it.

Madison's argument was, factions are inevitable because men have a tendency to be biased in their own favor--and of course men have a tendency to have different opinions. The creditor is going to have a different view on what the laws regulating debts ought to be versus the debtor.

Madison's belief was, since the United States was to be a large Republic, with a large electorate, only the cream of the crop would be getting elected. That, only men of established virtue, character, and ability could win election because they would be under the scrutiny of many (even with the restricted electorate as it was in the 1780s and 1790s, it was still orders of magnitude bigger than the electorate of most other pure republics in human history, like those of Italy and the prominent Roman Republic.)

What I said was essentially true. Madison, I don't think, viewed it as "you want to have a cadre of elites to rule." At least not phrased that way, but more consistent with what I said originally, that the idea was, you have established, experienced politicians who rule, because they are of greater character than the public at large.

How it all ties together, is Madison's argument was these men of greater moral character would not become parts of factions, because they would be able to work towards the common good (something the masses would not have been able to do.)

One of Madison's "bullet points" at the end of the Federalist 10 is:

Does this advantage consist in the substitution of Representatives, whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices, and to schemes of injustice? It will not be denied, that the Representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments.

(Speaking as to the advantages of a large republic over a small republic.)

[Martin Hyde]

Including Hamilton -- his proposal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention#Hamilton.27s_plan) was for a centralized, unitary state where the president and senators would hold office for life "or on good behavior" and the national (not federal) government would have the power to redraw states'/provinces' boundaries and appoint their governors.

Do you really think that was so outlandish? You do realize this was 1789, when most countries of Europe were ruled by absolute monarchs who didn't exactly have term limits. And even in countries where the monarchs were not absolute, the U.K. for example, George III still wielded considerable power and while he had constraints on his power he had a significant hand in government and in choosing Prime Ministers (sometimes being forced to choose ones he didn't like personally, but in general he was a powerful figure--and the last King to have any real power in the U.K.)

[Martin Hyde]

You are referring of course, to the more moderate American revolutionaries.

True enough, yes, they were all seen to be radicals by the world at large, but within that group some were much more radical than the others.

[BrainGlutton]

Madison's belief was, since the United States was to be a large Republic, with a large electorate, only the cream of the crop would be getting elected. That, only men of established virtue, character, and ability could win election because they would be under the scrutiny of many . . .

What an optimist. :(

[BrainGlutton]

Do you really think that was so outlandish?

Not at all. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=281447) In fact, in most respects I admire Hamilton's vision for America's future as against Jefferson's. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7539602&highlight=hamilton#post7539602) But not WRT his elitism.

[Evil Captor]

But how much of the Pubbie base does continue to worship him?

Check your own OP, BG. 35 percent of Americans still approve of the way Bush is running the country (OK, may not be an EXACT semantic match for "worship" but considering the amount of stuff you have to ignore to say you approve of the way Bush is doing things, it's not far from it).

[RTFirefly]

A couple of points that I think I was trying to make in a scrambled way:

One was the simple, probably too factual to be debatable, point that using polls showing mediocre approval/disapproval ratings of "Congress" to claim that people don't like what Pelosi, Reid, and the Dems are doing is completely off base. Congressional Dems (including specific Congressional Dems like Pelosi and Reid) poll substantially better than does Congress proper.

The other, I think, is a response to the kind concerns of some of our board's conservatives, both before and after the midterms, that the Dems needed to move to the center to gain and hold popular support - that if they persisted in taking strong stands, they'd take the party off a cliff.

I'm not sure how much debate there is left there at this point, but this did seem to be the forum to say, "I think this one's settled." Taking strong stands is good. I wouldn't go quite as far as Chris Bowers does when he says, "Right Now, America Is The Democratic Base," (http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/16/71210/9624) but I think he's right in saying that a solid majority of Americans strongly support the Democratic positions on key issues.

Most Americans want us to get out of Iraq, even if it means we fail to restore civil order there. (Q. 14 of the WaPo/ABC poll.) Most Americans will support the Dems if they work to bring about universal health care. Most Americans want the U.S. to address global warming in a serious manner. Most Americans want a higher minimum wage. Most Americans want Congress to investigate the more serious malfeasances of the Bush Administration. And so forth.

IOW, by fighting for the things they believe in, and NOT mushily compromising, the Dems can bring the majority of Americans into their camp, and turn Bowers' words into truth.

[RTFirefly]

Is this a debate or is it witnessing? :p

-XTYeah, I set myself up for that one, didn't I? If this wasn't the most muddled OP I've ever written, it was pretty close. Hopefully my last post clarified my intentions a bit.

We've got a serious buncha night owls here. I woke up at 4:30am Eastern time, and expected nothing but maybe six or eight "WTF are you trying to say, RTF?" posts. There were a few of those, of course, but in addition, I find that my OP has become the springboard for a very interesting back-and-forth about the Constitutional Convention. I love this place. :)

[Captain Amazing]

Well, that's one strike against it . . .

Nothing wrong with Edmund Burke. But in a speech to the Bristol electors, he said:

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments? . . .

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect.