Less than 30% of voters say they will support their Representatives in the November elections

[Omar Little]

There is significant voter discontent. And it's not just against Democrats.

Originally Posted by washingtonpost.com

Six in 10 poll respondents say they have a negative view of the policies put forward by the Republican minority in Congress

69 percent of all Americans say they are either dissatisfied or angry with the government, and 60 percent say they are inclined to look for other candidates in November, the most ever in a Post-ABC poll.

So if there is so much dissatisfaction...is the time ripe for a new party to emerge? Maybe...but it doesn't appear to be the tea party movement.

The poll also finds growing disapproval of the "tea party" movement, with half the population now expressing an unfavorable impression of the loosely aligned protest campaign that has shaken up politics this year.

I am of the opinion that the dissatisfaction is less tied to party affiliation but more tied to "establishment politicians" from either party. Sounds like the non-partisan GOOOH organization may have quite a bit of support.

[DigitalC]

Dissatisfaction might just keep people at home which would benefit the Dems more.

[Jonathan Chance]

I will eat my hat if voter behavior doesn't return 85%+ of incumbents to their seats (discounting retirements).

The interesting thing to me in that poll is the apparent dissatisfaction with the tea party folks. I think that thing is going to burn itself out and a LOT of potential politicos are going to find they've backed the wrong horse and aborted some careers before they really got started.

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by DigitalC

Dissatisfaction might just keep people at home which would benefit the Dems more.

Hm? I'm pretty sure that the party which is typified by irregular and low turnout is the Democrats. People staying home generally means Democrats staying home, which means a proportionately higher turnout of Republicans.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Out of 435 Representatives up for election this year at least 400 of them will be returned, no matter what these polls say. A similar proportion of Senators will be returned as well. Bank on it. It's long been demonstrated that around 90% of incumbents get re=elected.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF

Out of 435 Representatives up for election this year at least 400 of them will be returned, no matter what these polls say. A similar proportion of Senators will be returned as well. Bank on it. It's long been demonstrated that around 90% of incumbents get re=elected.

Given that 37 House incumbants have announced plans not to run again, I bet you're wrong.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

Hm? I'm pretty sure that the party which is typified by irregular and low turnout is the Democrats. People staying home generally means Democrats staying home, which means a proportionately higher turnout of Republicans.

I think the point is that such things tend to benefit incumbents - which as far as the House goes, benefits the Democrats.

-Joe

[Simplicio]

Here's a link to an attempt to correlate voter dissatisfaction with incumbents to actual voting out of incumbants.

They are weakly correlated, but even with our current high rate of voter dissatisfaction, the predicted turnover rate is....13%.

Out of curiousity, what percentage of Congresscritters actually face challengers in a given cycle?

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by DigitalC

Dissatisfaction might just keep people at home which would benefit the Dems more.

Depends on how acceptable the challenger seems to be. Dissatisfaction with the incumbent, combined with an attractive alternative, tends to bring voters out. If the common view is "Yeah, well, the other guy's no better", that would tend to depress turnout, wouldn't it?

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by Merijeek

I think the point is that such things tend to benefit incumbents - which as far as the House goes, benefits the Democrats.

-Joe

In general, perhaps, but the current incumbents came in on Obama's coattails, elected by an irregular turnout of Democrats. Usually the incumbents have a strong position because turnout is pretty similar from year to year. If it goes back to the old turnout, then you end up with a voting pattern that doesn't line up well with the 2008 results.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

In general, perhaps, but the current incumbents came in on Obama's coattails, elected by an irregular turnout of Democrats. Usually the incumbents have a strong position because turnout is pretty similar from year to year. If it goes back to the old turnout, then you end up with a voting pattern that doesn't line up well with the 2008 results.

I disagree. An incumbent gets their strength from voters' habit and inertia. Obama may have broken that inertia to get them in, but that doesn't mean they'll get tossed just because Obama isn't on the ticket this year.

-Joe

[Blaster Master]

Originally Posted by Wilbo523

So if there is so much dissatisfaction...is the time ripe for a new party to emerge? Maybe...but it doesn't appear to be the tea party movement.

As much as I'd like to see a third party gain some ground, I just don't see it. I think, in the end, people will either lack the motivation to vote and stay home, or they'll be afraid of "throwing their vote away" and continue to pick the lesser of two evils.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Given that 37 House incumbants have announced plans not to run again, I bet you're wrong.

Good point, but I bet most of those seats will stay with the party of the retiring incumbent. People have hated Congress at a very high rate for years, but unfortunately, they think the appropriate punishment is re-electing them so they can hate them some more.

[Squink]

Looks like Blanche Lincoln won, so effective incumbent discontent appears to be concentrated on the Republican side tonight.

Six-term Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., was forced into a runoff election, the latest lawmaker to be shaken by the nation's anti-Washington mood.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

That poll looks pretty worthless to me.

• They polled random people. No effort to select people who are actually registered to vote, or with a history of actually voting. And since something like 40% of the people don't vote, their opinions don't matter (but they are counted in this poll).
• They polled people with phones (who would answer an unknown caller). That will likely bias the poll, in various ways.
• Unlike actual voting, the question is open-ended. There is a major difference in answers between "Will you support John Smith?" and "Who will you support, John Smith or Bill Jones?" People tend to be much more negative when comparing a person to an idealized opponent vs. comparing them to another real person.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net

They polled people with phones (who would answer an unknown caller). That will likely bias the poll, in various ways.

Ah yes. The methodology the Literary Digest used to successfully predict the election of President Landon!

[Kolak of Twilo]

Oh yeah - voters are primed to throw incumbents out! Why in Tuesdays primaries of the 84 incumbents running in primaries only 82 won!


Um...yeah...

That didn't work out so well, huh?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Primaries are different. Apart from anything else, the incumbent typically gets the nmational party's support (and money).

[gonzomax]

I heard that 84 out of 88 incumbents won Tuesday. That is hardly a rejection of the ins. People say they will kick out the pols, but they don't.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I find it rather impressive that you managed to miss the last two posts in a one-page thread.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I find it rather impressive that you managed to miss the last two posts in a one-page thread.

I don't even show 2 posts with that. But when I posted the one (1) that does was not yet posted.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Post #17 - 1:49 am ET
Post #18 - my response to Post #17 - 12:27 pm ET

Post #19 - 1:06 pm ET

[Enderw24]

I heard that 86 of the 84 incumbants kept their seat and were given a new, matching seat, as part of their pension plan. So much for that poll!

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Post #17 - 1:49 am ET
Post #18 - my response to Post #17 - 12:27 pm ET

Post #19 - 1:06 pm ET

I've noticed before that sometimes items seem to be posted with a time showing them after a previous post, but it is obvious that the previous post was not seen by them. And we often see simul-posts here.

I think that possibly the time stamp shown on a post is set at the time a person clicks on the reply or quote-reply icon, even if it takes several minutes (or even hours) before they actually submit that reply.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, regardless of when he saw mine, the other one was 11 hours earlier.

[Ludovic]

I read somewhere that 96 out of 102 incumbents kept their primary seat.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Something like 102 out of 96 incumbents kept their primary seat. That's what I heard.

[Really Not All That Bright]

One wonders just how incompetent the other two were.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

One wonders just how incompetent the other two were.

Well, one was the Nevada governor, who was extremely lucky to not be in jail over multiple, multiple issues.

Kind of like Marion Berry, except this guy didn't manage the re-election.

-Joe

[Chronos]

I think that possibly the time stamp shown on a post is set at the time a person clicks on the reply or quote-reply icon, even if it takes several minutes (or even hours) before they actually submit that reply.

No, it's the time it's submitted.

[Captain Midnight]

What's annoying is that people will vote for Party A, and then 4 to 8 years later, get fed up with Party A and vote for Party B then 4 to 8 years later, get fed up with party B and brings back Party A and then get tired of them after 4 to 8 years and votes in Party B.

And the process keeps repeating itself.

www.lp.org

Vote for these guys.

[Superhal]

Obama didn't break any pattern. The '08 election was rather unique in that none of the candidates were incumbents, as Bush's VP didn't run. Actually, Bush's win in 2000 would be an example of voters voting against the incumbent, although theoretically, he lost the popular election anyway.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Captain Midnight

www.lp.org

Vote for these guys.

Are you serious? I've got no truck with libertarian principles, for the most part, but the Libertarian Party as currently constituted is just a bunch of politically overwrought ex-Republicans who are okay with weed.

[Duke]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Are you serious? I've got no truck with libertarian principles, for the most part, but the Libertarian Party as currently constituted is just a bunch of politically overwrought ex-Republicans who are okay with weed.

Or turn a Smurfy shade of blue due to ingestion of colloidal silver, kind of like Tobias Funke in that one episode.

[Chronos]

I did actually vote for a Libertarian for the House in 2008. He was the only guy running against the Republican, and I figured a Libertarian was better than a Democrat who stopped campaigning once he got his name on the ballot.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Chronos

No, it's the time it's submitted.

Yes, but if you put all the pages you want to read in new tabs, then forget about it and come back later, the page will not be updated. It's easy to forget to hit refresh, or at least to see if there are new posts on preview.

[New Deal Democrat]

The United States faces serious problems that lack easy or obvious solutions.

In order to be elected one has to make unrealistic promises. When elected, politicians break their promises because they were never possible. A politician who tells the voters the truth will lose.

The truth is that a number of historical advantages have given out on the United States, and the U.S. economy is likely to decline no matter what anyone does.

[Batfish]

Maddow, 4/23

Apparently the trend is towards incumbent, as usual.

[gonzomax]

People always say they will not vote for the incumbent, just before they do.We return 90 percent of them ,so who can say this time is different?

[Chronos]

For comparison, what's the usual percentage of politicians who get primaried out? Maybe it's usually even lower than 2%. I mean, it can't be much lower, but...

[boytyperanma]

The issue is when people talk about voting out incumbents they really mean other peoples incumbents. Their guy, the one they voted for last time, he's better then those other incumbents. They're going to vote for him again. Those other people should vote against the person they voted for last time, he's the bad guy.