Monday, September 24, 2007

What Democratic Congress?

A Greenwald post I read yesterday referenced this Gallop poll addressing Presidential and Congressional approval ratings. The poll showed a 3% uptick in presidential approval when compared to August, while Congress doubled that figure, showing a 6% rise in approval ratings.

The numbers themselves are not particularly surprising ... it's the details behind the Congressional numbers which might make one do a double-take.

As the poll analysis notes, Congressional approval among Independents actually dropped by 3 points (from 17% to 14%) and while approval among Democrats rose, it was by a statistically insignificant margin (21% to 23%) ... which leaves only one group to account for the net 6% rise. Hint - it's not the Green Party, or the Communists.

No, the gain in Congressional approval ratings rests almost entirely on the shoulders of Republicans, who more than doubled their support, going from 18% approval last month to 37% approval this month. That's a shocking figure. Voters of the party not in control of Congress have a better opinion of Congress than those that presumably elected the majority ... and it's not by some small, statistically insignificant figure, but rather by a whopping 14 percentage points.

On recollection, however, why not? After all, voters elected Democrats to the majority largely because they saw the country as headed in the wrong direction on a number of issues, most particularly the Iraq war. However, what exactly has the new majority done to address these issues? Some reform to Congressional lobbying statutes have been passed, but what else?

On wiretapping and other privacy rights, the "Democratic" Congress couldn't work fast enough to provide the administration with everything it wanted. Now the administration is pressing hard for legislation to absolve telecom companies which helped it break privacy laws in the past, and everything points to Congress acceding to this as well - even though a majority of citizens are opposed.

Attempts last week to restore habeas corpus rights failed in the face of a Republican filibuster, despite actually garnering a majority of votes in the Senate, and despite being supported by a majority of Americans.

Perhaps most obviously, Congress has done exactly nothing (nada, nil, zero, zilch) whatsoever to accelerate our exit from Iraq, which was most certainly the primary reason Democrats were restored to the majority in the first place. Instead, a supplementary funding bill was passed with some milestones attached, but failure to meet the vast majority of those milestones is apparently not viewed by the administration or most Republican members of Congress as a reason to leave, no matter what an ever-growing majority of Americans might want.

With a new funding bill needed as early as next month, and despite some moderately tough rhetoric, there is no reason whatsoever to think the Democratic majority will grow the necessary cojones to actually do something, such as pass a war funding bill with actual, hard limitations attached to it.

Why shouldn't Republicans be happier with the performance of Congress? On what substantial issue this year has the administration and Republicans not had their way? The only thing that comes to mind is immigration reform, and that was because the administration and Congressional Republicans were on different sides of the issue, so one or the other had to be disappointed - and, hey, the Congressional minority ended up "winning".

For some reason Democrats seem worried about filibusters and vetoes. Senate Republicans threaten to veto something, and Democrats agree to simple cloture votes. The President threatens to veto something, and Democrats refuse to challenge him on it. They seem to have entirely forgotten they were elected precisely because the majority of the electorate wants someone to stand up and say "enough is enough".

Make Republicans filibuster. So what if things get held up while they are taking turns talking themselves blue - nothing substantial the majority wants is getting done anyway because Senate Republicans are blocking votes in history-shattering numbers, all in an attempt to protect the President from being forced to veto legislation they know the majority of Americans want.

With any luck, enough of them will get sufficiently tired of their own voices to actually let a bill through for the President to veto ... then we can in plain black-and-white who really doesn't support the troops.

4 comments:

x4mr said...

Sirocco,

You point to the interesting game theory of our current situation.

2008 is everything. That's the game being played. The utility curve each side seeks to maximize is the probability of winning the White House and each side of the Congress. What strategies maximize the expected value?

It looks bad for the GOP. Odds of retaking the House are bleak, and although the edge is razor thin in the Senate, damaging resignations weaken their chances, and the WH is a crap shoot.

I think the disapproval of Congress is misleading. Yeah, people are furious that the Democrats haven't turned things around regarding Iraq, but Democrats can craft a credible frame for this. It goes like this:

The GOP and WH got us into this mess (no argument). We want out of it, but with obstinate R WH and weak majorities, we didn't have the number to implement your will.

Give us the WH and numbers, and we can do what you want.

It's simple, neat, believable and maybe even true, and it can be said in 30 seconds.

Voting to withdraw funds? Force a withdrawal with W still in office? Messy, and possible mishaps abound. As cynical as it sounds, my calculations say to leave Bush and the GOP on the hook.

Moving away from Iraq, I agree they should stick it to him/them in certain areas. SCHIP is a no brainer. Let him veto it. As you say, force them to fight BAD battles.

Republicans filibustering AGAINST habeas corpus? I cannot believe they didn't pounce and buy cameras.

By the way, I turned off the "word verification" function that makes people type in the letters. It's annoying. Do what you want, but I would recommend you shut it off until you encounter a reason to implement it.

It makes submitting comments easier, and at least for awhile, like my place, I don't think the drop in security will cause you any grief.

Framer said...

If you drop word verification, you will get spam in a couple of weeks. At least that was my sad experience.

I think that Republican approval in congress are Republicans pleased about Republican performance, but probably not in the areas you would expect. I would assume that the largest two contributors were the stern handling of Senator Craig and in a strange way, the MoveOn Petraeus ad. Republicans expressing disgust about the ad have driven up their favorables (thus the condemnation votes in the Senate and House by Democrats as well to minimize the damage.) They see polling that we don't.

Immigration reform perhaps has a bit to do with it, but I suspect that individual Legislators are getting credit for that rather than the Republican caucus as a whole. I don't think any of the Patriot Act issues are even registering.

The larger truth is that it is far easier to look better when you are not in charge, and only need to worry about foiling the other side. Should Republicans go all anti-earmark all the time, especially if it means throwing some of their own under the bus, they will make tremendous gains. That message doesn't always play well, but I believe it is very ripe, especially as the Democratic leadership failed miserably on their promises in this area.

That leadership is another part of the problem. Pelosi and Reid make far better snipers than leaders. Can anyone honestly say they have been happy with the performance by either? Its damn hard to lead effectively, and neither are ready for prime time.

The senate will be tough because of the number of seats up for Republicans. A 30-40 seat Democratic pickup in the house is a pipe dream, however (I haven't seen this here, but I have elsewhere). Most of the weak Republicans were culled last year, and Hillary will harm a lot of localized races that might otherwise been close Dem pickups (or holds).

In any case the Congressional approval rating is significant, and is not something that can be blithely explained away. There is still a lot of time to go by, but if this still holds by the end of next summer, it will be a tremendous problem for the Democrats.

Sirocco said...

Framer,

Some really interesting points.

I did take off the word verification ... we'll see if the spam comes. If it does, I can turn it back on.

I agree no one is happy with the manner Pelosi or Reid have led their respective legislative bodies, and I agree if the low approval ratings continue into next summer it's going to be an issue.

Of course, the way to address that is by actively doing more to oppose the administration's policies, particularly in Iraq. They may not be able to actually change anything (filibusters and vetoes getting in the way), but it's important they be seen to be trying, and force the Republicans/administration to be seen as obstructing.

I am not as convinced as I was a month ago of the inevitability of Clinton being the nominee (I find the fund raising argument compelling), but even if she is I think the "drag" Republicans keep hoping she will be is over-rated. Her "negatives" are as negative as they will ever be, and have (I believe) been trending downward.

However, I agree with your analysis vis-a-vis the "weak" Republicans having already been ousted. Even in the absolute best environment the Dems could hope for next year, I think 15 seats would be the most they could dream to pickup. Actually, a substantial (4+ seats) gain in the Senate seems more likely in an environment like that.

Liza said...

Interesting discussion. I just now saw it and it's already 10-1.

I've said this on a couple of other blogs so I guess I'll say it here too. Pelosi's lack of leadership skills is a macro problem for the House of Representatives. Her "taking impeachment off the table" was the weakest political manuever of the 21st century so far. Pelosi gave up the impeachment option which was 50% of her power and got absolutely nothing in return. Add to that her failure to commit to an aggressive Iraq exit strategy, her defeatist attitude and her poor speaking skills, and it's no wonder she cannot build consensus in the House nor can she speak convincingly to the American people. Furthermore, this isn't a learning curve problem, this lady just ain't got it. She's not a leader.

Harry Reid is no shining star either but he doesn't have the votes in the Senate to look as bad as Pelosi does, at least for the time being.

I'm just not as certain about 2008 as x4mr is. In the local races, the Republicans certainly have an opportunity (handed to them by weak Democrats) to re-invent themselves and prevail in districts where they have an advantage. There are many ways to do this and I think it will be interesting to see how many of them actually understand their predicament.

I agree with sirocco about Hillary. It's a long way from a done deal.