Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gallup)   Passing the stimulus bill boosted approval ratings for Congress. Instead of being despised by 81 percent of Americans, only 69 percent of us hate them as much as a used car salesman who ran over our dog   (gallup.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

529 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Feb 2009 at 1:20 PM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



195 Comments   (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-02-17 09:56:45 AM  
It's really funny watching the Republicans who voted against the bill lining up behind it in press releases to their constituents.
 
2009-02-17 10:09:29 AM  
Bored Horde: It's really funny watching the Republicans who voted against the bill lining up behind it in press releases to their constituents.

Cool. It was really funny calling my congressman the other day and telling him he had lost my vote next election.
 
2009-02-17 10:14:55 AM  

sepuku2: Cool. It was really funny calling my congressman the other day and telling him he had lost my vote next election.


There's a slight difference in trying to take credit for something you voted against and slimed on TV, and deciding to vote for another politician who better represents your views.
 
2009-02-17 10:15:37 AM  

sepuku2: Bored Horde: It's really funny watching the Republicans who voted against the bill lining up behind it in press releases to their constituents.

Cool. It was really funny calling my congressman the other day and telling him he had lost my vote next election.


That's your right. Good job.
 
2009-02-17 10:25:39 AM  
Looks like the entire world markets don't like it either.
 
2009-02-17 10:29:36 AM  

GaryPDX: Looks like the entire world markets don't like it either.


"don't like it either"? did you click on the link, or read the headline? or did you just see "stimulus" and post?
 
2009-02-17 10:34:26 AM  

GaryPDX: Looks like the entire world markets don't like it either.


Live the dream, Gary. Live the dream.
 
2009-02-17 10:45:58 AM  
People want handouts. Go figure.
 
2009-02-17 10:48:26 AM  
Boy I wish I had a congressman.
 
2009-02-17 10:54:40 AM  

Bored Horde: It's really funny watching the Republicans who voted against the bill lining up behind it in press releases to their constituents.


The smartest short-term investment right now is in companies that make big cardboard novelty checks.
 
2009-02-17 10:55:06 AM  
Bored Horde: It's really funny watching the Republicans who voted against the bill lining up behind it in press releases to their constituents.

If Mac tries to pull that shiat, I'm going to get all up in his shiat publicly.
 
2009-02-17 11:00:24 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Bored Horde: It's really funny watching the Republicans who voted against the bill lining up behind it in press releases to their constituents.

If Mac tries to pull that shiat, I'm going to get all up in his shiat publicly.


Be sure to shower well after!
 
2009-02-17 11:08:55 AM  

absoluteparanoia: Boy I wish I had a congressman.


They're fairly cheap. Some even sell by the half dozen.
 
2009-02-17 11:17:43 AM  

I_C_Weener: They're fairly cheap. Some even sell by the half dozen.


They can't be that cheap. I pay thousands in taxes and I don't even get one congressman, let alone two.
 
2009-02-17 11:21:10 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: If Mac tries to pull that shiat, I'm going to get all up in his shiat publicly.


It's heartwarming to see the legions of Fark lining up against double-dealing politicians from any party.
 
2009-02-17 11:28:16 AM  

Bored Horde: Dancin_In_Anson: If Mac tries to pull that shiat, I'm going to get all up in his shiat publicly.

It's heartwarming to see the legions of Fark lining up against double-dealing politicians from any party.


Well, McCain has certainly earned his Wind Sock status the old fashioned way...

At this point though, I don't think there are many in my own party that are willing to try to duke it out with him for 2010--and the Wing Nut Brigade out here in AZ is pretty much going to hand him another term.
 
2009-02-17 11:30:57 AM  
It's the Republicans who drag down Congressional approval ratings. Democratic are low, but higher. Link (new window)
 
2009-02-17 11:38:46 AM  
Anyone know where to find historical approval ratings of Congress? 31% approval doesn't really seem that bad to me for the legislative body.
 
2009-02-17 11:40:12 AM  
This graph made me so happy:

sas-origin.onstreammedia.com

Suck it, Repubs. Maybe you'll eventually wake up and realize that your base is rapidly shrinking.

Or better yet, DON'T. Keep doing what you're doing and let the Dems run the show for a good long time.
 
2009-02-17 11:41:41 AM  

brigid_fitch: Suck it, Repubs. Maybe you'll eventually wake up and realize that your base is rapidly shrinking.

Or better yet, DON'T. Keep doing what you're doing and let the Dems run the show for a good long time.


I actually don't think this is a good measurement. The GOP being obstructionist is not to be popular now, but to be popular in 2 and 4 years from now. This will only work if the stimulus fails and Obama has a terrible first term. But regardless if you think its a smart strategy for the GOP, its certainly pointless to measure that success using current approvl ratings.
 
2009-02-17 11:42:04 AM  

DamnYankees: Anyone know where to find historical approval ratings of Congress? 31% approval doesn't really seem that bad to me for the legislative body.


Here is Gallup back to 1975, which is probably when they started doing it. Certainly the accuracy of such polls improves as time as gone on as well, keep that in mind.

Link (new window)
 
2009-02-17 11:43:36 AM  

sloppy shoes: DamnYankees: Anyone know where to find historical approval ratings of Congress? 31% approval doesn't really seem that bad to me for the legislative body.

Here is Gallup back to 1975, which is probably when they started doing it. Certainly the accuracy of such polls improves as time as gone on as well, keep that in mind.

Link (new window)


Alright. Looks like anywhere form 30% to 40% is basically average, with the 9/11 period being very weird. So this isn't so bad.
 
2009-02-17 11:44:46 AM  

sepuku2: Cool. It was really funny calling my congressman the other day and telling him he had lost my vote next election.


I called my congressman and complained about him voting no on the stimulus package. That he wasn't representing me or his district correctly and can expect to be voted out in 2010.

I doubt that did any good, but made me feel a little better.
 
2009-02-17 11:48:01 AM  

DamnYankees: I actually don't think this is a good measurement. The GOP being obstructionist is not to be popular now, but to be popular in 2 and 4 years from now. This will only work if the stimulus fails and Obama has a terrible first term. But regardless if you think its a smart strategy for the GOP, its certainly pointless to measure that success using current approvl ratings.


I know that's their strategy, same as it was in 1994. The difference here is that Clinton didn't see it coming.
 
2009-02-17 11:49:55 AM  
www.videodetective.com
 
2009-02-17 11:51:03 AM  

brigid_fitch: I know that's their strategy, same as it was in 1994. The difference here is that Clinton didn't see it coming.


For sure. But I think its too early to say if Obama will deal with it properly. My opinion is that there are no politics you can really play if you're Obama - if you're ideas work, you will be popular and you will win. If they fail the GOP will win. Obama's job should be simply to govern the best he can.
 
2009-02-17 11:53:53 AM  

DamnYankees:
Alright. Looks like anywhere form 30% to 40% is basically average, with the 9/11 period being very weird. So this isn't so bad.


There is another problem- most people in America pay attention to Presidential action, not Congressional. This can skew the poll in a manner of ways, that may or may not be correctable- if people don't pay attention they may be excluded by the pollsters, but would agree with Congress if they knew what was going to happen. Further, I would wager a guess the people likely to follow congressional action are more likely to be the ones who disagree and are already angry.

I don't know how they do approval ratings, but some things it is extremely hard to poll for given the circumstances.
 
2009-02-17 11:59:08 AM  

brigid_fitch:
I called my congressman and complained about him voting no on the stimulus package. That he wasn't representing me or his district correctly and can expect to be voted out in 2010.

I doubt that did any good, but made me feel a little better.



You congressman probably does care about your opinion- especially if you take the time to write or call in. But, he also has to pay attention his other voters. He may very well be making the right decision. And, if he has any morals, he also has to pay attention to what he actually believes is best.
 
2009-02-17 12:04:20 PM  
Bored Horde: It's heartwarming to see the legions of Fark lining up against double-dealing politicians from any party.

I have liked Mac for the most part...but he was one that promised 12 and out...He flipped on that then voted FOR the TARP bill (He was one of 8 to vote against the bloated highway bill in 2005) because there would be a worse one coming later if it didn't pass then. He has become part of the machine.

Come home, Mac. Perryton needs you.
 
2009-02-17 12:11:41 PM  
Blah, blah, blah. I never believe approval ratings for congress. If 80+ percent of people really disapproved of congress, why do 90% of them get reelected every time they're up?
 
2009-02-17 12:41:16 PM  

downstairs: Blah, blah, blah. I never believe approval ratings for congress. If 80+ percent of people really disapproved of congress, why do 90% of them get reelected every time they're up?


Because it's always the rest of congress that's the problem to each voter. If the whole country got to vote for or against Pelosi, she'd probably not be around next time.
 
2009-02-17 12:51:13 PM  

WaltzingMathilda: Because it's always the rest of congress that's the problem to each voter


yep

"Congress sucks. But my guy is alright."
 
2009-02-17 12:52:16 PM  

WaltzingMathilda:
Because it's always the rest of congress that's the problem to each voter. If the whole country got to vote for or against Pelosi, she'd probably not be around next time.


You're right- let's just elect 536 Presidents.
 
2009-02-17 12:54:11 PM  
Sorry, I think I read your comment wrong.
 
2009-02-17 12:55:32 PM  

sloppy shoes: WaltzingMathilda:
Because it's always the rest of congress that's the problem to each voter. If the whole country got to vote for or against Pelosi, she'd probably not be around next time.

You're right- let's just elect 536 Presidents.


I am in no way saying that I want to vote for more than my congressman/woman. I was countering his assumption that approval ratings are wrong because of congressional retention rates. It's because people always think it's some other district/congressperson that sucks.
 
2009-02-17 12:56:54 PM  

WaltzingMathilda:
I am in no way saying that I want to vote for more than my congressman/woman. I was countering his assumption that approval ratings are wrong because of congressional retention rates. It's because people always think it's some other district/congressperson that sucks.


Yeah, I realized that after I posted. Sorry. See above comment.
 
2009-02-17 01:04:00 PM  
But that is certainly part of the problem. Another big problem is combining party approval ratings; since most of the time you're obviously not going to want the other party's ideas implemented. Also important- everybody is expecting different things at different times. Times like this are the exception, but on average, if you were to poll people, they would rank several issues as the most important thing Congress should be addressing. Most people forget or don't know that things are divided into committees, aides, etc... Thus, they look and see Congress addressing baseball steroids- which was stupid- and get annoyed they aren't doing anything. Or, they see Congress addressing auto emissions, but not taking care of health care. Since everybody's needs and ideas are different, it would be exceptionally hard to satisfy everyone at the same time- even if we were the same party.

Again, clarifications in poll questions could rectify some of this, but I have never been polled so I don't know how it's done.
 
2009-02-17 01:05:33 PM  

WaltzingMathilda: sloppy shoes: WaltzingMathilda:
Because it's always the rest of congress that's the problem to each voter. If the whole country got to vote for or against Pelosi, she'd probably not be around next time.

You're right- let's just elect 536 Presidents.

I am in no way saying that I want to vote for more than my congressman/woman. I was countering his assumption that approval ratings are wrong because of congressional retention rates. It's because people always think it's some other district/congressperson that sucks.


That is really at the heart of things. When you talk about Congressional approval, you're talking about a body of folks--each with their own agenda and their own issues. It's much easier to say "Damn Congress!" because it's got a ton of folks who you probably don't agree with. Looking at Congressional approval is like rating the popularity of TV. Oh, people will say that they hate this, that, and the money grubbing and boy there's a lot of dumb out there, but that's the shows that you don't watch, or the networks that you avoid--because the shows you DO watch, those are just fine. Until they jump the shark. And people do vote when a Congresscritter jumps the shark, by voting their butts out. But it doesn't keep folks from complaining about TV and then tuning in to see Heroes or BSG every week...
 
2009-02-17 01:07:22 PM  

sloppy shoes: But that is certainly part of the problem. Another big problem is combining party approval ratings; since most of the time you're obviously not going to want the other party's ideas implemented. Also important- everybody is expecting different things at different times. Times like this are the exception, but on average, if you were to poll people, they would rank several issues as the most important thing Congress should be addressing. Most people forget or don't know that things are divided into committees, aides, etc... Thus, they look and see Congress addressing baseball steroids- which was stupid- and get annoyed they aren't doing anything. Or, they see Congress addressing auto emissions, but not taking care of health care. Since everybody's needs and ideas are different, it would be exceptionally hard to satisfy everyone at the same time- even if we were the same party.

Again, clarifications in poll questions could rectify some of this, but I have never been polled so I don't know how it's done.


Very much so. It's false equivalency to think that Congressional and Presidential approval are remotely the same.
 
2009-02-17 01:07:34 PM  

sloppy shoes: Most people forget or don't know that things are divided into committees, aides, etc... Thus, they look and see Congress addressing baseball steroids- which was stupid- and get annoyed they aren't doing anything.


This is one of the most infuriating aspects of Fark discussions, what you have just pointed out. Most people think all 400+ reps were conducting those hearings and not doing anything else. Ugh.
 
2009-02-17 01:16:51 PM  

hubiestubert:
Very much so. It's false equivalency to think that Congressional and Presidential approval are remotely the same.


Another big thing is that politics is regionally diverse. SO even Democratic and Republican approval ratings will be skewed- Maine Republicans and Southeastern Republican values are extremely different. Same goes with California Democrats and Michigan Democrats.

Even more so is the dawning reality of the shrinking Republican party- they are excluded from more and more regions; thus, their various regional participants are being under represented at the national level. This is the problem with hyper-vigilance upon party success and unity over actually representing your districts. The attempts to make American parties very national and USSR like has dire consequences in my opinion.
 
2009-02-17 01:24:40 PM  

sloppy shoes: hubiestubert:
Very much so. It's false equivalency to think that Congressional and Presidential approval are remotely the same.

Another big thing is that politics is regionally diverse. SO even Democratic and Republican approval ratings will be skewed- Maine Republicans and Southeastern Republican values are extremely different. Same goes with California Democrats and Michigan Democrats.

Even more so is the dawning reality of the shrinking Republican party- they are excluded from more and more regions; thus, their various regional participants are being under represented at the national level. This is the problem with hyper-vigilance upon party success and unity over actually representing your districts. The attempts to make American parties very national and USSR like has dire consequences in my opinion.


i agree that partisanship over representation is a bad thing, but i don't get the invokation of the USSR?
 
2009-02-17 01:25:15 PM  

thomps: invokation


invocation
 
2009-02-17 01:26:02 PM  

sloppy shoes: The attempts to make American parties very national and USSR like has dire consequences in my opinion.


Well, you have to remember that the parties choose their platform on a national level and run with it. They are, for all intents and purposes, private businesses. If the consequences spill over into affecting the electorate, it's the voters' responsibility to vote for the right guy. That's where the USSR-like analogy doesn't work. We're still very much a democracy, but we're very susceptible to marketing. We don't have to just have 2 parties, and we don't have to have any parties, it's not federally mandated (hence, not USSR like) - but we really feel more comfortable in a binary world as a society. Personally, I'd like to see more honesty and more choice on an individual basis, which is why I love local elections (where you should all be really paying most of your attention, given the direct impact those have on your life) ... but I think the soviet-style analogy goes too far. We have plenty of choice, we just don't use it.

/sorry for the rant style incoherence, I'm working and trying to say too much at once
 
2009-02-17 01:27:15 PM  

thomps: invocation


You had it correct the first time comrade.


/party finds you
 
2009-02-17 01:28:35 PM  

downstairs: Blah, blah, blah. I never believe approval ratings for congress. If 80+ percent of people really disapproved of congress, why do 90% of them get reelected every time they're up?


Because "national approval rating for Congress" is not nearly the same thing as "average approval rating for each Congressperson from their constituents".

If you actually calculate each member's approval by polling only their constituents, and average all those approval ratings, Congress is much, much higher -- certainly well over 50%.
 
2009-02-17 01:29:04 PM  
Pick your stance:

So people were glad that Republicans fought against the legislation and therefore approvals went up!

or

So people were glad that Democrats finally overcame the stagnation caused by the obstructionists on the other side and therefore approvals went up!

I'm thinking it's a little of both depending on who you ask.
 
2009-02-17 01:29:56 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: If Mac tries to pull that shiat, I'm going to get all up in his shiat publicly.


Just wave to Fark when they get you on camera, ok?
 
2009-02-17 01:30:25 PM  

thomps:
i agree that partisanship over representation is a bad thing, but i don't get the invokation of the USSR?


Because USSR politics was supposed to be top down. Now, that is hardly ever really the case, as it is extremely hard to enforce, but that was the strategy.

And that is what the Republicans are specifically trying to do, or doing by equivolence (sp?). By insisting that they are indeed one, unified force, they have managed to get moderate and other versions of conservatives knocked out of office in liberal or other variants of the country. By insisting on immutable values, they really stifle themselves when things go wrong, in favor of small gains when things go their way.
 
2009-02-17 01:32:35 PM  
Who said there was no bi-partisanship that existed in American culture??

/We all hate Pelosi
 
Displayed 50 of 195 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report