90% of Americans Disgusted With Congressional Obstructionism

joseph brand

With Paul Ryan announced as the Vice Presidential candidate alongside of Mitt Romney, the Republicans were hoping to save a collapsing party ticket, catapulting the Republicans into both the White House, but also the Senate. However, instead the latest Gallup poll is demonstrating a general dislike with Congress, with approval in general down to 10%.

See here.



Would I be right in calling the behaviour of these supposed 'grown-ups' immature? Or is it just disgusting?

matthew8

No, 90% of Americans are not dissatisfied with congressional obstructionism, that's a ridiculous spin. It's also crazy to call them disgusted. They are merely dissatisfied with congress. A large number of people are dissatisfied with congress because of what it has passed, rather than what it hasn't.

Atlantis50

Failed and misleading OP parroting an equally misleading website.

The Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/156662/Congress-Approval-Ties-Time-Low.aspx) asked a simple question:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?

Notice the complete lack of the word 'obstructionism' or a similar word.

Notice also that no particular political party is mentioned. Congress is split between Republicans who control the House of Representatives and Democrats who control the Senate.

So the blame for poor Congressional poll numbers goes 50-50.

A more interesting and specific poll question is 'if the election were today would you vote for the Republican or Democrat candidate for congress?'. Pollsters occasionally ask this question and it is known as the generic congressional ballot.

Looking at the poll numbers, Republicans currently have a slight edge in the generic congressional ballot. See here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html

Which confirms my earlier point that "the blame for poor Congressional poll numbers goes 50-50" but Republicans are slightly ahead, so if anything, the American people blame the Democrats more for the situation in congress .

joseph brand

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Failed and misleading OP parroting an equally misleading website.

The Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/156662/Congress-Approval-Ties-Time-Low.aspx) asked a simple question:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?

Notice the complete lack of the word 'obstructionism' or a similar word.

Notice also that no particular political party is mentioned. Congress is split between Republicans who control the House of Representatives and Democrats who control the Senate.

So the blame for poor Congressional poll numbers goes 50-50.

A more interesting and specific poll question is 'if the election were today would you vote for the Republican or Democrat candidate for congress?'. Pollsters occasionally ask this question and it is known as the generic congressional ballot.

Looking at the poll numbers, Republicans currently have a slight edge in the generic congressional ballot. See here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html

Which confirms my earlier point that "the blame for poor Congressional poll numbers goes 50-50" but Republicans are slightly ahead, so if anything, the American people blame the Democrats more for the situation in congress .

Are you saying that GOP obstructionism isn't real?

"We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional,” wrote Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein. “In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.”
Groups such as Americans for Prosperity and the Club for Growth. They targeted Mike Castle in Delaware, Bob Bennett in Utah, Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, Olympia Snowe in Maine, Orrin Hatch in Utah and, of course, Lugar.


In his August 2011 negotiations with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Obama broached raising the eligibility age for Medicare and slowing the growth in Social Security benefits by “chaining” the program to the consumer price index. At the end, those negotiations fell apart not because Obama couldn’t persuade Democrats to sign on to entitlement changes, but because Boehner couldn’t persuade Republicans to sign on to tax increases.

Whether the Republican Party is “the problem” is a subjective judgment. Perhaps you loathe taxes and, in the face of all available evidence, consider global warming a hoax. In that case, the Republican Party is doing exactly what it should be doing. But there is simply no denying that the Republican Party has gone much further right than the Democratic Party has gone left, and that, from policy pledges to primary challenges, it has done much more to discourage its members from compromising than the Democratic Party has.

More here.

Their main goal was just to get rid of the 'Kenyan Muslim Obama' so they could plop someone with paler skin in The White House, to still their beating 'hearts'. Blame Obama, get back in power. Business as usual.

Overheal

google, "GOP Party of No". Result 4 or 5. ish.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/12/12/party-of-no-fox-amp-friends-rewrites-history-to/185170

southsiderosie

Congress consistently has horrible approval ratings as an institution, and politicians are loathed more than most other professions (they are down there with lawyers and journalists). Yet over 90% of incumbents will be returned to office. Citizens generally dislike the legislature, but like their legislator. Hm, where have I heard this before...

Amerika

I tried to find out which party were more guilty of obstruction in Congress from good independent sources. Not an easy thing to find out or determine! But from what I’ve read so far it appears to be the democrats who are most guilty. I’ve read that hundreds of bills over the past couple of years passed by the House were completely ignored by Harry Reid in the Senate… no debate, no vote, nothing, nada. If that isn’t obstruction, I don't know what is.

But that all might change in November. I’ve seen the chances of the Democrats taking over the House in 2012 are under 20%, and their chance of keeping control of the Senate only are at about 50%. It seems two Republican seats are tossups, as are six Democratic seats. If the Democrats get one of the two Republican tossups, and the Republicans get half of the Democratic tossups, it would give the Republicans a 51-49 majority in the Senate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I tried to find out which party were more guilty of obstruction in Congress from good independent sources. Not an easy thing to find out or determine! But from what I’ve read so far it appears to be the democrats who are most guilty. I’ve read that hundreds of bills over the past couple of years passed by the House were completely ignored by Harry Reid in the Senate… no debate, no vote, nothing, nada. If that isn’t obstruction, I don't know what is.

But that all might change in November. I’ve seen the chances of the Democrats taking over the House in 2012 are under 20%, and their chance of keeping control of the Senate only are at about 50%. It seems two Republican seats are tossups, as are six Democratic seats. If the Democrats get one of the two Republican tossups, and the Republicans get half of the Democratic tossups, it would give the Republicans a 51-49 majority in the Senate.

I can only go by what I've seen, and I've seen both sides just as culpable. I think thats why its so hard to find a concrete verdict. When Bush lost the house/senate, the Dems committed obstructionism. And when Obama lost it, guess who stepped in with Obstructionism?

Its sad. They can't just give due credit. It doesnt behoove Party A to pass legislature while party B is in control of the Oval office because even if its good legislature, it basically credits that win to Party B, something that will be used against party A in future campaigns (and by future campaigns we of course mean the constant campaigning that constantly occurs).

Because in the last 10 years people have been voting not to get things DONE, but to STOP things from happening. "If so and so is elected it will DESTROY america or set our economy or our healthcare or our xyz back 50 YEARS" is the attitude in politics. There's not a whole lot of constructive thought going on and of that which is, it's being met with at least an equal if not overwhelming counterforce of defensive politics that have effectively labeled change by either side as a bad thing for the country.

Not hard to see why I despise partisan politics.

southsiderosie

Overheal wrote: »

I can only go by what I've seen, and I've seen both sides just as culpable. I think thats why its so hard to find a concrete verdict. When Bush lost the house/senate, the Dems committed obstructionism. And when Obama lost it, guess who stepped in with Obstructionism?

Its sad. They can't just give due credit. It doesnt behoove Party A to pass legislature while party B is in control of the Oval office because even if its good legislature, it basically credits that win to Party B, something that will be used against party A in future campaigns (and by future campaigns we of course mean the constant campaigning that constantly occurs).

Because in the last 10 years people have been voting not to get things DONE, but to STOP things from happening. "If so and so is elected it will DESTROY america or set our economy or our healthcare or our xyz back 50 YEARS" is the attitude in politics. There's not a whole lot of constructive thought going on and of that which is, it's being met with at least an equal if not overwhelming counterforce of defensive politics that have effectively labeled change by either side as a bad thing for the country.

Not hard to see why I despise partisan politics.

I think gerrymandering on both sides of the aisle has contributed to this greatly. If you have a 'mixed' Congressional district, you are going to have to make some compromises policy-wise. But when you have megadistricts controlled by one party, all it does is increase the number of zealots in the House (which has historically been quite wild anyway).

Tony Hill, a political scientist from MIT, proposed an algorithm to draw district boundaries based on population shifts, rather than partisanship. I can't find a link right now, but it was an interesting proposal. It will never pass though; turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

Hmmm… Perhaps with control of the Senate and the Presidency so close with the upcoming election, it might just be a good thing to put Republicans in total control… for at least 2 years – like the Democrats had… just to get something done for once. Let’s see which has/will do the better job with control. Sound good?

southsiderosie

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think gerrymandering on both sides of the aisle has contributed to this greatly. If you have a 'mixed' Congressional district, you are going to have to make some compromises policy-wise. But when you have megadistricts controlled by one party, all it does is increase the number of zealots in the House (which has historically been quite wild anyway).

Tony Hill, a political scientist from MIT, proposed an algorithm to draw district boundaries based on population shifts, rather than partisanship. I can't find a link right now, but it was an interesting proposal. It will never pass though; turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

I'd love to see sources for this little section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Incumbent_gerrymandering If true it shows in black and white that there's no political appetite to tackle the issue.

Overheal