Poll: Majority Thinks One-Party Dem Rule Will Be Good For Country
In the closing days of the campaign, lots and lots of Repubs sounded dire warnings about the liberal stranglehold one-party Dem rule would put on Washington. But it turns out that a solid majority of voters rather likes the idea:
In the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Tuesday, 59 percent of those questioned said Democratic control of both the executive and legislative branches will be good for the country, compared with 38 percent saying such one-party control will be bad.
Obviously Dems are enjoying the fruits of the GOP's badly damaged brand here. More broadly, though, it suggests that Dems have a big opportunity.
The public is not prejudiced against the idea of one-party rule. They want successful rule, not empty pundit-approved gestures of "bi-partisanship" for its own sake. If the next two or four years are judged at the very least a modest success, and the public concludes that one-party Dem rule has been far more effective than the disastrous six years of one-party GOP rule have been, then the possibility of an enduring Dem majority looks more likely.
With great opportunity comes great respons . . . oh, you know the routine.
November 11, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dems always blow the opportunities. The old Will Rogers line, you know. "I don't belong to an organized party. I'm a Democrat."
November 11, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a virtue
November 11, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
exactly, democrats aren't very organized I have found them to be very emotional...which is why I always have this urge to move towards republicans, but Im smart enough to recognize the issues over personalities. People want bipartisanship and the good thing about not having a majority is that the other party gets accused of not willing to work across party lines to get things done, so if healthcare reform doesn't pass then we can say the republicans stopped it and they will get blamed and not win the next election...I wish
Picture: And You Thought Obama Was a Nerd Before, Obama Was In A Group Called “Lawn Rangers”
November 11, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
With Obama at the helm, I have the feeling that the days of Democrats being disorganized are over. He is a man on a mission.
November 11, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank God Obama (substance) as at the helm. Otherwise this opportunity would be frittered away.
November 11, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: ... is at the helm.
November 11, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I really think the man will be both ethical and very "constitutional." Yes, thank god!
November 11, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yes, and yes. And that's one of the reasons I believe the public won't buy Liebersuck's "put politics before country" crap. If we are fortunate to see that asshead thrown out of the committee chair, the GOP will sure jump on it. But, really, who cares? People want a better government, not a "bipartisan" government, and the Democrats won. Nothing to fear about -- just get the job done.
November 11, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bi-partisanship, sure, when needed. I think this poll shows that we don't have to let that be the guiding principle though.
November 11, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If democrats do well here it would likely lead to a generation of democratic party dominance. It could also mean that democratic party becomes the party of progressives and centrists. That would leave the right wing nuts marginalized.
November 11, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone else catch Matthews calling out some Republican "strategist" about their meme of how the Dems need to be "cautious" and don't really have a mandate? Matthews really laid in to him pointing out how Reagan with 51% claimed one and even W claimed one having won without the popular vote. Nice to see someone stand-up to the shrill Republican noise machine.
November 11, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, this was from last night.
November 11, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well yes. I agree. There is been a lot of BS from the MSM these past few days.
November 11, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
E.J. Dionne had a good comment on this yesterday as well:
November 11, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks much for the link. Dionne is exactly right in what he states.
I find it infinitely amusing how deeply those in the current incarnation of "conservatives" steep themselves in denial whenever their policies are exposed as the fatally flawed things they are and are roundly rejected by the public. Excuses from right-wing quarters abound as to how those policies were incorrectly executed or that those who implemented them were secretly liberals (you know, like how W was a secret liberal). And now to hear that those who derided him as a socialist and even Marxist now claim that he actually ran as a conservative! It ain't just a river in Egypt folks.
November 11, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well it just partisan bs, the type that the country is tired off. They are just succeeding at marginalizing and rendering themselves irrelevant.
November 11, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And are Democrats too stupid to realize that Reagan won by 10 percentage points over his nearest opponent, and with a hefty 440 electoral vote margin, and had John Anderson not run, no doubt most of his votes would have gone to Reagan? Oh, remember in the primaries how every Obama fan knew it was Obama's delegate lead and not any Hillary popular vote lead that mattered?
People hated Carter. It was a serious mandate. In Obama's case less so - worries about race, terrorist ties, lack of experience, etc., despite running against a grumpy old man and a horrid economy and with 2/3 of of the congressional seats going Dem, he managed only 6.5%. But the Senate, the House, governorships? Out of the park.
November 11, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why so angry? Look, it's very simple. Presidents like the idea of claiming a mandate when they have a majority of Americans behind then (i.e. 51%). In Reagan's case he managed 50.7% of the vote meaning the 49.3% didn't agree with Reagan, yet it was deemed a "Revolution". W didn't even manage to win the popular vote yet claimed a "mandate" for himself. Like it or not, Obama wona larger percentage of the vote than did Reagan in 1980, yet the Republicans would claim no mandate....uh huh.
November 11, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero is a female sexist whiner who can't admit that Hillary lost on her own merits. It was "sexism" that defeated Hillary, ya see, even though Obama was up against racism -- and won on his own merits.
A female sexist whiner who REFUSES to grow up and stop living in her bitter-bitch past.
I'm wondering if simply ignoring the whiner will cause her to STFU and sulk in silence, in view of the fact she clearly refuses to be constructive even though not all humans aren't female.
November 12, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama won the more affluent voters. Great news for Democrats. It's become respectable to be a Democrat again so don't let Hannity intimidate you folks.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15471.html
November 11, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama won are came close to winning all income groups.
November 11, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where do those figures come from?
November 11, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
cnn
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1
November 11, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama and Biden were right. Those making big bucks are not totally opposed to paying to fertilize the garden. And so was McCain;
those at the levels just below are afraid to be taxed more heavily on what they "might" make.
November 11, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact many new millionaires (10 million) support Obama and his upper level tax increases. The understand the importance of avoiding ever increase gap between the wealthy and the working class.
November 11, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, just wow. Now obama needs to take advantage of this and run a good and effective administration. Also, he has to be bi-partisan in a true sense of the word. Republicans on the cabinet and bring Republicans on board on initiatives in Congress. We really could be witnessing a true realignment, especially if Republicans nominate Rambo of the Northwest in 2012. Look out. The future finally looks bright after the decades of darkness.
November 11, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It also suggests to me that if people are for getting things done - under the Dems - that repub efforts to paint the Dems negatively are more likely to backfire than succeed. They've now painted themselves into such a corner it's hard for them to maneuver, except to flail impotently.
November 11, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
By appointing republicans, Obama is giving the republican party leave to change their expectations and work toward change themselves. As progressive changes help everyone, the republican party will be positioned to take ownership and transform into a progressive, if still conservative, party. By not taking republicans to the woodshed, Barack is allowing the GOP the dignity necessary to change defeat into evolution. A rarity in American politics on the left and right.
November 12, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't recall when Democrats in Congress had a leader with comprehensive achievable objectives for the country like Obama has. Clinton's presidency seems improvisational by comparison.
With a clear, workable blueprint to get the country out of its many crises, particularly one that makes the lives of most Americans better, all the Democrats have to do to come out winners is craft passable legislation to make it so. I'm rooting for them. Yes they can!
November 11, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets just end war. Then any "-ism" will work.
November 11, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That should be at the top of the list.
November 11, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Obama has said over and over: The American people are not stupid!
I think the American people are showing sound judgment here. Very good sign, say I.
November 11, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe not stupid, but certainly capable of being mislead for periods of twelve and eight years at a time.
November 11, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
But they respond to the words of leaders. And Obama has told them not to be stupid anymore!
November 11, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how do these poll numbers square with the other poll in the field (a few threads below this on TPM) saying 61% of the country want a Dem/Republican split in Pres. Obama's Cabinet?
I think the answer is, people will agree to polls based on whether the proposal in the poll tends to support values they already have.
In other words, they are easily distracted and inconsistent. Dumb.
It is heartening to see that the war to wave the shiniest object in front of stupid people does not preclude Democratic governance, though. We just have to continue to frame it correctly, because - remember - the target audience is really stupid.
November 12, 2008 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Offthread Update: No major cabinet appointments before Thanksgiving, which isn't very far away, but anyways, here's the link-
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/11/11/no_cabinet_appointments_soon.html
November 11, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an independent who leans Demo, I don't see how the so-called "One-Party Dem Rule" can be worse for the country than Bush 2001-2006 was. And especially given a smart President and difficult economic times, I'm hard pressed to see what egregious policy damage could be done.
Can anyone wax eloquent on the plausible (not wacko) downsides of a "One-Party Dem Rule" for at least 2 and probably 4 years, at this point?
Is there any loyal opposition here?
November 11, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about Dem rule.
It's about whether you believe in a strong middle class or a corporate aristocracy.
It's whether you believe in economic justice or Ayn Rand.
It's whether you think God is an angry old white dude that happens to be on YOUR side and is about to kicketh-the-crapola out of your enemies or if your faith (if any) is personal, focused inward rather than outward, and is exemplified by your patience and kindness to others.
November 11, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word!
November 12, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those pole results are Holy Shit numbers to run against the "Center Right" bullshit.
John
November 11, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another Repub myth shattered by reality.
Next up to be shattered, the "center-right" canard.
November 11, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. At the same time though, I'm fine with letting those whackjobs keep believing that crap and keep campaigning on that belief...
November 11, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem for the Republicans is that their single minded devotion to conservative ideology has blinded them. For the last years they have been standing against the public will at every turn. They have no idea how badly the middle class has been hurting. How stupid was John McCain for proposing more of the same during the last election. He was the best the Republicans had. The Republicans forgot that the middle class outnumbers American Heritage Foundation "scholars" and similar beltway chuckleheads by about 300 million.
November 11, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem for the Republicans is that their single minded devotion to conservative ideology has blinded them. For the last years they have been standing against the public will at every turn. They have no idea how badly the middle class has been hurting. How stupid was John McCain for proposing more of the same during the last election. He was the best the Republicans had. The Republicans forgot that the middle class outnumbers American Heritage Foundation "scholars" and similar beltway chuckleheads by about 300 million.
November 11, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is time for the networks and major print media to do an evaluation of the "wisdom"
displayed by their paid pundits over the past year and send many out to pasture for poor performance.
November 11, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
More proof that Democrats do NOT have a mandate to implement their agenda in this center right country!
November 11, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
One party rule is fine with the public as long as we decrease spending and the size of gummint.
November 11, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
you know, my three rules for the next few months are....
suspend cynicism (not discernment)
DO something in my life to make our country better.
give the guy some time....
November 11, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If only self-described moderates had voted in this election, we essentially would have had one-party rule in a landslide. Check it out:
http://washingtonindependent.com/17988/this-is-what-the-2008-electoral-map-would-look-like-if-the-election-were-decided-by-fill-in-the-blank
November 11, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't Americans really care about one party rule or divided rule. As others have said, I think the care about effective rule in the long run and are indifferent about the one party issue. Their support of Obama out weights any concern about democratic dominance and they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
November 11, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why so angry? Look, it's very simple. Presidents like the idea of claiming a mandate when they have a majority of Americans behind then (i.e. 51%). In Reagan's case he managed 50.7% of the vote meaning the 49.3% didn't agree with Reagan, yet it was deemed a "Revolution". W didn't even manage to win the popular vote yet claimed a "mandate" for himself. Like it or not, Obama wona larger percentage of the vote than did Reagan in 1980, yet the Republicans would claim no mandate....uh huh.
November 11, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops. Meant for Desidero above
November 11, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if anyone near Obama is reading this or if the mighty Obama himself will see this. Every day we read more blather about including Republicans and centrists dominating Obama's inner circle, etc... Typical Washington DC Democratic bullshit. The only group more out of touch with the American people than the Republicans in DC are the Democrats in DC. I wish Obama didn't hang with them so tight. It's a really, really bad sign.
November 11, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Transformation. People mimic their leaders. Usually a small percentage lead the large majority. Obama is the leader and the democratic establishment are the followers.
Remember in grade school how removing a small percentage of kids, the bullies, could transformed a whole classroom of kids? Well the bullies are leaving, and the big man on campus is Obama.
November 11, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's group is keeping their mouths shut. This allows DC folks to go nuts and spread rumors as facts.
It's blather and not reality. Obama doesn't hang with these folks--these folks wish fervently that Obama would pay one iota of attention to them.
November 11, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand holding our leaders accountable but what I'm seeing on some sites is disturbing. Some of these so called progressive groups need to relax a bit and give Obama some room to set things up. Just because one of his choices that are being leaked to the press doesn't jive with whatever their perceived ideal candidate for cabinet spots, doesn't mean people need to start these ridiculous web sites and Facebook groups.
You've got groups out there flipping out with every little bit of info on a suspected cabinet pick. They are just giving fodder to the right wing talk show hosts.
The way I see it is Obama seems to have made some pretty good decisions in the last couple years. I don't think he's just going to get stupid overnight and hastily make bad decisions.
Anyways, I'm done venting....cheers.
November 11, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have an opening to prove what we're selling is better than the other leading brand.
If we don't, then we have no one to blame but ourselves.
November 11, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to see a U.S. election map with the the number of electoral votes in each state as well as the color. The maps that balloon the big-voter states into larger geographical areas are just annoying. Simply put the number of electoral votes in each state so that we know -- as we saw in the NYT map -- that those big red states have a lot less stature (but still a significant number of blue votes) than their two senate seats would represent. There is only a red streak along the Mason-Dixon line versus the rest of the civilized world! And we have to keep it that way because the D agenda represents the wishes of probably 80 percent of the citizens (even if they confusedly voted for McCain). That is all.
November 12, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink