June 12, 2007

LA Times Poll Spells Trouble For Democrats

The new Los Angeles Times poll shows Democrats in trouble in both Congress and the presidential race. Support for Congress has dropped to historic lows, and the luster has worn from Nancy Pelosi's historic win as House Speaker. Hillary Clinton looks stronger than ever for the nomination -- but that may be bad news as well.

At Heading Right, I dissect the poll, check the sample, and determine that it looks better for Republicans than one might think. One Republican will certainly delight in the survey -- and may light up a cigar to celebrate.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, Rasmussen has even better numbers for Fred (via Hot Air):

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has to share his spot atop the field of Republican Presidential hopefuls this week. The newest face in the race, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, is now tied with Giuliani. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds each man earning support from 24% of likely Republican Primary voters. A week ago, Giuliani had a six percentage point lead over Thompson, 23% to 17%.

It is not unusual for a candidate to gain ground in the polls when they first announce their intentions. However, Thompson’s rise has been meteoric. It remains to be seen whether the reality of his candidacy can measure up to its allure as an alternative for those dissatisfied with the other candidates in the field. At the moment, 59% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of their newest candidate. Just 14% hold an unfavorable opinion of Thompson while 27% are not sure.

Rasmussen calls Fred's rise "meteoric", but that may have to do with the perceived vacuum of conservative options in the race thus far. John McCain, for instance, has dropped quickly in the Rasmussen poll after the introduction of his immigration reform bill in Congress two weeks ago. His support in the Rasmussen poll dropped to half of what he had in January, and six points in the last month.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/cq082307.cgi/10216

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference LA Times Poll Spells Trouble For Democrats:

» The Business as Usual Congress from Adam's Blog
Truth and Hope Report Podcast Show Notes: "Business as Usual," that's how 63% of Americans describe the Democrat Congress. (hat tip: Captain's Quarters). Might if have something to do with outrageous Democrat earmarks? They're all talk, no action po... [Read More]

Comments (19)

Posted by reddog | June 12, 2007 9:26 AM

Too bad they hate the War in Iraq more than the Dems. You still have to throw Bush and the War under the bus before you win in '08.

If you go that I might even vote Republican. I'm no big Hillary fan.

Posted by Monkei | June 12, 2007 9:38 AM

Reddog is 100% correct. With 60+ percent not in favor of this war it is the GOP who is on record on countless votes as being the owner of the war .. but captain, you keep on grabing onto the little bit of news that helps you along!

When is that ND-PSU game anyway?

Posted by Scott Malensek | June 12, 2007 9:48 AM

No Bush to run ABB against in 2008
No new "New Direction in Iraq" to promise in 2008
No Culture of Corruption to claim to clean in 2008
No accomplishments to hold high for 2008

Looks like Dems have some strategic problems.

Losing 9 pts in 6 months translates to a complete bottoming out 18months if it continues, and it's hard to imagine their approval going up for any reason given the deliberate division the Democrats have falsely bolstered and the uber pandering that-as it gets worse-paints them as even less reliable, honorable, resolved, or believable.

Posted by docjim505 | June 12, 2007 10:12 AM

While bad news for the democrats is always welcome (it's usually good news for the United States), I don't put too much stock in this kind of poll. There are months to go before the election, and it seems to me that Congress generally has poor approval numbers but its members almost always win reelection. After all, SanFran Nan doesn't have to win a national election: she merely has to convince that pathetic collection of burned out ex-hippies she represents that she's doing a helluva job. Not too big a task, I think.

Scott Malensek has a good point, though: the dems won in '06 on issues that won't really be part of the dynamic in '08. They're going to have to come up with newer, better things to b***h about, unless they (gasp!) actually decide to put forth ideas of their own.

Nah. Never happen.

Posted by Al in St. Lou | June 12, 2007 10:49 AM

Back in December 2000, I predicted that the Democrats would nominate a sure loser for 2004, Hillary for 2008, and that no one would care who they nominated in 2012 when they'd come in third place behind a new party. Even I'm amazed at how closely the Democrats are following my prediction.

Many of us are not happy with the direction taken by the Bush administration, including fumbling the occupation and the out-of-control spending. However, the Democrats are mostly going in the wrong direction: "Let's really screw up Iraq and tax and spend and tax and spend!"

The voters are looking for something different. I don't know who the new party will be, but I hope it's something like a merger of the Liberal Capitalist Party and something older with more name recognition.

Posted by Monkei | June 12, 2007 10:53 AM

Iraq ... it's Iraq Stupid ... you can go on with your fictious claims that the dems won because of this and that but it was and continues to be Iraq Iraq Iraq.

As long as Iraq contunues to be the black hole of nothingness that it is and we continue to lose troops refereeing a civil war there will be no way for the GOP to escape Iraq. Every member of Congress who can point to their efforts to stop the war sooner than later will be in good shape, while every member of Congress who has voted to stay the course will run like a scalded dog from their "voting" record.

I like the dem's position. Trying to stop the war and not suceeding looks a lot better than fighting to continue the war and succeeding!

Posted by tgharris | June 12, 2007 11:11 AM

The Dems could have stopped the war. They didn't have the guts to do it.

Whoever is the Dem nominee in '08 will have become so by selling their soul to the Far- Left, Get-Out-of-Iraq-at-Any-Cost Crowd. And that will hang around their neck like an albatross in the general election. Why? Because the Dem nominee will have to move to the center, and the Far Left base will make them miserable when they do it.

Posted by Scott Malensek | June 12, 2007 11:14 AM

"Trying to stop the war and not suceeding looks a lot better than fighting to continue the war and succeeding!"

Nice. How's that campaign banner go:

"Vote Bob, Democrat for Congress, because he tried"

If all that's needed to get a vote is to have a resume that includes support for non-binding opposition to the Iraq War then I have to wonder...is non-binding opposition really opposition at all or is it just pandering to a demographic that will vote for anyone and anything that has more sizzle than grisle

Posted by Mike M. | June 12, 2007 11:15 AM

There is no doubt that Iraq is a huge cloud looming over everything, but my opinion is that I believe it goes far deeper than just that one admittedly big issue.

I believe that the average American today is more discontented with our government in general that probably at any time since Watergate. With gasoline prices at record highs, the lingering fears of terrorism, "wars" that look much more like global police actions, rampant corruption in both parties, the skyrocketing debt and selling of America to dubious foreign interests, and an immigration "debate" that puts the wishes of most Americans last, everyone senses that there is something fundamentally wrong with the entire system, and that our "leadership" is failing us miserably.

Posted by Carol Herman | June 12, 2007 11:24 AM

The future is always unknown! Those are the rules of the game.

And, just like the Soprano's, a show with a history of being loved; managed to anger a lot of viewers Sunday night. By doing what? Playing it safe? Protecting the movie that can be made from this? Who knows?

I'd guess that any candidate TO WIN, must look like a winner.

These means that there are conservatives, who are not diehards, like Ann Coulter; who will vote for the most likely candidate to WIN. Not the one who panders the most to the right wing nutters.

Where Guiliani remains strong is in her MIDDLE OR THE ROAD, balanced views. So far, he's the only candidate willing to approach voters with a rule that he wouldn't put women in jail for having abortions.

We've heard all the songs and dances as this topic gets played. It's not as if you have to go out there, and try to fool the American people "again."

And, if Ruth Bader Ginsberg retires, it will open up the contest to someone. (Arlen Specter has already signalled Bush that there's the sound of the 3rd rail, coming, if he selects, let's say, a turkey like Alberto Gonzales.) Nobody, of course, knows what Bush can do. Since he makes a lot of stupid choices. But it's out there.

And, yes. The stuff that becomes the news is the stuff that each campaign has to deal with. Just as Hillary has to deal with her base of nutters.

At least the GOP has a healthy field with lots of candidates. And, no "new debates" planned until deep into August.

Up ahead. Those who attract the money have the bucks to hire talent. They get to flood the market with their sound bytes. Etc.

So far, it seems, Fred Thompson can also mount stuff up at U-Tube. He's got the clout that comes from InstaPundit's site. And, others. Hey. Even including Drudge!

I'd guess that Drudge's site will be getting people better focussed on what's coming down the pike, too. (Did he run a headline today that says ALL news will be delivered FIRST via the Internet, within five years?)

The "picture" is changing. Those guys on the bus? Who had the fun jobs of following candidates around from campaign stop to campaign stop? Where are they now?

And, what kind of memories are easy for you to tap? What about George Allen's "Macaca" moment? Can you still picture the guy with the Mohawk? Why's that? Why do visuals trump?

The only thing none of us know is how it will all play out.

If Guiliani maintains the lead, however, I'd guess there will be rumors that he's got his cancer back. It's just waiting to happen. Health issues will be a premium form of attack. Later on.

The other thing that's unknown is this: What if going into the Conventon to nominate the 2008 candidate, there's still "favorite sons" vying with each other. And, the smoke filled rooms begin to deal with convention voters who don't make it easy for any one man to claim victory on the very first ballot? (There were times in our history it would take 23 ballots for a nomination to be made. And, that's lot's of deal making!)

Will we have a "no deals" convention?

You want to guess? Be my guest. Opinions are free. And, if you have doubts? Flip a coin.

Posted by Monkei | June 12, 2007 11:31 AM

Nice. How's that campaign banner go:

"Vote Bob, Democrat for Congress, because he tried

Yeah it will work, you are dealing wtih the American electorate here, not brain surgeons. The same public who is more interested in Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole than real news.

Yeah "Vote Bob, Democrat for Congress, because he tried" works very well when you counter it with "Keep Republican Jim Bob in Washington, he will continue to fight to keep us in Iraq"!

Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | June 12, 2007 12:55 PM

By all means Monkei and reddog - please keep up your type of "thinking". Please please please pretty-please! To help out, another tanker full of Kool-Aid is being delivered to DNC headquarters as we speak to replenish dwindling supply. Knock yourselves out!

Posted by Immolate | June 12, 2007 12:57 PM

You're right Monkei. As long as Republicans act as stupidly as you think they are, you can't loose.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | June 12, 2007 4:51 PM

monkei sez:

"As long as Iraq contunues to be the black hole of nothingness that it is "

Yeah, you're right. Saddam was SO much better.

The southpaws here whine about how this war has lasted "longer" than World War 2, while conveniently forgetting that they would never let our military fight this war the way we fought that war.

Posted by docjim505 | June 12, 2007 7:34 PM

Mike M. wrote (June 12, 2007 11:15 AM):

I believe that the average American today is more discontented with our government in general that probably at any time since Watergate. With gasoline prices at record highs, the lingering fears of terrorism, "wars" that look much more like global police actions, rampant corruption in both parties, the skyrocketing debt and selling of America to dubious foreign interests, and an immigration "debate" that puts the wishes of most Americans last, everyone senses that there is something fundamentally wrong with the entire system, and that our "leadership" is failing us miserably.

Wow. That's a bleak view of our current situation... And I think it comes damned close to hitting the nail on the head. I think that the American people - you know, those fools who obsess over Paris and Anna Nicole and yet somehow have managed their own affairs successfully for over two centuries - feel that something IS wrong.

But what??? The economy is going well, the war in Iraq is more inconvenient than disastrous, we haven't been attacked on our own soil in almost six years, the stock market's up... and people still feel uneasy. Part of it is due to the constant "the sky is falling" from the Chicken Littles in the MSM; when every newscast is nothing but bad news about everything from casualties in Iraq to missing college girls to global warming, who WOULDN'T feel uneasy?

But I think Mike M. nails the real cause for our sense of national worry: there is no leadership. Grand speeches have never been Bush's forte; he has had a few moments where he was inspiring, but lately he just seems to be going through the motions. As for the Congressional "leadership"... PFUI! SanFran Nan and Dingy Harry can't even organize the retreat from Iraq that they promised despite (so they claim) the overwhelming support of the American people to get out. They haven't even had the guts to try to cut funding but instead have tried - without success - to arrange "benchmarks" and "timetables" so as to have their retreat without having to put their names on paper as the sell-outs that they are. The GOP is no better. McConnell? Boehner? Lott? Career politicos who are at home in the Byzantine ritual of the Congress where everything is done by committee, concession, and compromise so that everybody can claim credit for the good and nobody has to take the rap for the bad. And with the antics of Jefferson, Cunningham, Foley, et al, who in their right mind would look to that pack of 535 thieves, liars, and cheats for leadership??? I'd sooner trust Don Corleone.

And what about our field of prospective presidential candidates? God save the United States from the Hilldabeast or McCain, a pair of strutting egoists and wanna-be autocrats who have nothing but contempt for the Constitution and government of the people. Romney? Obama? Silky Pony? Who knows what any of those empty suits stand for, as their positions shift from day to day in response to the polls. Rudy? Well, maybe, but the fact that Fred is getting raves from Republicans when he isn't officially even a candidate speaks volumes about how the average GOP voter REALLY feels about Rudy.

Yep, it's looking pretty bleak out there, leadership-wise. The country isn't in trouble, but feels unsure about the future, and needs somebody to sooth its jittery nerves and say in a calm, clear voice:

I take up my task in buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. I feel entitled at this juncture, at this time, to claim the aid of all and to say, "Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength." (1)

-------------

(1) Winston S. Churchill, upon being named Prime Minister, May 13, 1940

Posted by mw | June 12, 2007 10:28 PM

The presidential contest is unpredictable until we know the candidates. For the sake of preserving divided government, I hope the Reps take the White House.
But Republicans taking Congress in '08? NFW.

The Senate? The Democratic majority in the Senate cannot get any thinner, so one would think there is an opportunity and a possibility for the Republicans to retake the Senate in '08, but structural factors say no. There are 33 Senate seats contested in 2008. Of these, 21 are held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats. Simple numbers - the Republicans have a lot more at risk, and will be playing defense. The Democrats have many more opportunities to take seats than Republicans. Advantage Democrats. Big big advantage.

How about the House of Representative? Since the US has been electing Senators directly (over 100 years), the House has never changed majority control unless the Senate did also (as in 2006). That would be "NEVER", as in "not even once." It won't happen in 2008 either. Incumbents have a significant advantage, and the Democrats have a sizeable majority. The Democrats would have to screw-up on a scale of how the Republicans screwed up in 2006. They would have to pile up a record of corruption in two years comparable to what the Republicans did in six. I would not put either past them, but it does seem unlikely. Also, the Democrats made significant gains in state legislatures and governorships across the country, again - advantage Dems. They'll keep Congress in '08.

Republicans will have to wait until 2010 for their first real shot at Congress.

Posted by Monkei | June 13, 2007 11:14 AM

So Pineapple

Yeah, you're right. Saddam was SO much better.

I guess then this is one of those light bulb questions for dumb conservatives everywhere ... instead of how many soldiers does it take to screw in a light bulb we change it to "how many soldiers does it take to remove a dictator"? Of course that answer is still counting.

You busted it, you own it. Of course the blame game now for the GOP is the Dems didn't allow this military to fight this war the way they wanted to fight it ... lame ... since the military has gotten everything, so far, that they have asked for, I am not sure how this can be thrown back at the dems, but I am sure those of you who could never see fault in the human waste of skin (GWB) will find a way! The blame on how this war was approached, fought and continues to be fought lies at the feet of GWB and the GOP. No one else to blame in this one, accept it. Move on.

Oh and Duadi ... my kind of thinking, the thinking amongst most of us Americans is working just fine. How soon you forgot Nov 2006. Please please please, you keep toeing the GOP present line and you will find two things happening ... (1) the GOP will lose even more seats in the House and Senate and probably the WH, and (2) you will find a crap load of GOP candidates leaving you and your fellow lock steppers behind in an attempt to save their political hides and their jobs ... and calling Iraq for what it is and for what you can't seem to see. Enjoy the ride.

Posted by Freedom Lover | June 16, 2007 10:32 AM

Folks,

This is the United States of America. What makes America great is that it is the very embodiment of human liberty in the world.

America is the only nation in hostory to send its sons and daughters to fight and die so that others may be free. Twice in the last century, the so-called civilized Europeans were at each others throats, and who had to come and save their butts, but the corn-huskers from Iowa and Nebraska, the steel-mill workers from Pittsburgh, the actors from Hollywood, and the back woodsmen from Tennessee.

Where would Europe be without the United States today? Under the Nazi jackboot or the Soviet hammer and sickle.

Both those wars were rough and tumble affairs. Millions died, and millions more suffered. But in the end, tyranny was defeated, and freedom spread to tens of milions of human souls.

Folks, this is what America is all about!

We went into Iraq, to depose a tyrant. Saddam had killed over a million people during his mis-rule.

Screw the WMDs, we deposed a tyrant, and even now are birthing liberty in that nation for 27 million people.

That is noble, that is worthy, that is fundamentally an American thing to do.

Those who oppose it have forgetten what it means to be an American.

Let me remind you, lest that be you. To be an American means to stand up for freedom, yours and your neighbor's. It means being ready to oppose dictators, and slaughter vicious tyrants. It means being ready to sacrifice creature comforts so that freedom spreads around the world. It means loving freedom so much that you are ready to live for it, and if necessary, die for it. And it means giving succor and support to all of your brothers and sisters throughout the world who live under tyranny, and telling them that you are with them, that you will speak out for them, and that their freedom means as much as your own, because in the end, we are all human, put here by God, and if one of is not free, none of us are free.

If you read this, and it moves you, because you know in your heart that it is Truth, you must only support candidates committed to seeing the job done in Iraq, and making sure that freedom takes root, its enemies are banished and defeated, and that government by the people, for the people, and of the people shall not perish in the MIddle East.

God bless you all, God bless freedom, and God bless the United States of America.

Posted by Freedom Lover | June 16, 2007 10:35 AM

Folks,

This is the United States of America. What makes America great is that it is the very embodiment of human liberty in the world.

America is the only nation in history to send its sons and daughters to fight and die so that others may be free. Twice in the last century, the so-called civilized Europeans were at each others throats, and who had to come and save their butts, but the corn-huskers from Iowa and Nebraska, the steel-mill workers from Pittsburgh, the actors from Hollywood, and the back woodsmen from Tennessee.

Where would Europe be without the United States today? Under the Nazi jackboot or the Soviet hammer and sickle.

Both those wars were rough and tumble affairs. Millions died, and millions more suffered. But in the end, tyranny was defeated, and freedom spread to tens of milions of human souls.

Folks, this is what America is all about!

We went into Iraq, to depose a tyrant. Saddam had killed over a million people during his mis-rule.

Screw the WMDs, we deposed a tyrant, and even now are birthing liberty in that nation for 27 million people.

That is noble, that is worthy, that is fundamentally an American thing to do.

Those who oppose it have forgetten what it means to be an American.

Let me remind you, lest that be you. To be an American means to stand up for freedom, yours and your neighbor's. It means being ready to oppose dictators, and slaughter vicious tyrants. It means being ready to sacrifice creature comforts so that freedom spreads around the world. It means loving freedom so much that you are ready to live for it, and if necessary, die for it. And it means giving succor and support to all of your brothers and sisters throughout the world who live under tyranny, and telling them that you are with them, that you will speak out for them, and that their freedom means as much as your own, because in the end, we are all human, put here by God, and if one of is not free, none of us are free.

If you read this, and it moves you, because you know in your heart that it is Truth, you must only support candidates committed to seeing the job done in Iraq, and making sure that freedom takes root, its enemies are banished and defeated, and that government by the people, for the people, and of the people shall not perish in the MIddle East.

God bless you all, God bless freedom, and God bless the United States of America.