Approval/Disapproval Polls

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 995
  • Views: 45K
  • Politics 
Americans hate everyone - for good reason… and the world is moving forward.

Are Americans butt hurt because the world is moving forward and America is moving backward? Is the world moving forward without America and that’s the “good reason” why Americans hate everyone?
Is that it?

Or is it simply Americans hate “everyone” in America, or they hate both political parties? (Partys or Party’s)

It’s easy to see how Dems poll so horribly. Spelled out nicely in the NYT article. Also easy to see how pubs poll so terribly as well.

But I agree 2026 will come down to how Americans feel about the economy, jobs, inflation, grocery and gas prices.

And also agree that 2028 will come down to candidates and messaging.
 
Thought this was a really good read.

"Blue State Dems Are Having an Overdue Reckoning With Their Own Power. This is a break-the-glass moment. So let’s talk about all the glass available, not just congressional maps"
"If we’re serious about confronting the threats facing American democracy, then it’s time to fully embrace blue state power. Not as a fallback, not to punish the people of red states, but as the confident exercise of power in the public interest — to make people’s lives better. Now is not the time to shy away from the power we have. Now is the time to wring it dry."
 
Americans hate everyone - for good reason… and the world is moving forward.

Are Americans butt hurt because the world is moving forward and America is moving backward? Is the world moving forward without America and that’s the “good reason” why Americans hate everyone?
Is that it?

Or is it simply Americans hate “everyone” in America, or they hate both political parties? (Partys or Party’s)

It’s easy to see how Dems poll so horribly. Spelled out nicely in the NYT article. Also easy to see how pubs poll so terribly as well.

But I agree 2026 will come down to how Americans feel about the economy, jobs, inflation, grocery and gas prices.

And also agree that 2028 will come down to candidates and messaging.


I don't see how any head of state of the present or the future could have much more than a 50% approval rate.

Those numbers haven't been good in recent times.

Presidential Approval Ratings -- Gallup Historical Statistics and Trends

Truman ended with a 32% approval rating as estimated. You can see at the link that Eisenhower and Kennedy bucked that trend though one could argue thatthe bloom never left the IKE rose after the WWII victory and that JFK got a martyr bounce. Since LBJ and especially since Obama, the averages of the highs have been lower and the lows have also dipped farther down than previously on average. (George H.W. Bush is a crazy anomaly in those Gallup numbers)

I've thought about this a good deal and it seems to be a characteristic of our system as far as the executive goes...one particularly exacerbated by the growth of instantaneous media from radio to television to the internet as demonstrated by those numbers and their overall decline.
 
We have been over this. Democratic voters savage their party in polls for not fighting back. I agree with the sentiment.
~

‘They roll right over’: Many Democrats think their party is weak, AP-NORC poll finds

WASHINGTON (AP) — Many Democrats see their political party as “weak” or “ineffective,” according to a poll that finds considerable pessimism within Democratic ranks.
Democrats’ frustration appears to reflect their concern that party leaders are not doing enough to stop Trump’s GOP, which controls Washington.

There is little sign that such voters would abandon their party in favor of Trump’s allies in upcoming elections, and the vast majority of Democrats described the GOP negatively. But disaffected Democrats might decide not to vote at all. That could undermine their party’s push to reclaim at least one chamber of Congress in 2026.
After reading the NY Times article and the PBS article and some of the responses I had a few thoughts:

1) I think Center is totally right when he says that a great many Americans just seem to hate everyone. But I think it's been that way for a long time - a large percentage of people have always led miserable and unhappy lives and almost desperately want to make everyone else as miserable as they are. Few things make someone who is already unhappy feel even more miserable than seeing people who are happy and successful and leading frankly better lives. With Trump's rise to power I've come to believe that the Politics of Resentment is a very underrated factor in American politics. I do think that the internet and social media has made it vastly worse, as these people are now able to broadcast their misery 24/7 and even organize themselves to attack whatever groups or people they resent and hate and are envious of.

2) Neither article really says anything that hasn't been pointed out here before - Democrats are frustrated and angry at their party's leadership for not doing more to oppose or speak out against Trump. I'm not talking about the merits of their complaints, but it has now been pointed out in enough articles to say that this feeling exists among Democrats and is widespread, fair or not. However, that doesn't mean that these people aren't going to vote Democratic next year. And I don't agree at all with the PBS article's suggestion that they might not vote - I think anger at Dear Leader will by itself guarantee a high Democratic turnout next year (and this year too in VA and NJ).

3) Democrats do need to focus more on bread-and-butter economic issues, and they need to stick to that messaging no matter what and not get distracted. For example, the high cost of housing and apartment rents would be a strong issue for Democrats to campaign on if they will actually do it. And no doubt Biden's embarrassing debate performance and sudden withdrawal hurt Harris more than many people realized. I think the people interviewed in the NY Times seemed almost universal in wanting to get rid of aging Boomer politicians for good - if I were Chuck Schumer I'd be terrified of AOC challenging me in 2028.

4) Having said that, I think the complaints about Democrats being "too focused" on cultural and identity issues is bullshit. It's Republicans who run on culture war issues, not so much Democrats. For example, it was Republicans who kept bringing up transgenders in the campaign, not Democrats, and it was Trump's campaign that ran the notorious transgender ad. And it wasn't Democrats who kept bringing up DEI in the campaign, it was Republicans. Republicans know damn well that what really stirs up their base and gets them out of bed in the morning are culture war social issues, and they've become masters at harping on whatever "hot button" culture war issues exist in every campaign season and they repeatedly browbeat their base with it 24/7 right through election day. And they also have become masters at insisting that it's Democrats who are actually extreme and portray all Democrats in the most unfavorable light possible on culture war issues ("they want to kill babies, they want transgender men molesting your little daughter in women's restrooms!") and they just say what they mean in very blunt and direct terms, and don't hesitate to lie and exaggerate. Democrats have yet to figure out an effective response to this, but the bottom line is that they're not the party that's constantly bringing up culture war issues.

5) The whole notion that many people expressed that they don't identify with either party and are basically independents is mostly also bullshit, imo. It's always amazing listening to or reading about people who say that and then when you hear what they actually believe and who they keep defending it becomes clear that they actually heavily favor one party and nearly always vote for said party. And most of these people refuse to admit that, probably even to themselves. IMO, the number of truly uncommitted or independent voters is actually very small.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how any head of state of the present or the future could have much more than a 50% approval rate.

Those numbers haven't been good in recent times.

Presidential Approval Ratings -- Gallup Historical Statistics and Trends

Truman ended with a 32% approval rating as estimated. You can see at the link that Eisenhower and Kennedy bucked that trend though one could argue thatthe bloom never left the IKE rose after the WWII victory and that JFK got a martyr bounce. Since LBJ and especially since Obama, the averages of the highs have been lower and the lows have also dipped farther down than previously on average. (George H.W. Bush is a crazy anomaly in those Gallup numbers)

I've thought about this a good deal and it seems to be a characteristic of our system as far as the executive goes...one particularly exacerbated by the growth of instantaneous media from radio to television to the internet as demonstrated by those numbers and their overall decline.
Not talking about head of state (president approval rating) in terms of the Dems - instead, talking about the ENTIRE democratic party is drowning in poor polling
 
Re: #2 in the NYT article; (#4 in Mulberry's missive) "Democrats focused too much on cultural issues and not enough on everyday economic issues."

I too, don't think Dems "focused too much" on social and cultural issues per se. A lot of that stuff just bubbled up organically. The Dems didn't organize Gay Pride parades... those types of things simply happened - and were given plenty of media coverage.

When a homophobe decides not to bake a wedding cake - that shit just happened. It wasn't planned by the Dems. But it got a ton of media coverage and a case made it's way through the courts - more media coverage.

The Pubs simply took those types of things and painted the entire Democratic party with a broad brush - and the paint stuck. No Dem or socially progressive person or politician went out of their way to deny any of the "accusations" (all of the shit slinging the Pubs did). On the contrary, Dems and progressives DEFENDED those issues... when the rubber met the road, it was progressives and Dems going to bat for the parades and a couple wanting a cake.

Dems didn't create those issues, but by not speaking out AGAINST those things, they were successfully "labeled" by the Magas. And as Mulberry pointed out, Democrats have yet to figure out an effective response to this type of "labeling".

Having said all of that - Gay marriage and some progressive issues were part and parcel of Democratic policies and platforms so it was easy for Pubs to use that broad brush.

It's a catch 22 for Dems: Either walk back support for social/cultural issues or continue to be painted with the broad brush. That's the catch and why Dems haven't been able to shake the labels.
 
Last edited:

(2) Democrats focused too much on cultural issues and not enough on everyday economic issues.
Actually Republicans focus on cultural issues constantly and unrelentingly. So this bullshit.

Republicans, not Democrats, focus on transgender issues.

Republicans, not Democrats, focus on immigrants.

Republicans, not Democrats, focus on banning books
 
Actually Republicans focus on cultural issues constantly and unrelentingly. So this bullshit.

Republicans, not Democrats, focus on transgender issues.

Republicans, not Democrats, focus on immigrants.

Republicans, not Democrats, focus on banning books
Yo man. I get it. This is quoting the NYT article. Not my words. Don't shoot the messenger. WTF do you think I am?
 
Thought this was a really good read.

"Blue State Dems Are Having an Overdue Reckoning With Their Own Power. This is a break-the-glass moment. So let’s talk about all the glass available, not just congressional maps"
"If we’re serious about confronting the threats facing American democracy, then it’s time to fully embrace blue state power. Not as a fallback, not to punish the people of red states, but as the confident exercise of power in the public interest — to make people’s lives better. Now is not the time to shy away from the power we have. Now is the time to wring it dry."
Totally on point. Had a friend who predicted in Jan. 2021 that the U.S. would eventually split into 2 States (A two State solution) Red and Blue. Red States on one side. Blue on the other. And the prediction wasn't another Civil War - like the Right wing nuts want. No. A reconciliation whereby the Union is dissolved in some sort of amicable manner and we all just simply "get along" like Rodney King wanted. Except the Blue States will be far better off.

Of course this is folly. The Reds will blow everything up before that happens. And they're well on their way to do just that.
"Nice try Dems!" "With your this and that" "Not gonna happen!" "We'll take our ball and go home - and then blow it all up!"
 
Dems should do all they can to connect with middle America over the next few years, especially if we get control of anything in 2026. But the almost singular focus should be on figuring out who is the right candidate to win in 2028. Especially since the conservative Supreme Court has now made the president a demigod.
Unfortunately, I have a strong feeling that if a Democrat does win in 2028 then the Supreme Court will suddenly start stripping the POTUS of all the powers they granted to Dear Leader. Just a hunch.
 
Unfortunately, I have a strong feeling that if a Democrat does win in 2028 then the Supreme Court will suddenly start stripping the POTUS of all the powers they granted to Dear Leader. Just a hunch.
It doesn't matter. Dem president will hopefully rid us of the Supreme Court. That needs to be #1 on the priority list.
 
It doesn't matter. Dem president will hopefully rid us of the Supreme Court. That needs to be #1 on the priority list.
That’s already happened. Ain’t no mo’ SCOTUS. Not like we knew it to be.

Fuck you Bernie Sanders and your Bernie Bots. It’s all your fault!

(Just kidding, love you Bernie! ☮️👍🙏😇🥰)
 
Totally on point. Had a friend who predicted in Jan. 2021 that the U.S. would eventually split into 2 States (A two State solution) Red and Blue. Red States on one side. Blue on the other. And the prediction wasn't another Civil War - like the Right wing nuts want. No. A reconciliation whereby the Union is dissolved in some sort of amicable manner and we all just simply "get along" like Rodney King wanted. Except the Blue States will be far better off.

Of course this is folly. The Reds will blow everything up before that happens. And they're well on their way to do just that.
"Nice try Dems!" "With your this and that" "Not gonna happen!" "We'll take our ball and go home - and then blow it all up!"
IMO, there's at least two huge problems with the idea of a peaceful division of the country into red (MAGA!) and blue nations. The first is that, geographically speaking, the split is not so much regional but more rural/urban, which would make it very difficult in many states to effect a peaceful division. Just look at NC, which is divided almost 50/50. How would you create any kind of geographic division in this state that makes sense and would be workable and practical? And if you try to divide the country regionally and say "well, you conservatives living in blue nation are just going to have to move, and liberals living in MAGA Nation are going to have to move" that's not going to work - good luck getting massive numbers of people (especially rural conservatives) to move quickly to another section of the country. They're more likely to just stay and fight or try to take over the new liberal nation.

But the second and even larger problem - as you alluded to - is the mindset of American conservatives. Most of them would probably rather cut off their right arm than allow hated LibDem elites to form their own country beyond their control and domination. IMO, a huge part of their psychological makeup is having an enemy to fight and rally around, and I just don't see them ever peacefully living with the liberal blue nation that would result from such a split. There would be constant comparisons, constant resentment, constant fear, constant outrage, and attempts to undermine or just take over the liberal nation. And that would especially be true if the liberal nation did better economically and in other ways than MAGA Nation (which is likely to happen). Any problems in MAGA Nation would always be blamed on the evil liberal nation next door that would be constantly portrayed in right-wing media as always undermining their economy and making them miserable. It's what they do, and I don't think a separation would ever be peaceful or tolerated by conservatives for long.
 
Last edited:
IMO, there's at least two huge problems with the idea of a peaceful division of the country into red (MAGA!) and blue nations. The first is that, geographically speaking, the split is not so much regional but more rural/urban, which would make it very difficult in many states to effect a peaceful division. Just look at NC, which is divided almost 50/50. How would you create any kind of geographic division in this state that makes sense and would be workable and practical? And if you try to divide the country regionally and say "well, you conservatives living in blue nation are just going to have to move, and liberals living in MAGA Nation are going to have to move" that's not going to work - good luck getting massive numbers of people (especially rural conservatives) to move quickly to another section of the country. They're more likely to just stay and fight or try to take over the new liberal nation.

But the second and even larger problem - as you alluded to - is the mindset of American conservatives. Most of them would probably rather cut off their right arm than allow hated LibDem elites to form their own country beyond their control and domination. IMO, a huge part of their psychological makeup is having an enemy to fight and rally around, and I just don't see them ever peacefully living with the liberal blue nation that would result from such a split. There would be constant comparisons, constant resentment, constant fear, constant outrage, and attempts to undermine or just take over the liberal nation. And that would especially be true if the liberal nation did better economically and in other ways than MAGA Nation (which is likely to happen). Any problems in MAGA Nation would always be blamed on the evil liberal nation next door that's always undermining their economy and making them miserable. It's what they do, and I don't think a separation would ever be peaceful or tolerated by conservatives for long.
Indeed. Folly to even think of it.
BTW, my friend who predicted this is making plans to move to London. He’s a pro musician and already does a ton of touring in Europe and U.K. Anyway. He’s had enough.
I like London.
I’d love a move to Chichester or Brighton.
Or back to Switzerland.
Wife wants Northern Spain. She speaks the lingo.
Fuck Maga Amurikkka. This place sux.
 
Thought this was a really good read.

"Blue State Dems Are Having an Overdue Reckoning With Their Own Power. This is a break-the-glass moment. So let’s talk about all the glass available, not just congressional maps"
"If we’re serious about confronting the threats facing American democracy, then it’s time to fully embrace blue state power. Not as a fallback, not to punish the people of red states, but as the confident exercise of power in the public interest — to make people’s lives better. Now is not the time to shy away from the power we have. Now is the time to wring it dry."
At this point Dems need to do it the "Chicago way"

 
One of the things that polling of this variety obscures is the inherent discontinuity between what Americans want and the tribalism lanes they are guided into by money in politics, that being profoundly related to disinformation in the uptake of various media. Then there is the larger chasm between what they want and what politicians work for. Many times I have pointed to polling on issues rather than parties, to show something more valuable to us, but let's engage in a thought experiment.

Say any of you listed the top broad scope policy priorities over the last couple of decades for elected Democrats and elected Republicans. Pick the top ten for both.

I would say near the top for actual policy pursuits for Republicans would be two items: tax cuts for the wealthy (though Republicans don't accurately frame it in that way), and increasing corporate power and reducing controls on this, regardless of negative impacts on average citizens (though Republicans don't frame it that way).

I would say near the top for actual policy pursuits for Democrats would be two items: Healthcare for as many citizens as possible, and protecting average citizens from harms of various kinds (including indirect things like care for the environment, etc.).

Now then... Go ahead and list your own ten for each party, and not what they say, but what elected politicians have actively pursued in policies. You can include my two for each, or come up with an entirely different ten policy pursuits.

Now, what would be the polling results of the American people on those items? This is the actual problem, that party ID polling is blind to, in the gap between what Americans want, what elected politicians do, and what Americans end up voting for.
 
Back
Top