D-Day for Dems: Create jobs or lose (generic congressional poll: 48% R, 44% D)

[Karmadillo]

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/brent-budowsky/67423-d-day-for-dems-create-jobs-or-lose

The new Gallup poll shows Republicans pulling ahead of Democrats in generic preference for the 2010 congressional elections by a margin of 48 percent to 44. These numbers are “big scary” for Democrats.

In my column Wednesday I wrote point by point about the real jobless rate of 17.5 percent that doesn’t begin to measure the full pain of voters, while neither the president nor Congress is viewed as fighting for more jobs.

What happened to the Democratic Party that historically championed working people and now sleepwalks during the greatest crisis for working people since the Great Depression?

When President Barack Obama recently claimed credit for the GDP reaching 3.5 percent, he was oblivious to the huge swath of Americans who are savagely hurt during this so-called recovery. When the president says we must “grind our way through” the pain of joblessness, he sends the message that he does not get it.

The president and Democrats in Congress were elected to govern. They will be held responsible. The president was elected by a significant margin with the broad good will of the nation. Democrats were elected to large majorities in the House and the Senate.

more...

[Drunken Irishman]

1. OMG GENERIC CONGRESSIONAL POLL IS GOING TO KICK OUR ASS!

WHO IS THIS GUY? DOES ANYONE KNOW? OMG! OMG! IS HE GOING TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT?

GET SOME DIRT ON THIS FUCKER RIGHT AWAY! SERIOUS!!! POLL! THAT SOUNDS GERMAN? IS HE BLUE COLLAR? OMG! HE WILL CONNECT WITH THE ETHNICS!

HOW CAN HE RUN SO MANY RACES AT ONCE? IS HE SUPER HUMAN?

ARE WE EVEN SURE IT'S A GUY?

I AM FREAKING THE FUCK OUT!

[jpak]

3. OBAMA MUST FAIL!!!111 HE MUST!!! HE MUST!!!

THINGS WERE SO MUCH BETTER UNDER BUSH AND CHENEY AND THE GOP!!!!!!111

I SEEN THE LIGHT!!!

:rofl:

:evilgrin:

[DJ13]

2. I know our political class likes to think the public is stupid, but

It doesnt take much smarts to see that people are extremely angry at DC for throwing trillions at the banks while they lose jobs and get their homes foreclosed.

The paltry stimulus that Congress deliberately delayed to begin in 2010 as a reelection ploy wont save them if the situation deteriorates any further before its implemented.

[liberal_at_heart]

6. I never thought about that . you bring up good point

I've always wondered why so much of the stimulus hasn't been spent yet. They sit on the money and wait for re-election time so they can look like the heroes while people continue to lose their homes and their jobs. Bunch of bums.

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. Bingo! Bunch of bums is right.

:mad:

[girl gone mad]

16. +1

[Yuugal]

4. K&R

Obama is Clinton all over again, right down to now trying force a second NAFTA on us for the pacific rim so we can make damn sure every single good job we had left is gone. The public overwhelmingly told the govt that it wanted change last nov and that we were through with bullshit free trade and corporate theft. Other than stem cell(big pharma I'm sure told Obama what to do there) Obumble has not done a damn thing for the American worker. He even wants to make it worse with more NAFTA's? We are toast in 2010 if the dems don't start acting like they are the majority and standing up for working class, disabled, and poor.

[Greyhound]

5. Still laboring under the delusion that the Republik losses of 2006 and 2008

were wins for the Democrats. We could have run a fencepost and won.

This wasted opportunity will make the history books.

[laughingliberal]

7. Some here assume voters make rational choices

Many do not. Never mind that the Democrats and Obama did not cause the crisis. Many low information voters believe the Democrats have had Congress and the Senate since 2006 and now have the White House. It does no good to tell them how the Republicans obstructed Democratic legislation in the 2 years before Obama got the White House. No improvement, yet? Throw the bums out.

I am seriously concerned about the reports that Obama plans to start addressing the deficit in 2010. That means no further stimulus and, probably, no jobs programs. People, in polling, may express concern about the deficit but if they saw jobs being created they would overlook it. What they see (not that I agree with them) is huge sums of money spent that benefited the same class who always benefits. The same people who did well under Bush' tax policies had a little blip, got rescued with our money, and are back on their feet doing fine. Letting the Republicans intimidate us into lowering the amount of the stimulus package and changing the mix was a HUGE mistake. A lot of money was moved out of programs which might have impacted the average voter and the amount was cut down from the $1 trillion dollars the honest economists thought would be the minimum it would take to have a real impact. GDP is growing? Hmmph, hasn't changed anything for most of us. This is the thinking we will be up against and, unless they have some rabbit in the hat I have yet to see, we could see big losses.

[liberal_at_heart]

8. We're not talking about 2 yrs before Obama was in office

Right now we have a democratic congress that has the majority and refuses to vote on anything unless they know they can get 60 votes.

[laughingliberal]

9. True. But no less true that a lot of average voters out there see it as the

Democrats have had Congress and the Senate since 2006 and things are not good. By 2010 election the thought will be they have done nothing in 4 years of having the majorities. It will be huge anti-incumbent sentiment. Bad for us since we are the majority of incumbents.

Not disagreeing with your position. Just reporting what I hear out there from the guy in the street.

[liberal_at_heart]

10. Oh, I agree

I think the democrats are going to suffer big losses too. The republicans were in office 8 years. The democrats get the majority and in one election cycle they are such a disappointment that people are ready to boot them out. Traditionally the democrats have been good about snatching defeat out of the hands of victory and it probably won't be any different this time. I don't understand what is so difficult about going to your constituents, asking them what they want, and then representing them. What is so hard about that? Is it the fact that they are too busy listening to the lobbyists instead of listening to their constituents? Because that is sure what it looks like.

[laughingliberal]

11. It is a problem with more than one component

Selling out constituents to the interests of the corporate lobbyists is one issue with a big impact. But Republicans won elections easily while giving the country away. So, it is not the entire answer.

Another issue is not reading the public correctly. The recent report that Obama would start focusing on the deficit in 2010 is, I think, an example of this. Yes, polls show Americans are worried about the deficit. But, IMO, they would overlook the deficit if they saw spending result in job creation. This would then allow the Democrats to say high employment will take care of most of the deficit due to increased tax revenue which is true. But, unless we see jobs created, that is hard to run on.

Another big one for us is our messaging. Progressives/liberals tend to have a little advantage in IQ and policy wonking. But the average voter glazes over at this. Republicans are masters at packaging a message in a soundbite that appeals emotionally to people. They started packaging these messages years ago. One example is "Government is bad." Entire generations have grown up believing this. Their foundation has been laid and all they have to say now is, "government takeover of healthcare," and the listeners preconceived notions do the rest. Simply explaining the facts to people is not going to win the day. If we can't hit those same feeling receptors in people, having the facts on our side does nothing. The closest I have seen to a Democrat who can message effectively was when Alan Grayson said, "The Republican health care plan is, 'Don't get sick." It was concise, easily understood, and true. Absolutely brilliant. But we had Democrats running like crazy from it cause, "He'll get marginalized as a whacko." I don't totally agree most Americans see that as whacko. After all, we have some who actually believe the crap about death panels. Even so, if he was seen as a whacko, the example is how Republicans play off their whackos. They come out and say, "Well, I believe the representative could have been more diplomatic and was out of line but he is echoing the concerns of the American people, blah, blah, blah... They can distance themselves from the whacko while getting the message in front of people through several news cycles. We aren't good at that.

[jpak]

12. Yes, Obama's approval ratings are now lower than Bush when he left office

I saw that on FAUX News or someplace like that.

So it has to be true

[liberal_at_heart]

13. I never rely on Faux

I know Obama is fairing pretty well with the public. Congress on the other hand is not, and if the President can't find a way to help improve the lives of the people who are suffering the most he may see his numbers drop too.

[jpak]

17. What the fuck do you think he's been doing since January?

I see no tidal wave of republicans ousting Congressional Democrats in my state.

None

Our Democratic governor spent our stimulus money as fast as he could and it put people back to work.

Our state government actively promoted food stamp applications - which have significant economic stimulus effects.

Our unemployment rate is nearly 2 percentage points lower than the national average and it DECLINED in September.

People can see what stimulus money meant to their communities and businesses.

They can't deny it has not worked.

[JVS]

15. One of the reasons that Bush I had only one term is that he tried to take on the deficit.

That's why he had to break his "no new taxes" pledge.