Democrats Lead By 14 Points

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
But that's as it should be. You pick a single liberal source for a poll to confirm your bias and think it means something without corroboration.

That's not a "liberal source" unless by "liberal source" you mean anything other than Rasmussen. ABC News and the Washington Post use scientific methodology in their polling.

Common wrote:
Give it a break polly you are as partisan as the most partisan on this forum, you will suck up anything thats positive for liberals and bad for conservatives, you are no different than anyone else here.

I'm an ideological leftist, not a Democratic "partisan." I'm not a member of the Democratic Party.

[Chris]

According to the most recent ABC News / Washington Post survey, 52% of Americans would like to see the Democrats control the Congress after next year's midterm elections, while just 38% want to see the Republicans retain control. The fact that another recent survey by Bloomberg found that more Americans disapprove of the Democratic Party than support it (48% vs. 42%) goes to show you that this development isn't rooted in a newfound love for the Democrats, but in a desire to check the power of the Republican Party, in particular after they've spent the whole summer trying to pass new "health care" legislation that's far less popular than the Affordable Care Act it seeks to repeal. The Democratic Party's approval rating has remained constant since the election, but that of the Republican Party and its leaders have declined.

In other words, President Trump may complain about the "obstructionism" of the Democrats like that's necessary a bad and unpopular thing, but the reality is that it appears the public would like to see more of it, as they simply do not like the Republican Party's legislative agenda.

I'm curious that you attribute the change to trying to curb Rep power when, given the Reps have done next to nothing, especially as regards health care, it may be Americans are disappointed that nothing is changing.

[Chris]

That's not a "liberal source" unless by "liberal source" you mean anything other than Rasmussen. ABC News and the Washington Post use scientific methodology in their polling.



I'm an ideological leftist, not a Democratic "partisan." I'm not a member of the Democratic Party.

1000 people were sampled. There are over 200 million registered voters.

Any single point slice of time poll should taken with a large grain of sand. Trans are a little more informative, for example:



(http://www.gallup.com/poll/201974/co...w-session.aspx)

I would imagine Dems a doing better than Reps since January, as explained in my previous post, but when Congressional approval in in the teens, what's it say?

[Safety]

So, it's gone from "liberal source" to "sample size"....

[Safety]

Well let's put it this way: When Peter recently linked you to a survey indicating that the neoliberal French president Macron's approval rating had tumbled 10 points (to 54%) since he assumed office, one poll was good enough for you. But when the outcome of a poll suggests something you don't like, by contrast, all of a sudden the credibility of the source comes into question. That's what I'm saying.

Of course, there is a long time between now and the midterms, so no worries: you'll have plenty of time to absorb the trend yet. Or it may change, who knows?

(And no, they haven't been "notoriously wrong". The average of last year's polling data on the election, for example, predicted Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote by 3 points, where she actually won it by 2. That's not exactly a radical difference or an indicator that it's time to throw out the whole idea of polling.)

Pretty much.

[Chris]

So, it's gone from "liberal source" to "sample size"....

Both, actually. Sample size was raised in response to Polly claiming the poll was scientific. Pay attention, you might them be able to contribute something meaningful.

[Safety]

Both, actually. Sample size was raised in response to Polly claiming the poll was scientific. Pay attention, you might them be able to contribute something meaningful.

You mean something meaningful other than highlighting partisan nitpicking of sources that go against one's bias, color me shocked that you would have a problem with that.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
I'm curious that you attribute the change to trying to curb Rep power when, given the Reps have done next to nothing, especially as regards health care, it may be Americans are disappointed that nothing is changing.

Usually when one side is simply discouraged in that sort of way, the result is lower turnout on their side (which might be manifest in polls like these in the form of falling approval ratings). When people actually switch sides, by contrast, there is something deeper going on than just disappointment that the Congressional Republicans have been unable to take away the health insurance of tens of millions of poor and working class people. When people actually start switching sides, that means they don't like your agenda.

[Ransom]

Usually when one side is simply discouraged in that sort of way, the result is lower turnout on their side (which might be manifest in polls like these in the form of falling approval ratings). When people actually switch sides, by contrast, there is something deeper going on than just disappointment that the Congressional Republicans have been unable to take away the health insurance of tens of millions of poor and working class people. When people actually start switching sides, that means they don't like your agenda.

Explain then Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, .......you know, the Blue Wall........those states that hadn't voted Republican in decades and voted for Obama twice...voted for Trump.

What agenda were they voting against in your opinion?

Oops.

[Chris]

Usually when one side is simply discouraged in that sort of way, the result is lower turnout on their side (which might be manifest in polls like these in the form of falling approval ratings). When people actually switch sides, by contrast, there is something deeper going on than just disappointment that the Congressional Republicans have been unable to take away the health insurance of tens of millions of poor and working class people. When people actually start switching sides, that means they don't like your agenda.

Are people switching sides? I'd assume entrench Dems and entrenched Reps and a large group of independents/moderates blowing in the wind. That could be accounted for by both what the Reps are trying to do and what they're failing to do.