A new Gallup Poll finds Congress' approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll.
There was a slight interruption in the downward trend in congressional approval ratings at the beginning of this year when party control changed hands from the Republicans to the Democrats following last fall's midterm elections. In January 2007, 35% of Americans approved of Congress, a significant increase from the 21% who approved of Congress in December 2006.
But that "honeymoon" period for the new Democratically controlled Congress was brief, as its job ratings dropped below 30% in March 2007 and have now fallen below where they were just before the Democrats took over.
Harry, Nancy: Nice work. I knew you could do it. I'm proud of you.
Our famously free press will try to spin this as the product of a lack of teh Bipartisan
and the need for unity and "they're all the same" but I think there's a much simpler and more basic explanation:
The American people elected the Democrats to do a job. Although there are some Democrats of whom, on a case by case basis, we can be proud, institutionally the Democrats are not doing the job they were elected to do. Primarily Iraq, but much else, which in my IMNSHO comes down to never developing any consistent strategy or even a coherent message for regaining Congress's role as a co-equal branch of government and standing up to Bush. The FISA betrayal--passing a Republican bill, in the dead of night, that actually lets Alberto Gonzales determine what kind of surveillance is legal--is just one example among many. I mean, how deeply can you suck to let that happen?
People get this. Can the Democrats, as a party, get it?
NOTE What this also means to me is that the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate will be extremely vulnerable to an attack from a third party on the right (that would be why the racist appeals to the lizard backbrain are being stoked), and that the courtiers in Versailles on the Potomac will be more than happy to provide one, presumably in the form of a challenger from Vanity08. Democratic true believers should stop calling DFHs
splittists, and clean up their own act before it's too late.
UPDATE I must be right because Glenn the Good agrees with me:
When it comes to analyzing the amazingly low ratings for Congress, this is the only aspect that is actually notable. The Democratic Congress commands such little approval for one reason only -- because its own party is so disappointed with its performance.
ince Democrats took over Congress in January, there have been three major attributes characterizing their conduct: (1) a failure to stop or restrict the war in Iraq; (2) a general failure/unwillingness to stop Bush on much of anything else of significance (FISA, a failure to reverse any of the excesses of the GOP Congress, such as the Military Commissions Act, lack of limits on his ability to attack Iran, etc.); and (3) numerous investigations, sometimes flashly but thus far inconsequential. There is no rational way to argue that the numerous investigations (item (3)) are responsible for Congressional unpopularity given how overwhelmingly Americans want Congressional investigations of the administration.
With a President and a Republican Party this deeply unpopular, the only thing the Democrats could really do to harm themselves is to minimize the distinctions between them and Bush, and fail to take a strong stand against the administration. With very rare exception, that is exactly what they have been doing, and that is why they are held in such low esteem. That, of course, has been the predominant critique of Beltway Democratic insiders for quite some time, but this polling data proves this view rather conclusively.
+1. +100. +1000.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments

Front page
Comments
We can't quote that low Congressional approval rating enough
Yes, there is the MSM's bizarro-world explanation that it's because of people recoiling from the shrill, activist, extreme-leftist Dems. But anyone vaguely reality-based will have to admit that it's because of the lack of results, lack of passion, and lack of unity against the worst administration ever.
BTW, there are people whom I think should be called "splittists." The ones who say things like "I won't ever vote for a Democrat again," "I won't vote for Hillary if she's the nominee," etc. We DFHs
should do everything we can to get great candidates on the ballot. But being too good to vote for the lesser of evils -- when that's the November choice -- is a vote for the greater of evils.
astute analysis, lb
let's hope you're wrong. but i don't think you are. i've got to start using Versailles on the Potomac more, it suits them so well.
except they're not as witty.
+1 on splittists
but the focus really needs to be on the people with the ankles, not on the ankle-biters. Eh?
We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Fer sher,
I just don't want to take "splittists" off the table.
It should also be applied to Blue Dogs and DLCers, who have split from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
The Swift Evolution of the Feeling of Disgust...
...with Congressional Democrats has been interesting to behold. I started pulling my hair out during the "debate" over the Iraq supplemental, when the Dems allowed themselves to be painted into the "gotta pass something, gotta compromise, gotta roll over and spread your cheeks" corner. A lot of Dem supporters back then held onto to the shred of hope that this was not the best grounds for battle, that sticking to their guns and not passing exactly what Bush wanted would fracture the caucus, get the Dems portrayed as abandoning the troops, whatever. And also, of course, without a (say it with me class) veto-proof majority they could not pass an affirmative piece of legislation with real teeth that would actually become law. So maybe the Dems passing Bush's Iraq funding wet dream was not what it appeared to be.
Then, of course, spring came and went, the summer dragged on, and Dems kept promising to vote to restore habeas, threatening contempt of this or that administration official, issuing strongly-worded letters and subpoenas that got ingored, and then-- the fucking FISA "fix." And the mask was off for (almost) all to see. But what was remarkable about the FISA amendment was that by the time of that ultimate betrayal, it should have come as no surprise to anyone paying attention. It was of a piece with everything else they've done (or not done) since getting the majority. Bitch, moan, threaten, and then give into the administration's every demand, and claim afterwards that you didn't mean to give them the power you just gave them.
I think the President's numbers are as low as they can go. He is down to the core lunatics who either really approve of him or claim to just to piss off libruls. But I think some people are still holding out hope for Congress-- "they will revisit the FISA thing in 6 months! Don't worry! More and better Democrats!"--who will yet be disappointed. I really am coming around to the idea that someone suggested the other day that the Democrats are the Generals to the Republican Harlem Globetrotters. The Democrats are foils-- they are not there to actually accomplish anything.