« 32 Years of Roe v. Wade | Main | How Many National Security Advisor's Advisors Does It Take? »
Welcome Back To Polling World!
Remember the good old days of the campaign when we lived and died by the poll numbers? Remember when we had to talk some of our otherwise, sane, sensible and stable friends in off of the ledge when our candidate dropped two points in the 18-25 female demographics and we were worried about the trendlines?
Remember when we used to use the word trendline and it never occurred to us what incredible geeks we were for doing so?
Well, fasten your seatbelts, the polls are back!
It's that time of year when a young pollster's fancy turns to things like the favorability rating of the incumbent president in the post World War Two era and other sexy topics like that. And while it may be fun (okay, lots and lots of fun) to read that Bush is right up there with Nixon as Mr. Least Popular, I was interested in what the tea leaves had to say on an entirely different subject, Social Security.
I am interested in Social Security in terms of polling to see if the Democrats have gotten any traction in the last few weeks of aggressive countering of the White House campaigning and false crisis mongering of the issue, or as they like to think of it, "Educating the Public, Telling them what to Believe, Phase One".
I was heartened, and I admit, a little surprised to see how well the Democrats are doing so far. Here's the breakdown of the numbers in rough terms:
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling Social Security?
Approve 38%
Disapprove 55%
DK/No opinion 7%
Source: A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted by telephone January 12 - 16, 2005 among 1,007 randomly selected adults nationwide. Margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus three percentage points. Fieldwork by TNS of Horsham, PA.
Those numbers look promising for the Democrats in this fight.
There are a couple of things that we still need to do in order to win this fight though, and here's the short list:
1. Know the facts about Social Security and get them out there into the public dialogue any way that you can. The administration is working hard to get people into crisis mode. The best way to counter this is with the truth. Say it and say it often. Here's a link to a well-written article by Paul Starr on the subject.
2. Get yourself and your resources ready for upcoming Action Alerts: When the time comes to start making phone calls to members of Congress, its a good idea to be ready. Update your phone lists for the member of Congress and update you e-mail lists of the people in your democracy cell and in your network. Let's hit the ground running, not just on this issue, but any issue we target. Congress.org has Congressional contact info by state and zip code.
3. Building our information network: One of the things the DCP can do is be an educational resource for the fight to maintain Social Security. If you have read anything you find particularly compelling, please post it here and our site librarian will post it to the forum. When someone asks you a question about the issue, you can come to the forum for the answers or refer people there.
4. How do we talk about this issue? One of the things the DCP is working on is framing the issues. Do you have something to contribute is this area? If you don't know about framing, please go to the forum and look under the section marked Book Chat, Framing and Reframing the issues for details and suggested reading.
4. Help your democracy cell stay on top of things by sending around you own e-mails of upcoming events or legislation. One of the best strategies we can employ is to have a continually forward-looking approach to our activism.
We are the loyal opposition.
We are not in this for just one fight, but to fight until we win.
I remember when John Kerry's poll numbers were less than Al Sharpton's... LOL
A Gallup poll taken after the inaugural festivities showed that 60 per cent of Americans believed their country could not achieve Bush's stated goal of ending tyranny around the world: only 35 per cent believed the task was achievable.
The poll also showed that many of the deep partisan divides remain in place after one of the bitterest election fights in American history. Despite Bush's pledges last week on uniting America, only 8 per cent of Democrats believed he would do so. By contrast, 73 per cent of Republicans thought Bush could unite a divided country.
And a poll showed a whopping 70% of Americans believed Saddam Hussain had involvement in the attacks on September 11.
Polls, smolls!
I read a poll the other day that said 76% of republicans believed that the Duelfer Report stated the exact opposite of what it actually did. That reminded me of a conversation I had many months ago with a repug who was assuring me that "no really, this report came out clearly showing that Saddam Hussien had WMDs and direct ties to the 9/11 attack..."
Polls are an indictment of the media's bias and lack of reporting. It's inexcusable that these polls would show people really don't know that Sadam was not involved in 9-11 and that Bush has done everything to badger the democrats and independents instead of unite them.
We must continue our grassroots efforts to tell everyone that the media is untrustworthy. I highly recommend printing your own one page newsletter and giving it out or posting it on windshields or on public bulletin boards.
I firmly believe that many republicans don't realize their party has been hijacked. They call themselves republicans but they don't realize their philosophies are more democrat than republican.
Let's be the media!
This article has some interesting numbers:
The World According to a Bush Voter
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20263/
i liked this part...
Remarkably, when asked whether the U.S. should have gone to war without evidence of a WMD program or support to al Qaeda, 58 percent of Bush supporters said no. Moreover, 61 percent said they assumed that Bush would also not have gone to war under those circumstances.
"To support the president and to accept that he took the U.S. to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about pre-war Iraq," Kull says.
He added that this "cognitive dissonance" could also help explain other remarkable findings in the survey. The poll also found a major gap between Bush's stated positions on a number of international issues and what his supporters believe Bush's position to be. A strong majority of Bush supporters believe, for example that the president supports a range of international treaties and institutions that the White House has vocally and publicly opposed.
In all of these cases, majorities of Bush supporters said they favored the positions that they imputed, incorrectly, to Bush. Large majorities of Kerry supporters, on the other hand, showed they knew both their candidate's and Bush's positions on the same issues.
The article concludes that:
"In other words, Bush supporters choose to keep faith in their leader than face the truth either about their president or the world as it is."
http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7400526
An interesting poll for a Sunday read. Churchgoers are becoming increasing intolerant and increasingly willing to force their beliefs on others.
Thanks to Ron Chusid who posted this on LUTD.
"In other words, Bush supporters choose to keep faith in their leader rather than face the truth either about their president or the world as it is."
Posted by: NativeTexan4Kerry at January 23, 2005 01:43 PM
It's the word "choose" that is so important here. They do know; they CHOOSE to pretend.
Commandos Get Duty on US Soil
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/23/national/nationalspecial3/23code.html?ex
=1107498889&ei=1&en=4ac551128050c5f3
I keep getting this police state stuff.
It's the word "choose" that is so important here. They do know; they CHOOSE to pretend.
Posted by: Amy at January 23, 2005 01:49 PM
ah, good point. Reminds me...
My dad is a huge Star Trek fan, and over the holidays, I had to watch a bunch of old espisodes with him. There was one in which a bunch of children actually killed thier parents and caused great destruction and suffering on their planet because they were brain washed into taking orders from this "thing" which they believed to be their corageous and just leader. The children are taken aboard Captain Kirk's ship and, again taking orders from their "leader," they try to set this ship off course, in order to destroy and take over more plantes for their leader.
Captain Kirk asks them why they are following someone who only wants them to destroy, and who has actually only hurt them, by making them kill their parents and friends(all those who did not conform immediately). But the children refuse to believe that that is what they are doing. They say their leader is compassionate and courageous, and he appears there on the ship, in the form of a powerful man.
Kirk keeps begging the children to SEE what they have done, but they just look up proudly at their leader. Kirk then shows them slides from their life on the planet before they began to follow that man. He shows them how happy they were with their friends and parents. Then he shows them their parents and friends dead, and all the destruction they have caused. They start to cry, and as they do, their leader beings to look less like a powerful man. His face becomes destorted and he starts to shrink. Kirk forces the children to look at him and says, "Look, look at what he REALLY is."
Once the children, his followers, saw him for what he really was, the leader was destroyed. Without those followers, he was nothing. So basically, he was defeated by those who forced his followers to see the TRUTH.
It might be kind of a stretch, but I see this as what we need to do bring down bushco. Make those followers who, like Amy said, "choose" to view him as a competant leader see the truth. I think we can do this as Sparrow said: BE THE MEDIA!
I don't have the link so I'm posting the whole article. I know it was in the Washington Post. It relates to this site & this topic.
Semantics Shape Social Security Debate
President Bush is trying to keep the word "private" from going public.
As the two parties brace for the coming debate over restructuring Social Security, polls and focus groups for both sides have shown that voters -- especially older ones, who vote in disproportionately heavy numbers -- distrust any change that has the word "private" attached to it.
The White House has a logical idea: Don't use the word. This is difficult because, after all, they would be "private" accounts, and Bush's plan would "partially privatize" Social Security.
So Bush and his supporters have started using "personal accounts" instead of "private accounts" to refer to his plan to let younger workers invest part of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds. Republican officials have begun calling journalists to complain about references to "private accounts," even though Bush called them that three times in a speech last fall.
"Semantics are very important," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.)said last week when a reporter asked about "private" accounts. "They're personal accounts, not private accounts. No one is advocating privatizing Social Security."
"Don't dismiss the use of a word," Thomas added. "The use of a word is critical in making law."
Democrats have their own linguistic problem: They want to banish the term "crisis." Democratic Party leaders are urging members to discuss future Social Security shortfalls as a "challenge" rather than a crisis, and assert that Bush is trying to manufacture a crisis to justify making changes that many Democrats say are unnecessary. The White House has fired back with a transcript showing that President Bill Clinton, during a Georgetown University address in 1998, spoke of "the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security."
Republican officials also circulated a quote from the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), chairman of a Bush-appointed commission on Social Security, who in 2000 called privatization "a scare word."
The battle over the vocabulary of restructuring Social Security is the latest example of the lengths to which politicians and their consultants go to test and refine wording in an era when so many voters are influenced by the sound bites in television newscasts. Both sides have commissioned expensive research to guide their word choice as they prepare their cases.
The president's plan would allow younger Americans to divert a third or more of their payroll taxes into private investment accounts to enhance their long-term benefits.
Pollsters on both sides of the Social Security debate said they believe that semantics could be destiny, given the skittishness of lawmakers and voters about changing the popular system, which will turn 70 on Aug.14.
Michael D. Tanner, director of the Social Security project at the libertarian Cato Institute, said "the term 'privatization' always polls about 20 points lower than a description of it." "The problem is that there is no good term," Tanner said. "People have tried 'modernization' and 'personalization.' They all sink like a rock."
Reflecting the new premium being placed on language, Bush turned prickly a week ago Friday during an interview with The Washington Post aboard Air Force One when he was asked if he would talk to Senate Democrats about his "privatization plan."
"You mean the personal savings accounts?" the president scolded. "We don't want to be editorializing, at least in the questions."
Bush generally refers to "personal accounts" but said during a September speech at a Republican fundraiser in Washington that he wanted to offer younger workers "a private account that they can call their own, a private account they can pass on to the next generation, and a private account that government can't take away."
Republican officials began warning their congressional candidates against using any form of the word "private" in 2002, when Democrats
seized on it to argue that the addition of individual investment accounts to Social Security would jeopardize the nation's safety net.
Republicans have not always resisted the term. Cato, an early champion of adding individually controlled accounts to Social Security, started a policy incubator called the "Project on Social Security Privatization" in 1995. After complaints from Republican leaders, the name was changed in 2002 to the "Project on Social Security Choice."
The other area undergoing a semantic makeover is the financial threat to the system. Bush said in his news conference before Christmas that "the crisis is here," and asserted in a recent radio address that the system is "on the road to bankruptcy." Although it will be at least a decade before the Social Security system begins to pay out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes, Vice President Cheney recently asserted that the system "is on a course to eventual bankruptcy," while White House budget director Joshua B. Bolten said the situation "is a crisis."
Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster, said such terminology is important, because "to develop support for major social change, the status quo has to be scarier than the change."
McInturff said the power of language in shaping public opinion on the question can be seen in polls he conducted last year. A majority of
respondents said they wanted to keep the system basically the same when asked about allowing "people to invest some of their Social Security taxes in private accounts." But a majority favored change when he added the phrase "like IRAs or 401(k)s."
"It's important that the change be connected back to something familiar," he said.
Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster, said any form of the word "private" suggests "a radical change to Social Security."
"People have seen lots of risks and rip-offs occur, and the virtue of Social Security is that it has been a . . . very reliable system for a very long time," Garin said.
So, according to Garin, Democrats will "do everything they can to force Republicans to live with the language of privatization."
"The debate will be a test of wills over what we call this thing," he said.
Posted by: DiAnne at January 23, 2005 02:15 PM
LOL! check out this interveiw with bush regarding the word "privatization":
The Post: Will you talk to Senate Democrats about your privatization plan?
THE PRESIDENT: You mean, the personal savings accounts?
The Post: Yes, exactly. Scott has been --
THE PRESIDENT: We don't want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.
The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes?
The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC [Republican National Committee] about how we should actually word this. [Post staff writer] Mike Allen, the industrious Mike Allen, found it.
THE PRESIDENT: Allen did what now?
The Post: You used partial privatization.
THE PRESIDENT: I did, personally?
The Post: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: When?
The Post: To describe it.
THE PRESIDENT: When, when was it?
The Post: Mike said it was right around the election.
THE PRESIDENT: Seriously?
The Post: It was right around the election. We'll send it over.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm surprised. Maybe I did. It's amazing what happens when you're tired. Anyway, your question was? I'm sorry for interrupting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12570-2005Jan15_3.html
Cyrano- I just got back and was reading what you said from the previous thread. I'm not sure what the Civil War was over- I know it was about different things to different people, and I'm certainly not going to argue that here. There are even some columnists who absolutely detest George W Bush for his tyranny (such as Charlie Reese) who believe the Civil War was over states rights and have even stated they wish the South had won. I'm not saying that at all (before I REALLY get jumped on), but it is possible for someone who has many correct opinions (such as Reese) to argue the Civil War and the reasons that it happened until the "cows come Home" as we say down here. Remember that Lincoln didn't free the slaves until 3 years after the war started, and that, if you visit the Lincoln Memorial in DC and read the engravings on the wall of Lincoln's statements- one of them is that he would have allowed slavery had it saved the union by doing so. The civil war to Lincoln was obviously about saving the union, and, if that was his purpose, we can play the devil's advocate and say it might have actually been a war to DENY the rights of citizens to establish their own government. I am playing the devils advocate here, and the Civil War is pretty much over (I hope). At any rate, I don't think it means diddley squat as far as the abortion issue goes. I can't agree that they're related at all. But I do agree with you that we need to place more emphasis on how many unwanted pregnancies there are in this country, and in the way they affect the poverty rate. No "fundamentalist" churches that I've ever attended (and I guess I'm the only one on here who admits to having attended one :-) have ever had any opposition at all to birth control. I know the Catholic church does, but I've never attended a Catholic church service. And the Catholic Church really can't be seen as a fundamentalist, evengelical group. We do need to make some adjustments to our terminology and to our approaches I think- and we can do this without giving up our basic beliefs in human rights. For what it's worth- I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and I give monthly, so I'm certainly not anti human rights. By the way- that organization is also known as the Anti Christian Lawyer's Union in a lot of the churches I used to attend. Just one reason I don't go anymore.
Linda,
If you get a chance, listen to Professor Gary Gallagher's (of the University of Virginia) lectures for the Teaching Company on the Civil War (or pick up one of his books). He demonstrates quite conclusively that the war began over slavery - and specifically over the spread of slavery - regardless of what Jefferson Davis and others said later. Again, Greenberg's focus is on the contemporary documents, from before the war, not the various post war justifications. His approach is methodical and precise, and his conclusion is, IMHO, bullet-proof. It is, however, quite true that Lincoln - after the first wave of Confederate States seceded, and Ft Sumter was fired on - went to war to save the Union, and not to abolish slavery.
Personally, I'd argue that the same kind of rose colored glasses that we see with these revisonist historians is equally present among the kinds of people who choose to see Dubya, his character, and his policies, in a light that is utterly contrary to any objective evaluation of the facts.
Just to throw my 2 cents in on the Civil War issue, i think it is confusing because the two sides weren't necessarily fighting for and against the same thing. While the south was certainly fighting FOR slavery, the United States was smiply fighting to preserve the union. The interesting this is that southerns always said the war was over slavery untill after the war was over when they got embarassed and claimed "states rights," etc.
Cyrano-
I agree with you. ...and I'll have to read Gary Gallagher. Being the daughter of a civil war historian, this stuff fascinates me. =)
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at January 23, 2005 02:59 PM
Linda
I think that the key issue here for most pro-choice people is that they see "choice" as a core civil rights issue, not a religious issue. Furthermore our country affords people the freedom of religion and the freedom from having other's relgious views forced upon them through the laws of this country.
I siad this on the other thread, if Roe vs Wade is overturned what comes next in regards to having the views of conservative Christians forced upon others in this country? Witchburning, perhaps? Think not? Think again.
The anti-gay movement, the anti-choice movement is just another form of witch burning. People are being persecuted for their beliefs that do not fall in line with the beliefs of the conservative Christians, all sects of the conservative Christians, not just the Fundies.
This is an issue that is far deeper than the right to choice. It's a privacy issue, it's a spearation of church and state issue, it's a woman's health issue, and many other issues as well fall under this one basic right for women.
I'm personally not as interested in fighting the Civil War on my computer today as I am in watching Mike Vick get a little revenge for Sherman's burning of Atlanta on my TV set right now. We're behind 7-3, but the South will rise again!!!!!! Have a great Sunday afternoon!
email Bill Thomas-ck out taslkingpointsmemo.com and tell him that a cut in what one is to recieve IS A CUT IN BENEFITS!!
my email to Bill Thomas (first part is his words)
“To immediately say that [changing from wage-indexing to inflation-indexing of benefits] is a cut in benefits is a label that could be placed on anything that we did … The terms that we use need to be watched because if you want to create a black and white disruption of the ability to try to solve the problem then you use certain words. If you want to be part of the solution you have to be careful of the words that you choose.”
Any decrease in what I would receive under this system IS A CUT IN BENEFITS!!
STOP LYING!!
What good is "freedom" if we have Government controlled speech? Use this word not that word...remember Humpty Dumpty in ALice In Wonderland (Lewis Carroll)
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Yushenko inaugural speech on C-SPAN now
What Benson thinks about Bush's soc. Sec. reform..
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/
A LTE to our local paper...
Something's 'spreading' all right
Jan. 23, 2005 12:00 AM
So George Bush bragged in his inauguration speech about spreading freedom around the world. Well, no one can deny that he's "spreading" something. Manure perhaps?
How can he say these things and still sleep at night as he tries to shove our way of government down Iraqi throats and calls for a constitutional amendment to ensure that basic freedoms that exist for heterosexuals do not apply to homosexuals?
God help us if he succeeds in ruining our Social Security system, as well.
Why can't he leave well enough alone and concentrate on the really important issues in our country, like health care, education and crime? It's going to be a long four years.
A view from of Az more prominent Dems...
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0123valdez0120.html
[snip]
I'm all for providing health insurance to those who can't afford it - especially children. It's cost effective in the long run and would certainly "promote the general Welfare," which is one of the goals of the U.S. Constitution, as outlined in the preamble.
But businesses should not be allowed to get a competitive edge by shifting the cost of health insurance to the taxpayer. That kind of "free enterprise" is way too expensive.
If Democrats can't see the need to grab onto issues like this and stand up for workers rights and liberal ideals, they deserve to remain losers.
Real family values
Senator in Utah defends polygamy
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0123polygamy23.html
I just read this interesting article from a Russian viewpoint of Bush's wish to spread freedom and democracy.
http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/399/14851_bush.html
Posted by: battlebob at January 23, 2005 05:03 PM
A view from of Az more prominent Dems...
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0123valdez0120.html
BB excellent editorial which needs to be widely circulated.
Interesting statistic I read this morning reports that Minnesota and Wisconsin had the highest percentage of voters in the last election along with Maine and Oregon. Minnesota and Wisconsin states we constantly and unneccesarily worry about have 2 things in common. 70+% voted in November and same day voter registration. It is my belief that masses of unregistered voters mostly progressive and mostly young show up on election day to register and vote. That is why we are constantly behind in those states and in polling note Feingold always trails in pools and generally we win going away. Just a theory but if my theory is correct then why doesn't the DNC push for Same Day Voter Registration nationally. Just think what the results might have been had Ohio voted 73% instead of 65%. Certainly the RNC will yell voter fraud and oppose it but why not try? It seems to me that a disproprortionate number of non voters are Dems
Also we have heard from folks in Pa worried about the Santorum Senate race. They think Casey is the front runner but could Teresa Heinz Kerry run? My guess is that either she is ineligible b/c she is not a Pa resident or has no interest in running for public office; but just think of the fire storm it would raise.
Posted by: Ira at January 23, 2005 08:25 PM
lol, that would certainly be fun. I heard they asked her to run after Senator Heinz died, but she had no desire to. Fun to think about though... regardless, we'd better defeat Santorum!
DiAnne -
So JK will be on MTP Sunday? I guess next week will mark my return to watching that program as well. Tim Russert better not be an ass.
As for the return of Poll-mania. After this election, I refuse to pay attention to any national poll. I have seriously learned my lesson. They are all total garbage as far as I'm concerned.
Oh and the idea about allowing voter registration on the day of election,that may not be a bad idea. While working at my Dem HQ on 11/2, I talked to nearly a handful of people (mostly young voters) who came in to find out where they could vote, but of course they couldn't.