More Good News For the Democrats
Despite the efforts of the tea party’s billionaire sugar daddies and the Chamber of Commerce’s foreign donors, good polling news continues to come for the Democrats. Two polls released today both showed the Democrats have a 47-44% lead in the generic Congressional ballot among all registered voters.
The first poll, from the Pew Research Center, focused on voting preferences and views of Latino voters and found that registered Latino voters prefer Democrats over Republicans by 43 points, 65-22%. Only 6% of Latino voters believed that Republicans have more concern than Democrats for issues facing Hispanics. The only bad news in the poll was that only 50% of registered Latino voters currently plan to vote. Fortunately, we still have a month of canvassing, phonebanking, and other grassroots organizing to get that percentage up.
The second poll, from the Public Religion Research Institute, focused on the views of and support for the tea party and provided numerous pieces of good news for progressive Democrats, including:
- Only 11% of Americans consider themselves part of the tea party and for the most part these folks are just conservative Republicans.
- 31% of voters are less likely to vote for a candidate who supports the tea party, while only 24% are more like to vote for such candidate. This is good news given the number of tea party candidates who have been nominated by the Republicans.
- 54% of voters said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supported health care reform. This is why it is good that candidates like Senator Russ Feingold in Wisconsin are running on their vote in favor of health care reform
- 55% of voters have a very or mostly favorable view of President Obama, compared to only 43% who have such a view of President George W. Bush.
- 56% of Americans believe that people making more than $1 million per year pay too little in taxes, which is good news given that Republicans are holding tax relief for incomes below $250,000 hostage in order to get further tax cuts for millionaires.
- 64% of Americans support marriage equality or at least civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.
- 58% of Americans support allowing undocumented immigrants to earn legal status and an opportunity for citizenship in the future.
- 67% of Americans support raising the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.00 per hour. This is good news for Democratic candidates like Joe Sestak, running for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, who co-sponsored legislation to increase the minimum wage while his opponent voted against an increase.
The conservative media, of course, will likely not cover these polls in any favorable way. Therefore, it is up to us to get the message out that Democrats are going to do far better this November than the conservative media claims, in large part because the majority of the American people support the positions of progressive Democrats on the issues. So, as usual, find a local Democratic candidate to volunteer for, write a letter to the editor, and talk with your family, friends, and neighbors about why we need to keep progressive Democratic majorities in November.
October 6th, 2010 at 9:30 am
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/2010_elections_house_map.html
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/19/news/economy/what_to_do_economists_survey/index.htm
October 6th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Pretty cool! Thanks for sharing this. Let’s turn those registered voters into actual voters and dumbfound the dumb main stream media!
October 6th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Holding tax relief hostage for millionaires? Please, plenty of economists believe keep rates steady for everybody is the best alternative.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/19/news/economy/what_to_do_economists_survey/index.htm
October 7th, 2010 at 5:09 am
Joe, Republicans are holding the middle class tax cuts hostage – they refuse to allow a vote unless there are also tax cuts for the wealthy elite.
As for that survey you keep linking to, have you looked at who was surveyed?
http://money.cnn.com/news/economy/storysupplement/economist_survey/
The survey is of a total of 31 economists, 28 of who are affiliated with powerful corporate interests, while only 3 are from academic institutions. Included on the list are economists for the National Association of Realtors, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, and the National Association of Home Builders. These economists would seem to have some conflicts with objectively evaluating whether to give more tax cuts to the wealthy elite, as their clients would directly benefit and many of the economists themselves would directly benefit.
By contrast, here is a statement by 300 economists who realize that the best way to achieve economic recovery in the U.S. is through progressive tax reform combined with the additional stimulus spending that progressives have always said was needed to enable the economy to fully recover. http://dontkilljobs.org/
The bottom line is that we know that tax cuts for the wealthy elite is the least effective economic stimulus available, as the wealthy save significantly more money than others and, therefore, do not put it back into the economy. In addition, the wealthy elite have received almost all of the benefits of economic growth over the past 30 years and have seen their tax rates plummet. Now is not the time to add even more to our national deficit to give even more tax relief to folks who do not need it.
October 7th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Oh, I get it. The economists I cite are somehow affiliated with “powerful corporate interests” but yours are so smart because they sit in ivory towers all day. Yeah, right. These economists do not have direct clients. And the salaries and bonuses of economists at firms like Merrill and JPMorgan depend on how well the economy performs. So I think they are perfectly aligned to give opinions of what they think will help the overall economy. So I don’t see your conflict. Whether they said to extend the tax cuts for everybody or just a slice of the population, it will have no bearing on their compensation.
And you say that “we know” that tax cuts for the “wealthy elite” is the least effective economic stimulus. Says who? I love how you make these bullshit “factual” statements. And you think that people making over $250k are the wealthy elite? I don’t know what planet you live on but it’s certainly not the same one as me.
If you’re so concerned about the deficit, then why are you OK extending the current rates for all of the “non-rich” which will add a lot more to the deficit than extending current rates for the “rich”?? We can afford the extra trillions but not the extra hundreds of billions??
You are really off your rocking chair – you want additional stimulus even though in states like Wisconsin the employment picture has become WORSE since we started the so-called “stimulus”. We have fewer jobs and more people dropping out of the work force because they can’t find anything. And we have no historical proof that Keynesian spending has ever worked, but you want to try it anyways. Good luck.
October 7th, 2010 at 10:49 am
PS – why do you moderate comments – afraid what people will say about your bullshit propaganda?
October 8th, 2010 at 6:23 am
Joe, I realize that conservatives always need to feel like that people are out to silence them – despite running virtually the entire media in the country, but come on, you are concerned that we moderate comments? Is there a single comment of yours that we have not posted here?
October 8th, 2010 at 6:41 am
Joe, two things with regards to your corporate economists.
First, do you seriously think that the fact that these economists would personally benefit from extending the tax cuts for the wealthy elite and that their clients would benefit from extending those tax cuts has no impact on how they view these issues? If so, you are deluding yourself.
Second, economists like this have quite a track record of being wrong. If you followed folks like these:
In 2006 you would have believed that there was no housing bubble.
In 2007 you would have believed that the troubles of subprime couldn’t possibly spread to the financial system as a whole.
In 2008 you would have believed that we weren’t in a recession — and that the failure of Lehman was unlikely to have bad consequences for the real economy.
In 2009 you would have believed that high inflation was just around the corner.
At the beginning of 2010 you would have believed that sky-high interest rates were just around the corner.
At what point do you decide that maybe us progressives are onto something?
As for stimulus effectiveness, here is just one of many sources:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs%5C88xx%5Cdoc8893%5Cblog-econstimulustable.htm
As for wealthy elite, the Republican tax plan would benefit only the top 2% of incomes and their estate tax elimination plan would benefit only the top 0.3% of estates. In comparison to the median annual household income of approximately $50,000, I’d consider those plans as mainly benefiting the wealthy elite.
Finally, what is your source of information about Wisconsin? Overall, the stimulus package has created or saved 3.5 million jobs. Under the last few months of President Bush, our country was losing nearly 800,000 jobs per month. The stimulus stemmed those losses and this year, we’ve gained private sector jobs every month.
October 8th, 2010 at 9:20 am
Conservatives run the media of the country? You’re kidding, right?
October 8th, 2010 at 9:29 am
First, I believe these economists are saying that holding tax rates steady for everybody is truly what they believe is in the best interest of the US economy. And just because an economist may be in one of those high tax brackets all of a sudden their opinion is moot? Your argument makes no sense. An economist who’s in the lower bracket who is in favor of raising taxes on the rich could also be saying that just out of personal interest, since he/she is “not rich”. But that’s a stupid argument. If you think an economist at an established firm is simply saying to keep tax rates level just so his/her own tax rates don’t go up is really stupid.
October 8th, 2010 at 9:32 am
And now you’re saying that economists have a bad track record – yet you cited a statement by 300 economists saying that it’s a bad idea to preserve the Bush tax cuts. So now you’re contradicting yourself!!
October 8th, 2010 at 9:39 am
My source of information for Wisconsin is the BLS. What’s yours?
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LASST55000004&data_tool=XGtable
October 8th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Joe, the stimulus bill was signed by the President in mid-February 2009. It takes a few months to get the spending out the door in an orderly and reasonable fashion. What the BLS data shows is that unemployment in Wisconsin was 4.3% in April 2008 and had skyrocketed to 7.7% by February 2009. Before the stimulus could really take effect, the unemployment rate continued to go up, to 8.9% in July 2009. Then, as the stimulus really started kicking in, the unemployment rate stabilized and then began to decline, with it standing at 7.9% in August 2010.
So, your claim may be technically true, but is disingenuous at best given that it ignores the skyrocketing unemployment occurring before the stimulus, the fact that it takes a bit of time to get the stimulus implemented, and the decline in unemployment since then.
And, of course, your argument ignores the fact that a much fuller recovery would have already occurred if Republicans had not obstructed every effort to aid the economy, including kicking 130,000 people out of work just last month.
October 8th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
That’s some poor logic. Questions for you:
1. How do you know that the unemployment rate wouldn’t have stabilized without the stimulus?
2. You claim the stimulus “kicked in” and caused the unemployment rate to decline from July ’09 thru August ’10. But that’s faulty analysis. Why? Because the number of people employed in Wisconsin today is LESS than the number of people employed in Wisconsin last summer. So we spent all that money on a so-called “stimulus” and we have less people employed today than a year ago.
October 10th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
So WP – a big stimulus has been spent and Wisconsin has LESS people employed today than last summer. Is that something to cheer about? The silence is deafening.
October 11th, 2010 at 1:27 am
Silence? Obviously you haven’t read this blog much. The fundamental problem is that conservatives prevented President Obama and the Democrats from investing enough in the stimulus to achieve a full recovery from the mess that President Bush created. Progressives such as Paul Krugman knew at the time that the stimulus was not big enough, but the political reality was that folks like Senator Snowe would not allow for a bigger stimulus. It would be insane, however, to respond to this failure by putting back into power conservatives who prevented the recovery from happening and are proposing the exact same pro-corporate anti-regulatory zeal that got us into this economic mess in the first place.
October 11th, 2010 at 7:00 am
Yes, silence. You have no explanation for why the “Stimulus” isn’t working other than it was too small. Actually, first you said that it created tens of thousands of jobs in Wisconsin. That’s great, except the number of jobs in Wisconsin is still below where it was last summer. Your only response to that is we should have spent more money? Then what – the decline in jobs since last summer would be bigger?
Your logic is that since we spent close to a trillion dollars and don’t have an increase in jobs in Wisconsin, we need to spend more. We have no historical precedents that deficit spending of such size has ever produced either a rebound in economic growth or job creation.
Don’t believe everything that Paul Krugman tells you. He’s just one economist. Others like John Taylor will argue that the Stimulus did not kick start consumption.
After all, Krugman is one of those economists that you mentioned who got it completely wrong about the housing bubble. And he said that Freddie & Fannie posed no threat to our housing system. He’s never been the same after his stint as a special advisor to Enron. Another inconsistency with your logic – you say that economists often get things wrong – but then you rely on Krugman to support your theory of “if only the stimulus was bigger”. Why would you believe Krugman?
October 20th, 2010 at 12:26 am
Would you please explain to me what the hell difference Olympia Snowe’s position mattered as regards the stimulus, when the Dumbs had a filibuster proof 60 vote count in the Senate? You braindead libs make me giggle!
Bill
October 20th, 2010 at 1:10 am
Bill Melater – The Democrats did not get a filibuster proof majority until June 30, 2009 because Republican Norm Coleman obstructed Al Franken’s election for months with frivolous lawsuits. Given the crisis that the Bush Administration had put our economy in, the stimulus had to be passed as quickly as possible after President Obama came into office in January 2009.
Before you go around calling people names, you might want to make sure you know what you are talking about.
October 20th, 2010 at 5:43 am
WP – why don’t you face reality rather than blaming the crisis on the Bush administration?
October 20th, 2010 at 9:24 am
Frivolous lawsuits….that’s kinda funny…..Franken, who disgraces the world’s greatest deliberative body every time he opens his mouth, stole the election with a trunkful of fraudulent votes. That aside, comrade, the reason Barry O had so much trouble getting his priorities passed with huge margins in both houses is because his initiatives were, and are, far to the left of the American public. And in homage to a quote from Barry O’s mentor, (and I would guess yours too) Jerimiah Wright: “THE CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST!” I have bad news for you WP, the GOP will pick up at least 60, possibly as many as 90 seats in the house. They will pick up at least 8, possibly 12 in the Senate, double digit gains in Gov races, and thousands of state seats nationwide. This will be the greatest political ass jamming in modern times. I respectfully suggest you pull your nose out of Barry’s ass before we start drilling. Talk again on November 3rd!
P.S. Thank God Prince Barry rushed through the stimulus he was able to get passed in such a rushed fashion – it seems to be doing wonders! The unemployment rate will hit 9.9-10 on November 5th – bet on it.
You amuse me….
October 21st, 2010 at 8:45 am
C’mon Melater – if only we had spent MORE, then the Stimulus would have worked. Ha ha ha.
The first $800 billion of so-called “Stimulus” resulted in a net increase of 344,000 jobs from Sept. ’09 to Sept ’10. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cessum.txt
So that must mean if we spent ANOTHER $800 billion that we don’t have, we’ll get another 344,000 jobs out of it. What a great bang for the buck!!
October 21st, 2010 at 5:37 pm
I mean really, Joe. You know better than to engage a liberal with those bothersome facts! For Pete’s sake, don’t question the Messiah, or his drooling, fawning, hangers-on.
Here’s a question I pose to Libs that (if theyre honest – a stretch, I know) at least causes them to think: Suppose you could go back in time, and replay the entire 2008 campaign, primaries and all. Everything would be EXACTLY the same. Same ads, same debates, same campaign stops – every single word is identical to the way it played the first time. EXCEPT…….the guy named Barack Obama looked identical to Al Sharpton, rather than how he actually looks. Would he win?
I don’t think so either. Just goes to show how remarkably shallow much of the US populace is, and liberals in general. They do make me giggle though, and that’s a good thing….