NationStates Jolt Archive

currently at 43%.

I believe it was either Times or Newsweek that did that one.

Any one have other numbers?

45%, circa March 30th.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=15463

53%, circa "recent" March 31st, with a note that 54% think the nation is on the wrong track.

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036041.cfm

If it gets below 40 the terrorist alert level might get raised to BOO!...

currently at 43%.

I believe it was either Times or Newsweek that did that one.

Any one have other numbers?
Polls do not a leader make, nor is "popularity" a virtue.

Polls do not a leader make, nor is "popularity" a virtue.

Virtues do not a bush make, in any case.

51%, same as usual.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

Not that it matters. Our House and Senate prospects look outstanding for '06, regardless. It's gonna be sweet.

Polls do not a leader make...
Then what are elections?

Then what are elections?

Approval rating and re-election are two entirely different matters. You put some loser like Kerry up there and a guy with a 30% approval rating can cruise right back in.

Approval rating and re-election are two entirely different matters...
Very true, but I was just pointing out that an election is no more than a poll. Polls do make leaders (in democracy-esque thingies)

I just had a thought. If Christianity is true the base of Bush's support might disappear during his presidency. If he's left behind he could go down as the least popular sitting president in U.S. history. :D

I just had a thought. If Christianity is true the base of Bush's support might disappear during his presidency. If he's left behind he could go down as the least popular sitting president in U.S. history. :D
I agree, bring on the rapture. It will make earth much more fun.

Polls do not a leader make, nor is "popularity" a virtue.

http://www.the-gateway.net/fun/bullsh1t3.jpg

Very true, but I was just pointing out that an election is no more than a poll. Polls do make leaders (in democracy-esque thingies)

Polls may place a person in a position of leadership. But polls do not make someone a leader.

nor is "popularity" a virtue.

Depends on what you consider the job of the president to be. If he is supposed to reflect the nation his popularity both within as outside the nation is quite important. Considering the large amount of people that seem to think Bush is an evil warmongering idiot that does everything by the bible (and I'm not saying that this image is correct, just that it seems to be quite common) that PR and popularity needs work.

If you "just" (not the quotes) want someone there to make the tough decisions popularity is not really important. Then again, why not just install a dictator then.

Not that it matters. Our House and Senate prospects look outstanding for '06, regardless. It's gonna be sweet.
Do you think it's possible that the Republicans could replicate what the Democrats did c. 1940, and get something like 80% representation in Congress?

So, while different sources disagree on on the exact level, they all agree that it is (by their own polls) "the lowest ever." Same as they've all been telling us for three months now.

Do you think it's possible that the Republicans could replicate what the Democrats did c. 1940, and get something like 80% representation in Congress?

I would say a distinct possibility :)

Do you think it's possible that the Republicans could replicate what the Democrats did c. 1940, and get something like 80% representation in Congress?
You do realize that the Democrats actually won the vote in the senate, right?

The problem with these polls is that they are very random. Bush's approval rating was rediculously high two months ago, and is rediculously low now. It has more to do with who they poll than anything

Got to love these 500-1000 man polls. My God they will say anything these days. >.>

Just to hit Formal at the pass (;))

"In the 100 elections that determined the current make-up of the Senate, 200,723,923 votes were cast. The Democratic candidates in these elections received a combined 96,307,088 votes, for 47.98% of all votes. The Republican candidates received 94,994,293 votes combined, for 47.33% of total votes. (4.69%, or 9,422,542 votes, went to other parties). I removed the 2000 elections in Georgia and Missouri from the Gadflyer totals since those elections were not the most recent for the seat in question. Incidentally, both of those elections were won by Democrats."

What would happen if the Republicans had that kind of supermajority, do you think, Formal Dances?

You do realize that the Democrats actually won the vote in the senate, right?
shhh... i just want to bait some Republicans into ego masturbation

100%

What would happen if the Republicans had that kind of supermajority, do you think, Formal Dances?

No more judicial filibuster.

shhh... i just want to bait some Republicans into ego masturbation

LOL!

You do realize that the Democrats actually won the vote in the senate, right?

And yet the Republicans have control of the Senate :eek:

No more judicial filibuster.

Translate into English please.

Translate into English please.

No more Presidential Appointed Judicial Filibusters.

The Senate is filibustering them which is holding up cases in Federal District Courts as well as leaving major Appealent Court Seats empty becaues of them.

A system such as ours NEEDS filibusters. If we don't have them, the side that's in power would be able to totally fuck over the other side. Would you really want that?

Just like gore won the vote in 2000.

No more Presidential Appointed Judicial Filibusters.

The Senate is filibustering them which is holding up cases in Federal District Courts as well as leaving major Appealent Court Seats empty becaues of them.
All 10 seats. Which would most likely be filled if Mr. Bush stopped being an arrogant ass and actually tried to compromise.

And yet the Republicans have control of the Senate :eek:
Such is life. The house vote is similar also, roughly 47% to 50% (Dem/Rep). And yet (due to Gerrymandering and such) the Republicans have a large majority.

A system such as ours NEEDS filibusters. If we don't have them, the side that's in power would be able to totally fuck over the other side. Would you really want that?

I don't mind filibusters but not on judicial nominees

All 10 seats. Which would most likely be filled if Mr. Bush stopped being an arrogant ass and actually tried to compromise.

They are presidential appointees to the Federal Judicial Branch. Why should they be filibustered?

They are presidential appointees to the Federal Judicial Branch. Why should they be filibustered?
Advice and consent clause...the rules of the senate provide that in order for cloture to pass (to give consent) a supermajority must be reached. It can not be reached, ergo the senate does not give its consent.

They are presidential appointees to the Federal Judicial Branch. Why should they be filibustered?
So that the president, whoever that may be, is forced to nominate moderate judges. It's best to keep extremism of any political flare out of the courts, I'm sure you'll agree.

Advice and consent clause...the rules of the senate provide that in order for cloture to pass (to give consent) a supermajority must be reached. It can not be reached, ergo the senate does not give its consent.

A supermajority ISN'T NEEDED! :eek: All you need is 51 Senators to confirm an appointee not 60.

A supermajority ISN'T NEEDED! :eek: All you need is 51 Senators to confirm an appointee not 60.
In order to pass cloture you need a supermajority. Rules of the senate. If you can't pass cloture, the issue is, in effect, moot. The senate did not consent to the Presidents choice.

In order to pass cloture you need a supermajority. Rules of the senate. If you can't pass cloture, the issue is, in effect, moot. The senate did not consent to the Presidents choice.

That is why I support the rule change to get rid of filibustering presidential appointees.

That is why I support the rule change to get rid of filibustering presidential appointees.
You do, and the government will come to a halt. There is a reason why it is in the rules, there is a reason why it has stayed in the rules dispite the efforts of both parties to remove it whenever they get into power.

You do, and the government will come to a halt. There is a reason why it is in the rules, there is a reason why it has stayed in the rules dispite the efforts of both parties to remove it whenever they get into power.

I said for appointees only. I support filibusters for other things like legislation.

Just like gore won the vote in 2000.


Only in the liberal false reality, All the major papers, networks and magazines went to Florida and 4 out 5 times Bush won in their recount. The only time Bush didn't win was when they counted ballots that were outlawed by Florida Election Law. Which by the way, you can not change the laws once the vote has been started.

You need to wake up and realize that the Democrat party has screwed up to much to actually win in America.

In order to pass cloture you need a supermajority. Rules of the senate. If you can't pass cloture, the issue is, in effect, moot. The senate did not consent to the Presidents choice.


No where in the whole history of the US has the nomination of the President Judges needed more than up and down vote. To do this unconstitutional thing and try to subvert the actually way the fillabusters were supposed to be done in not only immonral but an outrage.

Also there has been no Fllabusters, just a threat of one. The lazy Democrats as usually are not getting up there and talking 24/7 till the Republicans either break the fillabuster or give up. I welcome the Consititutional option that will be used in the future. Then we can say good bye to about another 10 Democrats in the Senate and another 20-30 in the House. good times all a round then

I said for appointees only. I support filibusters for other things like legislation.
Do you honestly think it matters what its for?

No where in the whole history of the US has the nomination of the President Judges needed more than up and down vote. To do this unconstitutional thing and try to subvert the actually way the fillabusters were supposed to be done in not only immonral but an outrage.

Also there has been no Fllabusters, just a threat of one. The lazy Democrats as usually are not getting up there and talking 24/7 till the Republicans either break the fillabuster or give up. I welcome the Consititutional option that will be used in the future. Then we can say good bye to about another 10 Democrats in the Senate and another 20-30 in the House. good times all a round then
http://www.nwlaborpress.org/2001/10-19-01Relief.html

And lets not forget this Republican lead filibuster against the nomination of Abe Fortas to the position of Chief Justice

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm
(in case you can't read: 'On October 1, 1968, the Senate failed to invoke cloture. Johnson then withdrew the nomination, privately observing that if he had another term, "the Fortas appointment would have been different."')

Do you honestly think it matters what its for?

Yes I do honestly think it matters.

Yes I do honestly think it matters.
What makes an appointment different from a filibuster for anything else?

What makes an appointment different from a filibuster for anything else?

Business!

Business!
Pardon?

Pardon?
I think he is saying that since the Democrats are doing it it is wrong. I can't think of any of explaination for this,"Busniess",

Pardon?

The courts are overworked and when you hold up Judges, they become more overworked. The Courts work isn't getting done because of lack of judges.

Filibustering legislation prevents bad legislation from coming through. It is also a check on the legislative process of the US House.

The courts are overworked and when you hold up Judges, they become more overworked. The Courts work isn't getting done because of lack of judges.

Filibustering legislation prevents bad legislation from coming through. It is also a check on the legislative process of the US House.
Some how I doubt the appeals courts will come to a grinding halt because 10 judges aren't appointed. Bush can always just appoint another, perhaps a bit more reasonable, judge.

Some how I doubt the appeals courts will come to a grinding halt because 10 judges aren't appointed. Bush can always just appoint another, perhaps a bit more reasonable, judge.

Or use the Recess appointee method when they are in recess. And how do you know those judges aren't reasonable?

Or use the Recess appointee method when they are in recess. And how do you know those judges aren't reasonable?
And still have to face a vote next term.


The democratic senators seem to think so.

Oh, and on recess appointments:
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. remarks, "[Clinton] has shown contempt for Congress and the Constitution."

And still have to face a vote next term.


The democratic senators seem to think so.

Oh, and on recess appointments:
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. remarks, "[Clinton] has shown contempt for Congress and the Constitution."

But legal under the Constitution! Ironic isn't it. I can't fault Clinton for using it.

Why should judges be filibustered?

But legal under the Constitution! Ironic isn't it. I can't fault Clinton for using it.

Why should judges be filibustered?
Why shouldn't they. The option exists, and its a method used by the minority party to block the most excessive excesses of the majority party.

Bush's approval rating: 50%, +/- 10%.

Why shouldn't they. The option exists, and its a method used by the minority party to block the most excessive excesses of the majority party.

How is appointing a judge an excessive excess? Its part of the President's job to appoint federal judges and to have them approved by the US Senate. The Senate isn't doing its job to vote up or down because of these filibusters.

No wonder the Dems couldn't regain the Senate in 2002 or 2004.

How is appointing a judge an excessive excess?Not in itself. Appointing well over two hundred judges borders on it, but if it's needed, it's acceptable. When a dozen have no judicial experience and minimal experience as a lawyer, then it's definitely suspicious. When the 3% or so that's blocked have about as much training as a law-school dropout, there are literally hundreds of more qualified applicants around the country, but they have views exactly in line with the appointer, then you have "reasonable doubt" as to whether it's in the best interests of the country.

Not in itself. Appointing well over two hundred judges borders on it, but if it's needed, it's acceptable. When a dozen have no judicial experience and minimal experience as a lawyer, then it's definitely suspicious. When the 3% or so that's blocked have about as much training as a law-school dropout, there are literally hundreds of more qualified applicants around the country, but they have views exactly in line with the appointer, then you have "reasonable doubt" as to whether it's in the best interests of the country.We call this a smoking gun.

It's funny how for you guys it's "all or nothing." You get 200+ judges appointed, and ten of the most EXTREME, who will OBVIOUSLY make decisions based on ideology and not on the objective stance that judges are meant to take [and that ideally moderate judges WOULD take] are blocked, and Bush just brings them right back around, and you threaten the very fabric of our Constitution for them! For ten lousy judges! Do you even know they names?!

We call this "power mad," kids. It's when someone is in the weaker position for decades, and then when he finally gets the upper hand, he does everything he can any way he can. "Moderation" is no longer the watchword. "Desire" is the only thing that rules.

They are presidential appointees to the Federal Judicial Branch. Why should they be filibustered?Because they wouldn't make good judges. There, a good reason.

EDIT
Gah, forgot the point of this thread!

The polls aren't relevant to Bush directly, but they are indirectly. If polls show that, say, 70% of the population dislikes a certain initiative for a certain piece of legislation, the Senate and House will back off - unlike Bush, they are up for re-election soon. And Bush can't really get any legislation through if the Legislature has gone cold on it. That's why polls are important, guys.

Crimony. Think. Don't just turn into rabid supporters of "your side" whenever something negative is said. You're comically predictable.

Can someone prove to me that the judges appointed:

1) were lawschool drop outs?
2) Have no judicial Experience (Estrada was marked as high as possible by the American Bar)?
3) would not make good judges?

Why shouldn't they. The option exists, and its a method used by the minority party to block the most excessive excesses of the majority party.

Because the courts are overworked. We have important seats that need to be filled and they're not getting filled because of filibusters and they don't deserve to be.

Because the courts are overworked. We have important seats that need to be filled and they're not getting filled because of filibusters and they don't deserve to be.That's only 10 seats. 200 have already been appointed. It's not like the judicial system is going to collapse; besides, why shouldn't the President compromise and nominate more moderate judges, eh? Instead of this arrogant REFUSAL to compromise on the issue, threatening instead to attack part of our democracy rather than come to an agreement.

I think this graph clearly indicates where Bush is in the hearts of Americans?

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval_files/Approval_27267_image001.gif

Too bad for that slight upward tick at election time. :(

It appears that his approval rating is even lower than his first six months as President.

And we care about the graph why?

And we care about the graph why?Because this is a thread about Bush's poll numbers and approval rating, and that graph is an interesting backwards look at the history of his approval numbers.

Jeez. Pretty snide.

Because this is a thread about Bush's poll numbers and approval rating, and that graph is an interesting backwards look at the history of his approval numbers.

Jeez. Pretty snide.

yea!

Frankly, I don't put stock in poll numbers. The only poll numbers that count are those done at the polls themselves.

Also of interest:

"State of the Country" Satisfaction Ratings (http://www.gallup.com/poll/stateNation/) are extremely low, compared to when Bill Clinton was in office.

And the same applies with "State of the Country" Satisfaction Ratings.

on the Judges issue - isn't what Bush doing exactly what he said he wouldn't do during the debates? He said he refused to use a litmus test to decide who he was going to appoint as a judge. Doesn't that mean that he refused to appoint judges because they leaned on way or anther on a certain issue? No wonder hsi approval ratings are sinking.

Bush is just another hypocritical liar like they all are. I'd like to thank Bush for doing all he can to ruin our country. Maybe people will get a clue from the resulting mess he keeps driving us deeper into. Maybe one day we can actually begin to appoint real leaders that have all the people of our country in mind. Maybe, just maybe we can elect someone who isn't in getting his pockets lined with big money from corporate buddies. I choose to envision a President that will reject the corruption that comes with great power and do what it right for the people who put him in office and not sell us all out for a bigger bank account. Ah idealism. My closest friend and greatest enemy. :D

on the Judges issue - isn't what Bush doing exactly what he said he wouldn't do during the debates? He said he refused to use a litmus test to decide who he was going to appoint as a judge. Doesn't that mean that he refused to appoint judges because they leaned on way or anther on a certain issue? No wonder hsi approval ratings are sinking.

Care to prove that he is using a litmus test? It isn't the judge issue lowering his approval rating Sumamba.

Bush is just another hypocritical liar like they all are. I'd like to thank Bush for doing all he can to ruin our country. Maybe people will get a clue from the resulting mess he keeps driving us deeper into. Maybe one day we can actually begin to appoint real leaders that have all the people of our country in mind. Maybe, just maybe we can elect someone who isn't in getting his pockets lined with big money from corporate buddies. I choose to envision a President that will reject the corruption that comes with great power and do what it right for the people who put him in office and not sell us all out for a bigger bank account. Ah idealism. My closest friend and greatest enemy. :D

And who would that be?

Look at the uber conservatives he is appointing - it's all a matter of perspective I guess. If you want me to try to torture Bush to get the truth out of him, that might be a little tough to do.

As for a great leader? who knows I really don't. I liked Dennis Kucinich as the Democrat because he was more like a green party member and I thought he really did have peoples best interest at heart. I'm not a Democrat but besides Republicans, that is about the only other choice we got right?

Do you have any ideas as to who might not be all about Corporate interests? Others might be Colin Powell maybe or perhaps that cool Republican dude... *drawing a blank on names* Err ruh Maybe I can think of it later.

More cannon fodder (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p01s03-uspo.html):

Bush advisers, while playing down the latest numbers, tend to fault the recent economic uncertainty. Several major polls have shown Bush's job approval declining into the mid-40s, a drop of 5 to 7 points in just a week - in some cases, at or near an all-time low for his presidency. The latest Gallup Poll also shows the highest public pessimism over the economy in two years, with 33 percent saying it is getting better and 59 percent saying it is getting worse.

Almost 2 to 1 against on the economy.

Look at the uber conservatives he is appointing - it's all a matter of perspective I guess. If you want me to try to torture Bush to get the truth out of him, that might be a little tough to do.

Prove that they are uber conservatives.

As for a great leader? who knows I really don't. I liked Dennis Kucinich as the Democrat because he was more like a green party member and I thought he really did have peoples best interest at heart. I'm not a Democrat but besides Republicans, that is about the only other choice we got right?

I actually prefer Lieberman who is a Democrat. There is the green party and they are starting to be an up and coming party.

Do you have any ideas as to who might not be all about Corporate interests? Others might be Colin Powell maybe or perhaps that cool Republican dude... *drawing a blank on names* Err ruh Maybe I can think of it later.

The Senator from Arizona? Pleases! Some people in AZ are really starting to get mad with him because of the immigration problem.

http://www.geocities.com/dayonhoemes/bush_pimp.jpg

lol please - prove that they aren't. If youw ant me to go show you what all the political pursuasions of all the appointees are and why I think this or that is conservative or not you just arent goign to get it. I dont have that kinda time. Besides... like I said - I guess it's all a matter of perspective eh?

As for Leiberman I am nto so sure as I really don't know much about him.

As for the Green party, whom I like very much because they seem like they really want to just do what is right and aren't all about power and money, I don't think they are up and coming enough to be any worry for the two main parties who have a stranglehold on the Presidency. Although I can also see it being very easy for corruption to creep in on any party when they have the chance.

Yeah the Arizona guy I like. I could care less what people think about his stance on immigration. He's a good guy and seems to do what he believes is right. I'm not saying I agree with everythign he thinks is right, I just think thats an admirable quality. Although I also doubt he is free of corporate influence , but when yer faces with few choices I pick out the lesser of what I perceive to be the evils.

lol please - prove that they aren't. If youw ant me to go show you what all the political pursuasions of all the appointees are and why I think this or that is conservative or not you just arent goign to get it. I dont have that kinda time. Besides... like I said - I guess it's all a matter of perspective eh?

Actually, you made the statement and I asked you to prove it. So, prove it.

As for Leiberman I am nto so sure as I really don't know much about him.

Economically responsible and strong in National Security.

As for the Green party, whom I like very much because they seem like they really want to just do what is right and aren't all about power and money, I don't think they are up and coming enough to be any worry for the two main parties who have a stranglehold on the Presidency. Although I can also see it being very easy for corruption to creep in on any party when they have the chance.

I agree 100% (and with you no less)

Yeah the Arizona guy I like. I could care less what people think about his stance on immigration. He's a good guy and seems to do what he believes is right. I'm not saying I agree with everythign he thinks is right, I just think thats an admirable quality. Although I also doubt he is free of corporate influence , but when yer faces with few choices I pick out the lesser of what I perceive to be the evils.

Actually, you better care because if he runs for the office it'll come out. I consider immigration to be a major issue next election. Gotta find someway to make sure people don't slip in illegally.

silly arent you listening? Matters of perception cannot be proved. We could both find examples to support our perceptions on anything. Besides, I am not here to win a debate. I am here to give my opinion the way I see it. Just because you tell me what todo, doesn't mean I have to do it. lol

silly arent you listening? Matters of perception cannot be proved. We could both find examples to support our perceptions on anything. Besides, I am not here to win a debate. I am here to give my opinion the way I see it. Just because you tell me what todo, doesn't mean I have to do it. lol

True but you did make an assertion and I wanted to see proof. Sorry for asking for that proof.

u are forgiven my son