What do liberals think of US Congress having a much worse approval rating than Trump?
This liberal thinks that if the American people were truly dissatisfied with Congress, there’d be a larger turnover of members. As it is, most Americans appear to think their own senators and the congressman representing their own district are upstanding, dedicated public servants. It’s all the other members who are bums that need to be thrown out.I wish I had a dollar for every time someone wondered how Ted Kennedy managed to hang onto his Senate seat when he’d “murdered” that poor girl, Mary Jo Kopechne. The answer, of course, is that the decision to re-elect or replace him was up to the people of Massachusetts alone, and for whatever reason(s), election after election, they preferred him to all of his Republican challengers.[I say “murdered” because I believe the theory offered by many people, notably Jack Olsen in his book The Bridge at Chappaquiddick, that Mary Jo herself drove Kennedy’s car when it went off the bridge.]
Since the US Congress has a 6% approval rating, why do you think that is? And what will change that?
Hardly anyone in the electorate understands what the job of Congress is, any more. The people are really only expressing their displeasure with the state of the world.If they understood Congress' job fully, they would also fully understand DC media, DC politics, and their own power in the situation. And then they would either be moved to more effective action, or give themselves even lower marks than they are giving Congress, or both.Here's a DC quiz for you. Every four years, we hold a presidential election. How many people does the winning party place in federal office?(A) the prez and vp(B) prez vp and cabinet(C) prez vp cabinet and transition team(D) all of the above plus 8000-50,000 top level execs and managers (depending how you count) plus the entire ambassadorial rosterIf you guessed D you win!So why in the world do we do this "cult of personality" horse race every four years?The president is the CEO of a multi-trillian dollar enterprise. Mostly, he is a spokesman for his executive team, of which we hear little during election time.Similarly, Congress has committees. These committees get to take most any relevant bill and send it to limbo, never to be voted on, if they want to. There are various rules on when pork gets tacked on. Do you know them?Do you know how many hours a week go into overseeing the tens of billions of dollars of black-line (off-the-books) NSA budget (not to mention the other 16 intel agencies' off budget bucks)? Less than six. And only when Congress is in session.Do you know what percent of the US population has top secret clearances or above now (per USA Today) so the beltway can eat up all those dollars on subcontracts? 0.5% Hard to keep secrets that way.Do you know who is ultimately responsible for these clowns' good behavior?YOU.Hit the books. Time to learn some civics, be a Jeffersonian citizen. Stop treating "activist" like a four letter word. Learn to take positive action. Quit your bitchin' and make things better. Learn how media works. Learn your own history and laws. Develop critical thinking. Debate civilly. Learn statecraft and compromise.Stop treating this like a football game. No zero sum America.We all lose a little and win. Checks and balances.Or if you try to win for your team -- America loses.STOP IT.
Which President had the lowest approval rating in US history?
Bush, who very narrowly beat out Nixon and Truman for lowest approval rating. Carter is the fourth worst since surveys have been done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_rating I'm betting the people who say Obama will be worse are too chicken to place money on that prediction. Liberal asskicker: The second link is end of terms popularity, which doesn't match up necessary with lowest approval rating. The first one is just Bush's popularity based on one polling firm, there is nothing to compare it to.
Politicians & political parties have historically low approval ratings - what does this tell you?
Despite widespread dissatisfaction with job performance, politicians and political parties keep winning reelection. Bush left office with a 22% approval rating - the lowest of any president in American history. Obama's approval rating is hovering around 40% - the lowest of any modern president at this point in his presidency. Congressional Democrats and Republicans have approval ratings in the 30s. Yet they all keep winning. The two-party system persists. Why? Because the American people don't elect politicians... corporations do. The problem started in 2000 with the appointment of George Walker Bush by the SCOTUS. But the Citizens United ruling made the situation much worse. Corporations now have grossly disproportionate power. They effectively choose our politicians, and they always chose pro-business puppets who will do as they're told. It's become so bad that even independently wealthy candidates can't win. You have to be endorsed by the powers-that-be. You have to be indebted to corporate America. You can't make it on your own, that's too risky. You have to be beholden to the 1%, otherwise you're a wildcard. It's not as if Americans are ignorant to the problem... it's that Americans are powerless to change it.
How can Obama have a higher approval rating than Trump and Hillary?
(Warning: I like Obama, so let’s get that out of the way!)Whoever is replacing him won’t have nearly as bad a start as Trump and the Chicken Littles on the right want you to think, and it will be NOTHING like coming in on the heels of Bush II. The Obama administration has been remarkably scandal free; indeed, most of what anyone might remotely consider “scandalous” has been forcefully contrived by the Right. He is also leaving the job with the economy much improved from the mess that was created by his predecessor; not perfect, but better.As for why his approval ratings are so much higher than either candidate today, well, Trump is the quite the “anti-Obama” in almost every respect: poise, decency, speech, maturity, professionalism, equanimity, thoughtfulness, grace under fire. Indeed, Trump resembles a mere spoiled child in comparison, a dilettante, a dabbler in adult affairs.Hillary just has too much baggage, some of it her own doing, but not all. She’s saddled with a controversial, if mostly well-liked, husband; seems too opportunistic and too eager and quick to “cheat” the truth if it suits her.Lately, whenever I see Obama, whether he is traveling somewhere or speaking or giving a press conference, I cannot help but wonder in a year if we all aren’t going to be yearning in some way for someone more like him. I’m a fan, what can I say; if he had had a little more cooperative Congress, he …and they…might well have secured a seat among the greats.When I try to peer over the horizon of January 20, 2017 at what is potentially ahead, I have to say I’m going to miss him.I think we all will.
High Incumbency Rate In Congress?
How are members of Congress able to win reelection so easily? Provide some concrete examples of the advantages they have over any competitors they may face in an election. In what ways is this high incumbency rate a bad thing for American voters? Are there any ways in which America voters benefit from Congress' high incumbency rate?
Would the US Congress be able to achieve more, legislatively, if they brought back earmarks? Would their approval rating increase?
Yes, you’ve probably noticed that government spending hasn’t fallen since they were banned and that’s because earmarks aren’t what they were described as. Earmarks didn’t increase spending they directed which projects already budgeted spending would fund. If someone told you your local city council was going to save money by instead of voting on which specific streets to fix and instead just pass a budget and let the staff pick you’d probably question whether this is would actually save money or even be a wise move. After all we elect people to make informed decisions on what gets done.That is functionally what Congress did when it banned earmarks and it has disastrous consequences in getting things done. For a lot of communities a big piece of infrastructure is vastly more important than social policy or “principles”. Earmarks allowed horsetrading so people who really did not care about an issue could get something out of voting yes.Now if they need funding for something they either have to get it out of the bureaucracy or jam so much cash into the program their project gets funded, which is the exact opposite of the point of the ban.The reality is there is not a single government program or expense that isn’t considered wasteful by someone. Since everyone has different views of what’s important you can’t ever get to a non “wasteful” system. Everyone will have a different perspective on what is waste and what is not.
Do Donald Trump's policies have anything to to with his approval rating being on par with Obama's at the same time in his presidency?
First of all Donald Trump has no policies. He is acting poorly upon some promises he made during his election 20 ignored electorate that has been highly dissatisfied with the modernization and job displacement on going in US industry - effectively a desperate temper tantrum that has resulted in even greater deadlock than under Obama. Both lost popularity due to the fact that they did not have a Congress cooperative Congress. People continue to believe that the president somehow has the power to make laws and rule the country like a king-among them Donald Trump. Congress makes the laws and holds the purse strings but they must actually make the effort to do so. This group of selfish children we have elected can’t seem to agree when to even go to the bathroom.
Has a U.S. presidential candidate ever faced as much public opposition as Trump has?
Excluding Lincoln, no President in the last 150 years has been as mistrusted and disapproved in his first year as Trump. He started out with nearly a 50% approval rating and it has dropped, in less than a year, to the mid 30’s. Several Presidents (Truman, Bush II, et al) have earned lower approval ratings but not at the beginning of their tenure when Presidents are given a kind of honeymoon with the public.So Trump is the only President, since the Civil War, to tank in his first year, and ironically, Clinton is the only President, despite being impeached, to end up with a higher approval rating than when he started.Can Trump turn it around? It doesn’t look likely as his only legislative victory may be a tax plan that is very unpopular: “Fifty-two percent of respondents said that they expect the GOP's tax plan to hurt them and their families, according to the Marist poll, while 30 percent said they believe the proposal would ultimately help them.Asked whom the overhaul would help the most, 60 percent of respondents said they believe it would provide the most relief to the wealthy, while only 21 percent said they expect it to help the middle class the most.” Majority in new poll: GOP tax plan would hurt usIn addition, his major effort to “repeal and replace” Obamacare backfired, failed, and the pubic, which in 2016 was 40% for/49% against is now 51% for/39% for the plan, which Trump is trying to destroy by ending the mandatory requirement, which is needed to keep it solvent.And regarding how Trump has handling the Russian situation, cbs reports: “Of the issues on which Americans evaluated President Trump for this poll, they give the president his most negative marks on his handling of the Russia matter -- just 28 percent approve, while 63 percent disapprove.” Americans are really divided on the Russia investigationTrump, who lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million, and never had positive approval or trust ratings,seems to be going from bad to worse. If he continues on this course, he will continue to be the most disapproved President since Lincoln,who drew the ire of the slave states.