ChuckTesta.jpg

What is your job again?

I'm not the one of us who assumes that polling indicates fact, as opposed to perception. You should be embarrassed, because you lack a simple understanding of logic. Just because polling indicates the public supports X over Y only makes it a political fact that politicians are best served supporting X over Y too. It doesn't make X the right thing to do. Do you get it now?



hack

Michigan Senate
PPP had recently polled Michigan, before senior Senator Carl Levin announced his retirement. His job approval was 45%-37% and he lead in all hypothetical reelection matchups, holding leads over Republicans Rep. Candice Miller (46%-35%), Rep. Justin Amash (49%-34%), Rep. Mike Rogers (49%-33%), and Bill Schuette (51%-32%). The Republican primary candidates will need to raise their name recognition and favorability numbers if they want to compete. Miller's favorability sat at 33%-25%, which was better than Rogers (16%-19%), Schuette (20%-25%) and Amash (9%-20%). Former State Secretary Terri Lynn Land (36%-21% favorability rating) could be a decent option for the party but she chose not to challenge the other Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow last year (wise choice). The Republicans need to act quickly and coalesce around a candidate now. Both Miller and Rogers are unlikely to give up their seniority and prime seats in the House, and Amash is most likely not ready for a statewide run with over 70% of voters not knowing him and twice as many voters disliking him as those who like him.

Barack Obama's job approval rating sits at 48%-47%, while Debbie Stanenow's at 51%-36%. Hillary Clinton leads in 2016 hypothetical matchups, besting Paul Ryan 52%-41% and Marco Rubio 51%-37%.
Michiganders support stricter gun laws in general (52%-39%), an assault weapons ban (54%-37%), and disapprove of the NRA, whose favorability sits at 38%-45%.
45%-35% support keeping the current electoral allotment for the state rather than changing to the popular new Republican scheme of a Congressional District model.

Michigan Governor
The state Republican party's troubles don't stop with picking a candidate to challenge for the open Senate seat. Current Republican Governor Rick Snyder's job approval rating sits at a lowly 37%-54%. Worse for Snyder, he trails every single Democratic candidate in hypothetical matchups in his 2014 reelection campaign. Virg Bernerno, the Democratic candidate that Snyder beat 58%-40% when he won his job in 2010, now leads Snyder 43%-38%. Democratic Rep. Gary Peters leads Snyder 44%-37% as well, though luckily for Snyder he's unlikely to face Peters who will most likely take Levin's old Senate seat. Former Democratic Rep. Mark Schauer leads Snyder 40%-36%. The three potential Democratic challengers have low name recognition that they'll need to improve.

While the heat has died down somewhat over the last two months the unpopular "right to work" legislation that Rick Snyder signed after earlier disapproving is causing him some harm. Voters oppose it 48%-39%. The Generic Ballot shows an edge for Democrats over Republicans, 48%-36%. The Republican party needs to do some damage control in the state, if they don't they'll see the governor's mansion that they won in 2010 flip back to the Democrats and they'll lose their best chance at taking a Senate seat in 30 years. Their gerrymandered advantage in the U.S. House is safe for now, and they'll likely hold onto their leads in both chambers of the statehouse.



I have bounced around between Tim Kaine's (D-VA) junior legislative assistant group and his constituent services department since he was inaugurated. If I wanted to stick around I'd probably get a legislative assistant title but I'll probably be leaving soon to go work on one of the Virginia campaigns. I'd like to get a high position on Terry McAuliffe's campaign but if I don't get that then I'll probably just go help run polling for Mark Herring, who's campaigning for Attorney General. It really just depends on where each campaign needs help.



We've already been through this at the very beginning of the thread when you spouted that "hurr fucking durr, this is why you think we sent people to Washington" nonsense. Again, I believe that we elect representatives to support our interests, and coincidentally that's another majority opinion that you seem at odds with. Polling indicates what our interests are and how intensely they are felt. That is a fact, not "perception." Therefore, when a majority opinion is offered to a representative, adhering to it is the right thing to because their job is to represent the stated interests of those they govern. We don't elect them to pursue the narrow interest or to work against what we want. This is and has always been a "majority view" country with proper respect to minority view. It isn't easy for them to balance the needs of 650,000 people in a district, a couple of million people in a state, and 350 million people in the country, but they're expected to actually legislate based on what most of their people want or else they face the possibility of being replaced by someone who will.

It's understandable that you need to constantly try to undermine polling and its uses because it so clearly establishes how few people share your views, but I'd really appreciate if you peddled your divorced-from-reality bullshit elsewhere.

This post was edited by JayKwik on Mar 12 2013 05:52am

...translation - you are the guy who robocalls at dinnertime to try and get us to participate in meaningless polls that nobody cares about but you because it provides you with a paycheck and sates your delusions of adequacy .

I'm not really surprised that you have little to no understanding of how polls by campaigns (or representatives) are conducted and who actually conducts them.

Derp.

Most people at one point supported Jim Crow laws. I guess that made them right based on your dependence on polling, rather than logical support for an issue.

/e in further polling, polls show 90% of kids support having candy for meals, thrice daily. I guess we should give them candy.

This post was edited by Santara on Mar 12 2013 06:27am

Elected officials are expected to uphold what the majority wants. If you don't like it, blame democracy. Our only reprieve is if something is found unconstitutional or if there's such traction behind a position that it forces reevaluation. Most people (recently) opposed marriage equality and because we govern based on the will of the electorate everyone that supported marriage equality during that time had to come to grips with the reality that even though they felt marriage equality was "right" they were the minority voice. They used the avenues that have long been open: constitutional challenges and issue decoupling, but there was no ignoring where they stood in relation to everyone else. The 2004 election cycle produced its results largely due to the majority voice that opposed marriage equality. For better or for worse, we get what the most people want. People support their positions on issues regardless of how other people feel, but governments will look to give the most people what they want and those individuals should harbor no illusions to the contrary that this is how it works. Some people may feel like it's "right" to have a constitutional amendment that outlaws abortion, but good luck with that because how "right" they think it is is irrelevant because people simply don't want it. Those people need to come to grips with that.

In any event, polling findings that support a conclusion for which way people want a budget to be balanced or which plan for Medicare they like the most is not what allowed for Jim Crow laws, and they aren't asking kids if they like candy either. I'd be a little concerned if such imbecilic misrepresentations were being offered by anyone that wasn't so hilariously detached from reality, but I've come to expect this at this point (the same nonsensical examples don't help).

This post was edited by JayKwik on Mar 12 2013 06:57am

What you describe is simply realpolitik, which is true, but realpolitik fails at necessarily being "right." If you think depending on polling for making public policy was such a great idea, perhaps you ought to stop and reconcile the fact that Congress (which already spends its time doing the politically expedient) also enjoys an approval rating (polling) below cockroaches, root canals and colonoscopies. This is NOT a new trend. This tells me quite clearly that people want a Congress to do the right things, not the politically expedient things.

I was just wondering why you have so much free time to post polls that no one but you care about. But now I know...