Or Perhaps I Should Say "Less Unpopular"

Glenn Greenwald spots something interesting in a recent Fox poll: As of last week, the Democratic Congress is more popular among Republicans than Democrats.

Comments

[thoreau]

They're going for the key "dead-ender" voting bloc.

[shecky]

Maybe because the Dems have rolled over on so many issues critical to the Bush presidency.

[C:\\Pot>]

I wouldn't be surprised if Judas was more popular with the Pharisees than he was with the apostles either.

[J sub D]

From the link
Here's what I wrote about the Bush administration's efforts in September, 2006, when the GOP controlled the Congress:

One thing is beyond dispute at this point: the White House's plan to resolve the NSA scandal by obtaining amnesty for past lawbreaking and future legislative blessing for its warrantless eavesdropping program has veered far off course and, at least for now, appears genuinely imperiled.

The White House had to wait until Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over before they could get that done. For a right-wing Bush supporter, what's not to love?

The GOP no longer does fisccal conservatism or promote smaller government, while the Dems have punted on civil liberties.

This is why i so often "throw away my vote" on a tthird party candidate. The entrencehed asswipes in D.C. don't even do what their party's good at anymore.

[joe]

Polls about "Congress" are not polls about the Congressional leadership.

Just in case this was not obvious from the polls that asked about "Congress" and then about "Congressional Democrats" and "Congressional Republicans," or from the vast difference between Congress's approval rating and the polling numbers for generic party candidates for Congress, this should clear up the confusion.

[J sub D]

I will admit that they have gotten adept at claiming to be a libertarian leaning Republican/Democrat.

A pox on both of your houses.

[Guy Montag]

A pox on both of your houses.

Don't do that, you might hurt Jesus Sen. Obama!

[John]

Far too much is being made of out of this ONE poll. It's a five point differential, which is within the margin of error. Show me two or three more polls with similar numbers and Greenwald will have a point.

[Guy Montag]

John,

No, it is enough for me. I am signing up for the new party line.

[Franklin Harris]

I wouldn't be surprised if Judas was more popular with the Pharisees than he was with the apostles either.

Win.

[Stormy Dragon]

Since the democrat congress hasn't really accomplished anything beyond lots of showtrial hearings, small government types probably would prefer them to the congress they replaced, even if the former congress was more of a match in terms of rhetoric.

[joshua corning]

Polls about "Congress" are not polls about the Congressional leadership.

Just in case this was not obvious from the polls that asked about "Congress" and then about "Congressional Democrats" and "Congressional Republicans," or from the vast difference between Congress's approval rating and the polling numbers for generic party candidates for Congress, this should clear up the confusion.

Thanks joe, for making that as clear as mud.

[bigbigslacker]

"you're likeable enough" - Jesus Christ

[joe]

joshua, we already assume you can't follow what I write. You don't have to draw attention to yourself like that.

[Robert]

So much for the party-divided gov't theory, huh? Of course I already said as much based on observing NY & NJ.

[John Thacker]

Polls about "Congress" are not polls about the Congressional leadership.
Just in case this was not obvious from the polls that asked about "Congress" and then about "Congressional Democrats" and "Congressional Republicans," or from the vast difference between Congress's approval rating and the polling numbers for generic party candidates for Congress, this should clear up the confusion.

A weird way to use the word "this" twice in that sentence, IMO, joe, though I believe I follow you. But even that wouldn't "clear up the confusion," joe. None of what you listed would possibly capture the problem of differentiating between Democrats who think that the Congress has not been liberal enough versus Republicans who think that it has been too liberal. There are plenty of reasons why a single "approval rating" (even of leadership, different parties, local members, et al.) has limitations.

[MJ]

"Maybe because the Dems have rolled over on so many issues critical to the Bush presidency."

Maybe the did not roll over, maybe they fed their base a line of bull that they believed what Bush was doing was wrong, and the Dems are following what they actually think now that they can do soehing about it.

[Russ R]

There is always the possibility that a significant number of poll respondents fail to distinguish between a Democratic Congress, and a Republican Administration.

If this were the case, then the poll results would be less of a paradox.

[Matthew]

Joe,

I have no idea what you're on about, either.

[R C Dean]

I think joe was trying to say that poll questions about one thing don't really tell you much about other things that weren't asked about.

[TallDave]

Heh, it's still funny seeing Greenwald wail about being thrown under the bus by the adults in the Dem Party.

[Apaulogist]

Hey, Jesse-
Speaking of popularity statistics, your claim that Reason's web traffic has increased doesn't pass the google trends test. You were either lying or talking out your ass.

Even with the billionaire backing and beltway connections, Reason.com is less popular than lewrockwell.com!

[Jesse Walker]

your claim that Reason's web traffic has increased doesn't pass the google trends test. You were either lying or talking out your ass.

I did neither. I quoted the spreadsheet that our tech guy sends around each month to Reason staffers. It's based on our own log reports, which I'll trust more than third-party estimates.

billionaire backing and beltway connections

You really do have a distorted view of what Reason is all about.

[Apaulogist]

"I quoted the spreadsheet that our tech guy sends around each month to Reason staffers. It's based on our own log reports, which I'll trust more than third-party estimates."

Google doesn't have an incentive to lie, unlike your tech guy or you. I trust objective reports over biased ones.

"You really do have a distorted view of what Reason is all about."

There is a possibility that you are being disingenuous, but more likely you are just naive. I was a huge fan of Reason. I thought the Foundation was a force for good before I learned otherwise.

[Jesse Walker]

Google doesn't have an incentive to lie, unlike your tech guy or you. I trust objective reports over biased ones.

I don't believe Google is lying (and I know that I'm not). I just don't think it's accurate. One reason the well-known measurements of Web traffic all contradict each other is because they're all notoriously imperfect.

There is a possibility that you are being disingenuous, but more likely you are just naive.

Even more likely: you've spent too much time listening to hacks with axes to grind.

[Apaulogist]

"One reason the well-known measurements of Web traffic all contradict each other is because they're all notoriously imperfect."

Then how do you know that your tech guy's metric is more accurate than Google's?

Self-serving biases are usually unintentional.

[Jesse Walker]

Then how do you know that your tech guy's metric is more accurate than Google's?

As I said, it's based on our own log reports. We're not comparing Google to, say, Alexa; we're comparing it to raw data that Google just doesn't have.