[quote=spk7951;204430]

Originally Posted by KayakerNC

Still, the GOP leadership may want to consider the poll as a "wake-up call".

Is not a 30% approval rating for a Democratric lead Congress also a reason for a "wake-up call"?????

Where are you getting that number?
"Americans give Congress a job approval rating of 37% in Gallup's latest update, conducted May 7-10 -- not statistically different from the previous two readings in March and April. However, all three of these ratings are significantly higher than the average job approval rating of 19% recorded for all of 2008."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118318/Ap...ns-Steady.aspx

When I re-posed my original question I was hoping that it would garner some thoughtful responses. If it didn't, I was prepared to answer my own question. I could not have done it any better than you did in your post seven messages up on this page.

The three points you made are exactly what the GOP needs to do if they expect any kind of reversal in the flagging support of the party and their candidates. The most important part of your analysis is that the changes need to begin NOW. When you say that if the party waits until the 2012 national convention to establish it's core values and campaign planks, it'll be way too late.

I apologize for my conclusions to those of you who don't believe a word of the reports, statistics and analysis of the declining support of the GOP. All I can suggest--again--is that people gather as much information as they can, from as many different sources as they can, in an attempt to reach reasoned conclusions on what the state of the GOP really is. Most importantly, such thought might lead to some ideas on what needs to be changed in order for the GOP to achieve the 50% + 1 needed to reverse the tide--beginning at the local level.

[quote=KayakerNC;204443]

Originally Posted by spk7951

Where are you getting that number?
"Americans give Congress a job approval rating of 37% in Gallup's latest update, conducted May 7-10 -- not statistically different from the previous two readings in March and April. However, all three of these ratings are significantly higher than the average job approval rating of 19% recorded for all of 2008."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118318/Ap...ns-Steady.aspx

Bottom line is - would you keep an employee whose performance was less-than-satisfactory roughly 2/3rd of the time? Of course not. So, as voters it's our own dumb fault these not-even-marginal employees of ours still have their jobs. Yet, what do you think the odds are that 90% or better of all House incumbents will be re-elected in 2010, as they were in 2008, and 2006, and 2004, and so on? We give them lousy "performance reviews," but we keep them on the payroll..... Shame on us!

[quote=KayakerNC;204443]

Originally Posted by spk7951

Where are you getting that number?
"Americans give Congress a job approval rating of 37% in Gallup's latest update, conducted May 7-10 -- not statistically different from the previous two readings in March and April. However, all three of these ratings are significantly higher than the average job approval rating of 19% recorded for all of 2008."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118318/Ap...ns-Steady.aspx

Last month I read something from either Rasmussen or Quinnipiac that quoted the 30%. But be it currently 30% or 37% whatever poll you look at I would expect a different number, however as an Independent that low of a number should also be an issue for the party in control of Congress.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

I agree. The news media is not there to provide a public service. The news media is commercial with the appropriate profit motive. They package their product for selling to specific audience demographics, as their advertising revenue is dependent on which audience(s) are being targeted. That comment has been made several times on this board regarding the Daily Sun, and it is a correct one. You cant blame the various media outlets for how they package and sell their product in ways they find makes the most money for their stockholders.

I agree that the news media is not there to provide a public service but please notice that a lot are going out of business. In my opinion, because they are not paying attention to business. During the campaign, theu were bias. They presented editorials as news. The lied. They spread rumors. They targeted candidates with fabricated stories.

You know that I am not talking about the Village Sun or commercial news papers who are out to make a profit for their stock holders. You know all too well who I am talking about. Check the list of news papers who are in financial trouble. The NY Times, the Boston Globe and others.

Can you honestly say that you believe that the "Liberal Media" did not play favorites in its news coverage? Did not slant the news coverage? Did not have an agenda? If you can, I guess my words were wasted.

Respectfully

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Although the people elected a liberal democrat as president, everywhere that conservative issues were on the ballot these conservative issues won.

Republicans need to stress their conservative values. A liberal or moderate republican cannot win. There are many conservative democrats and they will vote for a conservative but if they cannot tell the difference between the candidates, they will stick with their democrat roots.

Republicans need to stress their conservative values. During the campaign, according to several polls, more than 60% of American voters think of themselves as conservative.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Second, Waffling on issues and constant counter-punching the current administration on issues du jour is cry-baby politics. If the Reps just work toward fulfilling the platform without hysteria, they show strength, character and leadership.

While I agree in principle, the electorate has shown that "cry-baby politics" works and taking leadership positions is not really that important. The Dems spent 8 years doing nothing but harping on and taking opposite positions from Bush. The net result - their strategy ultimately succeeded.