CNN Poll: Solid economy lifts Obama approval to 2014-high

[IceSpear]

Of course Americans see the light only after forcing themselves into at least 6 years of Republican Congressional dominance.

This poll was among all adults, which means only like 20% of them voted in 2014.

[The_Doctor]

So, the idea is the GOP should benefit from work they didn't do? Of course, that's how they always operate. Bush took credit for Clinton's work.

And considering that McConnell and Boehner's approval is very low, I hardly think anyone but a few extreme partisans is enthused about them.

That's politics. The economy was recovering under George H.W. Bush - but Clinton won anyway. His influence on the U.S. economy was marginal, but that didn't stop him from claiming all the credit. More credit went to the Reagan deregulation and business adjustments in the 1980s and the (conervative) Federal Reserve headed by (Republican) Alan Greenspan and the tech boom of the 1990s.

That said, I don't care particularly if Obama is responsible, as long as we take the credit, of course. As a Republican partisan, if the stars work out (and why not? The economic recovery is nothing like the Clinton boom of the late 1990s or the Reagan economic expansion of the 1980s), and we win the Presidency, the strengthening economy expands the GOP's menu of options to exercise our power.

Drastically downsize the welfare state, put Kennedy's replacement on the Supreme Court, gut the budget, and put in the 20 week abortion ban law - a strong economy can blunt the effects in 2018.

But, that's a direct contradiction of the Republican ranting that Obama wrecked the economy. It's incredibly dishonest and little silly to even try to claim credit, but that's the Republican Party for you.

Nobody cares. Both parties do it to each other all the time.

[DrScholl]

I'm pretty sure Democrats have never done it, because Republicans barely ever leave anything in good shape after leaving an office.

[The_Doctor]

1980.

[DrScholl]

1980 was a year that Republican won. And Reagan's presidency was full of deficit and created the sub-prime loan mess years later.

[The_Doctor]

Let's see, then. 1960. 1988. Even arguably 1992. I misread the statement. And no, Democrats won't be giving us a Clinton or Reagan style economy. They, if they lose, will pass on an economy that is recovering but isn't great.

[Cory]

Drastically downsize the welfare state, put Kennedy's replacement on the Supreme Court, gut the budget, and put in the 20 week abortion ban law - a strong economy can blunt the effects in 2018.

Just hand it all to us and set up Warren for a 1980 style victory in 2020. It would perfectly line up with the "cyclical Presidents" theory of late.

[Simfan34]

1980 was a year that Republican won. And Reagan's presidency was full of deficit and created the sub-prime loan mess years later.

Emphasis on "years later".

[tik 🪀✨]

I can't wait to find out which team of coloured avatar manages to cream themselves first in this thread.

The OP doesn't even mention the economy and that's all you guys seem to be talking about. Obama has made some popular decisions on things that are long-overdue, thus the approval boost among those with ideological lines that are parallel to the changes. The economy, while nowhere near as bad as the recent past, still doesn't offer much concrete positivity to most people in most places.

[Tender Branson]

Of course Americans see the light only after forcing themselves into at least 6 years of Republican Congressional dominance.

This poll was among all adults, which means only like 20% of them voted in 2014.

More like 32-33%.

The voting-age population in the US was ca. 245.9 million on election day.

Plus ca. 5.85 million Americans abroad, who were 18 or older.

Plus ca. 0.35 million American troops abroad, who were 18 or older.

Minus an unknown amount of people in prison or on probation, which depends on each state's disenfranchisement laws.

Alltogether, about 250 million Americans were of voting age in November '14.

82 million people voted.

32.8% turnout among adults only.

[BaconBacon96]

So, the idea is the GOP should benefit from work they didn't do? Of course, that's how they always operate. Bush took credit for Clinton's work.

And considering that McConnell and Boehner's approval is very low, I hardly think anyone but a few extreme partisans is enthused about them.

That's politics. The economy was recovering under George H.W. Bush - but Clinton won anyway. His influence on the U.S. economy was marginal, but that didn't stop him from claiming all the credit. More credit went to the Reagan deregulation and business adjustments in the 1980s and the (conervative) Federal Reserve headed by (Republican) Alan Greenspan and the tech boom of the 1990s.

That said, I don't care particularly if Obama is responsible, as long as we take the credit, of course. As a Republican partisan, if the stars work out (and why not? The economic recovery is nothing like the Clinton boom of the late 1990s or the Reagan economic expansion of the 1980s), and we win the Presidency, the strengthening economy expands the GOP's menu of options to exercise our power.

Drastically downsize the welfare state, put Kennedy's replacement on the Supreme Court, gut the budget, and put in the 20 week abortion ban law - a strong economy can blunt the effects in 2018.

I don't like your attitude. You are what's wrong with American politics.

[The_Doctor]

So, the idea is the GOP should benefit from work they didn't do? Of course, that's how they always operate. Bush took credit for Clinton's work.

And considering that McConnell and Boehner's approval is very low, I hardly think anyone but a few extreme partisans is enthused about them.

That's politics. The economy was recovering under George H.W. Bush - but Clinton won anyway. His influence on the U.S. economy was marginal, but that didn't stop him from claiming all the credit. More credit went to the Reagan deregulation and business adjustments in the 1980s and the (conervative) Federal Reserve headed by (Republican) Alan Greenspan and the tech boom of the 1990s.

That said, I don't care particularly if Obama is responsible, as long as we take the credit, of course. As a Republican partisan, if the stars work out (and why not? The economic recovery is nothing like the Clinton boom of the late 1990s or the Reagan economic expansion of the 1980s), and we win the Presidency, the strengthening economy expands the GOP's menu of options to exercise our power.

Drastically downsize the welfare state, put Kennedy's replacement on the Supreme Court, gut the budget, and put in the 20 week abortion ban law - a strong economy can blunt the effects in 2018.

I don't like your attitude. You are what's wrong with American politics.

There is nothing wrong with my attitude. It's the attitude of partisan Democrats and Republicans. It's the attitude of most of our leaders. And partisanship isn't why American politics sucks (if it does at all). Anyone who thinks American politics is not an opportunistic sport mixed in with public service is not a serious student of politics. As a matter of fact, taking advantage of your circumstances, be it from the fruits of your own labor or your opposition, is a basic rule of politics everywhere.

Partisan Democratic strategists were pretty happy that the crash happened on George W. Bush's watch. It allowed them to blame Bush 43 and to reap electoral success. What I'm doing is not really that different. Partisanship, as Tom DeLay said, is a healthy thing, and the desire for partisan victory and implementing your agenda is equally healthy and a constant through the republic's long history, dating back to the Revolution.

[BaconBacon96]

Partisanship isn't a bad thing.

Hyper-partisanship, the kind that yourself, Tom DeLay and even many Democrats are advocates for is a bad thing. Taking credit for someone else's successes in order to mislead people to advance your agenda is not a good thing. Opportunism has it's place sure but when everything decision is motivated by partisanship, pure ideology and desire for power and not by any sort of good will towards ones colleagues or ones electorate, it becomes a problem. This is why Congress is so unpopular.

The best kinds of politicians are the pragmatic ones. The ones willing to work with the other side if it helps, not work against them purely out of some kind of tribalism.

[publicunofficial]

lol at SilentCal trying to be Keystone Phil but without the intelligence

[The_Doctor]

Partisanship isn't a bad thing.

Hyper-partisanship, the kind that yourself, Tom DeLay and even many Democrats are advocates for is a bad thing. Taking credit for someone else's successes in order to mislead people to advance your is not a good thing. Opportunism has it's place sure but when everything decision is motivated by partisanship, pure ideology and desire for power and not by any sort of good will towards ones colleagues or ones electorate, it becomes a problem. This is why Congress is so unpopular.

The best kinds of politicians are the ones the pragmatic ones. The ones willing to work with the other side if it helps, not work against them purely out of some kind of tribalism.

If you looked at the election of 1800, it was just as partisan as our current elections are.  Jefferson and Adams were motivated by partisanship, ideology, and the desire to win power.  Jefferson won (so did his party).  So partisanship has been around as long as the republic has been around. And in several cases partisanship has helped clarify choices and set clear directions for the country. So it's, on balance, a force for good.

Most people have this concept that people should start compromise and work together whenever possible. I can't disagree more with this position. Compromise should only happen when you have to sit down and negotiate as a neccesity. The goal should be to defend your beliefs and then compromise only when you have to.
DeLay also said that compromise is best done when out of necessity, not out of a desire to compromise, and I agree.

This belief that we must be willing to work across the aisle as a goal is also plainly wrong. We should elect politicians who first and foremost want an ideological vision for the country and want it enacted. Great leaders in this country were more often nor hyperpartisan ideological leaders who convinced the electorate to give them a chance. Mediocre leaders were often less ideological and more prone to compromise as a first resort. Reagan and O'Neill are examples of great partisan ideological leaders who presented ideological visions (and compromised only out of neccesity).

I would also point out that partisanship allows us, usually, clear and definite choices. I feel that's the far better thing. I don't want to work with Democrats unless I must. I would prefer to control the government and shut out Democrats out of power for a generation. Most Democrats would want to control the government and not consult Republicans, and I'm fine with that. And so, I would prefer the electorate have a clear choice and choose between the two parties.

Also Congress continues to be respected despite the unpopularity. I realize you want to argue that Congress is unpopular because of hyperpartisanship but it's probably more to do with the economy and mood of the country.

[Mehmentum]

Partisanship isn't a bad thing.

Hyper-partisanship, the kind that yourself, Tom DeLay and even many Democrats are advocates for is a bad thing. Taking credit for someone else's successes in order to mislead people to advance your is not a good thing. Opportunism has it's place sure but when everything decision is motivated by partisanship, pure ideology and desire for power and not by any sort of good will towards ones colleagues or ones electorate, it becomes a problem. This is why Congress is so unpopular.

The best kinds of politicians are the ones the pragmatic ones. The ones willing to work with the other side if it helps, not work against them purely out of some kind of tribalism.

If you looked at the election of 1800, it was just as partisan as our current elections are.  Jefferson and Adams were motivated by partisanship, ideology, and the desire to win power.  Jefferson won (so did his party).  So partisanship has been around as long as the republic has been around. And in several cases partisanship has helped clarify choices and set clear directions for the country. So it's, on balance, a force for good.

Jefferson governed with a united government (there was no filibuster back then).  Obviously if you have a united government, you can implement your policy goals without ill effects. 

However a united government is essentially impossible today because of the filibuster.  So the options are work with the other party or do nothing but shout at each other.  Sure, inaction will hurt the economy overall, but if you only care about partisanship (and not frivolous concepts such as 'doing the right thing' or 'serving your constituents', then hurting the economy is better than giving the other party anything they want. 

If you're the minority party and you only care about partisanship, you have even more incentive to not work with the other party since you'd be expected to make more concessions and any economic trouble will be blamed on the majority party.

If you actually like that, then I can't stop you.  I wonder if you'll like this system so much if the Republicans win the presidency in 2016, and they can't get anything at all done because the Democrats refuse to work with them.

[The_Doctor]

Partisanship isn't a bad thing.

Hyper-partisanship, the kind that yourself, Tom DeLay and even many Democrats are advocates for is a bad thing. Taking credit for someone else's successes in order to mislead people to advance your is not a good thing. Opportunism has it's place sure but when everything decision is motivated by partisanship, pure ideology and desire for power and not by any sort of good will towards ones colleagues or ones electorate, it becomes a problem. This is why Congress is so unpopular.

The best kinds of politicians are the ones the pragmatic ones. The ones willing to work with the other side if it helps, not work against them purely out of some kind of tribalism.

If you looked at the election of 1800, it was just as partisan as our current elections are.  Jefferson and Adams were motivated by partisanship, ideology, and the desire to win power.  Jefferson won (so did his party).  So partisanship has been around as long as the republic has been around. And in several cases partisanship has helped clarify choices and set clear directions for the country. So it's, on balance, a force for good.

Jefferson governed with a united government (there was no filibuster back then).  Obviously if you have a united government, you can implement your policy goals without ill effects. 

However a united government is essentially impossible today because of the filibuster.  So the options are work with the other party or do nothing but shout at each other.  Sure, inaction will hurt the economy overall, but if you only care about partisanship (and not frivolous concepts such as 'doing the right thing' or 'serving your constituents', then hurting the economy is better than giving the other party anything they want. 

If you're the minority party and you only care about partisanship, you have even more incentive to not work with the other party since you'd be expected to make more concessions and any economic trouble will be blamed on the majority party.

If you actually like that, then I can't stop you.  I wonder if you'll like this system so much if the Republicans win the presidency in 2016, and they can't get anything at all done because the Democrats refuse to work with them.

Well - Jefferson certainly had a united government without the filibuster. True enough. But even then so, a couple of points.

The filibuster is dead, today, for all intents and purposes, for executive and judicial nominations. The next united government will probably water it down, if not effectively end it, for legislation. Reid made the move that started (de jure) that chain of effects and made it politically palatable for any President and a Senate majority of the same party to end it. So the next united government will, for all intents and effects, be unchecked. So per se, your premise is not quite correct about a united government needing to work with the other party.

But even assuming it was, a filibuster doesn't mean a majority party can't get anything passed. By virtue of a majority, a majority can bring up what it wants, pass a number of things that it wants, and the minority party can only stymie, stall, and delay so long. It sets the agenda, what is being discussed, and dictates the contours of what is passed. Simple example - a majority attaches a number of priorities to a must pass bill. The minority, even with the power of the filibuster, has to pick its battles and choose what to oppose. There are political tools, even with the filibuster in place, for a united government to pass its agenda. Bush 43 demonstrated this during his presidency, and Obama did as well, in his first two years (put aside the ACA: the Democrats passed a bunch of things aside from that that wouldn't have been possible in a united government). The most a filibuster stops is a few things, not the agenda of the majority party.

To your third paragraph, that is correct. If you're the minority party, you have no incentive to work with the majority party. That is the exact rational answer that the minority party made in 2009, to not work with the majority party. Concessions and the like that would have been made would have weakened the minority party and strengthened the majority party. You cannot and should not expect parties to work against their self-interest. No minority party should be forced to work against their own self-interest and harm themselves; they're an opposing party for a reason. I'm going to add that an opposition party is far more healthy for the country, than an opposing party that is weakened by cooperation with the majority party.

To answer your last paragraph, if my party won power in 2016, I certainly would not object to the Democrats refusing to cooperate. I don't think it would be beneficial to the Democrats to cooperate and it benefits the country to see contrasting visions and ideologies. As I've demonstrated, Republicans can pass much of what we want, filibuster or not. If we fail to deliver the goods, then the Democrats stand ready as an alternative in 2018 and 2020 to replace us. That's really one benefit of a partisan ideological system (and a benefit say, parliamentary systems in Europe and partisan voting in there have over us) - there's always contrasting visions and one party can replace the other, if the other fails to deliver.

One last thing - the Democrats chose the route of cooperation in 2001-2004 on some significant issues. Terrible laws were passed like the No Child Left Behind Act. And admittedly, we went to war in Iraq, because too many people on both sides of the aisle (particularly the Democratic one) failed to question the premises of why we were going to war. I argue that if the Democrats had been more resistant (and ideological) and decided to cooperate less, perhaps the Republicans would have been prevented from the worst excesses. Yes, my party screws up and I see partisanship as a remedy to make sure that neither party has excesses.

[Mehmentum]

To answer your last paragraph, if my party won power in 2016, I certainly would not object to the Democrats refusing to cooperate.

Well then, your doing a pretty horrible job of being partisan.  Any partisan Republican worth their salt would blast the Democrats for filibustering or obstructing anything.  Maybe you should start drinking your own Kool-aid.  (Of course, I 100% expect you to change your tune once your party is in power, but that's beside the point.)

Most of the rest of your post isn't that important.  You demonstrated how a hyper-partisan system could theoretically work in the U.S, sure.  However, two parties constructively working out a deal that is acceptable to both of them is vastly preferable. 

Why?

A.) It better represents the interests of the electorate.  A compromise between the two parties will result in a bill somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum, and be supported and liked by a larger portion of the electorate.

B.) It will lead to a less hostile and divided country. 

C.) A decline of partisanship will lead some voters to consider candidates for qualities other than their party label.  Incompetent or scandal ridden politicians can win in safe districts due to high partisanship.

[DrScholl]

Let's see, then. 1960. 1988. Even arguably 1992. I misread the statement. And no, Democrats won't be giving us a Clinton or Reagan style economy. They, if they lose, will pass on an economy that is recovering but isn't great.

A Democrat didn't win in 1988, A Republican did. Anyway, it makes no sense to constantly criticize Obama over the economy, but then try to take credit for the recovery. You can't have it both ways and you can't take credit things for you didn't do.

[Badger]

The American people are already enthused at the idea of Majority Leader McConnell! Merry Christmas, patriots!

And Speaker John Boehner! And Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy! And our brand new spanking 31 Governors.

Quit trolling/being stupid, you two. It makes other blue avatars look bad.