New Poll Shows Most Americans Would Replace ENTIRE Congress!

Mariahxxx

Official Checked Star Member
Throw the bums out.

That's the message 60 percent of Americans are sending to Washington in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, saying if they had the chance to vote to defeat and replace every single member of Congress, including their own representative, they would. Just 35 percent say they would not.

The 60 percent figure is the highest-ever in that question recorded in the poll, registered in the wake of the government shutdown and threat of the U.S. defaulting on its debt for the first time in history. If the nation's debt limit is not increased one week from now, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew warns that the entire global economy could be in peril.

"We continue to use this number as a way to sort of understand how much revulsion there is," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the poll with Republican Bill McInturff. "We now have a new high-water mark."

The numbers reflect a broader trend over the last few years. Americans have traditionally said that while they might not like Congress, they usually like their own representatives. But that sentiment appears to have shifted.

The throw-them-all-out attitude has slowly taken hold over the last three years, coinciding with two things - the rise of the Tea Party caucus in the House and the debt ceiling fight of 2011.

In October 2010, a majority of Americans - 50 percent to 47 percent - said they would not fire all congressional members. But by August 2011, 54 percent said they would toss every lawmaker from office; in January 2012, 56 percent said that; and just three months ago, in July, it was 57 percent.
Frustration was evident among poll respondents across the ideological spectrum.

"You look at 800,000 people being out of work merely because Congress can't come to an agreement to do their job, which we sent them there to do," said a respondent from Mississippi, a strong Democrat. "I am prayerful for a revolution."
The sentiment isn't limited to Democrats. One Ohio woman, who considers herself a strong Republican, said her husband is a federal worker and they are worried about paying the bills.
"We will not get a paycheck," she said. "It is federal pay and mortgage is due. Who is going to pay that - Obama or Congress who is still getting paid?"
Hart points out that the seeds are there to give rise to independent or third-party candidates.

According to Hart, "Somewhere, someone's going to pick up and run with the 'throw them all out'" banner.

The number of Americans who say they want to fire everyone is fairly consistent among most groups - at around 60 percent - but it spikes among rural voters (70 percent), white independents (70 percent) and those in Republican-held congressional districts (67 percent). Just 52 percent of respondents in Democratic-held districts would vote to fire every lawmaker on Capitol Hill.

In another sign of dissatisfaction with the state of politics, 47 percent of Americans said they do not strongly identify with either party.

The numbers in this poll also reflect a broader anger and pessimism among Americans, especially when it comes to the economy.

A record-low 14 percent think the country is headed in the right direction, down from 30 percent last month. That's the biggest single-month drop in the poll since the shutdown of 1990. And a whopping 78 percent think the country is on the wrong track. Just 17 percent think the economy will improve in the next year, while 42 percent think it will worsen.

Americans' confidence in the economy has nose-dived, they say, because of President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans' negotiations - or lack thereof - on the budget. Almost two in three - 63 percent - say it makes them less confident that the economy will get better.

"What these numbers tell us is that the already-shaken public - this kicked the stool out from under them," Bill McInturff said. "We're seeing numbers that are associated with historic lows in public confidence."
Almost two-thirds - 65 percent - also say the government shutdown is having quite a bit or a great deal of harm on the U.S. economy.
"That linkage between these actions in Washington and economic confidence and what that means for trying to stabilize our economy, I think at a big-picture level [shows] how destabilizing" the standoff has been for the economy.
Democratic pollster Fred Yang, who helped conduct the poll with Hart, added that Americans are paying attention to this fight and want it resolved before the debt ceiling deadline of Oct. 17.
"This isn't the calm before the storm," Yang said. "This is the storm before the storm."

-By Domenico Montanaro of NBC News
 

Mariahxxx

Official Checked Star Member
failed? no. the US is in much better condition than it was when he took office. he has been hijacked constantly by the republicans and even more so by the tea party on nearly every thing he's done. they oppose him by default, even when its something that was their cause at one point. it's out of spite.

But he has certainly let down a lot of people and not followed through with a lot of the things he claimed to do. but failed? no. he has accomplished some very good things despite the opposition.
 

Rattrap

Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
Do you think that Mr. Obama and his party have failed?
Political parties have failed*.

Too bad they won't remember this come election time.
Sadly true. :(


* 'Failed' in the sense of bettering America for the majority of citizens. Obviously for simply gathering power and bettering their own fortunes, parties have been incredibly successful.
 
People are so mad now when they say "Throw the bums out!" they mean off a rooftop 40 stories high.

BoehnerReid.jpg
 
But he has certainly let down a lot of people and not followed through with a lot of the things he claimed to do. but failed? no. he has accomplished some very good things despite the opposition.


It seems that Mr. Obama wants America to be equal society and it is an idea that conservatives do not like or support.
 
The solution to our woes is term limits. The term limits that the Repubs pledged to implement in 1994 but never followed through on? 5 terms maximum fos members of congress and 3 max for senators. There should be a groundswell of support from both parties to make it a reality.
 

bahodeme

Closed Account
Unfortunately I think the next group that would be put in would be worse (believe it or not) than the current group we have.
 

Mayhem

Banned
The solution to our woes is term limits. The term limits that the Repubs pledged to implement in 1994 but never followed through on? 5 terms maximum fos members of congress and 3 max for senators. There should be a groundswell of support from both parties to make it a reality.

Term limits are not someting I feel vehemently about. But I feel they are best served by elections. The will of the people has to come first (realizing that term limits are supported by a great number). But Republican or Democrat, if a state or a district wants to park one person in an office for 50 years, they should have that perogative.

But I vehemently support moderators having term limits. And currently, I feel that term should be about 6 fuckin' days.
 
Was it explained in this poll that they'd have to replace Congress with more politicians, and that empty space isn't a suitable alternative? (though... now that I think about it, when you look at how much Congress accomplishes these days I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make whether the seats were vacant or not)
 

ApolloBalboa

Was King of the Board for a Day
Was it explained in this poll that they'd have to replace Congress with more politicians, and that empty space isn't a suitable alternative? (though... now that I think about it, when you look at how much Congress accomplishes these days I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make whether the seats were vacant or not)

I'm in favor of replacing everyone in Congress with cute week-old puppies. Nothing will be accomplished as with this current session, but they'll look damn adorable in their little suits.
 

Mariahxxx

Official Checked Star Member
term limits would have to be passed by the people who's terms would be limited and that would mean limited access to power and wealth. Almost all senators and congressmen come to office without wealth but all leave with it. how is that possible on their salaries? hmmm, I wonder why they won't vote to end that lol

and many of the seats are unchallenged which is a shame. if they even get a whiff of a challenger they hammer them from day one and have so much backing to overwhelm the challenger financially that it keeps people from even trying.

and once they leave office they would just take their corruption to a lobby group and start all over there.
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
every political party is corrupted and each of its politicians are either tied indirectly with the mob or with a big firm
 
Mariah is relentless! Agree with her or not, there is not one other OCSM on this board that engages in debate on the level that she does. There may be plenty of others that are capable but she shows on a daily basis that she is informed about what is happening in the world. Not what I expected to find when I joined this board.
 

bobjustbob

Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
As said above, term limits come at election time. Here are some facts:


Most people don't vote.

Most people that do vote do so along party lines.

Incumbents have the advantage of exposure thus name recognition thus they get votes.

The nationals are a collection of locals. They are the ones that move up.

28% of local registered actually vote in the local elections.

Although they are registered voters, how many can not name their Senators?


When all of the votes are counted the will of the people speaks. We are a representative nation. Do you get that? As a nation we do not have to be governed by a mass popular vote. The urban developers couldn't give a rat's ass about my farm community problems. I don't expect them to. You deal with your shit in the cities and we'll deal with our rural shit. Tea Party, community activists, the developer that wants to put up a mall next to the city hall, they can all be voted out or back in. Before you start shitting on the areas that have made progress for this nation, look at what your locals have done for you.
 
If the office of the presidency is term limited the so should the other elected national offices. The reason that we need them is that long serving lawmakers are not being re-elected necessarily because of how competent they are but rather what they bring back to the states and districts. That is what makes them entrenched in their job. If a person served knowing that after a period of time they were going to once again that they were actually have to live under the laws that they created as a private citizen the quality of the legislation would significantly improve. And if people knew that they would eventually not to be able to vote the same person in time and time again the quality of the candidate would improve. Any person that sought office under those conditions wovld more than likely have the best interest of the country at heart and knowing that their time in office was limited would be more concerned about a legislative legacy than being re-elected over and over. A huge win for Americans.
 
Top