PDA

View Full Version : General Politics 57% Would Like to Replace Entire Congress


HonestChieffan
08-30-2009, 01:07 PM
Sunday, August 30, 2009

If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, just 25% of voters nationwide would keep the current batch of legislators.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% would vote to replace the entire Congress and start all over again. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure how they would vote.

Overall, these numbers are little changed since last October. When Congress was passing the unpopular $700-billion bailout plan in the heat of a presidential campaign and a seeming financial industry meltdown, 59% wanted to throw them all out. At that time, just 17% wanted to keep them.

There has been a bit of a partisan shift since last fall. With Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress, it's not surprising to find that the number of Democrats who would vote to keep the entire Congress has grown from 25% last fall to 43% today. In fact, a modest plurality of Democrats would now vote to keep the legislators. Last fall, a plurality of Democrats were ready to throw them all out.

While Democrats have become more supportive of the legislators, voters not affiliated with either major party have moved in the opposite direction. Today, 70% of those not affiliated with either major party would vote to replace all of the elected politicians in the House and Senate. Thatís up from 62% last year.

Republicans, not surprisingly, overwhelmingly support replacing everyone in the Congress. Their views have not changed. But Republican voters are disenchanted with their team as much as the Congress itself: 69% of GOP Voters say Republicans in Congress are out of touch with the party base.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) now believe that members of Congress are overpaid. Thatís up 10 percentage points from last October. Just five percent (5%) think their Congress member is paid too little. Thirty percent (30%) think the pay is about right.

One reason for this attitude may be that most voters say they understand the health care legislation better than Congress. Just 22% think the legislature has a good understanding of the issue. Three-out-of-four (74%) trust their own economic judgment more than Congressí.

Just 14% give Congress good or excellent review for their overall performance, while only 16% believe itís Very Likely that Congress will address the most important problems facing our nation. Seventy-five percent (75%) say members of Congress are more interested in their own careers than they are in helping people. On the brighter side, just 37% say most in Congress have extramarital affairs.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans believe that when members of Congress meet with regulators and other government officials, they do so to help their friends and hurt their political opponents. Most believe thatís why politicians are able to solicit contributions from business leaders. Most, however, say itís generally a good investment because political donors get more than their moneyís worth. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of American adults say political donors get more than their money back in terms of favors from members of Congress.

Despite these reviews, more than 90% of Congress routinely gets reelected every two years. Itís a shock when any incumbent loses. One explanation for this phenomenon frequently heard in Washington, D.C. is that ďpeople hate Congress but love their own congressman.Ē

Voters have a different perspective, and 50% say 'rigged' election rules explain high reelection rate for Congress.

When the Constitution was written, the nationís founders expected that there would be a 50% turnover in the House of Representatives every election cycle. That was the experience they witnessed in state legislatures at the time (and most of the state legislatures offered just one-year terms). For well over 100 years after the Constitution was adopted, the turnover averaged in the 50% range as expected.

In the 20th century, turnover began to decline. As power and prestige flowed to Washington during the New Deal era, fewer and fewer members of Congress wanted to leave. In 1968, congressional turnover fell to single digits for the first time ever, and it has remained very low ever since.

kcfanXIII
08-30-2009, 01:45 PM
well, i think they are all guilty of crimes against the constitution. so to fire them all may not be enough.

first we rochambeau

then we:rockon:

before we:bang:

and then:toast:

***SPRAYER
08-30-2009, 02:03 PM
well, i think they are all guilty of crimes against the constitution. so to fire them all may not be enough.

first we rochambeau

then we:rockon:

before we:bang:

and then:toast:

Pour me a double.

:BLVD:

BucEyedPea
08-30-2009, 02:56 PM
I wouldn't replace ALL of them, some are not so bad and one is ideal, imo. Most are spineless and ignorant.

***SPRAYER
08-30-2009, 03:05 PM
I wouldn't replace ALL of them, some are not so bad and one is ideal, imo. Most are spineless and ignorant.

It's all or nothing, BEP.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2009, 03:06 PM
It's all or nothing, BEP.

Sorry, Ron Paul is the only Constitutionalist and has a 90-100% conservative rating using that as the yardstick. He's also honest and has integrity. He wouldn't deserve it.

kcfanXIII
08-30-2009, 03:23 PM
Sorry, Ron Paul is the only Constitutionalist and has a 90-100% conservative rating using that as the yardstick. He's also honest and has integrity. He wouldn't deserve it.

i agree, i believe his son will continue his ideas of how to best protect the people, if he is elected. really beyond those two though, they could all be found guilty of various crimes.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2009, 03:55 PM
i agree, i believe his son will continue his ideas of how to best protect the people, if he is elected. really beyond those two though, they could all be found guilty of various crimes.

And Schiff too. We need more. I'd run here but I have some skeletons in my closet. :D

Saul Good
08-30-2009, 04:28 PM
Sorry, Ron Paul is the only Constitutionalist and has a 90-100% conservative rating using that as the yardstick. He's also honest and has integrity. He wouldn't deserve it.

I think that he would fall within the range of "acceptable losses" if the situation were to occur. It would be worth it.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2009, 05:02 PM
I think that he would fall within the range of "acceptable losses" if the situation were to occur. It would be worth it.

I'd expect Rs who support the current FP views to feel this way....so...in your subjective opinion. For me, he's impossible to replace. We need more Pauls, not less.
In fact, what would be worth it for me is for the current crop of Rs to form their own party as JFK supply-side Ds or merge with the Blue Dogs and let us real conservatives have our own.
Then the left wing of the D party can have their own. That would reflect reality much more.

***SPRAYER
08-30-2009, 05:05 PM
Sorry, Ron Paul is the only Constitutionalist and has a 90-100% conservative rating using that as the yardstick. He's also honest and has integrity. He wouldn't deserve it.

No picking favorites. Thats why we are in this mess.

;)

BucEyedPea
08-30-2009, 05:24 PM
Not with him....'cause he's NEVER voted for a tax increase or any unConstitutional spending.

googlegoogle
08-30-2009, 05:37 PM
Just readdress voting in this country. Make it so that anyone receiving government 'AID' or 'LOANS' is not allowed to vote in our elections. It's practically criminal to allow people to vote themselves largess.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2009, 06:10 PM
Just readdress voting in this country. Make it so that anyone receiving government 'AID' or 'LOANS' is not allowed to vote in our elections. It's practically criminal to allow people to vote themselves largess.

I can agree with that.

Simplex3
08-30-2009, 06:34 PM
Just readdress voting in this country. Make it so that anyone receiving government 'AID' or 'LOANS' is not allowed to vote in our elections. It's practically criminal to allow people to vote themselves largess.

I agree completely. You aren't able to take care of yourself, but you want to decide how an entire country should be run.

Saul Good
08-30-2009, 07:19 PM
I'd expect Rs who support the current FP views to feel this way....so...in your subjective opinion. For me, he's impossible to replace. We need more Pauls, not less.
In fact, what would be worth it for me is for the current crop of Rs to form their own party as JFK supply-side Ds or merge with the Blue Dogs and let us real conservatives have our own.
Then the left wing of the D party can have their own. That would reflect reality much more.

I think Paul would choose to replace everybody, including himself, if he could. I wouldn't mind losing a few good ones because they are so outnumbered.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 07:23 AM
I think Paul would choose to replace everybody, including himself, if he could. I wouldn't mind losing a few good ones because they are so outnumbered.

Yeah, he probably would once things were on a sounder track too.

wild1
08-31-2009, 07:36 AM
We couldn't do any worse than what we have right now

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 07:41 AM
We couldn't do any worse than what we have right now

I forgot to mention this. Who knows if the same type of idiots would not be re-elected particularly when half the voting public has been corrupted by entitlement mentality? I mean we got Obama as a replacement for Bush. Things just got worse.

tooge
08-31-2009, 10:17 AM
I'd the whole thing too.