The Weakest Of Reids

October 22nd, 2009at 07:15am Posted by Eli

(I really wanted to hit this yesterday, but I spent all night wrestling with a new router that turned out to be defective)

Finally, a poll that asks the right question:

Among all Nevadans, 52 percent described him as a weak leader, and only 24 percent said strong. Even among Democrats, 47 percent said weak and 39 percent said strong. Ouch. That’s going to leave a mark.

More than half — 54 percent — of all those surveyed also said Reid is “ineffective” in the Senate, while 23 percent said he was “effective.” Even among Democrats, a soul-crushing 51 percent said ineffective, and only 39 percent said effective.

Asked if Reid should be the Democratic nominee for Senate in 2010 or if it is time for someone new to represent the party, a minority of Democrats — 38 percent — agreed that the majority leader of the Untied States Senate should be their party’s nominee. Only 13 percent said it is time for someone new, but 49 percent weren’t sure.

Among Nevadans with an unfavorable view of Reid, 47 percent think Reid is “too far to the left” while 41 percent think he’s “not progressive enough.” Among Democrats who view him unfavorably, a whopping 92 percent think he’s not progressive enough, and only 6 percent said he is too far to the left.

“The numbers say it all,” said PCCC’s Adam Green. “If Harry Reid starts acting like a strong leader and passes the public option, he solidifies his standing with Democrats and Independents and has a chance to survive 2010. If he continues to be weak — refusing to unify the Democratic Caucus behind an up-or-down vote and allowing the public option to be watered down to nothing — Democratic senators will likely be looking for a new Majority Leader in 2011.”

Reid weak? Really?  Wherever did anyone get that idea?  Well, aside from all the time Reid has done the Republicans’ bidding (remember telecom immunity?) and all the times he has made no effort to whip his caucus, consider some of these recent data points:

o Reid not only allows members of his caucus to threaten to join a Republican filibuster of the public option, but he won’t even reveal who they are.

o Funny how the White House is so heavily involved in the legislative process and dealmaking in the Senate, but not the House.  Could it be that Pelosi told them to butt out, and Reid didn’t?

o Which is probably why Pelosi opted to bring the most progressive healthcare bill to the floor, and Reid’s still hemming and hawing and consulting with the White House.

This poll truly is a wonderful thing.  Finally, we have some data to push back against the dishonest conventional wisdom that Democrats lose support because they’re too liberal, when the reality is that they usually lose support for being wimps or corporate sellouts (no one could have anticipated…), and the corollary that they only win elections by being mealy-mouthed centrists (see: Rahm Emanuel, 2006 Congressional Landslide Orchestrated  Solely By The Genius Of).

Now can we please get pollsters to start adding “why” questions whenever they ask people for approve/disapprove or who they’ll vote for?  More Democrats will either start to realize that being strong liberals actually improves their job security, or else fully expose themselves as corrupt corporate whores who don’t care what their constituents think.  At the very least, they would no longer be able to hide behind the false conventional wisdom that corporatism masquerading as moderation is what America wants.

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Healthcare,Obama,Politics,Polls

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




October 2009
« Sep   Nov »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *