Looks like the public likes the Democratic Agenda

[Lanya]

The Public Versus Bipartisanship

by Matt Stoller, Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:37:51 PM EST

Via politicalwire I came upon this CNN poll.  These are policies listed by favor/oppose/no opinion.

    Allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies to attempt to lower the price of prescription drugs for some senior citizens:  87/12/1

    Raising the minimum wage: 85/14/1

    Cutting interest rates on federal loans to college students: 84/15/1

    Creating an independent panel to oversee ethics in Congress: 79/19/2

    Making significant changes in U.S. policy in Iraq: 77/20/3

    Reducing the amount of influence lobbyists have in congressional decisions: 75/21/4

    Implementing all of the anti-terrorism recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission: 64/26/10

    Maintaining the current Social Security system to prevent the creation of private investment accounts: 63/32/6

    Funding embryonic stem cell research: 62/32/6

    Reducing some federal tax breaks for oil companies: 49/49/2

    Changing the rules to allow Congress to create new spending programs only if taxes are raised or spending on other programs is cut: 41/54/5
[.........]
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/3/203751/2333

[Plane]

A good definition of the Democratic agenda.

>Whatever the latest Poll says<

[Xavier_Onassis]

Psssssst!

The basis of democracy is the government doing the will of the people.
As opposed to doing whatever the Hell they want and then spinning it until it SOUNDS like what the people might approve of.
 

[hnumpah]

>Whatever the latest Poll says<

Isn't that what we elect the bastids for - to carry out the will of 'we, the people'?

[Plane]

If they are following us they really shouldn't refer to themselves as "Leadership".

BTW is there no distinction to be made between poll results and the will of the people? I think that polls are pretty malliable.

[sirs]

[_JS]

If they are following us they really shouldn't refer to themselves as "Leadership".

Part of being a good leader is listening. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the GOP doesn't track opinion polls as much as the Democrats. That's just a part of belonging to a political system that sends you to elections every two years.

In these days where the political parties are so similarly situated on positions and policies, the real battle is in framing the issues towards your argument. That's why the Democrats control the Congress and Senate right now. Bush lost the ability to frame the arguments in his favor.

[_JS]

As for the cartoon, why is the "compassionate businessman" paying his employees minimum wage anyway? Or is he paying them so low that he feels an upward pressure on wages from a minimum wage increase? Either way the employees will be better off than from a one-off bonus, which was the unlikely result of the small profit anyway.

[BT]

Bush lost the ability to frame the arguments in his favor.

Bush wasn't running in the midterms.
The GOP lost because their credibity took a hit.
Now the dems are making promises.
Let's see how their credibilty stands.

[hnumpah]

BTW is there no distinction to be made between poll results and the will of the people? I think that polls are pretty malliable.

Isn't an election merely a poll that actually counts for something? Theoretically, anyway.

[domer]

The very concept of "representative democracy," like so much else in our political culture, necessarily implies a structural (that is, purposely created by the Founders) dynamic tension between public sentiment, a more volatile phenomenon, and the "wise" leadership of an elite (those elected), a supposedly more principled benchmark. The stuff of democracy is how these often opposing vectors of powers play out: hence, "the art of politics."

[Xavier_Onassis]

A truly dumbass toon, Sirs.

The boss was going to give his "small profit" to his employees, but now that he might have to give them a <gasp!> dollar an hour raise, he has to FIRE one of them.

Oh dear! What would Jeezus do?

[Amianthus]

A truly dumbass toon, Sirs.

The boss was going to give his "small profit" to his employees, but now that he might have to give them a <gasp!> dollar an hour raise, he has to FIRE one of them.

Actually, it doesn't say that he has to fire someone because he had to give them a raise. What it says is that he has to fire someone because "business expenses" have gone up. This could be because of a direct expense (like a rise in minimum wages) but is more likely to be because of indirect expenses (minimum wage raises at his suppliers have increased the costs of his purchased materials and supplies).

A minimum wage increase impacts more than just the wages of employees and their direct employers - it impacts everyone who purchases products made by those employees or utilizes services provided by those employees.

And, actually, weren't the Dems talking about a >$2/hour raise? Something like $2.20/hour?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Democrats are talking about a raise to $7.15 per hour in three phases.

Nothing that would cause this ersatz imaginary toon gaboon to fire anyone.

 

[sirs]

The Democrats are talking about a raise to $7.15 per hour in three phases.  Nothing that would cause this ersatz imaginary toon gaboon to fire anyone.

"Obviously" someone who has no frellin clue as to what it takes to effectively run a business, and work with other companies that also run businesses