NCAAbbs

August 6th, 2009
After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's
Posted by Tom Bevan
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/...han-bushs/

A rather surprising finding from the newly released CNN poll. Question three on the national survey of 1,136 adults (which includes an oversample of African-Americans) asks, "Do you consider the first six months of the Obama administration to be a success or a failure?"

Thirty-seven percent (37%) said they believe the Obama administration is a "failure," while 51% consider it a "success" and 11% say it's still "too soon to tell."

An identical question was asked of the Bush administration in an August 2001 CNN/Gallup/USA Today survey. At the time, 56% said the Bush administration was a "success" while only 32% considered it a "failure."

(08-06-2009 08:50 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]An identical question was asked of the Bush administration in an August 2001 CNN/Gallup/USA Today survey. At the time, 56% said the Bush administration was a "success" while only 32% considered it a "failure."

I think it would be fair to say that GWB's numbers were very different at the end of his term from where they were in August '01. It's kinda early to be writing Obama's term off.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Thursday, August 13, 2009
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...cking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 29% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8 (see trends).

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter is feeling the heat of the health care debate. He now trails Republican Pat Toomey by double digits in an early look at the potential 2010 race. Two months ago, Specter led by double digits. Most Pennsylvania voters oppose the Congressional health care reform effort. Also, Specter’s lead is shrinking in his Democratic Primary match-up with Congressman Joe Sestak.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter.

Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That’s the lowest level of total approval yet recorded. The President’s ratings first fell below 50% just a few weeks ago on July 25. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans disapprove along with 65% of those not affiliated with either party. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Democrats offer their approval. Most women (51%) offer their approval while most men (56%) disapprove. For more measures of the President's performance, see Obama By the Numbers and recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.

Later today, Rasmussen Reports will release new data on which party voters trust when it comes to health care. Premium Members can get an advance look at the data.

(More Below)



Nationally, support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low. Just 42% favor the plan while 53% are opposed. Other data shows that 51% fear the federal government more than private insurance companies. Forty-one percent (41%) fear the insurance companies more. Overall, 32% favor a single-payer health care system for the U.S. while 57% are opposed.

Sixty-six percent (66%) oppose Mexican trucks on U.S. highways while just 19% favor lifting that ban. Most oppose Canada’s request to lift the Buy American provision for projects funded by the stimulus package.

In the Virginia Governor’s race, Republican Bob McDonnell has opened a nine-point advantage over Democrat R. Creigh Deeds. In New Jersey’s race for Governor, incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine trails by double digits. Republicans maintains a modest lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

If you'd like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott's favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.

It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the President's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. Other factors are also important to consider when comparing Job Approval ratings from different polling firms.

(More Below)



Internationally, North Korea and Iran rank one and two on the U.S. enemies list. At the other extreme, Canada and Great Britain lead a list of seven countries that most Americans consider allies.

A Fordham University professor has rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review.

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters--is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.

Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past four years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.

Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 38.4% Democrats, 32.7% Republicans, and 28.9% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.

A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.

Sunday, August 23, 2009
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...cking_poll


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14. These figures mark the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President. The previous low of -12 was reached on July 30 (see trends).

Prior to today, the number who Strongly Approved of the President’s performance had never fallen below 29%. Some of the decline has come from within the President’s own party. Just 49% of Democrats offer such a positive assessment of the President at this time.

At the other end of the spectrum, today’s total for Strongly Disapprove matches the highest level yet recorded. The 41% mark was reached just once before and that came one week ago today. Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans now Strongly Disapprove along with 49% of those not affiliated with either major party...

(08-10-2009 10:47 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-06-2009 08:50 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]An identical question was asked of the Bush administration in an August 2001 CNN/Gallup/USA Today survey. At the time, 56% said the Bush administration was a "success" while only 32% considered it a "failure."

I think it would be fair to say that GWB's numbers were very different at the end of his term from where they were in August '01. It's kinda early to be writing Obama's term off.

He is flushing his precious political capital down the drain with this health care thing. It was going to be a fight. He knew it was--which is why he had to try it with as much ammo as he had first year, first term.

But he's got less than half a tank of gas left now and at least half a tank worth of distance to cover to return to his carrier. He's going to be getting wet.

I officially predict another '94 mid-term election. The democrats have failed.

His strategy in the final two years of his first term will be to return to his original playbook. With Republicans back in control of at least one house of congress he will have his boogey-man back and can go back to whining about them instead of doing anything. Whether America then gets "fooled again" will be interesting to watch...

(08-24-2009 08:57 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-10-2009 10:47 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-06-2009 08:50 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]An identical question was asked of the Bush administration in an August 2001 CNN/Gallup/USA Today survey. At the time, 56% said the Bush administration was a "success" while only 32% considered it a "failure."

I think it would be fair to say that GWB's numbers were very different at the end of his term from where they were in August '01. It's kinda early to be writing Obama's term off.

He is flushing his precious political capital down the drain with this health care thing. It was going to be a fight. He knew it was--which is why he had to try it with as much ammo as he had first year, first term.

But he's got less than half a tank of gas left now and at least half a tank worth of distance to cover to return to his carrier. He's going to be getting wet.

I officially predict another '94 mid-term election. The democrats have failed.

His strategy in the final two years of his first term will be to return to his original playbook. With Republicans back in control of at least one house of congress he will have his boogey-man back and can go back to whining about them instead of doing anything. Whether America then gets "fooled again" will be interesting to watch...

plus,
he's losing the trust and goodwill of the electorate he duped [with his faux, centrist 'Hope and Change' campaign]
by pushing his fringe, radical left, socialist agenda. These people we're warned, and the blinders are coming off.
Elections have consequences. Not all are good.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...cking_poll


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12 (see trends). Republicans have opened their largest lead yet over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot...

And 57% of people surveyed said that they want to completely replace Congress. Now might be the chance for anyone who has ever wanted to run for the House or Senate (if your Senator is up for re-election in 2010).

(09-02-2009 09:29 AM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]And 57% of people surveyed said that they want to completely replace Congress. Now might be the chance for anyone who has ever wanted to run for the House or Senate (if your Senator is up for re-election in 2010).

I would love to vote out every member of Congress and start fresh with hopefully some patriots that will do whatever is best for our great country.

(09-02-2009 09:54 AM)RBB Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-02-2009 09:29 AM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]And 57% of people surveyed said that they want to completely replace Congress. Now might be the chance for anyone who has ever wanted to run for the House or Senate (if your Senator is up for re-election in 2010).

I would love to vote out every member of Congress and start fresh with hopefully some patriots that will do whatever is best for our great country.

we could choose [at random] 535 names from telephone directories and find just as good of representation as we now have in congress

(09-02-2009 04:34 PM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]we could choose [at random] 535 names from telephone directories and find just as good of representation as we now have in congress

I've always liked the idea of randomly picking congressman to serve one year non-repeatable terms. Hopefully under such a system the general public wouldn't look towards congress to do anything.

(09-02-2009 09:29 AM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]And 57% of people surveyed said that they want to completely replace Congress. Now might be the chance for anyone who has ever wanted to run for the House or Senate (if your Senator is up for re-election in 2010).

Usually, however, when the question is asked do you want to vote out YOUR congressman, the answer is no.

(09-02-2009 04:40 PM)Grammar-Nazi Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-02-2009 09:29 AM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]And 57% of people surveyed said that they want to completely replace Congress. Now might be the chance for anyone who has ever wanted to run for the House or Senate (if your Senator is up for re-election in 2010).

Usually, however, when the question is asked do you want to vote out YOUR congressman, the answer is no.

Which is why there should be term limits on Congress, just as for the President. We also need some kind of "single subject" rule for ALL legislation, in order to prevent the extreme fattening of bills with the ridiculous pork completely unrelated to the original purpose of the bill, like with the recent "stimulus" bill (only 10-15% of which to date has actually been spent--so much for stimulus). The Oklahoma Constitution has a single subject rule that is tightly guarded by the courts. Bills and laws are constantly reviewed and many are stricken because they relate to more than one subject (and it is the burden of the state to show that a part of the law being challenged as pertaining to a second subject is actually related to the first subject--it can't be some remote relationship). There are also term limits as well in order to promote turnover in the state legislature.

(09-02-2009 04:40 PM)Grammar-Nazi Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-02-2009 09:29 AM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]And 57% of people surveyed said that they want to completely replace Congress. Now might be the chance for anyone who has ever wanted to run for the House or Senate (if your Senator is up for re-election in 2010).

Usually, however, when the question is asked do you want to vote out YOUR congressman, the answer is no.

Therein lies the rub.

The prevailing attitude has always been, "I love MY guy. It's all those other losers that have to go."

I wonder, though, if folks in less-than-locked-in seats are really prepared to sink or swim with the president.

(09-02-2009 06:44 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-02-2009 04:40 PM)Grammar-Nazi Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-02-2009 09:29 AM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]And 57% of people surveyed said that they want to completely replace Congress. Now might be the chance for anyone who has ever wanted to run for the House or Senate (if your Senator is up for re-election in 2010).

Usually, however, when the question is asked do you want to vote out YOUR congressman, the answer is no.

Therein lies the rub.

The prevailing attitude has always been, "I love MY guy. It's all those other losers that have to go."

Yep. I wish these ignorant pollsters would not simply ask people "what do you think of congress?" (because immediately the person begins to think of high-profile members from the opposite party that they hate for preventing what their congressman is trying to do; example: I think of Nancy Pelosi when someone asks me what I think of "Congress", not my Spencer) and instead ask them only, "What do you think of YOUR congressman?".

The result, if done nationwide, scientifically, would speak volumes as to the actual, effective opinion of Americans regarding "Congress". When THAT number gets low then you know for sure that there's real change a-commin'.

I got fooled last election in believing the poll that said "people dislike congress more than GWB". Apparently they didn't because now we have an even bigger Democratic majority and now it includes the likes of frickin' Stuart Smalley!



P.S. Minnesota should really be cut loose and left adrift in Lake Superior without supplies, provisions, charts, lifeboats or diesel.

When the 'lapdog' government controlled media says it's going downhill, it must REALLY be bad.

CNN Poll: Half the country disagrees with Obama on issues
Posted: October 20th, 2009 12:40 PM ET
From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200...on-issues/

WASHINGTON (CNN) – For the first time since he took over in the White House, Americans don't see eye to eye with President Barack Obama on the important issues, according to a new national poll. But the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey does indicate that a majority approve of how Obama's handling his duties as president.

According to the poll, which was released Tuesday, 48 percent of people questioned say that they agree with Obama on the issues that matter most to them, with 51 percent saying no. That's a switch from April, when 57 percent said they agreed with the president on important issues, with 41 percent disagreeing.

"Obama is facing crunch time on a number of controversial issues, from health care to financial regulation to cap and trade to Afghanistan," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "The fact that most Americans no longer agree with him on important issues makes his task harder."...

How in the world do they approve of how he's handling his duties? Do they think his duties consist of lavish White House parties, spending a lot of time on the talk show circuit, taking forever to make military decisions that need a swift response, not holding up campaign promises, and villanizing corporate America & the successful? If that's what they think his duties are then he's definitely doing a great job.

(09-02-2009 06:13 PM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-02-2009 04:40 PM)Grammar-Nazi Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-02-2009 09:29 AM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]And 57% of people surveyed said that they want to completely replace Congress. Now might be the chance for anyone who has ever wanted to run for the House or Senate (if your Senator is up for re-election in 2010).

Usually, however, when the question is asked do you want to vote out YOUR congressman, the answer is no.

Which is why there should be term limits on Congress, just as for the President.

We don't need term limits for either branch of government other than the one our Founding Fathers put in--vote someone else into office. Of course, if one does not believe that Americans can vote intelligently, then limits of terms makes sense.

We also need some kind of "single subject" rule for ALL legislation,

A Germaine subject bill was introduced years ago, but failed to fly. A favorite tactic has always been to "hide" non-germaine amendments in a popular bill to get them through. This is done here in Alabama regularly since few bills get passed in our short annual terms.

The Oklahoma Constitution has a single subject rule that is tightly guarded by the courts. Bills and laws are constantly reviewed and many are stricken because they relate to more than one subject (and it is the burden of the state to show that a part of the law being challenged as pertaining to a second subject is actually related to the first subject--it can't be some remote relationship). There are also term limits as well in order to promote turnover in the state legislature.

How much of the year does the OK Legislature meet? Alabama has only about a 90 Legislative day session (usually 3 L-days per week).

A change I would like is to make House terms 4 years long with half elected every two years in the same way the Senate is elected, 1/3 every two years.

Another change I would like, reflecting our urban society, is an additional Senator be elected from every city that has a population equal to the average state's population. That Senator would have to be a citizen of the city represented. Only a handfull (if any) of Senators from any states have ever been residents of that state's major population city.

(10-21-2009 04:51 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-02-2009 06:13 PM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-02-2009 04:40 PM)Grammar-Nazi Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-02-2009 09:29 AM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]And 57% of people surveyed said that they want to completely replace Congress. Now might be the chance for anyone who has ever wanted to run for the House or Senate (if your Senator is up for re-election in 2010).

Usually, however, when the question is asked do you want to vote out YOUR congressman, the answer is no.

Which is why there should be term limits on Congress, just as for the President.

We don't need term limits for either branch of government other than the one our Founding Fathers put in--vote someone else into office. Of course, if one does not believe that Americans can vote intelligently, then limits of terms makes sense.

We also need some kind of "single subject" rule for ALL legislation,

A Germaine subject bill was introduced years ago, but failed to fly. A favorite tactic has always been to "hide" non-germaine amendments in a popular bill to get them through. This is done here in Alabama regularly since few bills get passed in our short annual terms.

The Oklahoma Constitution has a single subject rule that is tightly guarded by the courts. Bills and laws are constantly reviewed and many are stricken because they relate to more than one subject (and it is the burden of the state to show that a part of the law being challenged as pertaining to a second subject is actually related to the first subject--it can't be some remote relationship). There are also term limits as well in order to promote turnover in the state legislature.

How much of the year does the OK Legislature meet? Alabama has only about a 90 Legislative day session (usually 3 L-days per week).

A change I would like is to make House terms 4 years long with half elected every two years in the same way the Senate is elected, 1/3 every two years.

Another change I would like, reflecting our urban society, is an additional Senator be elected from every city that has a population equal to the average state's population. That Senator would have to be a citizen of the city represented. Only a handfull (if any) of Senators from any states have ever been residents of that state's major population city.

And once again you show how little you know of how and why the Founding Fathers did what they did in the Constitution. The reason there are ONLY 2 Senators per state is so that EVERY state has EQUAL representation there. If you randomly adding senators to a state just because of a city's population, you will quickly turn the Senate into the House of Representatives, which is not acceptable.

The House of Representatives is set up based on population and serve short, 2-year terms for a reason. They are supposed to be representative of the people of their districts, which is should be a very close political relationship. The Senate is set up to ensure than STATES have an equal representation against each other, across the board (which is why the state legislatures originally chose their senators). The senators are there to prevent the high population (urban) states from controlling everything (this is also the preface for the electoral college), and to protect the interests of their state as a whole (not just the wants of a small group like in a district). This is so that a small handful of big population states cannot trump a majority of small states on any given issue.

You say we don't need term limits for Congress, and that we should leave the term limits the Founding Fathers put in. Then we need to remove the term limits for the President as well. The Founding Fathers put no term limits in for Congress or the President, because the people were educated on the Constitution so that they knew that the "Congress" would be a short term job for anyone willing to do it and not a career for only those with the money to get there. Since we have passed a Constitutional amendment (the ONLY way to properly and legally change ANYTHING in the Constitution) providing for term limits for the President (as a result of the FDR years), then we should certainly pass a Constitutional amendment providing for term limits for both the House and Senate.

(10-21-2009 04:51 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]How much of the year does the OK Legislature meet? Alabama has only about a 90 Legislative day session (usually 3 L-days per week).

A change I would like is to make House terms 4 years long with half elected every two years in the same way the Senate is elected, 1/3 every two years.

Another change I would like, reflecting our urban society, is an additional Senator be elected from every city that has a population equal to the average state's population. That Senator would have to be a citizen of the city represented. Only a handfull (if any) of Senators from any states have ever been residents of that state's major population city.

Where to start.....

It's pretty damn arrogant to think you can improve a system of government creaated by some of the brightest people the world has ever seen.

The whole idea of the House turning over every two years is so it can be more reactive to the changing political climate in the country.

Ever heard of the Connecticut Compromise? The whole reason for having bicameral legislature in a federal system is so that one house represents the people and is weighted by population (House), whereas one represents the states (now in theory only) and thus each state has equal representatives- the Senate with 2 reps each. Our Congress is the living embodiment of the idea of Federalism. But it doesn't surprise me that this is lost on you.

It is what you are arguing for that states like New Jersey were afraid of in 1787- namely that large states, at that time Virginia was the largest, would dominate the government by having greater representation in congress. This is exactly what Madison wanted, and is one of the few things I disagree with him on. New Jersey wanted a legislature where each state had equal say, as it was under the Articles of Confederation. But of course this would lead to unequal voting power among the citizenry. The irony here is that you fall on the side of Madison- the wealthy landowning Virginian.

Aside from all this, your point has a gaping hole in it. If the US population is roughly 300 million (for easy math sake). Divide that by 50 states, your average state population is 6 million. The only city over 6 million in New York. LA is next with about 4 mil. And don't start with "not technically city, but metropolitan area." Will not work- that is nearly impossible to define.

So what your'e saying is that , according to your calculations, the Senate would have to seat,at most, TWO members, one from LA and one from NY City. I fail to see that being a huge alteration to the system.

When the Constitution was written, there were NO large cities as we have now. Philadelphia was the largest at about 20,000 which would hardly be a village today. While I was suggesting a method to give large cities direct representation, there could be other methods that would work better. We are still in need of some political solution to a shift of population density problem not forseen by those brighter than average persons (I'm not exactly arguing with GOD here). It is not an answer to have huge population centers left without a voice in the most powerful body in our governmental structure--the Senate.

As it is now, a member of the House has to start running for re-election as soon as he takes office. This means making sure he has the financial backing in place early on to remain in office. I would like to give the member a little time to actually pay attention to bills brought up in the body rather than be so preoccupied with rounding up money. The two year rotation of some members from each state would give plenty of opportunity to stay current with state needs. As to the odd number (435), maybe we should consider adding a Representaive from the D.C. area. As it is they have no member in Congress at all though Congress makes ALL laws governing them.

I am just trying to suggest modest changes to an originally rural-oriented system to make it more responsive to our modern political/demographic reality. England went through the same problem in the 19th century and was better for facing and handling it. The French and Russian models did not fare as well since they ignored the needs of the cities in favor of maintaining the privileges of the rural-based "Old Regimes". If you look at the crime statistics, we may be seeing a rising urban problem as well and if we "sweep it under the rug" it may do greater damage in the future.

Hoover, AL is struggling right now with the "rite of passage" from a rural suburb to a major urban center. It's like watching a person struggle with a dual personality disorder. Our national culture still has difficulty with a reality that has only been around since the mid-19th century. We have gone from a 90% rural (as in living on working farms) to a present 90% urban population and our governing system is struggling to keep up. We still prefer to think of ourselves as the rural bucolic people of those simpler times of our Forefathers.

(10-22-2009 11:00 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]So what your'e saying is that , according to your calculations, the Senate would have to seat,at most, TWO members, one from LA and one from NY City. I fail to see that being a huge alteration to the system.

When the Constitution was written, there were NO large cities as we have now. Philadelphia was the largest at about 20,000 which would hardly be a village today. While I was suggesting a method to give large cities direct representation, there could be other methods that would work better. We are still in need of some political solution to a shift of population density problem not forseen by those brighter than average persons (I'm not exactly arguing with GOD here). It is not an answer to have huge population centers left without a voice in the most powerful body in our governmental structure--the Senate.

As it is now, a member of the House has to start running for re-election as soon as he takes office. This means making sure he has the financial backing in place early on to remain in office. I would like to give the member a little time to actually pay attention to bills brought up in the body rather than be so preoccupied with rounding up money. The two year rotation of some members from each state would give plenty of opportunity to stay current with state needs. As to the odd number (435), maybe we should consider adding a Representaive from the D.C. area. As it is they have no member in Congress at all though Congress makes ALL laws governing them.

I am just trying to suggest modest changes to an originally rural-oriented system to make it more responsive to our modern political/demographic reality. England went through the same problem in the 19th century and was better for facing and handling it. The French and Russian models did not fare as well since they ignored the needs of the cities in favor of maintaining the privileges of the rural-based "Old Regimes". If you look at the crime statistics, we may be seeing a rising urban problem as well and if we "sweep it under the rug" it may do greater damage in the future.

Hoover, AL is struggling right now with the "rite of passage" from a rural suburb to a major urban center. It's like watching a person struggle with a dual personality disorder. Our national culture still has difficulty with a reality that has only been around since the mid-19th century. We have gone from a 90% rural (as in living on working farms) to a present 90% urban population and our governing system is struggling to keep up. We still prefer to think of ourselves as the rural bucolic people of those simpler times of our Forefathers.

First, while the population of Philadelphia at our founding was only 20,000 and would be a small town in today's numbers, you cannot use that as a basis for your argument. The large cities at our founding are directly paralleled to the large cities of today. There are just a lot more people today than back then.

Second, the Senate is not the most powerful body in our governmental structure. I would say the Supreme Court actually is. It only takes 5 Justices to establish "the law" and legal precedent for the nation. But anyway, the Senate is an equal to the House as far as "power" concerned. Sure, Senators serve longer terms, but one cannot pass anything without the other. The largest cities already have their representation in the House. The Senate was not set up to cater these smaller districts/cities (no matter how large). It was set up to represent and cater to the needs/wants of each state overall. The needs/wants of the largest city in any state are not necessarily the needs/wants of the state overall. The House, on the other hand, is designed specifically representation of the population of these smaller districts/cities in mind. A large city like Los Angeles will have more representatives in the House than a city like Birmingham or Tulsa. That way, the political strength of L.A. (or even California overall with its 53 representatives) is greater in the House in order to meet the political needs/wants of L.A. and other large cities over those of the smaller cities and states. But in the Senate, the needs/wants of California overall have no greater strength than those of Alabama or Oklahoma, or any other less populated state. To change the makeup of the Senate as you suggest would turn it into another House of Representatives, and create a pure majority rule system, and eventually return us to the problems that our Founders fought in taxation without representation. If the entire Congress was comprised based upon population (and additionally, if the Electoral College was set up based on popular vote), then smaller cities and states would basically never be able to get their voices heard if the larger represented areas wanted to exclude them, even if they retain their "representation."

Third, Washington D.C. does have non-voting representation in Congress, (just as every other U.S. territory does). And D.C. actually has 3 Electoral College votes (which no other territory does), though it should not ever been given them (a pure political pandering amendment). D.C. was NEVER intended to have any representation in Congress and should never have it. It was designed to merely be the seat of the federal government. Those who worked in the district were to be residents of the states from which they came (today, many live in the surrounding states--MD, VA, DE, etc) and have their representation in government through those states.

The lack of term limits is the reason House members feel the need to start running for re-election as soon as they get into office. They want to make a career out of it instead of fighting for the needs/wants of their districts. With term limits, they would do their ******* jobs and get out of there for the next person to do the same. As it is now, we have House members and Senators who have been there for DECADES, and that is never acceptable no matter who they are and what they believe/do politically. The election system has been rigged by these same career people to prevent any real turnover in Congress. If you are an incumbent in the House, you have about a 90% chance of re-election in recent history. The Senate is close to the same. And, if you are running with something other than a "D" or "R" by your name (especially if running for President), then you basically have no chance.

Blazeman21 took the words out of my mouth. I would like to just reiterate one point- you keep talking about urban centers not being represented. THEY ARE!!! NYC has smething like 15 congressional seats. That's just the city. The state has 29. Alabama has 7 for the entire state. Urban centers are represented because they have Congressmen apportioned by population- just as the Constitution intended. The Senate exists to represent each state equally- why can't you understand how our government is structured? The instant you give a state an extra senator- the federal system is dead. That is a drastic change because you have undermined the purpose of our legislative system.

And I think he earned this:
Barack Obama sees worst poll rating drop in 50 years
The decline in Barack Obama's popularity since July has been the steepest of any president at the same stage of his first term for more than 50 years.
By Toby Harnden in Washington
Published: 7:38PM BST 22 Oct 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...ears.html#

Gallup recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per cent he recorded from April.

His current approval rating – hovering just above the level that would make re-election an uphill struggle – is close to the bottom for newly-elected president. Mr Obama entered the White House with a soaring 78 per cent approval rating

The bad polling news came as Mr Obama returned to the campaign trail to prevent his Democratic party losing two governorships next month in states in which he defeated Senator John McCain in last November's election.

Jeffrey Jones of Gallup explained: "The dominant political focus for Obama in the third quarter was the push for health care reform, including his nationally televised address to Congress in early September.

"Obama hoped that Congress would vote on health care legislation before its August recess, but that goal was missed, and some members of Congress faced angry constituents at town hall meetings to discuss health care reform. Meanwhile, unemployment continued to climb near 10 per cent."

Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey is in severe danger of defeat while Democrats are fast losing hope that Creigh Deeds can beat his Republican opponent in Virginia. Twin Democratic losses would be a major blow to Mr Obama's prestige.

Campaigning for Mr Corzine in Hackensack on Wednesday night, Mr Obama delivered a plea that almost seemed as much for himself as the local candidate: "I'm here today to urge you to cast aside the cynics and the sceptics, and prove to all Americans that leaders who do what's right and who do what's hard will be rewarded and not rejected."

Mr Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs executive and multi-millionaire, is currently running even in New Jersey, which is normally comfortably Democratic, while Mr Deeds is trailing badly in Virginia, a swing state that was key to Mr Obama's 2008 victory.

Mr Obama is also facing widespread criticism for his drawn-out decision-making process over what to do next in Afghanistan.

Republicans sense Mr Obama is in a vulnerable position and this week saw the return to the public stage of his perhaps most vehement opponent – Vice-President Dick Cheney.

In a blistering speech on Wednesday night, he accused Mr Obama of failing to give Americans troops on the ground a clear mission or defined goals and of being seemingly "afraid to make a decision" about Afghanistan "The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger," Cheney said at the Center for Security Policy in Washington.

"Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries."

He hit out at Obama aides who suggested that the Bush administration had failed to weigh up conditions in Afghanistan properly before committing troops.

"Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It's time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity."