52% of Americans Favored Impeachment in January. So What Gives???

[mattclearing]

A poll conducted in January by Zogby International found 52% of Americans agreed that Congress should consider impeachment "if President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge." About 43% of respondents said they disagreed with exploring impeachment.

http://www.nysun.com/article/28983?page_no=4

The Republicans are taunting us right now on this. They seem to want that fight.

The numbers aren't on their side, though.

Zogby indicates that this is a fight we can win.

That is, if our Senators are willing to fight it.

People seem to be scared of making this election a referendum on Impeachment.

But I'm starting to think maybe that's the best way to show that Democrats are willing to offer real change.

And it would certainly implode the media storyline that says Dems have no backbone.

I say Bring. It. On.

[Kansas Wyatt]

1. Democrats who can raise hell

Seem to think they will suffer a backlash, the same way the Republicans suffered a backlash for going after Clinton for petty issues.

What they do not get is, Bush has actually committed impeachable offenses and the people really do want him impeached. So, there will be no backlash, and the Democratic Party's popularity would immediately grow and sustain itself for doing the right thing.

[4 t 4]

4. Why can't we the people

get anything we want anymore. If the majority of people agree on any issue it should be looked at. WTF is going on with this crazy out of control country?

[mattclearing]

6. I was just saying in another thread that Bush doesn't get the sympathy

that Clinton does. Half of the electorate wants him impeached.

Hell, half the electorate can't stand him.

And Cheney's a non-issue, because thanks to the Plame scandal, we can impeach him too.

[KittyWampus]

60. The poll says IF Bush illegally wiretapped. IF IF IF. Americans would

support an investigation, to be sure.

[mattclearing]

61. But he admitted to it on national television.

And there was a similar poll on riggin intelligence for war that was in the same ballpark.

People are ready to consider this.

[sabbat hunter]

2. before impeachment

we have to make sure all the data is in and get more than just one charge. Impeachment is not something to be thrown around lightly (like the pukes did to clinton )

also right now the democrats have now power to impeach. it would take the dems gaining control of the house and senate in the fall for any chance of impeachment proceedings to move forward. right now the republicans are still not going to impeach a sitting president of their own party. we would need a large number to defect for this to take place.

it isnt a matter of backbone. the dems dont have control of the senate and house and therefore currently have no power to bring impeachment proceedings.

[mattclearing]

8. That's the debate Republicans are pushing.

They want to run against Impeachment. I say we let 'em have it.

[rodeodance]

48. that would be Conyers resolution-He wants an investigation.

[mondo joe]

3. Wrong body - it's not the people who decide to impeach.

Plain and simple, we don't control the government.

[4 t 4]

5. well we should

shouldn't we??

[4 t 4]

7. ya know

a government, governed by the people, for the people

[mondo joe]

9. More or less. We have a system of representative leadership.

That doesn't mean those leaders are supposed to read every poll and act on it - it means we hear what each candidate has to say and choose the one to represent us.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN I THINK THEY SHOULD IGNORE THE POLLS EITHER. It just means I don't think there's a direct translation.

But I DO think Bush should have been impeached a long time ago, regardless of polling.

[mattclearing]

10. That's my point.

Republicans want to make this election about Impeachment.

If the polls are on our side, then why are we shrinking away from that fight?

We should be straight-up PROMISING the American people that WE WILL impeach him!

[mondo joe]

16. I dunno - but just edging out over 50% isn't a landslide

when you consider how soft that might be, and how much shifts in an election.

I also think Dems probably don't want a rotating game of impeachment.

[mattclearing]

18. No, but the facts bear out the case for Impeachment.

Bush willfully, and needlessly, I might add, broke the law. Dozens of times.

The Dems only impeach when warranted...this isn't some crusade over a blowjob.

[mondo joe]

22. Of course. But that's not a matter of polls - or of law.

Impeachment is not a judicial process - it is a political process. And the wrong party is in control for that to happen.

[mattclearing]

23. My point exactly.

I'm talking about the election.

Republicans want this election to be about Impeachment.

But that's a really dumb idea, given the way the public feels about it.

The only reasons we would shrink from that fight are:

1. We are scared.

2. We know that Diebold will ensure Republican victory and redeem Bush in the face of a challenge to his Presidency.

Either way, I don't see the downside. A plurality of the American people support it.

[mondo joe]

26. Back to the poltics: Support for impeachment among the electorate may

be soft, or may be in the wrong states.

You can't assume this polling translates into a political win for dems.

I'm not saying it doesn't either - I don't have enough data to know.

[mattclearing]

31. Me either.

And you're correct that it's not a national election.

I don't really have enough data to know either.

But the national debate, and this poll, and other polls from Zogby on the issue seem to point to support for Dems on this issue.

[KittyWampus]

62. The FACTS still need to be established and fully investigated.

[ProfessorGAC]

37. But, Joe. . .

. . .when Silverspoon won with 51% of the vote, he called it a mandate. So did all the repukes. Well, 52% is at least better than their mandate. I think since the dems haven't gotten 50% of the vote in the last 2 prez elections and the last 4 House elections, we would look at the number as a revelation. The people are on the side of the opposition. Now is the time to act in our short attention span society.
The Professor

[mondo joe]

44. An election isn't the same as polling.

Once the election is done you can say what you want - it's done.

Polling is mutable, and we don't know where the support is or how firm it is.

NONE of that means we shouldn't impeach though.

[ProfessorGAC]

56. I Know It's Not The Same Thing

But, their own statements can be used against them and the time is now. We've played nice for far too long. The heck with the difference between elections and polling. There are either mandates from the people or there aren't. If 51% is a mandate, so is 52%.

It's rhetorical ammunition. I don't think the details or underpinnings are all that relevant.
The Professor

[mondo joe]

63. I think that's pointless -- it's just playing their game when they've

moved on to the next strategy.

I don't think this rhetoric is particularly useful, because there's no audience to play it to.

[4 t 4]

12. Yea I know

i mean i know legally your right it's just..i don't know i just can't take much more and it just gets worse all the time

[BootinUp]

11. So I guess thats 70% blue staters and maybe 35% red staters

Something like that. Just thought I would point that out.

[mattclearing]

15. Point out what?

Got a link for that methodology?

[BootinUp]

24. Why not provide it for the poll you cited?

My point is that a national poll that averages all responses from different regions is leading you astray in that we very well may be making it harder to win elections in certain regions by clamoring for impeachment. I'll stand by that.

Its just a guestimate as I clearly stated. You are free to move along in your own little blue world.

[mattclearing]

25. I don't have the methodology.

But there's no reason to believe that your figures pulled out of thin air have any basis in reality.

[BootinUp]

27. Yeah right!

Forget about strongholds of the two parties for the last several decades.

[mattclearing]

28. All indications show that this is an election that will entail some

major realignments. There is extreme dissatisfaction with the GOP.

But Democrats have to offer something of value to capitalize.

Will the new plan they are bringing out be enough?

Maybe.

But Impeachment offers a solution that would likely bring people into the political process who have heretofore avoided it.

I wouldn't discount it as an election stance.

[BootinUp]

35. Let me give you a hypothetical example.

The Dems are in power not the republicans. The Dems have lost their compass and fallen into corruption. They made some bad decisions that are coming back to haunt them. Its the same situation Bush and the GOP find themselves in only reversed parties and the there is no Iraq War, say instead its a new social program blamed for bankrupting the treasury.

You being activist on the left think they should be kicked out but want a third party option like a Nader type or a Socialist type. There are 1 to 5% that are with you depending on the State.

A significant amount say 10% of Dems varies by State, want a moderate alternative and most Dems do not see a Nader type as a viable option. This 10% will not vote for the Republican if he is yelling about impeaching the Democratic President. So the Republicans try to attract the 10% by touting integrity and moderate positions. It works.

[mattclearing]

38. Perhaps.

I think there is a good deal more outrage over the President than we know. Can that be turned into a mid-term recipe for a full congressional exchange of power? I'm not sure.

But the same methods of appealing to moderates and hoping for the best didn't work the last two elections.

Democrats have a credibility problem with the American people...they think we are more interested in winning than in doing the right thing.

I think this might be one way they could address that.

[BootinUp]

40. Support that claim about failed tactics with any exit poll or other

realistic analysis. There is not one that will do it. The spine meme on the liberal blog is so much bullshit.

Do I personally want to impeach the fucker, yes.

[mattclearing]

41. Realistic analysis: We aren't in control of Congress or the White House.

I'm talking about past elections. It didn't work out.

[BootinUp]

42. The place where we lost were on issues or lack of trust

in other words Kerry said one thing in 2004 but voted differently. Flip flopper, change positions. The solution is not to take the farther left position with more spine. Its to really vote like you say you will all the time and have the moderate stance on the issues that a majority of States can accept.

The problem in our system is that Dem politicians cannot win primaries and GE's without being mushy in their public statements and occasionally voting more moderate than you like.

This isn't rocket science and throwing red meat to the base isn't the answer.

[mattclearing]

43. That's exactly my point.

People won't trust Dems if the Republicans say we want to impeach and we try to dodge the issue. The voters will assume it is the same old Dems.

[BootinUp]

45. Circular arguments are so much fun.

I think I covered that already. We will disagree then.

[mattclearing]

47. It reminds me of Will Pitt's recent post about arguing with people

you agree with on 90% of everything. Fair enough.

[queenbdem87]

13. If them Dems

don't get behind this censure 100% and go on to support impeachment proceedings against dubya....then I don't know if I can affiliate myself with the National Democratic Party any longer....whats the purpose of being a member of the DNC if its elected congresspeople aren't going to stand up and fight?

[mattclearing]

19. That's exactly why they will lose if they don't make their intention clear

The American people will punish them if they think they are being misled about Impeachment.

Dems need to be upfront about this issue.

I think you would see a massive surge in Independent voters if they promised to get rid of Bush and Cheney.

But they won't get anything if they don't ask for it.

[abczyx]

54. Agreed!

2008 will be a whole new ballgame, but there might just be a lock-out if Democrats don't start backing up their talk with their walk ASAP, as in before the 2006 elections.

[mattclearing]

58. Welcome to DU, abczyx.

:hi:

What does your username mean, exactly?

[janx]

14. Wait until after November. n/t

[mattclearing]

17. There won't be an after november if the Dems seem disingenuous

about their plans.

[mzmolly]

20. Read this:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/15/impeachable_strategy.php

[mattclearing]

21. Yeah, I did that already.

Not convinced.

The American people will not stand for being misled about this. If they think we want to Impeach but aren't saying it, they will punish us.

[mzmolly]

30. The polls indicate that the majority of Americans want us to take back

the house. I think it's foolish to punish the Democrats when Republicans have complete control? Nah, I think they'll punish the Republicans who got us into this mess. Most people realize we are in the minority and Republicans are lock in step.

[mattclearing]

33. You know how they use the media.

Scare and accuse, wrap Bush in the flag, rig voting...

I wonder if the usual tactics are going to work. They haven't in the past.

[mzmolly]

34. They have in the past, but don't appear to be lately.

I'm not convinced they had to do much rigging in 2004. BTW, are you saying that Republicans will impeach Bush?

[mattclearing]

36. No, it's just some unfortunate use of pronouns.

I'm saying that the usual tactics of Democrats haven't worked in the past...it's been proven time and time again that being right isn't enough.

[mzmolly]

39. Ahh, but it appears that truth is rearing its ugly head in spite of us.

:hi:

[wordpix2]

29. scaredy cat reps are worried CheneyFuddBushRover will shoot them in face

[mattclearing]

32. This is a possibility I had not considered.

:D

[rodeodance]

53. as do the Dems (except a few)

[rodeodance]

46. 'That is, if our Senators are willing to fight it." does not even

seem Dems Senators want this now.

[mattclearing]

49. Yeah, I know, and I guess the question is, why not?

It seems like the country is ready for that debate.

[rodeodance]

55. they (Dems) really ARE afraid of being attached by Rove et al.

[mattclearing]

59. Isn't that going to happen anyway? n/t

[rodeodance]

50. k and n

[mattclearing]

51. Thanks. n/t

[Ufomammut]

52. The US gov DOES NOT work for or represent its populace

Period. Why is that such a remote, obscure fact for Americans to understand when EVERY sign of it has been shoved down your throats for decades?

That's how they "taunt" you, ya know - it's like, "WOW, we are TOTALLY just fuckin' the living shit outta these people left and right and they're so hopelessly dense they just bend over and take it, even congratulate us on doing such a fine job of screwing them over!"

I mean, how could those in power not take advantage of such astonishing prostration?

[mattclearing]

57. Of course, this is undoubtedly true.

But to accept this on a full-time basis would be to give up hope entirely. And so, I persist. :)

[sandnsea]

64. CONSIDER

Did people just miss the lessons about EVERY word being important in understanding the meaning of what they read.