He angered his base a lot with that one.

His FISA vote was not a leadership move.  It was a sucker play, and he fell for it.

Results make no sense unless we know what the questions were. 

The questions were:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the job John Warner is doing as U.S. Senator?"

Repeat for Jim Webb.

n/t

When I think about what I expect of Webb, I measure him against other Democrats.  When I think about Warner, I measure him against other Republicans.

Guess who has an easier time :)

Interesting how SurveyUSA has a question on "Is global warming made up" -- of course Webb does very poorly on this one with a 31 approval to 63% disapproval rating among this group; meanwhile Warner's numbers are the reverse (both Warner and Webb have favorable ratings among those who believe in global warming).

The big number is with liberals only showing 49% approval for Webb just 5 points higher than Warner; while Warner enjoys a 66 approval to Webb's 31 among self-described conservatives.  The liberal numbers for Webb are almost certainly in reference to FISA vote.

One curious number -- among Hispanics Warner enjoys a 69% approval and ZERO percent disapproval with 31% not sure.

Zero percent disapproval?  Is that humanly possible? The survey cites a 4% query in reference to the poll, but this suggests that we're dealing with a pretty small sample size.

Leaving aside the IVR vs. live-call issue, SurveyUSA is able to claim a 4% MoE for their overall poll. That doesn't apply to subsets. The sample size of Hispanic voters was 4%. With 600 adults asked (also, keep in mind that since this was an IVR poll, there's no way to confirm that these people were registered, or old enough, or anything else) and 4% of respondents identifying themselves as Hispanic, that puts the sample size at 24 respondents. Of those 24, none disapproved.

I have a pretty good idea of the table for sample sizes compared to MoE, but I haven't seen it broken down for anything under 100. A sample size of 24 would likely have an MoE north of 20%.

Webb's popularity dropped quickly because of the FISA vote.  Whether or not it was the right vote is for later debate.  However, it was one vote.  I expect that Webb's support amongst liberals and most moderates will go back up as the months go on.  I expect that he'll probably be somewhere arounf 51% again soon.

Webb had controversial votes on FISA, Funding the War, and another, but cannot remember. Too early in the morning.

Just maybe his voting record according to Democrats is fading and FISA was the last straw.

If one listens to Senate on CSpan, Webb has cast quite a few wrong votes and later went back to correct them.

Maybe people are taking this into account?

Although Webb doesn't look particulary good in this poll, the numbers however are an indication, at least to me, that Virginians are much more in line with progressive ideology than I would have hoped for.

Of the respondents:

63% consider themselves moderate or liberal
28% consider themselves conservative

55% are pro-choice
42% are pro-life

and

73% believe global-warming is real
24% believe global-warming is made-up

As to Webb's numbers, I agree that his FISA and Iraq funding votes hurt him, at least in my eyes.  I hope that Senator Webb understands and values his constituency.  As to Warner's numbers, I think Virginians just don't really look at him and his voting record (versus what comes out of his mouth) candidly.  The myth needs to be debunked and his bubble burst.

simple. The war and FISA vote has infuriated the base. Will be interesting to see how he votes in the future on these two important issues. He is new to this job remember. Perhaps now with these latest numbers he will realize that he is being held accountable and that folks are watching carefully. His huge lack of constituency services also can't be helping him either. John Warner always answers me. Jim Webb never has yet. He needs to get his act together and be reminded that he is now a DEMOCRAT and to start voting like it.

He is a Populist Democrat and should vote like it.  I don't think he should stand in line when the people in line are out to lunch on the issues.

Being a Democrat doesn't mean signing a blank check for "leadership" in the Democratic party. 

In short, I don't think he should feel compelled to vote with the party on any issue unless he agrees with the party on the issue.  The last thing we need is more "group think". 

If you recall, the party voted overwhelmingly for the Iraq War - and sat quietly while they dixie chicked Bill Mahr, Donohue, and any reporter who dared question the Whitehouse.  What rubbish.

Republicans were at fault for getting us in this mess.  But I am even more furious at the Democrats who sat quietly and didn't do their F%$$%NG jobs which is to think critically about issues.  Especially issues of war!

Even if you don't agree with him on his FISA vote, you must at least respect the fact that he won't vote for something when he thinks it is wrong.  The way to influence Senator Webb on this, IMHO, is to say "you are wrong because of xyz" - not to say "change your vote because your ratings are slumping".

spying on us is OK? He felt compelled to vote FOR this because he's a "populist" Democrat?
Hogwash. I don't expect him to march in lockstep with the party. I do however, expect him to protect our rights and civil liberties. I do hold him to a higher standard than a rethug. I expect John Warner to vote the way he does. I do not expect Webb to vote like a rethug. If he wants to be another Joe Lieberman then let him run as an independent next time.
Good grief. Democrats and indies put him in office NOT the George Allen rethugs. And oh by the way, HE works for US.

It was a 6 month extension - and there were current security concerns that justified it.  It would be negligent to let it expire without serious discussion.

That said, I don't think it should be extended past 6 months without serious debate.  And that debate needs to be occuring right now.  And it should be transparent so that we understand exactly what it means to us. 

Webb is no Lieberman.

Webb shamed himself on that one. Webb has mostly been doing the right things since he took office, so many people were sorely disappointed.

Can he make it up? Of course ... unless he continue to vote with Blue Dogs.

#1.  I happen to remember when we were debating whether or not to nominate Webb that some people made the argument that Webb was going to bring a lot of people back to the democratic party who, like Webb himself, were turned off in a major way by an arrogant, reckless neo-conservative agenda but who hadn't identified with liberal democrats on some social and economic issues but WOULD connect with his populist message on economic fairness and his depth of experience on matters related to foreign policy and military matters.

What that all means is you don't get to moan if it turns out he's a centrist blue dog with populist ideals and depth of experience on matters related to foreign policy and military matters.  You dance with the one what brung you.

#2.  "Blue dogs" don't vote to allow the federal government to infringe out civil liberties when the administration has already demonstrated reckless disregard for our basic rights--stupid people do that.  The centrist blue dogs are just as disgusted with the FISA vote, so please don't come of all high-and-mighty, more-liberal-than-thou-art at us.  It's not just the errosion on the left that's hurting Webb's numbers, it's the errosion at the center.

and how they voted on the FISA bill?  Seriously, I would like to know.

Therefore, all white men are serial killers.

OH WAIT.  Maybe there's actually something else that all serial killers have in common that makes them serial killers, and the fact that they also happen to be overwhelmingly white is an inconsequential false correlation!  Maybe by oversimplifying a problem so that we can easily deal with it through our entrenched mindset, we're actually evading useful, logical information that we can use in dealing with problems in the future.

Oh but to heck with that, let's go for the oversimplified explanation, shall we?

Jim Webb is being lumped in with the Democratic leadership.  A lot of people were very angry at the funding capitulation back in May (they took so few concessions before giving Bush what he wanted) and now the FISA bill.  Thing is, the more we learn about what happened within the leadership, the tougher it is to take.  They literally took the debate on FISA off the Senate floor.  The Senate, on that dark Friday, went out of session in the morning and then suddenly went back into session in the evening for a 90 minute debate on the draconian FISA bill (um, 90 minutes to determine whether to gut the 4th amendment?).  This was government secrecy, pure and simple, and now we are learning that Dems had no idea what was in the bill or what they voted for.  It was a top down failure, but Webb, having voted for a bill, is hit with a double whammy.

The Republicans have been clear they don't care much for the Bill of Rights, save the 2nd amendment.  Warner doesn't take a hit for what we have grown to expect from the GOP.  We have much higher expectations from the Democrats, so when they let us down, they pay a higher price because they should know better.

Dems had no idea what was in the bill or what they voted for. 

How sad and disgusting is THAT??

by an expert on the subject who served in the Clinton Administration.

really. and he aint foolin anyone anymore.

To be a republican in late 2007 and 2008 is  a bad thing.

with the Democrats, according to the Washington Post's votes database.  Your statement about Webb is absurd.