Insomnia ([info]insomnia) wrote,
@ 2005-08-18 16:54:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Bush has fallen, and he can't get up!
According to a Rasmussen poll, Bush's Job approval rating has fallen sharply since the beginning of the month, from 48% approval / 50% disapproval to 43% approval / 56% disapproval. Nearly a quarter of all Republicans no longer approve of the president's job performance.

Obviously, the rising price of gas and Bush's snubbing of Cindy Sheehan has had an influence on his poll numbers.

Infact, according to a recent poll, Bush has a negative approval rating in 19 out of of the 31 states he won in the last election, with several pro-Bush states reflecting significant shifts in public support that might indicate a significant change in upcoming elections.

Those previous pro-Bush states that show the biggest changes in popular support are:

Ohio, where 60% of the public now disapprove of the president's performance, a shift of 23%.
Missouri, where 58% of the public disapprove of the president's performance, a shift of 20%.
Nevada, where 57% of the public disapprove of the president's performance, a shift of 17%.
Arkansas, where 56% of the public disapprove of the president's performance, a shift of 16%.
New Mexico, where 56% of the public disapprove of the president's performance, a shift of 15%.
Iowa, where 55% of the public disapprove of the president's performance, a shift of 13%.
Kentucky, where 53% of the public disapprove of the president's performance, a shift of 11%.
Virginia, where 52% of the public disapprove of the president's performance, a shift of 10%.
Florida, where 53% of the public disapprove of the president's performance, a shift of 9%.
Tennessee, where 52% of the public disapprove of the president's performance, a shift of 9%.
Colorado, where 53% of the public disapprove of the president's performance, a shift of 8%.
Arizona, where 52% of the public disapprove of the president's performance, a shift of 7%.
South Dakota, where 52% of the public disapprove of the president's performance, a shift of 7%.
South Carolina, where 51% of the public disapprove of the president's performance, a shift of 6%.

Assuming that support for Bush "rubs off" on to the next Republican candidate, things look very good for the Democrats in the next election. Arguably, a Democratic candidate can win the next race simply by holding on to the states which Kerry won and winning in Ohio, where the Republican Party has imploded since the last election due to a number of scandals and possible election tampering.

Looks like Bush has lost his coattails...


(24 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]granting
2005-08-19 02:58 pm UTC (link)
I am more concerned at the moment that the lack of support causes a change in Congressional leadership. At least in the Senate. The House will be much more difficult but we can hope. But if at least the Senate changes... then we can actually have real Congressional investigations into a lot of crooked shit.

At least Santorum is going down in flames.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]insomnia
2005-08-19 03:55 pm UTC (link)
Last month, when voters were asked "if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you be voting for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate", 41% said Republican, 48% said the Democratic candidate, 2% said another candidate, and 9% were unsure. This indicates a shift of about 4% in the last four months. A whole series of polls track this data, and all of them show a significant slippage for Republican candidates versus their rivals.

It will be interesting to see what these figures look like for next month, as it should become clearer just how much of an effect Bush's rapid decline in popularity is having on the public perception of the Congressional candidates.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]granting
2005-08-19 04:09 pm UTC (link)
Those numbers, though, don't mean very much - especially for the House.

The Republicans have so dominated the state legislatures... that resulted in such creative redistricting... that it is only the numbers is those districts that matter.

Such is hard to do, of course, because most Democrats haven't declared for those seats.

They are, perhaps, a little bit better of a predictor for the Senate. But they are still nationwide. What matters are the battleground state polls. Currently Democrats are doing fairly well... but it is still early. Sen. Nelson (D-FL) is probably going to be the nastiest - even worse than Hillary's.

It is really very important that he wins. I'm really not a big Nelson fan either... but it is kinda like Kerry. He's the best choice. Katherine Harris *has* to lose. I'm hoping that Bush's negative coat tails has a big effect here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Ruminations on America
(Anonymous)
2005-08-19 03:10 pm UTC (link)
I am an award-winning journalist with a project, Ruminations on America, for which I have called for essays from coast to coast on the current state of the union and true core American values. The response so far has been overwhelming...I would like to invite you and your readers to participate in the project (essays of up to 1000 words must be accompanied by a photograph that conveys a sense of who you are and a brief introduction to your life) or to check it out at www.ruminationsonamerica.blogspot.com. Some of the entries so far include the actor John Ventimiglia (of the HBO show the Sopranos) and a Catholic nun who wrote a letter from prison on July 4. She is currently serving a term for civil disobedience.

(Reply to this)


[info]blacksnail
2005-08-19 03:16 pm UTC (link)
So if you have the numbers on Bush approval, where do the numbers on Democratic approval fall?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]insomnia
2005-08-19 03:43 pm UTC (link)
Obviously, I am citing a poll which tracks only the President's popularity. I'm not citing polls for each and every Democrat who is either an incumbent or is running for office.

That said, the President's popularity has a lot to do with how voters respond to his party loyalists... and by all indications, Bush is dragging his party down right now.

Here is a poll that shows more of what you're interested in -- whether voters like the Democrats in Congress, or at least like them relative to the Republicans.

Last month, when voters were asked "if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you be voting for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate", 41% said Republican, 48% said the Democratic candidate, 2% said another candidate, and 9% were unsure. This indicates a shift of about 4% in the last four months. A whole series of polls track this data, and all of them show a significant slippage for Republican candidates versus their rivals.

It will be interesting to see what these figures look like for next month, as it should become clearer just how much of an effect Bush's rapid decline in popularity is having on the public perception of the Congressional candidates.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]booo_urns
2005-08-19 04:07 pm UTC (link)
Sure. However midterm elections are still over a year away.
A whole lot can happen in that time (remember the presidental
polls in early 2004 that showed Kerry winning in a walk?)

The biggest issue hurting shrub right now is Iraq. I would
wager that plans are being made to have the troop withdraw
visibly underway by next year's midterms, thus setting the stage
for a "we did what we said we would do" series of speeches.

The public is fickle, with the memory of a goldfish.
And rest assured that the GOP at every level is working right
now to come up with ways to to exploit that (and the Democrats
are working on ways to keep reminding people).

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]granting
2005-08-19 04:12 pm UTC (link)
That may be a double-edged sword for them.

They keep claiming that he'll pull back the troops when the job is done. That's his "read my lips" - if he tries to pull them back for the troops when things are still a disaster.

Which, of course, they will be. I'm waiting for the enemy to do their own Tet Offensive...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Yea. But when a civil war breaks out....
[info]booo_urns
2005-08-19 05:48 pm UTC (link)
...somehow a "We told you so" just won't seem to cut it.

Besides, by then he'll be out of office and living on a lifetime pension.
There will be no need to care.

Baghdad will be in turmoil, and the GOP appologists will STILL
be defending the Iraqi policy. ("You got what you wanted, and you're
still not happy.")

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Yea. But when a civil war breaks out....
[info]granting
2005-08-19 07:13 pm UTC (link)
We're talking about 2006.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]john_of_arabia
2005-08-19 09:22 pm UTC (link)
The enemy doens't have the capability, despite what ever you may hear in the press, to pull a Tet style offensive.

Still, I think for us to leave anytime soon would be a disaster for the Iraqi people.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]granting
2005-08-19 09:26 pm UTC (link)
I hope you're right.

I think that entirely depends on Iran.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

its not just one enemy, though
[info]swingland
2005-08-19 09:54 pm UTC (link)
its multiple and its different factions and while no single faction has the drive to pull a Tet-style offensive, you also have to consider that this isn't Vietnam by any shape or form. This is Iraq. Literally broken down in Arabic, a place of deep roots. That means you're running up against hundreds of old blood ties that trace back before the Prophet. Needless to say, these people, some of them want to kill each other bad or worse than they want to kill us. Its not so much of them coming at us, its getting us caught in the middle of a bloody civil feud. You know, the ones they don't talk about on Fox News.

As for the next election, lets just hope they cough up some better candidates or there's going to be a massive bullshit flag waving.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: its not just one enemy, though
[info]john_of_arabia
2005-08-19 10:48 pm UTC (link)
Whose election, theirs or ours? :oP

I agree with you, the threat of civil war is great. I just hope my ass is outta here before that happens.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: its not just one enemy, though
[info]insomnia
2005-08-20 01:41 am UTC (link)
Perhaps the big question should be this...

In what ways and to what extent do you believe that U.S.-approved actions since the beginning of the occupation have encouraged civil war and inflamed sectarian violence?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: its not just one enemy, though
[info]john_of_arabia
2005-08-20 02:57 am UTC (link)
You can argue that several mistakes were made.

Going in with too small of a force. Failing to safe guard the infrastructure. Disbanding the Iraqi Army.

On the other hand, things have been getting better for the Iraqi populace, and eventually this WILL be a stable country. If we had pulled out, or failing that, never invaded, hussein would be killing thousands more, or there would be a civil war going on.

You have to acknowledege that MUCH of the activity gainst US forces is being driven by Iran and other outside forces.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: its not just one enemy, though
[info]insomnia
2005-08-20 03:41 am UTC (link)
Although you are acknowledging a few of the basic strategic failings of the U.S. as far as inciting attacks on themselves, I don't think you're acknowledging anything really that the U.S. have done that help instigate sectarian violence. In other words, things that divide the Iraqis, and set one part of the Iraqi population against another...

As for MUCH of the activity is being driven by Iran, I don't see it as such. MUCH? All capital letters, even? No. I would say that small of the activity is being driven by Iran, and the VAST majority of the insurgents are of Iraqi origin. Likewise, the MAJORITY of foriegn fighters are from Saudi Arabia. The military's own statistics show this.

Although Iran does have a LOT of political influence in the south through SCIRI and other paramilitary groups, the latest reports on Iran indicate that it isn't known whether the Iranian government itself is assisting the insurgents. That said, there is clearly weaponry coming in from Iran, and some of that weaponry reflects the possible involvement of people who are either experienced with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards or Hezbollah. In other words, some improved bombmaking skills are being imported into Iraq. That's not unexpected, however, as there's plenty of money driving it throughout the Islamic world... again, most of that probably coming from the Saudis.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: its not just one enemy, though
[info]john_of_arabia
2005-08-20 04:47 am UTC (link)
I'd really love to educate you on who is doing what to whom, but I seriously doubt that you have a security clearance, and access to a SIPERNET account.

Suffice to say that Iran, Turkey, and Syria are doing an extremely good job of keeping the pot stirred in repsect to the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds. Yes, the Saudis are involved, but not through their governments.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: its not just one enemy, though
[info]js7a
2005-08-20 06:57 am UTC (link)
Why can't the Iraqi army be re-banded?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: its not just one enemy, though
[info]john_of_arabia
2005-08-20 07:56 pm UTC (link)
Working on it, although it takes a long time to build a professional fighting force.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: its not just one enemy, though
[info]insomnia
2005-08-20 01:46 am UTC (link)
Fortunately, NPR is covering the risk of civil war, and doing a pretty good job too.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]low_key
2005-08-19 05:09 pm UTC (link)
If I may be jaded for a moment.
All of this is very heartening, but...Republicans seem to be in control of who count the votes. This is combination with people who have more loyalty to their party than they do the U.S., it's traditions, or even it's system of laws and...I'm still a bit on the hopeless side.

(Reply to this)


[info]legolas
2005-08-19 08:44 pm UTC (link)
Is there any reason for Bush to try and remain popular? I mean, he can;t get re-elected anyway, and I'm not sure what ex-presidents normally do, but I don't think I've heard of any that become senator or do anything much politically anymore?

(Reply to this)

Bush's Coattails
[info]taosbat
2005-08-20 02:36 am UTC (link)
"Republican Party foreign policy expert Sen. Chuck Hagel is calling for the United States to open talks with Iran's new president and has dismissed President George W. Bush's talk of a military option against Tehran as an empty and foolish threat.

...

In an interview with Israeli television last week, Bush said 'all options are on the table' if the Iranians refuse to comply with international demands to halt their nuclear program, and noted that he has already used force to protect U.S. security.

Hagel's response to that implied threat was completely dismissive.

'Quite frankly, what is the military option, what are we talking about here? We lose credibility in the face of the world when we say things like, 'Well just don't forget what happened to Iraq could happen to you Iran. We could invade you, we could bomb you.''

Oh come on now. First of all, where are we going to get the troops? Who's going to go with us? Where are our partners going to be with Iran?"

I'm not sure what ex-presidents normally do, but I don't think I've heard of any that become senator or do anything much politically anymore?

They don't become Senators. Some, like Bush Sr., may peddle their influence to make $$$. Others, like Jimmy Carter use their prestige for good (Habatat For Humanity, Nobel prize-type good).

(Reply to this)


(24 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…