Buyers' remorse? Nasty poll numbers for Bush

[Guynemer]

Especially when one looks at it on a state-by-state basis:

http://www.surveyusa.com/50StatePOTUS0805.htm

Some highlights:

There are only nine states where Bush is at 50% or higher approval (and none of them >59%)--Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, Texas (only 54%!), Alabama, North Dakota, Montana, and Oklahoma.

Mississippi is the only other state where his approval is greater than his disapproval. (49%-47%)

Louisiana and North Carolina are a wash.

In every other state, Bush's disappoval numbers are greater than his approval numbers.

Indiana, Alaska(!), and Hawai'i have disapproval numbers < 50%, but still greater than approval.

The Red States where Bush is now down include (in increasing deficit): Indiana, Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, South Carolina, West Virginia, Arizona, South Dakota, Colorado, Florida, Tennessee, Virginia (down 10%), Kentucky, Iowa, New Mexico (15%), Arkansas, Nevada, Missouri (20%!), and Ohio (37%-60%!!!).



Just what exactly is going on here? What will this mean for the 2006 midterms? For 2008?

[Sava]

meh

it really doesn't matter

the election is over

dems might pick up some seats in 2006... but I doubt it will be a revenge of 1994.

2008? I shudder to think... Hillary versus whoever...

I'm voting against Hillary.

only because of GTA:San Andreas

[DaShi]

What does she kill Moms? I stopped playing when Sweet wanted to retake the old neighborhood. **** that. I own a casino now.

[Guynemer]

[Sava]

[Ted Striker]

Let the Good Times Roll!!!!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Very interesting.

I'm not sure how much impact it will have on 2006. History says that the Prez's party looses seats at midterm, but that wasn't true in either 2002 or 1998. I think incumbents who have been very vocal in their support of the administration will be vulnerable, but the incumbent advantage seems to be getting stronger every year.

Effect on 2008 is also hard to predict. The 2008 GOP nominee will not be coming directly out of the Bush administration, and no likely nominee is actually a hard-core Bushie. But if the war is still going on, and going badly, then the advantage will go to someone who didn't overtly support the Bush administration, or who at leastcredibly challenged them when things went south. That could be McCain for the GOP. For the Dems -- most of whom, including Hilary, jumped on the war bagwagon and can thus be painted as "flip-floppers" -- the big winner could be Bill Richardson who, as a governor, will be untarred by any association with the war.

[RGBVideo]

I doubt Republicans will lose Congress next year, Democrats simply don't have enough spinmeistering talent to transfer dislike of Bush to a dislike of Republican reps and senators... and if they make the war as their major campaign issue while refusing to take an exact stand on what to do about it, they could actually lose seats.

So I don't think approval ratings of the President (even when <40%) matter when it comes to congressional elections.

Bush could get shot, though.

[Ted Striker]

Hillary is going to win in 2008.

The neocons have made their move and outflanked the Clinton camp, but the Clinton camp is better at this game than they are.

Believe me she's already addressing the issues people are raising against her, mainly the likability factor by Reactionary white men.

People are fed up.

[mrmitchell]

It should be noted AR is near the bottom for Bush approval amongst states that went for him in 2004....

Let me rephrase that. AR is always at the bottom of things. It is near the top of disapproval amongst states that went for him in 2004. Much better.

It won't get any better for Bush and the gang, either. What are the approval numbers on the Iraq war now? Somewhere around 0%?

[chequita guevara]

Don't blame me. I voted Socialist!

[Kuciwalker]

Why not? If more of you had voted Kerry we wouldn't have Bush

[Bosh]

The Republicans will definately lose seats in 2006, there was recently an election in the very reddest Ohio district to replace the US's new trade rep. The dem candidate there called Bush a chickenhawk and was generally STRONGLY anti-bush and he just barely lost. If the dems can put even extremally red districts like that into play things're gunna hurt for the Repubs in 2006, especially in Ohio where the state GOP party is imploding.

What the dems need to do is emphasize corruption, since there's been so many state and congressional GOP corruption scandals lately, but as usual they don't have the balls and/or are busy covering their own asses...

[RGBVideo]

What the dems need to do is emphasize corruption, since there's been so many state and congressional GOP corruption scandals lately, but as usual they don't have the balls and/or are busy covering their own asses...

Bush's 1st term was filled with corruption scandals (Enron & California oil crisis, Halliburton & Iraq war, etc), too; but the Democrats had found more important things to stress in their campaign... such as homosexual marriage (go figure), raising taxes (but hey, only for "the rich"!) and whining about a war where just barely 1k US troops had died.

[Theben]

That's the dems problem for the last 4 years. ALthough the repugs suck the dems haven't stood for anything.