Irvine511 said:... just to add to my above post, i think the war is less of an issue and what is more of the issue is each candidate's realtionship to the administration. did they support the war but are now critical? are they able to present the reality of the situation and stay away from the Pollyanna procolmations of George "we do not torture" Bush, Dick "last throes" Cheney, and Don "stuff happens" Rumsfeld?
i actually think the American people are going to be more nuanced about this than we might think. it's not, "Iraq: Good or Bad?" but more, "What would you have done differently?"
but either way, it reinforces the fact that Bush is utterly toxic to nearly everyone but the most conservative of Republicans, so unpopular is the man (approval ratings still in the mid to lower 30's)
Maoilbheannacht said:
The Presidents approval rating is actually at 40% in the latest Gallup poll and has been holding steady there for about a month now. For all the talk of political advantage that the democrats have, if they don't gain control of the Senate or the House in November, it will likely be seen as a major defeat, because of the pumped up expections. The fact is, the President and the Republicans are not as weak as the many think they are. Its unlikely the Democrats are going to have a landslide in the House and definitely not in the Senate. I'd say there is little to no chance they will take the Senate, and about a 50% chance they will take the House. But right now, victory is seen as a for gone conclusion. Lemont will actually probably lose to Lieberman in the general election making all the media hysteria over his win irrelevant by then.
Earnie Shavers said:From what I've gathered from afar, never underestimate the Democrats ability to completely fuck it up. Or the simplistic nature of many American voters.
Irvine511 said:
but what's also very relevant is the "disapproval" numbers, the 2nd number in this list. Bush has edged up to 40% after a full court press to improve his rating starting in late June, and the public has been recently distracted from the Iraq debacle by the current Israel/Lebanon crisis.
Bush's approval ratings remain at a record low for a 2nd termer, the previous lowest president (in the past 50 years) was Harry Truman at 41% at the midway point in his 2nd term.
ABC/Washington Post 8/3-6/06 40 58 2 -18
.
CNN 8/2-3/06 40 59 2 -19
.
L.A. Times/Bloomberg 7/28 - 8/1/06 40 58 2 -18
.
Cook/RT Strategies RV 7/28-30/06 39 51 10 -12
.
USA Today/Gallup 7/28-30/06 40 56 4 -16
.
CBS/New York Times 7/21-25/06 36 55 9 -19
.
NBC/Wall Street Journal 7/21-24/06 39 56 5 -17
.
USA Today/Gallup 7/21-23/06 37 59 4 -22
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Maoilbheannacht said:
Here are the historic lows for 2nd term Presidents in the Gallup poll:
-Truman: 22% mid-February, 1952
-Eisenhower: 49% mid-July, 1960
-Johnson: 35% early August, 1968
-Nixon: 24% mid-July, 1974, and early August, 1974
-George W. Bush: 31%* May, 2006
-George W. Bush: 40% late July, 2006
Of course, if the Republicans win the Senate and House in November, then all of this talk will fade away. People in 2008 will be to focused on all the various contests in both parties that will happen since this will be the first time in over 70 years that no one in the White House will be running for a Presidential election.
Maoilbheannacht said:-Truman: 22% mid-February, 1952
Maoilbheannacht said:
-Eisenhower: 49% mid-July, 1960
Maoilbheannacht said:
-Johnson: 35% early August, 1968
Maoilbheannacht said:
-Nixon: 24% mid-July, 1974, and early August, 1974
Maoilbheannacht said:
-George W. Bush: 31%* May, 2006
-George W. Bush: 40% late July, 2006
Irvine511 said:
but that is the lowest each has ever gone, at comparable points in each term of each 2nd term president over the past 50 years, Bush is by far the lowest.
[q] Bush could go back down, but he could also improve to the point that his approval number is just ahead of his disapproval number. If that happens, then one of the Democrats talking points will be gone. Its entirely possible that Bush could be where Eisenhower was in July 1960 by July 2008, the same period in his Presidency. [/q]
republicans have been saying this since December 2004. it's hard to imagine that they'll get much worse, i agree, barring any sort of exceptionally bad news.
which will be very intersting, i agree.
deep said:
and that his supporters are not to swift
deep said:
yes Truman was a loser
and in Nov 52 election, Ike GOP, handily won.
in Nov 60 election Nixon GOP got about the same and lost
These are W numbers, in Nov 68 Nixon GOP blew out Dem Humprey
with the Dems controlling congress Nixon was on the ropes for doing far less than Bush and Cheney have done
he left office on August 8? 1974
these numbers indicate that he is a loser in the eyes of the American people
if the GOP did not controlled congress he would have been driven from office, just like Nixon by now
by posting W with this group
it only proves that he no longer deserves to be in office
and that his supporters are not to swift
Maoilbheannacht said:
Truman did not run against IKE and while he has the record for the lowest approval rating for a President ever, history regards him as one of the greatest Presidents ever.
The 1960 election was one of the closest elections in history, much closer than the 2000 election.
The 1968 election was anything but a blow out with Nixon receiving 43.4% of the popular vote to Humphrey's 42.7%.
deep said:
Ike beat Stevensen
I said the American people rejected him (his party)
just like all the other losers on the list
1968 was 301 to 191 Electoral vote! 56% to 35%!
1960 was closer than 2000?
well, that just shows you believe some bullshit and haven't even bothered to look up 1960
it was not as close as you have been lied to
Maoilbheannacht said:If Bush is indeed the loser you claim he is, then we should see at a minimum Democratic Control of the House and Senate starting in January.
Maoilbheannacht said:
Actually those numbers were all during the 2nd term, which shows that Bush's 31% rating was far from being the lowest. Truman had by far the lowest at 22% 11 months before he left the office.
U2democrat said:As much as I would love to see Sen. Allen lose the senate race here in Virginia, he just has SO much more money and name recognition than Jim Webb. Who knows, people may get to the polls and want to change direction, but it's doubtful. I have hope in other areas though.
Irvine511 said:
garbage. that sets up precisely the expectation you've warned the Democrats against. people aren't voting on Bush, they are voting on their specific representative to Congress. close association to Bush, in many states, will severely harm the candidates, as in CT -- when i lived there, i routinely voted for Nancy Johnson, a Republican, because Republicans in the northeast aren't religious fanatics like Republicans from many southern and heartland states. and she's now doing all she can to distance herself from Bush.
Bush is indeed a lose for the myriad failures of his presidency, the biggest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam, his utter cluelessness in the greatest American natural disaster since Gavleston, his standing as an international embarassment, and the fact that his approval ratings have been suck well below 40% for well over a year and show no signs of climbing much higher especially as the Civil War in Iraq will start to escalate.
Irvine511 said:
how long was Truman below 40%?
Maoilbheannacht said:
Thats your opinion, not the opinion of the entire country. The fact of the matter is, most people do not regard Bush to be the loser you claim him to be which is precisely why Democrats should be lowering their expectations for November, contrary to the landslide everyone seems to be expecting.
Irvine511 said:
that's the opinion of nearly 60% of the country if we are to look at his strikingly high disapproval ratings which are every bit as important as his still anemic approval ratings.
and it seems to me that the only people "expecting" a landslide are Republicans so they can spin anything less than the total takeover as a crushing disappointment.
Maoilbheannacht said:
Its the Democrats who are predicting a landslide when they should be predicting an incredibly tough fight in order to mobilize volunteers to get out and work and get other more casual voters to the polls on November 7. If its, the President is lost, The Republicans are out of power already, there will be little motivation for the more casual supporters to volunteer and get to the polls in November. Mid-term elections are notorious for low voter turnout, so in an election like this, its even more important to motivate people to get out and vote.
If the Democrats really want to be a relevant party as opposed to a bunch of sidelined whiners, they need to end much of the division in their own party, and finally come out with a political victory in November. Polls, no matter how you interpret them, won't do that for you.