November Elections

[Irvine511]

[q]Poll: Bush may be hurting Republicans By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press Writer
51 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Republicans determined to win in November are up against a troublesome trend — growing opposition to President Bush.

An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted this week found the president's approval rating has dropped to 33 percent, matching his low in May. His handling of nearly every issue, from the Iraq war to foreign policy, contributed to the president's decline around the nation, even in the Republican-friendly South.

More sobering for the GOP are the number of voters who backed Bush in 2004 who are ready to vote Democratic in the fall's congressional elections — 19 percent. These one-time Bush voters are more likely to be female, self-described moderates, low- to middle-income and from the Northeast and Midwest.

Two years after giving the Republican president another term, more than half of these voters — 57 percent — disapprove of the job Bush is doing.

"The numbers ... are similar to what I'm hearing out in the streets," said Democrat Ed Perlmutter, a primary winner Tuesday in a competitive House race in Colorado. "I talked to so many people and they've had enough and want to see a change."

Democrats need to gain 15 seats in the House to seize control after a dozen years of Republican rule, and the party is optimistic about its chances amid diminishing support for Bush and the GOP-led Congress.

Republicans argue that elections will be decided in the 435 districts and the 33 Senate races based on local issues with the power of incumbency looming large.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060811/ap_on_el_ge/republicans_ap_poll

[/q]

 

[nbcrusader]

Bush fatigue.

Clinton fatigue.

Sounds like part of the political cycle.

 

[Irvine511]

Bush fatigue.

Clinton fatigue.

Sounds like part of the political cycle.

and what were Clinton's end-of-term approval ratings?

 

[nbcrusader]

If Democrats were distancing themselves from what you suggest is a popular Clinton, then Republicans distancing themselves from an unpopular Bush (or Iraq) should be no big surprise.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

You know, any time Republicans start massively giving out advice to the left about what they should do if they want to win as if from the goodness of their heart, it's a pretty good sign they're starting to smell the coffee brewing.

Where did I say that I was a Republican?

 

[Irvine511]

If Democrats were distancing themselves from what you suggest is a popular Clinton, then Republicans distancing themselves from an unpopular Bush (or Iraq) should be no big surprise.

when did Democrats distance themselves from Clinton? post-Lewinsky, perhaps, but wasn't Gore's biggest mistake to distance himself too much from 8 years of peace and prosperity and Clinton's all-around stellar international reputation?

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

no, it is not the Democrats who are predicting a landslide -- it's various media pundits, fueled by Republicans who are pitching the *exact* same lines/Rove talking points that you've posted. i think it would be a mistake to view this election as a referendum solely on Bush. voters are choosing candidates and generally evaluate the candidates not just on party affiliation, but on a variety of issues, and in many states, close association with George Bush, whether by a Republican or Democrat, is political poison.

and let's not forget, the system has been gerrymandered to the extreme, by both parties.

Well its at best a combination of both. I've seen several Democratic "experts" and politicians predicting a landslide in November because of George W. Bush and his bad poll numbers.

Its true that there are other issues involved, but I think these elections are a more accurate pulse of how the nation feels about the President than a random poll of a few hundred people. The 1994 "Republican Revolution" was widely seen as a rejection of Bill Clintons first two years in office rather than a new found enthusiasm for Republicans and the contract with America. That does not mean other factors were not important, but the most important one was Bill Clinton and his performance in the first two years in office.

 

[Irvine511]

Its true that there are other issues involved, but I think these elections are a more accurate pulse of how the nation feels about the President than a random poll of a few hundred people. The 1994 "Republican Revolution" was widely seen as a rejection of Bill Clintons first two years in office rather than a new found enthusiasm for Republicans and the contract with America. That does not mean other factors were not important, but the most important one was Bill Clinton and his performance in the first two years in office.

while that's true to some extent -- and also to the much maligned "Hillarycare" -- i think there was a massive anti-incumbancy movement in 1994 after 40-odd years of Democratic control. many point to the parallels between today and 1994, especially when you consider that Congressional approval ratings are in the 20's, even worse than Bush. the Republicans also deserved credit in 1994 for mobilizing their troops and getting people to turn out. 1994 was also when the Republicans began to see the fruit of their labors creating the now talked-about "echo chamber" of pundits, talk radio, and (today) websites. the foundation for that was laid out in the 1980s as well as the strategic alignment between pro-business interests and evangelical Christianity, with George Bush being the logical candidate to keep this extremely tenuous relationship together. that's what he was supposed to do -- as a filthy rich oil man from Old Money who recently found Jesus in Texas, Bush was supposed to be the man who could speak to all elements of the party, much like Clinton could skillfully speak to each of the various minority groups that comprise the Left (especially to African-Americans and poor white women).

today, we've seen the Left start to build a sort of intellectual infastructure on par with the Right (Michael Moore, Air America, Kos), but it remains to be seen if it will be as effective as the Right has been.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

[q]Poll: Bush may be hurting Republicans By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press Writer
51 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Republicans determined to win in November are up against a troublesome trend — growing opposition to President Bush.

An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted this week found the president's approval rating has dropped to 33 percent, matching his low in May. His handling of nearly every issue, from the Iraq war to foreign policy, contributed to the president's decline around the nation, even in the Republican-friendly South.

More sobering for the GOP are the number of voters who backed Bush in 2004 who are ready to vote Democratic in the fall's congressional elections — 19 percent. These one-time Bush voters are more likely to be female, self-described moderates, low- to middle-income and from the Northeast and Midwest.

Two years after giving the Republican president another term, more than half of these voters — 57 percent — disapprove of the job Bush is doing.

"The numbers ... are similar to what I'm hearing out in the streets," said Democrat Ed Perlmutter, a primary winner Tuesday in a competitive House race in Colorado. "I talked to so many people and they've had enough and want to see a change."

Democrats need to gain 15 seats in the House to seize control after a dozen years of Republican rule, and the party is optimistic about its chances amid diminishing support for Bush and the GOP-led Congress.

Republicans argue that elections will be decided in the 435 districts and the 33 Senate races based on local issues with the power of incumbency looming large.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060811/ap_on_el_ge/republicans_ap_poll

[/q]

The article you posted above seems to refute your suggestion that its the Republicans who are playing up the idea of a big Democratic victory in November. According to the article, it seems your position is closer to what they claim the Republicans think about these issues.

According to the Democrats and the polls above, the November election is indeed sort of a referendum on the President meaning a victory for the Democrats in November will be a defeat for the President and a verification of what the polls have been suggesting. Likwise, a defeat for the Democrats will be a victory for the President and will refute the relevance of the widely cited poll numbers.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

while that's true to some extent -- and also to the much maligned "Hillarycare" -- i think there was a massive anti-incumbancy movement in 1994 after 40-odd years of Democratic control. many point to the parallels between today and 1994, especially when you consider that Congressional approval ratings are in the 20's, even worse than Bush. the Republicans also deserved credit in 1994 for mobilizing their troops and getting people to turn out. 1994 was also when the Republicans began to see the fruit of their labors creating the now talked-about "echo chamber" of pundits, talk radio, and (today) websites. the foundation for that was laid out in the 1980s as well as the strategic alignment between pro-business interests and evangelical Christianity, with George Bush being the logical candidate to keep this extremely tenuous relationship together. that's what he was supposed to do -- as a filthy rich oil man from Old Money who recently found Jesus in Texas, Bush was supposed to be the man who could speak to all elements of the party, much like Clinton could skillfully speak to each of the various minority groups that comprise the Left (especially to African-Americans and poor white women).

today, we've seen the Left start to build a sort of intellectual infastructure on par with the Right (Michael Moore, Air America, Kos), but it remains to be seen if it will be as effective as the Right has been.

Much of the Republican media base had been in place long before the 1994 elections, and their showing in the 1992 elections does not seem to support that these efforts were the key to what happened in 1992. The big difference in 1994 was the Clinton administration and its performance, the other factors were more or less in place already in 1992 and before.

 

[Irvine511]

The article you posted above seems to refute your suggestion that its the Republicans who are playing up the idea of a big Democratic victory in November. According to the article, it seems your position is closer what they claim the Republicans think about these issues.

According to the Democrats and the polls above, the November election is indeed sort of a referendum on the President meaning a victory for the Democrats in November will be a defeat for the President and a verification of what the polls have been suggesting. Likwise, a defeat for the Democrats will be a victory for the President and will refute the relevance of the widely cited poll numbers.

you're right, i don't agree with the democrats in this article.

but, then again, with his approval numbers so low once again, perhaps it is more of a referendum on Bush than i originally thought.

still, i really do think people vote for candidates, and as i've said repeatedly, i've voted for several Republicans over the years because i thought they were the best people for the job, and if i were living in CT, i wouldn't not vote for Nancy Johnson simply because i think Bush is a horror of a human being and the walking manifestation of everything that's wrong with America.

but then again, NJ did support the war in Iraq -- i no longer live in CT, but i would be examining her positions on the war in greater detail if i did.

my father is in CT, and he's in many ways quite liberal -- he voted for Carter in '80, Mondale in '84, Dukakis in '88 -- and hugely opposed to the war in Iraq. my mother is a registered Republican, was a "Goldwater Girl" as a teenager, and gets physically ill at the sight of George Bush. she's referred to him as the "fraternity brother who arranges the date rape party." and she's totally right.

anyway, here's what my father had to say about the Liberman/Lamont thing:

[q]After a lot of thought, I voted for Liebermann.......while I disagree with his stand on the war and stem cell research, I do believe he's been true to the Democrats most of the time, and does have the seniority to be much more influential on behalf of Connecticut than a rookie senator. I think that this race taught him a lesson about keeping in touch with his constituents. I really
was not impressed with Lamont - his approach to the war is a bit naive, and he has no real substance. He's held no significant political office, nor developed or driven a political cause. What's he done but make money ( by deveolping a premium cable company - now that's a social conscience !!), volunteer in a few
underserved schools( when you have $20 M , it's easy to volunteer ) and join a very not diverse country club in Greenwich ? Does that earn you the right to be in the most exclusive club in the country ? I think that if he should win, he will be blown away by the tough politics of Washington - it's no Greenwich, and he's not been anywhere else.[/q]

anyway, i hope most voters give their votes as much thought as my father does.

but we'll see.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

you're right, i don't agree with the democrats in this article.

but, then again, with his approval numbers so low once again, perhaps it is more of a referendum on Bush than i originally thought.

still, i really do think people vote for candidates, and as i've said repeatedly, i've voted for several Republicans over the years because i thought they were the best people for the job, and if i were living in CT, i wouldn't not vote for Nancy Johnson simply because i think Bush is a horror of a human being and the walking manifestation of everything that's wrong with America.

but then again, NJ did support the war in Iraq -- i no longer live in CT, but i would be examining her positions on the war in greater detail if i did.

my father is in CT, and he's in many ways quite liberal -- he voted for Carter in '80, Mondale in '84, Dukakis in '88 -- and hugely opposed to the war in Iraq. my mother is a registered Republican, was a "Goldwater Girl" as a teenager, and gets physically ill at the sight of George Bush. she's referred to him as the "fraternity brother who arranges the date rape party." and she's totally right.

anyway, here's what my father had to say about the Liberman/Lamont thing:

[q]After a lot of thought, I voted for Liebermann.......while I disagree with his stand on the war and stem cell research, I do believe he's been true to the Democrats most of the time, and does have the seniority to be much more influential on behalf of Connecticut than a rookie senator. I think that this race taught him a lesson about keeping in touch with his constituents. I really
was not impressed with Lamont - his approach to the war is a bit naive, and he has no real substance. He's held no significant political office, nor developed or driven a political cause. What's he done but make money ( by deveolping a premium cable company - now that's a social conscience !!), volunteer in a few
underserved schools( when you have $20 M , it's easy to volunteer ) and join a very not diverse country club in Greenwich ? Does that earn you the right to be in the most exclusive club in the country ? I think that if he should win, he will be blown away by the tough politics of Washington - it's no Greenwich, and he's not been anywhere else.[/q]

anyway, i hope most voters give their votes as much thought as my father does.

but we'll see.

The country is more polarized today along party lines and geographic location than perhaps at any time in our history.

I think you will see a lot more people filling in either the Republican oval or the Democratic oval(which cast votes for all members of that party on the ballot) and not really examining the individual races this November. Its fast an easy, which fits in better with our culture that now gets impatient with slow internet speed and can't live without a cell phone.

At the same time, this is a mid-term election with typically lower voter turnout. This means that serious voters or political junkies make up a larger percentage of total voters.