 |
| |
|
|
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?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:37
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by VJ
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. |
Can I have some of what you're smoking?
The Dems, not wanting to give the GOP anything to beat them up with, didn't mention homosexual marriage at all, talked about "tax fairness" rather than taxing the rich, and talked -- quite accurately -- about how the administration had gone into Iraq without adequate planning and without an exit strategy.
The GOP, however, was brilliant (as usual) at putting words in the Dems' mouths -- and, apparently, yours.
I agree with Theben, but your characterization of the last campaign is lazy, sloppy, and false.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
I'm sure her policies are fine. Well, apart from her naive attitude to games.
I just can't stand political dynasties.
Last edited by Sandman on 24-08-2005 at 22:12
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-08-2005 07:15
|