59, 60, 61 and counting

by Chris Bowers, Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 01:51:05 PM EST

Yet another barrier broken. Three new approval polls for Bush today, and two of them show him at 60% disapproval or higher. AP-Ipsos pegs Bush at 37-59, ABC-WaPo pegs him at 39-60, and Zogby find him at 39-61. So, throw in yesterday's CBS poll, and here are the four approval polls to come out this week:
Poll	  Approve     Disapprove    Strongly Dis
Zogby	     39 		61	      41
ABC	     39 		60	      47
AP	     37 		59	      42
CBS	     35 		57	      NA
Wow. It almost makes me want to cry when I think about how much we needed these polls last year. Well, better late than never, I suppose.

UPDATE (Scott): Interesting to note that the WaPo poll has returned to asking if voters agree with the statement, "he is honest and trustworthy." For the first time, a majority of Americans now believe that Bush is not honest and trustworthy by a margin of 58-to-40%. Unsurprising, but reassuring to see.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)

  • 31 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

31 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Ask and Ye shall receive
Chris:  "This is fantastic, but Bush can be pushed even lower. I'd still like to see 60% disapproval for one."  Nice call, dude.
by PatriotAct1984 2005-11-03 02:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Remind me, again
How did Kerry lose to this guy?
by danielj 2005-11-03 02:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remind me, again
People are sheep
by jrflorida 2005-11-03 03:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remind me, again
No, that's a facile answer.  We lost because we convinced voters to fire Bush, but not to hire Kerry.
by Happy Talker 2005-11-03 03:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remind me, again
No... we lost because the GOP in Congress refused to hold investigations on the corrupt marketing of the war in Iraq.

This should have been aired before Nov., and that would have cost the election.  The congressional GOP members stole the election by their partisan non-oversight of the war.

by teknofyl 2005-11-03 04:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remind me, again
Either you accept responsibility for losing a very winnable race or you consign yourself to not learning from your mistakes.

You're not wrong about the GOP Senate, but then, it was to be expected that they would do that.  We needed to find a way around that obstacle, and we didn't.

by Happy Talker 2005-11-03 04:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remind me, again
You are exactly right. It's like these numbers above. One can think they mean that we will win next year, or one can think they mean we have a chance of winning, but in order to do so, we have take the necessaray steps toward achieving those wins.
by bruh21 2005-11-03 05:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remind me, again
Your kidding right.  It shouldnt have mattered who went up against Bush.  I would have voted for any one of the Dems had they gone up against him.  It matters that much.  Anyone was better than him, it was plain to see but non evangelicals were pulled in by him through fear mongering and fear of those horrible nasty wolves at the door.  That assumes evangelicals will go down fighting for him no matter  what.  The devil, when he raises his head (Im Agnostic so I kid), is going to proclaim himself a born again Christian and lead them straight over the cliff.  Don't they know that.  People are sheep.
by jrflorida 2005-11-03 04:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remind me, again
What we do matters.  If you don't accept that basic premise, you're a consumer of politics and not someone who seeks real change.
by Happy Talker 2005-11-03 04:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remind me, again
What we do matters?  Did I say it didn't?  I said it doesnt matter who goes up against the most pathetic President we've ever had.  A man everyone should have seen as the lieing piece of trash that he is years ago.  But instead, the sheep fall for all of the attacks.  They fell for the swiftboating, they fell for the faux terror alerts, they fell for the flag waving, they fell for the attacks on the press when they brought up evidence of Bush's past.  Nothing we do matters when people are so willing to be mislead.  People are sheep.
by jrflorida 2005-11-03 05:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remind me, again
I guess it depends on how you look it. I think they fail for it because we didn't fight it. Well, by "we" I mean Kerry. His heart was never fully in it. Not like the Kerry of the 70s who gave that great speech to Congress. I remember an early commentator who made a similar observation- he said Kerry can win this- depending on which Kerry shows up. If that passionate guy from the 70s who will give everything to win, then he can win, but if the candidate we saw in the earlier part of the primary shows up who tended to be conservative in his campaigning, then he will have a harder time winning. Remeber he was lethargic up until he got closer to the actual primary dates. He ran his general like that. He thought that he could just take a month off after the nomination process, and that's what killed him. He tried to recover with the debates- and he did- a bit, but the damage was already done.
by bruh21 2005-11-03 05:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remind me, again
Kerry lost because of failed ground strategy. That focused so much on urban areas they ceeded the rural, small towns and exburan areas to the republicans without a fight, making it almost impossible to win.
by orin76 2005-11-03 04:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remind me, again
Wow, that may be the best answer I heard.  Hopefully, Kerry will be the last guy that we support but aren't passionate about.  One credit you must give the Base of Bush supporters... they are passionate about their guy.  Dean would have provided that.  Based on his 2005 support, Clark would have inspired that.  Hell, I think Edwards would have inspired it.  In 2008, we need to fight for a guy who the Dems are passionate about.  I'd rather have a candidate that 35% of the Party is passionate about vs one that 45% thinks has the best chance to win.  Those passionate supporters will help convince the people that really don't care that much about politics and tune in around September.  

Just my 2 cents.

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-04 06:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remind me, again
I agree with what you're saying in principle, but I wonder if Dems will ever get that excited over anybody based on how Bushites come across as mindless, 'passionate' lemmings.The last time I was excited about a Presidential candidate was CLinton 96.
When the smoke is cleared Bush will have made a lot of people look  very ,very stupid. Being that Dems tend to be the thinkers, one may wonder if our very weary brain will let our longing hearts truly get hyped about a candidate.
People are excited about Howard Dean. That's because he represents the spirirt/conscience of the party. Under the very harsh scrutiny of a national campaign, folks are a lot less enthausiastic about the 5'8" screamer.
by Bruticus 2005-11-04 08:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remind me, again
Lemmings and passionate are two different things.  Think JFK passionate vs Bush Passionate.  I want JFK passionate.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-04 08:50AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remind me, again
Because this administration was really good at marketing, but really crappy at actually governing. Those who could have made the difference (our incompetent media among many others) sold their souls, hence the marketing plan could go to work unchallenged.
by Michael Bersin 2005-11-03 05:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remind me, again
where is our responsibility in that statement? are we accountable for our GOTV (as someone mention above) or our candidate who was lethargic until the fall or for not figuring out if he was a guy who would fight the Republicans every inch?
by bruh21 2005-11-03 05:40PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remind me, again
THe only responibility i feel is I didn't lead a revolt against the kerry campaign's little Tart Coordinator sooner. That I let them destory the organization we had set up before they came and that I let them waste thousands of hours in a city and only get decmial improvements over 2000. I'm sorry I let the Kerry campaign steal the workers out of my State Senate candidate campaign oh yes they did it without asking me, to waste even more time in a the city.

The only reason Kerry didn't lose Pennsylvania is because I was part of a revolt against the Kerry campaign's coordinators and the state party that keep the campaign data and worked the polls they didn't want us to.

IF people had revolted against the campaign's county coordinators in Ohio Kerry might have won there, and the election

by orin76 2005-11-03 07:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remind me, again
I worked in PA during the election - it was still a nightmare. I was amazed that contrary to what we were told, the Republicans had paperwork to get into the polling area, and that I couldn't verify with any field operator if that was indeed the case. I was also surprised by how bad the voting rolls were. Then again, I was surprised when I volunteered before hand how bad the voting rolls were for Democratic voters. In a lot of cases, the telephone numbers and addressess were several years old. One of the reasons I got behind Dean for DNC chair was that he was the only who seemed grasp that organization is organization no matter the arena. So, I guess I agree with you about what you are saying.
by bruh21 2005-11-03 07:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Because Kerry was a dumbass too?
The public at large hated both Bush and Kerry.  So, the tie goes to the incumbent.
by Geotpf 2005-11-04 01:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Strong disapproval rating
Next up: strong disapproval over 50%.

He's really toast if that comes to pass.

by coldeye 2005-11-03 03:09PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
With #s like this,
I find it hard to believe that there are enough Repubs willing to go the mat for a controversial Supreme Court nominee.  Are these guys really go to pull the nuclear option to ram through a nominee many believe would overturn Roe?  If Bush were widely popular, it might be worth it, but he's not.
by danielj 2005-11-03 03:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: With #s like this,
Good question.  One theory is they might go ahead and push for Alito because what do they have to lose.  

At this rate, they are going to lose some seats, possibly a lot.  They need to rally the base before they attempt to reclaim the middle in time for the election.  They have to do this sooner rather than later, and right now may be that time.  

by Eric11 2005-11-03 05:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
dubya needs a turnaround jumpshot...
from midcourt with :01 on the clock to pull out of this.

Yes, these are the worst of times but he has astonished me before.

And the reason is Rove. I loath him, but readily admit he is good.

dubya knows it, that's why he's standing by his turd blossom.

New on EWM: Kevin Bacon to play Libby in upcoming "Six Degrees of Scooter"

It's `Dumb and Dumber' meets `All the President's Men.'

by The Muse 2005-11-03 03:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Impeachment?
With a sitting prez-nit approaching 60% disapproval, at what point do the major pollsters ask the big question, "Should Bush be impeached?"  With his current numbers it's a joke that no one is asking the question.  What are they waiting for, a 50/50 split amongst the GOP?  Just give the boy time; I'm sure he can do it.
by BSelznick 2005-11-03 03:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Impeachment?
Probably because it is a waste of time.  

 Unpopularity isn't grounds for impeachment (although lying about a war could very well be, so stay tuned to the Libby trial).  Besides, the GOP isn't impeaching Bush.  Even if there was undeniable proof he broke the law and committed a felony, I still think they wouldn't impeach... They are just that kind of scum.  

Until there is undeniable proof that Bush broke the law OR the Dems control both houses, impeachment is not a possibility.

TOo bad they don't have presidential recall elections... THAT would be a success.

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-04 06:42AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
We need more than Dem control of both houses
We need 67 senators.  That's what it takes for a conviction.  Since only one third of the senators are up each term, and half of those up are already ours, and we are down by six, we will need a minimum of six Republican senators to vote for impeachment to remove Bush-and, more realistically, around a dozen.

Now, that doesn't mean the House won't impeach him sometime after January 2007-it just means conviction is impossible.  I'm also not sure if failed, back-to-back impeachments are good for the country.

by Geotpf 2005-11-04 01:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
That's all very well and good...
...but I work with people who tell me a.) one man with Jesus is a majority and b.) if the 35% own most of the guns, that's all that matters.

And there's 50 million more where they came from. Thank God only half of them vote.

So while it's good news, IMHO, America may consider its condition upgraded only from 'fucked' to 'screwed'.

by Davis X Machina 2005-11-03 04:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Run With It
I heard a smart observation recently: the Republicans are in the same position the Democrats were in in 1994, but the Democrats are not in the same position as the Republicans.

There were two keys to the Republican takover of Congress:

  1. They effectively civicted the Democrats of corruption in the court of public opinion.

  2. They offered clearly understandable alternative in the form of the Contract With America.

To take back Congress, we need to do the same.  Fortunately, the Republicnas are effectively doing the first part for us.  The corruption and incompetence of their leaders is is so plain that we need only repeat what the major newspapers finally have the courage to report.

The second part is where we really need to get to work.  You can't win by running nothing against something; this was Kerry's problem.  For whatever reason, the electorate was able to look at bush and say what they thought he stood for; it was much more difficult with Kerry.

The last Democratic President to win a majority of the popular vote was Jimmy Carter (Clinton won a plurality).  Carter was seen as a "values candidate" before the term even became popular, and  campaigned after the scandal-ridden Nixon years with a memorable promise that he would never lie to the American people.

Whatever specific issues are contained in Democratic campaigns in 2006, they must be presented in stark contrast to the secret, crony Republican government that listens only to insiders who are consistentley wrong and never take reponsibility.

Democrats have the oportunity to avoid a left-right conflict by promising competence further, they can redefine and sieze the moral high ground by promising openess, honesty, and reponsibility.

by Mudshark 2005-11-03 07:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Run With It
I think you're absolutely right, but you should probably remember that the Contract with America was actually only announced a few weeks before the election in 1994. If you announce your thematic platform for 2006 too early, you give the opposition too much time to triangulate your issues. You also run the risk that the winds will shift: what looks like a hot issue today might be replaced with an even more important set of issues in a year.

Now is the time to let the Republicans show us just how many issues they'll give us to run against. So far we have (a) quagmire in Iraq, along several dimensions; (b) the misguided attempt to mess up social security; (c) frontal assualt on privacy and personal liberty; (d) corruption, cronyism, and the wholesale pimping of government to corporate greed; (e) no child left behind leaving lots of children behind; (f) millions more in poverty--and a willingness to cut food stamps instead of pork. There will be quite a menu of options for any candidate to choose from.

You probably have a few (dozen) to add. Come about February or March of next year, that's the time to start the drumbeat.

Be assured...it's coming.

by EB 2005-11-04 05:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
New Goal
Push for 65%...  That is the new goal.

65% by next March

70% by next October.

Obviously, exceeding these goals is a good thing.

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-04 06:25AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------