I respect the Rasmussen organization, but I’d like to know the geographic spread of this ongoing poll: is it weighted in some way or are we seeing the views of those living in the most populous cities in the most populous states? It wouldn’t surprise me if a growing number of people in NYC, LA, SF, Chicago, Atlanta, Boston, Philadelphia are becoming more aligned with the Democratic Pary, but this tells us nothing about the Electoral College, the only poll that counts in November. If states like NY, IL, CA, MA (but not PA due to Pittsburgh and western PA) are even more generically Dem today than they were in 2004, that makes sense to me, but so what? It will still come down to the pros and cons of McCain vs. Obama (or Hillary) than down to party ID.
The most a poll of this sort can tell us, if anything, is that if voters cast their ballots on party ID lines, the Dems would win by bigger percentages this time in the states they carried last time. But does anyone here seriously think that Obama—especially after all that’s gone down in the past few months—will carry any Southern state? I guess one can make a case that 1-2 small Southern states might go blue, but I doubt it. More likely, many voters will look at McCain, look at Obama or Hillary, then choose primarily on the candidate’s individual qualities and not primarily on party ID. I think this makes more sense than looking at head to head polls nationwide or party ID contests. Viewed electorally, the snapshot I see today is a solid South plus a few key battleground states (OH, PA, maybe a few others too) breaking for McCain.
I am not sure if any of the MSM have done any polls on their approval rating, but I would guess that they would be lower than President Bush’s. So exactly why do we care what they say?
Bush has his failures but the failure of a Republican Congress to make the case they can be trusted to perform better than the busload of clowns currently in power, is not one of them.
Over and over again at many different sites and pontificated in the media I read and hear how the Republicans are going to do so bad and have such negative reactions from the American people.
For the life of me I can’t understand why they think the Democrats are so much better. What is it that gives them this respect? Reid? Pelosi? The Democratic Congress? They certainly don’t have an econmouic plan. In fact I know of few answers they provide for Americas problems.
What is it that makes them think Democrats are better leaders?
It is weird how all the pundits never address this issue.
While the data is discouraging, your conclusion is neither explained nor supported and is certainly not obvious. Triangulation (which I don’t support) draws on the fact that there are fewer Republicans and fewer Bush supporters so the need to capture Democrats and Independents who don’t like the Dem. candidate is necessary. It is when there are lots of Republicans and Bush admires that it is less necessary. While you are, of course, entitled to your opinions, this post is part of a disturbing trend of announcing views (without giving any basis to believe them) contrary to other views for which lots of support is given. See, for example, << I disagree with Krauthammer to the extent he suggests Obama’s Philadelphia speech on the subject was insincere or fraudulent. In my view, the speech was pretty honest by political standards>>. If this is based on intuition or demeanor then fine-- but it should be labeled as such. It is when people think their views are of great value even when there is no support that it is time to get egos in check.
I don’t think all the blame goes to Bush. I think a lot of it should go to his own party and certain high profile members who are more than willing to stab Bush in the back. People like Malkin and Noonan have been just as nasty as any Democrat. And even limbaugh has his own agenda. Bush has to be president to all the people, or try to and yet he can not even count on loyalty from his own if he fails to suck up to them..the way they think he should. On issues like immigration they did not just disagree, they were frothing at the mouth. In fact hardliners insisted on making illegal immigration the big issue in 2006 thinking it would work for them. Well did it?
And now they are doing the same thing to McCain. They bitch about him just about as much as the Democrats. That is why they are losing party ID.
I support President Bush and I think that most people consider him a decent man, they are just tired of the war and pissed off about the price of gas.
I do not have a link handy, but I read last year that the media has an approval rating in the low teens. The Democratic Congress is 10 points behind Bush. The only institution that had majority support was the military.
President Bush may be correct in believing that history will recognize his achievements, but history will also record that his administration’s inept efforts at self-defense resulted in a Democratic Congress that is poised to do severe damage to America’s economy and national security.
What? Bush didn’t do the GOP any favors in 2006 but to blame him for the entire debacle isn’t fair at all. The RNC and incumbent Senators and congressman bear the brunt of that *ss kicking. There is also plenty of blame to go around to GOP pundits like Hewett and the rest of the crew at Townhall. Instead of being critical of the RNC and their treatment of conservatives, they decided it was better to be cheerleaders when everyone else seen the writing on the wall. Then to add further insult to injury, conservatives again took the majority of venom from pundits for not turning out to vote.
So what did the RNC and the rest of the GOP leadership learn from 2006? Not a damn thing. We’re again stuck with a weak candidate that more then likely is going to get crushed in the general election and take more seats away in Congress as a extra kick in the groin for conservatives.
I don’t think the problem was butt kissing at all, it was just the opposite. Conservatives are not a majority, not at all. And yet they seem to think that if the Republicans go further right then somehow that is a sign of strength.
But the truth is the Republicans nominated McCain because they preferred him to the other candidates, if conservatives do not like that then they can continue to punish the Republican party. That will be good news for the Democrats.
In 2006 the Congress was lost because of corruption and because of too many conservatives ignored the fact that most Americans are moving left and went right instead. Their use of issues of like immigration and their willingness to eat their own was not a sign of strength but petty infighting. And people turned away from that.
McCain is willing to voice support for Republican issues like free trade in spite of the fact that the public is moving away from that. He is not a believer in tax hikes and he is a fiscal conservative. He is strong on national security. If Republicans do not get behind their candidate and support him, rather than joining forces with the Democrats to criticize him they will continue to lose ground. They look like rats deserting a sinking ship when they eat their own. It is not attractive and not inspiring.
And besides, if conservatives can not come up with someone better who can win they do not need to be complaining about the guy who gets the nomination.
I’m always amused when the percentage of people who disapprove of the job Bush is doing is cited to suggest that a similar percentage of people would choose a Democrat President to replace him. I am extremely disapproving of the job Bush has done--by which I mean I disapprove of overspending, failing to (among other things) push through privatization of social security (with a feckless Republican majority that desperately needed to be led), failing to secure our borders and enforce immigration law, as well as giving in to a variety of leftist feel good ideas. Trust me, I am NOT looking for a President who is less fiscally conservative or less keen on treating the border issue as an essential national security concern. Presumably some of those polled who “disapprove” of the job Bush is doing see the situation as I do.
Alas, I will not have the option to vote for someone whose approach to the issues important to ME recommends him/her at all. So I will hold my nose and vote against Obama, although I’m not at all sure that it wouldn’t be a better idea to let McCain sink so the leftists have their way for 4 years (presuming an even larger majority of Democrats in the Congress), produce misery and disaster, after which everyone will run in the other direction--back toward fiscal and international sanity. If it weren’t for the judiciary I’d feel better about this scorched earth strategy....
It seems to me that it’s inevitable that the Democrat majority in Congress will increase; possible-as the electorate gets to know Barry Obama and his friends-- that McCain will prevail; possible-but not probable given that scenarios-that there will be pushback against the legislature’s left wing agenda. Gridlock of sorts is about the best we can hope for in the near future.
Terrye
If your focus is “How do we enrich and empower the Republican political machine as currently constituted” then your agenda of pandering and playing to the prevailing winds is sensible.
If you’ve “got your own agenda” like us, and want no amnesty, regulated immigration, tax cuts, less government subsidies, free trade, a strong defense, fewer government regulation of industry, a barrier to Luddite ecodrivel, reduction of entitlement spending...then the Republican Party is no advocate. There are individual Republicans sympathetic but they will be frustrated by a party with only one plank: say and do whatever to get elected without trying too hard.
You see this is my point. People are complaining about losing elections. They are complaining about not being popular. Then instead of finding out what matters the most to people, they lay down the law to them, start lecturing them about amnesty or something and are pissed when they lose.
There were people out there who whine about a Democrat winning but they deliberately went out of their way to damn near ruin a war time Republican president over Dubai Ports, immigration and Harriet Miers.
It is self defeating.
BTW, Obama supports drivers licenses for illegals. Hillary is not the least bit shy about saying she will not crack down on sanctuary cities and thanks in large part to Republicans themselves one of these bozos stands a damn good chance of being the next president. So what does that tell you?
Maybe the American people need to be convinced, not lectured to.
Maybe the American people need to be convinced, not lectured to.
Seems to me the only campaigning you guys do is to convince us conservatives to give up. You’re not trying to promote our agenda to the American public. You’re explaining why, as a conclusion, the agenda is dead, and therefore we need to get in line.
Your take on immigration isn’t that McCain was really right on the policy, but just that, as a postulate, amnesty was the coming thing and we must therefore get behind it in some fashion. That’s really the only style the New Republicans bring. “Look, you lost already. Let’s sit on the couch with Cisco Nan so we get supporting actor credit.”
If the Democratic Party won, it wouldn’t promote policies I like. I’m not a Democrat and I don’t vote for their candidates.
If the Socialist Party won, it wouldn’t promote policies I like. I’m not a Socialist and I don’t vote for their candidates.
If the Green Party won, it wouldn’t promote policies I like. I’m not a Green and I don’t vote for their candidates.
If the Libertarian Party won, it wouldn’t promote policies I like. I’m not a Libertarian and I don’t vote for their candidates.
If the Republican Party wins, it won’t promote policies I like...I’m no longer a Republican…
