Survey USA 50-State Poll and the 2006 Election

[MtSmalls]

Survey USA released its second 50-state poll on the approval/disapproval of the job done by GWB.

LINK

Short version: He remains immensely popular with Republicans, but carries a net positive approval (%approval - %disapproval) in just 10 states, and only 8 outside the MOE.

Most significantly, he carries a net negative rating in Ohio (-23%), Pennsylvania (-16%) and Minnesota (-20%), which all have ket Senate races in 2006. He also carries a negative rating in Missouri, Arizona and Tennessee, which also could have competitive races.

Will the pResident be a significant anchor on the re-election hopes of his party???

[Matty]

The obvious answer is yes. However it won't be as much as it seems in '06 due to the low turnout rates in non-presidential election years.

I'd love to hear what these people who are voting 'no' are thinking.

[bobman0330]

1 year is a long time for things to change. He was only re-elected 9 months ago.

Republicans are in a very vulnerable position, mainly due to the war. There's a possibility that the Democrats could take both houses in 06. However, that's far from a sure thing. If the Democrats get totally consumed in anti-Bush rhetoric, they won't gain nearly as much as they could. That's not to say they shouldn't talk a lot about how bad Bush is, but also that they need to articulate why they would be better. If you look to 94 as a model, Gringrich et al. talked a lot about Hillarycare and Whitewater, but they also had the Contract with America, which had several concrete ideas about how they would make the country better.

Democratic strategists know this, of course, and It'll be interesting to see what they come up with. In one sense, it's tough to come up with anything new they could do in Iraq, since it's been messed up so much already. Short of pulling out, which likely won't be a popular option, there's not a lot of wiggle room in our strategy. Send more troops? Do what Bush is doing, except better? Attack Iran?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
In one sense, it's tough to come up with anything new they could do in Iraq, since it's been messed up so much already. Short of pulling out, which likely won't be a popular option, there's not a lot of wiggle room in our strategy. Send more troops? Do what Bush is doing, except better? Attack Iran?

[/ QUOTE ]

I respect your point of view but I must point out that you seem to be implying that the Democrats must pander in the right way. IMO this is exactly why the Democrats are losing national elections. For instance the Republicans actually believe in "democracy" for Iraq while the Democrats don't seem to believe in that at all. It's difficult to have a message stating that the people of Iraq aren't capable of establishing a "democratic" government and thus U.S. military action is unwarranted in acheiving those ends. Put another way, that people in Iraq aren't worth our concern since they're destined to be ruled by oppressive governments. I know that you'll respond to this intelligently but I expect the usual cattle calls of Bush imperialism from other that respond. If the Democrats really believe in the concept of "democracy" in Iraq then they need to put something worthwhile on the table. Howard Dean, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton believe in this notion? I don't think so but I'm willing to listen to what Hillary has to say.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
I respect your point of view but I must point out that you seem to be implying that the Democrats must pander in the right way.IMO this is exactly why the Democrats are losing national elections.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the big reason the democrats are losing elections is that no one is really sure anymore what the democrats believe in. They flip and flop around so much and say so many contradictory things. Take Dean & Clinton as examples – Dean paints the party line as just to the left of Mao, while Clinton is trying to portray herself as a semi-conservative. In addition the modern democratic party is composed of several fragmented groups, like the NAACP, Move-on, NAARL, NOW, and so on. While the republicans have some fragmentation, it’s not nearly as pronounced as the democrats

Another issue is that the democratic message is mostly negative, angry, and sounds of sour grapes, while the republican message is mostly positive. Which one is correct is a matter of opinion – that’s not the point of this message.

More - over the past 40-50 years the democrats won vote by “carroting” to these fragmented groups – “vote for us and we’ll stop the eeevil republicans from doing <whatever> to your group, and we will make things better for you. A lot of the people in these groups are realizing that they aren’t better off and that the republicans aren’t quite so eeevil.

Lastly – the left has had an iron lock on the print and broadcast media. This has changed. You are not constantly bombarded with the editorial opinion of the New York Times or the Washington Post.

I believe that all of these and more have contributed to the collapse of democrat power.



I did all that and didn’t even inject my opinion that the real reason is the democrats are just plain wrong! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Another issue is that the democratic message is mostly negative, angry, and sounds of sour grapes, while the republican message is mostly positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who would actually think that anger motivates Republican voters? Clearly, only Democrats are motivated by anger.

We all know Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, et al have made million-dollar careers out of appealing to Republicans' inherent positive and optimistic nature. [/sarcasm]

And as far as "sour grapes" goes, I think you just used it wrong;

Sour grapes is disparaging something you truly want, but have discovered is impossible to attain.

Sour grapes = if you applied for a job, but didn't get it - then you said "Oh, well, that job was stupid anyway"

If you're claiming Democrats flip-flop, are angry, are negative etc. - that's not a 'sour grapes' attitude.

If Democrats lost elections, but then pretended they didn't want to win, then that would legitimately be sour grapes. What you're describing isn't a 'sour grapes attitude', though.

I guess that Republicans weren't motivated by anger during the 90s, when they criticized Clinton during a time of war.

Let me repeat that for those who missed it:

Those traitorous Republican bastards criticized Clinton during a time of war. They questioned his motives for the war in the Balkans and impugned his integrity, although they had a lot of evidence for thinking that Clinton's motives were not pure. Well Democrats have a lot of evidence concerning Bush's motives as well. Stop being hypocrites.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
We all know Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, et al have made million-dollar careers out of appealing to Republicans' inherent positive and optimistic nature. [/sarcasm]


[/ QUOTE ]
That wasn't my point - and I mentioned nothing about motivation. Regardless of motivation, truth, or anything else, the democrats are coming across as spoiled pouting little children, with a very negative and angry message. I still believe this is hurting them.

Your response is a great example – Instead of responding to the analysis in the context of the thread(why are the democrats losing ?)with your thoughs on why the democrats are losing ground, you make a disparaging and sarcastic remark, then nitpick a minor point, but add nothing substantial to the discussion

Another big one – The democrats get someone to listen to their message and they (the listener) says “ OK Bush and the Republicans are eeevil and what they are doing is bad. What’s the Democrat solution?” They don’t have an answer All they’ve got are complaints, personal attacks and nitpicks.

Sour grapes - Democrats want a majority in congress and they want the White House. They disparage them because they can't get them - usage is correct.

Again – this is not an ideological discussion. I’m just looking at why I think the Democrats are losing (and will continue to lose) seats in congress and will not take the White House (unless the Republicans run a really horrible candidate (like Bob Dole or Michael Dukakass)

So, why do you think they are losing?

[zipo]

>>Republicans are in a very vulnerable position, mainly due to the war. <<

The current situation in Iraq isn't helpful for the President, of course.

However, the high price of gas and the resulting inflation pressure which will result in a significant rise in interest rates. This rise in rates will have a tremendous negative impact upon real estate prices, which in turn will cripple consumer spending which has kept the economy afloat, as this spending has been fueled largely by consumers cashing equity out of their homes.

This may or may not become acute by 2006, but certainly by 2008 the economic impact of this on the political scene will be dramatic.