What happens when *'s numbers drop into the 30's?

[brooklynite]

Bush's favorable rating has been bumping in the low-mid 40% range, with three years of his term to go, with the Iraq war not getting better, gas prices continuing to rise, and a potential economic stall in the future. This suggests it's inevitable that at some point his favorables are going to drop into the 30's range, which is a pretty dramatic threshhold to cross. What's he going to do then?

[Deja Q]

1. See my posts of late, this morning.

[mitchum]

2. Another MIHOP, but this time in "the heartland"

gotta rally the base, y'know

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. but won't that make his numbers even worse?

I mean, one reason many folks give for keeping on supporting him is that there has been no terrorist attack-Bush has kept us safe, so whatever he does is fine. If there is an attack, this reasoning goes away, especially if the aftermath is handled as poorly as 911 was.

[mitchum]

11. You are correct, but it would rally them momentarily...

and that fits in with the tactics of this short-sighted administration. Little Georgie may be a dry drunk, but he still seems to embrace the concept of "one day at a time"

[Ragnar]

3. It doesn't matter that much to him.

First off, he's probably convinced himself the pollsters are out to get him, because everyone he meets when he goes out into the public is carefully screened by handlers. No one has dared disagree with him for 5 years, outside the campaign debates.

Second, he need not be elected again. His low popularity could cost the GOP some congressional seats, but an actual loss of control in the mid-term elections is unlikely. Frankly, he personally doesn't need to worry about approval ratings.

[Blue Belle]

14. The problem is... the pollsters all support him.

In my opinion, I think the polls are actually lower than are published - they round up to the highest fraction of error. I think his numbers are actually in the high 30's...

I agree with you... he doesn't need to be elected again, so he needn't care about polls - but he's lying when he says he doesn't.

[Gay Green]

17. I agree.

After the exit polls "missed the mark" in the 2004 election, the polling co.'s add a few percentage points to their #'s IMO.

[catmandu57]

5. I believe they're already there

Even with everyone searching like crazy for the real numbers they're very well hidden. I truly believe he's scratching down to the base or very very near to it right now.

[salin]

6. His handlers handle him even more

as he would become unhinged. He has always nearly always failed - with others cleaning up his mess. In this case it is we the tax payers and citizens to be left with his failures.

Seriously - they would hide him - as not to do so would crash their entire party.

[salin]

7. Does anyone know when last a president had numbers

that dipped into the thirties?

[jobycom]

9. Clinton in 94 was at 38, Reagan in 82 was at 32.

Both of them rebounded to win easy reelections, but both resulted in their parties losing Congressional seats in the midterms. WIth Clinton, the loss was dramatic, but that was due in part to a massive campaign by Newt Gingrich to sweep the House--so far the Dems seem to have no such organized plan.

In short, this is not much to get excited about. We have to fight Bush tooth and nail for the rest of his administration, and try to get an investigation or two going. And we have to campaign harder than we've ever done before at the midterms in 2006.

[patricia92243]

10. I believe this is more likely to heppen than another terrorist attack.....

A terrorist attack COULD backfire and hurt the Republican party. Just to quietly "hide" him would be better and let more popular Republicans be visible. Not to really hide him - but just "He has a sore throat and can't make that speech, etc. etc."

[stray cat]

8. I think his base won't let him drop that low

[Telly Savalas]

12. Why should he care? He's not running again.

The Republican strategy in 2008 will be to find someone who can simultaneously distance themselves from Bush's screw-ups while maintaining support for a conservative agenda. Folks like McCain or Hagel could do this easily, and there are probably a few governors who might be able to fill this role as well.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

13. It's not his poll numbers, it's the 2006 mid-term elections. Fear = Repuk

Wouldn't be surprised to hear of either Bin Laden capture or another high-profile US "terrorist attack" before the 2006 elections.

JB

[Stirk]

15. What happens then? Oh, one of two things:

1) his own party turns on him and he's investigated for some transgression, possibly impeached

2) we get another well-timed terrorist attack

I don't think point #2 is all that likely, myself. My personal belief is that the Bush Administration intentionally let the country's guard down in 2001, and waited for a terrorist attack- and I know I'm not alone in that suspicion. They'd have more trouble doing that today, I suspect.

After all, remember the "anonymous White House official" who explained why they didn't just smuggle WMD *into* Iraq to rationalize the invasion? He said the probability of being caught was too high. No moral qualms, just fear of exposure.

I think Bush is fucked. Unless his party dumps him, and quick, not even Diebold is going to be able to save them.

[leesa]

19. They didn't wait for it, they made it. They couldn't risk the timing

It had to happen in their first year because they had so much planned. In July, 2001, they had already promised to bomb Afghanistan in October 2001.
How can anyone think these criminals aren't capable of pulling off a 9-11? They don't give a rat's ass about Americans. Haven't they proved that over and over again?

[Patty Diana]

16. They Already Are In The 30's And Below___Thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1884739

[Willinois]

18. Nothing will happen.

He does what he wants despite public opinion. He will continue to mislead the public. At best we can hope it will hurt the GOP in '06 Congressional elections.