Why fascination with poor Bush polling numbers?

[HardWorkingDem]

When people get excited over Bush's poor popularity numbers, what are the reasons?

Is it hope that he is taking his party in the wrong direction from what the American people want? Or is it sort of a gleeful payback?

What concerns me is that if we just become excited about his lowered numbers we might take our eyes off the ball and miss opportunities.

The man can't get re-elected and still remains popular with his party and their numbers stay pretty consistent when it comes to party loyalty.

What I am looking for are a couple of things - that the media will sour on him and start pouncing and his own party's politicians will see him as an albatross and abandon him. But what I don't want to see is the Dems not offer up sensible alternatives to what he has forced down our throats. And this is troublesome because let's be honest here - after he was selected in 2000, is there anyone out there who wasn't suprised that he governed like he had received a mandate from the voters rather than being crowned king by the Supreme Court?

[wli]

1. the further down they go the better the odds of impeachment are

[McCamy Taylor]

2. Improved chances the Dems will take over Congres in 2006!

[niyad]

3. because we need a bit of good news now and again

[RandomKoolzip]

It means that the American people are waking up.

How odd that this question sounds like the ones I hear on talk radio all the time. "The Dems bash Bush, but don't offer any alternatives..."

Bullshit. Universal health care, an end to Oil Wars, cordial diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, increased spending for public education, increased wages for the poor....Sound familiar?!

It's like the right's media mavens can't decide whether we're evil communists or confused wannabe republicans. And, frankly, it's the fault of the media, not the Dems, that you have arrived at your conclusions.

[HardWorkingDem]

8. You don't know what my conclusions are...

so you shouldn't assume you do.

I get tired of the Dems blaming the media for our poor showing. Our problems are more complex than the media. For example, one of our problems is how we continually act like we are smarter than everyone else and know what is better for everyone else.

There is some current research going on out there that seems to show that liberals and conservatives process information much differently and we have been ignoring research such as this for years and look where it has gotten us. The sad thing about this is that unless we change our tactics, it is going to get worse - more and more people will continue to get their news from both visual and audible soundbites where conservatives have learned to get their message across more effectively, while we will be producing wonderful and factual hour documentaries that only we watch.

One last point - someone has recently pointed out that Moore's flick F/911 wasn't as effective as it was hoped because most of those who watched it were liberals.

Like you, I think our goals are much better but we are doing a terrible job getting them out there and gleefully watching as Bush sinks isn't going to do it for us and could be a terrible distraction unless we utilize it.

[RandomKoolzip]

9. we continually act like we are smarter than everyone else..."

Honestly, not trying to flame, but what does that even mean?! From the looks of things, it sems those Rapture-ready types and the CEO's who use them for votes are the real elitists.


All six major media houses are owned by corporations who are overwhelmingly repub owned, and whose boards of directors almost invariably donate to republican campaigns. We could find a fucking cure for cancer and the MSM could spin it negatively.

[HardWorkingDem]

10. Kerry was a great example..

What I mean is when it comes to getting our side out we come off as elitist know it alls. We talk above people in condescending tones and manners. Kerry was a great example of this. And I do not disagree at all that a huge portion of the media is controlled by the true elites.

Watch CSPAN and you can see plenty of this. I guess at it's basic level our party has a problem getting our message out in this age of television.

Believe me, I used to sit back and watch the news in anger and befuddlement because those people are such dolts. They let people get on the airwaves and lie about anything and everything. Now, I'm not saying we have to lie as well, but we have to change. Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media" is a great place to start. (I no longer watch regular televised news anymore. It's too frustrating and inaccurate. I am amazed at the depth and accuracy of the internet and I think the internet will become our electronic tool to battle tv and radioj.)

And here is where I sincerely think our problems lie - we truly process information differently than the right. Our forte is the written word while theirs is the electronic media. Alterman hits on this and now scientists are even looking at this. Sadly, many of our greatest thinkers seem to see this as a step down rather than that of modifying our tactics.

[RandomKoolzip]

11. "Condescending tones and manners..."

Like what? Which ones?

[HardWorkingDem]

16. Spirited debate....

RKZ,

First let me add this - forgot to earlier - I didn't see your reply as flaming and I always enjoy a good, spirited debate. It shows passion.

As for condescending tones and manners - not to re-fight the 2004 election, but Kerry showed true examples of this - his surfboarding is the most obvious one. Sure, it is an infantile thing to log onto but it spoke tons about the perception of Kerry. Also, we forget that many voting Americans do not follow politics as much as many of us. I work with a large group of Republicans and I cannot begin to tell how many distortions they have bought into - they refuse to believe that the Dems pushed through the Child Tax Credit, that (for what it is worth) a Dem came up with the idea of Homeland Security, that the Bush Admin wanted to cut hazard pay for our soliders and on and on.

Then there was Kerry's way of trying to explain his 87 billion dollar votes.

Another one is Kerry's health plan. Many said it made the most sense of those offered but you certainly couldn't tell that from the views of the average every day voter.

Let's be honest about the American voter - we have short attention spans, little desire to study things in depth and seem to believe an awful lot of BS that is put in front of us. Dems need to learn how to get their message out better.

Hope that clears things up....

[zanne]

20. Ah, a "stealth" poster!

You guys always start off in a convincing way. Your first few posts always sound "reasonable"--then you get too confident and blow your cover. I don't believe for one minute that you're a Democrat.

[Dawgs]

21. Agree...

The fact that the OP's nickname is HardWorkinDem gives it away.

[HardWorkingDem]

24. That's pretty offensive...

I can guarantee that I am pure Democrat and it's pretty offensive to suggest otherwise.

Especially since I spent time in the US Army and now work in an occupation outnumbered by by Republicans (which is even more odd by the fact that those in my occupation have gained so much from Democratic ideals such as labor unions and dislike labaor unions - sort of like a latent vs manifest function sort of thing - now would an imposter know much about that sort of thing?).

I just don't want to see the Democrats focus on JUST terrible Bush numbers while getting rolled by the Republicans.

What is so bad about that? And I asked the question for how other people thought and some great answers were given.

[Lexingtonian]

13. look...

The choice is between appearing 'elitist' and lowering the level of discourse to complete idiocy.

'Elitist' is a charge of the resentful, for the most part. Republicans simply have the resentful on their side. That's the way it is right now. Resentment and idiocy are intertwined.

There's only one solution to the resentful, and we're seeing it in action. It's handing them the keys and driver's seat and saying "You drive, geniuses, and we'll be the backseat critics. Or we'll just sit there and let you fuck up without comment."

You're right about there being a communication problem, but most of that has to do with Democrats not being, well, truly elite. It's not form, it's substance. Democrats get the elitist rap but their message tends not to be or contain what is elite- the demonstration of having gotten one's minds around a subject so completely that the arguments and language become simple and the logic involved compelling and irresistable.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Traveler]

4. It's all about 2006

As Bush's numbers continue to crash, the Rethugs in Congress become vulnerable. Coat tails work in both directions.

Bush's dwindling numbers indicate an awakening in the American consciousness. If we come up with sensible proposals, we can kick Republican ass for the next quarter century. If we go into ideological circular firing squad mode, we won't ... and the country will flounder during a dangerous and difficult time.

[DesEtoiles]

5. bc it's proof that the Bush bullsh!t stinks to high heaven

[tuvor]

6. Maybe it means your hard work is paying off.

And a bit of celebration is in order.

Welcome to DU by the way! :hi:

[FloridaPat]

7. When the polls are high, the repubs use it as evidence that everyone

loves * and he can do whatever he wants. It also cowers the Democrats into spinless wimps. The lower the polls, the more the Democrats' backbone strengthens. And the more panicky the repubs get

[Lexingtonian]

12. A lot of it is

about the endless occasions we got told between the summer of 2000 and the appearance of the Abu Ghraib scandal how the fellow was "popular" and all the mindless spoutings of Republicans that he was a "man of God" and such- they very literally and unabashedly said he could do magic. And all the obloquy of Clinton we've had to listen to is also worth pointing out.

We don't mind the payback.

It's also that the approval ratings are a game of power- who Bush still has passive and who he still has active support from. There's a lot of information in the numbers if you know what to look for.

The numbers themselves, teased apart into the major policy components, tells us how the breaking down of the hardline Republican policy is advancing in the electorate. It's a one way trip and this week the one in which his rating has been best, 'handling terrorism', finally fell under 50%.
His ratings on all four or five other major policy areas is pretty uniformly 38%, which says that only committed Republicans are still holding together in support of him in those.

Democratic victory in 2006 comes down to having a significant proportion of moderate Republicans stay away from the polling booth or protest voting for Democrats. They're a 6-9% voter bloc that shows up for midterm elections. Without a big chunk of them the Republican Party loses just about every election in the Blue States, most of the ones in swing states and swing districts, and even a bunch of nominally Republican ones. Actually, conditions are such already that Republicans losing a pile of elections in Blue States is a safe prediction. The swing states are getting pretty wobbly.

The polling translation of this is Bush approval ratings between 29% and 35%, since Bush and just about all Republicans are identified with the same policies. Those sorts of numbers mean the sort of defeat that destroys a Party, btw, and tells it to start over from political Square One. We're not modest, we know that's within reach.

I'm not sure why you're worrying about 'sensible alternatives' and such. The dynamic is all about Republicans- either they're good enough for another round in office, or they're a disaster that has to be thrown out of office ASAP. No one is going to care about the specifics as long as Democrats seem competent and strongly distinguish themselves from Republicans. It's going to be a straight referendum on whether hardline Republicans have any more usefulness to The People. And there's not going to be a whole lot of respect for Democrats who do that weasely moderate shit.

[mrdmk]

14. First and foremost, welcome to D.U. HardWorkingDem

:hi:

Second, Mr. Bush Jr. did not win in the year 2000. There is a lot of evidence to this fact. He had no business in the White House and it showed. Raising arsenic levels in drinking water, letting California go to hell for political gain, he even had a less than 50% approval rating the day before 11 September 2001. The only that was keeping him at that level up to that point was tax cuts. Only negative things happen when you have to buy your approval and it did!

Third, 9/11, a complete failure of our system of National Security at best, he made it happen at worst. Take your pick of those or anything in between.

Forth, more failures in National Security concerning Afghanistan. Mr. Bush Jr. and crowd just made matter worst and more desperate in that part of the world.

Fifth, Iraq, no more said other than sad!

Sixth, more National Security problems with the repeat of Terror Alerts for nothing more than political gain.

Seventh, shutting down all debate with, '...if you do not agree with me, you are one of them...'

In summary, Rovegate, Deficits, Medicare Prescription, Corporate Welfare, Corporate and Theological take over of this country and his thumbing his nose at other people in this world. I will bet dollars to donuts that Mr. Bush Jr. has never seriously read the Constitution of this great country. In short the man is not fit to be President. I could go on and on.

Take over Congress in 2006 and impeach Mr. Bush Jr. and crowd and tell them, "do not let the door hit you in the ass on your way out"!!! He deserves that kind of treatment.

[Leafy Geneva]

15. Am I the only one who thinks this is an obviously stupid question?

[HardWorkingDem]

17. Let me ask you this....

did you ever think that an actual war veteran like Kerry could have been reduced to what he was by a person such as Bush? Or even how Bush dealt with McCain? Neither did I. But he did.

Here is something else to ponder - for years, what strategy did Rove use that proved successful more than almost anything else? It was his strategy of attacking a person's strenght and turning it into a weakness.

So, again, my main question about poor Bush numbers is that of if we pay too much attention to them, could it possibly be a dangerous distraction and are we doing too much out of pay back and wanting to get even.

Other's, more polite than you, offered wonderfully thought out answers and I appreciate the replies.

[pacalo]

18. The consistently low approval ratings - just 7 months after the election -

is an excellent indication that he didn't really "win" the election.

And I also believe, as you do, that the lower his approval numbers get, the media will sour on him & will put his free ride to an end.

As someone else mentioned above, the low approval ratings could make an impeachment happen. It's waaay overdue.

[Jane Austin]

19. Because Repug politicians will treat bush like the turd in the

punchbowl as his numbers sink.

He won't be able to pass any of his legislative program, and he'll get more and more resistance from everybody in Washington.

He's a lame duck now, and getting lamer all the time.

[Catchawave]

23. Low approval ratings validates

my feelings that he's the worse president ever. Even Tricky Dicky Nixon had higher ratings at the time of his resignation!

Questionable voting machines aside, Bush/Cheney/Rove ran a campaign based on fear (terrorism), lies and loathing (Swiftboat vets), which alot of ignorant voters bought, otherwise, Kerry should have won in the largest landslide ever!

Now if Republicans don't put their people ahead of party loyalty, they'll be in big trouble in 2006. The Dems need to take full advantage to take back the House and Senate !





:hi: Welcome to DU !

[HardWorkingDem]

26. Party loyalty.....

is one thing that really concerns me. To this day I cannot understand how McCain could stand by Bush's side after Bush's behavior towards him and Kerry and now how he gives tepid responses to what Rove has done.

Some things are clearly right and some things clearly wrong. And what Rove has done is clearly wrong and for no Republican military person to step forward and say so, says something so terrible about party loyalty.

Heck, we Dems are strong enough to do this and proved it during the Clinton/Lewinsky mess. Look at how many Dems criticized Clinton for his behavior.

And did anyone see the Republicans criticize the Pentagon for wanting to cut combat and seperation pay for our solidiers in Iraq? I can't think of any.

Our Dems should be out there trumpeting this too....saying how Bush is putting politics above the welfare of the country.

But instead we get Biden on tv bloviating about BS while trying to look good in his hairpiece.

I'll just be glad when we get that Joe-Mentum back (that is saracasm). By the way, the last sighting of Lieberman was with his lips locked to Chenye's rear end - that's why neither of them have been seen lately.