Republicans’ losses are Dems’ gains — redux

Last week I promised not to report on [tag]Bush[/tag] polls unless they showed him reaching new lows. As it turns out, there are two new national [tag]poll[/tag]s that do just that. First up is USA Today/[tag]Gallup[/tag].

Six months before [tag]Republicans[/tag] try to hold on to control of [tag]Congress[/tag] in the fall elections, a new poll shows President Bush has slid to the lowest approval rating of his presidency, and a majority of voters say they’ll vote for Democrats in November.

A USA Today/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday found Bush’s [tag]approval rating[/tag] at 34%, two points under his previous low. He also received the lowest ratings of his presidency on his handling of the economy, energy and foreign affairs. He tied his previous low on Iraq: 32%.

The poll showed [tag]Democrats[/tag] leading 54%-39% among registered voters who were asked which party they would prefer in a congressional race.

On that last point, USA Today noted that, in the last 56 years, there “have been six times when presidents had Gallup approval ratings below 50% in the spring as their party sought to keep control of Congress. The president’s party lost House seats in all six years, ranging from five in 1968 to 54 in 1994.” Dems need 15 seats this year.

CBS News found similar results.

With gas prices sky-high and no end of the Iraq war in sight, President George W. Bush’s approval rating hits an all-time low in a new CBS News poll.

Only 33 percent approve of his job performance, Mr. Bush’s lowest approval rating yet in CBS News polls. A majority — 58 percent of those polled — say they disapprove of the president. Mr. Bush appears to be losing support from his own party. His approval rating among Republicans has dropped to 68 percent. Mr. Bush’s ratings are even lower on the issues dominating news coverage: near-record gas prices and the war in Iraq.

I guess folks aren’t terribly impressed with the staff shake-up.

The numbers I found most interesting, however, were the numbers showing stronger support for Democrats, not just stronger disapproval for Republicans.

As I noted a couple of weeks ago, for the better part of the last year or so, the polls showed voters with a pox-on-both-your-houses attitude. The surveys would show the public souring on the administration and Republicans in Congress, but simultaneously show that they weren’t all that crazy about Dems either.

We’re clearly past this point now. Two weeks ago, an LA Times/Bloomberg poll asked respondents about their impressions of the parties in general. For Republicans, the public said it had a negative impression, 50% to 37%. For Dems, it was a positive impression, 41% to 38%.

The new USAT/Gallup poll shows the same thing. Asked about the parties, 58% of Americans say they have an “unfavorable” opinion of the Republican Party, against 36% who have a “favorable” view. Dems, however, fare much better, with a 48% favorability rating, versus a 45% negative rating.

We’re looking at a landscape in which Republicans are not only falling, but Dems are finally rising. Consider this your morale boost for the day.

I will personally donate a dollar toward the price of a bus ticket, so that Kid George can get on the next GrayDog out of town. Anyone care to join me?

Hey—the dollar bill has George Washington’s face on it—and I’d never dare insult “THE George” by spending two of his images on “the current George….”

  • So will big oil come to the rescue before
    November and bring gas prices down?
    Is that the October surprise? Are Americans
    so ignorant and shallow as the inverse
    correlation between Bush approval ratings
    and gasoline prices suggests?

    Another disturbing possibility. Are
    Democrats really much better than
    Republicans? Have they been corrupted
    by corporate America to pretty much the
    same extent, so that IF they take over
    Congress, we simply replace one corrupt
    bunch with another who serve the needs of
    big business and not the people?

    Finally, I was stunned by media accounts
    of the overall camaraderie between Repubs
    and Dems and the MSM at the White House
    correspondents dinner on Saturday night,
    where partisan differences are all forgotten
    in the spirit of . . . and I could only think of
    opposing divorce lawyers meeting on the
    golf course on Saturday mornings, celebrating
    the fleecing of their clients. Is it all just a
    game, and we’re the chumps?

  • republican “losses” are NOT democratic gains

    unless,

    in each congressional district and senate race,

    an explicit connection is made between the president’s conduct

    and the conduct of the republican controlled congress since 2002.

    i posted the following at “the next hurrah” a few minutes ago:

    democrats would do well to pay attention to what carl forti is quoted as saying:

    “president bush is not on the ballot.”

    from my perspective,

    it is entirely possible that the disenchantment with president bush will not necessarily translated into a disenchantment with a local Congressional incumbent.

    consider the case of the corrupt sen. conrad burns of montana

    or

    congressmen ney of ohio or delay of texas.

    there is a lot of tolerance,

    something i have really never been able to understand,

    in American politics,

    for scoundrels.

    maybe it’s as simple as name recognition

    or maybe

    its the secret admiration for jesse james syndrome many of us harbor.

    whatever,

    gov edwin edwards of Louisiana was as thorough a crook as you could imagine in a novel, yet he was elected three times (i think) governor of Louisiana.

    so where is this comment going?

    i think it is really important for democratic strategists and candidates

    to link the republican controlled congress, and their congressional opponent,

    with bush.

    this should be easy enough to do because the republican-controlled congress has repeatedly refused to challenge, check on, or discipline bush.

    and the republican=controlled congress has supported some of bush’s most egregious acts of (mis)governing, e.g., war and taxes.

    in short:

    a direct link has to be made

    and then reinforced

    between bush’s performance and the lack of congressional challenge to bush’s errors of governing.

    Posted by: orionATL | May 02, 2006 at 10:32

  • Republicanite loses are not Democratic gains unless…

    we run credible candidates in all 435 districts.

  • Three quick points:

    1) It is possible to relate Bush’s mistakes and misdeeds, and those of “Congress” in general, to particular races and how normal folks are faring. Pissed off about Medicare Part D? Well, that’s what happens when you let the industry lobbyists write the laws. Agitated about oil company profits? Same deal, if your rep voted for those tax cuts. Despairing about Iraq? If your congressman voted to give Bush a series of blank checks, you can at least retire that guy, if not the President.

    2) Charlie Cook’s weekly e-mail update today included more good news, as follows:

    “Studies show that voters in Bush-friendly red states drive significantly more miles each month than those in blue states, and it’s a pretty logical assumption that gasoline usage is much greater in the predominately suburban, rural and small town congressional districts most often represented by Republicans, than in more compact, urban districts usually held by Democrats. That means the longer gasoline prices remain high, the worse it will be for GOP candidates.”

    Cook also notes that the further pollsters drive down–from all adults, to registered voters, to “most likely voters”–the better things look for the Democrats.

    3) A cautionary note: Bush’s numbers amongst Republicans probably will come back a little. That’s what Karl Rove can most easily control (unless, presumably, he’s indicted…), and between dark-skinned immigrants, dark-skinned “turr’ists” and those insidious gays, I’m sure he’ll gin up the hate sufficiently to get more of their voters to the polls than the numbers currently indicate.

  • “Cook also notes that the further pollsters drive down–from all adults, to registered voters, to “most likely voters”–the better things look for the Democrats.” – dajafi

    Oh, that is good news! Imagine the Theocratic Conservatives’ “Leaders” discovering on Wednesday after the election that they should have worked harder to get out the vote and are about to see their Boy George melt under Congressional investigations.

  • I agree completely with orionATL except for perhaps his/her line spacing. 🙂

  • In the six times when a president dropped so deeply in the polls and his party lost power, there were no Diebold machines to rig.

  • Comments are closed.