|
||
The Bush Effect
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll has some surprising numbers about the Republican Party, some of which have been described by other commentators as paradoxical. President Bush's approval numbers continue to remain in the low 30s, while 49% view the Republican Party unfavorably. A whopping 43% believe they are worse off than they were four years ago, a truly shocking number when one considers how utterly bleak the state of the nation was four years ago. 76% of voters want the next president to pursue an approach other than that of President Bush, and in a generic match-up, the Democratic nominee beats the Republican nominee in a thirteen point landslide.
Yet when John McCain is paired against Hillary Clinton, he only loses by two points, and when pitted against Obama, he only loses by three. If voters are fed up with the Republican Party and George W. Bush, and if they are eager for a Democrat to take over, why is John McCain's margin so close?
One possible argument, of course, is that McCain is actually the most electable Republican in his party. It may be, as many have suggested, that for all of the problems Republicans faced during their nomination fight, they may have serendipitously nominated their strongest possible candidate. But on closer inspection, these numbers help underscore the potential for a significant collapse in McCain's support come November.
The American people have yet to associate John McCain with George W. Bush. If they thought the two were one in the same, McCain's support would undoubtedly plummet. But John McCain has cultivated a narrative that paints him as a maverick, a politician willing to disagree with the president when required. Combined with the well-documented discomfort the two have felt for each other since their 2000 campaign, McCain has, at least to some extent, a credible rationale for pointing out differences.
Voters have also apparently disassociated McCain from the Republican Party. Despite his otherwise conservative record, McCain has confronted his own party on issues from earmarks to immigration - a reality only further validated by the right's obvious discomfort with their nominee. In fact, the media portrayal of McCain as an anti-Republican has been so universal that 44% of Democrats view him favorably, while 52% of Republicans would have preferred another nominee.
In the interim, that might sound like encouraging news to the McCain campaign. But underneath the numbers, the true weakness of the McCain candidacy comes to light. After all, McCain has yet to experience the financial arm of the Obama campaign in full force, using every opportunity to paint a McCain presidency as nothing more than a third Bush term. Already, Obama previews the campaign to come with his stump speech, arguing that, though Bush will not be on the November ballot, his policies certainly will.
It is also nearly impossible that McCain will spend nine months as the leader of his party without being painted as a serious member. Having done such a poor job of unifying his base during the primary season, McCain is already finding himself fighting a two-front war, forced to advocate pet Republican policies at a volume too loud for the general election. The more he swears to be a genuine Republican, the more the voters will begin to believe him.
The space McCain has placed between himself, his party, and the president will never appear quite as distant as it does today. On the other side of a billion dollar general election, voters will no doubt view him as a conservative Republican, closely aligned with Bush's policies and ideology.
With 76% of the voters hoping for a president who takes a different approach than Bush, that reality should give John McCain some serious pause.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
On the contrary, it highlights the blood feud on the democratic side, and the weakening of both dems candidates caused by Hillary's negative camaigning. A growing percentage of supporters in both the Obama and Clinton camps will not vote for the other candidate of they win the nomination. Wedge politics at it's finest. That said, I blame Sen Clinton, and will not vote for her in the general.
I have been lately reading Reagan's autobiography "An American Life," which is a truly amazing book. Of course, one expects the Huff Po to treat the Republican party as though it were a disease. That is unfortunate since the principles of the Republican Party are not only sound, but nobel. Certainly the philosophy that Reagan embraced was a bright and idealist view of the American idea.
Senator McCain is supposed to be a black sheep of his party. There is much cliche in that view. It assumes, for instance, that more segment (the so-called "core" voters) are defining for the party as a whole just as the most "leftist" are assumed to represent the Democratic party (which, I would add, is another falacy).
Whatever the stated differences in the two parties (and they are significant enough that I'd be very reluctant to associate myself with the Dems), nevertheless in many practical respects both parties share much common ground. Their is something definably "American" and whatever there is of genuine partisanship, it's a fact that our lives are not that much different. We are all members of one society that is uniquely American.
So, one can emphasize the partisanship -- though I'd consider voting for a Democrat that I admired as an individual. I think that we should, indeed, look more at these candidates as individuals. Surely, we shouldn't eliminate that estimation from our calculus.
I may vote for McCain. Or I might even vote for Obama (I've been considering it). I will assuredly never vote for HIlliary. In whatever judgment I make, I will look at the individual more than at the party. I think it's high time we did. The divisiveness of politics has gotten out of hand. It's one thing to have parties -- we need them both! They provide a necessary competition of ideas and they act as foils to expose the worst ideas of each side. But in recent elections, it's gone too far.
We need to look at ourselves in a more unitary way for a season, to recall that we're Americans, to figure out how to solve problems in cooperation, to find diplomacy right here at home in learning to talk to people with whom we disagree.
So I hope some of the Dems will give McCain a look. Go beyond the "policy" statements and look at the human being. Which one has the best chance of leading well?
Obviously many people in the country are vastly misinformed about national affairs and may be only vaguely aware of what robbery and hate the Republicans wreak on the nation when given the least bit of power. McCain I think gets a lot of his support from voters who, unaware of much else about what affects them in the national policy arena, are in fact aware that McCain spent time in a North Vietnamese prison, and was allegedly tortured, though I'm not sure that actually happened. He was wounded when his plane crashed, that I know. If McCain is such a worthy candidate because of his time as a POW, why don't we hear all the gory details about how much he lost or was hurt while a prisoner. It is all just left to the imagination. C'mon McCain, talk about what is your only selling point to probably the majority of people who say they will vote for you. Your stated policies and views are of course absurd because you are a Republican but many people don't seem to care about that - witness the re-election of madman Bush (and doddering Reagan for that matter). That is your only source of appeal, tell all. Did they crush the left nut or the right one?
yowza1,
Thanks for the tack onto my comment though I'm not clear exactly what its relationship is to mine. Nonetheless, regarding "doddering Reagan" -- I admired Reagan when he was president after I stopped listening to his critics telling me what he said and started paying attention to the man himself. Reading his own words, however, in his book "An American Life," as well as browsing some of the Reagan letters and diaries (these things have been published now), I am stunned. What a truly great man he was and how many citizens still don't know it.
I would be interested in hearing your particular criticisms of this great American president AFTER you've read some of these materials. However, as it stands, you are repeating cliches that are false.
McCain has written at least one book, probably more than one and has a long record. I think it would be wise to judge the man in his own words.
Do keep in mind that those who lie about candidates have their own agenda. Doesn't it make more sense to avail yourself of information in the words of the candidate himself or herself?
Someone I know who loved Reagan was criticizing Obama to me the other day, and I reminded him that people used to (and still do) say exactly the same kinds of things about Reagan. I have concerns about Obama, but I will try not to be swayed by sensationism. I will form my opinion based on the man himself, to the extent that one can. I certainly will not consider HIlliary, but not based on cliche. She has made very specific claims that eliminate her from consideration as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, if you give in to the argument of stereotype, do so knowing that you are ignoring a chance to make judgements based upon reality. When you believe the "spin doctors" you're giving them power to make choices for you. In that case, it's hard to understand why one even bothers to vote.
Well we have three front runners and two of them have tempers I rather not see in a President, how can we chance these people not to fly off the handle when things get rough like the trouble we are in now? We have a President who has the time to stand around dancing for the media or run around his office looking for WMD, have we really lost our minds or have we lost our reasoning?
We have one who is self-assured, intelligent and is running a race on the truth, why would we even consider the other 2 who have flipped flopped so ofter that I get nauseated just thinking about it.
Jesse Ventura won in Minnesota, came from nowhere. If he runs he will change things.
http://www.examiner.com/blogs/Yeas_and_Nays/2008/3/14/Ventura-Will-he-or-wont-he
It's the same reason some people have a hard time getting out of bad relationships. They're comfortable in a bad situation. It's all they know.
You would have to poll 666 Dems and 333 Reps to get accurate numbers on 999 "likely" voters, because you have to account for the fact that Dems are turning out to vote in numbers nearly double that of Reps. Polls mean nothing if you don't figure in the incredible Dem turnout.
Don't count on it.
I think there's another question to pose under these circumstances, in that, if Democrats are so fed up with Bush, why the hell is a significant margin supporting HIlary
It's a poll.
What would you like the answer to be?
When the Dem primary is settled an Obama tours overseas and receives a bigger welcome than any US politician in the last 40 years then comes back home and picks a running mate (either a woman or a former General), McCains numbers will plummet.
republiCONS are waaaaaaayyyyy better at selling a lie than Democrats are at selling the truth.
Until Dems get good at PR, they will be swiftboated and Limbaughed and O'Reillyed.
The Democratic Party needs to take Marketing 101.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT:
"republiCONS are waaaaaaayyyyy better at selling a lie than Democrats are at selling the truth.
Until Dems get good at PR, they will be swiftboated and Limbaughed and O'Reillyed.
The Democratic Party needs to take Marketing 101."
Democrats need to get SERIOUSLY AGGRESSIVE immediately if they are to win
the presidency and majority of Congress. Always being on the "defense" won't ever work.
Get tough. Slap those republiCONS around. EVERYBODY KNOWS that they deserve it.
If Dems don't do this, the public will be convinced they DON'T CARE about them or their problems.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, YOU'VE EARNED YOUR NAME ON THAT ONE. THANK YOU. LET'S GET OUT THERE AND SKEWER THOSE REPUBLICANS, THEY DESERVE IT MANY TIMES OVER. WIN DEMOCRATS, WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. I LOVE YOU. YOU STAND FOR THE TRUTH, THE RIGHT, THE HAPPINESS, PEACE AND SERENITY OF OUR PEOPLE AND OUR NATION. YOU STAND FOR THE NATION DOING THE RIGHT THINGS INTERNATIONALLY AND TO IT''S OWN PEOPLE. LET US HAVE A LOT, A HUGE AMOUNT, A GREAT DEAL OF PROSPERITY AND HAPPINESS, OF LOVE AND GETTING ALONG AND FORGIVENESS, OF TREATING OUR FELLOW CITIZENS WITH RESPECT, OF HELPING THE NEEDY, OF BEING GOOD ROLE MODELS FOR OUR CHILDREN, OF BEING PROSPEROUS, OF ALL BEING PROSPEROUS AND BEING HAPPY THAT OTHERS ARE DOING WELL TOO, OF RESPECTING THE ENVIRONMENT, OF CONDUCTING OURSELVES RESPONSIBLY AND LOVINGLY IN THE WORLD, OF TACKLING PROBLEMS WITH VIGOR AND INTELLIGENCE, OF GOOD GOVERNMENT WITH PEOPLE- AND EARTH-FRIENDLY POLICIES, OF A PEACEFUL ENVIRONMENT ON OUR STREETS AND NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS IS WHAT WE STAND FOR GUYS AND GALS, LET US GET OUT THERE AND CLAIM IT. HOOOORAAAAAYYYY. LIFE CAN BE GOOD, JUST LET US MAKE IT THAT WAY, THAT IS WHAT WE DO. ACT SO THAT THE REPUBLICANS CANNOT ACT. LIGHT DISPELS DARKNESS.
AMEN. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK FELLOW DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!
Another dose of worthless information from pollsters which shows why HP questioned the value of polls & started an anti-polling petition. As I recall-I agreed not to co-operate with pollsters when I signed HP's anti-polling petition. WTF? Some people must like the attention they get from pesky pollsters. It may beat playing Bingo or Dirty Word Scrabble.
This is a perfect example of why we end up voting for tweedle dee or tweedle dumb, most of the time.
In the Democratic Party, I had three people ahead of Obama who I figured as tied with Biden & Dodd.
I had Hillary tied for last with Gravel for last so you know what I mean in saying , we had all our best
taken out by a press bent on promoting the most safe, centrist and corporate friendly of candidates.
"If voters are fed up with the Republican Party and George W. Bush, and if they are eager for a Democrat to take over, why is John McCain's margin so close?"
They are not eager for a Democrat to take over. Because almost everyone knows that the Democrats are lying parasites who don't care about the American people or anyone else. The Dems have proved they are the same as Bush, by steadfastly supporting all of his policies. I honestly believe that our entire federal government should be tried in the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
Fortunately we can disregard WRoss comments as coming from a Republican.
But yes I knooooooooowwwwwwww what you mean, how on God's green earth can Mcain have any significant support belonging to the party of evil wreckers of the country? Well this country voted in Bush twice, so I guess that was not a misreading of the American public. I guess we are doomed to hear loud upsetting filth from Republicans, I wish I had enough money to move to, or even visit a civil foreign country like Canada or any European Union country except Britiain which surprisingly to me, has kowtowed to Bush. Unfortunately I have not stolen or had money given to me so I don't belong to the group of people who can afford to do such things as move abroad or take a decent vacation.
Me too, WRoss. I'd like someone to give me one good reason why I should support the Democratic party after the disgraceful inability of Congress to right any of bush's wrongs. They couldn't even restore habeus corpus.
I think we have two terrible Dem choices and a Repuke who's crazy as a bedbug. Nader, you're looking better and better.
Reason: If you have watched any of the hearings you would have seen the Republicans blocking every single one, the democrats do not have enough votes to override these freaks. Thats the shame of this Congress, until these Republican Traitors are removed nothng is going to change.
Rather than assume this is a color/gender issue that causes McCain to poll better than he should, I think it also has to do with the Democratic Party never learning from its mistakes and consistently (exception Pres Clinton in my adult lifetime) running its most liberal members and losing election after election. Although, after the last eight years, many people reject the far right wing's policies and candidates, there are many, many voters who do not necessarily want to go to the opposite extreme. I really hope I'm wrong.
Jonny38103, you call Obama and Clinton liberal? Good grief, they're practically Repukian! Neither one has a health plan that cuts out corporations, for instance.
McCain is still running against two candidates. When the Dems finally choose a candidate, particularly if it is Obama, you will see an instant gap up for the Dem vs. McCain.
No you won't.
According to Rasmussen, 57% of Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama, and 64% of Obama supporters will not vote for Clinto.
People are dug in. In fact, when there is a declared nominee, it'll only get worse.
Talk is cheap. What a pathetic threat. "If you don't nominate our candidate we'll break the party apart."
Well, hey, that was Roves' plan anyway - an eternal repiglican majority.
apcalc, I caught that poll result being discussed on TV (out of the corner of my eye, or ear), but I didn't hear whether that was a national poll or a PA poll. Do you happen to have a link? I've looked everywhere and I can't find the reported numbers. Thx.
No you won't. According to Rasmussen, only 55-65% (depending on the candidate) of Hillary's or Barack's supporters will vote for the Democratic candidate.
If anything, McCain's numbers will rise when the party has a nominee.
And you will be all by your bitter self when Obama picks Gov. Sebelius as a running mate and people forget about Hillary as she gets subpoenaed for the Peter Paul campaign finance trial.
Rasmussen gets it right about one time in ten.
If I was in the Obama camp, as he is the most likely candidate, I would hang GW Bush around McCains neck at every opportunity. Voting for mccain is voting for another bush term - his positions are bush positions, there's no difference. Neither one can speak worth a darn, and Mccain has absolutely no charisma or enthusiasm - and if he keeps changing his position on the issues, he won't have a solid leg to stand on. He's sold his soul to the devil and has to pay the price. Now if that old bat hillary would just get out of the way, Obama could get to the real task at hand.
Calling Hillary an old bat only takes votes away from Obama. It's supporters like you who keep Hillary voters away.
changeisontheway, you should be thrown off this site for calling clinton an old bat.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
