USA Today: Poll: No comfort for GOP

[Judi Lynn]

Poll: No comfort for GOP
Updated 5/1/2006 10:13 PM ET

By David Jackson, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Six months before Republicans try to preserve control of Congress 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 this fall.

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday found Bush's approval rating at 34%, two points below his previous low. The president also received the lowest ratings of his presidency for his handling of the economy, energy and foreign affairs. He tied his previous low for Iraq: 32% said they approve of the job he's doing there.

The poll showed Democrats enjoy a 15-point lead among registered voters when asked which party they would prefer in a congressional race.

A spokesman for the House Republicans' campaign committee, Carl Forti, said unhappiness with Bush doesn't doom the GOP's 29-seat majority in the House because "President Bush is not on the ballot." Forti noted that the poll also showed 59% of respondents said their own representative deserves to be re-elected.
(snip/...)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-01-gallup-poll_x.htm

[AX10]

1. Bush did not rise to 34%.

Also, the GOP's "majority" is not safe at all.

[skipos]

2. I think these polls are deceiving. If you look at individual races

democrats are doing well, but I don't think it is going to be a massive sweep for us in 06. Lets be realistic here. Just because 65% of America thinks Bush stinks at his job doesn't mean 65% would vote for John Kerry if the election were tomorrow, and it doesn't mean 65% of voters will vote straight dem in 06. Again, look at individual races.

[AX10]

3. How many seats do you see the Dems winning?

No one expected the 54 seat loss for the Dems in 1994. 30 seats in the House is possible.

[skipos]

9. I am not claiming to be be any great predictor

especially with the house. There are simply too many races to follow. I find that the predictions at http://electionpredictions.blogspot.com/ are realistic. 30 seats is possible, but I think it would take a surprisingly large number of republicans sitting out of the election.

I guess what has me thinking that dems might only make modest gains overall in 06 is the fact that democratic incumbent governors in Michigan, Maine, Illinois are polling extremely close to their repub challengers. And those are freaking blue states where Bush's numbers are abysmal. Further, in California (another blue state with horrible Bush numbers) Arnie is polling even with his dem challengers even though he is one of the worst rated governors in the country.

[Ecumenist]

34. Skipos.. I live here AND i'm in the capitol

Arnie is in a f%cked up situation. He's HATED on both sides of the aisle and if someone ran Skippy the Wonder Dog against Arnie, that dog would be sworn in come inaugural day here in California.

[AX10]

40. Comforting to know that. Keep up the good work.

And, PLEASE, once the primary is done, EVERYONE must RALLY around the winner. Angeledis and Westly are both good people and will make fine Governors. Everyone, please support the nominee! :dem:

[Ecumenist]

41. I like Westly and I'll be voting for him.

:hi:

[AndyTiedye]

11. We REALLY NEED to Take Back Congress

Unfortunately, the deck is very much stacked against us.

They will do anything to stay in power, and there is a great deal that they can do.

[organik]

10. Yes, the polls don't take into account ELECTION FRAUD! N/T

[Terran]

12. Actually,

There was a poll just recently that showed that Kerry *would* win decisively if the election were held "today", being the day the poll was done. This was about two weeks ago, and sorry don't have a link.

[AX10]

13. NUMBERS?

[ginnyinWI]

24. Here you go:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7134.html

Kerry 49%, Bush 39%
Posted 2:02 pm | Printer Friendly

Way back last September, Zogby released a poll that I found rather discouraging. Bush's popularity was already slipping badly — this was post-Katrina, and Zogby pegged his national support at 41% — but the poll added a twist. Zogby asked respondents how they'd vote in hypothetical match-ups pitting Bush against the past presidents of the last generation.

Bush didn't fare well. Given a choice, Americans preferred Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and Bush 41 to the current president. When Zogby asked about a 2004 rematch, however, Bush still beat John Kerry, 48% to 47%.
To me, it was a reflection of just how severely Bush and his allies had smeared Kerry during the campaign. Even in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, as the president was exposed as being helplessly inept, Bush nevertheless led in a hypothetical rematch, according to this poll.

That, of course, was six months ago. What if voters were given another shot at the '04 race now? The latest Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, which includes a lot of fascinating data, asked this very question.

One final question offered perhaps the most dramatic expression of the nation's discontent with Bush's second term. Asked whom they would support today in a rerun of the 2004 presidential election, 39% of registered voters picked Bush, whereas 49% said they preferred the man the president defeated only 17 months ago, Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.

In light of the Zogby poll from September, it's encouraging to see Kerry with a 10-point lead. In light of reality, I'm not sure what the other 39% are thinking.

[Ecumenist]

35. EXACTLY.Terran

I saw that poll.

[aquart]

14. We've been sweeping the special elections.

Take another look.

[Ecumenist]

36. Yep and the special election here in California

in November, NOT ONE PROPOSAL THAT ARNIE SUBMITTED, NOT ONE passed!!!

[Rose Siding]

4. Hmmm...this whole Mojo revival doesn't seem to be working out

Josh-mentum. Catch the fever!

http://www.businesstravellerindia.com.nyud.net:8090/200505/20050522.jpg

[saltpoint]

7. : )

[midnight]

39. Someone in that pic is having fun.

O to be so brave.

[saltpoint]

5. It's true he's not on the ballot, but his war is, and his administration

is under multiple legal shadows, and the economy is performing erratically, and so on. He's on the ballot in every way except a literal slot. Voters know who's to blame for consistent poor judgment with serious consequences.

You could send voters TWO payments of $100 to fill their tanks and they'd use it to drive to the polls to vote Democratic in November. This is going to be a bad summer and fall for the Bush administration.

[Robbien]

6. Isn't it wonderful that USAToday is worrying about GOP's comfort?

Anyone see any bias in this headline?

Anyone?

[ginnyinWI]

25. Big time.

USA Today is not a friend to Democrats.

[iconoclastNYC]

8. K&R

I think the Republicans are going to cheat this election just as in the past.

I think they'll steal just enough to maintain the Senate. Which races will be stolen? Can't educated people make educated guess right now?

The DUNC should have teams of statisticians investigating and building a very credible prediction models based on the polling data known to date, past election results, registration databases, voters should be tracked by GOTV staff and affidavits signed. Independent third party parallel elections should also be utilized.

If our party can't catch them in the act in 2006 we need to fire our leadership.

I hope the DNC has a program.

There should be researchers and statisticians and lawyers building the infrastructure to detect fraud as it happens on election day.

If there is anytime to take back election security it's during the midterms.

Can a grass root movement be mobilized in time to get the Security Court to make the correct decision? When the Democrats finally blow the lid of the vote story and begin to write the proper history on the 2000,2000, and 2004 elections?

[qazplm]

15. all this "cheating" stuff

just takes away from the fact that we arent doing very good at getting out the vote.

We arent being cheated or stolen, we are being beaten because they get their people out and we dont get ours out.

[iconoclastNYC]

21. What?

How do we judge turnout? Countless videos of long lines in Democratic leaning districts? (How many gave up and went home?)

Or how about the official count -- supressed by the huge laundry list of GOP cheats?

If you have not yet read the Conyers Report on Ohio and Donna Brazil's report on 2004 I *humbly* suggest you do before you offer your oppion on this topic.

[Ecumenist]

38. Thank you Iconoclast...

Amen and Amen...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

31. I don't think you have a very good understanding of this issue.

[0007]

32. Are we on the same page?

[Ecumenist]

37. qazplm, I have ALOT of family in Ohio and throughout the

southeast and I can tell you that if what went on in November of 2004 wasn't cheating, I don't know what is. Alot of the tactics were so bold and bald faced, it was ridiculous.

[badgerpup]

17. OK...

Can a grass root movement be mobilized in time to get the Security Court to make the correct decision? When the Democrats finally blow the lid of the vote story and begin to write the proper history on the 2000,2000, and 2004 elections?

Who is on this court?
How do we get their attention?
Hell, can we get ex-President Carter in on this?
He's known for being all about fair elections all over the world...

[iconoclastNYC]

22. I believe Carter is a let down on election security

Wasnt' he on some bipartisan farce of a election reform panel?

[nicknameless]

27. Ugh! Agreed!!!

Just a few weeks ago, he characterized James Baker as a brilliant and honest man. :puke:
IMO, his naivete helped to get us into this mess.

I admire Carter's devotion to building homes for those in need. I wish he would just stick with that.

We simply can't afford to be golly-shucks-nicey-nice with criminal racketeers.

[iconoclastNYC]

23. OMG

wow....i'm a bad editor but this post takes the cake. wow. it's almost unreadble!

[Zynx]

16. One little note: CNN no longer uses the Gallup Poll so their 32% was a

different poll than this one.

[badgerpup]

18. I wondered why 32% 'fell' to 34%...

Is it just me, or is he continously 'falling' to 34%?

[Zynx]

20. Once again, a different poll.

CNN no longer uses Gallup. Gallup fell from 36 to 34 where as CNN used the old Gallup number of 36 when comparing it to its 32% with its new polling group.

[usregimechange]

19. But 59% is horrible! Almost all incumbents get elected...

[ginnyinWI]

26. Don't trust that, if it comes from a member of the GOP!

They are, uh, rather, well-known for their ability to spin things their way!

Just look at what they're all doing now--they are freaking out. Hastert and Frist are trying (and failing, I might add) to look like liberals, with their ridiculous $100 pandering bribe! They just. Don't. Get. It. The same old razz-ma-tazz isn't going to do it this time.

They're all desperately trying to distance themselves from the White House. Even Trent Lott. Oh yeah, "Bush isn't on the ballot." Well from the way they're all acting they are putting the lie to that!

People no longer trust * or believe him when he says something. The approval rate for the Repub-controlled Congress is even lower! The people understand corruption and being rubber stamps. Especially the Republicans understand marching in lock-step! They do get it.

After a horrific summer of high gas prices, and realizing that the GOP has had five years to DO something, and has not--well, I think Schumer is right that it will be the final nail in their coffin.

[nicknameless]

28. I think usregimechange meant that it was bad news for incumbents.

Typically, most all get re-elected. So, from that perspective, 59% is quite a low percentage.

It would be interesting to know how the 59% broke down along party lines.

[Zorra]

29. The republican "Culture of Corruption" Congress has a lower

approval rating than Bu*h.

Bu*h may not be on the ballot, but the republican legislators that gave the loser everything he ever wanted are on the ballot.

[maxrandb]

30. They're playing the "Fear and Smear" card in Virginia

and I'm sure in lots of other states. I'm convinced that what happened in 2004 is that they put some "referendums" on the state ballots to turn out the fundies en masse. Think "anti-gay marriage amendment" in Ohio for example.

Well guess what they're throwing on the ballot in Virginina...A "Sanctity of Marriage" initiative. I'm not totaly up to speed on the details, but not only would this ban homosexuals from getting married, it would completely "criminalize", or remove rights from couples who live together outside of marriage.

They will do this, then post millions of little pamphlets in fundy churches so that they come out and vote for this "sanctity of marriage" crap. They know that these people will not only vote against homosexuals, but while they're in the booth, they'll pull the "R" lever.

Fact is, republicans couldn't give a shit about the sanctity of marriage, but if it turns out the fanatics, it works in their favor.

They count on a majority of the American people to either be stupid, or bigots. It's how thirce divorced, drug addicted, draft dodging Rush Limpballs is able to preach to them abour morality.

[Ecumenist]

33. LOL!! Yeah, Forti, you keep believing that...

"unhappiness?" That's like saying that Phoenix Arizona is a bit balmy and is dry in the summer....