9%--And They Can Be Had By the Downing Street Memos

[DemocracyInaction]

Whatever poll Fox has been pushing since yesterday (think it's Pew)has Bush's approval rating at 42% AND the support for the war at an identical 42%. We have often noted here at DU that about 33% of the people are avid repukes who will support Bush no matter what (just like 33% are avid Dems).

It appears that about 9% that still support Bush are, therefore, made up of certain Dems, some Independents and some not-fanatical Republicans. That's where the Downing Street Memos come in.

It's now looking like Bush's approval is quite linked to the 'war'. Because these memos are starting to explode onto the national scene (finally)they should be able to kick a few more points out from under the little scumbag. And when the numbers flip into the 30th percentile is when a whole bunch of rats will dessert the ship (repuke rats, Bush ass-kissing Dem rats and media rats).

What now is soooo important is for Dems not to get fixated on Bush but rather to start spray painting the whole Republican Party with the taint. After all, hating Bush doesn't translate into voting FOR Dems. They have won because they successfully paint all Dems as the spawn of Satan. Now we have to translate Bush's lying, manipulative, GI killing, crusade for the energy companies and corporate America into the defective gene running through the whole rotten Republican Party. Make this bigger than Bush!!!!!!!!

[Jack Rabbit]

1. Personally, I've always set the threshold at about 40%

In two-way presidential elections characterized as a "landslide", the loser typically still retains about 40% of the vote. This includes Goldwater, McGovern and Mondale.

We're closer than you think.

[soleft]

2. What a wonderful point to bring up to my parents and sis this wkend

They're in the 9%. Can't wait to point this out to them should politics come up.

[AaronforAmerica]

3. cbs news/nytimes

i think it was the cbs news/nytimes poll that you are referring to which had the bush approval rating at 42 percent

www.StopJohnBolton.com

[DemocracyInaction]

5. Aaron---42% just showed up in that CBS poll and was identical to

the Pew poll being hyped by Fox yesterday. Seems like more and more the numbers in all these polls are heading for that very low 40th percentile and not many dancing even in the mid-40's anymore. That's why seeing the CBS one today made me smile even more.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Welcome to DU, Aaron. Here's a link to The New York Times story

From The New York Times
Dated Thursday June 17

Bush's Support on Major Issues Tumbles in Poll
By Robin Toner and Marjorie Connelly

Increasingly pessimistic about Iraq and skeptical about President Bush's plan for Social Security, Americans are in a season of political discontent, giving Mr. Bush one of the lowest approval ratings of his presidency and even lower marks to Congress, according to the New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Forty-two percent of the people responding to the poll said they approved of the way Mr. Bush was handling his job, a marked decline from his 51 percent rating after of the November election, when he embarked on an ambitious second term agenda led by the overhaul of Social Security. Sixteen months before the midterm elections, Congress fared even worse in the survey, with the approval of just 33 percent of the respondents, and 19 percent saying Congress shared their priorities.

Despite months of presidential effort, the nationwide poll found the public is not rallying toward Mr. Bush's vision of a new Social Security that would allow younger workers to put part of their payroll taxes into private investment accounts. Two-thirds said they were uneasy about Mr. Bush's ability to make sound decisions on Social Security. Only 25 percent said they approved of the way Mr. Bush was handling Social Security, down slightly from what the poll found in March.

Moreover, 45 percent said the more they heard about the Bush plan, the less they liked it. The survey also found the public shared the growing skepticism in Washington about Mr. Bush's prospects for success on Social Security, with most saying they did not think Mr. Bush would succeed.

Read more.

[DemocracyInaction]

8. About the references to Social Security in that article

(and thanks for posting it)----- when you look at how totally unresponsive or even hostile the people are to all these months of the shithead campaigning for SS "overhaul" (read destruction) it says loud and clear to me that the American people are not all that goddamn conservative that has been shoved down our throats by the press. If they truly were so conservative they would insist on absolutely no government programs whatsoever and insist that they be left alone to live on whatever dimes they can save or be willing to die in poverty. Don't see that, do you?? They all still line up with their sweaty little palms out (you see, they just don't want anybody else to get any of the handouts). Bottom line: there is a hell of a lot to tap in these people because they are a thousand times more liberal and socialistic than they imagine and this party needs to get off it's ass and stop swallowing the Kool Aid about this being such a conservative nation.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Exactly

It would have been improper for the authors of the Times to have expressed such a conclusion; that would have bordered on editorializing.

Nevertheless, it's hard to escape it.

[Ravy]

4. You are kidding about the not-fanatical Republicans, right?

I will agree with the "certain Dems, some independents"...but "not-fanatical Republicans" surely aren't a large enough group to be statistically signifcant.

*grin*

[LisaLynne]

6. That's an excellent point.

After all, this is bigger than *. Getting rid of him wouldn't really solve the problem of the neocons. Making sure that people equate the lunacy that is the * administration as "business as usual" with the Republican party is important. That's the key.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. That is why we must also push for prosecution

That is why we must also push for prosecution after impeachment and removal.

And, by the way, we shouldn't be talking about impeaching and removing only Bush. There is also a good case against Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Gonzales.

The high crimes and misdemeanors are nothing less than war crimes and crimes against humanity. There are plenty of of facts in the public domain to build a case against these people for starting an unjustified war of aggression against a sovereign state and for circumvented the rights of prisoners of war and other protected persons under the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

These would also be the bases of the prosecution of these five and many others under the War Crimes Act of 1996 or, if the federal government is unwilling or unable to bring charges and make a good faith effort to prosecute, before an international tribunal.

Do we really have a case against them? The real question is: do they have a defense?