More Polls

Americans want out of Iraq. From NY Times/CBS:

A majority of respondents, 56 percent, said they supported a timetable for a reduction in United States forces in Iraq, a question the two parties have been sparring over, with the White House and most Republicans in Congress taking the position that setting a timetable would send the wrong message. More than half of that group said they supported a withdrawal even if it meant Iraq would fall into the hands of insurgents.

As for Bush:

Mr. Bush has experienced a slight increase in his overall job approval rating since the last New York Times/CBS News poll, in May, indicating that the steady erosion in his support over the last year has leveled off and even improved by a few percentage points. Thirty-six percent of those surveyed said they approved of the way he was doing his job, up from 31 percent in May.

But with 55 percent saying they disapproved of his performance, the numbers remain far below the comfort zone for a sitting president during a tough midterm election season. In what could be another warning sign for incumbents, more than twice as many people believe the country is heading in the wrong direction than believe it is heading in the right direction. And only 35 percent of respondents said they approved of Mr. Bush’s handling of foreign policy in general, though that was up from the 27 percent in May.

That's as much of a 'rally-round-the president' as is going to happen. Fom NBC/WSJ:

WASHINGTON -- Americans persist in their bleak assessment of events in Iraq, the state of the U.S. economy, and the job performance of President Bush and Congress, the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows.

The Journal/NBC poll shows a modest uptick in Mr. Bush's job performance, to 39% from 37% last month, but a 56% majority disapproves Mr. Bush's job performance. Congress fares even worse, with 25% approval and 60% disapproval. The telephone survey of 1,010 adults, conducted July 21-24, has a margin for error of 3.1 percentage points.

The public's desire for a change in direction represents bad news for the Republican majority. By 48%-38%, voters say they prefer that Democrats win control of Congress this fall; by identical proportions, voters say its time to "give a new person a chance" in Congress.

By 38%-21%, they say their vote will be a signal of opposition to Mr. Bush rather than support. By 60%-27%, Americans say their nation is headed "off on the wrong track" rather than "in the right direction."

Anything less than 40% is disastrous for the incumbent party in a midterm. The public has soured on Bush and his policies, are very concerned about the current state of affairs, think the country is absolutely going in the wrong direction, and want a Dem congress.

This unpopular President and his unpopular foreign policy is dragging his party down around his ears. Barnes and Kondracke and the like can have all the fantasies they wish; Bush is not going to see the other side of 40% in any consistent fashion and will never hit 50% again. That means even Republicans are deserting him, and make no mistake... those are awful numbers.

The only solace Bush can take is that it's not the lowest he's ever been. That's pretty thin gruel for a President who can look forward to being raked over the coals if the Dems gain power in November. The only question is how much damage he'll be permitted to do in the next two years. November will go a long way in answering that.

Comments

[Dismayed]

But really, what is the value of these polls? About the same as exit polls - Nada. America is headed in the wrong direction, voters are unhappy, the President is unpopular, and John Kerry won the last election. All largely irrelevent, sorry. You better get ready. The dems had better get ready. This neocon cabal will steal elections in November like elections have never been stolen before. They have committed high crimes and treason, and they know beyond doubt that the dems will come after their sock puppet chimperor. On the other hand, it seems that no matter how clearly an election is rigged, or no matter how clearly funding of redistricting is done illegally that there is no credible mechanism for reversing the result of an election once the "result" is "ratified". Oh yeah, one guy here, another guy there gets busted for phone jamming, Kennedy writes an article. All are deemed acceptable collateral damage. In 2006 they will pull out all the stops - make no mistake. And why wouldn't they? If they don't, together they will hang. If they do, they keep congress where they want it long enough for George to pardon all the operatives before leaving in '08. I've been reading these posts for a long time, and thanks to all of you. However, the thing I have heard nothing about from any of you or from the DNC is hard-core preparation for ensuring fair, democratic execution at the ballot box in November, and that my friends is the missing element that undoes the rest.

[DemFromCT]

Dismayed, that's nonsense. The 2004 election wasn't stolen. We lost.

As far as the idea that if we don't fix the magical black box that steals elections, we're doomed... well that's more nonsense.

Close elections are difficult to tally. If you want some margin there, don't make it close.

As far as voter suppression, unfair waits and some of the very real problems exposed in Ohio, elect Dem locals, because that's who monitors local elections.

There is no better answer pre-2006. You certainly don't want a Republican congress addressing the issue.

[Dismayed]

How much money does a major bank run through in a day? And how close is the tally at the end of the day? "Sorry boss, can't account for a thousand dollars, I'm going home." I don't think so. I'm sorry - I just don't agree with you here. I absolutely refuse to accept that we relegate close elections to the side that cheats the most. LBJ learned his lesson back in his early days, and we should too. Even vegas doesn't take your money in a tie at the blackjack table. How much margin is enough? How much error is okay? Each vote should count, EACH VOTE. Where is the outcry for auditable elections? If we have to do it by computer, fine. Every computer should print a reciept that the voter verifies, then runs through a reader, and sticks in a box. Then an algorithm decides when we break out the paper. Paper is physical, its understandable. You can't change how many sheets are in a box from a modem out on the street. It has mass, and I trust it. I agree fully with your comments about electing local dems, but you are alway going to have those that moralize cheating the system because they are changing the outcome for the cause of "good" as they see it. Never will every district have our noble dems as the election officials. I'm a pretty fair student of history, and there have been few times in our past where motivation for doing ANYTHING that must be done to stay in power have been so clear. I don't think the elections are going to be close in November, and I have a knot in my gut saying that "not close is not going to be enough". We must not trust these guys, in any way, as far as one skinny dem can throw them - and most of them are big fat F@#%s. I truely hope I'm wrong, but I think it is very wishful thinking to belive that we are not going to see some pretty "floradaish" exit polls coast to coast in November.

[catastrophile]

Dismayed, I happen to agree with you and think it's important to increase awareness of this problem, but DemFromCT is just as right when he says that we're going to have to win some elections before we can really fix the problem.

[DemFromCT]

There's a related problem and that's that fixating on what's broken discourages turnout and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Don't tell CT voters their vote doesn't count Aug 8... of course it does, and we want them out there voting. Same is true in November.

Back to topic, note the recent polls with Bush at 37-39% including Harris, Gallup, and the NBC/WSJ and CBS/NY Times will all set the stage for a 'what's wrong with Bush?" series of media stories.

It's already started in the WaPo. The narrative will be that Bush's political comeback was stymied by violence in the ME, including iraq.

Duh. This incompetent bunch can't handle the job, and every opportunity to demonstate that is another setback for them.

[demtom]

DemfromCT, are you sure about the media narrative changing? My reading of the Times story this morning was, they've adopted a "been down so long it feels like up to me" approach -- highlighting Bush "recovering", only secondarily noting that, gee, 36% approval is actually kinda bad. No, actually, it's godawful...just because it was a few points lower 2-3 months ago doesn't mean this represents anything more than minor sand-shifting.

My guess is, the numbers stay in this range (35-39) the rest of the year (barring a market crash); they might approach (or under-pass) the low-30s nadir in the next two years, as the economy slows so much even CNBC can't pretend otherwise.

Dismayed, given that the only response to believing your view is putting a gun to our collective heads, I have to say you waste our time.

Slightly off-topic (though still regarding the Times): did anyone read this morning's Lieberman article -- and when I say Liberman article, I mean it could have been written by Lieberman. Though there were no outright lies in it, the clear implication -- through selective quoting, with Lieb supporters always getting the interpretive hammer -- was that many Lamont voters are just this side of Palestinian/destroy-Israel advocates. I'm not quite sure if the article is more scurrilous or just standard Beltway clueless.

[Dismayed]

Agree fully that the bigger the margin the more it takes uncertainty and tomfoolery out of the process. For that reason our votes now count MORE than ever. I don't think we need to put guns to our heads, and if I thought that was the only solution I wouldn't bother commenting on DemfromCT's fine and encouraging post. I think making people mad as hell gets them out to the box. I think being mad as hell will commit them to stand in line for 6 hours. Man, it there is anything that pisses people off, it's getting cheated, so I say we use it as a rally cry "Don't give them the chance to cheat us - Let's crush them at the ballot box." Secondly, if you agree with that point or not. I hope to heaven that the folks at the DNC are carefully examining things that seem to have happened in the last elections and are planning quick response contingencies for handling it. Teams of lawyers and publisist ready to fly to any hotspot, press releases crying foul on the spot while goofy things are happening. Feed the press the story of Black folk standing in line while they still stand there. Reporters are lazy, but they still like sizzle. How about secret teams with video cameras that film the door of select polling stations, so we have evidence of how many people actually showed up. I think we need to be thinking out of the box here - because I guarantee you the neocons are thinking "out of the box", pardon the pun. Everyone needs to know that we will not hang our heads and walk away this time. We will fight. We'll fight like hell from the moment the first goofy action happens until hell freezes over. Work toward a wide margin, plan for a narrow one. I'm sorry if I came off as sounding defeatist. What I'm really saying is lets be realistic about probable actions they will take, and plan for them. We have a saying down in the south "Once, shame on you - Twice shame on me." I don't want to see us caught with our pants down again. I hope the DNC is listening.

[Dismayed]

I have one more thing to add that is back 100% in line with the original post. I have a number of Repub friends, and even the most hardcore "ride for the brand" of them think the administration is lost and are absolutely fed up with their party controlled congress. It's a definate shift from what I've seen in them in the past. Some who always gave money have quit doing so, and man have they quit talking politics. DemfromCT is right they are in a bad spot, core support is eroding, and they know it.

[demtom]

Dismayed, if motivating people was your intent in raising this subject, then I revise my reaction. It's just that the vast majority of people who come here moaning about fraud have a "What's the point? They'll steal it, anyway" approach, and I thought you were headed that same direction.

I agree, it can be frustrating that local Dems in too many areas (read: Ohio) seem to let themselves be short-changed repeatedly. I don't think they're all numbskulls, so I have to believe the institutional barriers are simply too great until we manage to take over the levers of power. If the logistical roadblocks the GOP puts up are by themselves successful at preventing a change in power, we are indeed in trouble as a democracy. But I think this year's party-preference numbers are too dramatic to be foiled by small tricks.

[Raenelle]

Remember the Repub-MSM line from about two months' ago--that, if the Dems win, they will vindictively start a bunch of investigations. I haven't heard that lately at all--from anyone. Do you think the Repubs may have found out that the possibility of investigations actually was a Dem plus? If not, why was the talking point dropped?

[Dismayed]

I agree that the tide is high for them. Honestly, I think it's worse than the polls incicate. Probably small tricks won't do it. I just worry that the stage is set for big tricks to be worth the gamble. My point is to say this is going to be a big battle, let's get ready to paddle like hell with the tide, and let's be ready to fight whatever they throw at us. Polls are great. They are bell weathers to the will of the people. We must do everything in our power to make sure the election is reflective of that will. And if the DNC will let people know they are on the job on this front (and make no mistake it is a front in this war), perhaps it will encourage some of our defeatists to get up and go vote.

[DemFromCT]

"Nother post coming to answer demtom about the narrative, and I appreciate Dismayed's contibution and committment.

[Mimikatz]

Dems are certainly more enthusiastic than the R's by every poll I've seen. There should not only be a bright light shone on all Sec of State's offices this November, but armies of poll watchers.

That said, areas vote differently and in different ways. One could in theory steal a Pres election by changing votes in a relatively few distticts, although I agree with DeminCT that we lost in 2004, IMHO because their ground game was better. But we are talking about potentially 50 or more congressional seats that could flip. That is a far more complex problem, given the multiplicity of voting technologies in use in different districts.

I think we can take the House, as I've written several times, and possibly the Senate, though that is more iffy. Since I wrote this post suggesting 48 potentially competitive races, such seemingly solid GOP seats as NE-01 and even ID-01 are looking a bit shaky.

We only need 15 seats, although more is obviously better, and the math and the polls are in our favor, suggesting that if we work hard, we can do it.

[RepFromCT]

How many of the posters here worked the actual voting polls on election day? I live in a mid size suburb in CT and have to wonder how large scale election fraud occurs. Our voting site is a school where the old fashioned mechanical machines are stored safely before election day. When anyone walks in they MUST show a valid ID. The poll workers know me by name and site but still require me to show my drivers license. At the end of the day three to five people huddle around the machines and read off the vote totals. THAT'S IT. Not difficult. Never has anyone ever complained of voter fraud. Our voting station handles up to 3000 voters. Now if a couple of volunteers can handle it for 3000 voters why can't they handle it in precincts with under a thousand, like those that caused all the problems in LF in 2000. This stuff is not rocket science.

As for people being turned away, if you can't show up to the polls between 6:00am and 8:00pm and get turned away at 8:05 at the door, too bad.

[Kevin Hayden]

That the White House's inner advisers are urging Bush to 'lawyer up' for anticipated post-election investigations is another good indicator that they see the bad moon risiong.

Yet the first focus must remain on the Congressional races - pushing candidates to question the administration's competence and that of the generals, questioning why Iraq's handpicked leader won't even support democratic Israel, asking why Osama remains hidden and why - 5 years after 9-11, our borders, ports and airports keep failing every objective security test.

And with that focus comes our own responsibility to get up and get out the vote, to counter the ballot initiative strategies Rove uses to boost the Right's turnout.

When voters are confronted with the massive failures of the Bush administration and its Stepford Wife Congress, but cannot hear anyone defining a way back to sanity and safety, despair - and a low turnout - can result.

As Dems, it's critical to be viewed as more than reactive. We no longer need to point out what's wrong, but we need to offer a hopeful destination beyond fixing what's wrong.

As Pollyanna as it may be, we need to take a page from the 'Morning in America' playbook: Americans can accomplish anything by taking the B team off the field and putting the first team back before the two minute warning. Corny as the metaphor sounds, it makes clear that the problem is only with the leadership, and that the citizenry is a-ok.

Does that solve the debacle that is Iraq? No, but it indicates a belief that the solution can be had.

[rj]

Dead thread, but I can't help myself:

to Kevin Hayden: long before "morning in America", that playbook belonged to FDR.

to RepFromCT: Your comment is a depressing reminder of how abysmally the media covered the outrages in Ohio, because it's so very off-point on what the problems there were. Just to hit your biggest target, the trouble wasn't tardy voters; it was voters having to wait on line for literally hours on end, or having to give up in order to get to work, or having the polling place finally close with long lines of people (who'd gotten there hours earlier) being deprived of their right to vote. The causes and culprits have been catalogued endlessly -- spend 3 seconds googling -- but not by the folks most people depend on for information. Fourth estate, indeed; gotta keep fighting on that front as well.