Newsweek Poll: Bush is at 31% , An all-Time Low

by DemFromCT

As reported on MSNBC (link), a new Newsweek poll puts Bush at 31%. There's something about losing a referendum, and screwing your own party by lying about Rumsfeld's future, that saps your popularity. 32% think Bush will continue to be effective, and at least 60% think he'll be a lame duck. IIRC, only the Harris poll has ever had Bush that low.

 

President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to just 31 percent, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll. Bill Clinton's lowest rating during his presidency was 36 percent; Bush's father's was 29 percent, and Ronald Reagan's was 35 percent. Jimmy Carter's and Richard Nixon's lows were 28 and 23 percent, respectively. (Just 24 approve of outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's job performance; and 31 percent approve of Vice President Dick Cheney's.)

Worst of all, most Americans are writing off the rest of Bush's presidency; two-thirds (66 percent) believe he will be unable to get much done, up from 56 percent in a mid-October poll; only 32 percent believe he can be effective. That's unfortunate since 63 percent of Americans say they're dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country; just 29 percent are satisfied, reports the poll of 1,006 adults conducted Thursday and Friday nights.

A plurality of respondents don't have an opinion about Speaker-elect-to-be Pelosi, but thise who do have a more favorable than unfavorable opinion. Demonizing her has failed up to now  (but attempts haven't stopped).

What about a mandate?

But the new poll carries sobering news for Democrats, too, still on their post-victory high. Just about everyone believes the Republicans lost the 2006 midterms more than the Democrats won it. Presented with a list of factors that may have contributed to the Democrats' success, 85 percent of Americans said the "major reason" was disapproval of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq, 71 percent said disapproval of Bush's overall job performance, 67 percent cited dissatisfaction with how Republicans have handled government spending and the deficit, 63 percent said disapproval of the overall performance of Republicans in Congress, 61 percent said Democrats' ideas and proposals for changing course in Iraq. Tellingly, just 27 percent said a major reason the Democrats won was because they had better candidates.

Americans often vote against, not for. How does this stack up historically?

A majority of Americans, 51 percent, believe it's a good thing that the Democrats regained control of Congress, including 18 percent of Republicans, while only 17 percent think it is a bad thing. (When the Republicans won the 2002 midterms, 30 percent thought it was a good thing that the GOP kept control, while 34 percent thought it was a bad thing.)

Democrats start off in a strong position. And for more analysis, see It's the War, Stupid--And the Youth Vote, And Angry Indies, And...

What was most striking to you in the exit polling data?

The shift to the Democrats by young voters. [Democrats won 60 percent of voters aged 18-29 in 2006 while Republicans got 38 percent. In 2004 the spread was 55 to 45.]  Bush and the war have been more unpopular among young people than in older people and that's a continuation of a pattern. Young voters tend to be less anchored in partisanship, they're going to be more responsive to current events rather than their party history. If you look at the 1980's and the Reagan administration, young people tended to be more Republican then because they were going along with that zeitgeist. People who came of age during the Nixon and Ford administrations are much more Democratic than those who came of age during Reagan because that's when they formed their party identity.

So the dissatisfaction with the Bush administration may have created a new generation of Democratic voters? Too bad for Karl Rove.

[laughs] Yes.

Lots to mull over. 

Comments

[Mimikatz]

Remember, the Dems gained about 5% overall in the vote. So to be significant, their gains in some group have to be more than, say, 7%. (E.g., increase of 14% among Hispanics.) So going up 5% in the youth vote isn't that significant, even if it goes up to 60%. (See Kevin Drum's series of posts on the exit polls).

I do agree about the zeitgeist theory, however, coming from a cohort that voted for the first time in the Dem landslide of 1964. At one time ('80s) it was cool to be a conservative, but I think those days are more than over, and I look forward to the Corner gang sensing their growing irrelevancy. The Dems need to pick their battles carefully, but they also need to deliver for the Latino and youth vote to become solid.

[eriposte]

Re: Kvin Drum, is it really accurate to make conclusions based on comparing a mid-term election and a Presidential election? The numbers are numbers - the question is this - what is historically the right way to interpret the significance of the election results?

[clueless]

Any chance that Fitz can go about his business now, free of political interference from the WH or repubs in Congress?

Might this be the explanation for why the Dems are saying "no impeachment" for Bush or Cheney? Cause they 'know' Fitz will do their dirty work instead??? And leave their (Dems) hands clean for '08?

[DemFromCT]

eriposte, it makes more sense to compare to a midterm, and to 1994.

[demtom]

To somewhat echo eriposte's point: as I recall, 2004 was the highest youth-turnout number in, like, recorded history, and some were afraid it was a one-shot "Bush terrifies me" vote. That it was repeated in this election is immensely encouraging, especially at such a wide disparity level (60-38 is off the charts for a subgroup with no ethnic/special interest reason to break that wide). My suspicion is, it's the flip side of the GOP religious right dominance -- a generation that's grown up taking Roe for granted and knowing gay folk as a matter of course is bound to find the censoriousness of the GOP horrifying (the analysis of the WI gay marriage turnout seems to back this up). It seems, as Judis/Teixeira proposed, both ethnic (growth in non-white share of population) and actuarial (older, more religiously conservative voters replaced by the more secular or more tolerant) trends bode well for a blue future, at least until the Pubs get frustrated enough to radically reshape their coalition.

It has been remarkable to hear the loud economic populism of our supposedly more conservative freshmen. And all this in the absence of clear recession. If real downturn comes in the next two years (a decent bet), watch out for 2008.

I believe either CBS or Newsweek itself once previously had Bush at 31. Harris Interactive actually reached 29, once. I wonder if, after a while, it becomes impossible for a president this late in his tenure to rally. Bush hasn't topped the low 40s for something like 18 months; most of that time was spent in the 30s. Pubs NEED him to advance for them to have any shot in '08. I don't care who the replacement GOPer is; the performance of the incumbent administration will be an anchor weighing him down.

[DemFromCT]

demtom, correct. I knew Harris was lowest but misremembered. Gallup and CBS both had Bush at 31 in 5/06.

[Crab Nebula]

A downturn is more than a "decent" bet. It is a certainty. It is undeniable that gains have gone to too few people; ordinary people do not buy GDP and unemployment figures as indicative anymore as their health, housing and education costs rise faster than inflation. With no end in sight. And what do we do with mom and dad now that they're aging and retired and taking up all our time? And the medicare donut hole is slamming us? Oops, maybe we need some risk sharing after all.......

[freepatriot]

thanks demtom, you said exactly what I've been thinking for a long time:

Pubs NEED him to advance for them to have any shot in '08. I don't care who the replacement GOPer is; the performance of the incumbent administration will be an anchor weighing him down.

george bush is dragging the repuglican party off the cliff

and george hasn't even started having public temper tantrums yet

John Conyers gets to call his first witness in January

scooter libby gets to defend himself against criminal charges about the same time

the repuglican party hasn't tasted the dregs at the bottom of the mug yet

there might not BE a repuglican candidate on the ballot in a lot of states in 2008

[lkki]

Impeach Pelosi!

nice.

'Firsts' are amateurs not willing to pay for professionals. Pay or leave.

[Mimikatz]

My point was not that the youth vote was not important, but that the Dems' gains were pretty much across the board over 2004 with the exception of Hispanics, where the gains were very substantial.

What you compare depends on what you are trying to compare. I'm interested in whether people have buyers' remorse after 2004, or were new voters in 2006, so looking at 1994 or 2002 doesn't help. Drum does compare exit poll data re: House races in 2004 with exit poll data on House races in 2006.

Bush is unpopular and sinking fast. this is partly why I do think he will change policy on Iraq despite what he said before. That was then, and this is now.

[DemFromCT]

his unpopularity is unquestioned. turnout is so different between 2004 and 2006 because of the Presidential election, caution should be applied.

[mainsailset]

Will the polls for Bush @ 31 combined with the current Rep survivors who are reeling from this election's thrashing translate into the remaining Rep Congress continuing to distance themselves from Bush? And how far will they go to survive? Will they be the ones that decide to impeach Bush in order to clean house so that they can survive? Bush & Cheney have ceased to be leaders of their party, instead they are imbecile cousins to be stuffed in a dark room. Somebody in their party has to walk over Bush's corpse to begin leading the party again.

[ab initio]

demtom - "If real downturn comes in the next two years (a decent bet), watch out for 2008.".

The first consumer-led recession since 1991 will in my opinion begin in the next couple quarters if it has not already. GDP growth in Q1 was 5.5%, in Q2 was down to 2.5% (a 50% reduction), preliminary Q3 GDP growth was 1.6% (and many expect it to be zero or less when the revisions come in). What will Q4 GDP look like if this years trend continues?

One of the most important numbers that has kept the consumer spending orgy these past past few years so buoyant is Mortgage Equity Extraction or Withdrawal (MEW). According to the Fed data MEW has declined from an annualized $870 billion to $500 billion 3Q2005 to 2Q2006. Analysts estimate on an annualized basis 3Q2006 MEW will be down to $400 billion. That's a 50% reduction in "spendable cash" for the mall happy consumer. That's a solid $450 billion less in what the consumers where extracting from their housing ATM just about a year ago. And that is going to become even less as the growing inventory in the housing market continues to accelerate. Then add to this financial crunch that the US consumer has borrowed $9 trillion over the last 15 years with consumer debt outstanding in 2Q2006 now over $12 trillion. So what we have is the free spending American consumers have tripled their debt outstanding since the last consumer-led recession in 1991.

This is not going to look pretty. There will be a cry for government help as personal bankruptcies explode. The Dems need to get in front of this freight train and frame the issue and get their messaging on the right side of this pain. Jim Webb & Elliot Spitzer are right on in their message on this issue - corporate corruption, profiteering, wealth concentration, lax regulation, no oversight, pay-to-play congressional corruption, etc. Whichever Presidential candidate can tie the financial angst coming as a tsunami with Iraq and offer a common sense prescription will win in a landslide in 2008.

[Jodi]

Some people just don't take a hint.

Impeachement is off the table. It never was more than a shrill whine from Conyers and others to entertain simpletons. No substance whatsoever. It reminds me of the Plame case. [Poor Mr Libby being prosecuted for memory lapses is all that came of it.]
Freepatriot and the others are dropped down the trapdoor like poor performers in "Austin Powers." You poor fools, you believed! You believed! Down the hole with the rabbit!!

There is Pelosi waffling on her statements that President Bush is mentally unstable. ~Not me!~ Oh, yes says the lady interviewer, here and there.

Fitz, restarting clueless? Some kind of change in the White House? What change? Or put another way, NO change!

Bush is the President until 2008. He can have 0% approval.
The Republicans have a majority in the House and Senate until 2006.

Get used to it you diehard conspiracy believers. Accept reality for a change.

Now in 2006, the Democrats can come out of their rabbit holes and begin to do something constructive. I only hope someone lifts the trap.

Let us begin to see something constructive.

[njr]

I mull hints carefully, but none of yours have convinced me, thanks Jodi.

[freepatriot]

[Poor Mr Libby being prosecuted for memory lapses is all that came of it.]

hey jodi, forgetting something is a memory lapse

flat out making shit up is called LYING

when you LIE to a federal agent, you have committed a crime

when you LIE to a Grand Jury you have committed a crime

scooter libby told the same lie 5 fucking times

he don't have a problem with his memory

scooter's problem is that the stuff he remembered didn't fucking happen

I don't think a memory lapse defense is gonna convince a jury

and there is always the possibility that kkkarl rove will be called by scooter, or by Patrick Fitzgerald (in rebuttal)

the repug;ican's shitstorm is just beginning

karma is a bitch, and she knows where the repuglicans live

and did I hear that some "so called Christian" council was covering up the haggard scandal for months ??? that's gonna look REAL GOOD

[freepatriot]

yo mainsailset, I loved this line:

Somebody in their party has to walk over Bush's corpse to begin leading the party again.

the letters in the NY Times ain't so blunt, but America gets it too

I don’t care which party has control of the executive or legislative branches of government if it acts intelligently and in the interests of all Americans. Mr. Bush can’t make that transition.

If Mr. Safire’s young Republican heroes dare to turn the debate back to abortion, activist judges and personal smears, they may rest assured that they’ll get another pasting thanks to independents like me.

Republicans were certain that their sophisticated gerrymandering was so clever that dominance in the future was a slam dunk — just like those W.M.D.’s in Iraq.

everybody is talking about the Democrats having unity problems

we ain't the party who has an idiot at the head of the table flinging shit around the room

bush has two choices, run in circles (like renominating bolton), or off the cliff

Americans ain't down for that ride anymore

[freepatriot]

and jodi, Fitz doesn't have to "restart"

Fitz COULD make some of rover's testimony public by calling rover on rebuttal

and like scooter, rover is trapped in the statements he already made

one mistake on the stand and kkkarl is in the box beside scooter

if you follow horse racing, you might understand the concept of a "track Record"

Fitz has a track record, and he's moving right at his usual pace

[Jodi]

Come on out of your rabbit hole, Freepatriot!

I don't usually waste time talking to rude people, but I remember all the times you have carped with "Your first witness Mr Conyers" (I think that is relatively close to your quote.)

Anyway, you buffoon, he dropped you down the trap, but you still have your imagination to entertain you.
Karl Rove! Pssshh..

[Beel]

When are people going to realize that firing Rumsfeld is an admission (along with this "Baker Commission") that this Administration has FAILED in the execution of a war of choice. The only thing that would be a bigger failure would be the actual destruction of a divsion or so of our troops on the field. These leaders have put our military in an untenable position nontheless. In earlier days the whole lot of them, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rove, Condi, and the theoreticians like Wolfowitz, Feith, and Perle, would be either in prison, exiled, or executed. There are no more fig leaves once Bush fired Rummy. It's all lies, and we are looking at a disaster of incompetence and malfeasence. The Democratic Party had better realize this and start acting accordingly. That may not mean actual impeachment, since Bush is already a lame duck, but the country needs to understand that this Administration, abetted by the Republican Party which chose the path of zero oversight, has committed ruinous crimes against our military and our country. There must be Congressional investigation in the months to come, and no more lying down for Boltons, or Gates for that matter. The grownups have got to take over.

[Jodi]

Beel,

much of what you say is true about the errors and stupidity. However in American Politics errors and stupidity by Politicans, Bureaucrats and Leaders are not explicitly Crimes.

My father has told me about Vietnam and Presidents Kennedy, and Johnson were at least as cupable as President Nixon in that war. In truth Nixon was a hero because he ended what Kennedy and Johnson started and carried on.

You want to talk about President Clinton in Somalia? My older brother was there but gone before the Blackhawk incident, so I have heard about the cupability of Washington there as well.

When we start stringing up our Presidents for stupid and dangerous decisions, none of them will be safe.

Don't be myoptic.