« Did Libby Try to Telegraph Testimony to Judy, as Rove Did with Cooper? | Main | Secret Memo Exposing Bush/GOP Strategies »

October 01, 2005


let me say it a different way. Bush didn't fall from katrina and didn't rebound from Rita. They were irreelevent events from a polling perspective on long-term job performance.

What they did is remove benefit of the doubt, liongering from 9/11 and left Bush open to honest scrutiny and judgement of performance uncluoded by propaganda eminating from the WH. And that is not, my friends, where Bush wants to be.


Wait untill the fall/winter heating bills start to arrive.

That's the point, Melanie. There's no good news coming for Bush, and no political cushion for him to land on.

Now here's something interesting:

Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans say that DeLay is about as ethical as most politicians. Seven percent (7%) say he is more ethical than most, 20% say less ethical. Those numbers are similar to perceptions of Bill Clinton in the late 1990s.

"When it comes to ethics violations, the public continues to grade politicians on a curve," noted Scott Rasmussen, President of Rasmussen Reports. "Sadly, allegations of misconduct and indictments are perceived as the norm for elected officials."

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Americans correctly identified DeLay as a Republican while 36% were unsure of his party affiliation.

Fifty percent (50%) say they are following the DeLay story somewhat or very closely.

DeLay's favorability ratings are roughly similar to those for other Congressional Leaders.

Keep that in mind if you think it's easy to translate that into a clear victory for the other side. And imagine if 'all congress critters are corrupt' applied to the WH (which it doesn't).


Do you think those DeLay numbers are a reflection of real attitudes toward corruption or of how well DeLay spun Earle as a partisan prosecutor?

Would people say the same about Abramoff's game of one degree of separation from a mob hit? How about DeLay's two degrees of separation from the same mob hit?

I think it reflects the Dick Morris world view: DeLay is guilty as hell, but they'll never pin it on him. Should he actually be convicted, that most certainly changes radically.

Part of it might be the counterspin, but like Fitzgerald, folks are confused by the law and the timeframe. Does Earle have anything? Does Fitzgerald? Until they show their cards, no one is really certain. And only one person is out with a PR offensive and that's ol' Tom. Earle and Fitz aren't talking.

Is there ever going to come a point where someone in the media says to Mr. Gallup, put your poll where the sun don't shine? Newsweek, for those who haven't seen, has come out with a 40% approval poll (up a skyrocketing two points from the low a few weeks ago). Clearly nothing has happened to Bush's numbers, apart from, as DemfromCT says, the standard Gallup fluctuation. (And it's hard to make the case it's just fluky numbers, as it seems to happen to no one but Gallup) Yet all sorts of people -- including that gullible person at Tapped -- have seized upon the Gallup number as proof that handling Rita so competently has reversed Bush's fortune.

As Brad Delong says regularly, why, oh, why can't we have a better press corps?

And, DemfromCT, cheers from a fellow-fan on the Yanks winning the East.

demtom, always delighted to hear from you, and especially with that message. Methinks we just play 'em again in a week, Groundhog Day.

more confirmation from yesterday's MP post, which I sadly neglected to read until just now. Prof. Franklin assists (scroll doen to bottom) with some nifty graphs.

60% of Americans may not care about the ethnicity of the next SCOTUS nominee, but I'll bet Hispanics do. George is big on rewarding friends, and Karl appreciates good penetration. And demographic penetration of the Hispanic community wouldn't hurt either.

The dismal polls could make GI George particularly vulnerable to persuasion by his Crusader friends though.

We'll learn more about who the next SCOTUS nominee will be over the course of the coming week.

I really think that the stealth strategy has backfired on Bush. Roberts has set the competence bar higher to be sure. But both the conservatives and the moderates were told to take it on faith that he would be ok. For the O'Connor slot that won't work. the Dobsonites see their chance to reshape the Court and wast explicit assurances that the new nominee is one of them. Specter and the Dems want assurances that s/he is not going to be to the right of O'Connor. Neither side seems to want to take it on faith. But the nominee can't be both.

At this point Roe is probably of little importance to Bush/Rove. I don't think they really want to see it overturned while Bush is Pres. It is too good an organizing issue for the GOP. After that? Bush could care less, and Rove may or may not have a future, dpending on how Plame and Abramoff shake out. The main issues for them are presidential (executive) power, federal power where they want it but not where they don't, and, of course, keeping the pardon power unfettered.

And when will they announce O'Connor's replacement? When they need a diversion from bad news. Fitzgerald, Iraq, Hurricane Xavier or whatever. If they can find their magic candidate, they will go with her. Otherwise Gonzo gets it and Bush just tries to tough it out.

More on polling from Newsweek (see demtom's comment above), perhaps just to prove the point that some (not all) reporters are morons when it comes to numbers.

Despite repeated caveats in the story that with a MOE of =/-4%, there's no difference in a 2 point change (38->40%), the story written to go with the poll is all about Bush's momentum.

With a four-point margin of error, two points is not considered “statistically significant,” but tell that to the White House. Polling is all about momentum, and the president has clearly stopped the slide.

Who cares how the WH interpets these crappy numbers? Newsweek trumpets one and two point differences with embarrassingly low ratings as the "big Mo". They really think he can't go any lower? Heh. See Melanie's comments above.

Mimikatz - Have you considered that it would be more difficult for the Bushies to ram a radcon nominee through the senate AFTER a conceivable Frist indictment?

IMHO The sooner Bush nominates an O'Connor replacement, the sooner this business is done with and behind him.

I agree that George fundamentally doesn't give a damn about Roe one way or another, and would just as soon not have the matter come up under his watch. Ultimately, that will not be his only consideration however. A Lasting Republican Majority is what the man known as "His Brain" is after.

Towards that end, a Hispanic candidate would be best. Karl will understand that, even if his puppetsock president doesn't.

Interesting...I'm guessing the public is souring on the idea of more "conservatism" just based on its association with people they're increasingly disenchanted with; imagine if the Dems actually get their message act together.

Same goes for the idea of capitalizing on the sleaze factor; it's time to start broadly differentiating between the parties already. Dems have to: 1) truly be willing to be the good-government party, even if some of their own get caught up in the cleanup (see Gingrich, House banking scandal and); and 2) make very, very clear that this particular brand of sleaze is not just a function having too much power for too long, but is endemic to this particular brand of Republicanism. Which it is. The saga of Abramoff's World, and the continued crony-and-contract watch, should illustrate that ever more clearly. Time to end "conservatism" as we know it.

And Newsweek: "clearly stopped the slide?" Oy -- even I, the compleat statistical ignoramus, know what "statistically significant" means. Oy.

O'Connors' replacement will probably be named on Monday. See

ack. Bad html. Try Judging the Future.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad