Bush At 39% In WSJ/NBC Poll

by DemFromCT

[UPDATE]: CNN with same numbers.

From the WSJ:

The hailstorm of unfavorable publicity that has hit Republicans and President Bush -- extending beyond the Foley matter to Iraq -- have cost the party the initiative at a critical point in the midterm-election campaign, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted during the weekend.

The survey shows that by 41%-18%, Americans say news they "have seen and heard over the past few weeks" has made them less favorable toward continued Republican control of Congress; by 34%-23% they called themselves more favorably inclined toward Democratic control. It also shows a decline in Mr. Bush's job approval rating to 39% from 42% earlier this month.

And on iraq:

Meanwhile, the latest Journal/NBC poll suggests even more problems for Republicans' campaign positions, with a 46% plurality of Americans now saying the war in Iraq is hurting the nation's ability to win the fight against terrorism. That is up from 32% earlier this month when Americans were nearly evenly divided over whether the war was helping, hurting or not making a difference in the war on terrorism...

The survey shows Democrats -- who need a net gain of 15 House seats and six Senate seats to recapture control of Capitol Hill -- holding a nine-percentage-point edge, 48%-39%, on the question of which party voters want to control Congress after the election. That is unchanged from early this month.

The Foley matter comes as voters have already been souring on incumbents in general, and the Republican-led Congress in particular. In the poll, voters, by 45%-38%, said it is time to give a new person a chance rather than re-elect their incumbent member of Congress; in early September, voters split on that question.

By 57%-37%, voters say America's safety from terrorism doesn't depend on success in Iraq, which has been a central assertion of Mr. Bush and Republican congressional candidates. And by 61%-29%, voters say Iraq is now in a state of civil war -- a conclusion the White House has tried to forestall in the belief it would further erode support for Mr. Bush's policy there. Even Republicans, by 47%-39%, share that assessment.

The poll also contains signs that the congressional Republican strategy of "localizing" elections to take the spotlight off a politically weakened Mr. Bush isn't working. Fully two-thirds of voters now say their decision for Congress will be a signal for the Bush administration -- with 39% signaling opposition and 28% signaling support. In April, only about half of Americans called their vote a signal for the administration.

Now, 39 isn't so different than 42. But certainly, one can't make a case that the trend is onward and upward.

Okay, it's not in the poll as a question. But if it were asked "Is the GOP screwed, or what?" it'd be 60% yes, 40% no comment.

Comments

[DemFromCT]

for more on Iraq, see Iraq And Public Opinion: Americans Unwilling to Pay Future Costs of Iraq

[Madison Guy]

Aren't the watershed congressional elections usually about one-party rule and the abuse of power? No wonder the polls are plummeting for the Republicans. Foleygate fits right in. Sex crimes usually involve the abuse of power, and this scandal is no exception.

Washington is no stranger to the arrogance of power, BUT it’s so over-the-top this time — and that has a lot to do with there not having been any real Democratic opposition. The bastards knew they could get away with anything, and that feeling of entitlement just grew and grew.

Completely unable to function without their protective sense of entitlement, these losers hold one press conference after the other, each more ridiculous than the last. I used to think that, if nothing else, conservatives were about not whining, accepting responsibility, and taking your punishment like a man. I must have been misinformed.

Now, their endless series of press conferences is surreal and disgusting — they should be collected into a book, “WE’VE GOT SOME EXPLAININ’ TO DO: The 2006 House GOP Tries and Fails to Set the Record Straight.” This could be the cover picture.

[Dismayed]

Love the caption on the photo. Indeed, the problem is that Mr. Foley was 'behind' the children.

[jonnybutter]

But if it were asked "Is the GOP screwed, or what?" it'd be 60% yes, 40% no comment.

Don't forget the 1% 'voting' "don't know"!

Great photo, BTW.

[knut wicksell]

The report suggests that the election is being 'nationalized'. If so, it's good news for us, since the nationalization favours a generic Democrat. Should be good for Lamont, too. Let's hope he runs with it.

[DemFromCT]

nationalizing the election:

U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson's service on the seemingly innocuous House Page Board has brought the Mark Foley scandal into the Albuquerque Republican's hotly contested race for re-election.

Wilson's Democratic opponent, Attorney General Patricia Madrid, charged Monday that Wilson failed to protect the pages from a sexual predator when she was one of five members of the board from 2001-04.

"This board was specifically charged with taking care of the pages," Madrid said.

[ab initio]

I don't want to count the chickens before they hatch but the backdrop is the best for the Dems in many moons. One concern is that many Dems who have made their races competitive don't have the money to nail their Repub opponents in the final weeks.

[DemFromCT]

ab initio , this is happening all over. The story is in Shimkus' district.

When congressional challenger Dan Stover went to bed Sunday night, his online fundraising account was barely over $1,000.

Less than 48 hours later, as national headlines screamed sex scandal in Congress, that amount had more than quadrupled.

[Mimikatz]

Again I reference the LA Times article that had a page who was there in 1995 say he was warned about Foley, and that it was well known that Foley had a prediliction for young male pages, interns and aides. It was particularly well known among gay men in the Capitol.

Current and former congressional staffers interviewed by The Times, who are from both parties, said it was well known within the Capitol's gay community that Foley was interested in young men.

"Among the gay political community, there was a pretty wide understanding that he had an eye for the interns and the younger staff," said one former congressional staffer.

The staffers said Foley — who was elected to the House in 1994 and is not openly gay — would seek out the young men in bars, restaurants and even around the Capitol.

One who clearly knew was the Chief of Staff who later went to work for Tom Reynolds (NY-26). You'd think he'd have told someone just to keep this kind of thing from happening. Dreier must have known, too. What about Mehlman?

And blaming it on a priest? Not such a good idea. The heart of the scandal in the Catholic Church wass that everyone looked the other way and hushed it up for years. Same thing seems to have happened with Foley. So why remind people? Except that Foley is thinking only of Foley, not the GOP as a whole, and Hastert is simialrly thinking only of himself. What a bunch of irresponsible jerks.

[DemFromCT]

As I said , Hastert's a dead man walking.

Backed by measured words of support from President Bush, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert opened an intense drive on Tuesday to hold on to his post, but behind the scenes senior Republicans weighed whether he could survive the scandal surrounding former Representative Mark Foley.

Among the options being considered by senior Republicans is for Mr. Hastert to announce that he will stay on as speaker through this year but not seek re-election to the post assuming Republicans retain control of the House, said people on and off Capitol Hill who were involved in the discussions. They said the advantage of such a step would be to postpone a disruptive leadership fight until after Election Day.

[AlphaGeek]

When I mentioned James Carville's infamous credo "When your opponent is drowning, throw the son-of-a-bitch an anvil" to my wife today, in relation to the wheels coming off the GOP bus, her response was priceless. Sayeth she:

"Good. They have it coming to them for all the shit they've pulled. The Democrats had better start flinging anvils for all they're worth."

And that's coming from someone who generally doesn't have time to follow anything but the top stories being pushed by the MSM. The polls leave me hopeful that my wife's attitude is representative of much of the non-political public.

[Jodi]

Well, you dyed in the wool Dems better consider how to govern and deal again, because the House will be yours.
The Senate, maybe. I would guess that you have the edge.

Of course your problem as one pundit said is that the Republicans will lose their complacency and work to straighten themselves up for the 2008 election.

[James]

Will all the "liberal" media outlets that claimed Bush over 40% was a huge sign of a comeback now say that 39% means he is again a liability to his party?

I doubt it.

The real key to nationalizing this election is following Foley's money trail. The NRCC said they would use Foley's campaign money for other races. The Democrats in those races need to run ads ASAP going after the Republicans who use that money.

[freepatriot]

yo, joditroll, looks like we get the House, the Senate, and probably President Pelosi in 2007

after a major fucking meltdown like that, you think the repuglicans are gonna regroup in 2008 ???

more like 2108, if the repuglican party survives george and denny at all

or do you think Iraq is gonna get better next year ???

Afghanistan ???

what do you see as "working out" for the repuglicans ???

lol

[DemFromCT]

freepatriot, Jodi's point is well taken. dems now have to govern... not always easy. look what it takes to get us here to agree!