MyDD :: Scandal Polls

Scandal Polls

by Chris Bowers, Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 12:01:22 PM EST

The polling numbers for DeLay and Frist on their respective scandals make make Bush's approval numbers look good:

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Oct. 8-10, 2005. N=807 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.4.

"Recently, a series of charges have been raised against public officials. For each one I mention, please tell me whether this is nothing more than the usual kind of partisan political charge that has little merit, or whether you think this charge indicates potential illegal activity. [See below.]"

	  Usual Partian    Potential Illegal
DeLay	       24		 65
Frist	       28		 57

It would appear that, as per usual, DeLay is only able to developp a talking point that speaks to Republicans. No one else beleive a word of his "defense."

Meanwhile, his name ID continues ot rise:

"Now I'm going to read you the names of several public figures and organizations, and I'd like you to rate your feelings toward each one as either very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, or very negative. If you don't know the name, please just say so. Tom DeLay."

	 Pos	Neu    Neg     DK
10/05	  11	 22	36     31
05/05	  16	 19	30     35
04/05	  17	 18	24     41
01/05	  17	 20	20     42
12/04	  12	 26	17     45
12/00	   9	 19	13     59
07/99	   9	 19	 7     65

Very clear trends here. DeLay's name ID has been consistently rising. His negatives have been consistently rising. However, recently his positives have actually begun to fall. Run on this guy naitonwide.

Update: In the comments, a reader reports that in DeLay's own district, his favorables are 46% favorable, 48% unfavorable. Nick Lampson can defeat DeLay in 2006.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)

Permalink :: 13 Comments :: Post a Comment

25% (none / 0)

That 24-25% number keeps popping up in polls like this. I think that is the absolute base of the GOP, the true believers who watch Fox uncritically and/or read stuff like Red State to get their world-view validated.

25% ... that ain't so much. Much less than the 35% I used to think of that way. But they are way over-represented in our national media ...

by BriVT on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 12:19:47 PM EST

Re: 25% (none / 0)

Well, I would say it is safe to say that some of those 25% either run or own the majority of media outlets. Thanks FCC for allowing the merger of all these companies into a few large conglomerates. Way to serve the people.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 01:47:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

actually not so great (none / 0)

Only 36% of respondents have negative feelings about Tom DeLay? That's a useful tailwind for Dems, but not a blueprint for regaining Congress. We need to sell Strong Families, Strong Communities, to tell folks how we are going to improve their lives, not least by protecting (and eventually by bringing home) their kids in Iraq. Running against DeLay, Frist, Rove and sleaze is necessary, but by no means sufficient.

by accommodatingly on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 12:26:02 PM EST

Re: actually not so great (none / 0)

I think that 36% rises as Delays name ID rises. It is 3 times his favorable...

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 01:48:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Local (3.00 / 2)

Nick Lampson has a poll on his site from the local channel 2 news. It only polled people in TX-22.

What is your opinion of Tom DeLay?
Favorible: 46%
Unfavorable: 48%

We got a race in DeLay's backyard too.

by Trowaman on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 12:29:49 PM EST

Soak the Poor (none / 0)

The Washington Post is reporting today that as DeLay grows weaker, the "fiscally responsible" wing of the House Republicans is planning massive cuts in Medicaid and other programs for the poor. Meanwhile, aid to LA is likely to be restricted to loans. The original package is now being called "pork." Only one LA House member, Democrat Charlie Melancon, now supports the original $250 billion package touted by Bush. Vitter seems disposed to abandon it as well.

Meanwhile, the war goes on and tax cuts for the wealthiest are sacrosanct.

Can anyone figure out why billions to Halliburton for no-bid contracts is not "pork"? Why billions in breaks for Exxon-Mobil is not the first cut?

by David Kowalski on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 12:37:41 PM EST

Re: Soak the Poor (none / 0)

So we GIVE billions of dollars to Iraq and LOANS to our own people? That's it. Republicans officially care more about foreign lands than they care about our own people.

And I'll say this, too. If the area hardest hit was Rancho Santa Fe, the Hamptons, or Scottsdale, the money would be there in a flash. This current government is by and for rich white people and Iraqis only.

There, I said it.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 12:57:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Soak the Poor (none / 0)

They don't care about all Iraqis, just the ones that can sell them oil at a decent price.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 01:52:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Soak the Poor (none / 0)

They don't care about all foreign lands, only certain ones like Iraq. Remember, Iraq spelled backwards is Oil.

Memo to neocons: I respect your right to have an opinion, but I just don't want to hear it anymore.

by blogus on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 05:11:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Soak the Poor (none / 0)

Because they give bigger bribes... I mean donations?

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 01:50:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OT: Anyone have an update on Kaine v Kilgore (none / 0)

Anyone have any new polling on numbers. I have been unable to locate any.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 01:51:04 PM EST

Good news (none / 0)

I'm glad because to be fair to Delay he waged quite an effective rebuttal, and Earle has been pilloried. It points to a more general lack of credibility that Republican voices now have with the majority of people... or that Delay is particularly unlikable.

by GrahamChristopher on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 04:09:24 PM EST

Earle pilloried? (none / 0)

Really? What makes you say that?

Is there any polling on Earle?

If 3 times as many people have negative impressions of Delay as positive, and twice as many as have neutral, hard to see how people can buy that Earle is just a partisan hack.

by scientician on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 04:19:29 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login