MyDD :: 59% disapproval of Bush nationwide

59% disapproval of Bush nationwide

by Jerome Armstrong, Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 03:08:20 PM EST

SUSA has their latest 50-state poll out, Bush is at 38% approval, and 59% disapproval-- almost there to 60% disapproval. Bush has a positive net job approval in just these states:

Utah          Plus 25 
Idaho         Plus 11 
Wyoming       Plus 10 
Alaska        Plus 8 
Nebraska      Plus 7 
Oklahoma      Plus 5 
N Dakota      Plus 1

I'm just gonna guess, but that looks to represent about 5% of the people of the nation. What's very interesting there, is that the list is all the low population plain states and mountain states. Not a single southern state has a net approval of Bush. In the past 30 days, Bush's approval has fallen by 10 points or more in those states:

Texas          From Plus 7 to Minus 12, a 19-point drop 
S Carolina     From Minus 4 to Minus 18, a 14-point drop 
Mississippi    From Plus 12 to Zero, a 12-point drop 
Tennessee      From Minus 5 to Minus 17, a 12-point drop 
Michigan       From Minus 21 to Minus 32, a 12-point drop 
Illinois       From Minus 23 to Minus 34, an 11-point drop 
N Carolina     From Minus 5 to Minus 15, a 10-point drop

Now there's a story, Bush isn't even welcome in Texas. I'm sure that's all over CNN and FAUX News, right?

Tags: Republicans (all tags)

Permalink :: 28 Comments :: Post a Comment

Looks bad (none / 0)

for Bush. And that is before the Iraq vote fraud story, the Miers fight and the Cheney in jail (one can hope, right?) stories of the next week.

UWA: Maryland's poor organizing for freedom from poverty and human rights for all.

by Tom Kertes on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 03:15:41 PM EST

Time for an invasion (none / 0)

You know what these people do when the chips are down: they they start bombing. Who do you think it will be? I'm betting Syria, we've been having some firefights and skirmishes along the border there, US against Syrian troops.

Then, of course, approval will go back up. All those southerners are starting to dislike Bush because he spends too much time talking about domestic stuff and not enough time addressing the troops.

Okay, so I'm a pessimist. But I think there's ample precedent.

by spandrel on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 03:16:37 PM EST

Maybe They Believe Their Own Spin (none / 0)

If Syria really did have all those missing Iraqi WMDs, then bombing Syria could be a big mistake.

So maybe they believe their own spin, and that's why they're not bombing already.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 03:51:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time for an invasion (none / 0)

Iran, if they truly want to stop nuclear proliferation.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 04:06:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time for an invasion (none / 0)

I think I misheard. Did you say to invade Iran, if they truly want to start global annihilation?

by Curt Matlock on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 05:47:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time for an invasion (none / 0)

I am not in favor of an Iran invasion. I was saying if the actual goal was to fight against nuclear proliferation, Iran would be a target... especially if they want to sell it to the Red staters. Given all the news about the country's nuclear power plant programs, it would be an easier sale than Syria.

Again, not in favor of it, just looking at the Bushies agenda and seeing what would be the most logical choice to attack if they were selling an attack to the public.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 10:42:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Those robo-polls must be cheap (none / 0)

Survey USA seems to put out a pretty high volume of good-quality polling data. I was skeptical of their robo-polls last summer, but they proved to be one of the more accurate pollsters.

I don't know who's funding these regular 50-state polls, but it can't be too cheap to poll that many people, even if the calls are automated.

by fwiffo on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 03:17:39 PM EST

Re: Those robo-polls must be cheap (none / 0)

They called me this week (me!). The robo-poll was actually much less annoying than one with a live person. I guess they put some thought into it. And responding to a machine ("push 1 for Kaine, 2 for Kilgore") is easier than responding to a person. So based on my experience I would expect the robo-poll to be more accurate than the usual sort.

by spandrel on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 06:31:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There is a theory that... (none / 0)

...they are easier to fuck with. That is, a white guy can claim to be a black woman with a robopollster, but they can't get away with it talking to an actual human. Whether anybody actually does this is unclear.

by Geotpf on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 08:31:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Survey USA gets funding from about 100 local TV (none / 0)

...stations. They are listed by the individual state polls. Some smaller states have no funding, so they pay for them on thier own dime to round out the poll. Besides, these things are cheap compared to having actual humans place the calls.

by Geotpf on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 08:33:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Senate (none / 0)

It's a long way out but Bush is bombing in most of the states with key Senate races next year.

Rhode Island -41%
Pennsylvania -26%
Ohio -24%
Nevada -23%
Missouri -20%
Tennessee -17%
Arizona -15%

by UKLIB on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 03:31:59 PM EST

Senate Defences (none / 0)

And apart from Nebraska he's also getting hammered in the states where the Dems have any worries about defending seats.

Michigan -32%
Maryland -31%
New Jersey -30%
Washington -21%
Minnesota -20%
Florida -17%

by UKLIB on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 03:38:57 PM EST

Just Wait Till The Blizzard Katrina Hits! (none / 0)

What's very interesting there, is that the list is all the low population plain states and mountain states. Not a single southern state has a net approval of Bush.

As soon as Bush responds by napalming Omaha, just watch those numbers sink!

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 03:48:57 PM EST

oh snap (none / 0)

texas, too? i knew i noticed a mass scraping of those damned w04 ovals over the past few weeks.

this is excellent news.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 04:20:04 PM EST

On behalf of Utahns (none / 0)

I want to apologize. There's no rational reason the people in Utah would possibly support Dubya.

However, a poll came out about a month ago listing concerns of people in Utah. Two of the top ten concerns, were about terrorism - being a victim of a terrorist attack was number 4. The other was number 9 - fear that the US would be targeted by terrorists again.

Here's my theory: Many Utahns consider themselves to be paragons of American values and they believe the Bushista spin that terrorists hate us because of our values. So, they reason, Utah would naturally be a terrorist target.

As anyone who has drive through Utah can tell there, there's nothing here a terrorist would want to attack.

by glendenb on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 05:42:07 PM EST

Re: On behalf of Utahns (none / 0)

Other than the LDS Church in Salt Lake, there isn't much to appeal to a terrorist. But, I'll take that state to live in any day of the week because of it's magnificent scenery. Of course, most of the people (meaning the repubs) who live there now would have to move out before I arrived.

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

by blogus on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 06:52:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd like to believe (none / 0)

that Bush's crappy poll numbers mean big gains for the Dems, but hasn't Bush always been about Himself rather than about the Party, even moreso than most presidents? In other words, aren't the standard Republican approaches of traditional values and guns and god and taxes and stop-those-welfare-cheats and all that other stuff they've been running on for the past 25 years still going to resonate with the same voters they have always resonated with? Or perhaps put another way, is it possible that Bush's approval rating are in the toilet because he HASN'T been sticking to those bread-and-butter Republican issues? It is not clear to me tha the Dems are ready to capitalize.

Obviously you're not a golfer.

by alydar on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 05:50:26 PM EST

Texas!? (none / 0)

The numbers for South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas are a bit hard to swallow, especially if the poll was done before the Miers nomination ticked off a chunk of the Christian Right base. What kind of sample sizes are we talking about here?

Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for President! Beat McCain!

by Alex on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 05:52:13 PM EST

Re: Texas!? (none / 0)

600 per state, according to the SUSA methodology.

by torridjoe on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 07:45:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not even all the Plains states (none / 0)

give him positive ratings. He's a net -11% in Kansas and -15% in South Dakota.

by mgmonklewis on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 06:19:40 PM EST

I had to check (none / 0)

for the record, the total 2004 population of the states you mentioned was 10,769,398. The total US population according to Census was 293,655,404. So I calculate the population represented there as 3.6% of the nation.

Pretty good guess--but too generous, even.

by torridjoe on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 07:45:31 PM EST

This goes straight to the heart (none / 0)

of Walter Cronkite's recent remark pertaining to Americans not being smart enough to vote for the candidates they should in elections. Katrina aside, how could those people who voted to stay the course possibly not have known what they were in for unless of course Mr. Cronkite was correct.

Nevertheless, this poll doesn't differenciate between disenfranchised fundies, Democrats and progressives; consequently, it has little meaning in relation to future returns for the Democratic Party or even the possible future direction of this country.

by Seldom Seen Smith on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 08:52:51 PM EST

Re: This goes straight to the heart (none / 0)

Well the lower Bush rates, the more times you are going to see GOP candidates- like the Gubenator in Cali- ask the President to politely NOT come campaign for him. Bush was very, very active in campaigning for Republicans in '02, and with his high approval ratings at the time, I'm convinced that this really helped the election break to the right. Hopefully the opposite will happen in '06.

by AC4508 on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 01:04:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gas and the suburbs (none / 0)

In addition to this if you look at the details of the Gallup poll Bush lost 10 points among suburban residents. I think were seeing the backlash of the gas gouging. I just can't wait to see the reaction when they get the heating bills for their huge McMansions in the middle of nowhere.

by Fledermaus on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 09:44:16 PM EST

I look at that list and one thing jumps out (none / 0)

LDS: Latter Day Saints. http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_lds.html Same top three states, same order, same weighting.

And it makes sense, unquestioning backing of the patriarchy is what traditional Mormons do, and like Catholics they have a leader who is officially infallible. They are natural backers of the Bushwhacker.

Which suggests that Bush is in more trouble than he thinks. If the LDS breaks against him it is likely to go all at the same time. Because while I don't want to make a mockery of anyone's faith, members of the LDS tend to be hyper-respective of authority, and they will take the lead from their Bishop.

And somehow I suspect that a never married, female, childless Supreme Court justice is not exactly what the more than family friendly LDS community was hoping for.

by Bruce Webb on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 06:37:41 AM EST

Southern Results in the SUSA poll (none / 0)

Like the writer of this posting, I was also struck by how southern states aren't in the list of states where Bush's approval is over 50%. After I thought about it, though, I wondered if it is because mountain and "farm belt" states don't have a lot of black or hispanic residents.

Also southern states may be suffering more from the Iraq war in the sense that they may be losing a bigger percentage of troops in Iraq.

What we need is a Democratic narrative that ties it together. We need to tell a story.

by mrgavel on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 07:52:24 AM EST

southern approval ratings (none / 0)

The reason the south's approval numbers have tanked? The gas prices in the south have increased more there than in any other part in the nation.

by dwbh on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 01:00:38 PM EST

Meaningless numbers (none / 0)

Like any sane person, I am pleased that the percentage of Americans who approve of Bush is growing smaller. However, since their is no substantial political opposition to Bush's policies, how can anything be gained? The "opposition party" is sitting on their hands, so complicit in the war crimes being committed in Iraq they dare not say anything in opposition for fear of being exposed for the imperialist war mongers that they are. As indictment after indictment pile up, they twiddle their thumbs and hide under their desks, lest they be called out for their own corruption. There is no electoral alternative to the continued bloodshed in Iraq, no electoral alternative to free trade fanatacism, no electoral alternative to the ever encroaching fascist police state or to the escalating class warfare being waged against the working class. It's great that Bush's numbers are tanking... but the decreasing numbers of supporters are meaningless when there is no alternative movement and no opposition.

by samdinista on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 01:34:18 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.