Bush Tanking in the Polls? Not so fast. We've Got Problems...

Bush is really unpopular if you look at the polls these days.  

His mandate has evaporated under pressure from the Democratic Party opposition and because of his vapid leadership on the Iraq War, which is clearly a quagmire.  He has even been exposed as a fraud on terrorism issues--as now only 50% say they approve of his handling of that issue.

But, as Chris points out at Outside Report, we know very little about the people who have turned against Bush.  I left a comment on his post in which I ventured a hypothesis, but I agree that the DNC should be all over finding out who they are.  They should also look WAY BEYOND these voters and think for the long term if they ever wish to build an effective governing (something we actually are qualified to do) majority.

But on the question of who these 4-10% of voters now turning away from Bush are, it seems to me likely that these folks could also be "finger in the wind" voters who are really susceptible to media perceptions. If you take a look at this graph, I think it shows that Bush's "natural", ie take out 9-11, numbers hover between 45 and 55%. When he is exposed as having no clothes, this 4-10% quickly abandon him. When he seems like a nice guy, they like him.

And this is where the so called "right wing noise machine" comes into play--during an election year, it is mobilized for the precise purpose of winning that media battle. With a stronger, more articulate candidate for the Republicans--it would be even harder to counter.  (Remember: Bush nearly blinked and smirked away the election in those debates--want some wood?)

I am excited to see these poll numbers for Bush, but just below the surface we have a Democratic Party that is arguing about Howard Dean rather than drafting a Newer Deal to run on in 2006. That is a more significant fact than these poll numbers.

So my hypothesis (note: I refuse to call it a "theory" as is the parlance of our times) is that these are fickle voters and we should find out what changes their mind. But we should also work tirelessly to turn less fickle voters into Democrats over the long term so that we don't rely on "finger in the wind" people to win elections.

When we rely on those folks, a Bin Laden tape, a Ward Churchill, a John O'Neill--on and on--will always be enough to put a hit on our campaign.

There is no short term gift from God for the Democrats. We have to make it happen. And, my God Joe Biden, you can't do it with these Fox-News-saturated, terror-alert-frightened voters. We have to be fighting Democrats (and that means you Senators have to stand with Dean--help him clarify if you disagree with his wording, do not turn on him). A president will always have some control over media events and this Republican Party will always use that advantage. It is stupid, then, to rely on hyper-media-swayed voters. And it is downright demented to think that attacking Democrats and creating a media storm against the Chairman of our own party will help to win them over.

I mean, come on, people:

Corked Bats

Come and Take It (Texas)

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

4 Comments

Orange alert
Ask yourself: "When was the last 'orange alert'?"
by Michael Bersin 2005-06-10 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Orange alert
The Democratic National Convention. Or more appropriately, when Tom Ridge was still DHS. Now that you have Chertoff in there (who is less politician, more wonk) the Orange Alert is almost an insult to his strategy.

But you never know what the Bushjunta will do.

by risenmessiah 2005-06-10 02:05PM | 0 recs
Don't forget...
We often get excited when Bush's ratings fall or when before the election the ol' "wrong track/right track" poll of the country had more people saying we were on the wrong track then on the right track.  We only can get excited about this if we forget that some of the people who rate Bush low or say we are on the right track are people who think Bush is not conservative enough.

Just because someone gives Bush a negative rating or says the country is on the right track does not mean they are then going to vote Democratic.  Often it  means they are looking for some more to the right.

by NevadaDan 2005-06-10 02:17PM | 0 recs
Good point
We should probably be concerned about losing the Ghengis Khan vote.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-10 04:54PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads