Republicans running for reelection are also running from Bush. A Reuters’ story this morning says, “For Republicans running for Congress in Democratic-leaning or swing districts in November, playing down their party label and playing up their independence has become a matter of political survival in a year when ‘Bush’ can be a dirty word.” The story cites two Connecticut Republicans, Chris Shays and Rob Simmons, who both highlight their differences with Bush and point out how well they work with Democrats. Other Republicans who are dancing away from their leader include Mike Fitzpatrick and Jim Gerlach in Pennsylvania, Heather Wilson in New Mexico, Clay Shaw in Florida, Anne Northup in Kentucky and Charles Bass in New Hampshire — all Republicans in districts carried by Kerry in 2004.
Another factor affecting this year’s election is how low Congress has sunk in the minds of all registered voters. Even Republicans only muster 38% approval of the job Congress is doing, and a mere 7% strongly approve. One-quarter of Independents and Democrats approve. What should be of great concern for Republicans is that the Cook/RT poll found that disapproval of Congress is a strong motivator to vote — which could send more Democrats and Independents to the polls in November than Republicans.
The President seems to have gotten a slight up-tick in his ratings with the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his recent visit to Iraq. In addition, Congressional Republicans are trying to pressure Democrats with today’s debate and vote on Iraq, but GOP leaders are going to prevent anyone who disagrees with the war from offering alternative resolutions, which could turn the entire debate into another Congressional circus.
There’s a lot that can happen between now and November, some of it out of politicians' control, some of it within their control. Expect to see them taking advantage of as much of the latter as possible.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
The polls are low, but I think your lowest ever comment in the first paragraph may be off. I believe Truman had a 26 at one point and Nixon got down to 27 during Watergate.
Dave
2 - Dave Nalle
I checked some more. Truman and Nixon both got down below 25 on multiple polls.
Dave
3 - Eric Berlin
"At this point in his tenure," though, Dave?
4 - Dave Nalle
Hmmm good question, Eric. With Nixon the low ratings point was in 73, which would have been almost exactly the same point in his tenure. Truman didn't have two full terms, so it's harder to assess, but he hit the low to mid 20s in so many polls at different times during his administration that it's probably comparable.
The irony, of course, is that Truman is now regarded as a near great president by many, and Nixon is still regarded very positively by many if you put aside the Watergate business.
Dave
5 - Jon Sobel
Speaking of Republican Congressmen distancing themselves from the leadership (in this case the Congressional leadership), Vito Fossella (R-NY) is is doing it by trying to restore PBS funding.
6 - Dave Nalle
Interesting. I saw poll numbers on Bush today which show him up substantially. Fox News has him at 40% and NBC has him at 37% in polls taken this week.
Uh, and Mark - editorial pal. I hate to bring this to your attention, but your aging eyes seem to have misread the Cook Poll PDF. With my glasses on I can clearly see that it gives Bush an approval rating of 37%, not 27% as you state in your article.
Dave
7 - Jon Sobel
Yeah - 27% was the number for the "right direction" question. The thing is, it's relatively easy for a President to take some specific actions to give him a poll bounce, or to benefit from events like the Zarqawi killing (or the Hawaii protected area designation, for that matter). Much harder for Congress to change perceptions of how it's doing, because it's such a slow-moving beast.
8 - Dave Nalle
Actually, looking at polls from the last few months, what surprised me is that he didn't get more of a bounce from Zarqawi. The most I've seen is a 3 point bounce and many of the polls have him up only 1 point.
Dave
9 - Eric Berlin
The media loves cycles and the vibe is definitely upbeat/could-be-resurgence storylines the last few days. I figured this would happen at some point: hitting low or near-historic lows in polls couldn't keep up forever.
I'm really amazed that some people see the 5.5 hour trip to Iraq as some kind of sign of political salvation, however.
10 - Jon Sobel
Yeah, I don't think the trip to Iraq had much to do with the poll bounce - I agree it's more a cyclical thing. If anything, being whisked in and whisked out like that looks bad - as if things are so bad on the ground it's too risky to have POTUS do more than put in a perfunctory appearance.
11 - Eric Berlin
It does remind me that this administration excels at politics and The Show of politics while actual governance is a far different matter.
12 - mschannon
Dave, you're right that Nixon was lower, but that's why I specifically wrote "at this point in his tenure." There are some indications of the numbers heading slightly up...but if they don't, he gets bottom position. And shit, you're right, it is 37%...I'll go change it. Thanks for catching it.
If you go to Franklin's blog, above, he does note that NC that NBC/WSJ has him at 37, Fox at 40, Gallup at 38, Survey USA 37, and CBS/Zobgy at 31%.
When Franklin tries (admittedly difficult) to do a meta-analysis of the polling data, he concludes that they're all basically within the marin of error, so we really can't say there's been an uptick. We'll have to wait a week or so and see.
And Dave, Franklin is as surprised as you that he didn't get more of a bounce from Zarqawi, but he also warns else where in his site about the unreliability of this kind of polling data because there are so many variables.
(I just found his site today...lots of great stuff.)
EB: agree with show over substance. Bush's news conference yesterday re: Gitmo--he said there's a problem and then offered no solutions whatsoever. Very odd behavior for him to admit problems at all.
13 - mschannon
If you've gone through the Cook/RT polls, there's some great stuff on the 2008 election, which I plan to cover shortly. I'd like to see if I can find some other data as well. I'm amazed how open they are with their stuff.
14 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Mark,
Interesting article, but the real question is how do these numbers affect congressional and gubernatorial races? Theoretically, at least, Bush should be gone in January, 2009.
Put simply, will these numbers translate into a Democratic majority in both houses of the congress, and will enough Democrats get elected to the state houses to provided fuel for intelligent primaries?
That, IMHO, is the value of these numbers, if they have any value at all.
15 - mschannon
Ruvy, there was too much in the polling data to include everything. But note that attitudes towards Congress seem to link with likely voting, which favors the Democrats, and a Democratic majority in either house may finally give those lackluster pols a platform.
In Jameson Veritas
16 - Arch Conservative
I wish I could have been old enough to be a political junkie in 1980 when Reagan thoroughly embarassed Carter by winning every state but Minnesotta (way to go Minnesota)
I would have been jumping for joy and yelling at the TV "yeah take that you peanut eating freak!"
17 - Arch Conservative
Im sorry that was 1984 when Reagan won every state but mn against mondale.
In 1980 he only won 47 states....losing west va, ga and you guesed it Minnesotta.
18 - Arch Conservative
46 states reagan lost hi too
oh well
19 - Arch Conservative
maybe we should dig the guy up and do some weekend at bernies voodoo magic on him so we can finally have someone in the oval office who knows how to run a nation again!
20 - mschannon
Arch, I know you were young when Reagan ruined the economy with his credit card voodoo economics, but don't you think you should read a little history before glorifying the mummy who ran the country for 8 years?
Just a thought.
In Jameson Veritas
21 - Dave Nalle
Reagan may not have had the perfect economic plan, but he hardly ruined the economy. The slump of the mid-80s was just the culmination of the horrible economic policy of the 1970s, and it's not unreasonable to credit the recovery of the late 80s and early 90s to Reagan.
Dave
22 - Silas Kain
maybe we should dig the guy up and do some weekend at bernies voodoo magic on him so we can finally have someone in the oval office who knows how to run a nation again!
For once, Arch, we're on the SAME page. Ronald Reagan was the greatest President to serve in my lifetime. The fact that this President even dares to compare himself to Mr. Reagan causes me to support impeachment. Imagine that, Arch, a faggot like me was a rabid supporter of Ronald Reagan. Think you could bring yourself to support someone like, um, John Edwards?
23 - mschannon
It's amazing how Reagan became the Teflon president. He got credit for things he didn't deserve, and never got blamed for the stupid things he did. it's too late & I'm too tired to go into details, but he was a very nice man who should have stayed an actor.
It's interesting that he's the only president in modern history who never aged after 8 years of office. Too many naps, too few meetings, and way too little thinking.
And that's the truth.
In Jameson Veritas
24 - Arch Conservative
Sort of Clinton getting credit for things he didn't deserve mcshannon? Like the 90's economy which was driven by the internet-dotcom boom in the private secor.
25 - Arch Conservative
Silas, considering John Edwards is an ambulance chasing hack I don't think I'll be supporting him anytime soon.