An interesting article appeared in the Indianapolis Star this morning. A poll taken by Selzer & Company, a public opinion research firm based in Des Moines, IA, breaks down the current level of approval for Bush and his administration within the Hoosier state. It has been reported in the media ad nauseam that Bush's numbers on a national level have and continue to be abysmal. But in Indiana? Despite a few anomalies over the years, Indiana has been about as dependably Red as any of the historically conservative/Republican strongholds in the country. The last presidential Democrat to carry the state was Lyndon Johnson in his landslide win over Barry Goldwater in 1964.
The Selzer poll was taken via land line telephone between November 13-16 with a total of 600 randomly selected Hoosiers. According to those polled, Bush enjoys only a 28% approval rating while 66% responded that they disapprove of how the President is handling his job. A further breakdown indicates disapproval ratings as follows: Bush's handling of the federal budget - 74% , immigration policy - 71%, the economy - 69%, the situation in Iraq - 68%.
The poll revealed that if the election were held today 37% of those asked would vote Democratic to 31% who would pull the Republican lever, with the remainder as yet undecided. Another interesting tidbit revealed by this poll is that 47% of the respondents claimed that they would vote democratic if Evan Bayh shared the ticket.
The only number still in Bush's favor was a 48% to 46% approval rating regarding his fight against terrorism. Given the estimated 4% margin of error, the 2% approval margin is shakey at best.
Other questions were asked regarding Iraq, immigration, universal health care (with 60% support,) taxes and auto fuel efficiency. The numbers were also broken down as regards sex, age and race. Across the board excepting those war on terrorism figures, the numbers went consistently against Bush and his administration's policies.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
You did miss one of the secondary areas where Bush was supported strongly in the poll. Understandable since the paper left out the details, but the TV station that co-sponsored it had the full results.
Interestingly, 87% of Indianans supported greater vehicle fuel efficiency, an area where Bush and Congressional Republicans and Republican governors have taken a strong lead - sometimes over Democrat opposition. So they don't hate everything about Bush.
Dave
2 - Baritone
Dave,
I was actually a bit surprised that the numbers were so weighted against Bush as many of the people I have contact with remain staunch Bush supporters and continue to support the war in Iraq, and of course his social agenda. Again, though, the major question as regards the coming election is how Bush's approval or lack of same affects next year's voting.
Of course, in terms of Bush and the legacy of his presidency, it does not bode well. However, the quality of his legacy will likely not be decided (if such things ever truly are) for years to come. How things ultimately play out in Iraq may be the lynch pin of whatever those who render opinions about Bush's tenure over the next several years will say. But usually the issue is never really settled. Opinions change in the light of new information or a rethinking of what we think we already know.
Political writers and historians still write books, rendering opinions about FDR, Truman, Ike, Kennedy, Nixon and the rest.
As you note, Bush's numbers are good regarding the march toward greater fuel efficiency. I doubt, though, that that issue will carry the day for the Reps next November.
B-tone
3 - troll
(...or one could say: historians' opinions change to meet the changing ideological needs of the class that they serve)
4 - Baronius
Two comments. One, none of the questions in the survey dealt with those social issues, regarding which you say Bush's support hasn't faltered. The results may have been different if those questions were asked.
Two, there really isn't such a thing as a blue or red state. Either party can win in any jurisdiction (except for the District of Columbia). Over the last 20 years, 1/4 of all electoral votes have switched parties. And that's been in an era where presidential campaigns have ignored "unwinnable" states. As you note, the Republicans would be stupid to take Indiana for granted.
5 - Baritone
troll,
That's a very cynical view. I'm not saying you're wrong. But obviously, history is always subject to interpretation. What does anyone really know about past events. Even those who were 'there' may only know a part of the story whatever it may be.
As time moves forward new information, new stories emerge. We learn more about what went on behind closed doors. "History" can be many things. Even if we know "what" happened, we may not know "why." History can be an enigma.
B-tone
6 - Baritone
Baronius,
I don't know that the overall numbers would have changed dramatically regardless of the questions posed. The hard questions regarding Bush's overall performance with the major issues of the day were, in fact, asked and answered. The social issues - gay rights, abortion - were much more center stage in 2000 and even 2004 despite 9/11 and our involvement in Iraq. The social issues are still important to a number of people, but as Pat Robertson's endorsement of Guiliani illustrates, the shifting concerns of many conservatives.
I disagree about the red and blue issue. Certainly there are a number of states which have shifted back and forth over the years, but there are also a # of them which have shown little change in its presidential proclivities over several years including good old crimson Indiana.
B-tone
7 - jacksmith
My heart goes out to Dennis Quaid and his family. And to Kanye West and his family. These are two unfortunate examples of why it is so important to end the Cancer of private for profit health care delivery in America. HR 676 Single Payer Universal Health Care (Medicare For All) is The Way to go. Like all other developed countries did years ago. See sickocure.org
You see, It's not just about the 47 million Americans that have no insurance. Or the 89 million who went without insurance part of the time from 2006-2007. It's about everyone. Private for profit health care delivery is not only highly immoral, and unethical. It is just down right dangerous, and bad medicine. That injures, and kills millions of Americans needlessly. Disgracefully. Shamefully.
These injuries, and deaths should not have happened. We only heard about them because it happened to celebrities. But these tragedies are happening to thousands of Americans every day in this country. But you don't hear about it. These thousands of needless deaths, and injuries of your loved ones are covered up. Under so-called patient confidentiality. Which is just health care industry speak for "don't tell anybody we injured, or killed another one".
See, no one is immune from the Cancer of private for profit health care delivery. Mr. Quaid's children were being cared for at a very renowned hospital. And I am sure Mr. Quaid probably has excellent insurance. And can afford the finest medical care available. But as it turned out. None of that mattered. Hospitals have always been potentially very dangerous places. But under the pressures of greed, and a rush to profit. All US hospitals have become extremely dangerous, deadly places. Like they were in the 18th century. When hospitals were primarily the place you went to DIE!
I don't know exactly how this tragedy to Mr. Quaid's babies happened. But I imagine it was the same scenario that plays out thousands of times every day across America. Driven by greed, and the profit motive hospitals cut corners as much as they can get away with. This means staff that is over worked. And under staffed. It means hiring the least experienced, and cheapest hospital staff you can get. And pushing out the more experienced safer higher paid staff.
They say the pharmacist stocked the wrong meds. And that the hospitals were warned about this problem months ago. After many other perfectly healthy new born babies were killed by this mistake. I wonder how many thousands of perfectly healthy babies were killed this way across America. And how many thousands are still being killed this way across America.
It should not have mattered what concentration of heparin the pharmacist stocked the medicine cabinets with. Because every one who administers drugs is supposed to have been taught to follow the (7 R's).
a. Right drug,
b. Right patient,
c. Right dose,
d. Right time,
e. Right route,
f. Right reason,
g. Right documentation,
This is just basic practice. A experienced person will check additional things. Before giving a patient a potentially deadly drug.
In anticipation of coming changes in our health care system. Thousands of patients are being killed at a fevered pitch. And millions injured, and poisoned with unnecessary medications, medical procedures, and surgery's. In an orgy of greed, and profiteering a head of proposed changes to our current disgraceful health care system.
HR. 676 Single Payer Universal National Health Care For All (Medicare For All) can fix this disgrace. Until then, I advise you to be careful of taking any recommended medical care at this time without doing your home work. And getting a good independent 2nd, or 3rd opinion. Especially if you have so-called good insurance coverage.
And If you have to receive medical care in, or out of a hospital. Try to have a knowledgeable family member or friend to keep an eye on what they are doing to you.
Good Luck...
8 - Robert Recht
Re: HR676:
Seniors on Medicare will NOT need: Medicare supplement, long term care. dental insurance. Since DRUGS are covered in HR 676,
NO Medicare D is needed. All this at no extra cost! No deductibles or co -pays.Savings: enormous! NO $96 taken out of Social Security check! The premium, based on income will be a fraction of what most if not all seniors pay now for the Medicare supplement alone. Tell your grandparents on Medicare which is what HR 676 is!!! Just much improved. These benefits go to you too. Free call to congress:
1-866-338-1015. Tell your congressman to co-sponsor HR 676 to get your vote. It's election time; you are the king and queen and they want your vote desperately.
9 - Matthew T. Sussman
Indiana's gonna remain rather white, if you ask me.
10 - Baritone
Matthew,
Huh?
11 - Dave Nalle
Yeah, why did this thread attract medicare spam? Bizarre and also much quicker than spam usually finds these posts.
Anyway, back to the topic, it does seem to me that the anti-Bush margins on these poll questions weren't really that large. In most of them it's fewer than 10 points, and that could easily swing back the other way.
I also think that a new Republican candidate distancing himself from Bush won't be all that hard. Giuliani is so different from Bush in almost every way that no one is likely to confuse the two of them.
Dave
12 - RJ
"47% of the respondents claimed that they would vote democratic [sic] if Evan Bayh shared the ticket."
A) That's probably not going to happen (the Democratic nominee is almost certainly going to be either Obama or Clinton, and either one would be a fool not to put a Southerner on the ticket for geographic balance).
B) Bayh is one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, so this is just evidence that Indianans remain conservative. (Further evidence is that 71% are dissatisfied with Bush's pro-amnesty immigration policy.)
C) 47% still ain't a majority.
"The only number still in Bush's favor was a 48% to 46% approval rating regarding his fight against terrorism. Given the estimated 4% margin of error, the 2% approval margin is shakey [sic] at best."
Bush won't be on the ballot in November 2008.
13 - RJ
"Interestingly, 87% of Indianans supported greater vehicle fuel efficiency, an area where Bush and Congressional Republicans and Republican governors have taken a strong lead - sometimes over Democrat opposition."
Quite true. But the wonderful mainstream media will be sure to present this issue to the voters as a simplistic "environmentally-friendly Democrats" vs. "evil, oil-mad Republicans" ... so I don't see this issue as a big winner for Republicans.
14 - RJ
jacksmith:
Kayne's mom died because she wanted some unnecessary cosmetic surgery, and for whatever reason decided to go to an incompetent doctor with a poor track record. Her case is not relevant to any discussion about socialized medicine...unless you expect taxpayers to foot the bill for plastic surgery on the relatives of millionaires.
15 - RJ
"Seniors on Medicare will NOT need: Medicare supplement, long term care. dental insurance. Since DRUGS are covered in HR 676, NO Medicare D is needed. All this at no extra cost!"
All this at no extra cost!
I think we have someone here who got a D- in macroeconomics...
16 - Baritone
So, basically what I get from most of you guys is what all those poll numbers show, when analyzed through the prism of your magic math glasses, is that Bush's 28% approval rating is actually a solid majority. that what he and his administration has wrought over the past nearly 7 years is still embraced by that "majority," and as a consequence the Reps are a shoe-in in '08. Does that about cover it? Kind of the lemons/lemonade thingy, right?
It amazes me that after the fucking train wreck that has been his administration, there are still so many stuck in the mud apologists for the idiot bastard.
You rant and rave at all the supposed lies that any and all Dems tell in the apparent moronic belief that all the GOP is as pristine as the fucking new fallen snow, incapable of any kind of deception.
Owing to the time element and the uncertainty of just how things will play themselves out over the next several months, I won't predict the outcome of the election - too many unknowns. But you guys can't see the forest for the trees. Polyanna in an elephant suit.
B-tone
17 - Al Barger
Baritone, this article falls under the category of "wishful thinking." Yeah, George Bush ain't much popular with very many people anywhere - but that doesn't mean us Hoosiers have particularly changed stripes.
You can slice and dice polling numbers to try to find something to say what you want, but we had actual elections just a couple of weeks ago. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and Indianapolis (even with a large black and minority population) turned out an incumbent Democrat mayor for an unknown and underfunded Republican. On top of which, the Republicans took back control of the city council. Doesn't sound like much of a blue wave in Hoosierland.
It is possible though that Evan Bayh (my old nemesis) could theoretically put us in play in specifically the 2008 presidential vote. He's the most popular politician in Indiana, and Hillary's most likely veep pick. Still, I find it pretty unlikely that most Hoosiers would ever vote for Hillary - but stranger things have happened, I suppose.
If I was a liberal like Baritone though, I'd be more worried about something like Rudy or Romney turning New York or Massachusetts red.
18 - Dr Dreadful
As I understand it, there were a number of local issues in Indianapolis (mostly involving tax hikes) which contributed to the incumbent being kicked out of office.
These trend-bucking results happen at every election. I recall a Senate race in Illinois in 2004 - a year in which Republicans elsewhere swept all before them - when a certain Mr Obama recorded the Democrats' only gain in the upper house that year, not least because his Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was and is certifiably batshit insane.
19 - Baritone
Doc is correct. Peterson's loss had little to do with traditional partisan politics and about everything to do with property taxes - something which Peterson actually had little control over. Nevertheless, he took the fall. It was almost a given that the city/county council would follow.
My brother in-law lost the mayoral election in Beech Grove by 150 votes owing to the Peterson loss and an independent candidate.
Al - Bayh whipped your ass, didn't he?
I believe that the poll illustrated current trends. As I noted, this could all change. The questions were non-prejudicial, fashioned to be as transparent as possible.
Should Indiana, in fact, go blue in '08, which remains very much in doubt, I'm sure that it will go down as an anomaly. The world will right itself and Hoosiers will return to the GOP fold.
But I can dream about conservatives getting their anal retentive asses whipped in '08. It may not come to pass, but I can still dream.
B-tone
20 - Baronius
Baritone, I'm far from an optimist on this subject. The fact is, you can drive from New Jersey to Michigan, and Indiana is the only GOP state you'll visit. The others are very purple. If anything, Joisey is becoming a solid Democratic state. Indiana is a cross between the Rust Belt and the Great Plains. (Actually, so is Illinois, but the downstate population isn't big enough to make a difference.)
21 - Al Barger
Dr Dreadful - There are always local issues. But Democrats taking it in the shorts cause they've hiked the bejesus out of taxes is pretty much the most solid obvious classic Republican issue ever.
RJ- I strongly suspect that Bayh will be Hillary's veep. For one thing, he's had his nose so far up her ass that it'd be broken if she took a sharp turn. The south is just not going to go for Hillary, and a nice quiet good looking Midwesterner like Evan Bayh with no scandals or personality is an obvious choice.
Really now, Baritone, that 'whipped your ass' was SO gracious of you - as if a third party candidate would have had a chance of beating the most popular politician in the state. Don't be an asshole. Why don't you try running your own pinko flag up the poll at the ballot box, and see how you do. I got about 29,000ish votes more than you have.
I could also argue that Evan was afraid to debate me - or the Republican.
22 - Baritone
Al,
A little testy aren't we? I meant it is a little jab, being that the truth of it was obvious. YOU provided the link afterall. So you get pissy and bring out the "pinko" guns. Please!
Assuming you remain a Hoosier, you should certainly be aware that the Marion County Dems had little to do with the property tax debacle, and as I noted Daniels, our feisty little Rep guber, is taking the same heat.
It is true that Peterson rather inadvisedly proposed an increase in the county income tax to cover significant budget shortfalls caused by Daniel's freeze on the payment of property taxes. This just weeks prior to the election. It was the nail in his political coffin. It's almost as though he was set up. But no. No one would be so heinous to do such a dastardly thing.
You could argue it, but it's moot, isn't it? Had the situation been reversed - you the one with an overwhelming lead in the polls - would you have ascented to such a debate? How would it benefit your candidacy? A political debate at that level is not a pissing contest. Bayh would have had nothing to gain by debating either one of you.
Suffice to say, though, I believe that Bayh was and is polished enough that he would have handled such a confrontation with adequate aplomb.
Baronius - It's true, the northern tier "rust belt" states have proved more problematic for Reps than Dems over the years. Although Ohio came down for Bush both times. Indiana is not so beholden to the strong union lobby as our industry base is rather more diversified - away from steel, auto and other heavy manufacturing - than most of the other states you indicated.
You are correct, I think, about Illinois. It is pretty much a clone of Indiana demographically excepting for the Chicago area which, owing to its huge population tends to overpower the remainder of the state politically which has few other large population centers.
B-tone
23 - RJ
"your magic math glasses"
"fucking train wreck"
"stuck in the mud apologists"
"the idiot bastard"
"You rant and rave"
"moronic belief"
"pristine as the fucking new fallen snow"
"Polyanna [sic] in an elephant suit"
A complete meltdown by comment #16...nice!
Did you learn these masterful debating techniques from your fellow ACLU members?
24 - Dr Dreadful
Did you learn these masterful debating techniques from your fellow ACLU members?
And you, RJ, apparently missed Week 1 of high school forensics, where that particular debating technique is unveiled as a big no-no.
25 - Baritone
Actually, I think it was pretty good stuff. Did I offend you with the "F" word? Or was I just being too harsh on you right wing softies?
Members of the ACLU are pretty good at what they do. I'm not a member, but if I had a reason to be, I would do so proudly.
Oh, and sorry - Pollyanna (not-sic)
B-tone