New Developments II

[criddic3]

Wheezing? I'm sorry but most people I remember talking about Reagan in the early 1990's regarded him as a great leader. I was 12 in 1990. We seem to have rivalling childhood memories here. Yet, most will agree that Bush 41 was elected because of a perceived successful Reagan presidency.

And despite some opposition and some problems (Iran-Contra), Reagan was still very popular when he left office.

Considering that Bush's father rebounded by the end of his term (he was still well-respected even though he failed on the domestic side of things), I can see a comeback here too.

[Nik]

There really is no case, in the post-Civil War two-party era, of voters opting to install a new president from the same party as a failed administration.

Tee, what about Old Man Bush? People were so sick of the Reagan Administration as it was wheezing to a close, what with Iran-Contra and a realization of the social injustices brought about by Reagan's policies, that going into the conventions Dukakis had something like a 12 point lead over Poppy. But then they got to know they gray slug the Democrats nominated and . . .

Exactly. Sadly a large number of voting people in this country are moderates who don't like to rock the boat either way. They may recoil at someone as extremely violent, unethical and incompetent as George W (and his administration), but that doesn't mean they want what they perceive as a lazy, effeminate opposition on the side of a party that is becoming the Susan Lucci of American politics. When faced with what they perceive as two extremes, a new face from the Right who isn't AS evil as the sitting President emerges as a viable option. Someone who won't be AS bad as thsi guy, but still not rock the boat too much.

It's pretty sad actually to consider the state of affairs in American politics when the middling moderate personality of the Dems can be considered "extreme."

[criddic3]

As you can see, President George H.W. Bush had a low of 29% in July/August of 1992, but slowly recovered after the election, with approvals of 49% in December and 56% in early 1993.

To bolster this assertion, I'm offering this other link.

Biography

[Nik]

Can this be right?

[criddic3]

Nik, Bush 41 left office with a 56% approval rating. This is after going as low as 29% in the gallup poll earlier the previous year.

criddic, typically, you don't cite a source for your fanciful ravings, but the article on the poll in USA Today -- the newspaper that ran the poll with Gallup -- states:

"Only four presidents have scored lower approval ratings since the Gallup Poll began regularly measuring it in the mid-1940s: Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush. When Nixon, Carter and the elder Bush sank below 35%, they never again registered above 40%. "

Here's the link. A Listing of Presidential Approval Ratings

[Damien]

Nik, Bush 41 left office with a 56% approval rating. This is after going as low as 29% in the gallup poll earlier the previous year.

criddic, typically, you don't cite a source for your fanciful ravings, but the article on the poll in USA Today -- the newspaper that ran the poll with Gallup -- states:

"Only four presidents have scored lower approval ratings since the Gallup Poll began regularly measuring it in the mid-1940s: Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush. When Nixon, Carter and the elder Bush sank below 35%, they never again registered above 40%. "

[Damien]

There really is no case, in the post-Civil War two-party era, of voters opting to install a new president from the same party as a failed administration.

Tee, what about Old Man Bush? People were so sick of the Reagan Administration as it was wheezing to a close, what with Iran-Contra and a realization of the social injustices brought about by Reagan's policies, that going into the conventions Dukakis had something like a 12 point lead over Poppy. But then they got to know they gray slug the Democrats nominated and . . .

[criddic3]

Like his dad, I don't expect his numbers to go above 40% ever again.

Nik, Bush 41 left office with a 56% approval rating. This is after going as low as 29% in the gallup poll earlier the previous year.

[Nik]

First Mister Tee, wonderful analysis. Really. I loved reading it.

And this is one of those times where I really REALLY hope I am wrong. I would love nothing more than for a plurality of voters to conflate the failures, incompetence and lies of the Bush administration with the entire Republican party (which is probably more than fair since we all know Bush is a puppet for Chenney and the rest of the leadership). I really truly hope you are correct. I think perhaps my pessimism stems from the last few months before I left NY of hearing moderate after moderate (and even some conservatives) call Bush every name under the sun, and then declare proudly: "I am a McCain conservative." As if that somehow made it better/more noble. Ugh.

And this came from people at a very liberal Ivy League institution too! I guess I found it hard to believe that someone living in Westkabumf uck, Nowheresville, USA would be more more willing to renogotiate and re-examine their original political leanings.

But again, I hope you're right.

[Greg]

I think it would be poetic justice if, in 2008, Al Gore runs and wins.

[Mister Tee]

BUT, you know that will still be good news for McCain who will win easily in 2008 by placing himself as a non-threatening but deceptively (and falsely) noble answer to Bush's mess. A wet dream for those conservatives and moderates now disenchanted with Bush but not willing to embrace whatever polarizing/lame/decent but castrated (take your pick) pandering to the center figure that emerges from the Dems. Three losses in a row. I call it now.

I'll take that bet, Nik. I don't see McCain ever being president, for two reasons:

1) The GOP primary route.

There's no doubt McCain will be relentlessly touted by pundit gasbags, who will swoon over his "manliness", proclaim his every utterance "straight talk", no matter how vapid or pander-y. But he needs to get votes from the always-far-right GOP primary voters, and they have viewed him as Benedict Arnold from the outset of the Bush years. His recent attempts to ingratiate himself with them -- latching onto Falwell; lashing himself to Bush on Iraq -- are too late to win this crowd back, and come at the expense of enthusiasm from moderates.

2) Presidential elections are not jump-balls.

This is anathema to Beltway analysts, who seem to think voters every four years start with a completely blank slate and just vote for the guy they like best. In fact, the historic record (well documented in Allan Lichtman's book The Keys to the Presidency) is, voters consistently judge on the preponderance of empirical evidence -- domestic and foreign policy successes/failures; scandal; economic good or bad times -- and vote up or down on the incumbent party, whether the candidate is the incumbent himself, or his replacement/successor. Whoever the GOP nominee is in '08 will not be granted a clean slate; he'll be carrying the sorry baggage of this second Bush administration, which at the moment looks to lead to clear defeat.

I know there are people who think a replacement like McCain (or Guiliani) would remake that situation. I ask these people, what is your historic precedent? Parties in past rough positions have tried the same tack, and never succeeded: Humphrey was still saddled with LBJ's war; Gerry Ford carried Watergate; Stevenson -- a great candidate -- was brought down by Truman's unpopularity. Hell, back in 1896, William Jennings Bryan specifically campaigned against the economic policies of his own Democratic party -- he still suffered defeat thanks to the Cleveland depression. There really is no case, in the post-Civil War two-party era, of voters opting to install a new president from the same party as a failed administration.

[Sonic Youth]

You are an extremely dishonest person, and you've demonstrated it many times over the years. And you demonstrate it here in this post. Shall we count the ways?

First, there's the sin of omission, a very nasty form of purposeful dishonesty. Your favorite tactic is to avoid many points that a poster brings up, and only address the easiest one.

Sonic, I agree with you completely and your (always) well thought out, well reasoned, robust, respectful and passionate debates are a constant source of pleasure.

(Shhh... Not always well thought out. Gov. Blanco didn't call for the Guard until after the flooding began. I confused the argument with a different request of hers, one that Criddic denied she made back then. If I want to maintain my integrity, I unfortunately gotta cop to it.)

But - I said unparathentically - thank you.

That said, since you KNOW he's going to keep doing this and seems relatively unfazed by his own dishonesty and lethargic replies, why do you persist? You're an intelligent, witty guy. A king of information and your greatest foe here wears a meritless crown (quite fitting actually given his adoration for Bush). I'm all for debate but when the retort is this unsatisfying, why bother? Perhaps you should just ignore him.

a) Because every movie coming out is crap, and there's nothing to talk about until the Cannes film festival.

b) I can't help it. This has been going on for years! I can't stop now, at least not before the midterm elections.

I do go through periods where I ignore him or at least take what he says in stride. But his posts have been really annoying the past several days, and I just had to go for the jugular.

Also, it's kinda fun.

But this will settle down into another quiet period, which is what happens with all the arguments.

[Nik]

Well, your president is now scraping bottom. CBS/New York Times has a poll with Bush at 31%, as does USA Today. Care to spin this as a result of people's ignorance, media maniupulation and faulty poll questions?

I have a feeling Bush's numbers will remain as low or lower until the end of his tenure. Like his dad, I don't expect his numbers to go above 40% ever again. BUT, you know that will still be good news for McCain who will win easily in 2008 by placing himself as a non-threatening but deceptively (and falsely) noble answer to Bush's mess. A wet dream for those conservatives and moderates now disenchanted with Bush but not willing to embrace whatever polarizing/lame/decent but castrated (take your pick) pandering to the center figure that emerges from the Dems. Three losses in a row. I call it now.

[Nik]

You are an extremely dishonest person, and you've demonstrated it many times over the years. And you demonstrate it here in this post. Shall we count the ways?

First, there's the sin of omission, a very nasty form of purposeful dishonesty. Your favorite tactic is to avoid many points that a poster brings up, and only address the easiest one.

Sonic, I agree with you completely and your (always) well thought out, well reasoned, robust, respectful and passionate debates are a constant source of pleasure. I think it's admirable the way you at least give criddic the RESPECT of taking on his major points - if not all of them - when he does not reciprocate the same respect, as you elegantly pointed out.

That said, since you KNOW he's going to keep doing this and seems relatively unfazed by his own dishonesty and lethargic replies, why do you persist? You're an intelligent, witty guy. A king of information and your greatest foe here wears a meritless crown (quite fitting actually given his adoration for Bush). I'm all for debate but when the retort is this unsatisfying, why bother? Perhaps you should just ignore him.

[Sonic Youth]

We all know that if you ask a poll question in a certain way, you get one answer, and asked differently may get another. Most people do not even know what the FISA court does. Nor do they understand what it is that President Bush's program really does. They are led to believe by the media that innocent civilians are being monitered unlawfully by "warrantless wiretaps." This is just not true.

Well, your president is now scraping bottom. CBS/New York Times has a poll with Bush at 31%, as does USA Today. Care to spin this as a result of people's ignorance, media maniupulation and faulty poll questions?