New Developments II

[Greg]

criddic, your recent post reads like you were channeling James Cameron while he was writing the screenplay for Titanic.

[criddic3]

Sonic, both parties are extremely unpopular in Congress. I expect some change over, but if the Republicans can get their act together and do some tough things they can hold onto some seats. Democrats will have to do some changing, too, but with Howard Dean as their chairman they have not made a lot of money to campaign with. If the Republicans do what needs to be done, they can keep at least one of the houses of Congress. If they keep both, even slightly, it will indirectly help Bush's numbers. But this alone won't give him positive numbers. He has to make radical changes in the way he communicates with the people. He has to be out there more, explaining his policies (not just Iraq) and he has to do this aggressively.

His poll numbers always have slight bumps when he actually talks to the people. When he had that series of speeches on Iraq his numbers had a slight upward move, but he didn't continue to make that effort publicly and they went back down. A largely hidden President is perceived to be out of touch. This is one of the reasons his numbers are so low. And most polls still have him in the mid-30's now. Not 29%. That's one poll. I agree that this is trouble for the President, but if it serves as a wake-up call for him, he can still recover.

[Sonic Youth]

President Bush's low approvals don't mean much as far as history is concerned. Truman left office with a 32% rating, after going as low as 22%. Historians often list him as among the more solid Presidents.

And going this low so early in his second term gives Bush some time to recover. If losses are not so big in November, this is more likely than not to happen.

Only Criddic. the eternal optimist, would paint 29% as 'not that bad, there's still hope.'

Here, check out this chart Bush's poll numbers throughout his presidency.

See it? Did you notice there are bumps in the polls on four occasions, and ONLY four ocassions? They are 9/11, the beginning of the Iraq war, the capture of Saddam, and the '04 elections (and for the latter two, the bump was small... although just enough to win re-election.) Bush's rise in popularity was only the result of a big news story or - in the case of the elections - massive advertising campaigns.

Other than that, Bush's numbers have ALWAYS declined. It won't be enough to "not lose so big in November" to bring up his numbers. Especially since any loss for the Republicans will be seen as Bush dragging them down.

So I wouldn't count on Bush getting his numbers back up, unless something very unusual happens. A rise in polls would buck half a dozen years of steady trends.

[99-1100896887]

"Overzealousness doesn't attract you." News to me and all the others.

[criddic3]

the only reason Poppy won was because of the utter incompetence of the Dukakis campaign.

Well I agree that Dukakis proved a lousy candidate and led a terrible campaign, I doubt that was the "only" reason Bush was elected.

Most polls back then differ from the assertion made here that Reagan was "wheezing" out of office. He was still at or above 50% through his last year in office. According to the polling on the listing I posted, Reagan was in the 60+ range in December of '88. And his stature has only grown with time.

President Bush's low approvals don't mean much as far as history is concerned. Truman left office with a 32% rating, after going as low as 22%. Historians often list him as among the more solid Presidents.

And going this low so early in his second term gives Bush some time to recover. If losses are not so big in November, this is more likely than not to happen.

__
A word about Ann Coulter:

She is very amusing, but I never latched onto her as someone I listen to when considering my political views. She is undeniably smart, but she's not my model Republican in spite of her loyalty to the party. Overzealousness doesn't attract me.

[Sonic Youth]

Gah, you scooped me Mister Tee!

See for yourself:

<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>29%!</span>

[Mister Tee]

The number we've all (except criddic) been waiting for. I never thought he could go this low.


President Bush's job-approval rating has fallen to its lowest mark of his presidency, according to a new Harris Interactive poll. Of 1,003 U.S. adults surveyed in a telephone poll, 29% think Mr. Bush is doing an "excellent or pretty good" job as president, down from 35% in April and significantly lower than 43% in January.

Roughly one-quarter of U.S. adults say "things in the country are going in the right direction," while 69% say "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track." This trend has declined every month since January, when 33% said the nation was heading in the right direction. Iraq remains a key concern for the general public, as 28% of Americans said they consider Iraq to be one of the top two most important issues the government should address, up from 23% in April. The immigration debate also prompted 16% of Americans to consider it a top issue, down from 19% last month, but still sharply higher from 4% in March.

[Nik]

This is just too, too sweet. A crumb tossed to us liberals but a delicious crumb indeed. I plan to savor it.

I rarely use this word for anyone - especially women, but Ann Coulter is a straight up c-nt.

[Sonic Youth]

ANN COULTER VOTER FRAUD: A First! Coulter Goes Silent! May Be Thrown Off Voter Rolls!

BRAD BLOG Publishes Exclusive Documents: Incident Report, Letter to Coulter from Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections

GOP Propagandist May Also Be Guilty of Tax Code Fraud for Taking $25,000 'Homestead Exemption' if She Doesn't Actually Live in Palm Beach


Republican extremist/hate-monger, Ann Coulter may be on the verge of being tossed from the Voter Rolls in Palm Beach County, Florida.

The BRAD BLOG has also obtained exclusive official documents from the chain of events which has helped bring the GOP darling to a new place in her career: She has fallen completely silent.

Coulter, who appears to have committed a third-degree felony by knowingly giving an incorrect address on her voter registration form in Palm Beach, Florida, and then knowingly voting at the incorrect polling place last March, could face up to $5,000 in fines and five years in prison if convicted.

In April, The BRAD BLOG posted Coulter's fraudulent Voter Registration form in full. Today, we have more official and exclusive documents from the incident.

In light of Coulter's apparent voter fraud felony, the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections, Dr. Arthur Anderson, had sent her a letter last March (posted in full below), giving her 30 days to explain her actions, before possibly referring the matter to the state attorney for prosecution. So far, Coulter has failed to reply at all. Officials now say she may be removed from the voter rolls.

The Palm Beach Posts's Jose Lambiet originally broke this story back in March, and today adds a few new details in an update:

The elections office tried to contact her again last week with another missive. No response. Now, the voting-eligibility watchdogs are losing patience.

"We may start the administrative procedure to remove Ms. Coulter from the voter rolls this week," said Charmaine Kelly, deputy elections chief. "There will be a public hearing to cancel her registration. If that happens, she won't be able to vote until she re-registers. It's a rather rare procedure."

The incident was first reported to county officials by Precinct Advisor James Whited (incident report posted in full below) who had informed Coulter that her true home address, at 242 Seabreeze Ave., did not match the one on her voter registration. Coulter, had inexplicably used her Real Estate agent's address on the voter registration form which includes a signature next to an oath which says, in part, "All information on this form is true" and acknowledges the third-degree felony penalties for lying.

Whited explains in the report that he advised Coulter of the problem:

Ms. Coulter then said, "What was the problem?" It was explained that she needed to fill out a change of address form in order to vote in Precinct 1198. She countered with, "Where would I vote with the address that I have?" I advised her that it would be at St. Edward's Church. She said ''thank you" and hurriedly went out the door and down the driveway. I followed her to the edge of the driveway trying to get her to return but to no avail. I had no idea where she was going when she left the precinct.

Coulter would shortly thereafter cast her ballot at St. Edward's Church where she would have completed the final act of her knowing voter fraud. According to Michelle Pilecki at Huffington Post, Coulter has since been attacking those who question her about the incident on her speaking tour. Comment at that linked story, posted by a student who attended one of Coulter's events reported:

Ann Coulter spoke on my campus tonight, and I asked her "I was just wondering if you would like to respond to allegations that you knowingly voted in the wrong precinct in Palm Beach."

She responded that "No, I don't live in Palm Beach. Maybe you shouldn't read retarded news!"

But "retarded news" site, The BRAD BLOG linked to several documents which indicate, in no uncertain terms, that Coulter purchased a $1.8 million dollar crib in Palm Beach in March of 2005. If that is not her residence, Coulter would still be guilty of an apparent voter fraud felony, since she did register to vote in Palm Beach...even if at the wrong address.

As well, Coulter has received a $25,000 homestead tax exemption, which, according to Palm Beach law, would only be available to use as a tax deduction on the property if she "lives there permanently".

For the first time, to our knowledge, The BRAD BLOG now publishes the complete incident report on the matter, as filed by Whited, along with the original certified letter sent to Coulter by Anderson -- which has subsequently been ignored. We post both, along with the "Statement of Legal Residence" form which Anderson requested, on March 27th, be returned by Coulter within thirty days, below...

Documents:

Voter Fraud incident report

Letter from Arthur Anderson

[Mister Tee]

Tee, wouldn't the Keys system have predicted Gore winning by a failry comfortable margin in 2000?

Actually, no; it had him right at 5 negatives, which is one short of defeat.

If you're interested, the five were:

Incumbency (The candidate not being the sitting president is a negative)
Major Policy Change (There were no huge accomplishments/shifts in Clinton's second term, on a par with Medicare or Reagan's tax cuts/defense build-up)
Scandal (The Lewinsky mess)
Foreign Policy Success (Though the world was at peace, neither the Kosovo engagement nor the Irish peace deal were big enough to score as a major foreign policy plus)
Candidate Charisma (Needless to say, Gore did not qulaify as charismatic)

[Greg]

Tee, wouldn't the Keys system have predicted Gore winning by a failry comfortable margin in 2000?

[Mister Tee]

Okay,a few things:

criddic and Damien are both right -- Bush's numbers did, technically, rebound, but only after the election had passed, which was meaningless, and sentimental in just the way Damien indicates. (Similarly, some time after Ed Koch lost the NY mayoral primary in 1989, voters revised their affection for him upwards; it couldn't hurt them, at that point)

It's worth noting that one thing that bumped Bush I's numbers up was his humane intervention to help the people of Somalia, which, as I recall, didn't work out so well. (Another case of Bushes starting something they leave to blow up on someone else)

Actually, the 1988 election is not an exception to the rule I cited above, but he golden vindication of it. Lichtman was telling everyone who would listen in summer '88 -- when Dukakis' famous poll lead was all the buzz -- that there was no chance Bush would lose the election. Lichtman's system assigns 13 key areas, of which 6 or more must turn against the incumbent party. In 1988, Bush faced a mere 3 (not quite as good as Reagan in '84, who faced 2, but better than Clinton's 4 in '96). Dukakis' dour personality, and Willie Horton/Pledge of Allegiance got all the attention from the press, but the circumstances in the country -- booming economy, rapprochement with the Soviets -- were the fulcrum behind the vote.

I acknowledge this is not a widely held view among political reporters, who want to feel every moment of every campaign day is potentially race-shifting. But if you stick to basics, you can see why every presidential race since Lincoln turned out the way it did; it usually has little to do with the campaign at all. As far as midsummer polls, like the Dukakis one...they can predict landslide elections (Nixon '72, Reagan '84, Clinton '96 all led in every survey), but are often quite faulty with closer ones. Recall, this Bush led Gore by 17 points as well after his convention in '00, then lost the popular vote by .5%. Analysts, playing horse-race 24/7, act as if every minute shift in match-up polling is of huge significance; they make ludicrous, unprovable pronouncements based on it (e.g., "Humphrey would have won had the election been held four days later"). Again, I like the Keys system better: I assume the country is not peopled with boobs, but with folks who make a rational assessment on how well the country is going at the time of the election and vote to continue or change.

I know, some of you will scream, How could they have felt that way in '04? Unfortunately, when job growth rebounded just enough in Spring of that year, it, combined with preternatural GOP unity, Pub gains in the '02 elections, and the -- seemingly -- successful campaign in Afghanistan, gave Bush a bare passing grade to get through November. It's to our everlasting regret that the full horrors didn't become clear to the majority till a bit too late.

Nik, you're right, there's this breed of yuppie who prides himself on being "centrist", which really means a politics without many positions (Perot's "just get under the hood and fix it" -- umm...how?). This isn't a new phenomenon: John Anderson polled as high as 20% in mid-1980 on the same basis. In the end, though, most people will either drift back to the major party that's in charge and has done OK, or run in droves from the party in charge that's screwed up.

[OscarGuy]

Clinton's lowest approval ratings came between 1994 & 1996 presumably the reason he lost the mid-term elections and probably a carry-over from previous presidents' failures. He quickly improved his ratings and by the end of his administration was one of the most popular sitting presidents (and the most popular when he left office since FDR.

I'll have to point out the error in the poll that was cited.

[Damien]

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.

No we're not talking about rivalling childhood memories here because I was a full grown adult of 36 in 1990. Only the hard core right winger considered Reagan a "great leader" then; those of us on the left accuratly decribed him as the Devil, while the general populace felt he was a likablr old dunderhead who caused myriad roblems in our social fabric.

And there you go again criddic with your use of meaningless words like "most" and "some." Anyone who's astute about Presidential politics knows that the only reason Poppy won was because of the utter incompetence of the Dukakis campaign. And of course Lee Atwater's expoitation of racism with such stunts as the Willie Horton ad.

[Damien]

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

The distinction is that Poppy's popularity went up after he lost the election, so that people could afford to feel sentimental about him, much like a looney uncle who you start to like after learning he has a terminal disease. The USA Today article then is obviously referring to Old Bush's ratings when he was still a viable political figure and not sudden;y an old man fading away.