Dumb-Ass Republicans, headed for trouble

[G_j]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brownstein18jul18,0,4665955.column?coll=la-opinion-columnists

RONALD BROWNSTEIN
Bush the albatross
He's not running in '08, but history shows his bad ratings can swamp the GOP.
Ronald Brownstein

July 18, 2007

<snip>
Unpopular departing presidents, though, have consistently undercut their party in the next election. Democrats lost the White House in 1952 and 1968 after Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson saw their approval ratings plummet below 50%. Likewise, in the era before polling, the opposition party won the White House when deeply embattled presidents left office after the elections of 1920 (Woodrow Wilson), 1896 (Grover Cleveland), 1860 (James Buchanan) and 1852 (Millard Fillmore). The White House also changed partisan control when weakened presidents stepped down in 1844 and 1884. Only in 1856 and 1876 did this pattern bend, when the parties of troubled presidents Franklin Pierce and Ulysses S. Grant held the White House upon their departure.

This shouldn't be shocking. Voters dissatisfied with a departing president typically want change. And they usually believe the opposition party will deliver more change than the president's. The most recent elections to replace retiring two-term presidents — Reagan in 1988 and Clinton in 2000 — help us quantify that instinct. In each case, media exit polls found that the same share — 88% — of voters who disapproved of the retiring president's job performance voted against his party's nominee, George H. W. Bush in 1988 and Al Gore in 2000. By contrast, about four-fifths of voters who approved of the outgoing president's performance voted for his party's nominee each time.

Those are ominous numbers for Republicans today. On the day of the election to succeed them, both Reagan and Clinton enjoyed approval ratings just over 55%, with about 40% of voters disapproving. In last week's Gallup/USA Today poll, Bush's approval rating stood at just 29%, with 66% disapproving. If voters divide as they did in 1988 and 2000, and Bush's ratings do not improve, that would translate into a 2008 Democratic landslide. That's why Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz says flatly, "There is no way any Republican can win the presidential election next year if Bush's approval rating remains anywhere near where it is now."

In fact, to survive 2008, Republicans will probably need some combination of separation (from Bush) and rehabilitation (for him). But neither end of that equation will be easy. Bush's disapproval rating has exceeded 58% all year and has not fallen below 50% for two years — the longest stretch of such presidential weakness since Truman finished his second term beleaguered by Korea, corruption and Joe McCarthy.


..more..

[cassiepriam]

1. Remember Mike DeWeeny crying his eyes out last Nov.

That will be them the next election.

[napi21]

2. I wonder if the Pub candidates realize this?

I happen to think they nominated Dole to run against Clinton because the "insiders" KNEW linton was a lock to win a second term. Do you suppose that's why we don't hear anything about "THE PARTY" backing any Pub candidate?

[monmouth]

3. After this past non-performance "support the troops" would appear

null and void for them. Do they realize how stupid they are, "support the troops" but hold off 45 days or so on getting them out of there early. Iraq doesn't want us there, it's over, go home. Geez, it's like bad company, the party's over, time to call it a day!!! They showed the country what they're really all about, put a fork in the Repukes, I think they're done..

[Spinzonner]

4. Of course, any conslusions about 2000

are clouded by the fact that Gore one the election, he just didn't win the litigation.

[tanyev]

5. It would be so funny if Karl Rove succeeded in his mission to create a one-party state--

of Democrats. Be careful what you wish for, Karl.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Beware the 18-30 Year Old Vote

Methinks the punditocracy thinks the only people who vote are white middle class male or "soccer moms" or other easily found and tagged groups. What they've missed is a generational change 6 years of Repugnican rule has done...they've lost a generation!

Several people here and on other Progressives sites have been noticing trend changes in the past couple of Elections and several were even trumpting in the dark days of '02 and '04 that a new Democratic majority...a large and lasting majority...was on the horizon. At that time, many of the projections were based on rising ethnic populations but it also hinted at a fundamental change in the view young people had about Democrats and specifically Repugnicans. The hard right rhetoric was turning these people off. Then came Iraq...

Several months ago MyDD had some poll numbers based on age groups and the shift in the 90s that the GOOP enjoyed...a spike in those born in the late 60's and 70's...and came of age during the Raygun years...had begun to wane and replaced by younger voters who'd grown up under Clinton and whose parents were from the 60's generation...many of those Vietnam and Civil Rights era Democrats (such as myself). This vote started to show itself in the '06 election and with so much discontent among young people, it bodes bad news for the GOOP next year and for years to come.

The GOOP is driving itself off the electoral abyss through its lock-step allegience to the booosh regime of greed. Many think they can turn things around..."running to the middle" next year. Our job is to call them on their bullshit and hypocrisy.

Cheers...

[bananarepublican]

7. Looks like its time for another 911! n/t