Posted on 10/18/2005 1:24:14 PM PDT by RWR8189
Well, looks like we have to concede that the Bush Presidency is over. /sarc
Uh oh...Bush might lose re-election...
Really bad news in all the 2000 and 2004 battleground states except W. Virginia.
The gang of 14's states are controlling the national agenda, as it were, going into 2006, if this poll is to be taken seriously.
I continue to be surprised by poll numbers from liberal states that show they don't approve of GWBs performance. His performance could not be too much more LIBERAL...with the exception of a token tax cut....
I find it hilarious that Kerry gets so much approval. Don't these folks know that he was never president? Or --are these fools saying they would vote for him in '08 if he runs again? Either way, they're obviously Anti-American idiots!
Notice La. and Ms. are some of the better ones for Bush. With everything we've seen (as the MSM reports it) those states should be the worst. Maybe 20% approve/ 80% disapprove?
Given that I can't see Republicans winning an election with just Alaska, Idaho, Utah and Wyoming, it might make sense for Bush to withdraw his support for Miers and return the Republican base to the fold.
Don't believe the lying MSM polls.
Respondents weren't, to my knowledge, asked about Kerry. Only Bush. The Kerry/Bush column just shows if the state's red or blue, for reference purposes.
GW has no one else to blame but himself. RINO-ism can be costly.
Ummmm!
I didn't know that we had co-Presidents as of 10-8-05.
Seems like Co-President Kerry has some strong ratings!
See #10 -- that column just indicates who that state went for in 2004, for reference purposes.
How do we know what % of these ratings come from libs or conservatives? I would say that we might be surprised how many conservatives have had it with him.
If you go here you will see that virtually ALL the Staes below 40% went to Kerry in '04. I believe 2 went to Bush.
http://surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StatePOTUS1005SortedbyApproval.htm
Answer "Yes" or "No."
Why?
I don't give a rat's ass how popular Bush is, as long as he is right (and I believe he is).
What does matter, is that the validity of his position is deomonstrated before 2008, as a minimum, or before 2006 (preferably)
In LA and MS it may have something to do with displaced residents not being surveyed. Clearly NO is a liberal hotbed, and I think even south MS may be more liberal than the rest of the state, what with all the transplants attracted by the casinos.
Seal the borders and boot all criminal illegal invaders and watch his approval ratings skyrocket. Are you listening George? (It's a no brainer)
Well, obviously the libs don't like Bush. But Ohio is at 37, New Mexico is at 39, Nevada has him at 37 and Iowa at 38. Moreover, he's at 40 and 41% in Arizona and Florida, respectively, two states that we absolutely have to win. And in Alabama -- even in that noted bastion of liberalism -- Bush's negs outweigh his positives. Bush has to return his base to the fold, or the Republican Party is in deep trouble ahead.
I disapprove of the way Bush is handing some aspects of his job and am still voting for Kilgore. State and national politics are apples and oranges.
Bush is at 43 in Kansas, probably the most socially conservative state in the union. Any time faves fall below 50, a politician is in trouble. 43 in Kansas? Kansas? When was the last time a Republican had to campaign there?
Withdrawing Miers wouldn't matter.
The dems have said they will block any conservative nominee.
So Miers is blocked and we get another Rino Consuelo Callahan.
Hmmm...
Self-inflicted wounds.
No, I don't seriously believe that Hillary will win Kansas or Texas (42%), but the point is that if you're seeing those kinds of numbers in safe red states, its going to be next to impossible to sway traditional swing states. It's the base who staff local Republican clubs, go door-to-door on election day, etc., not moderates, and you need them the most in swing states. Even a small drop in base support can translate into huge drops at the ballot box, and that's what we may be facing.
Problem is dems can block anything in congress with the fillabuster and in the process make Bush look weak.
I would only blame Bush if he had this agenda with 60 non rino senators that could drive his agenda home.
No president could make conservatives happy with the dems in congress having veto power.
The Kilgore-Kaine race will tell us a lot.
Bush won Virginia by 8 points.
Kaine is a liberal for tax hikes, pro illegals, gun control, anti development, anti death penalty.
Candidates like Kaine never win in Virginia. He has the politics of Howard Dean.
For Kaine to be leading by 2 points in the latest Survey USA poll is very concerning.
Warner won 4 years ago but he wasn't percieved as being a liberal like Kaine is.
If Kaine had run last year he would have lost going away.
Wrong tea leaves reading down here. Bringing Clinton in will have a negative effect no matter what the climate is. The things I am upset with Bush on are 1) Illegal Immigration and 2) High Entitlement Spending. (Spending on the war and national security is a good thing and can't be helped. So there is no beef there) These are the things that Kaine stands for and like they are gonna fly with an conservative block of voters who oppose such things. Kaine's death penalty,pro-tax and anti-death penalty stance will kill him. He is to the left of Warner. The only reason Warner is popular because he did nothing in office for the most part and kept the status-quo.
The jury is out on Harriet Miers until I see the hearings. If she is a constructionist and has sound judicial temperament I support her. If she doesn't its thumbs down.
Early running an abysmal campaign didn't help.
This is a hosed up operation. i couldnt get Missouri to come up.
That said, though, last time they said that 54% of Missourians live in the St. Louis area. No joke.
That of course, is a farce.
Maybe they are factoring in the voter fraud factor now that we have a dim as our secretary of state.
I miss the old days, when Carter clocked in at a whopping 24. So did the BDS infected media.
What was Clinton's low point? Something like 35%. Does anyone have a copy of the state by state?
Those are exactly the numbers I looked at. Interesting.
SURVEY USA is a biased polling firm run by libs.
Any Conservative who references them might as well say "According to the NY Times-" before every sentence.
Wow.
What is disturbing are conservatives who pay attention to Survey USA.
Survey USA stunk up the place in 2004.
Utah Wins! Yeaaaaaa.......!!!!!!
"Survey USA stunk up the place in 2004."
It sure did!
And it was because of that low approval rating that Clinton lost both branches of the Congress, the House for the first time in over 40 years. You want that to be Bush's legacy?
Having moved to Kansas about 3 years ago, I've been quite surprised by the politics of Kansas. Kansas is decidedly Republican but not socially conservative. The Kansas Republican Party is divided into the social conservatives (the Brownback wing) and the economic conservatives (the Roberts wing). These two groups dislike and distrust each other. It was the economic conservatives abandoning the social conservative candidate that gave us Democratic Governor Sebilius. If Bush is identified as a social conservative, the economic conservatives will join the Democrats in disapproving of Bush. Given some of the venomous statements that I have heard about Bush from these Country Club Republican, I'm not that surprised by this result.
Translation of my statement above: FAKE NEWS & FAKE POLLS are one in the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.