Posted on 10/25/2005 9:21:47 AM PDT by RWR8189
GW-Battleground 2006 Poll Reveals Negative Environment for President Bush and Congressional Republicans and Potential Opportunities for Democrats in 2006
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 25, 2005--The George Washington University Battleground 2006 Poll finds that the events of the past few months have had a negative impact on President Bush and the Congressional Republicans. However, it is not yet clear if the Democratic Party will be able to translate these negative sentiments into major gains at the polls in 2006.
"Today, President Bush and Republicans face a political environment that, as reflected in current polling numbers, is the most negative environment of his Presidency," said Republican pollster Ed Goeas. "This does mean that Democrats are soaring with new found respect from the voters. They have done a good job driving a wedge between the President and American voters, but they have done little to project themselves as having the solutions to the Nation's problems."
Celinda Lake, Democratic pollster, said, "Americans are growing increasingly disillusioned by, and distrustful of, President Bush and the Republican Congress. If Democrats are able to position themselves as the party of reform, both economic and political, voters could very well turn 2006 into a quintessential Six-Year Itch election."
On the overall political environment, the generic Congressional ballot stands at 46% for the Democratic Party and 41% for the Republican Party. Voters are very dissatisfied with the direction of the country as 66% believe the country is on the wrong track and 28% believe the country is headed in the right direction. Regarding their issue concerns, the top tier identified by voters is the war in Iraq (21%) and the economy/taxes (14%).
On a series of name identification questions, the President (46%-53%), Republicans in Congress (44%-47%), the Republican Party (45%-49%), and Tom Delay (21%-46%) all have favorable/unfavorable scores that are net negative. In addition, the job approval score for the President stands at 44% approve and 54% disapprove. However, the personal approval score for the President stands at 61% approve and 31% disapprove, indicating that President Bush does have some goodwill remaining with voters to rebuild his image and performance ratings. In contrast, the Democrats in Congress (47%-42%) and the Democratic Party (48%-45%) both enjoy favorable/unfavorable scores that are net positive.
Fully 82% of voters have seen, read, or heard something about the policies of President Bush but 60% of this sub-group of voters indicate these policies have given them a less favorable impression of the President. Clearly, the aftermath of the hurricane relief efforts had a negative impact on the President.
"It is difficult to believe how much the battleground of public opinion has changed in eleven months," said F. Christopher Arterton, dean of The George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management (GSPM). "After the 2004 election, Bush and the Republicans stood virtually unchallenged in the center of the ring. Now, they're on the ropes, from self-inflicted blows. Voter turnout will be crucial in these elections and both Republicans and Democrats have a lot to do in the coming year to solidify their messages and make sure they resonate with voters."
On a series of issue handling questions, the Republican Party and President Bush hold advantages on their traditional issues of taxes, terrorism, and homeland security. The Congressional Democrats hold advantages on their traditional issues of prescription drugs, education, Social Security, jobs, and being for the middle class. The Republican Party and President Bush are in a statistical tie with the Congressional Democrats on shares your values.
On two new issues tested in the issue handling section to this survey - "setting the right priorities" and "ending corruption in Washington" - both find the Congressional Democrats at an advantage against the Congressional Republicans. However, on the issue of ending corruption in Washington, the Democrats are locked in a statistical tie with President Bush.
Regarding the relief efforts after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, a majority of voters (58%) believe the federal government did not do such a good job and 78% of voters believe the state and local governments in Louisiana did not do such a good job. A majority (53%) of voters indicate that they had a less favorable impression of President Bush based on these events.
On paying for hurricane relief efforts, voters were also presented with a number of proposals to fund the rebuilding efforts in the affected areas. The proposals which receive the highest level of support are removing items not directly related to road construction from the highway funding bill (73%), raising taxes in those with household income of more than $200K (68%), and reducing troops in Iraq now towards total withdrawal by end of 2006 (63%). In addition, 42% of voters support just running a deficit until better economic times. Only 32% of voters support suspending the Medicare prescription drug benefit for one year.
This bipartisan GW-Battleground 2006 Poll surveyed 1,000 registered likely voters nationwide October 9-12, 2005, and yields a margin of error of + 3.1%.
This nationally recognized series of scientific surveys is unique to the industry, in that it offers the distinct perspectives of two top pollsters from different sides of the aisle. The George Washington University is the sponsor of the GW-Battleground Poll, a highly regarded, bi-partisan election survey conducted by top polling firms The Tarrance Group and Lake, Snell, Perry, Mermin, and Associates. GW's role in the poll is guided by the University's Graduate School of Political Management. The University also was recently recognized as the "Hottest School for Political Junkies" in the 2005 Kaplan/Newsweek How to Get Into College guide for the second time in three years. Initiated in June 1991, the Battleground Polls have gained widespread media recognition as reliable leading indicators of national opinion and voters' intentions.
Celinda Lake, Ed Goeas and Christopher Arterton are available for comment. For Lake, please contact Daniel Gotoff at Lake Snell Perry Mermin and Associates, (202) 776-9066. For Goeas, please contact Brian Nienaber at the Tarrance Group, (703) 684-6688. For Arterton, please contact Tracy Schario at The George Washington University, (202) 994-3566. The GW-Battleground 2006 Poll data are available at www.tarrance.com or www.lspma.com. The GW-Battleground Poll archives since 1991 are available at GW's Gelman Library, www.gwu.edu/gelman.
For more news about GW, visit the GW News Center at www.gwnewscenter.org.
Alot of words written about something that could be said in one sentence.
"It's Bush's fault."
Oh, and another psst.
BUSH ISN'T RUNNING.
The most telling thing in this analysis is that the Dems can't gain any ground in the worst 3 weeks of Bush's presidency. Bwa-hahahaha.
Man...I just dont think "W" is going to win reelection...
And Howard Dean is THE man....LOL!
Thankfully there's time for this to turn around, but only if the Republicans take corrective action.
It's fortunate that Democrats don't stand for anything in particular besides abortion.
"BUSH ISN'T RUNNING."
In 1994, reading polls they didn't like or understand, the dems said, Clinton isn't running.
Not in every case, but in many cases, a congressional or senatorial election may be affected by Bush's standing. In that sense, he is running.
And, come '08, if this current fatigue turns into exhaustion, people will vote against the Republican nominee because they'll be convinced (having been led that way by the MSM, of course) that we must have change.
They can take their poll and stuff it. The elections aren't tomorrow.
No, Bush isn't running, but GOP Senators, Congressmen/women, and Mayors are. The GOP is in trouble next year.
"It's Bush's fault."
If you're president, you just have to suck it up. What would be the reaction here if this had been about WJC? Or (God forbid!) President HRC (alternative universe!)?
Bush always does well when he takes the initiative. By not getting out in front of the hard issues, he allows the MSM to have the exclusive narrative. There is a feeling that the admin. is reacting rather than acting. In this environment, making bold mistakes is far better than holding back...
All politics is local. The GOP is in no trouble. The voters will vote their own best interests, and the GOP incumbents have brought home the bacon.
This is all silliness. We're going to lose Santorum's seat and that's about it.
In issues of national security the Republicans win hands down and this, I believe, will e a major consideration in the midterms. This poll claims a tie when it comes to the question of which Party shares your values. Now I distinctly remember that the Democrats always held a pretty good lead in this area because they are perceived to be on the side of the "average" person. Finally, if all the left can accomplish after their constant lambasting of this president is a 5 point lead in the GENERIC congress question then I think the president has more then enough time to turn it around. Besides, asking people nationwide about races for congressional seats that are local seems not to make much sense
THE KEY QUOTE FROM THIS SURVEY:
". . . the PERSONAL APPROVAL score for the President stands at 61% approve and 31% disapprove."
As I indicated last year in the run-up to the Nov 06 elections (when many here were convinced of the inevitability of a Kerry victory), the President's PERSONAL ratings would trump all other factors.
How did I know this? Simple. Grassroots volunteers consistently indicated that they had decided to 'get involved' because they 'liked' the president -- "He is a 'good man' that we can 'trust' to lead this country during these difficult times!"
[Remember, during Iran Contra, Ronald Reagan's job approval rating plummeted 23 points in one month (a record) and remained below 50% for the entire year. However, Reagan's PERSONAL approval ratings remained in the 60s . . . Guess which rating proved more enduring?!
QUESTION: Why do you think that Battleground is the only pollster still recording 'personal' approval ratings? ANSWER: Clinton's 'personal' ratings never rose above 40% and GWB's ratings have never fallen below 60% . . . 'nuf said!]
It won't translate to any gain for the Democrats for the reason already stated... they only have the Roe v. Wade drum to pound, and that note has become increasing sour.
George and the GOP have been subjected to a continuous barrage from the infamous nattering naybobs of negativism. Of course it will temporarily erode support. But when the dire predictions of imminent doom fail to reveal themselves to be true, the polls will turn around, and the Dems will continue their slide into ignoble obscurity.
SOMETHING TO PONDER . . .
According to Gallup, immediately before the 1986 elections (19/24-27/86), President Reagan possessed a 63% job approval rating*, yet Republicans suffered HISTORICAL LOSSES in both the Senate and House!
[*By the beginning of December 1986, President Reagan's JA rating had fallen to the mid-40s -- sheeple are soooooooooo fickle!!]
Newt and the Class of 1994 had a PLAN. The dims have hate. BIG difference!
LLS
That's 10/24-27/86.
"According to Gallup, immediately before the 1986 elections (19/24-27/86), President Reagan possessed a 63% job approval rating*, yet Republicans suffered HISTORICAL LOSSES in both the Senate and House!"
It'll also depend on who the GOP pushes forward for POTUS in 2008. If it's RINOs like Giuliani, Pataki, or McCain the Dems chances will increase. But if the Dems put up a Kerry-type ultra-liberal then who knows. If the Dems had any brains (which I don't think they do) they'd put up someone whose at least A+ NRA rated if nothing else. So far I think all the potential Dem candidates on the NRA side are too old.
Polls are so accurate 1 year away. Especially, liberal push polls that have a pre-determined conclusion.
The problem is, where are Democatic gains likely to manifest themselves? What few people seem to get about the 1994 elections is that they largely took place in "red" areas of the country. The gains were made largely in places like Texas, Ohio, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Utah, the eastern part of Washington state, and the Long Island section of New York. Over time, more GOP seats have been shifting into conservative areas, while Democrats have been scooping up seats in "blue" states. Many areas that once voted for Democrats will do so no longer because of their hard left views. So where do the Democrats go? They have some possibilities, to be sure, such as Shays and Simmons's seats in Connecticut, but they do not have friendly terrain to tap into like the Republicans did in 1994.
In fact W's approval goes up as the price of gas goes down.
I think you might want to keep this line in mind before you pronounce doom on the GOP in 2006.
Please tell me that you aren't calling Battleground, especially Tarrance a "liberal push poll"
It only highlights your ignorance.
And quite possibly pick up a Seante Seat in Minnesota
Nonsense. The GOP is in trouble at this minute. But politics shifts, bobs and weaves, and NO TREND remains the same. Given that the overwhelming history of the last five years---even the last nine---suggests that it's the DEMS who are in deep trouble. All politics is local, save 1994 when Newt nationalized the house. There is no galvanizing national issue here now. So, bottom line, as is the GOP picks up a seat in the Senate and a seat or two in the house.
There are titanic differences between the Dems now and the GOP in 1994.
1) In 1994, Newt nationalized the House races. Bush was able to somewhat do that with the Senate races in 2002 and 2004, but not the house.
2) In 1994, there was the "Contract with America." This was not directed as much at the Dems as it was at the failed process in which the GOP could not bring things up for a vote so as to saddle the Dem congressmen with their own votes. They were getting a pass. The "Contract" merely promised to bring the 10 items to the floor, not even to pass them.
3) There was great concern about the House bank scandal, with the view that a "permanent" Dem House was no longer accountable to anyone. This was what led to the "term limits" item in the "Contract."
4) The GOP had a great spokesman in Newt, who not only unified the congressmen, but did a good job of explaining GOP positions to the public. The Dems have absolutely NO ONE who can do this today, nor do they even have a "Contract" that they could sell to anyone.
In short, don't be so foolish as to mistake a temporary downturn due to bad publicity with a trend. There is no trend, except against the Dems.
Except for 1974 and 1994, off-year elections are not "national" elections. They are local elections based on the local candidates and issues.
Does anyone see the possibility of either the GOP or Dems turning 2006 into a "national election" ? In Illinois, the 8th McSweeney vs Bean is the only possible shift. There is no "Watergate" or "Contract-With-America" that could impact that race. It will be decided by local candidates and local political organizations.
The Republicans might be in trouble. Then again, they might not. Seems to me that every freaking election cycle we hear the same mantra, just a different way. Everyone should close their eyes and think back to last year at this time. Kerry was a lock, the dems were picking up seats in the Senate and the Republicans would barely hold the House. That was the CW, what all the polls said, etc. Go back to 2002, 2000, etc. etc.
Are the Republicans off balance right now? Yep. Are elections one year away, Yep. A year is an eternity in politics, but for some reason, the dems have decided that this is the election year. I am seeing many positive signs coming from the Republicans, i.e. budget cutting and border security. Moreover, tax reform and other popular initiatives have yet to even be advanced.
In the end, the dems will be smoked out. Dean plans on introducing his version of the Contract with America. If it contains the Nationalized Healthcare plan, which dems can't resist putting forth, you can bet the voters won't like it one bit. In the meantime, the dems will oppose spending cuts and continue to suggest raising taxes.
Finally, the Republicans do get to campaign. Right now it is all dem talking points, all the time.
YOu know what is really sad here - this is of the GOPs own doing - the Dems had NOTHING to do with the troubles we have right now
You guys just sit there with your heads in the sand. You think voters are going to take all this with no backlash??? They trounced Reagan for nothing more than a six year itch in 1986.
Our party and our movement is deeply divided. Every time the conservative movement divides, as in 1964, 1976, and 1992, bad things happen. I know those were presidential years. That means we are on uncharted territory. It has to be. We've never had the Congress and Presidency since the 1950's. Then, as now, the RINO's wrecked everything.
We are still losing and taking hits and devouring each other. It's a 51-49 country. We don't have a lot of room for error. Our leaders can't or won't stand up to the Democrats, their prosecutors, and the lying fiends in the media.
As for my supposedly "red" state, Arizona, we have the gay RINO Jim Kolbe representing my district and sending us e-mails about his meetings with old ladies. (The meetings with old men are probably X rated) Then we have Captain Queeg, John McCain. Nuff said.. Then we have a full bull feminist governor who once tried to railroad Clarence Thomas, and she will be re-elected by a wide margin. Plus we have Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva. Those guys could serve in the Cuban legislature if Castro would allow one.
Then there's all these Californians who have become bored with wrecking their home state. They moved here, built mansions on the hillside in what was once beautiful Northern Arizona forest land and continue their stupid and abominable voting patterns. Arizona should join Massachusetts in blue la la land anytime now. We already went for Clinton against that dullard RINO Viagra advertiser back in 1996.
"Do you suppose the exodus of 250 k from Louisiana will affect the house races nationally?"
Agree. Bush won election based on conservative politics, and now hes running away from the things that got him reelected.
Give us a real conservative judge. Someone whose prolife, progun, and Godfearing. I gaurantee you that if Bush appointed Roy Moore to the Supreme Court, his approval ratings would shoot back up to the 60s. That, and finally enforsing immigration laws and cutting out all the welfare spedning that is causing our defisits to go up.
ROy Moore for President 08.
But it all will. It's actually a perfect time for this lull, more than a year out from the off-term elections.
The real problem is that no one is standing for anything right now.
It's the best time for outsiders to run .
Republicans i will be seting the next out
Pretty well sums it up. Government spending has increased at the fastest rate since the Johnson Administration, nothing is being done to secure the borders for illegal immigrants and Bush refuses to nominate candidates that will change the direction of the courts. Combine that with high gas prices and the Katrina debacle, it's the political equivalent of slitting one's wrists.
The Miers nomination has to be pulled before further, more permanent damage is done. And, the Republicans need to get spending an illegal immigration under control.
Any of you fellers and gals seen them there generic ballots. We're kinda backwards here in Kansas, so we don't git no generic ballots. We just have to vote Republican on the state kind.
If memory serves me correctly, it seems that the Dems are usually at about 51% in generic Congressional polls about a year out. But memory can be faulty.
You seem like a fairly wise guy, so mebbe you can tell me, is the generic ballot like the elektorial kollege, if the Democrats git a majority they control all the House and open Senate seats, and git to run all the state guvermints to?
It's very simple.
Americans do not have warm feelings for either party at this time. Democrats are NOT happy with their leadership. Republicans are NOT happy with their Leadership.
Mid-terms are about turnout. Highest turnout wins.
Which ever base is most motivated, or flip side, less discouraged, will win as events stand today.
I'd say the edge favors the Democrats' turnout at present, meaning, they could pick up seats though enough for Majority in Senate? Eh. Doubtful. House, no, couldn't take majority there. Excepting-----The WOT.
This is the factor that throws a wrench in traditional analysis. Republicans in Ohio didn't like Schimdt, but they turned out at the last moment enough to keep Hackett (anti-war) candidate from winning. While I'm not happy with Republicans in Washington, the base is more responsible than they are. It'll be a tough call for folks wanting to make a "point" to D.C., but whatever decision the base makes, I expect they'll put the needs of the troops above their own needs in the end.
I'm not predicting the outcome here, perhaps losing a few Rep seats will be judged to not severely impact the WOT. Just stating I, and believe others, will not temptuously vote without strong consideration as to what services their benefit.
As of the moment, I'm waging that battle myself over the Senate and will be up till next November. It wouldn't be a difficult choice were not for the WOT. We'll see.
It probably won't, but it could deny Mary Landrieu reelection in 2008.
No, but it'll probably help us in Lousiana. It'll CERTAINLY help come 2007 Governor's race and the 2008 Senatorial race.
They mostly moved to Texas, which probably won't matter much.
Like the Miers nomination ? Wow, hasn't that worked out well !
No. The problem is that the public no longer trusts Bush's judgement.
This really surprises me. That's not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. If the GOP is only five points behind next November, they will probably lose no more than a seat or two in the House. Traditionally, Republicans outperform the generic ballot by at least a few points.
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.