David Weigel | November 3, 2006
Probably not, but he could do worse. Rasmussen, the uber-pollster who tracks such things, finds that even a post-gaffe John Kerry is less unpopular than George W. Bush.
Forty-one percent (41%) of Americans approve of the way that George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-seven percent (57%) disapprove. These figures include 22% who Strongly Approve and 41% who Strongly Disapprove.
...
John Kerry, following his recent gaffe, is viewed favorably by 40% of Americans and unfavorably by 49%. Still, Democrats as a political party may be peaking at just the right time. They have a six-point advantage in party identification headling into Election 2006. That's their biggest monthly advantage of the last two campaign cycles.
More and more, I'm feeling like my contrarian take on the Kerry kerfuffle was the right one. Republicans needed to build their narrative and momentum in the final week of the campaign to re-convert voters who, for months, have been leaning Democratic. The Kerry story froze the race in place and distracted Republicans and Democrats alike for two days. Most polls taken during the kerfuffle show Democrats keeping or extending their leads. GOP futures have plunged on trading sites - TradeSports has House odds at 25 percent, Senate odds at 69 percent. The best indicators: Bush has dropped Kerry references from his stump speeches and the RNC has shelved its anti-Kerry web ad.
The real takeaway from the kerfuffle might have been just how terrified Democrats remain when they see their own shadows.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Not at bad point. It did occur to me also that the more the
media and pundits focused on John Kerry - who isn't running for
anything - the less they would focus on attacking the actual
Democratic candidates seeking office.
Repubs seem to be banking on the idea that Kerry's remarks will
prompt voters to assume that all Democrats secretly feel that way.
I'm not buying it, myself.
So could the Kerry gaffe be the first "Rovian" move by the
Democrats in some time? Bravo if it works.
I'm still convinced my party will continue its glorious tradition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and end up short on Nov. 3, but it is some comfort to me that The Weekly Standard doesn't have anything about the election on the website today. It has an article about a bad math curriculum.
Yeah Dan T, I too was confused at the attention Kerry was getting considering the absence of his dog in the fight. It seems to me he's getting an early start on 08.
I'm still convinced my party will continue its glorious
tradition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and end up
short on Nov. 3
Well, that could definitely happen if everybody in your party shows
up to the polls on Nov. 3.
:)
thoreau,
See why I have low expectations? Obviously I had that math class
the Standard was complaining about.
The 2 polls cited are polling different things: job performance vs. likability. I happen to disapprove of the job Bush is doing, but like him infinitely more than I do Kerry.
Coulter was on Fox this morning with the spin that loss of only
30 or 40 seats would actually be an historic victory for the
GOP!
Rove's guess is said to be 12 to 18 seats lost. Methinks Coulter's
estimate will prove the more correct.
This is getting insane. Has any congressional election ever been
subject to the sort of immense, intense attention this one has been
getting? I mean, it's nonstop. I've never seen so much significance
implicitly assigned to a frikkin midterm election.
A big part of it, no doubt, is the entrenchment of the Internet and
our information society. Everybody has a voice now, and they sure
as hell are using it. But I wonder how long this can be
sustained... Is this level of intensity and bombast really gonna
resurface every two years now?
That's hard to imagine. At some point, all this self-generated
drama is bound to wear people out.
Tom - that's a good observation, this has been the most
contentious midterm election I can recall.
My guess, however, is that it does reflect our country's collective
psychology. Almost nobody's happy with the way things are going but
there's a divide as to what to do about it.
Sorry to tell you Tom, but we're past the tipping point now. The election industry has become so large and entrenched, I don't see it going away anytime soon. There's just too much graft to be had in Washington, and thus the need to spend millions to get at it. It is still probably worth it to keep the punditry otherwise occupied and out of our way here in the real world.
Tom -
I was only in high school, but the '94 midterms seemed to be a
pretty big deal at the time. The share of people who pay any
attention at all to politics that were significantly geared up for
that election seemed just as high as this one.
This election is a big deal because it could begin to get the US
the hell outta Iraq.
Somebody needs to tell the Dems that, however.
Actually, in the circles I run with everyone's already voted and moved on.
Democrats as a political party may be peaking at just the
right time
I didn't think we were allowed to do that. It's in the charter or
something.
While I can recall elections that were as big a deal as this
one, I can't help but feel that the media has turned it into a
bigger American Idol freak show than it has been in the past. Every
miniscule act is rehashed by pundits for days on end.
"How will this affect the polls, Bill?"
"I don't know, let's see how much I can spin it before I fall down
and vomit all over the teleprompter."
I never did think Kerry's stumble would change a lot of peoples' minds; people read what they want to read out of it.
Ig,
"Yeah Dan T, I too was confused at the attention Kerry was getting
considering the absence of his dog in the fight."
Kerry didn't get the attention. Outside of hate radio and
affiliated blogs, no one reported on Kerry's remarks. They were
nowhere in the MSM.
Bush's response got a great deal of coverage. The President's
statements about the opposition party in the runup to an election
being a fairly big story. And, of course, Kerry's responses to Bush
kept the story going.
Now, no one except hard core Bushies believes Kerry was talking
about the troops. Besides the distraction in the runup to the vote
- freezing the race in amber for two-three days while the
Republicans tried to shift some momentum - there are two
significant outcomes to this kerfluffle.
1) the tired "anti-troops" argument by the Republicans, already
looking a little threadbare, is discreditted even further by the
rank dishonesty with which it was employed, and
2) the country sees John Kerry fighting back against such a
disreputable gambit by the President. And Kerry is the perfect
figure for this, after the Swift Boat attacks made him the poster
boy for slandered Democrats.
Dan T is right - this was Rovian by Kerry. He engaged in a fight
that he doesn't even have to win. Just being seen to have the fight
benefits Kerry. Saying this hurt him is remarkably
shortsighted.
I agree totally. So long as GOP is blasting Kerry, the Democrats
that are actually running are being left alone, relatively
anyway.
As a dem myself, I like the way this election is shaping up. But is
it just me, or has congressional elections this time round turned
into a referendum on Bush. All the same, donkey's rule!
hate radio and affiliated blogs
Hahaha.
Now, no one except hard core Bushies believes Kerry was talking
about the troops.
Except for all the Democrats (Clinton, Harold Ford, etc) that
demanded Kerry apologize.
You're pretty funny joe.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245