Where's the Love? Besides Wyoming, Idaho and Utah?

Pollsters at Survey USA have released their latest national survey. The good news (for Karl Rove): Bush is still popular. The bad news: The other 47 states think he's a loser. Bush only has positive ratings in the adjacent states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah. The rest of the country is, like the kids say, "blue." You can cycle through the data and see exactly which groups have turned on Bush (check out Republicans in Arizona), or you can visit liberal blogger Chris Bowers' gloatterific map of approval-by-state and by county.

Comments

[taktix]

Survey USA hates freedom!

[mediageek]

I dislike the assumption that a negative approval rating for Bush means that everybody's into rooting for the Democrats.

[David Weigel]

Mediageek - Bowers is the one assuming that, in a brightly-colored fashion. I'm not implying that anyone else should gloat.

[coarsetad]

I can't believe he doesn't even have support from his home state of Connecticut.

[coarsetad]

Mediageek,

You can't be serious, Have you EVER known the media (or general populace) to see our country as anything other than Red or Blue?

[mediageek]

David- sorry, I should have been more clear and stated that I didn't like Bowers' assumption.

Coarsetad- Yeah, I know.

*kicks pebble*

[Kevin]

I apologize on behalf of fellow Idahoans. Jeez, even the hardcore God-and-country types I know have had it with him at this point.

[Alberto G]

And all of those 47 states are now on my list.

[Gary]

As it was pointed out in the comments to that county/state map link, it should be noted that many are angry at Bush for not being further to the right.

[Ken Shultz]

I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I may have been hasty in my judgements regarding the state of Texas in general and the people of Texas specifically. ...That straw man may actually exist somewhere, but he's apparently outnumbered significantly by well meaning, good people who for some reason just don't realize what a hideous abomination their most famous football team...

...ahem, what I meant to say is that the people of Texas, apparently, aren't all bad, and maybe letting them join the union wasn't such a bad idea after all. A 56% majority of the people of Texas disapprove of the job George Bush is doing as President! Why isn't that the lead story in every television news broadcast?

P.S. Nothing's the matter with Kansas.

[Bob]

"I dislike the assumption that a negative approval rating for Bush means that everybody's into rooting for the Democrats."

What do you think it means, fuckwit? You think there's a big libertarian groundswell out there?

[Bob]

"I dislike the assumption that a negative approval rating for Bush means that everybody's into rooting for the Democrats."

What do you think it means, fuckwit? You think there's a big libertarian groundswell out there?

[Pro Libertate]

Right of what? I think the GOP has joined the Democrats in not standing for anything in particular (rhetoric aside). Bush isn't right, left, or middle. He just is.

[VM]

"fuckwit"?
Bob:
you're obviously new and don't know that Mediageek is one of the better, more thoughtful posters. and he explained what he meant a little further down.

just so you now know...

and lay off the sauce this early in the afternoon. it sharpens your tongue, and not in that Herrik-pleasing way, either...

[Brian24]

What do you think it means, fuckwit? You think there's a big libertarian groundswell out there?

It could mean many things besides people loving the Democrats, Bob. As several people pointed out, some of Bush's big supporters on the "right" have been upset about things like his position on immigration and his nomination of Harriet Myers. Others, like me, can't stand Bush but don't much care for the Democratic opposition either.

In other words, saying you disapprove of Bush does not directly translate into saying you approve of the Democrats.

[Sphynx]

Mr. Ken Shultz: While Texans don't need your sudden approval, we appreciate that you noticed. What you may not realize is: We helped elect Bush POTUS to get rid of the carpetbagger. Now only Crawford (a tiny hamlet outside of Waco) has to suffer the annoyance of his visiting ever few months.

[anon]

Bob, congrats on your "Douche of the Day" award for unnecessary and unprovoked hostility. No doubt many such awards will line your mantel in the near future.

[anon]

Bob, congrats on your "Douche of the Day" award for unnecessary and unprovoked hostility. No doubt many such awards will line your mantel in the near future.

[nana]

Bob, congrats on your "Douche of the Day" award for unnecessary and unprovoked hostility. No doubt many such awards will line your mantel in the near future.

[Ken Shultz]

My opposition to the Bush Administration, in the most general sense, is about the abandonment of what I used to think of as conservatism. ...by which I mean the apparent disdain for free trade, the embrace of liberal ideas about foreign policy and the (mis)handling of the budget. ...if Hillary Clinton really does run on a "pay as you go" platform, she really will be running to the right of George W. Bush, at least on that issue.

...if everyone flocks to her, will that mean the country's taken a liberal turn? ...Hell no.

[joshua corning]

Bob, congrats on your "Douche of the Day" award for unnecessary and unprovoked hostility. No doubt many such awards will line your mantel in the near future.

well that is just god damn fucking bullshit....

yeah i got nothin'

😛

[Ken Shultz]

While Texans don't need your sudden approval, we appreciate that you noticed.

Just for the record, I didn't exactly say I approved of Texas in general or Texans specifically. ...just that they can't be all bad.

...and that, in spite of the Kennedy assasination, the Great Society, the escalation in Vietnam, the Dallas Cowboys and the Bush Presidency, letting Texas into the union may not have been a complete disaster for us. We survived all of those things--we're Americans! ...We can survive anything Texas throws our way.

[fyodor]

Wyoming, Utah and Idaho -- the first three states I'll be playing at on my July tour!! Whoopee!!

[Happy Jack]

fyodor - when you playing Idaho?

[lunchstealer]

Hey, Ken, the integrated circuit was kinda cool.

[fyodor]

Happy Jack,

Monday, July 3 at the Bouquet in Boise!!

[D.A. Ridgely]

If this downward trend in his popularity continues, I fear Bush is going to have a very difficult time winning a third term.

[Ken Shultz]

Hey, Ken, the integrated circuit was kinda cool.

I've never been to a circuit party, but it wouldn't surprise me if people associated them with Texas.

[joe]

Ken,

Bush's position on free trade cannot be called "liberal." Neither can his positions on the budget, nor foreign policy.

It might not be what you like to call "conservatism," but Bush's government, like that of Bismark, is most certainly a creation of the right.

[Pro Libertate]

joe, you raise an interesting point. Just what are the conservative and liberal positions on trade? Fifteen years ago, I thought I knew. Then Clinton and the Democrats passed NAFTA and in several other ways, liberalized (in the nonpolitical sense) trade. As for Bush, he has worn the protectionist hat a few times during his watch.

I'm so confused.

[Bob]

To fuckwit:
My point is that no matter what the reasons are for the anti-Bush sentiment, the benefactors will be the Democrats. There is no viable third-party alternative, certainly not wide-eyed libertarians. The Libertarian party has never matched the old Commie party in pulling votes. Sorry for the hostility, but it wasn't unprovoked. Stupidity always pisses me off.

[Ken Shultz]

Bush's position on free trade cannot be called "liberal."

I didn't call his position liberal--I said it wasn't conservative. ...although steel tarrifs seem a liberal cause to me. Maybe there's some question about the meaning of the word "liberal"?

What makes anti-free trade "liberal"? Does complaining about working conditions in a foreign country during an MFN status debate make it liberal? Does insisting on imposing environmental and labor regulations through trade agreements make pro-free trade "liberal"? ...in the latter case, I'm gonna ask what we're talking about when we talk about "free trade".

Neither can his positions on the budget, nor foreign policy.

It is a rare pleasure to see the "left" try to outflank the Republicans on the budget. I'm trying to remember the last time I saw that happen. ...and no, I don't credit Bill Clinton with balancing the budget over Newt Gingrich's fierce objections.

...and in regards to foreign policy, don't they call 'em neoconservatives because they used to be liberals? If impoving people's lives by way of government isn't "liberal", what is? ...and if Iraq isn't an example of Bush trying to improve the lives of people in the Muslim world by way of government, than what was it?

Part of my objection to Bush's foreign policy is that it's essentially central planning externalized. George Bush's foreign policy not "liberal"? ...then once again, what is liberal?

[The other 49]

What you may not realize is: We helped elect Bush POTUS to get rid of the carpetbagger.

We'll give you Oklahoma if you take him back.

[Stevo Darkly]

Hey, Bob -- what if rising anti-Bush sentiment actually means people are thinking, "Gee, I wish I could have voted for some other Republican?" Logically, that's an alternative to people becoming more pro-Democrat.

Neener.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Joe, I think your observation would depend upon whether the political spectrum is circular or linear. I'm not sure which it is although I lean toward circular.

[rm2muv]

In hopes that fewer people will look with disdain upon my beloved Idaho, I will share a well-guarded secret with my friends here at Reason. A significant number of misguided souls in our state continue to pretend approval of Bush in the sincere hope that he NEVER COMES TO VISIT IDAHO! The rest of us are fully aware that you can't predict the actions of a psycho like W.

[supermike]

I think the political spectrum is like one of those mandelbrot deals, in all sorts of axes, some of which are imaginary.

Here's the problem with these polls: they don't really suggest that the democrats are picking up support. It's easy for people to say they don't think bush is doing a good job when there's really no consequences for doing so. I'm sure having to pick an alternative of any kind would radically change the numbers, if the consequences were real. It's like asking "What kind of health care system would you like" versus "What kind of health care system would you like to pay for now?"

Plenty of people are pissed at the administration for any number of things, but when push comes to shove, when people have got to pick between lesser and greater evils, they will.

For instance, I'm not exactly a hard-core libertarian, but I like my guns and don't really want to be subjected to single-payer health care. Perhaps if the democrats did a 180 on those two issues, I'd consider switching, but it aint going to happen. I'd imagine there are a lot of voters like me, this is why the big tent approach has been so successful.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I just have to rant against polls in general. They are a fucking scam. The pollsters first make up their assumptions, load their questions, and find a bunch of hapless morons to support those assumptions.

For example, a question like "Is Bush good for the economy? (a simple Yes/No/I don't know). A question like that makes absolutely no fucking sense.

Polls are simply idiots asking other idiots questions about crap that they pretend they understand.

[Ruthless]

"I think the political spectrum is like one of those mandelbrot deals, in all sorts of axes, some of which are imaginary."

As an anarchist, I'd like to take an imaginary ax to the political spectrum.

[Smappy]

There's been a lot of talk about how this poll isn't necessarily good news for Democrats. That may be true, but certainly isn't bad news for them. At the very least they may hope for suppressed GOP turnout. Since GOPpers make up something like 34% of the populace (and I think Dems are more like 50%), low Republican turnout is all the Dems really need.

[joe]

Pro L,

I think at this point trade, like immigration and the budget, splits liberals and conservatives. There are liberal positions pro- and con-, as well as conservative positions pro- and con-.

Ken Shultz, "...improving people's lives by way of government..." how? By lowering standards of evidence to make it easier to lock up criminals? By launching wars against competing states to secure our strategic position? By mandating prayers in public schools? These would all be attempts to "improve people's lives by way of government," but they most assuredly would not be liberal. Not all right/conserative philosophies and policies are about opposition to government.

[VM]

Bob: that explains the hostility. your natural stupidity causes self loathing. and you're wrong to boot. my social conservative uncle does not like bush right now, but he'd never vote democrat. he hated bush the first, but didn't vote democrat. See what Stevo said. and shove off.

[dagny]

My point is that no matter what the reasons are for the anti-Bush sentiment, the benefactors will be the Democrats.

On average, yes. But I see a lot of places that are "blue" in approval ratings that still won't be voting Democrat any time soon.

They may not approve of Bush, but you know what? He's not running for office.

[Ken Shultz]

I hope you can appreciate, then, joe, that it can be really confusing to figure out what's liberal.

What I'm hearing is that something is liberal relative to motive. ..."Free trade" is liberal, so long as it's a vehicle for spreading labor protections and environmental regulation. ...Wars are liberal, so long as the intent is to protect the defenseless, etc.

So can't a war be liberal if the intent was to spread democracy to people who don't have it? ...What I hear you suggesting is that this wasn't the President's true motive--well I'm not so sure of that. I suspect that really was at least one of his motives.

...You've read Hitchens liberal defenses of the Iraq War, have you not?

[Ken Shultz]

On average, yes. But I see a lot of places that are "blue" in approval ratings that still won't be voting Democrat any time soon.

A wise old demagogue once said that all politics is local. They may not be voting Democrat for President any time soon, but what about for Governor? ...what about for representatives and senators?

...and who's to say they won't vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate that runs to the right of the rest of the Democratic Party?

[mediageek]

To fuckwit:
My point is that no matter what the reasons are for the anti-Bush sentiment, the benefactors will be the Democrats. There is no viable third-party alternative, certainly not wide-eyed libertarians. The Libertarian party has never matched the old Commie party in pulling votes. Sorry for the hostility, but it wasn't unprovoked. Stupidity always pisses me off.

Yeah, bob, because nothing's going to bring me back to the Republican fold like ad-hominem attacks and accusations of stupidity.

Lick my taint, you egg-swilling crotch fold.

[mediageek]

To fuckwit:
My point is that no matter what the reasons are for the anti-Bush sentiment, the benefactors will be the Democrats. There is no viable third-party alternative, certainly not wide-eyed libertarians. The Libertarian party has never matched the old Commie party in pulling votes. Sorry for the hostility, but it wasn't unprovoked. Stupidity always pisses me off.

Yeah, bob, because nothing's going to bring me back to the Republican fold like ad-hominem attacks and accusations of stupidity.

Lick my taint, you egg-swilling crotch fold.

[lunchstealer]

Stupidity always pisses me off.

Aw, Bob, don't be so hard on yourself. You're not stupid, you're just differently-sentient.