Al, tbrosz, am, Mca etc: Can you please spin these poll numbers for me, please?

I'm obviously confused because they seem to be telling me that 2 thirds of Americans don't like the President.

And I know that can't be true.

Funny poll with 73% support among republicans and yet a 33% approval.

If republicans were 40% of the sample and dems 40% of the sample and independents the rest
-you'd think he'd be 37% or so.............

73% support among 40% of the population is already 30% support.

And the next word after 'incompetant' is 'good'.

Words still to come :

Treason, convicted, doing time, disgraced

and so on

"Every once in a while, you've got to do something hard, do something you're not comfortable with. A person needs a gut check." - Corporal Chad Ritchie, U.S.M.C.

I guess chortling about low poll numbers is all poor Kevin Drum has left. The public still supports the NSA surveillance programs, the Plame/Rove affair seems to have fizzled, the Feingold resolution seems all but dead. In fact, Feingold's resolution has served to split the Democratic party, not unite it. Fewer elected Democrats are in office than 5 years ago. The public's view of Democrats has dropped.

Do you Moonbats even realize Bush is not running for re-election??

The Democrats suffer from a terminal case of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).

GW Bush has driven the Democrats insane. Instead of laying out an agenda to help them win elections, they spend all their time bashing Bush and shouting about low polls numbers or some new gaffe. The worst cases of BDS seem to enjoy bad economic news or bad news from Iraq.

Most sufferers of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) assume that if Bush's poll numbers go down, that guarantees the public will elect Dems in the next election.

All the lefties who think the Dems will benefit from Bush's low poll numbers may be in store for a reality check this November.

Paddy Whack: do you not realise who much real power and influence the US has lost in the last few years?

Bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq; with a world record deficit and up to your eyeballs in debt to China; Iran is giving you the finger and the US is powerless to do anything about it.

But hell, as long as you can make childish slurs at Democrats, who gives a fuck.

Do you Moonbats even realize Bush is not running for re-election??

Sure, but I don't think he knows that?

MCA-

Yep. "Good" is sandwiched right between "incompetent" and "idiot."

So the poll is clearly biased.

If you analyze the results of the poll in any manner other than the superficial way characteristic of the bush haters, you will find that the strength with which the people support the president can be used to generate temperatures approaching a billion degrees, enough to cause fusion of deuterium molecules.

Wow - and here come the dead-enders - the 'Fighting 33%'.

BTW, MountainDan, I don't vote Democrat.

Hey, MCA, did you enjoy making that argument?
If Repubs, Dems and Independents were 33/33/33, his approval rating would be 36%. So this poll might, one some tenuous theory, be understating GWB's performance by three percentage points, eh?

That'll get you out of the cellar.

McA is still smarter than the other guy up there attempting to pretend this somehow doesn't matter. Dude, when the average american thinks republican, he thinks george bush, and when he thinks george bush, he thinks republican. So, good work, guys, you're really on the top of your game, I can definitely see nothing but GOP dominance on the horizon. wooo.

What I'm interested in hearing is a poll from the trolls about who thinks bombing Iran will bring the president's poll numbers up. I think you're too far gone even for that.

Enjoy congress for the next seven months.

The single word most frequently associated with George W. Bush today is "incompetent,"and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: "idiot" and "liar." All three are mentioned far more often today than a year ago.

Any word on how many times the phrases "fucking scumbag," "reckless lunatic," "criminal," "shameless goof-off," "mean-tempered dry drunk," "miserable fucking excuse for a human being," "corrupt asshole," "thieving little sociopath," "un-American," "dumb as dirt", "squinty-eyed fuckup," and "pillow-toting mama's boy" were mentioned in conjunction with Bush?

After years of constant hammering by the Democrats and the media, I'm surprised Bush is doing this well.

I know here in the Echo Chamber, any reporter who doesn't actually leap at the podium and try to rip Bush's throat out with his teeth is defined as a "Republican shill," but out in the real world the pattern of attacks is pretty obvious.

The port deal in particular was a creature of mass media (including a number of talk show hosts). I suspect further questioning of most of those who expressed an opinion would reveal a huge amount of ignorance on the subject.

As far as the "word association" bit, it's likely that those words connected with often-heard talking points would show up more often than original ideas, and end up on top of the list. If you tally up all the responses, there are only three more negative ones than positive ones.

Bush can't go much lower, but he's already quite low. Thing is, though, it may not help the Dems that much. If the election were held today, the Dems would almost certainly gain ground in both houses, but it's a leap of faith to claim they'd win back control of either. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but most prognosticators would predict narrow GOP control.

The problem is our non-parliamentary system. Americans don't go to the mid-term polls and think "hmmm, this administration has fucked up the country, so, I think I want to kick out the Republicans and vote Democrat."

Au contraire. Many of them will say "yeah, I've been hearing a lot of bad things about Bush, but, why should I punish that nice congressman so-and-so, the guy who straightened out Aunt Edna's Social Security snafu. He may belong to the same party as that incompetent Bush, but he's he's our guy, he's been in Washington for 14 terms, and he's one of us."

Americans don't often have national elections. Rather, they have 435 (469 if you count the Senate) local ones.

w/ numbers like that, I would bet a majority of Mericans would support a censure resolution at a minimum

The problem is our non-parliamentary system.

Bingo. It's also why you have the least number of political parties of any democracy - it's almost impossible to cast a protest vote that does anything other than shoot yourself in the foot (Nader, anyone?).

Unfortunately, I have no idea what you should do about it...

I'm actually much more interested in how many respondents self-identify as Republicans compared to, say, a year ago.

After years of constant hammering by the Democrats and the media, I'm surprised Bush is doing this well.

Lost you after this line, I'm afraid!

The port deal in particular was a creature of mass media (including a number of talk show hosts). I suspect further questioning of most of those who expressed an opinion would reveal a huge amount of ignorance on the subject.

Funny, I was just about to write the exact same sentence, only instead of "the port deal" I was going to write "Bush's fiasco of a war in Iraq."

But go ahead, keep whining about how the poor misunderstood Taliban-loving United Arab Emirates was mistreated, and how we really should have given our ports over to them if only we'd known better. I'm sure that'll be a winner at the polls!

Yes, once again fake tbrosz was more sane, truthful, and interesting than tbrosz himself.

willie:

Actually, Democrats could make some progress in the elections by "nationalizing" some issues like the Contract With America did. Kevin and others have suggested health care as one option.

Unfortunately, at least for the Democrats, they seem to be relatively single-minded lately. If they can win the House and Senate back on "Bush Sucks," they might have a chance.

Sweet, sweet music frm the troll choir.

"Bad polling!"
"You'll be sorry in November! You 16 point generic ballot favored Democrats, you!"
"Feingold! Pinko!"
"Bush who?"

More of this please. It soothes the soul.

Tbrosz, et alii,

Can you name a single thing that mr. Bush told us would happen that actually did? Why have my own predictions about the results of his actions been so much more accurate than his? I said before the invasion that Bush was lying about the WMD, a fact that he seemed to be unaware of. I said before the invasion that it was a bad strategic decision, not to mention a moral desgrace upon our country.

Probably because I assume lies, corruption and incompetence as part of the calculation. Maybe because I actually served my entire military term instead of deserting.

I wonder what the poll would have said about censure?

After years of constant hammering by the Democrats and the media, I'm surprised Bush is doing this well....Posted by: tbrosz

Look at 2002 and 2004. Dems thought if they bashed Bush and talked about how awful everything was, the voters would elect Democrats. The result? Dems LOST seats.

Democrats are repeating the same self-destructive behavior that cost them the 2002 and 2004 elections.

"After years of constant hammering by the Democrats and the media, I'm surprised Bush is doing this well"

Funny, remember when Clinton was getting pounded by the Repulicans and the press - where were his support numbers? Weren't they in the 60's? So all the hounding must account for - what? - .02% of the variance. I think that proves the null hypothesis. What's the next lame explanation we can test?

i like

提取罐
低温试验箱

Questions:

1) How can Bush be getting even 9% from Democrats?

2) Can we start humming the limbo song whenever we see Bush - how low can he go?

Paddy Whacked can't keep his spin unspun..

"I guess chortling about low poll numbers is all poor Kevin Drum has left."

Then he lists the things Kevin actually does have left:

"The public still supports the NSA surveillance programs,"

except that they don't,

" the Plame/Rove affair seems to have fizzled,"

except that it hasn't ( even if Bush pulls the famiiy trick of 'pardon the traitor' )

" the Feingold resolution seems all but dead."

no, the Congress may be dead, but the resolution is still correct.

The Democratic party need not be angels for us to see that Bush is a demon.

It may have taken 5 years for America to get a clue, but you can't fool most of the people forever.

This just in...

Refusing to bow to the inevitable, Republican Congresswoman and 2000 GOP recount heroine Katherine Harris is staying in the 2006 Florida Senate race. Sidestepping a major address planned for this evening, Harris instead used the friendly confines of the Fox Hannity and Colmes program to declare her intent to continue her quixotic campaign the Democratic incumbent, Bill Nelson:

"I'm staying. I'm in this race. I'm going to win. I'm going to put everything on the line."

For the details, see:
"Harris Stays In."

He was just as incompetent 5 years ago and as demonstrably incompetent 1 year ago. Why did people vote for him? The man can barely speak coherently, why did anyone ever think this is a man who should be president?

After years of constant hammering by the Democrats and the media, I'm surprised Bush is doing this well.

Dolchstosslegende as exit strategy? As pathetic as it is laughable.

11 percent say he’s dealing with no setback at all

Denial is strong in conservative lemmings, but this is truly an incredible result.

They are not only smokin' something stronger than tobacco, their eatin' hallucinogenic mushies also!

tbrosz: After years of constant hammering by the Democrats and the media, I'm surprised Bush is doing this well.

Hmmmmm.

Clinton got hammered mercilessly by both the press and the GOP which had a lot more money than Bush's enemies, yet he managed no lower than 53%.

As I said, denial is strong in conservative lemmings.

Thanks for proving my point, tbrosz!

GW Bush has driven the Democrats insane. Instead of laying out an agenda to help them win elections, they spend all their time bashing Bush and shouting about low polls numbers or some new gaffe. The worst cases of BDS seem to enjoy bad economic news or bad news from Iraq.

Actually No. This isn' the case at all. Business Republican BUSINESS has started to turn on Bush.

Now this "wording" of yours.
How so can you prove this?
I see no links or studies?
I see a Rush Parrot.
Please issue something that resembles that not opinion. The Polls show a 90% christian society 70% against Bush and his War.
How so , SIR, can you claim that Democrats are insane? 70% of the People, magically, because you OPINED it, became immoral democrats?

Why Sir, I must Ask, how so do you come to these false fact that Democrats are driven insane?
You sir are frothing on the keyboard. No Doubt this post will cause you great emnity. And for that I apologize if I have made you Insane..As foolish as that may sound.

tbrosz: . . . but out in the real world the pattern of attacks is pretty obvious.

There's that dictionary of conservative-convenient misdefinitions at work again, you know, the one in which "real world" means "the world inhabited by the little voices in my head".

one eye: Why Sir, I must Ask, how so do you come to these false fact that Democrats are driven insane?

Conservative lemmings suffer from BIS.

Bush Infatuation Syndrome.

A key symptom is persistent delusion.

And a key diagnostic is the presence in their medicine cabinets of massive stockpiles (actual stockpiles, mind you, not imaginary ones!) of chapstick necessary to keep their lips moist for kissing Bush's behind.

I like these figures from the table: since stupid is a mild form of idiot, I combine the two. Also look how Christian has grown.

idiot     11 11 21
stupid    ~7 12  7
s or i   ~18 23 28
christian  7  9 14

tbrosz: I suspect further questioning of most of those who expressed an opinion would reveal a huge amount of ignorance on the subject.

I suspect that further comments by tbrosz would reveal a huge amount of ignorance . . .

. . . and I'm right!

It is definitely heartening to the point of deep sighs of wonder and relief to see that this country is finally waking up to reality that we have an incompetent stupid idiot as our president, but the spinelessness of the Dems keeps my full-out gloating in check.

Feingold for president.

Years of constant hammering by the media

That's funny.

Ah, Kevin.

Now I see you're touting another liberal media poll, this one laughably skewed toward the Democrats.

Oh, by the way, Bush isn't running in '08. Sorry.

Floopmeister,

Are you still in Australia? What the hell is this?,

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/25/flying_car_launch_site/

Well, this is all fine and dandy. But, will it result in reality-based adults eventually coming to power in '06 and '08? At this point, I'd even settle for one of the "adults" in the Republican party. Do they have any?

a sad set of bush-enabling comments tonight, even by the low standards of the cohort.

so let's instead turn to the question of whether we should desire a dem majority in either house next year (put aside whether they can achieve one).

i say no.

i'd prefer a 218-217 R house and a 50-50 senate as the ideal.

There are many chickens still coming home to roost over the 2007-08. The GOP would like nothing more than to pin some of the blame for those chickens on the dems, and a majority in either house, even a majority that included a set of DINOs, provides them that option. Then (for the sake of discussion) VP McCain runs as a "reformer with results," and the right-wing chorus tells us how here's a guy who can enact Bush's great visions.

What, exactly, is the gain in a dem majority in either house? some would say the power of subpoena, and i don't mean to ignore that, but i don't think that's worth the tradeoff. I want the messes that bush/delay governance all squarely pinned on the gop.

now, are the dems capable of winning a majority? that's a much trickier question....

oh, btw, Soviet, no, there are no adults left in the republican party. they all sold out to bush-ism....

It appears on the graph that there was a sharp (though I suppose not all that significant in raw numbers) uptick in Democratic support for Bush in November 2005--which apparently coincided with a comparably sized drop in Republican support.

Did Bush do something liberal last November that I don't remember? (Could it have been the Miers nomination? I forget exactly when that was.)

Hey, be easy on tbrosz. He ate a hamburger, and is suffering from the early stages of vCJD. I'm wondering if, at the end, he'll realize that his support of Bush's lax food safety testing is what enabled the beef industry to sell the tainted product that ate holes into his brain. Or maybe he'll just realize that the flowers on his hospital bedsheets are pretty.

rieux, the shape of the lines is misleading you a little: the absolute jump looks like about 2 or 3 points, which could simply be margin of error.

alternately, there were some changes in self-identification by party that made a difference.

Surprising how many right wingers are tuned in here.

Why? Progressives are not flocking to conservative blogs.

It must be you Kevin.

Yup, they were right. Karl Rove is a genius
(sarcasm)

Howard, I sympathize with your desire to smear the GOP. They richly deserve to be mortally wounded for a generation, or two.

But, from a reality-based point of view, how much more can we take? The fiscal insanity and hypocrisy on trade policy... the cruel and pre-emptive wars and sabre-rattling... the coddling (perhaps exploitation) of the Christian Taliban. It's all too much for this Canuckastani.

floopmeister:

> "The problem is our non-parliamentary system."

> Bingo. It's also why you have the least number of
> political parties of any democracy - it's almost
> impossible to cast a protest vote that does anything
> other than shoot yourself in the foot (Nader, anyone?).

> Unfortunately, I have no idea what you should do about it...

I do.

IRV (Instant Runoff Voting).

Problem solved, next case.

Bob

Soviet Canuckastani, the problem is, in the very best case scenario i can imagine, a 219-216 dem edge in the house and a 50-49-1 edge in the senate (effectively, 51-49), there are enough DINOs that it won't curb bush-ism's excesses (or won't curb them any more than the disposition of parties i'm hoping for).

to really change things around, we need change in the oval office, so my focus is on what best positions the dems for 2008. i realize that's rather callous, but that's what bush-ism has done to me.

If these were Neilsen's, his show would be cancelled.

Are you still in Australia? What the hell is this? cld

Beats the hell out of me... Still, they're a pretty wierd and isolated lot, those guys in Perth ;)

Nice pic, though...

Bob, what is Instant Runoff Voting - and is it copyright of Diebold?

floopmeister,

Similar to what you call Preferential Voting - which as been used in Queensland since 1919 - Must learn to use HTML - or I would put up a site.

floopmeister:

No, IRV is not copyright Diebold -- although it make take some technology to implement efficently.

IRV is rank-order pereference voting, with the vote going to one's second choice if their first choice fails to gain a majority. They already use it in San Francisco. Most useful for multi-candidate and/or multi-party races, where you want the winner to come up with a majority, not merely a plurality.

Say you support Nader or a Greenie as your first choice -- but would slit your wrists if another Republican got elected. So you vote for Nader (or Greenie) as Choice One, the regular ticket Dem (say, Gore) Choice Two, etc.

When the votes are tabulated, the Nader/Greenie support (assuming it's small) will flip over to those voters' second choices (mostly for Gore) -- and the spoiler syndrome is averted.

That's it in a nutshell.

Bob

floopmeister,

It's what you call PV for electing House members.

oh, OK. It's a Preferential Voting system - thanks.

floop:

I had no idea you have it in Oz (or at least Queensland).

How's that working out for you guys?

Bob

I would love to have IRV, but what's the likelihood we'll see it in our life times on a larger level than SF? I get the feeling the two majority parties like the spoiler system. Or perhaps that the frustration talking...

Lauren:

It's the frustration talking ...

Journeys of a thousand miles and single steps and all.

I think it should be included in the Democratic Party platform, and I have every intention of agitating for it.

Bob

howard's point is well taken, and something I have thought about a lot. Under the most optimistic scenario, the Dems don't really end up controlling much of anything anyway, so better to have enough votes to just stop the egregious bullshit (which will be much easier with Bush so wounded and the Repubs running away from him), than to actually be seen to have power, and thus get blamed for things they had nothing to do with.

Because, despite tbrosz's paranoid fantasies, the media will hang any and all fuckups on the "new" Congress, despite said fuckups all being simmered along nicely for 6 years by BushCo.

And really Tom, you're like a parody of yourself sometimes - it's the media that makes people think Bush is a moron. It's not - couldn't possibly be - anything that the man himself has actually done (or not done, to be more accurate). That's not possible. Especially in a world where he's had a virtual rubber stamp the whole way along, where media coverage of the "war" was nothing short of adulatory for at least 2 years. Nope, it's not Bush. It's everyone else.

How pathetic. How thoroughly modern Republican, to just blame everyone but the people in charge.

Triumphant already!

Nice to see you libs are feeling good.

The frustration does seem to do most of the talking these days... :-)

I'm not familiar with the political history of IRV, but hasn't it been around for a while (conceptually speaking)? Why hasn't it gotten any more traction? One would think that the republicans would have done something about the spoiler system after the '92 presidential race when they took the congress in '94.

It would be nice to have the opportunity to vote for third parties, but I do feel my hands tied with the current system. Sigh...

(AfG wrote) Hmmmmm. Clinton got hammered mercilessly by both the press and the GOP which had a lot more money than Bush's enemies, yet he managed no lower than 53%.

Hmmmmm... yet Clinton didn't get reelected to a third term [heh-heh] and in spite of the 53% rating, the Party could not maintain the presidency or congress.

So, of what value is the >50% rating? Seems more in line with the trend if Bush would rate > 50% then the Dems would win the next presidency and congress.

So shouldn't the Party be rooting for Bush to poll greater than 50%???

Well, you can see from all this poll strength why it would be a really bad idea to censure this popular president.

Fucking goddamn fucking wimpy fucking Democrats. And you Kevin - I bet your butt still hurts from Glenn and Digby both taking you out behind the woodshed and telling you how it is.

Bob,

Works out great. Generally it means that minor parties like the Democrats and the Greens, and Independents, get elected to the Senate and the House of Reps.

In fact, the Greens became the first minor party in Australian history to get a seat in the House of Reps (generally they get elected to the Senate) at the last election.

In a safe Labour seat like mine, we can vote Greens, knowing that our preferences will go to Labour ahead of Liberal or National. On the other hand, my friend (in a marginal seat) voted Labour first and then put his (largely symbolic) second preference as Greens.

The only time it stuffs up in when party hacks decide to play sneaky cynical games with preferences, as happened in a couple of states in the last electyion. Labour is pretty hopeless at the moment (like the US dems) and they have been losing votes to the Greens (but still picking up prefs). A group of smart arse Labour party hacks decided to stiff the Greens by giving their preferences to 'Family First' (without telling voters!) over the Greens, even though the Greens are their closest philosophical cousins.

Family First got a couple of seats because of it, and they're Moral Majority types in the US model.

Idiots.

That raised the ire of plenty of people here, and furthered the image of Labour as cynical and out of touch.

In short, it works well, although the system is open to manipulation, of course. The best thing about it is that it allows minor parties to get seats. Once they have seats in Parliament they can start to drive agendas and influence public debate. The role of the Greens in the Iraq War debate is the classic case - they have been the true opposition party. It allows for more political views to have representation, rather than the cliched centre left and centre right dichotomy.

Lauren:

Check out Wikipedia on voting systems. IRV is only one form of preferential systems other than the straight one-vote-one-candidate method. You are correct -- it's been around at least as long as 18th century French political scientist Condorcet.

Don't want to give you the idea that there are no problems with it. Check Wiki on that; there are still ways to game the system by strategic voting (the problem we want to eliminate) and/or getting perverse outcomes. None of the other preferential voting systems are flawless, either; each has its own set of strengths and weaknesses.

I think you're correct to intuit a certain amount of baseline resistance to any new voting system because no matter what it is, it will challenge the stranglehold of the two-party duopoly. Beyond that, people have argued that IRV is unconstitutional, because it implictly violates one-person-one-vote.

Anything would be an improvement, however -- and it strikes me that IRV's strengths far outweigh its weaknesses.

As for frustration -- hell, we're all frustrated. The trick is to channel it. I surely plan to bust my ass this spring, fall and summer for close Democratic races in my state.

Bob

The other point about the Australian voting system is that we get nearly 100% turnout in elections - voting is compulsory.

You don't vote, you get fined.

floop:

Woah, I'd love to know the history of *that* li'l facet of the Australian system :)

My impressions of Oz have always been that it's a rather America-like place culturally, for a Commonwealth country. The Outback and all.

I'd never imagine that Oz would have such a Soviet-style voting requirement -- not to say at all that I disagree with it, though.

Question: What happens if you just can't make up your mind on any of the choices? Can you vote "voted" but just not register preferences?

Bob

Hahahaha

Even a two-bit singer doesn't like him.

Add up the Positive Words and the Negative Words to describe Bush, and the latter win by 114-76. Looks pretty grim to me. (The ability of the Bush family to transmute political gold into lead will never cease to amaze me.)

Tbrosz: "Actually, Democrats could make some progress in the elections by "nationalizing" some issues like the Contract With America did. Kevin and others have suggested health care as one option.

"Unfortunately, at least for the Democrats, they seem to be relatively single-minded lately. If they can win the House and Senate back on 'Bush Sucks,' they might have a chance."

Actually, Gallup's poll a few days ago -- which also gave Bush a net 24-point negative rating -- showed that the Dems are doing quite well on that slogan, thank you. They have a 16-point lead over the GOP among registered voters in the House races.

The keys to Bush bouncing back before the mid-term election of November are rather straightforward:
1) The economy stays healthy. A big element of that will be energy prices, particularly gasolene, not skyrocketing.
2) Casualties actually decline in Iraq, even if they climb in Afghanistan.
3) The federal government responds appropriately and with great fanfare to all natural disasters in the next six months.
4) The MSM pays a lot more attention to Democrats and their critical comments about each other as they scramble for position
5) Certified isolationist Republicans regain heart and come to understand that the President really is right in principle about issues like the Dubai port deal and about immigration policy.
6) Dubya and Laura lean on their religious values and do not get discouraged. Their legacy is going to be just fine because virtually nothing out there in the reality of the public policy debate is nearly as bad as the Democrats say it is. The main possible exception to this may be avian bird flu which could break into human to human infection any day and raise holy hell with everything. But the Bush administration is unassailable on this issue. It came up early on their radar and what reasonably can be done is being done.

Bob,

You can always 'donkey vote' (well, that's got a different meaning in an American context!). Once in my younger and dumber days I voted for AC/DC singer Bon Scott (just scrawled his name across the ballot paper).

Actually, I look at compulsory voting as being the only membership fee for being part of the club called Australia. Most people here grumble about it - but we all turn up and vote.

Generally its accepted as being something you have to do - which it's about right, I'd say ;)

Even a two-bit singer doesn't like him.

It says:
"Forti said the Republican group had even arranged for Simpson to dine at one of the head tables with U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican."

Wow! And she turned that down! Golly, what could she have been thinking. I suddenly have new respect for the girl...

The keys to Bush bouncing back before the mid-term election of November are rather straightforward:

Yep, they're as likely as a snowball in hell, but they are certainly straightforward.

craigie:

I know that I enjoyed Kevin being taken out behind the woodshed by Glenn and Digby - could not have happened to a nicer guy - except maybe cmdicely.

You don't vote, you get fined.

That is such a fabulous system. The argument against it, of course, is quite persuasive: most people who don't vote in the US are poor, and if they voted it might be harder for those of us with gold-plated faucets to award ourselves another trillion-dollar tax cut.

Persuasive to the people that make the rules, that is.

The federal government responds appropriately and with great fanfare to all natural disasters in the next six months.

Does Rove have some earthquakes planned that we should know about?

Oh, and by the way: "appropriately" and "with great fanfare" are mutually exclusive.

I smell panic...

floop:

"Dirty deeds, and they're done dirt cheap"

So "donkey voting" is just scribbling Fred Flinstone, Homer Simpson or whoever as a write-in candidate in lieu of a serious vote?

Don't get me wrong, when I called compulsory voting "Soviet-style," I'm just viewing what it would seem like from the standard American perspective. Although why the US doesn't make Election Day a national holiday or have it on a weekend has always baffled me, as this is the land of Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death :)

As long as you could legitimately vote for "no preference" for any particular measure, I'd certainly have no problem with compulsory voting in America, either. It's a way to inculcate the idea of civic responsibility.

And sure, Americans would grumble (loudly) about it. But we'd do it -- especially if measures were also taken to make voting easier.

Bob

Enjoyed the chat - gotta run (home time!)

Throw another shrimp on the barbie, floop!

To get back his approval ratings, all that GWB has to do is to go give a speech at the Bob Jones University or some other college that does not allow black men to screw white chicks.

To add a few points more, Rove can start a push poll asking people of Oshkosh if they know that Feingold is gay and he has fathered a black child.

floop: You don't vote, you get fined.

brooksfoe: That is such a fabulous system.

Yes, and isn't it a shame that compulsory voting isn't possible in America because of the persuasion of plutocrats.

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy rings so true.

Bulletin! While Survey USA's poll tonight, like Gallup's and Pew's, gives Bush a 24-point net negative rating, the Wall Street Journal's new poll looks better for him. It only gives him a 22-point negative rating!

what's up with this poll? where do they say how many respondents identified as Rep Dem or Ind?
To be comparable we would have to know how many Rs changed to Is and Ds over the last few months.
Or is this one of those polls that assumes set percentages of the population belong to each category? In which case defections from one camp to the other will skew the results.

Let's repeal that constitutional amendment that prohibits GWB from running again. Bush-Cheney '08!

I dont know how anyone can be happy about all these polls

the dems ratings are as low as repubs--that amounts to the country--the people have a damn lousy opinion of how our gov't is performing--both sides

the american people think our leaders suck

they need to step back and look at what all this bipartisanship crap is doing to this country

i know its not that simple

but i dont see anything possitive in all this

Or, according to cmdicely, no need to repeal the 22nd Amendment: Cheney-Bush '08.

i meant partisan crap

Floopmeister,

The problem with the Preferential voting System you lay out is that it would not work in the U.S. Preferential voting would only work in a proportional representation system, because a person would vote for the party. In the U.S., we don't vote for the party, but for the person. Thus I don't see how this system could work in the U.S.

Howard,

I understand exactly where you are coming from on the wish to stay in a narrow minority until 2008. I, too, have considered the benefits of that situation. The reason this would not be a great outcome is that the Democrats are a horrible minority. We don't stay on message, we don't have a passion for the same subjects. Our party has for a very long time been organized around personalities and not policies. Many people come to the Democratic party for different reasons, though in a broad ideological sense there are things that tie us together.

For this reason, I think the Dems need the majority. The majority will allow for the policies that we place on the agenda to actually be covered, which will help unite us behind a positive policy agenda. The majority will change the media script, which has consistently be about the internal conflicts of the Democratic party. Finally, the majority will ensure that we can coordinate with our eventual nominee to place certain items on Congress' plate which will benefit that person.

Preferential voting would only work in a proportional representation system, because a person would vote for the party. In the U.S., we don't vote for the party, but for the person. Thus I don't see how this system could work in the U.S.

Not so - preferential voting works in a FPTP system. I think you may be a little confused.
Read the example above. Or try this one:
Running for Governor of New York are three candidates: Oswald Cobblepot (R); James Gordon (D) and Bruce Wayne (I). Now, let's hypothesise that the polls look like this:
Cobblepot - 45%
Gordon - 35%
Wayne - 20%.
Under the present system, Cobblepot wins.
But let's suppose that all the Democratic voters would still rather see Wayne than Cobblepot, and all the Independents would still rather see Gordon than Cobblepot. Under the present system, they'll all be disappointed -much as a lot of people were disappointed by, say, Ralph Nader.
But under IRV, all the Democrats mark their ballots for Gordon first and Wayne second, and all the Independents mark theirs for Wayne first and Gordon second.
The first preferences are counted, and the candidate (Wayne) with the least number of votes is knocked out.
Then all his votes are redistributed according to the second preference. Gordon picks up all Wayne's second preferences and gets 55% - and wins.

"The port deal in particular was a creature of mass media..."

That damn media, always throwing away U.S. security for a quick buck and a handout to their friends, stifling all dissent whenever possible and then blaming others when that doesn't work. Thank God Bush is here to save us from those criminals!

The only time it stuffs up in when party hacks decide to play sneaky cynical games with preferences, as happened in a couple of states in the last electyion. Labour is pretty hopeless at the moment (like the US dems) and they have been losing votes to the Greens (but still picking up prefs). A group of smart arse Labour party hacks decided to stiff the Greens by giving their preferences to 'Family First' (without telling voters!) over the Greens, even though the Greens are their closest philosophical cousins.

This needs explanation. Both the Senate and House of Reps have "Instant Runoff Voting" in American parlance, but using different methods. The Senate vote is a quota based proportional representation system in which 6 statewide seats are on offer in each election. The House vote is an electorate based system with one candidate per seat.

The problem with the Senate ballot is that there's usually a large number of candidates, and voters apparently don't like to number all the boxes. So some bright spark invented "above the line" voting. If you vote "above the line", you put a one in the box representing your favored party. "Your" preferences are then determined by the party you've just voted for based on pre-registered preferences that get decided based on back-alley deals and, on at least one alleged occasion, literal yellow envelopes stuffed with cash.

Since about 90 percent of voters vote above the line, this gives enormous power to the parties over "your" vote and makes party-based preference allocation deals crucial. Of course you can always determine your own preferences by voting below the line, but since this is more complicated and time consuming and people are lazy, uninformed and stupid, only a minority do it. Every election I go to the polling place with my custom list of preferences carefully written down, and carefully record them in the ballot, while knowing full well that it doesn't make a lick of difference since, in the first place, I'm in the dismal minority, and secondly, I live in the ACT which is allocated only 2 seats in the Senate, and hence, with the 2 party system and support split roughly evenly, the seats always go to one Labor and on Liberal party candidate.

Needless to say preallocated preferences are a (mis)feature only of one particular system, and one that nobody should or would want to emulate.

The House vote is an electorate based system with one candidate per seat

I mean, of course, one representative per seat. Sorry about that.

Question: What happens if you just can't make up your mind on any of the choices? Can you vote "voted" but just not register preferences?

Nobody monitors your vote, and it's all anonymous, so you don't even have to fill out your ballot. Or, you can vote informal (scrawl something that spoils your ballot.)

Australia's "compulsory" voting requirement is little more than a requirement to show up to get your name marked off, or pay a minor fine. This is enough to get most people to vote.

Australia is similar to the US culturally, but Australians are more likely to accept the concept of citizenship responsibilities as well as rights. The standard argument for compulsory voting is that it voting is both a right and a responsibility of citizenship.

Certain members of the coalition, which is philosophically opposed to the idea of responsibility in anything except the responsibility of women to get pregnant, stay pregnant and keep pumping out little Australians (hello, baby bonus!), has been talking up non-compulsory voting of late. They've apparently done the sums and decided that they can gain an advantage by doing so.

What I again find most amazing about this poll is the 47 perecentage point divergence between the views of Republicans (73% approval) and Independents (26% approval) about Bush. There has never ever been a divergence of even close to this magnitude between the views of Independents and members of the President's paty and this divergence has existed for most of the past year.

It really does suggest that many Republicans are living solely within their own media bubble courtesy of Fox News, talk radio and many regional newspapers.

Bush isn't worrying about his poll numbers because he doesn't want them to be high. :)

This way the party can make a decision in the primary on what direction it wants to go without worrying about what the current president's position is. And the next president will be Republican, so that's important for the country to make a decision on what direction we want to go.

Bush's number around bound to bounce back. Just watch, he is in campaigning mode again. And that's good for America.

If I were faced with a choice of a president who stands for something and another party who stands for pretty much nothing, no agenda, no spine, and whose last presidential nominee is a flip-flopper, I'd rather choose the president who at least stands for something, thank you very much.

And I know what he stands for. He is God's messiah on earth, doing his very best to kill all terrorists worldwide, whereever they are.

It really does suggest that many Republicans are living solely within their own media bubble courtesy of Fox News, talk radio and many regional newspapers.

Posted by: Ben Brackley

Astually most of us don't give a rat's ass about Bush's poll numbers. He is not working for re-election. He is working at being president. As a republican my primary concern during the last two election cycles was SCOTUS and we got that. Also maintaining majorities in congress and that appears to be staying republican for a long time with the current strenght of incumbancy.

You Dumbercrats are the ones obsessed with Bush and his poll numbers to the point that you have lost sight of the prize and another republican will probably get elected president in 2008. I love it!

If you read the polls carefully you find that Bush has not only lost the Democrats and the Independents, he is losing Republicans rapidly. He is not only losing "liberal' and "moderate" Republicans, his popularity with "conservative" Republicans is declining as well. Fewer and fewer conservatives think of Bush as being one of their own. The "no markup too large" presidency isn't playing very well in conservative land.

The big issue is "incompetence." I have heard hard rock conservatives talking about the Bush administration and its profound incompetence. The problem isn't just limited to Bush. Everywhere you turn more and more examples of bonechilling incompetence pop-up. Cheney, Rumsfelt, Rice, Bolton and the rest of the "neo-con" foreign policy team are widely considered less than adept, but the examples of incompetence on the domestic side of the government keep on mounting. Brownie, Chertoff, Miers, Secretary Snow (or his designate) have all demonstrated a stunning lack of basic competence. Down below the press aid trying to stiffle NASA scientists, and now the young lawyer Carla Martin who may have singlehandedly torpedoed the Zacarias Moussaoui criminal prosecution are newsworthy examples of plain old incompetence among the Bush rank and file. From what I have read and been told just below the surface there are many, many others who are similarly incompetent .

What's that I hear, Bush isn't running again.

The good thing for Democrats is that the Republicans in Congress have the same problem. The public perceives them as being incompetent or corrupt or both. The various money scandals are prime examples of the incompetence of Republican congressional leadership. Real leaders would not have allowed K-Street to gain so much open control. They would have nipped Duke Cunningham and Katherine Harris' problems in the bud.

The idea of not having a functioning ethics committee in the house demonstrats a stunning lack of competence. The ethics committee exists to protect the institution. A functioning ethics committee also protects the image of the party in power. Denny Hastart might not be a crook, but he sure is incompetent for allowing DeLay to talk him into gutting the ethics committee.

In the Senate who can forget Dr. Frist's long distance diagnosis in the Schiavo case. World famous heart surgeon. Would anybody want him working on your heart after Schaivo.

More importantly the Republicans have passed two major initiatives in the last few years --the Drug Benefit and bankruptcy reform. Both are prime examples of rank incompetence. The Drug Benefit will, no doubt, translate directly into votes for Democrats.

Incompetence. The word that best describes the current crop of Republicans in leadership positions in both the administration and the congress.

During the impeachment spring and summer of 1974, Nixon's support leveled off at about 26%.

Bush is only 7 points above Nixon's floor level of support.

Wow.

I'm a political Independent myself and I agree, the one adjective that first enters my mind in respect to George W. Bush is INCOMPETENT. Thoroughly, utterly, absolutely incompetent, however much you may agree with his views. I'm embarrassed to admit that I voted for Bush in 2004 (although I supported and voted for Gore in 2000-- oh, how I wish Gore had won that election 6 years ago, how much stronger our country would be). Kerry just rubbed me the wrong way in 2004, but I now have to shake my head in the mirror for that vote in 2004, the way a Yuppie with a hangover on Saturday morning does after recalling his idiotic drunken behavior in front of his colleagues at Happy Hour the evening before.

Iraq is possibly the most incompetently-run war in US history. At least in Vietnam, we were up against a tough and organized regular North Vietnamese army, heavily armed and supported by the Soviets. In Iraq, we're up against some tough yet relatively poorly armed and insurgents, who are humiliating the world's only superpower with a $500 billion annual defense budget. More to the point, we never should have been in Iraq in the first place-- Colin Powell and Condi Rice snowed me, I admit, as all that supposed WMD intelligence was bulls**t.

Then came the Katrina fiasco. Fiasco is an understatement. The ex-convict guy who delivers my pizza could have done a better job in NOLA than Bush.

Now comes Bush's latest exemplar of utter idiocy, this incredibly stupid nuclear deal that he's trying to push with India. Yeah, that's real smart. We're desperately trying to stop Iran from developing nukes, trying to rein in Pakistan too, invoking international law to get other countries on our side against North Korea, essentially trying desperately to get the world to move away from nukes, before they start appearing at bake sales for the latest terrorist to snatch up and deliver right to our doorstep. So Bush's solution to this crisis is-- essentially trash the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by breaking it for India, while supplying India with tons of high-grade plutonium for direct conversion into nuclear missiles, thus provoking Pakistan to respond in kind, thus provoking a nuclear arms race in South Asia with rapid movement toward a nuclear war and loose nukes all over South and Central Asia, while also wrecking the international statutes in place to rein in Iran and North Korea. HOW IDIOTIC CAN BUSH GET? Congress had better reject this deal, or they'll be out on their asses begging for petty cash once November rolls along.

I have to hand it to George W. Bush. No President in our history has so thoroughly, so commonly, and so systematically screwed up in so many areas. It would be really funny, except that Bush may have done permanent and unsustainable damage to our country and world. Our national debt is soon gonna hit over $9 trillion-- in short, we're fscked, and the crap's gonna hit the fan in a few years (unfortunately, probably during the first term of Bush's successor).

"Kerry just rubbed me the wrong way in 2004."

Why?

If you look and the full list of one-word descriptors, it's striking thet "honest" - which topped the list five times running - has dropped to sixth place, and is now behind "liar" for the first time. Al Franken - Kansas is getting it at last!

For some perspective on whether it's credible to have a 33% approval rating for Bush if 73% of Republicans

"Estimates of partisanship vary widely. Using a 90% confidence interval, you could say that Republicans are between 26% and 39% of the public, Democrats are between 29.4% and 40.6% and Independents between 17.4% and 36.6%. Those are widely varying estimates. They get pushed around by question wording, sampling frame, house effects and plain random sampling error. To pick any single value for the party distribution and claim it is "right" in some absolute sense is fantasy."

from . . .
http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2006/03/partisanship-across-polls.html

If you read the whole piece, you'll see that most surveys find substantial percentages who identify with neither party, and a small advantage in identification in favor of the Democrats. Seems there are fewer self-identified Republicans than many of us would have thought, so it's not very surprising that Bush's support levels are so low. I don't know how identification has shifted over the past year, and would welcome tips on where to find out.

No, the constitution will not be modified to allow the president three or more terms. I wouldn't rule out an exception for those citizens born in Austria. I wonder if that could happen by a court ruling to the effect that "naturalized" shouldn't mean second-class citizen in any respect?

Look at 2002 and 2004

OK, I'm looking. I see a then-popular wartime President in 2002 and a Presidential election with a marginally popular incumbent in 2004. What am I supposed to be looking for again?

You Dumbercrats are the ones obsessed with Bush and his poll numbers to the point that you have lost sight of the prize and another republican will probably get elected president in 2008.

Losing sight of what? Let's recite the facts, Fascist White Asshole:

Your President is unpopular.
Your party is unpopular.
Outside of the party bunker, Americans - both Democrat and Independent - approve of your President as much as they approved of Dick Nixon.

And as for "he's not running" again, can we say coattails, boys and girls? Or let me try it in a term that might work in the fantasyland that has become the Republican mindset: Al Gore.

What I would like to have a disscussion about are policy effects. We all know GWB and company are screw ups. I would like to pick things apart like globalization and foreign policy and try and figure out why this stuff is not working.
From my point of view the only trickle down I'm getting is colored yellow. I am tired of pursuing plans that only benifit those with direct acess to government.

Well let's see. We know from Carter that 28% won't get you re-elected. But you lefties keep working toward making sure Bush doesn't get re-elected. It'll give you something to do.

Oh, it's you. Go to hell.

I think Americans should take a look at what's happening in Thailand right now. A wealthy CEO president who's responded to Muslim terrorists with massive violent repression while steering billions towards his corporate allies, buying out the media, and sweeping aside constitutional safeguards, is about to be forced to resign by massive demonstrations by a professional middle class that's finally gotten completely sick of his shenanigans.

We could never do this in the US. It's not entirely clear that it's good that they can do this in Thailand. But it's worth thinking about the parallels, and looking at what IS working for them.

After spending years trying to bring down Bush with "he lied", Rathergate, Plamegate, NG, NSA, etc., the left has nothing to show for it except low poll numbers and this they boast about, well done! You really have accomplished a lot, but I guess you have to hang your hat on something as not too appear as complete losers.

Let's do look at policies, both foreign and domestic. Iraq has had three successful elections, a representative government, Saddam on trial and a military/security force improving everyday and our troops will be heading home this year. Afghanistan is a democratic country, India has become an ally as has the freindships strengthened with Germany, Jordan, Egypt and Pakistan. The US is putting pressure on the ever-weak security council to do something with Iran and Darfur and Bolton is the right person at the right time. Domestically, unemployment is at an historic low, GDP is growing briskly and the DOW and Nasdaq are performing well.

So I am curious to hear how much better the intellectually superior democrats will do. Exactly what is that platform? If there is one and if they can mention anything about their strategy without muttering the words "evil Bush", should be interesting to see. Don't forget the part about Bush listening in on phone calls, yikes!

Massive violent repression towards Muslim terrorists? Please say it's not true. I mean what have those Muslim terrorists done to deserve any repercussions? Oh wait........

Oh, it's you. Go to hell.
Come on, Lucy, where's the love?

Dusty, coat tails have nothing to do with '08, Cheney is not running and the other candidates are not exactly in lockstep with GW. The main reason the poll numbers are down is because GW is not conservative enough. The liberals have yet to get that through their thick wooden heads. McCain could beat anyone on the left, but my choice would be:
Say hello to President Gingrich.

After years of constant hammering by the Democrats and the media, I'm surprised Bush is doing this well.

Of course, Bush's years of mendacity, incompetence and corruption have nothing to do with it, eh, tbrosz?

What's interesting to me is that all your pathetic water carrying for Bush seems to have only deluded yourself. Bush's approval, and that of the Republicans, is going down, down, down, and all you have is to harrumph about your "liberal media" and "echo chamber" straw men and sneer at the concept of an opposition party. Well done, tbrosz. Shame on you.

After spending years trying to bring down Bush with "he lied", Rathergate, Plamegate, NG, NSA, etc., the left has nothing to show for it except low poll numbers

Yeah. Bush's low poll numbers.

Dolt.

The former left messiah Terry McAuliffe was saying just yesterday that the Democrats needed to have a bigger tent and welcome independents and mode