Home › Blogs › Soren Dayton's blog ›

Does rising generic ballot show that the GOP is now beyond Bush?

Submitted by Soren Dayton on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 11:31
in

This is just a thought. Probably not a particularly good one. But tell me what you think.

Reid Wilson, writing at RCP did a write up of generic congressional ballot tests yesterday. He said:

Earlier this summer, Democrats held leads approaching 20%. But Republicans have long maintained that Congress' low approval rating -- sitting at just under 18% in the latest RCP Congressional Average -- would cost Democrats in November. [...] 

But National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Tom Cole made a good point in an interview with The Scorecard this week in St. Paul, hinting that internal polling showed more voters than average know which party is in charge of Congress. That reflects poorly on Democrats, who have so far taken shelter behind an unpopular president, and it could cost them marginal seats in November.

Republicans still face a harsh electoral climate as they trail the generic ballot matchups. But perhaps it's not as bad as it was even earlier this summer.

But I have another thought. Has the GOP gotten beyond George W. Bush in some sense? Is George Bush yesterday's GOP? I mean .... John McCain is not Bush. The Dems tried that messaging and it didn't work. It seems to me to be even more unlikely to work now. Sarah Palin is not Bush.

McCain and, to a lesser extent, Palin have launched attacks on Washington and the GOP in a way that Barack Obama is not doing and is probablty not capable of doing against his own party.

Furthermore, there is a high-powered media event that provides this pivot: the GOP Covention. Bush wasn't at the covnention, which turned out to be an even bigger media event than the Democratic convention. Bush's name wasn't even used.  And Bush is doing his best to lay low.

Is Bush drifting off into the sunset? If he is, McCain and Palin might just be able to ride right in.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Lame Duck President Ducks Down

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 11:38.

Yes, and I think it's on purpose.

Bush hasn't gotten any more popular in the last several months, despite the success of the surge.

I don't think dragging Bush around on stump speeches would help.  He's probably a big help at private fund raisers though.  And Bush has the lack of ego not to take it personally.  He will put the Party ahead of his own interests.

voters not as dumb as Dems think

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 12:23.

That's what it tells us. Sure voters should be 'over' Bush, at least to the extent as realizing that Bush will be in retirement in Jan 2009 no matter who the voters vote for.

The well-telegraphed running against Bush misses a few basic realities:

Pelosi and the 230 Democratic congress-critters in the House that voted her Speaker and the Reid-led Democrat Senate majority are on the ballot. Not Bush.

She promised lower oil prices in 2006 and delivered ... higher oil prices. Bush got 'blamed' for it, but Pelosi and the drill-nowhere do-nothing Congress are the REAL problem. (Hence their attempts to at the last minute 'do something' with fake half-measures on drilling, they are desperate to get the target off their backs.)

She and the Democrats promised to get out of Iraq ... they opposed the surge that WORKED and proposed alternatives that would have led to defeat, had we not gotten lucky enough to see the incompetent Congress fail to get their way. Bush is still unpopular, maybe, but the confidence about Iraq has had a tremendous turnaround - and why not. Bush and the Surge have finally succeeded in Iraq. Victory is at hand, and men like McCain called it right, while Biden and Obama and Reid and the Dems were calling it a 'failure' only 12 months ago.

Bush=Iraq is the real Dem playbook, and as long as Iraq was a failure, running against Bush was smart. Now that Iraq has turned around and Bush has suceeded in winning via the surge, the argument fails. Obama has waffled his way to a position that in terms of troop deployment, is barely distinguishable from what McCain has advocated.

Meanwhile, for every problem the Democrats have proposed spending more and taxing more.

The Democrats are trying to run against the status-quo by running against Bush, but thats hardly an inspiring campaign. The Bush-bashing DNC convention missed  the whole point. If it's change you want - "What will you do differently?" not differently from Bush "What will you do differently from the Republicans running on the ballot now?"

McCain has brilliantly stolen the playbook, while the Dems are stuck fighting the last war (2006).  I believe that when a candidate or a party tries to win based on false premises, they usually lose and deservedly so. The "change" message of Obama is a hollow one, he promises a continuation of the current failed Congressional policies, not change. Obama deserves to lose so long as he fails to be honest and acknowledge that Obama and McCain are just different brands of 'change'.

The voters are not all dumb. ("You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time ...") Candidates are dumb for thinking they can win on false hype. The more Obama campaigns, the more hollow and flawed a candidate he becomes. Change is coming, either via far-left inexperienced junior Senator Obama or the center-right bipartisan reformer McCain. Who can deliver a better future for most Americans?

We are back to a more real and more honest set of choices: What will we do in the next 2 to 4 years. The Congressional Republicans can run on the same themes of Real Change (kudos to Gingrich who saw this well before others) - drill now for energy independence, keep the tax cuts for economic health, say no to earmarks to reduce the sway of special interests, fight and win the war on terror and return with honor from Iraq ... oh and defend families, marriage, personal responsibility, and the unborn.

In other words, a conservative center-right issues campaign, with a dash of populism, is a winning campaign. Bush-bashing and liberal elitism will win New York and Hollywood, but not the Presidential election.  Sure the Dems can run on some things, spend more on SCHIP, giveaways for College kids, but their very panders telegraph that they cannot also talk fiscal responsibility. They cant add.

McCain's election to lose if he starts focussing on that future and what good things he will try to deliver in the next 4 years: Complete the mission in Iraq and bring the troops home honorably while fighting to win against terrorism; move to energy independence and post-fossil-fuel economy; end earmark and corporate welfare; advance the 'Real Choice' agenda - school choice, health care choice, retirement choice. That plus a 'real-world' perspective to appeal to the 'small-town clingers' will win the election.

In the end, this election is not about a lame duck President, its about America's future.

PS. I wouldnt be surprised if Bush's popularity starts rising, if and when the Dems and media stop bashing him. Often a Republican that is the whipping boy for the Dem/media complex becomes quite unpopular, but it doesnt last. History will have more respect for Bush than the DNC-MSNBC crowd.

 

If you believe this then you must think the voters are stupid.

Submitted by KJ on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 13:45.

If the voters believe that McCain, whose collection of policy proposals is almost exactly the same as what the Republicans have offered the past 8 years, is going to be different than Bush, then yes, the voters are stupid.  I for one don't think America is stupid enough to bypass all accountability for the largely disastrous past 8 years that has been dominated by Republican thinking and started with the worst attack in our nation's history and ended with a second recession. 

I really don't think playing the American people for fools is going to work.  But if it does, then I guess I'll have to reevaluate the intelligence of the voting public.

And please, what failed congressional policies are you referring to.  The people don't like congress right now because they can't get anything done and that mostly has to do the suddenly veto-happy Bush and the Senate that has refused to allow up-or-down votes at a pace double the previous record. And being as though you all controlled the government, pretty much, from 2000-2006, why the hell didn't you expand drilling then if its such an incredibly important issue that is so central to America's well-being? 

Face it, you guys are great at being the minority party, but when you get in charge you simply suck at governing.  And that's what you get when you put people in charge of government who hate government. 

And of course, McCain must think the voters are dumb since his campaign has been outrageous these past few days.  We have the Bridge to Nowhere lie being repeatedly when everyone knows its a lie.  We have the lie about Obama raising taxes for 100 million people.  And now, we have the most egregious low down evil lie I can remember from a campaign, making up crap about Obama supporting a bill to teach kindergartners comprehensive sex ed.  The bill was about protecting kids from sex predators.  That's the worst distortion I think I've ever seen and probably why I'm so pissy writing this post.

 

 

Who voted for Bridge to Nowhere???

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 13:50.

Obama - Check

Biden - Check

McCain - Nope

Palin - vetoed state funding for it

And that bill Obama championed also included:

"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."

So make of that what you will...

In answer to your question about drilling...

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 15:02.

...the answer is you Democrats have consistently opposed drilling in ANWR even when there is absolutely no reason to do so.  You are so beholden to the anti-capitalist, neo-Luddite, junk science promoting radical enviromentalist movement that you will oppose it.  That means when president Bush twice tried to get it passed as part of his comprehensive energy package your boys in the Senate could filibuster it to death.  After all, between 1994-2006 there has been no period that the GOP had a filibuster proof majority.  and then there are the RINOs that will happily vote against their party on issues like this in order to be more "likeable" to the media.

Democrat status quo majority in Congress blameless?!?

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 15:14.

"And please, what failed congressional policies are you referring to."

This statement refutes itself. You spend the rest of your screed lamenting how horrible things are screwed up.  Speaker Pelosi and Majority leader Reid are in charge! How are they not responsible for these bad things? Not responsible for tryng to lose in Iraq by cutting-n-running? Not responsible for saying no to offshore drilling? Not responsible for promising to reduce earmarks and then INCREASING the earmarks and pork? Not responsible for spooking investors with their votes and threats of higher taxes. Chuck Schumer not personally responsible for the run on IndyMac bank due to his own statements?

Get real.

I won't debate/debunk your point-by-point, I just disagree with 90% of it. (eg IMHO the past '8 years' werent so bad economically, Bush inherited a recession, then grew economy with 2003 tax cuts. but just the past 12 months have not been good, which just happens to be when the Democrats were in charge in Congress.) ... but the thing is - how can you go around saying how bad Republicans are for presiding over bad things, but not Democrats who actually ran the more powerful branch of Government for the past 2 years.

Your own partisan rationalizations might enable you to be so hypocritical, but most voters are not like you. If they blame Bush for the bad status quo it is only logical for them also to blame Pelosi and Reid as well.  Once again - pay attention: Bush is NOT on the ballot, Nancy Pelosi, Reid and the Congressional Democrats ARE on the ballot.

Want 'change'? Want to defeat the failed status quo? Defeat the Democrat majority in Congress!

Before and after the Democrats took Congress

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 15:33.

HERE IS HOW GOOD THE ECONOMY WAS BEFORE THE DEMOCRATS TOOK CONGRESS:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high—14,000 +
5) Americans were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, and living large!...

But Americans wanted ‘CHANGE’!
So, what did they do? In 2006, they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep—we got ‘CHANGE’ all right.

THIS IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline is now approximately $4 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 6%
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) As I write this, THE DOW is probing another low (11,100); $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM OUR STOCKS, BONDS, & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

If you really think Pelosi and Reid are giving us the "change we need", you are nuts.

ANWR drilling failed due to Democrat opposition

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 15:40.

why the hell didn't you expand drilling then if its such an incredibly important issue that is so central to America's well-being?

The vote on ANWR drilling passed in 1998 but was vetoed by President Clinton.

It was tried again in 2005, but failed due to a filibuster in the Senate.

Again, if this is a bad thing, the people to blame are the Democrats. But Democrats, beholden to the eco-extremists have considered it a good thing to stop drilling in ANWR and offshore.

They have criticized Sarah Palin for being pro-drilling.

It's one thing to take an ideological position against ANWR as the 'right thing'. It's another thing - flawed and phony - to blame the Republicans for something that Democrats are actually responsible for.

 

 

Proud Conservatism

Submitted by Porterhouse on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 15:16.

"But I have another thought. Has the GOP gotten beyond George W. Bush in some sense? Is George Bush yesterday's GOP?"

I hate to use the words "I feel", that being a democrat way of tugging heart strings, but I felt a not so subtle shift in the force after the GOP convention.

Gone are the days of the apologetic, hide-your-head conservatism.  I saw two candidates at the GOP convention proud of who they are and what they think, and confident in the path they will lead this great nation.  That means alot to conservatives "in the trenches" at backyard barbeques, break rooms, and bars getting the message out.

 

Soren, its not just "Bush"...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 18:56.

...its the entire GOP Hierarchy.  A collection of rabid, wide-open borders globalists.   Yes,  its true that George W. Bush is chief among them.  McCain a close second. They've tossed Nationalism from the Republican Party.  The damage that has been done as a result of the almost total breech of our sovereign southern border;  well we may never recover from that.  Its a serious shortfall and/or miscalculation on their part.  They've put our nation in extreme danger.  That grievous error in judgment can't be overlooked or even forgiven.   All in the name of unrestrained global free trade that is slowly bleeding our nation out.

No, Soren, there is a massive number of voters out here who will do our duty and pull the lever for McCain/Palin.  But we feel that we have no representation in Washington DC.  Our elected rep's dis us, insult us, call us vigilantes.    And they have outright contempt for us - and they don't try to mask it.  So we're looking for an alternative.  Not the closet anti-semite Ron Paul and his holocaust denying followers.  Nor Bob Barr and the libertarian losers who've never been able to gain any traction, 2008 being no exception.    But a viable, conservative, Nation-Centric alternative  will  form up.  It must because the void in representation is a vacuum.  A pulling force.  The void must be filled.  Darvin Dowdy