Can Bush's Failure Become Our Success?

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

There's been a lot of discussion of wheather it is possible for Bush's approval rating to fall below 40%.  At this point, I would say I think there is a real possibility.  Teixeria yesterday, commenting on the recent ARG poll argues that it is in fact likely.

Some have argued, however, that a sub-40 Bush approval rating is unlikely to appear because his high support among Republican identifiers makes it difficult for his approval rating to drop much more that it already has. I don't believe that is the case.

To begin with, thought it depends on the poll, there is still considerable room for Bush approval to fall among independents. In the latest CBS News poll, his approval rating among independents is 37 percent. Given that his approval rating in that poll was 42 percent, if his approval were to fall to around 30 percent among independents and all else remained equal,, his overall approval rating would fall to below 40 percent.

Just as important, the assumption that Bush's approval rating among Republicans will remain steady is unwarranted. For example, if you compare his rating by party ID in the latest CBS poll to his rating by party ID in the late February CBS poll, his approval has fallen from just over 90 percent to 84 percent, a decline of 7 ponts. That's almost as much as the analagous decline among Democrats (8 points) and actually more than the decline among independents (5 points).

You see a similar pattern in a number of other polls. Bush's approval rating among Republicans has fallen in recent months from around 90 percent to around 85 percent. It is entirely possible it will decline further if the difficulties of the Bush administration continue to deepen. Certainly, there is no sound reason to suppose Republican identifiers will somehow be immune from overall political trends.

That's good enough for me.  The real question is does it really matter.  Is it significant if President Bush's approval rating falls below the 40% mark?  There's a lot of very big questions tied up in this little question.  To understand them, we need to understand why we are asking this question, and that is because (assuming you are a Democrat) we are looking for an eventual realignment to emerge from Bush's abysmal ratings.  Just because voters don't approve of Bush's preformance doesn't mean they'll start voting Democratic.

Nevertheless, there are certainly some good signs appearing in the realignment department.  For one thing, as has been noted throughout the liberal blogosphere, in the ARG poll Bush's approval rating among independents is identical with those of Democrats.  Also, according to Teixeria, there is very good news for Democrats among white working class women.

The new EMILY's List report on a large-scale survey by Garin-Hart-Yang and The Feldman Group points out that working class (non-college-educated) white women (whom I have maintained was the key group that swung to Bush and the GOP in the 2004 election) now support the Democrats by 18 points in a prospective 2006 Congressional matchup. In 2004, this same group supported Bush by 18 points and House GOP candidates by 15 points.

Wow. That's a huge swing. If anything like this holds up in 2006, the Republicans are in big trouble.

Of course, realignments don't just fall into your lap.  Outside events might make  certain voting blocks open to appeal, but its still your responsibility to make the appeal.  What all of this can best be viewed as is an oppurtunity.  The Democrats over the next few years can to make a big play to reestablish themselves as the majority party, but they must offer a compelling message in order to do so.  We'll just have to hope we made the right choice with Chairman Dean in this department.


Display:


Can Democrats benefit from Bush's low approval? (none / 0)

The Democrats over the next few years can to make a big play to reestablish themselves as the majority party, but they must offer a compelling message in order to do so.  We'll just have to hope we made the right choice with Chairman Dean in this department.

Dean is the only Democrat with a compelling message. If the rest of the party elite rally behind Dean's message and blunt criticism of Bush, Democrats will benefit in the 2006 election. Dean has given local and red state politicians plenty of room to craft their individual message. The key for Democrats is to help Dean deliver a consistent message instead of attacking his leadership.

The party elites and red state Dems need to get over themselves and start talking and acting like Democrats.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Jun 28, 2005 at 09:54:11 AM EST

We Need To Stop Talking About 'Red State Dems' (none / 0)

as a monolithic bloc. The red state Dems in Montana are doing exactly what they should.  If they just keep on keeping on, they won't be red state Dems for long.
by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Jun 28, 2005 at 10:56:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We Need To Stop Talking About 'Red State Dems' (none / 0)

It's just shorthand for a state of mind. We have tons of Red State Dems in California.
by Gary Boatwright on Tue Jun 28, 2005 at 12:28:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We Need To Stop Talking About 'Red State Dems' (none / 0)

I don't think it's particularly helpful. In fact, it gets in the way of using the term as a neutral descriptor, as in:

"Red State Dems are proposing a mixed bag of approaches. In some states there are deep divisions between those advocating GOP-lite and those who see that strategy as a perpetual loser. In other states, like Montana, Red State Dems have unifed around re-defining the Democratic Party in its own terms, rather than worrying about reacting to GOP charicatures."

If you turn the term into an impressionistic label, you've just made the job of reality-based discourse a litle harder.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Jun 28, 2005 at 12:58:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0)

I like Dean, too.  But I hope he is thinking longer term than just the next elections.  I would rather see him help the democrats reestablish themselves as a viable governing party than just try to maximize our short term term in '06.
by descrates on Tue Jun 28, 2005 at 02:16:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Main Thing We Need Is A Narrative (none / 0)

Arianna Huffington made this comment/critique re Kerry's campaign, but it applies to politics more generally.  What's keeping Bush going is the narrative that he's fighting terrorism. This remains his point of highest approval.  

The psychology of this is that large numbers of people will say (probably unconsciously), "Well, I don't like what he's doing about trying to privatize Social Security, but he's leading the war on terrorism, and I support that 100%!"

So, as I see it, Dems need to learn 4 things:

(1) The people are generally liberal on the issues. 40+ years of polling data support this.

(2) You cannot win by marketing yourself on a menu of issues to swing voters. You have to frame your message to activate frames in the heads of voters.

(3) The ultimate frame--the frame of frames--is a compelling narrative.  We can't just be critical of the GOP frame. We can't just promise to do it better. We have to have our own frame.  

(4) It has to be the Party's frame, before there is a candidate. Kerry's miserable failure clearly showed why: "electability" was determined within a Bush/GOP dominated frame, which Kerry never fundamentally challenged.  He could have squeaked out a thin victory if he hadn't been totally inept (hiring Bob Shrum, etc.), but that wouldn't have been enough to put him in a position to really need.  A governing mandate victory requires more. It can only be won with our own frame, our own narrative.  

(5) We already have our frame. For 70 years, it's been some version of the New Deal, an inclusive vision of American citizenship, promising everyone a share of the American dream.  When we focus on it, we win. This is still the case. It's why Bush tried to steal FDR's image in order to destroy his legacay.  This frame has been re-articulated many times, and it needs to re-articulated again. It has been expanded to include women and minorities as equal claimaints. The dimensions of the dream have been expanded and redefined.  But the message has been fundamentally the same: we are the party of the people, for the people, by the people; they are the party of money.  

The old deal was made behind closed doors by private money, the New Deal is/was made in public by the people and their elected representatives.  There's a reason we're called the Democratic Party (and the Republicans continually try to mislabel us the "Democrat Party").  When that reason is clear to one and all, we win.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Jun 28, 2005 at 11:30:06 AM EST

Re: The Main Thing We Need Is A Narrative (none / 0)

How do we get the Democratic Party to listen. Everybody in the blogosphere already knows what Dems need to do to win. The only ones who don't have a clue are the Democratic elite. Why is Bob Shrum still going on cable shows and representing the party? Why have only ten Democratic Senators signed Kerry's DWM letter?

I can suggest one simple change that would probably win back both the House and the Senate for the Democratic party in 2006. Give Bob Shrum's job to Paul Rosenberg.

The Democratic elite are intentionally obtuse because they like corporate contributions. As long as they insist on sucking at the corporate teat, they will continue to be a minority.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Jun 28, 2005 at 12:33:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Main Thing We Need Is A Narrative (none / 0)

I certainly agree that we needed a narrative, but I'm not sure it was for lack of trying.  The simple fact is that the Bush people ran a better campaign, had better breaks, and had a political environment that was more suited for their message.
by descrates on Tue Jun 28, 2005 at 02:20:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not For Lack of Trying??? (none / 0)

What's so hard about reading an Arianna Huffington op-ed piece*, slapping yourself on the head, and saying, "I pay people $300,000 a pop to come up with garbage, this I get handed to me for free!!!"?

* Copy on former FCC Commmissioner Nicholas Johnson's website.  He's who should have been our candidate. Friggin lives in Iowa.

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 12:16:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.