...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

April 11, 2006

California Poll Numbers

In California, Bush surpasses Carter...

Only 32 percent of registered voters approve of the job Bush is doing, while 62 percent disapprove, according to the statewide Field Poll released Tuesday.

. . .

Carter had a 66 percent disapproval and 33 percent approval rating in July 1980.

...while Congress ties Nixon.
Californians' views on the legislative branch were even more negative with 66 percent disapproving of the job Congress is doing and just 24 percent approving.
Nixon hit 24% in August 1974, just before he resigned.

Anybody wanna go for Fillmore?

Posted by annika, Apr. 11, 2006 | TrackBack (0)
Rubric: annikapunditry


You need a red state vacation. Hit Padre Island for spring break, and you'll feel better.

Polls are subjective snapshots. I'd say 33% is about the right count for people in this state who don't have their heads up their collective asses.

Posted by: Casca on Apr. 11, 2006

The difference is that Carter had the support of MSM. If he did not have the support of MSM, his approval numbers would have been 5%.

With all the Bush bashing that MSM has done, it is a miracle that his approval numbers are at 32%.

Posted by: Jake on Apr. 11, 2006

The Field Poll slants leftward, so I suspect the number is not quite that low - but still in the high 30's. This is a very Blue state with the Independents leaning Democrat as well. He is receiving a 32% disaproval rating from Reps, which shouldn't be a surprise considering his weak handling of the immigration issue and high gas prices. He better get a handle on immigration. This is the one issue that will kill Reps in '06. It's all about voter turnout and if Reps turn into the Democrat Lite Party and don't insist on real border security, the base will stay home. The idea that somebody as stupid as Nancy Pelosi could be Speaker of the House should make anybody with a three-digit IQ sick. Seriously, she is only slightly less stupid than Barbara Boxer. So, I'm hoping Bush and the Reps will develop a backbone and insist on real immigration reform.

Posted by: Blu on Apr. 11, 2006

I'd be in the 62% category because he isn't conservative enough for me. So if anybody's thinking that number portends victory for the party of Howard Dean, they need to ask a few more questions...

I'm way into the 66% category on Congress. Corrupt, utterly, hopelessly corrupt. The few honest ones are ineffective.

Too bad there isn't a "None of the above,and they are hereby permanently ineligible for public office" line on the ballot. How many of those do you suppose would get a majority?

Posted by: MarkD on Apr. 11, 2006

Either Ralph Nader or the Libertarians or someone wanted to put "None of the above" on ballots.

After watching a lot of English Premier League matches, I think I have the answer - losers must be relegated to a lower classification. Bush, McCain, and Kennedy can all be Sunderland.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor on Apr. 11, 2006

Im with mark on this one, I really thnk Bush is a big F up, but I am not likely to vote for any Dem.
Although, It is barely possible.

Posted by: kyle8 on Apr. 11, 2006

“immigration. This is the one issue that will kill Reps in '06."

Hey Blu,

Are you serious? You don't suppose the fact that the country is finally realizing the W is about as straight as a piece of Iraq rebar is not going to hurt in 06?

The charade is collapsing. The general incompetence, the intense deceit, the secrecy when it suits them, the political manipulation of the government, the overall sense of dishonesty, the overblown pandering to fear, and not the least of it being that George can't define a word without using the same word as a synonym. The man is an idiot. And you have the gall the badmouth Pelosi or Boxer? They can both stand before the press and link multiple sentences into thoughts that answer questions with syntax that agrees in tense and number; something W cannot do. He is incoherent, churlish, childish and weak.

The party is going into the mid’s with nothing to run on except stagnant wages, a continuing swap of high paying for low paying jobs, incredible debt, an oil lobbyist running Interior, some other hack (lawyer) at the office of interior changing the meaning of scientific papers to conform to the boneheaded pseudoscience that passes for policy in the WH, Abramoff spilling his guts, and the bug man indicted and disgraced.

A slow but steady erosion has been (and by erosion I mean when things erode they get eroded) taking place. The republican bus has hit the telephone pole of the American public’s limit on bullshit and the air bags didn’t deploy

Posted by: strawman on Apr. 11, 2006

Strawman, I don't know what country you are talking about-you must be referring to France:

Because in this country, we have nothing but good news:

Iraq is now safer than the streets of Detroit or Washington DC
Unemployment is at an all time low
Employment is at an all time high
Al Qaida is decimated and on the run
No terrorist incidents in the US for 3.5 years
Federal Tax revenues at an all time high
Stock market is at an all time high
Number of high paying jobs is at an all time high
Interest rates are at an historical low
Inflation is at an historical low
Only 1 administration official is under indictment compared to 61 Clinton administration officials under indictment
The 40 Democrat Senators who took bribes from Abramoff have been identified
The Interior Department is now using real scientific research rather than the hysterical blatherings of the left.
The majority of the large countries have adopted the G8 Bush Doctrine on the Environment.

Posted by: Jake on Apr. 11, 2006

Strawman and I disagree on so much. But maybe there's some common ground if I say that we both wish we had a president with the gift of clear articulatation.

Posted by: annika on Apr. 11, 2006


I stand by what I wrote. The Reps can only lose the House if the base stays home. The political reality is that incumbents have a nearly overwhelming advantage in their gerrymandered districts. You are just plain wrong on the economy. You are simply repeating Paul Begala's talking points. This is economy is producing wealth at all levels and the jobs that are being produced are not minimum wage. (See this: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0411/p01s02-usec.html)If you want to argue that Bush is inarticualte, I don't think you will get a lot of argument. Anyway, the best you can hope for is that the Reps fuck up immigration. If that happens, your side has a shot at the House. Taking over the Senate will require an even bigger Rep meltdown. I don't think that will happen...but you never know with the spineless bunch running the Senate and a seemingly politically tone deaf WH.

Posted by: Blu on Apr. 12, 2006

I would have figured he had like 2% approval in California.

Posted by: Mark on Apr. 12, 2006

Jake, for future reference, liberals are not interested in that "truth", "logic" and "evidence" stuff. Slogans, unchecked emotions, and cardboard signs from Kinko's will do just fine.

Posted by: Mark on Apr. 12, 2006

Oh, Mark you baaing sheep,

The irony of your remarks is profound. We are ruled by the most deceitful, truth adverse, bunch of Stalinists this country has ever endured. Men and women who "assassinate" enemies, march our young men and women off to die for reasons yet to be told, suspend habeas corpus, impose religious doctrine on our grade school children, intentionally and through abject ignorance bungle the language in ways Orwell could never have imagined and you accuse liberals as having issues with the truth? You sir are no better than a common cultist.

Posted by: strawman on Apr. 13, 2006

Calm down, dude! And please be accurate with your insults.

Stalin ordered the murder of millions upon millions of his own people. Putting enemy combatants into prison rather than executing them on the spot is not, in my opinion, Stalinist. If this administration was, as you put it, Stalinist, they'd hunt you down and put a bullet in your brain. As it is, you and all those that share your point of view are allowed to vent ad nauseum. If you are speaking philosophically, then, sorry buddy, but it is your party that most closely resembles Stalinists.

Posted by: Blu on Apr. 13, 2006

I just ignore insults. It's how children argue.

The best part in that tirade was "for reasons yet to be told." I guess you have been comatose for the last 4 years, eh strawman?

Posted by: Mark on Apr. 13, 2006

"For reasons yet to be told." Yes, Bush has taken over the editorial offices of the MSM and forced them to print only stories favorable to his administration.

OK, try this: "Because the MSM is so patriotic, and would never release any classified information that would harm our country during a time of war."

Sorry, I just can't come up with any way your hyperbole can be rationalized.

Posted by: MarkD on Apr. 15, 2006