08/23/2005: Via Talking Points Memo, a couple interesting things to note....
- Dueling numbers According to polling by the American Research Group, the Bush approval ratings have tanked even further than reported by the SurveyUSA results that we mentioned earlier. ARG has Bush's approval at 36% approve-58% disapprove (on the economy, despite reports of economic improvement, the ARG numbers show approval of Bush's economic policies at an even more dismal 33% approve-62% disapprove).
On the other hand, numbers on daily tracking polls on Bush's approval rating released by Rasmussen show Bush's approval at a much more healthy 48% approve-51% disapprove. (Credit: Michael Crowley DH-ing at TPM)
- And a report that may make Rasmussen the favorite polling organization of (a) right wing commentator(s) here shows about an even split of opinion among respondents on Cindy Sheehan: 35% favorable-38% unfavorable (with a +/- 3 percentage point MOE, so that's basically a dead heat). The ultimate conclusion:
In general, people see in Sheehan what they want to see. Opinion about her is largely based upon views of the War, rather than views about the woman herself. Democrats, by a 56% to 18% margin, have a favorable opinion. Republicans, by a 64% to 16% margin, have an unfavorable view. Those not affiliated with either major party are evenly divided.
People who think we should withdraw troops from Iraq now have a positive opinion of Sheehan (59% favorable, 12% unfavorable). Those who do not think we should withdraw troops at this time have a negative view (15% favorable , 64% unfavorable).
Among those with family members who have served in the military, Sheehan is viewed favorably by 31% and unfavorably by 48%.
- Senator Hackett? And apparently the name of Paul Hackett, who just barely lost a special election to Congress in the red-as-red-can-be 2nd Congressional District in southern Ohio, is being bandied about as a potential challenger to Republican Senator Mike DeWine. Quoth Michael Crowley:
That's got to terrify DeWine. Although a statewide campaign could test Hackett's raw political skills, he'd be an instant celebrity candidate on par with, say, Barak Obama. And given that Hackett, who thrilled liberals by calling Bush a chicken hawk and an S.O.B., raised around half a million dollars online for his House special election, imagine what he could do in a marquee Senate battle.My personal take? What the hell..... Hackett called Bush "a son of a bitch" and damn near won in a district that should have gone about 60-40 against him.... Turning him loose on DeWine just might be an interesting experimental test of the DLC thesis that Republican-lite is the only way to win elections. Then again, I may be a bit biased ;-) by the fact that we've got a Democrat-in-name-only who's blatantly contradicting himself while running here in Tennessee for the Democratic nomination to be the candidate for Bill Frist's seat in November on the hypothesis that he can't win here unless he outRepublicans the Republican candidate (if that hypothesis doesn't pan out, and he loses anyway, then that Democrat-in-name-only is an even bigger fool than I think he is, since he's trading one of the safest house seats in the country for an almost certain defeat in the general election).
But a Hackett Senate bid would channel the same intraparty tensions discussed below. Many Democrats feel Hackett was too anti-Bush for his own good, that his blazing rhetoric may have scared off some war-weary Republicans who nevertheless respect the president. Needless to say, Hackett's liberal champions don't buy that. So if party consultants convince Hackett to hold back on the Bush-bashing in a Senate race, his liberal-blog-fueled fundraising could dry up fast. But Hackett's a cocksure, shoot-from-the-hip kind of guy -- he even lapsed into a Robert De Niro "Are you talkin' to me?" imitation during his House concession speech -- and it's not clear anyone can tell him what to say in the first place.
- While checking the Rasmussen results I mention above, the ad-server served up a banner ad trying to entice me to vote in another survey asking if Hillary Clinton should run in 2008. I think I've mentioned this before, but my feeling there is that in my gut, I wouldn't mind seeing Hillary run; seeing the wingnut anti-Clintonistas doing triple and quadruple back flips while spewing their anti-Clinton venom will provide primo entertainment you can't buy anywhere else. So if Hillary runs, I won't be terribly disappointed.
Len on 08.23.05 @ 06:56 AM CST