Story here. Old news, you say? But this post-midterm-elections poll is about confidence in W’s leadership as against that of the Congressional Dems.
Constitutionally that means nothing until January 2009 – but might it not make a practical difference anyway?
Or might it not?
I’m ready to take bets.
The Republicans will retain the White House in the 2008 election.
So – no, I don’t believe this poll has any particular implications for the 2008 Presidential elections.
Anyone wanna risk some money?
I was actually asking whether W’s newly confirmed unpopularity would have any practical effect on public policy before the 2008 elections.
Sorry if I didn’t make that entirely clear.
Make a difference for what? Iraq? No.
Mainly Iraq. Why not? Remember who controls the money.
I think this has been discussed in about a dozen different threads already.
Exactly, power of the purse doesn’t mean jack if one doesn’t have the balls to say “no”.
-Joe
Really? You don’t think Bush’s low approval rating (assuming they stay low for another year or two) will have implications for 2008 election? That’s seems really counter-intuitive. A Republican may when in 2008 despite of them, but I hardly think it will be a non-issue.
Really? It seems obvious to me that Bush’s low approval ratings are what led to the Repubs defeat last November, the response to which was Bush’s shuffling of the leadership and the “surge” of troops, both attempts to show that he is not “staying the course” but trying something new. So his dropping approval ratings have already made a difference.
And it’s already getting hard for him to continue with a free hand in Iraq, congress will probably allow the troop surge underprotest, but Bush will find it increasingly difficult to operate a war when growing numbers of citizens and congress disapprove of him.
They’re not going to defund the troops while they’re still over there. And when push comes to shove, I don’t think enough Republicans would defect from Bush to support a bill rescinding the AUMF, even if the Dems had the balls to offer such a bill up for a vote. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Pubs push for such a bill just to get the Dems to back off.
Yeah. $200?
Probably right, but I still think that Bush’s low approval makes a difference in how he conducts the war, even if Congress still won’t move directly to stop him. Taking one of the examples from my last post: I think Rumsfield would still be head of the DoD and a Republican congress wouldn’t be giving Bush any grief about sending more troops if his approval rating was still 50%+
I’ll be in for $100. Seriously, I honor my bets, and I know you do, too, Bricker. Just remind me because I may forget about it two years from now.
It’d be interesting to see them try this. They’d have to gauge it very carefully in order to avoid the necessity of an embarrassing last minute flip flop on their own measure. Heck, even events on the ground could screw them, and no one can predict those.
Not at all. Any changes will be due not to his unpopularity, which has been in the depths for over a year, but to having to work with the Democratic Congress. Bush is willing to sign a minimum-wage bill, which the Republicans would never have passed, etc. His nominees must be more centrist, or at least appear so. His famous “political capital” is spent.
What he is empowered to do on his own hook will not change.
Impeachment is unlikely, it used to be impossible. Watch this space.
It’s about Bush. It’s not necessarily about the Republican Party, but a given hypothetical Republican candidate could easily commit political hari-kari.
I still think y’all should draft one of the esteemed Senators from Maine, or Pete Domenici of New Mexico, but if the former are too libbbberal to suit you and the latter is too old, maybe you should think about Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
You aren’t going to pilot Sammy Brownback or Mike Huckabee into the Oval Office. Ain’t happening.
Chuck Hagel, maybe. He’s making the case that he’s not a Bush camp follower, and oddly enough it’s playing quite well. Not someone I’d like to see elected but I could see him pulling it off.
That’d be freakin’ hilarious.
The key question is whether Bush’s low approval rating is a sign that the public mistrusts Republicans, or whether they just think he’s personally an idiot. If the latter, then I think the door could be open for another Republican who the public has confidence in. Maybe Rudy Guliani, if he can ever get through the primaries. I wish Fred Thompson would get in the race. A total outsider, not involved in the Iraq thing at all, having resigned the same year Bush was elected. He doesn’t seem particularly beholden to the religious right (which might be his downfall).
I could see someone like him doing very well in the 2008 election. I’d like to see a debate between Fred Thompson and Barack Obama. That would be some good theater.
To get back to how this affects other things, I could see a bevy of anti-Bush republicans doing well in primaries as moderates try to retake their party. If they’re running against Bush, they will want to have an anti-Bush voting record. I can imagine how they’d welcome a Bush veto, to allow them to vote to override.
Done. Simple bet. A Republican is inaugurated President in January 2009, I win. A Democrat is inaugurated, you win. Any other result is a push.
Questions of popular vote vs. electoral vote, vote rigging, vote suppression, vote fraud, are all irrelevant to this wager. The sole determinant of who wins is who gets inaugurated.