Bad News For Republicans: Poll Shows Voters Souring On GOP
The race for the Republican 2008 Presidential nomination is on — but a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll suggests the highly sought prize may be in danger of becoming a booby prize:
The race for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination has become wide open, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows. But the value of winning it has fallen sharply.
The survey shows that without formally entering the race, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson has risen to second place in the Republican field. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani continues to leak support, but leads the pack with 29% to Mr. Thompson’s 20%, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has pulled even with Sen. John McCain at 14%.
So it’s good news for Fred, troubling news for Rudy — and extremely troubling news for anyone with an “R” in front of their party affilitiation:
Of greater concern for Republicans generally, however, is the party’s weak state heading into the 2008 election. By 52% to 31%, Americans say they want Democrats to win the presidency next year.
Americans give the Republican Party their most negative assessment in the two-decade history of the Journal/NBC survey, and by 49% to 36% they say the Democratic Party more closely shares their values and positions on the issues.
“The political environment for Republicans continues to erode,” says Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducts the Journal/NBC survey with Democratic counterpart Peter Hart. A long-term worry for the party: Republican gains among the Hispanic constituency, long a target for President Bush, have vanished at a time when Washington is enmeshed in a debate over immigration policy.
The party’s woes can be partly traced to the political decline of President Bush. His approval rating in the Journal/NBC survey has fallen to its lowest ever, 29%, while 66% of Americans disapprove of his performance. The telephone survey of 1,008 adults, conducted June 8-11, has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.
Unless something changes GWB will likely go down in history as the person who decimated the Ronald Reagan Republican revolution coalition.
That is, if the Democrats don’t shoot themselves so badly in the foot that they’re limping and the Republicans on crutches beat them in the 2008 race. And will disgust over both parties lead to a viable third party alternative?
37 Responses to “Bad News For Republicans: Poll Shows Voters Souring On GOP”
President Bush could go down as the last Republican President period. With the changing demographics, the Republicans face a huge handicap no matter how good any future candidate could be. In addition, if the Democrats get 60 senators to go along with a Democratic president, the Democrats will be able to easily legislate the Republicans out of existence through redistricting, a new fairness doctrine, campaign finance reform, and McCain-Feingold II.
sd,
Indeed, a great Bush legacy.
Chris,
The next question is how will the U.S. function as a one party state. Look at the current presidential election, the presidential election could be decided somtime in February 2008 since there is little chance that a Republicanis going to win. That means the transition period will last 11 months.
As the U.S. becomes a one party state, it will become very important to move the Democratic Primary to the last spring, early summer to limit the transition time.
It also means that the general election in November, the one requried by the Constitution will be a meaningless election much like the general elections inplaces like Maryland or DC are now.
Superdestroyer – I’ve read your theory of America becoming a one party country many times. You’ve got to discount the possibilty because absolute power corrupts absolutely. If Democrats gain the kind of power you theorize, they will blow it so badly that Americans will toss them out and the Republicans will resurge. It seems inevitable when one party has too much control.
After seven years of Bush lies and incompetence, the American people are looking for a president who is smarter than our enemies.
Listening to Romney, Giuliani and McCain, it is clear such a person will not be found on the republican side.
McCain’s jaunt in Baghdad, Romney’s obvious lies regarding the lead up to the invasion of Iraq and Giuliani’s ‘fear up’ approach to the war (‘They want to kill you, you and you’) suggests, should any win through to the presidency, we will be in for another 4 year’s at least of wasted lives.
From watching their debates, the republican tactics of dividing the country, accusing those who disagree with you of treacherous behaviour, and ignoring the truth when it doesn’t suit, are set to continue.
Given that the country has never been so united in its determination to see an end to a disastrous war that has stripped the nation of its strength and reputation, this those not seem a wise course, and will lead to a defeat in 2009 of historical proportions.
jdledell,
The states of Mass. and Maryland demonstrate that you idea that parties swing back and forth in control of a state are not correct. No matter how badly they perform, the Democrats stay in control of the state.
If corruption causes parties to fall out of favor, then why is Chicago totally dominated by Democrats?
Also, as the demographic changes in the U.S. occur, it gives the Democrats an advantage that more than 50% of the population will vote for them no matter what.
If you look at the 1992 presidential election, the Republicans were shown to have a base of about 35%. The new poll has shown that that based has shrunk to 30%. That means that the only way the Republicans win is to get virtually every independent vote. That just cannot happen in modern election.
There is also a tipping point that when a party gets so weak that even its core groups will have to abandon it to save themselves. There will come a time very soon when even the evangelicals and the mormoms will have to become Democrats or face such government harass that they cannot live in the U.S.
superdestroyer,
For some reason I do not think you would have much trouble with a one party system if it were the Republicans in control. Rather than being fearful/trying to spread fear of such an outcome, it would be more effective if you looked at the incompetence and criminality of the Republican party and push to clean up the party. Otherwise you are not really dealing with the problem Republicans face. And changing demographics would not be a problem if you didn’t think brown people automatically vote Democratic. If Republicans would work for a progressive solution, rather than spurt nativist/racist crap about a horde of dirty Mexicans, then they might actually gain some votes. The Republican party has a lot to take blame for, blaming it on brown people or any others is not a solution.
Anyway, you shouldn’t worry. If you look at American history, there is always a party that comes after a few years that replaces the party that failed.
Perhaps you are correct, jdl, but that realistically can’t happen very significantly until 2012 at the earliest. Therefore, I suggest all Dem-supporting and left-inclined blogger folks just sit back, pop the cork on that bubbling grape and savor the victory.
Take the well-earned group backpacking trip through the Himalayas to the Great Wall for the next 18 months.
We conservatives will stay back to nurse our wounds, pay our bills and “house-sit” for you until you come back tanned, ready and rested to dance to that Fleetwood Mac music at the next inaugural ball.
Bon voyage and give my regards to the Dali Lama. See you in early ’09.
I’d say Mitt Romney, Robert L. Ehrlich and many others would take issue with that grand generalization.
Maybe instead of a two party state with Republicans and Democrats, we’ll have a two party state with Democrats and some new, less bigoted and homicidal party.
You can’t really predict these things, but I certainly won’t shed a tear if the Republican party is no more.
Or here’s an idea- fire as many USAs as possible and replace them with loyal Bushies who will be certain to indict Democrats and push bogus voter fraud cases.
Too crazy?
Truflo,
Interesting thought. However, there aren’t enough “loyal Bushies” left to run a hot dog stand, much less staff the Justice Dept.
For all the talk of liberal bias in the media, the GOP seems to be doing worse in these polls than you would ever think from Beltway commentators. Chris Matthews, supposedly one of ours (leftwing), plainly likes McCain, Giulian, and Fred Thompson, and can’t stand Hillary. David Broder, the “Dean”, keeps looking for signs of a Bush rebound while slamming Harry Reid.
As to the permanent one-party state, it seems to me that the GOP has most of the voters who are loyal to Party no matter what. 30% of the country still likes Bush. There has been no equivalent yet to the Reagan Democrats and it doesn’t appear likely there will be in the near future. Many of those RD’s will drift back into the GOP column if the Administration of the probably ’08 Dem winner doesn’t do well.
truflo,
The party of the Democratic machine should not be throwing stones about election fraud. It is hard for the Democrats to look anti-fraud when the oppose voter ID laws with such passion.
Chris,
The problem is trying to establish a new party is that most of the core Democratic groups: blacks, hispanics, jews, gays, government workers just are not going to leave the Democrats. They have too much invested with the status quo. I find it odd that the political party of Cynthia McKinney, La RAZA, and CAIR wants to call Republicans racist.
jjc,
I think the real beltway MSM bias is in favor of conflict. If Broder et al just through their hands in the air and admitted the Republicans are doomed what would the chattering class have to chatter about?
At least until the next blond teenager goes missing.
Well, it was more about the Clintons (especially Hillary) rather than the Democrats, but:
jdledell said:
*** 1994 ***
Citizen Kane,
The corrollary to you idea is that the MSM has to pretend that election are much closer than they are to try to maintain viewer interest. See 1996 Presidential Election as an example when the entire media knew that Dole did not have a chance to win.
The will have real problems in Sept 2008 when the daily tracking polls will show the coming Democratic Rout of the Republicans. Can the media really start talking about the coming Clinton Administration in September?
Superdestroyer said:
The states of Mass. and Maryland demonstrate that you[r] idea that parties swing back and forth in control of a state are not correct.
I believe “jdledell” was referring to Washington. In the case of states, a lot of people simply vote with their feet — they have been leaving Cyanide Nation in droves for Hemoglobin Nation. It’s not just pull factors at work (climate, natural amenities, superior economic opportunity and vitality and future growth elsewhere). It’s also push factors at work (Dim Party fiefdoms, bloated government, sclerotic dysfunctionality — Albany, NY being a stellar example, higher taxes and other government costs, lack of new development and maintenance of existing buildings and other things, etc.).
In the case of states, people can and do vote with their feet. (As Robert Bork pointed out, liberal activists want to solve this problem by making as much as possible done by the federal government to make escape impractical.)
DLS,
Yes, I know about voting with their feet. One of the odd parts of that is that the total number of blacks in California is going down. As California become a state of elite Asians supported by poor mexicans, there is no room in the economy or in the culture for blacks. I found it odd that the biggest trends was for blacks to move from California to Texas and Georgia.
I used Maryland as an example because even though it had a Republican governor, the legislature was so Democratic that it could overide any veto. That left the Republican governor basically powerless and he had to go to court to sue the legislature to keep it from doing unconstitutional things.
The real question is when the U.S. becomes a one party state that makes voting with your feet impossible, I wonder what country will become the hot place for Americans to move.
[...] and address the letter to all candidates? I’m a Republican. I think the GOP has lost its way (see Joe G’s post earlier today). And I agree with Dennis: It’s time moderate Party members quit their grumbling [...]
Casual Observer said:
It really does seem too good to be true for the Dems. That’s despite the disaster the Dims saw in 2000, where Al Gore proceeded to lose to Bush in the debates and then in the election. I consider that a fluke.
What did we see in 2000? Bush was a “brand name” desperation candidate. The GOP is no better this time. Many of the candidates are Dems Lite and the whole party is dull and weak, overall. Voters with an IQ above room temperature F are not impressed.
At least (for better or in reality, mainly for the worse) the Democrats stand for something (holding on to New Deal and Great Society baggage, adding left-wing activism on contemporary issues when it is possible, continuing to enlarge the federal government and have it encroach into even more state and local affairs, corrupt Rust Belt city governments, etc.) What does the GOP stand for? And what does it practice when it is in Washington?
What we see is dull and depressing. Copying France, Canada, or Quebec within Canada and resorting merely to negative defensive identification (“We’re not the Democrats”) is not enough.
You’re lucky, Chris, that mental health is not a qualification for the suffrage in this country.
JJC said:
It’s the Democrats that hold certain voter groups firmly in their hand — blacks vote 90+ per cent Democratic, for example.
The Republicans are merely seen as the lesser of two evils most of the time.
However, even with that generic preference almost every poll that has been released that actually matches up 2 candidates has the Republican in at a Statistical Tie but trailing by a few points, or even leading in some.
GWB determined to honor campaign promise and unite the country.
DWSUWF followed Niskannen in the class of 2003 throwing away the adminsitration kool-aid, in favor of a tall cool glass of divided government. Meanwhile, Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice reports on a new poll that reinforces that the Republican sup…
Rugger,
Shush, now! There is an unspoken understanding at TMV that profile articles which highlight actual leading Dem candidates and their newsmaking reported on other blogs and policy positions will not be posted here since this pragmatic electoral conundrum you point out is a bit of a downer.
Superdestroyer:
I’m not surprised. First of all, if they’re in the middle class and up (not in the news, ordinarily), they’re leaving California as many of us did years earlier.
I don’t know if they’re heading elsewhere in the West as most whites are, or if they’re heading back to the South the way blacks in the East are doing as well as whites in the East are doing (moving back if from the South originally, or going there now for retirement). Complicating this is that while a few whites from the West went east years ago, others are doing so now.
I’ve lived in Maryland (and New York) and am familiar with this (as well as when I was in California). Maryland and Virginia are often two different worlds. (My friend in DC, who is very liberal, feels weird going into Virginia because of the history and politics there.)
[...] H/t Joe Gandelman. [...]
DLS
It’s the Democrats that hold certain voter groups firmly in their hand — blacks vote 90+ per cent Democratic, for example.
The Republicans are merely seen as the lesser of two evils most of the time.
The 30% who are supporting Bush even now seem as solidly GOP as it’s possible to be. Are you contending that the Dems have 30% who will keep voting for them no matter what (as superdestroyer is saying)?
Truman and Carter demonstrate that it’s possible for Dems to go lower when they become unpopular. While this seems counterintuitive to me, it also seems like pretty hard evidence that the GOP has a larger hard core base.
jjc,
I think the number of voters who, in a national election, would vote for the Democratic candidate no matter the candidate is somewhere between 42 adn 45%. The number for a Republican candidate is somewhere between 30 and 35%. That leaves about 15% of the voters (the swing voters) who determine the national elections.
Thus, in any national election the Democrats only need to get about 1/3 of the swing voters to win.
another way to look at presidential politics is the Democratic candidate will almost certainly carry every state that Kerry won in 2004 (251 electorial votes). The Republicans probably have about 200 electorial votes that are certain for the. The fight will be voter Missouri, Ohio, Colorado, and Arizona.
As the demographics of the U.S. change, the Republicans will become non-competative in Colorado, Arizona, Missouri, and possibly Florida and Ohio.
Even the general election for president will become irrelevent since the Democrats will have more than 270 locked up before the election starts.
[...] Bad News For Republicans: Poll Shows Voters Souring On GOPThe Moderate Voice – The race for the Republican 2008 Presidential nomination is on but a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll suggests the highly sought prize may be in danger of becoming a booby prize: The race for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination has [...]
A “One Party” democrat country could not possibly be more inept that the one party GOP one we had from 2001-2007. They’ve screwed everything as bad as they could from the getgo using the far right nutjob world philosophies as their guiding doctrine. Lets remember some of the highlights shall we:
1) Intractable war in Iraq. Conversion of a bottled up dictatorship into a future terrorist sponsoring theocracy. Only question is will they be Sunni or Shiite?
2) Blown federal budget allowing one of our real threats on the world scene, China, to own ~$1 Trillion of our money.
3) Legalization and implementation of torture on prisoners. Combined with suspsension of trials that are the backbone of any modern gov’t, one of the most shameful things about succumbing to terror.
4) Infestation of Lobbyists into every leaf of the executive branch with regards to overseeing corporations abilities to screw the public. Appointing the very people the Dept of Interior is supposed to protect us from to its top posts.
5) In an era of rapid globalization, where our competitors are learning to catch up to us and we are increasingly doing business with other nations, botching relations with foreign nations as if somehow we won’t need any goodwill in the coming years.
6) Letting FEMA become so filled with incompetent people appointed for party loyalty that after the Katrina screw up Congress was actually toying with the idea of getting rid of it altogether. This after decades of proper management and providing one of the most important national services.
7) Poor education focus. This country has a dire need of engineers and scientists to keep pace in the coming decades. Kennedy gave us the goal to get to the moon and focused the energy of the greatest bumper crop of scientists this nation has ever seen. Bush backs Intelligent Design and the entire right seems to be in utter contempt of anyone with a college degree should they also have a political opinion.
Another 8 years of this neocon BS and this country is going to be truly falling apart with all the know-it-all Bush fans wondering how the libruls screwed up the nation.
7)
WEll gosh and golly Sam. Thats some list.
I have one for ya.
In 1904 Teddy Roosevelt said “Shucks” They though he said Ducks and everyone went hunting. Thats how it become known as spring Break.
In 1918 President Grover Cleveland said Your Truck? They thought he said You suck and thats how we ended up with polarized Politics.
In 1932 President Kennedy Said “ASk not what your country can do for you because we havent finished ransacking it yet and so that began the New Deal.
In 1948 President John Wayne said Those Ruskies have exploded a bomb. And so to show them who was boss we began grooming Bonzo….I mean Ronald Reagan for his next starring performance.
The moral of this story is that anyone can make a list. The question is how reliable are the facts.
Somebody,
That was a pretty pathetic response.
Sam,
The Republicans never reached 60 senators. The Democrats were always able to prevent the passing of anything in the Senate that they did not apporve of.
The Democrats will reach 60 senators in either 2008 or 2010. They will mean that the Democrats will be able to pass in legislation that they want. Then federal politics will function at the same level that politics currently functions in states like Maryland, Mass, and DC.
The republicans had a republican president, they didn’t need 60 Senators. It amounts to the same thing. So basically the Dems will have what the GOP had from 2001-2007 minus the powers of the executive branch. Which will come in 2009.
[...] (more…) [...]