Does anybody have that map of the states that approved of slavery. When put with the map of last election the red states of today match perfectly with the slave loving states of yesterday. GOP=a bunch of racists who will no doubt burn in hell forever.
Posted by The Truth at November 24, 2005 04:56 AMLast night, I happened to have caught Michael Moore on C-Span, speaking to a huge dinner crowd at Flint. As I had not seen or read him lately, I had presumed he had become 'quiet'. No way - however, his speech was rational and logical about the shift in political thinking as illustrated in the graph above - he started out 'funny' and then turned 'serious' - and by the time he was finished, I was ready to elect him President, or at least Senator. It was the best presentation I have heard from anybody lately. If C-Span does a repeat this weekend, I highly recommend watching it.
Posted by DOT at November 24, 2005 05:21 AMI'm from Idaho. I can't tell you how depressing that map makes me.
Posted by Hank at November 24, 2005 06:55 AMA solid Democratic south again! A year ago I wouldn't have thought it possible to get Bush below 50% in all 11 former confederate states but there it is. Realistically, if a democrat can take Arkansas, Florida and Virginia, which are the three most competitive southern states and all of which Bush is currently below 40% in, then the GOP doesn't stand a chance in 2008.
Posted by rlp at November 24, 2005 07:49 AMThe title of the poll needs correction; I am sure they meant: "JOB [DIS]APPROVAL / PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH (Released 11/17/05)."
Posted by Marrty at November 24, 2005 08:56 AMMnwhl plld mrcns r gvng cngrssnl Dmcrts n vn wrs rtng, wth mny rcgnzng th gtlss nt-mrcn rhtrc s n ttmpt t gn pltcl dvntg t th xpns f trp mrl. Sty gddy!
[Editor: ignore=off]It would be more challenging it you'd make staatements that aren't so easily refuted. But, from what I've seen you haven't the ability.
Posted by rlp at November 24, 2005 09:41 AMA solid Democratic south again!
RLP at November 24, 2005 07:49 AM
Finally we can say that. I have been wanting to see that. And from your previous post I can see you ae a Southerner too. I'm from Memphis Tenn. and I am so happy to see all the southeren states be fully Democratic. Now that is something to be Thankfull for. And hopefully next election in 2008 we can say that again. No dumb Repulicans. Well I have one more thing to say....
Happy Thanksgiving to All!!!
What the hell is going on in the State of Washington? 41% approval there? Hard to believe.
Posted by NealB at November 24, 2005 01:50 PMThe poll must have been taken east of the mountains. No one over here (west) has an ounce of approval for the guy. Unless, you take into account the military bases.
Seattle/King County is still a beautiful shade of deep blue. And since we have millions more voters than the rest of the state, the state is going to stay blue for quite a while. JMO.
Posted by rainyday at November 24, 2005 02:42 PMMr. X,
Thanks for the reply. I got to visit Ducktown and Knoxville with some friends for a few days back in June. Hopefully, I'll get to see Memphis and your part of the state before too long. I've always had a blast everytime I've gone to Tennessee. You write well, stay in touch. : )
Neal B.,
Not to paint with too broad a brush, but everyone I've ever met from eastern Washington has been a wingnut. I too am glad that the Puget Sound area dominates the state.
Have a great thanksgiving and I wish all a good holiday, take care until later.
Posted by rlp at November 24, 2005 04:14 PMHank, sorry to say, I know how you feel. I am not so surprised to see my home state of Texas moving to Blue. There are definite lines now drawn. As for Texas, we will see if the new Republican state legislature types can deal with anything more than redistricting. They were made for that one purpose. It seems that they cannot deal with the work of the state. With the Supreme Court decision that school financing is illegal (GOP Supreme Court) I don't see the state legislature being able to solve it.
Republicans will lose the State of Texas. Finally, we will be able to take back the state and be the democrats that we started as. Finally.
Posted by dorita at November 24, 2005 11:10 PMBENDITO!!
I keep posting these examples of deliberate WMD/ties to terrorist lies by the administration and you keep ignoring them (after asking for them again!!) Do you have any reply or is you integrity and charachter as low as appears?
1) Cheney said it was “pretty well confirmed” Iraqi intel agents had met with Atta in Prague. In fact our intel agencies had pretty well confirmed that was not true BEFORE he was out saying it.
2) Bush was pushing the Niger yellow cake story AFTER Wilson, the IAEA, and anybody else who looked at the ridiculous evidence said it was not true.
3) Rice was saying the aluminum tubes could only be for nukes AFTER our intel agencies had concluded they were most likely COULD NOT BE USED for that purpose.
4) They all said Iraq was training terrorists in bomb making and other terror skills AFTER the source had been deemed unreliable and AFTER he had recanted.
5) They all used curveball’s mobile wmd lab and remote drone garbage AFTER multiple intel agencies had deemed him unreliable.
6) Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
does anyone have a similar poll-based map from November 2004. (not an election map, but one based on Bush's approval ratings among all adults when the election was held?)
Posted by p.lukasiak at November 25, 2005 06:32 AMBendito,
You're such a fucking pussy. A liar, too.
Posted by God Of War at November 25, 2005 07:26 AMp.lukasiak:
I'm not aware of any such map, but I think for the purposes you pose, the electoral maps suffice.
People vote their approvals when times are good and their disapprovals when they are not. I know from working with Good Orange County (CA) Republicans that they seized vigorously every example of 'good times' offered to them by Bu$hCo while rejecting anything that didn't match the template because 'it isn't affecting me'. This would have been reflected in their votes.
The good news is that many of them aren't thinking that everything is good anymore.
Posted by pessimist at November 25, 2005 09:18 AMRLP writes...
"A solid Democratic south again! A year ago I wouldn't have thought it possible to get Bush below 50% in all 11 former confederate states but there it is."
Not to rain on the parade, rlp, but even if you do have confidence in the sampling and/or reporting of these latest polls, take it from someone who has lived across 5 southern states their entire lifetime...a low job approval rating does not change Conservative values. If true, the polls at best reflect a directed disapproval of GWB and his administration, not an endorsement of the Democratic Party or a rejection of Conservative values.
I also find it really impressive that today, we're talking about job approval ratings barely a year after a small majority of the voting minority of America reinstalled an Administration that has proven itself to be either incompetent or radically Conservative (or both). As if something has changed since last year. I suspect is has a lot to do with the fact that the people conducting these polls are the same irresponsible ***** that help the Corporate Media write the fiction propaganda that is the run up to our Presidential elections every 4 years.
In short, if we can still believe that our elections are tallied fairly and that our election results are legitimate, it doesn't follow that low approval ratings now = a wholesale rejection of the policies that were supported in last years election.
Instead, we can either accept the polls and with it the reprehensibly fickle and unreasoned thought patterns of Americans with regards to something as important as running our government - or - we can reject the conclusion that approval ratings are a good depiction of ideology and values -- and then proceed to be ashamed to live in a nation where so many people support the kinds of policies that the Bush Administration has forwarded since stealing the 2000 election.
Somewhere in between those choices, we'd have to believe that we can't be sure that we can accurately gauge how people relate ideology and partisanship with regards to elections. That idea has merit - and an '08 victory for Democrats may indeed result from a low approval rating for GWB, but it has no real relationship to a sense of changing American values/ideology. If former Republican voters vote for Democrats, it's probably more indicative of a Republican's desire for Democrats to behave Conservatively and a disgust of individuals or individual circumstances around the Republican party.
Posted by Tampa Student at November 25, 2005 11:06 AMTampa Student,
You make some good points, but if you'll notice in the same post I also write about the modest goal of picking off Arkansas, Florida and Virginia in 2008. Actually, I think that as Governor Mike Easley's success shows, North Carolina might just be in play too.
Granted, a lot of white southerners, including part of my family, would never vote for a Democrat because of "conservative values." And I'll come out and say it, "conservative values" is too often a code word for hate, be it racial, as in the case of some of my relatives and neighbors or sexual and, unfortunatily there are too many examples of that too.
But, a lot has changed. In my area in rural South Carolina, all of the pro-Bush bumper stickers have disappeared in the last month or so and I don't think that they all wore out at the same time. I have neighbor's who have lost jobs that they had held for over 20 years, you can't eat conservative values. More likely than actually voting for a Democrat, discouraged conservatives may sit out an election or two which could make the relativly competitive southern states swing in a general election.
Maybe I am a little optimistic, but I remember the Warergate era when Nixon deflated in a similar manner to what is happening to Bush. And unlike Bush, who won the closest re-election in history, Nixon started out with a 49 state landslide.
The true danger long term is if history repeats itself too closely. By that I mean that while coming out of Vietnam the economy suffered dislocations from the mid 70's oil shortages and all the chickens came home to roost during Jimmy Carter's presidency but were mostly over by the time Reagan was elected. There are going to be real hard rimes ahead, Bush's piper will have to be paid and if a Democrat is elected in 2008, they will need to be open and straight with the people about just how screwed we are. People will also need hope that things can get better. Personally, I think that John Edwards may be able to pull it off, Hillary wouldn't have a chance and the odds will be against the others.
Posted by rlp at November 25, 2005 03:43 PM