[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who cares? He could drop to 1%. He's a lame duck. It doesn't matter.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]You could not be more wrong. It affects the '06 and '08 elections a great deal, and elections beyond that to a lesser degree. To pretend it doesn't is a rejection of proven political reality.

I'm not trying to gloat, and I'm trying to be objective- this is a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]


So you're saying the approval ratings of a second term president during the FIRST YEAR of that term are strong indicators for how his party will do during the next election?

Sort of like how Clinton had great approval ratings all through his presidency, including his second term, and then Gore wiped the mat with his opponent in the 2000 election?

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

a) For the first time in something like 50 years, the party in control of the WH picked up seats in Congress in 1998 -- due in part to Clinton's popularity. Likewise, GWB was popular in 2002 and his party picked up seats during a mid-term for the 2nd time in 50 years.

b) Al Gore ran away from Bill Clinton, which almost certainly hurt him. Remember how much Clinton was marginalized at the LA convention and how much Gore loved to say that he was his own man

c) Even though Al Gore lost the electoral college, he still got more popular votes than George W. Bush. I suspect that if he had sent Clinton to Arkansas, Tennessee, or Florida just one more time he would have won the electoral votes of one of those states and would have been elected president.

Anyway, GWB's unpopularity hurts him in other ways. Do you think the wacky-cons would be revolting on Miers this way if he was as popular as he was in 2002 or 2003? And then he probably wouldn't have nominated Miers, he would have nominated a more overtly conservative person because he could have gotten away with it more easily. So if Miers is partly a result of his unpopularity, are you saying that Miers isn't a drag on the GOP at this point?