Monday, April 27

What about syphilis? Does anyone know the favorability ratings for syphilis?

For the last few weeks we've been hearing solid citizens like Karl Rove dismiss Barack Obama as a divisive president because his disapproval numbers have been increasing among Republicans. There's just one problem: if Washington Post/ABC poll is any indication, nobody actually wants to admit they're a Republican anymore. Only 21 percent of the respondents to their poll saw fit to identify themselves as Republicans, compared to 35 percent for Democrats and 38 percent for independents.

So that got me to thinking: What kinds of things does that make the Republican Party less popular than? Here is but a sample:

· Gay marriage. Yup, as much as some people get their staunchly heterosexual pantaloons in a wad over gays settlin' down and gettin' hitched, fully one-third of the country thinks gay people should have the right to get straight-up married; 60 percent are OK with some form of civil unions.

· Marijuana legalization. Even at 31 percent in the most recent poll, legal wacky terbacky is still a good bit more popular than the GOP.

· Russia, China, Venezuela, and Cuba. Despite being run by dictators of varying degrees of autocracy and repressiveness, all four countries graded out with favorability ratings higher than 21% in Gallup's most recent World Affairs survey.

· Michael Richards at his lowest point. Less than two weeks removed from the former "Kramer" from Seinfeld's racist nutjobbery at the Laugh Factory in 2006, 41 percent of Americans (scroll about a third of the way down) still had a favorable opinion of him.

· George W. Bush at his lowest point. Right before the 2008 election, Bush clocked in with some of the lowest approval ratings ever recorded in the Gallup poll -- but he was still higher than 21%.

But take heart, Republican Party: You're still more popular than Iran, Paris Hilton, or the concept of O.J. Simpson's innocence.

No, no -- no need to thank me.

9 comments:

Steve said...

Since you have become such a numbers guy, how do Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the Democratically controlled Congress, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Charlie Rangel and John Murtha fair in your STD poll?

SpartanDan said...

21% isn't the Republican Party's approval rating - that's the number of people who identified as Republicans. I suspect their approval rating is a little higher. Maybe not much (I don't think there are too many independents who are pleased with their "Party of No" stance, and there are probably a fair number of Republicans themselves who are unhappy with the direction the party is taking for one reason or another), but a little bit. So I'm not sure the comparison you're making is an entirely fair one.

That said, neither is the one Rove is making. Of course Obama's numbers among Republicans are getting worse - the sane half of the party is increasingly embarrassed to have anything to do with the Republican brand at the moment. The changes we're seeing are not from people changing their minds about Obama - they're from people changing their minds about the Republican Party (or at least being too embarrassed to identify themselves as part of it at the moment).

Josh M. said...

According to that article, it's the lowest number for Republicans since 1983. Of course, they wouldn't win the White House again until, well, a year later. But it was close - their candidate only won 49 states.

Doug said...

OK, so who's your Reagan this time around?

Dawg95 said...

Who was our Reagan in 1977? Nobody would have said it was Reagan at that point!

But I can tell you who your Carter is.....

Doug said...

Nobody? Really? Reagan was a two-term California governor who nearly knocked off Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination in '76; he was arguably the frontrunner for the 1980 nomination the minute Ford conceded to Carter.

In that sense, the closest present-day analogue to Reagan's situation in '77 is Mitt Romney, but he didn't have anything like the primary success that Reagan did, nor is his brand name anywhere near as strong as Reagan's was even then.

Buck said...

Damn. Nixon feared Reagan.

"Palin / Gingrich 2012"

Dawg95 said...

Doug you are right about that, but nobody knew he was going to be "REAGAN" at that point. And nobody surely saw the landslide victory coming that would put him in office. I'm a Guiliani guy myself.

I for one think that Obama is doing exactly what he intended to do. His problem is going to be that he is implementing too much policy too fast. Thus giving the public plenty of time to assess the outcome of his policies before the next election.

If his policies don't work and are viewed as failures, the election won't go well for him. If they do work, he will be unbeatable.

I consider myself to be fiscally conservative and morally liberal. I like Obama as a person. I like the fact that he communicates well.(My biggest criticism of Bush) But I strongly disagree with a lot of the things that he is doing.

Only time will tell...

Tracer Bullet said...

So you're arguing the president should be less effective? Yeah, that sounds like a Republican position, all right.

The voters will boot Obama if his policies fail, or they will boot him because he didn't keep his promises (Or maybe not. Bush got re-elected, after all). Neither of these facts would be negated if Obama was less ambitious.