The Pew Research Center’s latest poll on the President’s approval rating (post the Fallujah attack) show a downward trend.
More Americans now disapprove of the way he is doing his job than approve, though by only a slight margin (47% disapprove vs. 43% approve). Just four-in-ten approve of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, his lowest rating ever and down from 59% in January. Bush’s evaluations on other issues – the economy, energy and even terrorism – have fallen as well. And by a wide margin (57% to 32%) the public does not think he has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion.
The election seems to be shaping up to be about whose negatives are lowest. Bush seems to be doing a good job of accentuating/communicating both Kerry’s negatives and his own.
The election seems to be shaping up to be about who’s negatives are lowest.
And democracy suffers.
The election seems to be shaping up to be about who’s negatives are lowest.
And democracy suffers.
Not to mention grammar…corrected the error. Perhaps if I pray…
Oh Von, great and benevolent Grammar God…please help us, your ignorant flocks…save us from our hasty multi-tasking, and smite down the evil homonyms that plague us.
Must…not…make…obvious…joke.
Go on…consider it guilt-free Tuesday…just bear in mind the posting rules.
Must…not…make…obvious…joke.
With Bush’s numbers, and his huge ad budget, expect him to run a negative campaign since running a positive campaign based on his wonderful record is not in the cards.
In other words, he has the power and the incentive to run a hugely negative campaign, which I expect will becomne more the theme as he struggles to find something that gives him a competitive advantage.
Kerry still has not done much to define himself, so he is vulnerable to negative ads shaping expectations of him. I would guess that the Bush campaign staff also senses this — hence their early blitz of negative ads to shape the playing field.
Calling on God to smite the evil homo[nym]s just gave my funnybone a little twinge, Edward. But my sense of humor frequently fails to connect with that of others.
And…no abuse of posting priveleges intended.
no abuse detected Slarti…most homo[nym] jokes go right over my head…OK, so most jokes in general go right over my head…it takes all the brain power I have to understand the obvious, let alone pick up on the punnier aspects of most dialogs.
and smite down the evil homonyms that plague us.
I’ll be curious to see if the Grammar God answers a prayer that itself contains bad grammar — you can smite something, or you can strike it down, but I don’t think you can smite it down. Clearly you have not truly repented, my child. 🙂
I daresay the overall level of grammar has gotten substantively worse since the Grammar God arrived on the scene. Could it be he’s a Grammar Devil?
After a pleasant ten days paying no attention to the news (I barely even went online, and I didn’t have a TV or a radio in my hotel bedroom: plus time spent in limbo – ah, bliss) in the cab back to the airport, I overheard a Bush election ad… which focused entirely on lying about Bush’s tax cuts and lying about Kerry’s plans to raise taxes if he gets elected. Not the kindest way to get back into politics, though it could have been worse.
If Bush can lie hard enough, broadly enough, and convincingly enough, it’s possible he might convince some of the people who voted for him last time to vote for him again.
But (as a general demographic) it’s not likely that anyone who voted for Gore last time will vote for Bush this time: and it’s a fact that many people who voted for Bush in 2000 are not going to vote for him again in 2004.
And last time, Bush lost.
I daresay the overall level of grammar has gotten substantively worse since the Grammar God arrived on the scene.
So has the spontaneous pedantry. ;PPP
I’ll be curious to see if the Grammar God answers a prayer that itself contains bad grammar — you can smite something, or you can strike it down, but I don’t think you can smite it down. Clearly you have not truly repented, my child. 🙂
smit, smite, smote, smoten
I repent from which I’ve wroten
Besides, I’ve always regarded grammar as a goddess. Guess that would make me a demigod. Or maybe it’s hemi.
One word. Hemi.
I wonder, will Bush’s negative ads define Kerry or will they define Bush?
Slart, you got a hemi under the hood? What’s your horsepower?
So has the spontaneous pedantry. ;PPP
Sorry. I have an inbred tendency toward pedantry, but I usually manage to keep it submerged. In this case, though, I couldn’t resist pointing out the irony.
I wonder, will Bush’s negative ads define Kerry or will they define Bush?
I can’t imagine the ads actively hurting Bush, unless they come up with something particularly mean-spirited. Anyway, Kerry has promised to be just as nasty in return.
Sorry. I have an inbred tendency toward pedantry, but I usually manage to keep it submerged. In this case, though, I couldn’t resist pointing out the irony.
Keep it coming KenB, God knows I can use it…and a few others around here as well…
“I can’t imagine the ads actively hurting Bush, unless they come up with something particularly mean-spirited.”
Political pundit conventional wisdom (whew) is that negative ads drive negatives up for both candidates up. Prime example, Iowa, where Gebhardt and Dean were said to destroy each other, allowing Kerry and Edwards to go 1-2
Political pundit conventional wisdom (whew) is that negative ads drive negatives up for both candidates.
I’ve heard that, not sure I buy it. Are there documented cases where only one candidate was running negative ads and that candidate’s negatives went up around the same timeframe as the ads?
Anyway, in this case I’m sure we’ll be seeing plenty of attacks from both sides, so it won’t make a good case study for the above bit of CW.
(Via Mark Kleiman) Phil Carter, who I hadn’t read before, seems like he should be read. Check out the previous post too.