Saturday, July 22, 2006

Dubya Knows More Than His “Base”

Remember the “peace dividend”? That was a rhetorical device used by Democrats to attack President G.H.W. Bush for the sin of winning the Cold War. Of course, it was President Reagan who won the Cold War, but even Democrats understood they could not whack him for that, so they went after Reagan’s Veep when he became President. The argument sounded sort of reasonable – we spent all this money fighting the Cold War, so now that it’s over we should be have a lot of extra money lying around, right? Of course, the actual facts were a bit more complex and the world not nearly the Disneyland that the Democrats pretended, but that was the beauty of it for the Left – the President could not point to the evils still rampant in the world without the Left calling him a fascist for it; after all thy started painting the whole Bush family as Nazis by demonizing the patriarch, Prescott. So the Left painted GHW Bush into a corner, and wouldn’t you know - the “base” of the Republican Party, those self-appointed guardians of “True Conservatism” and the self-righteous inquisitors of political purity, they decided to let Bush I fall by the wayside, because in their mind even Reagan was not quite good enough. Some of them followed the manic stylings of Ross Perot, some sat on their butts and pouted out the 1992 Election, and some just derailed any semblance of party unity and common purpose. For this collective discordance they helped put Bill “Bubba” Clinton into office.

Well, those yahoos are still around. And because they refuse to acknowledge their hand in delivering America into the hands of the Clintons for eight years – did I mention they were self-righteous and prone to denial? – they are still going on in the same arrogant ‘do as I command’ way that we used to observe from the anchor desk at CBS for so long.

Anyway, the “Base” of the GOP, or as I call them the “Rabies Wing of the GOP”, has been on a tear lately, deriding President George W. Bush for all kinds of things. Things he did that they didn’t like, things they demanded he do that he didn’t do, and twisting his words to make him seem to say things they could attack him for, even when all evidence was to the contrary. I did mention some of these loons are the guys who defected to Perot in ’92, after all, so stability and serious introspection are not requirements for these guys, all right? To get to the point, one area of rhetorical hemorrhoids for these guys is the issue of Illegals in the United States, which some have taken to mean we should regard Hispanics with suspicion and disapproval. More than one zealot has opined that the GOP should write-off Hispanics, in order to keep the White vote. They would hasten to deny that they are being racist, suggesting instead that they are somehow merely being “realistic” in claiming that considering the opinion of Hispanics in this issue is somehow a bad thing, politically.

Well, as usual the President knows more than the people sniping at him. And even the very polls that people use to claim he is losing ground, make some interesting points. In this case I am once again referring to Survey USA’s helpful poll for President Bush’s Job Approval in all 50 states.

What does this say about Bush and Hispanics? Survey USA broke down its respondents into four basic races – White, Black, Hispanic, and “Other”, which would include Asians, Arabs, Deaniacs, and other minorities which did not fit into the presumed groups. And in that information, some fascinating facts showed up:

[] In sixteen states, Hispanic Job Approval for President Bush was 50% or greater;

[] In seven states, Hispanic Job Approval for President Bush was above 60% (two states showed Hispanic approval of Bush above 70%)

[] In fifteen states, Hispanic Job Approval for President Bush was higher than from any other race.

As usual, President Bush knows more than the people pretending to be the “base”.


Dan said...

Again, check the sample sizes. The examples you site are states with tiny hispanic populations, and thus are susceptible to outrageous margins of error. I ask without meaning to pass judgment - have you ever studied statistics? I'd be happy to recommend a few primers, if you're interested.

If you look at states with large hispanic populations, and thus a decent sampling size, you can see that hispanics don't like Bush.

I admire your determination to find someone who likes your man, but, these days, he's unpopular everywhere but in Lieberman's house.

DJ Drummond said...

Once again Dan, you yourself are cherry-picking the facts, ignoring significant data and the hypocrisy of your own claims.

If the respondent pool size is not satisfactory for you, you have no choice but to throw out every MSM poll claiming minority dissatisfaction of Bush, as the numbers are no better there than what I have cited here.

Also, if I had named only one or two states with such levels of support you could claim your case, but a prevalence to essentially dominant levels of support in more than a quarter of the nation shows that you are in denial, hoping to ignore a significant indicator contrary to what the Conventional Wisdom - as dictated from CBS and MSNBC from coastal city concentrations - pretends.

jwt4412 said...


You have left out Buchannan from your analysis.

Other than that... spot on.

Dan said...

Mr. Drummond -

I'm not trying to cherry-pick the facts at all. I am just making a valid point about sample size. You need to come up with around 400 responders to get a 5% margin of error. That's just math and statistics - not some democratic plot to make Bush look bad, or to make you look foolish for trumpeting statistics based on 3 respondents.

I will absolutely agree with you that if there is a poll out there with under around 400 respondents being cited as support for the proposition that minorities don't like Bush, it is an invalid and stupid use of statistics. Show it to me and I'll be happy to deride it just as I have derided your use of tiny samples.

And your claim that a quarter of the country supports your claim is facially ridiculous. South Dakota and California are not each 2% of the nation, are they? 15 bad samples are simply 15 bad samples.

You seem to be fascinated with studying these numbers. Why don't you track down the Hispanic respondents in all the polls, and add up all their numbers. If you find around 400, and calculate their approval rating, you'll have something worth talking about. Until then, you're just playing games with invalid numbers.

Your charge of hypocrisy is false - if you come up with valid numbers, I'll be happy to acknowledge them. And if you show me small samples being used to claim that Bush is unpopular, I'll join with you in criticizing them.

Dan said...

Here's a survey with 500 each of blacks and hispanics - this is the sort of thing you should be looking for, if you are interested in valid numbers:

Ontario Emperor said...

Why is everybody assuming that all Hispanics have the same position on illegal immigration? That's like assuming that all whites play golf. Some Hispanics are being displaced in the job market by illegal immigrants, just like blacks, Asians, whites, and everybody else is.

jwt4412 said...

Can Sullivan's opinion on anything be of any value?

What happend to him...

Alexandra S said...

Definitely you need a big pail to catch all the cherries you pick. I wish more people on the left and right would stop putting out blogs like this that endlessly harp on how 'wrong' and 'awful' and 'misguided' libs are. It gets old after awhile. What would be original is a republican being honest and willing to criticize Bush and themselves when they have screwed up. Alas, you need emotional maturity, depth, and a conscience for that.

jwt4412 said...

Honest = Criticize?

How moderate and independent of you...