Most Democrats Wanted Bush to Fail in 2006 Poll, Will Media Care?

[Jeremiah]

"If it's unpatriotic and supposedly treasonous for conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh to want Barack Obama's policies to fail in the middle of a serious recession, is it similarly so for Democrats who wished President Bush wouldn't succeed while the nation was at war?

In August 2006, a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll asked the following of 900 registered voters:

Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?

Here are the stunning results.

http://patterico.com/files/2009/03/poll-should-bush-succeed.jpg

Yes, that says 51 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of Independents didn't want President Bush to succeed...even though our nation was at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm sure media outlets will be reporting this revelation real soon, and expressing their apologies to Mr. Limbaugh.

*****Update: Former Clinton pollster Craig Charney wrote about this deplorable poll on September 24, 2006 (h/t Betsy Newmark via Sister Toldjah via Garden State Pundit via Gateway Pundit) --

A recent Fox News poll gets at the disturbing truth: A majority of Democrats say they want to see the president fail. [...]

In other words, the rage extends way beyond the lip-pierced Deaniacs, aging hippies and other fringes of the Democratic Party. Lots of otherwise sensible people—suburban moms, hospital orderlies, schoolteachers, big-hatted church ladies—detest George W. Bush.

When these Democrats say they want Bush to fail, might this mean that they simply reject what they see as his far-right religious and corporate agenda? If so, it’s hard to see why independents—hardly right-wing zealots—hope he succeeds by 63 percent to 34 percent. Sadly, much of the Democratic Party wants to see this president crash and burn. [...]

Yet if Bush does fail—for instance, if Iraq spirals into civil war or the economy slides into recession—then America is in trouble. Making progress on these key issues, like others facing the country, will require bipartisan solutions, not political finger-pointing.

Fascinating."


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/03/09/most-democrats-wanted-bush-fail-2006-poll-will-media-care

[Gerry301]

I remember the poll when it came out, and thought it was very insightful then. If anyone remembers this was while the "surge" was just starting to make serious inroads. Two months prior Harry Reid had announced we had lost in Iraq. Many of the democrats at this time were staking their political careers on Iraq being another Vietnam and were calling for withdrawal, deadlines, and calling it a civil war . The troops were being forgotten in the calls for retreat, while the troops were saying they wanted to finish the job. You couldn't hear any support for the troops and the Republicans were completely silent as well.

Yes, I remember it very well.

[LineDoggie]

No, the major networks and news outlets wont give this a second thought

to them it's old news and can be ignored now that they have Limpbaugh in their sights.

Here it will be dismissed as irrelevant

[el borracho]

Bush already had a six year track record to his name, Barack Obama has had six weeks. Wanting someone to fail after they let you down time and time again is one thing, hoping someone fails from the get-go is different. Obama could go the same road, especially because throngs of his supporters hoping for an immediate "change" will be disappointed when reality sets in and they discover it will take years, maybe even a decade or so to turn things around.

[LineDoggie]

Bush already had a six year track record to his name, Barack Obama has had six weeks. Wanting someone to fail after they let you down time and time again is one thing, hoping someone fails from the get-go is different. Obama could go the same road, especially because throngs of his supporters hoping for an immediate "change" will be disappointed when reality sets in and they discover it will take years, maybe even a decade or so to turn things around.

Apparently, you were on Neptune the last 8 years.

They were Democrats wishing Ill of Bush from the moment he became President. Even his Inaugeration Motorcade was pelted with eggs

[WarDancer]

Wait, are you telling me this did not make the NY Times headlines? WTF!?

[vryhpyammoadded]

This attempt to vilify all who oppose the politico’s is only natural for the shills. They can’t help but divide, conquer, and manipulate the population distracting it from the con of looting the future to pay for their past fiscal crimes while gaining permission from a minority of the population for another turn of the government screw on our liberties assuring more money for nothing for their greedy constituency.

The government’s coercion against the fiscally conservative Ant’s reeks of misdirection and fear, the purview of the liar, cheat and thief and is the real issue everyone should be worried about. The opinions of some radio show soap box pale by comparison and should be the least of our worries.

Well, unless of course you lived the grasshopper wasteful lifestyle, a life now dependant on stealing the last of the Ant’s wealth to maintain. You can’t have people talking about what you’ve done now can we; people might start resisting.

I don’t want the politicians to fail; I want them all to rot in hell. The US would do far better without all the damn meddling.

[KB]

Wonder why it took Fox until 2006 to conduct this poll?

[Hot Lips]

A sampling of just 900 out of 135+ million (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/cps2006/tab02-1.xls) potential voters in 2006...

How many of that 900 were Democrats, Republicans, and Independents?

[Will Clark]

A sampling of just 900 out of 135+ million (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/cps2006/tab02-1.xls) potential voters in 2006...

How many of that 900 were Democrats, Republicans, and Independents?

900 isn't a small number in statistical sampling.

[Hot Lips]

I guess that depends on how you look at it. Would you want the implementation or removal of a right that is important to you to be decided on a 900/135,000,000 sampling conducted by a organization that has a perceived bias?

[Piers brendon]

It's quite funny when people from the US talk about the media having a so called 'left-wing liberal bias'. In Australia, the liberals are actually the centre-right party. Just shows how the american political discourse is so far to the right.

[budgie]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/03/09/most-democrats-wanted-bush-fail-2006-poll-will-media-care

Will the media care? Fox cared, it was their poll. Fox released it. Fox is part of the media. So the media cared.

Is this another one of those silly "the media is out to hide the truth from conservatives" rants?


Wonder why it took Fox until 2006 to conduct this poll?

Dunno maybe they're part of the evil liberal media conspiracy too?

[el borracho]

Apparently, you were on Neptune the last 8 years.

They were Democrats wishing Ill of Bush from the moment he became President. Even his Inaugeration Motorcade was pelted with eggs

If I were on Neptune the last eight years I picked a sh!tty time to return to earth.

[Maktab]

It's not actually about outrage over 'wanting the president to fail', it's about making Limbaugh the de facto spokesman and public face of the Republican Party. The Democrats know that Rush is extremely unpopular amongst independents, moderates and the youth, so they're going to hammer on everything he says to portray him as an angry and divisive extremist and in the process they're hoping that Republicans will rally around him and confirm the perception that he represents them.

If that happens it'll be electoral suicide. Rush of course laps it all up, by his own admission he's not interested in winning elections and he's certainly not interested in winning over independents, moderates and the undecideds. This controversy is going to net him a few million more listeners and he couldn't be happier. But the GOP does need to win over those voters, and it won't do it by making Limbaugh the face of the party.

So that's the context you should view this in. The Democrats are playing dirty, but they're being politically smart while the Republicans are still falling over their own feet trying to understand what the hell is going on.

[Will Clark]

I guess that depends on how you look at it. Would you want the implementation or removal of a right that is important to you to be decided on a 900/135,000,000 sampling conducted by a organization that has a perceived bias?

No, it doesn't depend on how you look at it. Mathematically 900 people is enough to represent 135,000,000 within +/- a few percent of their true distribution. What biases do you perceive in this poll? The question seems pretty straight forward, there is a substantial number representing each group, the people were selected from across the nation supposedly. Unless this poll wasn't random and was rigged, it should be pretty accurate.

If we asked 900 people whether they wanted to create or destroy a right, we would be pretty confident in the opinion of the population. But we don't implement or remove rights via a survey, or popular vote; I don't see how this applies at all.

[eskachig]

I admit I wanted Bush to fail, to ensure an opposing party victory in the election. It's not that I wanted the country to suffer, but I wanted it to be clear that it was not heading in the right direction, and I didn't want the damage masked until later.

And our little wars were never part of that desire, even if I think going into Iraq was an act of lunacy. Regardless of why politicians start wars, once you're there you have to win.

What I really wanted was to see some of the more paranoid aspects of that administration struck down in court with a lot of fanfare and humiliation.

[Walter Sobchak]

Apparently, you were on Neptune the last 8 years.

They were Democrats wishing Ill of Bush from the moment he became President. Even his Inaugeration Motorcade was pelted with eggs

Yeah, and he was excoriated for spending over 40-million on his inauguration. Now one said a word when Obama spent what, around 140-million?

Also, Bush was help up as irresponsible for adding 2.9-trillion to the deficit in 8 years. Obama will add almost 4-trillion in less than 2 years!


I admit I wanted Bush to fail, to ensure an opposing party victory in the election. It's not that I wanted the country to suffer, but I wanted it to be clear that it was not heading in the right direction, and I didn't want the damage masked until later.

Damn, that's almost what Rush Limbaugh and every other person who did not vote for The Chosen One feels! Of course, everyone who has jumped on that statement / mindset forgets to mention everything past 'fail'.

[eskachig]

Also, Bush was help up as irresponsible for adding 2.9-trillion to the deficit in 8 years. Obama will add almost 4-trillion in less than 2 years!It's all about the times, Obama is attempting to pull us out of a massive recession, and heavy deficit spending may be a way to do it. Personally I don't agree, but still, it's a calculated action. Bush's deficit felt like poor discipline rather than a last ditch attempt to save the nation.

Damn, that's almost what Rush Limbaugh and every other person who did not vote for The Chosen One feels! Of course, everyone who has jumped on that statement / mindset forgets to mention everything past 'fail'.Well duh, except that Obama failing at this juncture could be absolutely catastrophic, much more so than a Vietnam-style withdrawal that the most rabid disestablishmentarians probably wanted to see happen.

Really though, it's just human - you want the other side to 'fail' to show everyone that you were right all along. Everybody feels that way. Hopefully, all of us would prefer that the other side fails without long term damage to our nation.

Right now is probably a much more important time for us to band together, the very future of our nation is in jeopardy. We're not talking about two wars of convenience here.

And really, who gives a rat's ass what Limbaugh says? The man is a joke.

[Falafel]

It's quite funny when people from the US talk about the media having a so called 'left-wing liberal bias'. In Australia, the liberals are actually the centre-right party. Just shows how the american political discourse is so far to the right.

Australian liberals are nothing like American liberals. Two totally different animals. Just because they share the same name doesn't reflect in any way on the USA being "so far to the right", as you put it.

[Walter Sobchak]

It's all about the times, Obama is attempting to pull us out of a massive recession, and heavy deficit spending may be a way to do it. Personally I don't agree, but still, it's a calculated action. Bush's deficit felt like poor discipline rather than a last ditch attempt to save the nation.

Well duh, except that Obama failing at this juncture could be absolutely catastrophic, much more so than a Vietnam-style withdrawal that the most rabid disestablishmentarians probably wanted to see happen.

Really though, it's just human - you want the other side to 'fail' to show everyone that you were right all along. Everybody feels that way. Hopefully, all of us would prefer that the other side fails without long term damage to our nation.

Right now is probably a much more important time for us to band together, the very future of our nation is in jeopardy. We're not talking about two wars of convenience here.

Let's define "failure" in the context of today and in the terms of the political realities.

First, I have written here several times that Obama and I are in the same sinking boat. Right now is the time to fix the leak and not worry about whether everyone has a cushioned seat with a view. Let's fix the banking and financial engine that drives the economy (the leak) and leave the seating fairness (social programs) to when we have a dry hull!

I "wished" on Nover 8th that he would be successful as President! Hell, I'll gladly eat some crow over backing the losing side in an election over feeling smug and watching 40% of my 401K and pension evaporate since election day! Really! I wish him the best, but I'm not seeing that at all. "Wishing" someone to fail doesn't mean sh*t, really... it's sticks n' stones.

However, where I hope Obama fails is in the socializing of America. The whole "redistribution of wealth" is wrong-headed and only seeks to perpetuate the whole "entitlement politics" of post New Deal America. I was hoping that any "social change" and "economic justice" would come about after the overall economy had been rescued and the system to create wealth (that can subsequently be taxed) assured. If there is no wealth, then there is none to steal or redistribute, your perspective notwithstanding. First things first, Mr. President.

If Obama "fails" as a socializing agent of change, then whatever fills the vacuum in his policies will likely be the result of compromise, which is both the bane and beauty of our system! Will that be "catastrophic"? For Marxists and socialists and ACORN, yes. For middle America, No!

So, when both sides speak of "failure", both need to agree on a common understanding of what failure means and what is considered a failure.

[Bia]

No, the major networks and news outlets wont give this a second thought

to them it's old news and can be ignored now that they have Limpbaugh in their sights.

Here it will be dismissed as irrelevantThat's because the American public is far more important than one fatass hypocrite drug addict on the radio spewing propaganda.

I never wanted Bush to fail... I always hoped he'd get a soul.... then move society forward instead of backwards.

[WarDancer]

That's because the American public is far more important than one fatass hypocrite drug addict on the radio spewing propaganda.

I never wanted Bush to fail... I always hoped he'd get a soul.... then move society forward instead of backwards.

How can he move society forward when the demoncats were pushing back? It takes two to tango. As far as Bush being souless, well thats the Dems baggage.

[Walter Sobchak]

That's because the American public is far more important than one fatass hypocrite drug addict on the radio spewing propaganda.

I never wanted Bush to fail... I always hoped he'd get a soul.... then move society forward instead of backwards.

No one outside of the 20-million or so weekly listeners ever noticed Rush Limbaugh until the White House and Democratic strategists started trying to paint him as the face of the Republican Party. You see, the Democrats have taken a page from Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and seek to make Limbaugh the focus and not their actions. They realize that with a number of younger Americans, such as yourself, Limbaugh carries a high negative rating. Like Hillary, certain demographics see him as "polarizing". So, it's the old bait and switch.

As Alinsky wrote in rule 13,
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...

"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When you 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'

"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."
Obama was influenced by Alinsky's writings while a community organizer. In fact, if you read the whole book, you realize that Alinsky is more a modern day Machieavelli than just an old garden variety Communist radical.

So, you have been duped by experts... no shame in that!

It's definitely 'must reading' for anyone interested in politics, human nature or history. For grins, here is a good book review of 'rules': http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
(http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm)

[Atlantic Friend]

"Do you want President Bush to succeed", that's all ? There wasn't any other indication ?

Sounds like a pretty broad question, and the phrasing might have an impact on the result.

[Vandervahn]

Exactly, the incompetent wording of the question disqualifies the poll results because they are not clearly interpretable.

Furthermore, the article casts the independents´results in doubt although they CLEARLY occupy the almost exact middle ground between Dems and Reps.