Hoosiers, by and large, are a loyal and relatively conservative bunch. So, George W. Bush has performed quite a task in developing a 28% approval rating among Hoosiers. The poll found that the average Hoosier supports universal health care and supports requirements to make cars more fuel efficient; with a plurality of Hoosiers planning on voting for the Democratic Presidential candidate.
I would take the poll’s information on Hoosier policy preferences more seriously than peoples’ Presidential voting plans. Presidential voting is going to be driven in some measure by the personality’s of the people running. (Hopefully “who we’d like to have a beer with” isn’t as much of a factor this time around, given how disastrous it was as a factor last time.)
One problem the Republican candidate will have to deal with is the Bush albatross:
Anti-Bush sentiment is strong and growing in Indiana, according to the poll.
Twenty-eight percent say they approve of the way Bush is handling the job of president, down from 37 percent in a February 2006 poll.
More than two-thirds of state residents disapprove of the president’s handling of the situation in Iraq, the economy, the federal budget and immigration policy.
“I’m not happy with President Bush at all,” said Georgetta Oakley, 60, Indianapolis. “The country is heading in the wrong direction. The president ought to be taking care of the people here in America, instead of draining every dollar fighting the war.”
. . .
Asked whether U.S. troops should leave Iraq sooner, instead of staying longer, even if it means disorder and potential civil war in Iraq, 56 percent said they should leave sooner. Thirty-eight percent favored staying longer even if it means potentially more deaths and injuries among U.S. troops.
Better late than never, I suppose, but I wish my fellow citizens had seen how bad of a President Bush is and has been at least back in 2004. As President Bush says, “Fool me once, shame on . . . shame on . . . you. Fool me . . . won’tgetfooledagain.” So, I can’t blame slightly less than a majority of voters for voting for Bush in 2000. But, there’s really no excuse for 2004.
I imagine that there will be a lot fewer Bush supporters in my very conservative hometown of Nappanee now that they’ve been turned down for federal aid because of the tornado. Unbelievable!
The most ironic thing about the “Who would you most like to have a beer with” question was that people chose a guy who they couldn’t have a beer with anyway because the guy lacks the self-control to have just one beer. He denies alcoholism but made it pretty clear in some of his statements that “one beer” with him would turn into a bender, maybe a drunk-driving arrest, and possibly a fistfight with his dad. Yet people went with that vibe. And funny enough–most of his presidency has resembled what “one beer” with that swell guy would have looked like.
Doug:
Don’t you think Hoosiers are finally moving on, along with popular majorities in neighboring states in Illinois, Ohio and Michigan, who have basically abandoned the notion of lock-step support for the GOP? It has been 27 years since Reagan won, Dan Quayle is long gone, Lugar wants out of Iraq, Daniels is in trouble, the House delegation is 5-4 Democratic and could go to 6-3 or 7-2 in ’08. Nothing lasts forever. You make a very good point about policy. I pose two questions: What does the GOP offer the average Hoosier? Has that changed since 2004?
Barry’s comments reflect the common misconception that Indiana’s usual preference for Republican presidential candidates is an indicator of similar dominance by Republicans in other races. Democrats have always been very competitive in this state. Daniels won a fairly narrow race for governor after 16 years of Democrats in the office and against a man who as Lite Governor had said he had no interest in running for the job. After the 1974 elections Indiana had a 9-2 Democratic majority in U.S. house seats and two Democratic U.S. Senators. Of course, Indiana Democrats are often more conservative than their national party.