Jackson Free Press

The latest SurveyUSA poll is out and it shows overall job approval for Bush is at 36% in the nation; 61% of Americans disapprove of the job he's doing.

In Mississippi, which gives Bush his 11th highest marks, he's at 44% approval, 53% disapproval in the poll. Interesting, Bush's approval rating among 18- to 35-year-old Mississippians tracks the national numbers -- 36% approve, 62% disapprove.

Previous Comments

ID

105769

Comment

Interesting. Especially since Barbour is trending higher since Katrina. Too bad Bush can't ride on his post-disaster coattails in this state, eh? The figures for younger people aren't terribly surprising, considering the high percentage of under-30 Mississippians who voted for Kerry in the last election.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-04-18T21:39:57-06:00

ID

105770

Comment

Bump. For all those who think that Mississippi is "Bush" country and is red to the core, check out his approval for under-35 Mississippians -- 62 percent DISapprove!

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-04-19T16:05:11-06:00

ID

105771

Comment

IMPEACH! Yeah the under 35 Mississippi crowd seems to be progressive and not susceptbile to believe the Republican talking points they hear from the MSM, along with the fact that many people are waking up to Bush's incompetence. I would expect him to bottom out at the 36% to 40% range here in Mississippi after everything is all said and done. Hopefully he will get IMPEACHED!! All the Senior Officials whom have made money off this war should have there assets frozen also....and then we will move along to the Media Companies and there cheerleading and propagandanizing of the news. Maybe reverse the Media Consolidation that was done in the late 90's.

Author

JAC

Date

2006-04-19T16:24:42-06:00

ID

105772

Comment

Think of it this way, JAC. We stem the brain drain, and this can be a very different state. Think tipping point. (Or, go read the book if you haven't already.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-04-19T16:27:02-06:00

ID

105773

Comment

Bump. (Can you tell I want to see a discussion of this? And let people in, and outside of, Mississippi know that this state may not be exactly what they think it is. Dems, are you listening?)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-04-20T11:15:45-06:00

ID

105774

Comment

Too bad the under 35 crowd doesn't vote as much as their uber-conservative moms and dads.

Author

kaust

Date

2006-04-20T12:02:18-06:00

ID

105775

Comment

Now that mclellan is out i wonder if he will stay on the hill or come home to dad in MS? I voted for bush, only on the count of being a wartime president. I am in the 62% and i didn't get polled. But everyone i know who voted for him regrets it even crazy army man who used to protest the protesters at millsaps, and even ole miss law school man. Did you ask Frank what he thought of him donna? I know it would have been a little off topic but curiosity might have spiked the question at a given moment.

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2006-04-20T12:10:10-06:00

ID

105776

Comment

Did you ask Frank what he thought of him donna? I didn't. Last year during the campaign he told ladies at Bravo that they're old friends. But that might have been election talk. I dunno.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-04-20T12:31:17-06:00

ID

105777

Comment

Too bad the under 35 crowd doesn't vote as much as their uber-conservative moms and dads Too many don't feel they have choices.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-04-20T12:31:51-06:00

ID

105778

Comment

I don't know Donna... I personally yelled at more than handful of queers that chose not to vote even though there was a constitutional amendment defining their rights. Apathy is apathy and I'm not sure there's much you can do about it to be honest... I know, doesn't that sound apathetic? Seriously... If a consitutional amendment defining one's rights isn't enough to get someone to the polls, what is? A lying, treasonous, war-mongering President? Didn't work last election. Maybe all-you-can-drink beer and wet t-shirt contests would work... Maybe a free set of annoyingly loud speakers or cool rims? Not sure... In my opinion, if anything does it, it will be gas prices and the poor assumption that they are specifically tied to the war.

Author

kaust

Date

2006-04-20T12:35:52-06:00

ID

105779

Comment

You make a good point. But you can't give up. Truth is, if more people would vote, this would be a blue state. Why did you think certain folks are so intent on voter ID? Anything they can do to decrease the voting ranks, they will. And that's pathetic. Win on the merits, not by limiting voting. There's a special place in hell for people who do that kind of stuff, regardless of party.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-04-20T12:38:48-06:00

ID

105780

Comment

"Win on the merits, not by limiting voting." - ladd Sad thing is that few politicians (on either side of the fence) have merits. ;-)

Author

kaust

Date

2006-04-20T12:40:37-06:00

ID

105781

Comment

The other vital thing to remember is that a lot of people don't vote/work for change because they feel powerless. But there is immense power in simply stepping up. It's contagious. And remember the tipping point.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-04-20T12:45:49-06:00

ID

105782

Comment

When people get older, they tend to get married and have kids--then they vote more and move to the right at the same time, because their priorities become more about further protecting people who are already relatively safe than advancing the interests of folks on the margins. What we need to do is energize the under-35 crowd of every generation--not just this one--to vote. Progressives recognized this four decades ago; that's why they lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. "Rock the Vote" and "Vote or Die" are all well and good, but I don't remember any young adult ever telling me that the reason she didn't vote was because there weren't enough celebrities singing about it. We need to run worthwhile candidates who aren't dull as dishwater if we want to attract more young adults to the polls. Morgan Freeman would do the trick. John Grisham probably would, too. But it'll have to be somebody like that, somebody with that kind of coolness factor, to get the job done. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a celebrity. Someone from the new generation of politicians could do it. There are lots of 40 and under politicians in this state who could do some serious moving and shaking if given half a chance. But we have a state party that's oriented around seniority, with emphasis on white candidates--"Gee, Eric, it's your turn to run for lieutenant governor this year because you were secretary of state--have at. Gee, Jim, it's your turn to run for governor this year because you were attorney general--have at." Here's a novel idea: Let Eric and Jim stay secretary of state and attorney general, keeping those jobs out of Republican hands, and run some new, more energetic people for statewide office--candidates who have a good chance of actually inspiring new people to get out there and vote. Is that too much to ask? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-20T12:53:45-06:00

ID

105783

Comment

And I'm beginning to think that Howard Dean was the biggest missed opportunity of 2004. He was polling very badly, but he energized young adults like nobody else. If that caught on... Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-20T13:12:08-06:00

ID

105784

Comment

"When people get older, they tend to get married and have kids--then they vote more and move to the right at the same time, because their priorities become more about further protecting people who are already relatively safe than advancing the interests of folks on the margins." -- Tom Head While I largely agree with Tom's statement, I have always felt that the traditionally "liberal" groups fail when they don't make the point that protecting the environment and the rights of minority groups (whatever the minority may be) is one of the greatest "family values" a person can have. If I don't make sure that the air is clean and the water is drinkable and usable, I have done nothing for my future grandchildren, great-nieces, great-nephews, etc. If I don't make sure that the oppressed are allowed the chance to speak freely, I have not protected the future of my family. I have no doubt that someone in my family will, at some point, hold a minority view or need to have his or her rights protected. If I care about my family, I must protect their future. And that is not done by amassing wealth at the expense of someone who there but for the grace of god go I. If we can convince America that helping others -- and that includes all others -- protects their own family's future, maybe we can convince America that "liberal" and "civil liberties" are not bad words. And in doing so, maybe we can invigorate all Americans to vote and hopefully make some new choices.

Author

Newt

Date

2006-04-20T15:34:27-06:00

ID

105785

Comment

ladd-- Truth is, if more people would vote, this would be a blue state. Why did you think certain folks are so intent on voter ID? Anything they can do to decrease the voting ranks, they will. And that's pathetic. Win on the merits, not by limiting voting. There's a special place in hell for people who do that kind of stuff, regardless of party. So we'll be seeing JFP do an editorial castigating the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee?

Author

Rex

Date

2006-04-20T15:47:18-06:00

ID

105786

Comment

Let's catigate ALL OF THEM -- both parties!

Author

kaust

Date

2006-04-20T15:48:26-06:00

ID

105787

Comment

Easily. Have you noticed how much I adore the Democrats of late? We're looking into the lawsuit more closely. It is a different scenario than voter ID, no matter how hard people try to make the square pegs fit. I didn't say better or worse, but different.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-04-20T15:51:05-06:00

ID

105788

Comment

Agreed, different--but with the same effect: reduction of access and participation in elections. And I agree with KA as well.

Author

Rex

Date

2006-04-20T16:01:29-06:00

ID

105789

Comment

I'm not an expert on this lawsuit -- someone else is pursuing it -- but I'm not sure I follow the logic of that. We're talking about a political party's primaries, right? No one is being blocked from voting in elections, are they? Hey I don't like parties, or primaries -- but it's kind of like I say about gay marriage: If the Episcopal Church wants to outlaw gay Episcopal marriage, have at it. It's none of my business. But the government needs to stay out of the issue. It's none of the government's damn business who gets married. I kind of see this in a similar light. And one really shouldn't mix up a political party with a government, should they?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-04-20T16:04:46-06:00

ID

105790

Comment

Absolutely one should mix up a political party with a government. The purpose of the former is to control the latter. What do you think the premise behind striking down all-white primaries, poll taxes, and literacy requirements was? Why do you think the federal and state governments have regulatory powers in primary elections just as in general elections? Because political parties and primary elections are a staple of democratic, representative government in the US. Certainly a party has the right to freely associate-- to a point short of discriminating against otherwise qualified electors. You start denying access to otherwise qualified voters, diminishing political choice and retrenching participation and the slippery slope starts giving way. Had we always had party registration and closed primaries, I doubt anyone would have an issue with it. But since we have had non-party voter registration and classic open primaries since 1890, it is a clear and new denial of access to an integral part of the democratic election process. Such an act by the state legislature would have been ruled a violation of VRA'65. But since it's a lawsuit, the Democrats may actually have a shot and restricting the vote.

Author

Rex

Date

2006-04-20T16:29:56-06:00

ID

105791

Comment

I think we need to look here, though, at what parties are. Let's say that there was a Ku Klux Klan Party that wanted to explicitly limit its primaries on the basis of race so that only people who had registered as whites with the KKK could vote. Constitutionally, could they do that? Absolutely, as long as they didn't accept federal funds. That's freedom of speech and freedom of association. But if the Ku Klux Klan Party tried to limit the general election on basis of race, that would be a blatant violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. Now, the Democratic and Republican parties should not get the same level of freedom of speech and assembly as third parties do, to my mind, because they have what amounts to a monopoly on the general election process--to where limiting participation in their primaries may very well amount to a limitation on voting access during the general election. There's a lot of whining right now about how campaign finance reform legislation violates the First Amendment. Fine. Maybe it does. But the two-party monopoly violates the most basic principles of democracy. When we have instant runoff voting and other non-restrictive measures designed to permit the viable existence of third parties, the two parties will have full free speech rights. Until that happens, their options are and should be limited. There is an antitrust issue here that is not being addressed. Generally speaking, I think I'd like part of the outcome of the Democratic voter registration restrictions--in that they would make it more difficult for turncoat Democrats to betray women's rights and equal opportunity--but I do not like the methods. For starters, they would exclude me from voting in Democratic primaries--because I am not a Democrat. I'm also concerned that they could impair the participation of low-income minority voters. So I'm undecided, pending more data. I honestly don't know how I'd rule if I were the judge in question. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-20T16:45:21-06:00

ID

105792

Comment

"with the KKK could vote" --> "with the KKK could participate in the selection of a candidate." Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-20T16:46:26-06:00

ID

105793

Comment

tom-- explicitly limit its primaries on the basis of race so that only people who had registered as whites with the KKK could vote. Constitutionally, could they do that? Absolutely, as long as they didn't accept federal funds. That's freedom of speech and freedom of association. You're wrong. That is exactly what white southern Democrats had done and continued to do until the federal courst said such discrimination was a constitutional violation. And they didn't acceprt "federal money" to run the primary or the party. Better check your Wikipedia: Many poor whites and African Americans were being intimidated from participating in the voting process. Many of the affected voters were illiterate, therefore they were discouraged from voting by election and government officials. Some Dixiecrats argued that primary elections were an internal party affair, and that the party was a "private club," so the government had no authority over its criteria for membership and other factors relevant to participating in primary elections. The result? Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Author

Rex

Date

2006-04-20T17:03:16-06:00

ID

105794

Comment

Rex, I certainly agree that my original wording was "wrong"; that's why I amended it seconds later. I recognize it's easier to argue with a typo than it is to argue with a real person, but there you go. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-20T17:16:20-06:00

ID

105795

Comment

Incidentally, you don't have to rely on Wikipedia--the actual text of the bill is right up there for everybody to see, most relevantly this paragraph: The terms "vote" or "voting" shall include all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election, including, but not limited to, registration, listing pursuant to this Act, or other action required by law prerequisite to voting, casting a ballot, and having such ballot counted properly and included in the appropriate totals of votes cast with respect to candidates for public or party office and propositions for which votes are received in an election. So now that we've beaten my typographical error to death, let's look at the corrected version of my post--which specified "selection of a candidate" rather than "voting." Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-04-20T17:21:48-06:00