Saturday, February 11

A look at Idaho, Ten Months Out

Here's a map:

(Sure is pretty to see all that Blue, eh?)

As you can see, Idaho is 2nd Banana to Utah on the Happy Happy Bush Cheer Squad. I'm not going to bother and look at why Utah's so pleased with Bush's work, given how much our 'Honest President' has fallen since November '04.

What's more intriguing is why Idaho is so high up there. What (or rather, who) is it that is keeping his numbers so high? We have all seen the same President, so who is it in Idaho that stands behind him, and who is working tone down that blue, one shade at a time?

I'm thankfull to live in the age that we do, because we have wonderful organizations like SurveyUSA. They track public opinion in all states. Even better, they will survey and track other pollsters to see who is trending too far to one side. Needless to say, they're pretty unbiased.

Anyway, on to the survey in question. The most recent poll I could find was the January 2006 poll. SUSA asked three questions: How well you think the President, your Governor, and your Senators are doing their jobs. For us, that means we can look at how Bush is doing 'round here, along with Kempthorne, Craig, and Crapo. I'd really like to see something for the House, but there will be more of those in the next couple of more


Here is the nice spreadsheet that SUSA gives us for the results of their January 06 poll. President Bush is sitting at 58- 39 in the Gem State. That score is a decent amount off of the national average of lower 40's for both numbers. Now I know I'm not alone in my dissaproval of the President, but who likes the guy?

As is the trend nationally, the Democrats (22% of the electorate) disapprove of Bush (17- 82) and the Republicans (45% of the electorate) approve (89- 8). Independants (31%) however, buck the national trend and break almost even (43- 51). Nationally, Independants are approving of Bush by around 33%. Why the ten point difference? I have no concrete idea, but a few hunches that I'll keep in mind until I can get more data...

What did show up with large differences in SUSA's poll was the regularity of Church attendance. By a whopping 74- 22, regular church attendees approve of Bush. At 43% of the survey pop, this is big. This is where we see his bastion of strength in Idaho. But it is not enough for me. I want to know which churches we're talking about. Is it from the Mormons? The protestants? I doubt us Catholics could do it, but it could be; I don't know.

The counter- group of never go-ers poll at 42- 57. These people are not insignificant, checking in at 33% of the pop. Here again, I want to know who these people are. Are they Athiests, or just lazy (like me)? Are they Urbanites, or rural livers? This amatuer pollster does not know.


Our dear Governor is sitting at a lovely 59- 31 right now. Not exactly the thing a Progressive wants to see, but that's what we get in our bastion of conservativism that is Idaho. Just about every demographic likes the guy except for self- identified Liberals at 36- 46- 10 (14% of the pop). Even the democrats were split down the middle at 44- 46.

The story is almost the same for our Senators. 57- 30 for Craig and 55- 29 for Crapo. Again, across the board approval in almost all demographics. At least this time the democrats pulled away from the middle ground. Interestingly, Crapo is polling a little under Craig. Though it is almost always withing the margin of error, Crapo has higher "I don't know's" than Craig. Craig's numbers are always stronger than Crapo's, but still within the MoE. Is Crapo not known quite as much? Is Craig the 'Big Brother Senator', with Crapo playing the part of the puppy- eyed little brother? Could be. (Funny thing, though, democrats disapprove of Crapo more than Craig (33 & 38 app., 48 diss.)


So what does it all mean? Not much. Church attendance seems to be the only divider in Idaho politics (that SUSA uncovered). The bases of the parties are pretty much in line with the rest of the nation. Conservatives self- identify in Idaho at about 42% of the population; moderates at 41%; and us liberals at a paltry 14%. This means that any gains for us Democrats are going to come from Independant moderates. So we're not going to win on a platform of stem cells and higher taxes for social programs. But if we can get a guy like Gov. Schweitzer of Montana and pull off our own Montana Miracle, we just might get to bathe in the light at the end of the tunnel.


At 1:22 PM, Blogger Diana Rowe Pauls said...

I am quite confused as to how so-called "Christians" can support the Bush administration. Is it because so many of them have stopped thinking for themselves and just follow the pied (paid) pipers who play the right tune?

I myself consider myself a Christian... why am I having such a problem with Bush et al's version of Christianity? Could it be the war? The abandonment of the sick and needy? The lies?

I strongly suggest that people read the "Christian Principles...". It was written as a guide for politicians from a bunch of different Christian demoninations...

Now if only the "I Believe In Jesus" Republicans would read AND FOLLOW those guidelines!!

At 3:43 PM, Blogger Vander said...

I do not see much evidence for W's Christianity in his policies. For someone who claims to be in touch with God, he sure does not govern as his son asks us to. I think a true Christan Politican is very progressive: Care for the poor being a key part of that. Go a head and show me where W posits that in his politics.

At 4:09 PM, Blogger Sara E Anderson said...

W. hardly ever even attends church. As far as I can tell, the major thrust of his governing strategy is to repeat a lie over and over again until no one would possibly believe you'd keep lying. And then keep doing it.

At 1:10 AM, Blogger Vander said...

That's what we call conservatism these days: Blind loyalty to our Dear Leader and his cause, all the way up to the big man himself. You aren't a good conservative if you don't mimic his determination.

At 6:19 PM, Blogger Laura said...

I just want to say one thing about all of the negative comments here. Now I am seeing a lot of judging and from my understanding that is something we are not to do. Now if bush is so much of a so called liar, maybe if someone would actually prove it instead of just making accusations it would be a different story. Another thing is the situation in iraq that i want to comment on. Those people needed help. They were being treated terribly. How can you stand up and say that you completely disagree with helping people when they were being tortured and they had no freedoms. Dont blame bush for the hurricane situations either. I am from Biloxi and the city and state governments are in charge of their regions.


Post a Comment

<< Home