PDA

View Full Version : Voters' Remorse: WP: President Bush's Approval Rating, 45%



Falls City Beer
03-25-2005, 07:47 PM
Lowest of his Presidency.

Group Hug?

pedro
03-25-2005, 08:03 PM
Not surpising. But it really doesn't matter b/c the election wasn't a referendum on Bush (apparently), and there were enough people who didn't like Bush but disliked Kerry more than enough to defeat him.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2005, 08:25 PM
Not surpising. But it really doesn't matter b/c the election wasn't a referendum on Bush (apparently), and there were enough people who didn't like Bush but disliked Kerry more than enough to defeat him.

Oh, I don't know. If there's anything this board teaches me, it's that NO ONE wants to admit when he/she's wrong. This poll reveals that at least SOME people are willing to admit they've blown it. At least symbolically.

MuEconRedLeg
03-25-2005, 09:21 PM
I think this should be expected, considering the President has been going smash-mouth with his agenda. I don’t think it is a stretch to think that budget cuts and privatization are turning off some moderates.

Steve4192
03-25-2005, 09:54 PM
Problem is, the polls fluctuate wildly.

Bush's approval rating was in the dumper before 9/11 and went into the stratosphere almost overnight after the WTC tragedy. He also saw a major boost after invading Iraq.

The only thing the approval polls tell us for certain is that the american public is fickle.

919191
03-25-2005, 10:22 PM
Oh, I don't know. If there's anything this board teaches me, it's that NO ONE wants to admit when he/she's wrong. This poll reveals that at least SOME people are willing to admit they've blown it. At least symbolically.
Hey, I can admit I am wrong. I voted for My Man Mitch Daniels for Indiana governor. I was wrong wrong wrong. I also voted for Bush. I blew it. However, I still think that voting for Kerry would have been wronger wronger wronger. :) :(

Unassisted
03-26-2005, 12:07 AM
Historically, approval ratings go down in the second term. Second-termers tend to do more radical things to burnish their legacy, such as introduce a plan to overhaul Social Security, because they don't need to accumulate political capital for a re-election bid.

This is no surprise.

Don't be surprised (or crow) if the GOP loses seats in the '06 Congressional elections, either. It's a historical trend.

GAC
03-26-2005, 06:09 AM
Oh, I don't know. If there's anything this board teaches me, it's that NO ONE wants to admit when he/she's wrong. This poll reveals that at least SOME people are willing to admit they've blown it. At least symbolically.

What makes those who voted for Bush wrong? I don't see the poll as expressing voter remorse at voting for Bush. They knew when they voted for him this 2nd time what his agenda was. They didn't know what Kerry's was.

I place little value/faith in polls. If his approval rating rises back up over 50%, does that then mean those who voted for Bush were right? ;)

And why didn't you post the article?

Here I will, and I emphasized the last paragraph. ;)

Bush hits a new low in polls for job approval

By Ron Hutcheson

Knight Ridder Newspapers
E-mail article
Print view
Search
Most e-mailed
Most read
RSS

WASHINGTON — President Bush's job-approval rating has sunk to 45 percent, the worst of his presidency, amid public opposition at his intervention in the Terri Schiavo case and growing concern over gasoline prices.

The 45 percent rating is a far cry from his record 90 percent approval after the Sept. 11 attacks, but it's still well above the low marks scored by most recent presidents.

Except for a slight bounce after the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections, Bush's job-approval rating has been stuck in the high 40s to low 50s since early 2004. The Gallup polling organization tests the president's standing almost weekly by asking voters if they "approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job."

Pollsters attributed the president's lackluster showing to economic worries, high fuel prices and a public backlash against his entry into the Schiavo case. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup nationwide survey of 1,001 adults — the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points — was conducted Monday through Wednesday, after Bush signed legislation that gave federal courts a chance to decide whether Schiavo should be allowed to die. Federal courts have refused to intervene.

Polls showed that big majorities of Americans — 70 to 82 percent — opposed the intervention by Bush and Congress.

But the Schiavo case isn't Bush's only political problem.

"The public's increasingly dismal views about the economy, and about the way things are going in general, could also be factors in Bush's lower approval rating," a Gallup analysis said. "Even more dramatic is the greater pessimism about the future of the nation's economy."

Nearly 60 percent of Americans believe the economy is worsening, compared with one-third who think it's improving. About 32 percent think economic conditions are good or excellent, compared with 41 percent who felt that way at the start of the year.

Economic jitters seem directly related to rising gas prices. That ranked at the top of concerns, along with unemployment and low wages.

Only 5 percent mentioned fuel prices last month, before average retail prices surged sharply above $2 a gallon nationally.

Even at his current low point, Bush outscores every other recent president's low point since John Kennedy, who bottomed out with a 56 percent approval rating. Richard Nixon holds the modern record for the lowest approval rating — 24 percent during the Watergate scandal.

RedsBaron
03-26-2005, 06:17 AM
Historically, approval ratings go down in the second term. Second-termers tend to do more radical things to burnish their legacy, such as introduce a plan to overhaul Social Security, because they don't need to accumulate political capital for a re-election bid.

This is no surprise.

Don't be surprised (or crow) if the GOP loses seats in the '06 Congressional elections, either. It's a historical trend.
You're absolutely right about Republican prospects in 2006. Historically, '06 should be a good year for the Democrats. 1958, 1966, 1974 and 1986 were all big years for the opposition party in the Congressional elections during a President's second term.
Then again, Clinton and the Democrats did okay in the 1998 elections, though Republicans barely retained controlled of Congress, and Bush and the Republicans did extraordinarily well in the 2002 elections (normally the party in power doesn't increase its Congressional numbers and even capture control of the Senate in the first Congressional elections after a Presidential election). Historical trends are not always followed.

GAC
03-26-2005, 07:01 AM
You're absolutely right about Republican prospects in 2006. Historically, '06 should be a good year for the Democrats. 1958, 1966, 1974 and 1986 were all big years for the opposition party in the Congressional elections during a President's second term.
Then again, Clinton and the Democrats did okay in the 1998 elections, though Republicans barely retained controlled of Congress, and Bush and the Republicans did extraordinarily well in the 2002 elections (normally the party in power doesn't increase its Congressional numbers and even capture control of the Senate in the first Congressional elections after a Presidential election). Historical trends are not always followed.

I always thought all last year that Bush was very, very vulnerable. But what does his victory say about the weakness of the Democratic Party? Personally, I thought Bush was gonna lose; but the Dems shot themselves in the foot with the American public.

Ravenlord
03-26-2005, 07:05 AM
count me in with the 55% group. still would vote Bush though.

South Park's right...you're forced to vote between a deush bag and a turd sandwich. :thumbdown

GAC
03-26-2005, 10:33 AM
count me in with the 55% group. still would vote Bush though.

Exactly. I have BIG differences with several of Bush's proposals over his first term. He is definitely not the economic conservative that I had envisioned. And he is just like any other politician, regardless of party, who, when it's expediant, will "prostitute" himself for a vote.

But then, when I took a good, hard look at John Kerry, it is exactly as you discribe....


South Park's right...you're forced to vote between a deush bag and a turd sandwich. :thumbdown


But I do believe, for the most part, that Bush is a man of principal and conviction. That doesn't mean that he is perfect and hasn't/won't make mistakes/miscalculations.

dman
03-26-2005, 10:52 AM
South Park's right...you're forced to vote between a deush bag and a turd sandwich.

And now we all have to take a bite. I, however have no remorse that I voted for Bush.
One thing I notice about our government though is how it is so quick to try to regulate everything, but you see no attempt whatsoever at regulating oil prices. We will probably never see this, and that is directed at both major parties.

RedsBaron
03-26-2005, 11:46 AM
And now we all have to take a bite. I, however have no remorse that I voted for Bush.
One thing I notice about our government though is how it is so quick to try to regulate everything, but you see no attempt whatsoever at regulating oil prices. We will probably never see this, and that is directed at both major parties.
We saw it in the 1970s, along with gas lines. I don't want to see it again.

Falls City Beer
03-26-2005, 11:52 AM
These articles are so stupid. No, Bush hasn't dropped precipitously in the approval ratings, but this guy has hovered at or below 50% since the honeymoon phase of the Gulf War Part Deux. That's a LOOOONG stretch of mediocrity in public perception.

RedsBaron
03-26-2005, 04:06 PM
Given his mediocre standing in the public opinion polls, I doubt that George W. Bush will run for re-election in 2008. ;)

CbusRed
03-27-2005, 03:02 AM
The elections over.
This doesnt matter.

Besides, Polls like this are hardly considered accurate.

Remember all those exit polls that had Kerry winning by a landslide shortly after the polls opened? :MandJ:

GAC
03-27-2005, 05:04 AM
These articles are so stupid.

And yet you reference one such article to start this thread to try and prove your point. ;)

---------------------------------------

End-of-presidency job approval ratings are used by some pundits to forecast the odds of a President's being re-elected or getting a voter-initiated pink slip.

A USA Today/Gallup poll (adults, ME3%), taken 9-10 October, showed that 47 percent of American voters approved "of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president" and 49 percent disapproved.

Compare that with the following chart. His father's approval rating was 56 percent, yet he was a one-term president.

http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_historical_approval.htm

So it shows me just how much polls really tell us. ;)

CbusRed
03-27-2005, 09:24 AM
And yet you reference one such article to start this thread to try and prove your point. ;)




My sentiments exactly. :MandJ:

DoogMinAmo
03-27-2005, 10:01 AM
I voted for Kerry, not because he was the best choice, but because Bush's foreign policy flat out SCARES me.

Bush's foreign policy has America's approval rating with most other nations well below 45%, it could take decades to repair the "game of Risk" damage he has done. The job of president of US is multifaceted, and doing an "adequate" job at one domestic part(although I strongly disagree with many of the budgetary decisions he has made, I will concede), while failing miserably at the international aspect is insufficient. I laugh at those who justify an INVASION of a country thousands of miles away, hiding behind the guise of counterterrorism, when oil production was its only true motivation. Saddam threatened to change the currency for oil barrels to the Euro, and the US retaliated. Just think, they are trying to pass an "oops, we goofed, there are no WMDs" on the public. Is that the kind of information you trust before going to "war" with a country... before INVADING it?


Given his mediocre standing in the public opinion polls, I doubt that George W. Bush will run for re-election in 2008.

Thank the good Lord he can't. I would be mortified to see what he would try to press on "Ammurrca" in its so called conservative best interest.

Those that founded this nation were liberals. Change and challenge of the status quo are not a bad thing. In fact, this country's unwillingness to change from an oil-dependent society can be its downfall. Eventually, we will run out of oil countries to invade. I have nothing against those who value consistency and equilibrium, but advocating a conservative approach to all facets of domestic and foreign policy shows poor adaptability and a haughty sense of superiority. I do not prescribe to a liberal or conservative school of thought, I prescribe to the best decision at the time.

Enough of my incoherent rant, sorry.

RedsBaron
03-27-2005, 04:47 PM
Enough of my incoherent rant, sorry.
Okay.

CbusRed
03-27-2005, 07:09 PM
incoherent rant


EUREEKA!!!

I was looking for the right words to describe what I had just read.

RBA
03-27-2005, 07:19 PM
I
Enough of my incoherent rant, sorry.

Don't worry about it. We all have opinions. Thanks for sharing.

paintmered
03-27-2005, 08:49 PM
EUREEKA!!!

I was looking for the right words to describe what I had just read.


Now was that really necessary?

CbusRed
03-27-2005, 08:51 PM
Now was that really necessary?


Was this whole thread really necessary?

What did it accomplish?

I am within the rules and regulations.

paintmered
03-27-2005, 08:52 PM
Was this whole thread really necessary?

What did it accomplish?

I am within the rules and regulations.


I know, which is why I just questioned your post here and didn't go up another rung on the punishment ladder.

No harm, no foul.



I now return you to your regularly scheduled P-thread.

KittyDuran
03-27-2005, 08:53 PM
Was this whole thread really necessary?

What did it accomplish?

I am within the rules and regulations.

Then why did you respond? :rolleyes:

CbusRed
03-27-2005, 08:55 PM
Then why did you respond? :rolleyes:

civic duty.

CbusRed
03-27-2005, 08:59 PM
BTW, I would like to take this moment to again pledge my support to the "Ban all political threads" movement.

Read this thread, and any political thread of the past 3 months, and you will see why I feel this way.

paintmered
03-27-2005, 09:00 PM
BTW, I would like to take this moment to again pledge my support to the "Ban all political threads" movement.

Read this thread, and any political thread of the past 3 months, and you will see why I feel this way.


You do have the option of not posting in them.

Falls City Beer
03-27-2005, 09:01 PM
And yet you reference one such article to start this thread to try and prove your point. ;)

---------------------------------------

End-of-presidency job approval ratings are used by some pundits to forecast the odds of a President's being re-elected or getting a voter-initiated pink slip.

A USA Today/Gallup poll (adults, ME3%), taken 9-10 October, showed that 47 percent of American voters approved "of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president" and 49 percent disapproved.

Compare that with the following chart. His father's approval rating was 56 percent, yet he was a one-term president.

http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_historical_approval.htm

So it shows me just how much polls really tell us. ;)


Notice I didn't copy the article because the text and "analysis" of the NUMBERS (which is all I posted) is often surface and stupid.

I trust polls more than the demographic analysis of a journalist. No offense to journalists. (Okay, just a little).

Falls City Beer
03-27-2005, 09:03 PM
You do have the option of not posting in them.

Notice the guy railing against dynamite's the one holding the match.

CbusRed
03-27-2005, 09:08 PM
You do have the option of not posting in them.


Yes, but I choose not to take that option, and I will continue to do so unless they are banned.

But that still doesnt mean that the threads belong here.


I mean, look at this thread. Someone starts it out with an un-backed and non-documented comment, complete with snide remark. only to recieve flack from other posters until he has to start digging himself out of the hole he dug. meanwhile, others are posting, and rambling on about how they feel, then the thread derails onto another topic completley, and everyone looks stupid!

what is the point?

If anything, I will keep posting on P-Threads in hopes that it will either help the mods realize that P-Threads are worthess and do not belong here, or that it will discourage folks from even starting P-threads.

But dont worry, I will stay within the rules and regulations. ;)

CbusRed
03-27-2005, 09:09 PM
Notice I didn't copy the article because the text and "analysis" of the NUMBERS (which is all I posted) is often surface and stupid.

I trust polls more than the demographic analysis of a journalist. No offense to journalists. (Okay, just a little).


:MandJ:

keep digging.

:MandJ:

paintmered
03-27-2005, 09:12 PM
Yes, but I choose not to take that option, and I will continue to do so unless they are banned.

But that still doesnt mean that the threads belong here.


I mean, look at this thread. Someone starts it out with an un-backed and non-documented comment, complete with snide remark. only to recieve flack from other posters until he has to start digging himself out of the hole he dug. meanwhile, others are posting, and rambling on about how they feel, then the thread derails onto another topic completley, and everyone looks stupid!

what is the point?

If anything, I will keep posting on P-Threads in hopes that it will either help the mods realize that P-Threads are worthess and do not belong here, or that it will discourage folks from even starting P-threads.

But dont worry, I will stay within the rules and regulations. ;)


I am reopening this thread because maybe we need to discuss this.

RedFanAlways1966
03-27-2005, 09:16 PM
I am curious...

Anyone reading this ever been asked their opinion in one of these polls?

I have never been asked. I have never missed a vote in my life. Surely only voters would count in these polls b/c non-voters should not have a voice in these matters. Obviously they don't care enough to try to change things in the only way possible. Flappin' your jaws or registering your opinion in a poll don't cut it. Who gets asked? We saw approximately 115 million votes for the presidency in 2004. So how many people get asked in these polls?

Polls are good for one thing... getting people to debate. Polls about our president don't mean a thing to me at this point. The only opinion that matters is the one that is counted every four years. USA Today, Zogby, Gallup... don't mean anything in regard to the highest office. Debate fodder... dat's all. Voters give their opinion when it matters.

KittyDuran
03-27-2005, 09:38 PM
If anything, I will keep posting on P-Threads in hopes that it will either help the mods realize that P-Threads are worthess and do not belong here, or that it will discourage folks from even starting P-threads. But you seem to be sort of choosy in your posting... if ALL are worthless you should have something to say in each P-thread. Yet you seem to be the most vitriolic and prolific in threads that have a "liberal" slant. Try to keep true to your "civil duty".

CbusRed
03-27-2005, 09:44 PM
But you seem to be sort of choosy in your posting... if ALL are worthless you should have something to say in each P-thread. Yet you seem to be the most vitriolic and prolific in threads that have a "liberal" slant. Try to keep true to your "civil duty".


First of all... Show me the last thread that was started with a "conservative" slant. Keep searching, we win with class. ;)

Second, kindly show me as many "conservative" slanted threads that I didnt participate in as you can find.

After that, I will provide you with an identically long, or even longer list of "liberal" slanted threads that I also did not participate in.

I dont have time to respond to every single political thread that is posted on here.

KittyDuran
03-27-2005, 09:47 PM
I dont have time to respond to every single political thread that is posted on here. Well, so much for "civil duty"... :p:

RBA
03-27-2005, 09:55 PM
Que up Tom Jones/or Elvis

We're caught in a trap
I can't walk out
Because I love you too much baby

Why can't you see
What you're doing to me
When you don't believe a word I say?

We can't go on together
With suspicious minds
And we can't build our dreams
On suspicious minds

So, if an old friend I know
Drops by to say hello
Would I still see suspicion in your eyes?

Here we go again
Asking where I've been
You can't see these tears are real
I'm crying

We can't go on together
With suspicious minds
And be can't build our dreams
On suspicious minds

Oh let our love survive
Or dry the tears from your eyes
Let's don't let a good thing die

When honey, you know
I've never lied to you
Mmm yeah, yeah