Bush's Approval Rating Hits New Low

barry2952

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
0
Bush's Approval Rating Hits New Low

By RON FOURNIER
WASHINGTON (AP) - More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq - the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.

``I'm not happy with how things are going,'' said Margaret Campanelli, a retiree in Norwich, Conn., who said she tends to vote GOP. ``I'm particularly not happy with Iraq, not happy with how things worked with Hurricane Katrina.''

Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues - port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example.

The positioning is most intense among Republicans facing election in November and those considering 2008 presidential campaigns.

``You're in the position of this cycle now that is difficult anyway. In second term off-year elections, there gets to be a familiarity factor,'' said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a potential presidential candidate.

``People have seen and heard (Bush's) ideas long enough and that enters into their thinking. People are kind of, `Well, I wonder what other people can do,''' he said.

The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.

Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.

On issues, Bush's approval rating declined from 39 percent to 36 percent for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47 percent to 43 percent on foreign policy and terrorism. His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40 percent.

Personally, far fewer Americans consider Bush likable, honest, strong and dependable than they did just after his re-election campaign.

By comparison, Presidents Clinton and Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Eisenhower was close to 60 percent, according to Gallup polls. Nixon, who was increasingly tangled up in the Watergate scandal, was in the high 20s in early 1974.

The AP-Ipsos poll, which has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, gives Republicans reason to worry that they may inherit Bush's political woes. Two-thirds of the public disapproves of how the GOP-led Congress is handling its job and a surprising 53 percent of Republicans give Congress poor marks.

``Obviously, it's the winter of our discontent,'' said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.

By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.

While the gap worries Republicans, Cole and others said it does not automatically translate into GOP defeats in November, when voters will face a choice between local candidates rather than considering Congress as a whole.

In addition, strategists in both parties agree that a divided and undisciplined Democratic Party has failed to seize full advantage of Republican troubles.

``While I don't dispute the fact that we have challenges in the current environment politically, I also believe 2006 as a choice election offers Republicans an opportunity if we make sure the election is framed in a way that will keep our majorities in the House and the Senate,'' said Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Stung by criticism, senior officials at the White House and the RNC are reminding GOP members of Congress that Bush's approval ratings may be low, but theirs is lower and have declined at the same pace as Bush's. The message to GOP lawmakers is that criticizing the president weakens him - and them - politically.

``When issue like the internal Republican debate over the ports dominates the news it puts us another day away from all of us figuring out what policies we need to win,'' said Terry Nelson, a Republican consultant and political director for Bush's re-election campaign in 2004.

Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company on Thursday abandoned its quest to take over operations at several U.S. ports. Bush had pledged to veto any attempt to block the transaction, pitting him against Republicans in Congress and most voters.

All this has Republican voters like Walter Wright of Fairfax Station, Va., worried for their party.

``We've gotten so carried away I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democrats take it because of discontent,'' he said. ``People vote for change and hope for the best.''

Associated Press writer Will Lester and AP Manager of News Surveys Trevor Tompson contributed to this report.

On the Net:

Ipsos: http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com
 
Oh well they voted for his A$$
You know that old saying you get what you pay for well here it is in the form of a vote..
 
From Rasmussen.com:

"Monday March 13, 2006--Forty-two percent (42%) of American adults now approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President.

The number who disapprove bounced up to 57% today, matching the highest level we've ever recorded."


How can the polls mean nothing to the right wing? I keep hearing "a snap-shot in time" but that snap-shot has gone on for a very long time now.

It's beyond snap-shot and has progressed to the reality that Americans are truly dissatisfied with the way that GWB is handing things.
 
Because polling has become as much of an art as it has been a science.
Disapproval ratings are so vague, they serve no purpose. They are just a toll used to undermine the President's credibility and his ability to get things done.

Despite these low polling ratings, he won reelection, but a respectable amount over John F. Kerry. You can vote disapprovingly in these polls, but still overall support the President.

These polls are really destructive. First of all, as mentioned before, they do nothing but undermine the President's ability to advance any kind of agenda. There perpetuate the notion that he is weak and unsupported, so it is difficult- near impossible- to lead the congress going into the 2006 elections.

Second, these polls are being completely misused by the media. They do two things with this subjective polling data that is unethical and irresponsible.

First of all, they are reporting the polling data as news. "Bush poll ratings..." is a headline. It's the laziest kind of journalism.

And second, often these polls are an example of editorial via polls-
they report or commission polls to advance an editiorial opinion in the newsroom.

Remember the corrupted Zogby poll the other week? It made statements that fed into the press' hope that American soldiers in Iraq were overwhelmingly against the mission. This story was too good to be in true in the minds of liberal reporters, so they reported on it like it were undisputed truth. It was only after conservatives attacked the credibility and polling techniques used by the terribly inaccurate, biased, and flawed Zogby, they've been forced to quietly back away from it.


Furthermore, when you're in an atmosphere where EVER SINGLE WEEK, the liberals and/or the media release another distorted, misrepresented "gotcha" story regarding someone in the Bush administration, it's amazed he has ANY support at all. Wall-to-wall attacks from the news, from Hollywood, through out the media.....it's relentless. The administration is under an irrational assault day in and day out.
 
Couldn't it just be that he's just not doing a very good job? Shouldn't the American people get to voice their opinion? What other mechanism is there?

You make it sound like the press has only attacked Bush and his buddies. Past presidents have also suffered greatly at the keyboards of the press. They pretty much ran Nixon out of town. They weren't really kind to Bubba either.

Are you infering that the American people are stupid and should be led blindly by the President? That's not the way I understand it to work. Government is supposed to be feedback oriented. I am offended that Bush doesn't put any stock in the polls. I means that he simply doesn't give a $hit what I think.

Certainly the polls shouldn't rule the government but they certainly should be listed to by our CIC. Remember, it's "that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Why should we wait an election cycle to effect change?
 
barry2952 said:
Couldn't it just be that he's just not doing a very good job? Shouldn't the American people get to voice their opinion? What other mechanism is there?
There was an election in 2002. Republicans took over the Senate and increased their position in the House.
There was an election in 2004. President Bush won that, and the Republicans were strengthened in both the House and the Senate.
And in November, 2006 we'll have another set of elections.

To imply that these polls are important, or serve some kind of higher civic function would be to imply that we are better served now than we were just a few years ago, before the relentless "polling for news" trend.


You make it sound like the press has only attacked Bush and his buddies. Past presidents have also suffered greatly at the keyboards of the press. They pretty much ran Nixon out of town. They weren't really kind to Bubba either.
They did certainly run Nixon out of town.
Bubba didn't have an adversarial relationship with the media though. All the "negative" coverage of Clinton was always done with a wink and a nudge.

I remember serious "reporters" gushing over how masterfully the Clinton administration could "spin" the news and manipulate them in their favor.

Also, despite all the coverage of the Lewinski coverage, the reporting never got much deeper than the sexual element of the story. Not the perjury. Not the conspiracy. Just the "poor judgement."

So, you really can't compare the treatment Bush has received to that of Clinton.

I can't speak firsthand of the Carter administration's treatment. But I do remember how unmercifully Reagan was assaulted. I was still a kid and I vividly remember a series of PRIME TIME SPECIALS with puppets that did little more than mock the President Reagan as an incompetent fool.

"Spitting Images"
news1.jpg



Are you infering that the American people are stupid and should be led blindly by the President? That's not the way I understand it to work.
That's not even what I implied. I don't think that the media should promote an agenda, under the guise of impartiality, on what is still a trusting public.

And should the public be "led" by the President. Absolutely. That's why character is such a critical element when deciding the President. It's a representative republic.

Government is supposed to be feedback oriented. I am offended that Bush doesn't put any stock in the polls. I means that he simply doesn't give a $hit what I think.
No, it means he doesn't give a $hit what the people publishing, and manipulating the polls think. See the difference?

And I'll let you in on a secret. The President and his staff have their own polling data. It's independent data that is collected using scientific methods. This is vastly different than the polling information published in the media. I've spoken with statisticians about this before.

For example, prior to the 2004 election. The media polls showed Kerry in the lead. However, the academics in the statisics community had scientifically collected data that almost exactly predicted the election results.

Certainly the polls shouldn't rule the government but they certainly should be listed to by our CIC. Remember, it's "that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Let me recap:
1. 2000 - he wins election
2. 2002- Republicans gain control of Senate and increase numbers in House
3. 2004- Bush wins reelection. Republican contorl of Senate and House expands.
4. 2006- the next election. The Best time to make our opinions known.

Second-
Media polling is terribly flawed. It is inaccurate. It is also agenda driven. It is misused by the press. They reported these inaccurate polls as news, and they use these polls as an underhanded way of advancing editorial opinions.

"We don't like Bush, let's conduct a poll that reinforces this idea, and then report the poll like it's news."

Third:
The administration has it's own polling data, independently and scientifically collected. It is far more accurate than the crap Zogby is commissioned to do.

Why should we wait an election cycle to effect change?
You don't. But crappy NY Times editioral/Polls are not a way for the public to affect change.
 
This is from Rasmussenreports.com. It is not MSM. How do you explain their numbers?

"Tuesday March 14, 2006--Forty-two percent (42%) of American adults now approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-six percent (56%) disapprove.

Just 32% of Americans now believe the country is heading in the right direction. Fifty-six percent (56%) believe things have gotten off on the wrong track."

That pretty much sums up my take on GWB's presidency.

I disagree, waiting until election time will be too late. The American people's dissatisfaction needs to be heard now.
 
barry2952 said:
This is from Rasmussenreports.com. It is not MSM. How do you explain their numbers?

"Tuesday March 14, 2006--Forty-two percent (42%) of American adults now approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-six percent (56%) disapprove.

If you agree with Bush 90% of the time, but don't like his handling of illegal aliens, you might vote disapprovingly- especially if that has been the focus of a lot of media attention.

If you think the policy in Iraq is fundamentally right, but mistakes are being made in the application, you might vote disapprovingly right now.

When he nominated Harriet Meirs, but agree with everything else, you might vote disapprovingly.


Just 32% of Americans now believe the country is heading in the right direction. Fifty-six percent (56%) believe things have gotten off on the wrong track."

That pretty much sums up my take on GWB's presidency.
but what does that mean. Even if you want to take the poll on good faith, what does it mean? Does it mean he's not acting aggressively enough in Iraq, or he should withdraw immediately. That his border policy proposals are too strict, or too lenient. What issue is on the minds of those polled, and which issues have gotten alot of attention in the press.

The poll doesn't mean anything. But what it effectively does it weaken the President and make it near impossible to get anything done because of the perceived weakness.


I disagree, waiting until election time will be too late. The American people's dissatisfaction needs to be heard now.
You state this, but it implies that the polling is an accurate reflection of American disasatisfaction. They are not.
 
Call 10 of your friends. Ask them the very same questions. If 6 of 10 say that their opinion is that he's doing a lousy job, is that accurate? If not, then your friends opinions don't matter. That's the problem.
 
barry2952 said:
Call 10 of your friends. Ask them the very same questions. If 6 of 10 say that their opinion is that he's doing a lousy job, is that accurate? If not, then your friends opinions don't matter. That's the problem.

If I give ten of my friends the opportunity to bitch about anything, they'll take me up on the offer. What does it mean, especially when the guy was reelected with a resounding majority.

Since these polls have become a staple of the news, have you had more or less confidence in government? Can you tell me the positive associated with these relentless polls?

So they are vague, misused by the media for ideological reasons, and they make it increasingly difficult for our politicians to effectively govern.

And, incase you didn't notice, I made a lot of points prior to this post. None of which you responded to, instead you just repeated yourself.
 
Why respond to individual points when you fail to acknowledge that the vast majority of Americans think Bush is doing a lousy job?

Apparently, it doesn't matter to you what I think either. You've already made up your mind. Therein lies the problem.

Now that Iraq is on the verge of all out civil war, I believe that the American people will turn of GWB like you've never seen before. You'll not be able to blame the media for this one.
 
barry2952 said:
Why respond to individual points when you fail to acknowledge that the vast majority of Americans think Bush is doing a lousy job?

Apparently, it doesn't matter to you what I think either. You've already made up your mind. Therein lies the problem.

Now that Iraq is on the verge of all out civil war, I believe that the American people will turn of GWB like you've never seen before. You'll not be able to blame the media for this one.

Let's say nothing in world changes. The US economy stays the same, Iraq stays the same, Iran is the same. The only thing that changes is the way the media reports the news.

The media places front page how well the economy is doing (which this month astounded the experts), they report on the accomplishments being made by the Americans in Iraq and have nightly news reports from Iraqis saying how grateful they are for our help. The media reports that a majority of Iranians don't want to confront the West but don't know how to get rid of the mullahs and are asking for help. The media reports that the Clinton administration cut deals with the Chinese to own and control ports here and in Panama. The media reports that America's best chance for energy independence lies within our own territories and supports continued exploration, drilling and mining. I know this is a make-believe world but what do you think your polls would show? Would not Bush be in the mid to high seventies in approval? To deny this simple truth would be to demonstrate the hypocrisy in media reporting and the very simple truth that people believe what they are told because they are too lazy to figure it out themselves. All you have proven with your polls is that people are sheeple and polls lead them. That is why lefties love them. The rest of us rely on our brains for what we think.
 
How hypocritical Bryan. You're the one that started the thread on polls and touted Rasmussen as being accurate until Bush faltered. Now the polls don't mean anything. Talking out both sides of your mouth again.
 
barry2952 said:
How hypocritical Bryan. You're the one that started the thread on polls and touted Rasmussen as being accurate until Bush faltered. Now the polls don't mean anything. Talking out both sides of your mouth again.
Confused again, eh.

I touted the Rasmussen poll as being the most accurate. So what the poll shows is the accuracy of the media's mis-reporting of the news. My previous statement backs up this assertion. Most people believe what they are told because they are not deeply involved and don't attempt to seek the truth. Ask them who is on the Simpsons and they will score 100. As them who is on the Supreme Court and they can't name a one.

You are so blinded by the rose colored glasses and the kool-aid you drink has removed your senses.

Ever since 1994, the day the earth stood still, the day the liberals watched in horror as the Country moved to the Right, the media has never recovered. And since Bush won in 2000, they have been on the warpath. They know if they cannot turn the electorate, liberalism perishes, at least for a few decades.

So what we have witnessed the last 5 years is a war between conservative ideology and liberalism. With the media in the back pocket of Democrats, it comes as no surprise that they will mis-report and twist any news to further their agenda. Time to wake up to that fact and get back on the team.
 
barry2952 said:
You'll not be able to blame the media for this one.
Perfect examples...

In the last couple of days the New York Times ran Page One another Abu Graib story. Supposedly the Iraqi that was photographed on the basket with a hood over his head was telling his story. The only problem, he was not who he proclaimed to be. Who revealed the hoax, lie, whatever? None other that another liberal rag, Salon.

The fantastic econmic news reported yesterday??? Page 3 of the business section.

I could point out the 'proof' day in and day out. I've already wasted more time today than I promised myself I would. I simply have to give up. It appears the Left has drank too much kool-aid, brain damage has occurred and it is irreversible. I'm not wasting any more time. Back to something productive.
 
barry2952 said:
Call 10 of your friends. Ask them the very same questions. If 6 of 10 say that their opinion is that he's doing a lousy job, is that accurate? If not, then your friends opinions don't matter. That's the problem.
There are many problems. And polls are part of the problem. What if those 10 friends were given faulty information? Does their opinion count when rendering a judgment on the truth? Politics is perception, which in turn is power. I never tire of saying this: polls are worthless (to me, anyway). But I will add that they can be very damaging.

Bush is down in the polls, and most likely will stay down. Point conceded.

But Winston Churchill had tremendous highs and lows in his political career as well. After being defeated in 1945 by a huge landslide, he and his party came back and won in 1951. He won despite his opponents' claims of him being a "warmonger" among other things. Sound familiar?

But time and again conservative ideology has been brought into power in times of great turmoil in order to stabilize and strengthen. Liberalism also has good points, at times. But if conservatism loses now, don't fret. If and when things go bad under liberal rule, the people will come around. Likewise for the liberals.
 
I don't see how polls damage the President. They are just people's opinions.

Wednesday March 15, 2006--Forty-three percent (43%) of American adults now approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-six percent (56%) disapprove.

For the first time ever, a majority of Americans (52%) say that the U.S. mission in Iraq will be judged a failure. Just 32% believe history will judge it a success.
 
But that means 63% of americans do, do disaprove of the president...thats some good numbers on his side!
 
Vitas said:
What would you suggest is a solution to your dilemma?

Apparently, answering what are often loaded questions, presented in a skewed manner by the media, consitutes effecting change?

You'd think that democracy couldn't function prior to weekly CBS/NYTIMES/CNN/ZOGBY pollings.
 
Calabrio said:
Apparently, answering what are often loaded questions, presented in a skewed manner by the media, consitutes effecting change?

You'd think that democracy couldn't function prior to weekly CBS/NYTIMES/CNN/ZOGBY pollings.

Presidents are elected to four year terms. Perhaps Barry will explain his point of view.
 
Friday March 17, 2006--Forty-one percent (41%) of American adults now approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That's just one point above the lowest level ever measured by Rasmussen Reports.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) disapprove.

The President earns approval from 75% of Republicans, 14% of Democrats and 33% of those not affiliated with either major party. Until last fall, the President typically enjoyed approval ratings in the high-80s among Republicans.

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Americans believe that President Bush should be censured, or formally reprimanded, by the U.S. Senate.
 
barry2952 said:
Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Americans believe that President Bush should be censured, or formally reprimanded, by the U.S. Senate.
Wow, what a shock! The haters are at 42% in the poll but 'only' 38% want censure? Barry, looks like you have some more work to do. Looks like 4% of the haters haven't jumped on your bandwagon yet.
 

Members online

Back
Top