Bush's Approval Rating Hits New Low
- Thread starter barry2952
- Start date
Saturday March 18, 2006--Forty percent (40%) of American adults now approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That matches the lowest level ever measured by Rasmussen Reports.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) disapprove.
The President earns approval from 73% of Republicans, 16% of Democrats and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party. Until last fall, the President typically enjoyed approval ratings in the high-80s among Republicans.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) disapprove.
The President earns approval from 73% of Republicans, 16% of Democrats and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party. Until last fall, the President typically enjoyed approval ratings in the high-80s among Republicans.
You are aware that he had poll numbers similarly low prior to the 2004 election. There is a distinction between approval ratings" and voting.
If you think these polls are important,
state, for the record, how you anticipate the 2006 elections to go.
If you think these polls are important,
state, for the record, how you anticipate the 2006 elections to go.
That's not an answer-
In 2006,
will Republicans retain the House and the Senate?
What Democrat candidate looks like they have any possibilty of winning both their party nomination and then the general election?
And how do you possibly think a Democrat anything will reign in spending. Can you point to any program that the Democrats are willing to cut? The problem with the Republicans hasn't really been their spending, but their reluctant to cut programs.
Since the Democrats are opposed to ANY reform of Social Security and Medicare, it's really near impossible to control spending. Those two programs are about HALF of the total budget.
Clinton was able to cut the size of government, but we never talk about how. He did it by cutting the size of the military.
In 2006,
will Republicans retain the House and the Senate?
What Democrat candidate looks like they have any possibilty of winning both their party nomination and then the general election?
And how do you possibly think a Democrat anything will reign in spending. Can you point to any program that the Democrats are willing to cut? The problem with the Republicans hasn't really been their spending, but their reluctant to cut programs.
Since the Democrats are opposed to ANY reform of Social Security and Medicare, it's really near impossible to control spending. Those two programs are about HALF of the total budget.
Clinton was able to cut the size of government, but we never talk about how. He did it by cutting the size of the military.
Sunday March 19, 2006--For the second straight day, just 40% of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Prior to the past two days, the President's Job Approval had fallen to that level just once in a Rasmussen Reports survey.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
barry2952 said:
Now there is a QUANDARY. Should we take a poll as to WHO CARES what Barry said?
WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday dismissed suggestions that the Bush White House, hampered by a weak response to Hurricane Katrina and stumbles on policy questions, needs a shake-up.
``I don't think we can pay any attention to that kind of thing,'' Cheney said on CBS ``Face the Nation.'' ``The president has got a job to do. ... He ignores the background noise that's out there in the polls that are taken on a daily basis.''
Bush's job approval in March was at 37 percent, which tied for his lowest rating in the AP-Ipsos poll. Senior Republicans and others have said the Bush team may need an infusion of fresh blood and ideas.
``I don't think we can pay any attention to that kind of thing,'' Cheney said on CBS ``Face the Nation.'' ``The president has got a job to do. ... He ignores the background noise that's out there in the polls that are taken on a daily basis.''
Bush's job approval in March was at 37 percent, which tied for his lowest rating in the AP-Ipsos poll. Senior Republicans and others have said the Bush team may need an infusion of fresh blood and ideas.
I asked Barry what he thought.
But here is what he said:
That's not a predicition. I hope to find a winning lotto ticket. But I don't expect it to happen.
So, I'll reask my question to Barry- What do you think will happen?
You seem interested in these polls, what tangible things do they foreshadow.
But here is what he said:
barry2952 said:
That's not a predicition. I hope to find a winning lotto ticket. But I don't expect it to happen.
So, I'll reask my question to Barry- What do you think will happen?
You seem interested in these polls, what tangible things do they foreshadow.
But Bush isn't running again, so the 2006 polls will have absolute ZERO influence on the 2008 Presidential race. As has been mentioned repeatedly, the low polling numbers didn't even prevent President Bush from being REELECTED.
Furthermore, which Democrat would you, or the public, be comfortable placing the national security and foreign policy in the control of? Because, despite the spin, the executive branch's job really isn't formulating domestic policy. They are to enforce it, true. But one of the most important roles of the Executive office is foreign affairs, particularly during times of war.
So, which Democrat do you think will keep the U.S. secure? I can't think of a single Democrat who's won the nomination within my lifetime that would have. Carter, Mondale, Dukokis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry....none of them.
So, who do you see?
And if you say someone like Lieberman, or any other semi-hawkish Democrat, how the hell are they going to win the nomination, capturing the MoveOn.org base critical in a primary.
Furthermore, which Democrat would you, or the public, be comfortable placing the national security and foreign policy in the control of? Because, despite the spin, the executive branch's job really isn't formulating domestic policy. They are to enforce it, true. But one of the most important roles of the Executive office is foreign affairs, particularly during times of war.
So, which Democrat do you think will keep the U.S. secure? I can't think of a single Democrat who's won the nomination within my lifetime that would have. Carter, Mondale, Dukokis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry....none of them.
So, who do you see?
And if you say someone like Lieberman, or any other semi-hawkish Democrat, how the hell are they going to win the nomination, capturing the MoveOn.org base critical in a primary.
barry2952 said:
Were you saying that before the 2002, when the Republicans regained the Senate and increased their strength in the House?
Were you saying that in 2004, when, despite low poll numbers and being 10 points behind, Bush went on to win the election by a resounding margin.
And, if you really think these polls are telling in 2006, then why don't you think the Democrats will take control of the Congress?
You seem to have a problem understanding that I hold no malice for the Republican Party. I just detest GWB and his cronies. Looks like I'm not alone.
BTW, your statement that BuSh won by a resounding margin is BS and you know it.
I didn't say that that I think the Republicans maintain control of Congress. I said that was my hope. It is my hope, again, the a Democratic President is elected an that that President is reigned in, financially, by a Republican Congress.
That's all I've ever said. You may now proceed to twist my words.
BTW, your statement that BuSh won by a resounding margin is BS and you know it.
I didn't say that that I think the Republicans maintain control of Congress. I said that was my hope. It is my hope, again, the a Democratic President is elected an that that President is reigned in, financially, by a Republican Congress.
That's all I've ever said. You may now proceed to twist my words.
Yeah. Just look at the polls.barry2952 said:
51% to 48%.
286 to 252 Electoral Votes.
Bush was the first President to win with a majority since 1992.
62,040,606 vs 59,028,109
And, if you really believed the polls published by the MSM, Bush was going to lose all day.
I don't need to twist anything. You did say "hope," but that wasn't adequate. I pressed you for a specific. You responded by saying, "I think the polls foreshadow a Republican CONGRESS for 2006 and a Democratic PRESIDENCY in 2008. Is that clear enough?"
And I thanked you for providing an answer. So don't accuse me of twisting your words, especially the problem is your confusion.
As I've stated before, if these polls warrant the focus and attention you think they deserve, they must foreshadow results in the coming election. But, you're still "hoping" for things. Based on this polling "data" what do EXPECT to happen. If this information is important (or even accurate) you should be able to present some predicition for the coming election.
Not hope. Right brain answers. Think, calculate, analyze, determine.
If you can't even use these polls to determine how they'll influence the 2006, or 2008, elections, they have virtually no value- other than to politically weaken the appearance of the President.
So now you agree that polls can be damaging? You continue to amaze me.barry2952 said:
Doesn't anybody else actually read the poll questions and see just how misleading the questions and answer options can be? They could be of limited use, but more often than not they are purely propaganda tools.