Bush approval rating at 31% - I'm surprised!

[highthief]

This is not a shot at Bush - he's gone in a few months anyway - but a question for the Americans.

I think most people would agree that the US position is not great right now - stuck in two intractable wars and with an economy teetering on the precipice of recession or worse.

Are you surprised that 31% - nearly 100 million Americans (pretending that all are of voting age) - still think Bush is doing a fine job?

What would a sitting president have to do to get a lower approval rating? Truman was down to 22% in 1952 - I presume Korea and nuclear fears may have had something to do with that but I never realized he was so unpopular. Tricky Dicky hit 24% as a result of Watergate.

(Please, no 14 page posts in response complete with graphs, host - genuine opinions welcome, but the OP has no desire to read 14 pages of graphs and links)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/19/bush.poll/

Five years after he green-lighted the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, President Bush faced strikingly low approval ratings as he reaffirmed his commitment to "accept no outcome but victory" in the war.

A poll out Wednesday finds that 67 percent of those surveyed disapprove of President Bush.

Just 31 percent of Americans approve of how President Bush is handling his job, according to a poll released Wednesday, the anniversary of the start of the conflict in 2003.

Sixty-seven percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey disapprove of the president's performance.

The 31 percent approval number is a new low for Bush in CNN polling and is 40 points lower than the president's number at the start of the Iraq war.

"Bush's approval rating five years ago, at the start of the Iraq war, was 71 percent, and that 40-point drop is almost identical to the drop President Lyndon Johnson faced during the Vietnam War," CNN polling director Keating Holland said.

"Johnson's approval rating was 74 percent just before Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964, which effectively authorized the Vietnam War. Four years later, his approval was down to 35 percent, a 39-point drop that is statistically identical to what Bush has faced so far over the length of the Iraq war," he said.

Still, Bush's approval number is still better than the lowest number for his father, George H.W. Bush, who bottomed out at 29 percent in July 1992; Jimmy Carter, who fell to 28 percent in June 1979; Richard Nixon, at 24 percent in July and August 1974; and Harry Truman, who dipped to 22 percent in 1952.

[Willravel]

Those polls simply cannot be trusted. I could guess, maybe 15%, but really it's anyone's guess at this point.

[Bees]

Originally Posted by highthief

What would a sitting president have to do to get a lower approval rating?

Invade Iran.

[highthief]

Originally Posted by willravel

Those polls simply cannot be trusted. I could guess, maybe 15%, but really it's anyone's guess at this point.

Why do you say that?

The polls suggest, in the case of Bush, a pretty steady decline in his popularity from the initial days of the "War on Terror" to today.

Originally Posted by Bees

Invade Iran.

Wouldn't that improve his approval rating? It did with Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Willravel]

I'd say that because I hope there aren't that many idiots. It's my unfettered optimism talking.

[roachboy]

i dont think the administration has the political credibility domestically--not to mention internationally--to do anything relative to iran.

much of the consternation--which i think is bubbling away out there--over the possibility that the bush squad would snap and invade iran comes from fallon's resignation last week over the esquire article that appeared about him, and the position he expressed relative to the administration's plan regarding iran.

as for the cnn/opinion research corporation poll: no methodology details=no credibility of results. it's pretty simple.

[Tully Mars]

Originally Posted by willravel

I'd say that because I hope there aren't that many idiots. It's my unfettered optimism talking.

Sadly, I think you're wrong. There really are that many idiots out there.

[SirSeymour]

Actually, this does not surprise me much. There is still a large segment of the hard core political right that believes Bush and his administration are doing a fine job. For many of these in the GOP base, Bush can do little wrong.

I am not sure I agree with the idea of a straight "up/down" approval rating. It is too simplistic for what is really a very complicated thing.

[Ustwo]

Hes still got a higher approval rating than congress on some polls

I have issue with several things he's done, but I rather doubt any of them would be the same issues as the typical tilted far left poster.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Hes still got a higher approval rating than congress on some polls

I think we've been through that before.

There is no comparison between polls of one man's policies and actions vs polls of a body of 535 men/women with various competing policies and positions....which nearly always have put Congress's approval rating lower than any recent President.

More important than the polls of a president's job performance are the "country is on the right track/wrong track" polls....and those are hovering around a historically low 20% "right track"..... http://pollingreport.com/right.htm

With "right track" number so low, you would think it would have a negative impact on the majority party in Congress as much as the President, but most Congressional election polls have Democrats picking up 3-5 seats in the Senate and 12-15 seats in the House in the Nov election.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I think we've been through that before.

Then why go threw it again. I don't base my opinion on polls and I assume you don't either.

So you say 'well of course congress has a worse approval rating' but who cares.

Its interesting how when Bush was re-elected the people not blaming the vast right wing conspiracy were blaming the sheeple, but now that his approval rating is low, well suddenly these peoples opinions matter and say something important.

We need to be honest here, most people don't know jack/squat over whats going on. They 'feel' things are good or bad, thats special but meaningless.

So his approval ratings are low, hey that sucks for elections but really doesn't phase me one way or another about the rightness or wrongness of those policies.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Then why go threw it again. I don't base my opinion on polls and I assume you don't either.

Why go threw (sic) it again?

Simply to correct a misconception that you seem to like to perpetuate that one can compare the two numbers.

And, NO...I dont want to be your secretary and you can't afford me anyway.

[tisonlyi]

Assuming that no ridiculous idea of a polling question, such as - "Do you think it's possible that President Bush, who has passed laws which allow he himself and no other to determine who is and is not a terrorist and subject to indefinite imprisonment without trial and/or bureaucratic harassment at every opportunity, could possibly have ran the economy any worse during his terms?"

No: 79%
Maybe: 21%
Yes: 10%

Therefore 31% think he's ok!

- then the really sad thing is, I believe it's theoretically possible to gain a majority in the UK parliament with such a standing. *weeps for countrymen*

[fresnelly]

I believe that when most people consider a politician, they concern themselves with perceived character and ideals rather than policy record. Perhaps that 31% admire his spiritual convictions or "gumption" or perseverence and so on.

Mel Lastman was Toronto's lame duck mayor a few years ago and as he slunk out of office I remember a news station interviewing folks as to whether they'd vote for him again if he were to run. This one woman said "Oh yes! I like him. He's fiesty!"

She and and that 31% may or may not be deluded idiots but it reveals a disconnect for many of us between politicians' work and our day to day lives.

[allaboutmusic]

Originally Posted by Bees

Invade Iran.

If he invaded New York State he might get a lower approval rating.

[Tully Mars]

Originally Posted by allaboutmusic

If he invaded New York State he might get a lower approval rating.

Given Bush's base, invading NY might improve his numbers. Hell, just taking out the NYT building might give him a 2-3% bump. Ann Coulter and her minions would be dancing in the streets.

[sprocket]

All you have to do is spend a little time on some conservative message boards to see how deluded many still are.

[reconmike]

Originally Posted by sprocket

All you have to do is spend a little time on some conservative message boards to see how deluded many still are.

As the same with spending some time on the liberal boards will show you just how pathetlically looney and out of touch with reality they are.

[ottopilot]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I think we've been through that before.

There is no comparison between polls of one man's policies and actions vs polls of a body of 535 men/women with various competing policies and positions....which nearly always have put Congress's approval rating lower than any recent President.

Yes, polls regarding the utter disgraceful performance of the co-equal branch of government ushered in by the public mandate (say anything to get elected, not following through, posers), managing the peoples demands (earmarks), serving the public as incorruptible stewards (pork-barrel) of our great nation, should never be compared to the president ... and because they are absolutely powerless and without constitutional responsibility, should never be held accountable for failing to do their jobs.

[dc_dux]

Otto...I agree with everything you cited about the publics perception of Congress, but that doesn't make a comparison to polls of Bush (or any president) any more credible.

You wont find any reputable political analysts making such a comparison....its apples and oranges.....opinions regarding one man vs. a diverse group of 535.

The reasons for low opinion of Congress generally come from both sides of the political spectrum to a far greater extent than the public views of any sitting president

Members of Congress arent living up to their campaign promises

Members of Congress are using arcane parliamentary procedures to block the will of the people.

Congress is attempting to micromanage the war in Iraq

Congress is not doing enough to end the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq

Congress is conducting a personal vendetta against Bush with all those oversight hearings

Congress is not spending enough time or taking tough enough action in oversight of Bush administration

Congress wastes money on earmarks and pork projects

Congress cut funds for a program that my district/state desperately needs

And as a result, public opinion of the work of a legislative body of men/women with conflicting and competing interests generally is lower than public opinion of the work of an individual acting in an executive capacity.

Voters also have greater means to hold the executive accountable....vote him/her out. A voter can only hold one person (or three) accountable in the legislative body.

add:

An interesting poll today that said government leaders should pay attention to polls.

a new poll finds that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe government leaders should pay attention to public opinion polls and that the public should generally have more influence over government leaders than it does.



World Public Opinion Poll

[rlbond86]

Let's not forget that 25% supported Nixon.