Rasmussen Poll: Bush Approval-48%; Pew Poll: Bush Approval-40% (Real Poll vs. Fake Poll)

[new yorker 77]

---

Rasmussen Poll: Bush Job Approval - 48%, 2/4 - 2/6

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

---

Pew Research Poll: Bush Job Approval - 40%, 2/1 - 2/5

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=269

---

[DrDeb]

The following is all you need to know about the PEW Poll:

PEW RESEARCH
[As Maddie Albright's polling organization, Pew routinely oversamples Democrats. This month it did so by 8 points -- +3 Rs vs Ds and another +5 Independents who lean Democrat vs Republican, for a total of +8. With this in mind, the following polling results are quite POSITIVE for the President]:

Feb 2006 40% approve 52% disapprove
Jan 2006 38% approve 54% disapprove
Dec 2005 38% approve 54% disapprove
Nov 2005 36% approve 55% disapprove
Oct 2005 38% approve 56% disapprove
Sep 2005 40% approve 52% disapprove

While most ratings held steady; the following actually INCREASED in February:

IRAQ: 38% approve
(before Nov 04 election: 37%)

TERRORISM: 53% approve 40% disapprove
(highest since May 05)

IRAQ: 51% right decision 44% wrong decision
(before Nov 04 election: 48% right 41% wrong)

HOW WELL IS GOVERNMENT DOING IN REDUCING THE THREAT OF TERRORISM:
68% (very well/fairly well) . . . Jan 06 66%

WHAT CONCERNS YOU MORE ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S ANTI-TERRORISM POLICIES:
33%. . . gone too far in restricting the average person's civil liberties.
50%. . . that they have not gone far enough to adequately protect the country.

DO YOU THINK IT GENERALLY RIGHT OR GENERALLY WRONG FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO MONITOR TELEPHONE AND E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS OF AMERICANS SUSPECTED OF HAVING TERRORIST TIES WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING PERMISSION FROM THE COURTS?:
Feb 06 54% right 43% wrong
Jan 06 48% right 47% wrong
[Take that Specter, Leahy, et al!!]

[click on 'topline questionnaire'(ignore leftist analysis)!]
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=269

[FreedomNeocon]

All polls are BS, not even because of biased questioning or oversampling, but because of weighting.

Poll 112 people and then weight it assuming America is 31% republican 32% democrat and 37% independant, or whatever 'weight' they want to make it.

So it so totally fugeable, ESPICALLY if a bunch of pollsters 'agree' on a set of weights.

The only 'test' of these weights are elections of course, as others pointed out.

Finally, I think since so many democrats run away from 'liberal', that ex-democrats are describing themselves as 'independant'. This has the effect of both making the 'democrat' percentage more 'pure' and so higher, while also bringing down the previously more conservative 'independant' pool.

If you do not adjust your 'weighting' in that case, it compounds the inaccuracy of the polls.

Of course the is biased questioning and all that, I mean there are a million reasons why polling is generally useless, and BY FAR the most important factor in accuracy is in sample size... thus elections.

[FreedomNeocon]

One last thing... CBS/WSJ polls has bush between 38-40 in their last 6 polls dating back to just after Katrina.

Stupid WSJ

[MikefromOhio]

I kinda doubt that.

Maybe 60% as it would shore up the right and bring most of the moderates, but 75% would be too much to ask for given the climate out there. There is definitely 40% of this country that will be opposed to President Bush no matter what he says, does or proposes.

[new yorker 77]

You sound like Paul Begala.

Rasmussen gets elections right. Conservatives know that.

If you believe the Pew poll, including the 'breakdown' they give you, you will achieve useful idiot status.

I no longer take the liberal bait.

[DTogo]

Stop trying to "moderate" my wishful thinking! ;)

[MikefromOhio]

LOL

just being real...... :)

[ruschpa]

I still think the numbers should be better for Bush especially with the good economic numbers...

[new yorker 77]

The numbers are better.

When you poll non-voters, you get poor results.

American adults, national adults.

Poll 'likely voters' with a fair sample of GOP and Dems, Bush is at 51%.

Skew your poll to justify your FAKE News and poll on the cheap by polling ' national adults' instead of likely voters and you get garbage.

My tagline speaks for itself.

Liberals and feckless Republicans hate it.

[Soul Seeker]

Absurd.

The fact is that there are more than 25% of people in this country that are possessed with irrational hatred toward this President. In large part because partisanship has trumped rational thought on their parts. Better enforcement of immigration would not put him at 75%. It wouldn't even put him at 57%.

He got 51% of the vote in the November election, even with his stance on immigration and his approval was slightly above that at the time. Even under the most optimum of conditions, I do not believe he could ever get above 57% in this poisonous political atmosphere the DNC/MSM have constructed. And that, as I said, only under almost near perfect performance AND sustained coverage for months on end.

It is one thing to trumpet border enforcement. Quite another to throw out nonsensical numbers like 75% at his feet should he do so. It is not realistic under any circumstance.

[Dave S]

If you believe the Pew poll, including the 'breakdown' they give you, you will achieve useful idiot status.

So I should believe Rassmussens secret sauce recipe rather than reported data from Pew. Guess you couldn't find anything wrong with the percentages, you just had to attack the messenger instead. What a useful idiot you are. You are beginning to sound like Nancy Pelosi.

[DTogo]

I was exaggerating to make a point, thought it was obvious.

[justshutupandtakeit]

This is not the major problem it is made out to be and is more of a nuisance than a danger. It is generally just a means of attacking Bush by appealing to the unaware and pseudo-conservatives. Most of those obsessed with this issue never even voted for Bush or if they did bitched and whined about it all the while.

Though a problem from several perspectives II is not the ONLY problem in the world nor is it even the problem those obessed with it try and make it. Most Americans are not even willing to force their local and state authorities to cooperate with federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws and even declare their cities to be "Sanctuary" cities. And the churches are often even worse in their misguided "humanitarianism."

As far as a National Security concern it does not even rise above that posed by the Northern border from whence the only thwarted attack we are aware of came. Canada is the home of far more moslems than Mexico and the numbers are growing.

[DTogo]

This is not the major problem it is made out to be and is more of a nuisance than a danger.

10~15M unknown people in your country in time af war, draining billions from the economy, is just a nuisance?

It is generally just a means of attacking Bush by appealing to the unaware and pseudo-conservatives. Most of those obsessed with this issue never even voted for Bush or if they did bitched and whined about it all the while.

So FReepers concerned about our border security and having millions of unknown, ILLEGAL people in our country are just a bunch of psuedo-conservatives. Why, because we don't think Bush walks on water? I voted for him twice and still have the "Bush-Cheney '04" bumper sticker on the car. Constructive criticism/activism is NOT psuedo-conservatism.

Though a problem from several perspectives II is not the ONLY problem in the world nor is it even the problem those obessed with it try and make it.

Says you.

Most Americans are not even willing to force their local and state authorities to cooperate with federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws and even declare their cities to be "Sanctuary" cities.

False, most Americans other than the far left ARE very concerned with this issue and ARE demanding action, which is why it continues to be in the news at MANY local levels and the national level.

And the churches are often even worse in their misguided "humanitarianism."

Yes, they are.

As far as a National Security concern it does not even rise above that posed by the Northern border from whence the only thwarted attack we are aware of came. Canada is the home of far more moslems than Mexico and the numbers are growing.

Incursions by drug/human-running gangs assisted by the host country's military is a MAJOR national security concern. While their may be many Muslims in Canada due to misguided policies there, the Government in general is not "on the take" by gangs, nor does it's military assist such gangs with incursions and illegal activities into the U.S.

[AmishDude]

One problem with weighting is that in a time where being a D is embarassing, more people will call themselves I than D.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The reason this story is given play is because it can be used to attack Bush. If you cannot see that then you are extremely naive. There would not be ANY publicity if this were a RAT administration.

It has nothing to do with terror nor will it become a problem for many reasons but that won't stop those pretending that it has. Nor are Mexican military invading the US. Any fool can wear khaki.

Studies about the actual costs of II do not show the numbers to be very high as a percent of the national economy. Costs on localities can be very high and should be addressed. Most people would screech like scalded dogs if the price of their food escalates because of the removal of farm workers.

Only those without any knowledge of the costs pretend this issue can be solved without a massive use of military forces which we do not have available. Rhetoric is cheap particularly from those with little grasp of the realities involved.

[DTogo]

The reason this story is given play is because it can be used to attack Bush.

And he deserves to be criticised for not addressing this issue.

Nor are Mexican military invading the US.

So cross-border incursions to assist drug/human smugglers is OK, so long as it's not a formal "invasion" for a take-over of the U.S.?

Only those without any knowledge of the costs pretend this issue can be solved without a massive use of military forces which we do not have available. Rhetoric is cheap particularly from those with little grasp of the realities involved.

So what's the "cost" here to these people ? Does everything have to involve a cost-benefit analysis, as long as our lettuce and strawberries are cheap - screw the I.I. working for sub-market wages?

Screw the American who might have taken the job for a few dollars more, but who can't compete against I.I. labor used to $.25/hour back home?

Screw the American who gets killed in a car accident, hit by an I.I.?

Screw the American communities who's hospitals and schools face budget constraints due to an influx of I.I. patients and students who can't speak English and shouldn't be here to begin with?

Screw the Law, who needs to enforce/obey it anyway? Any other laws we can all now disobey with impunity?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Bush has addressed the issue. It is not the end-all-and-be-all some around here try to make it.

I don't believe there have been any involvement of Mexican military within this country. Certainly none with any official approval. There may be American military involved in illegal activity here and there but not with US sanction.

Life has costs, accidents happen, people get killed. Trying to tie all the misery in the world to II is silly but whip yourself up with such silliness if you like. Even with all the problems caused by II the costs as a whole are still quite low according the studies by even those most opposed to it. This can be handled without panic or hysteria.