Poll: 39% approval rating

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/13/poll.iran/index.html ^ | CNN

[ruschpa]

"The respondents' concerns were echoed in President Bush's overall approval rating, which dropped to 39 percent, down from 42 percent in a poll taken February 6-9.

Fifty-six percent of respondents said they disapproved of the way the president is handling his job.

The margin of error in the poll is plus or minus 3 percentage points."

[R.W.Ratikal]

How accurate are polls? In a country where over one half of the population could not name the president, how many know what kind of job he is dong or even has a clue about what his job is?

Give me a break!

[Reagan Man]

When the polls are looking up for PresBush, people who support him are happy. When the polls are looking down for PresBush, everyone finds any excuse to explain away the bad numbers. Usually the blame is placed on the MSM. Fine. I've always thought, if you take the middle ground of all polls, you'd see about where Bush is really sitting. Take those Democrat slanted polls and add 5% to them. You'll be the neighborhhod. Rasmussen 49%, CNN 39%. Bush is probably around 44%-45%. One number is pretty consistent throughout all the polls. Bush gets his best numbers and most support when the issue is the WOT. That's the issue he was reelected on and the issue that keeps giving him his highest support.

[johna61]

Don't trust anything from Red Teds Clintoon News Network

[ruschpa]

The problem is the WOT is the only issue which has a positive rating on.
There should be so many more, starting with the economy...

[jmc1969]

The president needs to get the IED deaths down in Iraq and Afghanistan if he does everything will start to improve.

[operation clinton cleanup]

Some day the will make available their polling sample and methodologies.

[M Kehoe]

Good evening. Nothing against you, but I could give a rat's ass what the polls say.

Oh, btw, FU liberals reading this post.

5.56mm

[COEXERJ145]

Probably surveyed 50% or more Democrat.

[DrDeb]

"The problem is the WOT is the only issue which has a positive rating on. There should be so many more, starting with the economy..."


Given the flawed sampling procedures used by the MSM pollsters, how do we know what the President is getting credit for and what he's not?! [The MSM pollsters won't get 'serious' about their polling results until next October . . . until then, it's all about embarrassing the President and demoralizing Republicans!]

FYI: Last week, RASMUSSEN noted that 55% of INVESTORS approve of the President's job performance! . . . And it's the investor class that pays attention to the economy and it's the investor class that votes!!!

[DrDeb]

I don't deal in "excuses"; I deal in "facts"!


HISTORICAL FACT:

During 5 1/2 of his 8 years as president, Reagan posted JA ratings in the low/mid 30s to mid/high 40s -- MUCH lower than the ratings earned by BJ Clinton or GWB. [In fact, GWB still possesses an average JA rating higher than Reagan's (60% vs 53%) and has yet to reach Reagan's lowest Gallup JA rating of 35%!]

Does anyone today remember Reagan's 'substandard' JA ratings; does anyone care?! NO! And certainly, no one regards Clinton as a better president than Reagan.

Bottomline: LEADERS LEAD; LOSERS READ POLLS! Fortunately for us, President Bush is a leader!

[TheForceOfOne]

When president Bush's polls drop, its a clear sign the Liberals are pi%%ed off and aim to take revenge through polling data. The question is, what are the pi%%ed off about this time?

[Reagan Man]

>>>>I don't deal in "excuses"; I deal in "facts"!

I did some research at the Gallup website.

>>>>During 5 1/2 of his 8 years as president, Reagan posted JA ratings in the low/mid 30s to mid/high 40s ..

Wrong. Just the opoosite.

During 3 years of his 8 years as President, Reagan posted an average annual JA below 50%. Reagan's highest single JA was 68%. Reagan left office with a 57% JA. Second highest JA rating of any outgoing POTUS since Truman retired. Below is the Gallup chart that shows Reagan's annual ratings for his entire 8 years in office.

Ronald Reagan's Job Approval: Yearly Averages, 1981-1988

Reagan was NEVER in the low 30s at any time in his eight years as President. Reagan's lowest Gallup JA rating was 35% on Jan28-Jan31 1983, 37% Jan 14-17 1983 and 37% Jan 21-24 1983. Bush43's lowest job approval ratings, 39% Oct 13-16 2005, 37% Nov 11-13 2005 and 38% Nov 17-20 2005. No real difference between Reagan and Bush43 on the low end JA.

The following is the fifth year Gallup JA ratings for all the President's, from Truman to Bush43. Eisenhoweer and Reagan were 1-2 in JA. As you can see Bush43 didn't do so well in his fifth year in office, 45.8%. Just ahead of Johnson and Nixon.

62.8% Eisenhower Jan. 20, 1957-Jan. 19, 1958

60.4% Reagan Jan. 20, 1985-Jan. 19, 1986

57.9% Clinton Jan. 20, 1997-Jan. 19, 1998

50.2% Truman Jan. 20, 1949-Jan. 19, 1950

45.8% George W. Bush Jan. 20, 2005-Jan. 19, 2006

43.9% Johnson Jan. 20, 1967-Jan. 19, 1968

41.1% Nixon Jan. 20, 1973-Jan. 19, 1974

You said Bush43 was ahead of Reagan 60% to 53% in overall JA. That is true, however, Bush is after only 5 years, Reagan was after a full 8 years. Really a meaningless figure. Like his Father, Bush43`s JA numbers were inflated right after 9-11. And remember, Bush41 left office with a 61% JA rating, higher then Reagan or his son, but couldn't get reelected.

Bottomline: LEADERS LEAD and GOOD LEADERS READ POLLS! In fact, all the President's from FDR to Bush43 have paid attention to the polls. They'd be stupid not too.

[DrDeb]

Year over year comparisons mean nothing, i.e. 5th year vs 5th year. [I don't recall, but were you touting y/y comparisons for B:R's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years in office?!]

I'm off to a day of meetings; however, the information I'm perusing as I type provides a monthly vs annual summary of Gallup (and various other poll) averages . . . so immediately, I can see that Reagan posted JA ratings below 50% from 11/1981 thru 12/1983 then again from 11/1986 thru 1/1988 and then some months below 50% in 1988.]

We're splitting hairs here. Again, bottomline:

LEADERS LEAD; LOSERS READ POLLS.

[I'm sure both Reagan and Bush closely examined polls prior to their respective re-election bids -- I know that Reagan (briefly/other Republican leaders not so briefly) became so concerned by his poll numbers in 1983 that he considered withdrawing from the race (1984). HOWEVER, after their re-elections, I don't believe Reagan then or Bush now focused on their JA ratings (legacy maybe, but not JA ratings)!]

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>We're splitting hairs here.

Not really. You made the statment:

>>>>I don't deal in "excuses"; I deal in "facts"!

Well, your facts were wrong, thereby making your remarks sound like excuses. You made false statments about Reagan's poll numbers and I corrected you. Reagan's JA numbers were never in the low 30s at any time, as you said. Never happened. As I point out, Reagan's lowest JA ratings were in the upper 30s, only 3 times during his entire Presidency. That was in early January 1983, several months before his economic recovery plan took full effect and the US economy began to rebound. With the release of the current Gallup poll data noted in this article thread, Bush43 has been into the upper 30s now a total of 4 times.

>>>>Year over year comparisons mean nothing, i.e. 5th year vs 5th year.

I disagree. The annual JA data is the best way to compare POTUS to POTUS. There is no monthly JA comparison readily available at Gallup.com. From time to time, Gallup does do some in-depth analysis of their historic polling numbers. They did an in depth analysis of Reagan's poll numbers right after his death. But Gallup doesn't track their polling data adn present it in charts on a month to month basis. They'll take a poll for a 3-4 day period and then skip 7-10 days, come back for a 2-3 day poll and skip a week or two. Polling for Bush43 is done more often then it was for Reagan. Just like polling for Reagan was done more often then for Johnson. And so on. You can take the existing Gallup JA data and analyze a specific time frame, if you're attempting to show how certain events may have significantly impacted a segment of poll results, ie. Watergate, Iran Hostage Affair, Iran-Contra, Monicagate, Abramoffgate, etc etc etc. However, the exact presentation of JA polling data you're looking for, doesn't exist at Gallup.com. Never saw it.

Here is timely poll data from Gallup that shows reelected Presidents JA ratings, in the second February of their second term:

Bush 39% (Fed.2006)

Clinton 67% (Feb. 1998)

Reagan 64% (Jan.-Mar. 1986)

Nixon 27% (Feb. 1974)

Johnson 56% (Feb. 1966)

Eisenhower 54% (Feb. 1958)

Truman 37% (Feb/Mar. 1950)

Bush, Rove and others at the WH are watching all the polls very very closely. 39% approval in the current Gallup poll, isn't something Bush&Company want to see. Believe it.

[DarthVader]

3.9% is too high. How about 0.039%?

[PhilipFreneau]

If the President would change his idiot stance on illegal immigration, his poll numbers would zoom.

[MEGoody]

I guess the administration's efforts to be proactive on the Iraq issue that last couple of months hasn't been working

A lot depends on who is doing the poll and how the questions are asked. I notice that this is from CNN, so we can expect the polls to be 'biased' to show disapproval of Bush.

[MikefromOhio]

If the President would change his idiot stance on illegal immigration, his poll numbers would zoom.

I seriously doubt that. Considering how most of the polls out there are slanted, the people disapproving will disapprove whether we go isolationist or close the borders or whatever. It won't matter. The polls NEVER matter.

[DrDeb]

Actually, you don't have access to my facts so it's impossible for you to determine their relative accuracy or inaccuracy.

FYI: Gallup provides very little FREE analytical/historical information at their website. You must either pay for additional information or get the information elsewhere, e.g., The Roper Center.


Back to our tit for tat:
For my initial comments, I relied on information provided to me by a colleague/friend. Now that I'm looking at the 'raw' data myself (from Gallup and other pollsters), I can see that Reagan's JA ratings slipped below 50% approximately 4 - 4 1/2 years of his 8 year presidency (depending upon which data/pollster is referenced).

That said, let's get back to my original point: At this point in the respective presidencies of Reagan, Clinton and Bush43, Reagan had the lowest average JA rating. In fact, at the end of their respective 8 year terms, Clinton still had a higher average JA rating than Reagan. DOES ANYONE REMEMBER THIS? DOES ANYONE CARE?!

It's what a president DOES with his time in office that counts, not the JA ratings he earns during his tenure.


[FYI: GALLUP is a much different polling organization today than it was in the 1980s. In the 1980s, Gallup was an INDEPENDENT pollster with definite GOP leanings; today, Gallup is 'owned' by CNN/USAToday and definitely reflects the Democrat leanings of its media bosses. In 1980, Gallup surveyed between 1,500 and 3,000 respondents per polling period with a 60%+ response rate; today, Gallup barely manages to survey 1,000 respondents per polling period with a response rate below 30% (and Gallup has the HIGHEST response rate of all the MSM pollsters). And we haven't even addressed the behavior of conservatives vs liberals relative to their willingness to participate in polls nor have we discussed the influence of new technologies. I could go on and on . . . but I won't -- time for me to get back to work!]


Just in case you're interested, RASMUSSEN puts the President's JA rating at 48% today (2/14/06) with the following explanation:

Tuesday February 14, 2006--Forty-eight percent (48%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove.

The President earns Approval from 86% of Republicans, 17% of Democrats, and 40% of those not affiliated with either major party. That's the highest level of support from Republicans that the President has enjoyed this year.

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

[Reagan Man]

>>>>Actually, you don't have access to my facts so it's impossible for you to determine their relative accuracy or inaccuracy.

You're entitled to YOUR facts. Whether they're true or not is a different story. If you can't, or won't supply the data you have, then its immaterial to the argument. You obviously don't have access to the data I have. That's why I was being gracious in supplying as much hard data from Gallup as possible. This article thread references current Gallup poll results. Lets stick with apples to apples. Okay. So far, all I've seen is your own opinion.

>>>>>FYI: Gallup provides very little FREE analytical/historical information at their website. You must either pay for additional information or get the information elsewhere, e.g., The Roper Center.

I'm well aware of how Gallup operates. FYI: Gallup is a pay site. Very little is free. You can't access hardly any of their historic data unless you pay. Gallup is the oldest and for most pros/experts in the field, one of the most respected of all polling outfits.

>>>>That said, let's get back to my original point: At this point in the respective presidencies of Reagan, Clinton and Bush43, Reagan had the lowest average JA rating.

I know what your original point was all about. To make Bush43 look better during this downturn in his Presidency. I have no problem with that. You have every right to defend Bush43. What you don't have a right to do, is to defend the Bush record at the expense of the Reagan Presidencial record and legacy. We all know Bush43 was way up there at one point. But since then, he's come crashing down to earth. Overall average JA ratings aren't that relevent, because they don't take into account the spikes that occur from time to time in a presidency. By using the annual JA ratings you can at least boil the argument down to a more managable timeframe.

>>>>It's what a president DOES with his time in office that counts, not the JA ratings he earns during his tenure.

I've been involved in GOP politics since 1968 and appreciate all the aspects of intelligent debate within the political arena of ideas. And polling data is part of that debate. While JA numbers aren't critically important once a POTUS leaves office, all CURRENT polling data is HIGHLY relevent to the current occupant of the WH. Especially in a second term. How else can he plan his legacy and retirement.

>>>>> .... today, Gallup is 'owned' by CNN/USAToday and definitely reflects the Democrat leanings of its media bosses.

According to Gallup, that relationship is a partnership. Maybe CNN/USAToday do own a piece of the action. So what. Besides, when Gallup and everyone else had Bush43 way up in the polls, I didn't hear anyone complaining. You've got to take the good with the bad. Right now, PresBush is feeling the heat. In fact, he's been feeling the heat for a while, and that is expressed in his overall poor JA numbers. Charlie Cook says, take a known Democrt pollster JA numbersa nd add 5% to them. Sounds as good as anything to me.

I like Scott Rasmussen's approach to polling, but is he better then other pollsters? Fox News polls are in line with what you call, the left leaning pollster organizations. Sometimes you've got to cut through the fog and accept reality.