Bush Approval Falls to 33%, Congress Earns Rare Praise

Pew Research ^ | March 15, 2006

[Denver Ditdat]

All is well! Remain calm!

[HostileTerritory]

In Massachusetts, independent voters outnumber both Democrats and Republicans. In Ohio, something like 60% of voters are not affiliated with a party.

Independent doesn't mean voting Green or Reform, it means that you don't identify with one of the two major parties but will likely vote for one of the most of the time.

[Phlap]

The last poll Bush cared about was the election. Over 60 million Americans said run the country for the next 4 years. And that is what he will do.

If the democrats want to run on a "Impeach Bush Elect Democrats" platform in '06 have at it.

[pollyannaish]

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.

I was not intending to make a false statement, I made a MISTAKE. For that I apologize. My faulty memory recalled a 29% approval rating somewhere for President Reagan but after looking, I'm not finding it, so I was wrong.

My intention was not to tear him down (He is one of our heroes and we named our daughter after him fwiw), but to simply make the point that polls do not necessarily reflect how well a job a President is actually doing, they are an indicator of how people THINK he is doing. That can be skewed by many factors including a hysterically hostile press. Communication with the public is this President's weakest point, which is different than his job performance.

I think of it this way...If the great communicator, get good things done Reagan can drop to, what 35%, during his administration, then it is still ok that communicationally-handicapped Bush can drop to 33% during his. They are different men, in different times, with different challenges.

It comes down to this...I don't really care about President Bush's polls (not that I don't care that I made a false representation, I do care about that) because they are what they are, that was then, this is now. Harping incessantly about them, worrying and fretting or even celebrating makes no difference. Polls just are not substantive when it comes to results in the present.

I agree that Bush is no Reagan. But who wants to be a pale imitation of another great man? Time will tell, but there could be a point where "he's kind of another Bush" could be considered a compliment in the same way that people compare Reagan and Bush sometimes. Or it may not. Arguing about that now makes no sense. In the end, they are both men with strengths and weaknesses who made decisions to the best of their abilities. What that means for us, time will tell.

It would be fascinating to have seen what hysterical arguing we all would have been having over Reagan, had the New Media been available then. I guarantee there would have been something (Sandra Day O 'Connor or possibly even borders!) and we would have been blinded to his successes in the heat of the moment.

Thanks for your comment. I was in no way trying to disparage your man Reagan. After all, he is my man too.

[pollyannaish]

Thank you for the correction.

I appreciate you doing that legwork. I was just WAY too tired last night to go looking.

Thanks again and I'm sorry that I remembered it differently. That's what I get for just "popping off" at the mouth. Or in this case, the fingers. ; D.

[Bubbatuck]

Again...

you can't just fudge numbers for likely voters vs. adults, because it's not an electoral poll. Non-voters are allowed to have an opinion on the President's job performance. This is NOT a poll about who will win the next election. It's a poll about Americans' opinion of the President's job performance.

As to the biased questions, I don't see much bias in "How do you rate the President's job performance?"

[Bubbatuck]

Thanks.

Rasmussen had the final numbers almost exactly.

I was responding to the oft-repeated claim here that polls are usually wrong, and then they point to 2004 as an example.

In fact, most polls in 2004 showed the President slightly ahead of John Kerry. Further, electoral polls are a bit different, because a national poll is meaningless - you have to do a state-by-state analysis to figure out who's likely to win.

My point is that everybody screams that polls are usually way off. They are not. Occasionally, an outlier will appear, but polling is serious business, and the companies work hard to get it right. After all, it's their bread and butter - they compete on the basis of who best accurately reflect public opinion.

People here think that some liberal bias exists in all polling companies that compel them to compromise their business interests for the sake of making the President's approval look 3% worse than it actually is. I think that's absurd.

[NYC Republican]

It's far too late. The die was cast when he (and Cheney, and other senior GOPers) allowed Kennedy, Kerry and other lib scum spew lies unchallenged, time and again.

They called him a liar, said the war was waged for political purposes, on and on and on. What a disgrace.

[NYC Republican]

Cyber- how old is the Battleground poll? Is that from Feb? If so, it's pretty irrelevant.

[NYC Republican]

PS. If you equalize the partisan breakdown of this poll at 34% GOP, 34% DEM, and 32% IND you get a Bush job approval rating of 36.20%.

That's what I keep telling folks here, and it falls on deaf ears! The oversampling of Dems, even by 10%, will take 3, maybe 4 points away from Bush's approval ratings, big deal.

No matter how you slice it, the figures are absolutely pathetic!

[NYC Republican]

Freepers have been in utter denial about the polls for months. They simply will not accept that more people are self identifying as Democrats and Independents at the expense of the GOP. You are completely right, but many Freepers don't have the clarity or maturity to recognize this.

Agreed!

[HitmanLV]

I was around FR during the impeachment, when we all hypnotoized each other that the country was livid at Clinton, wanted him sorry arse out of office, and that the polls (which showed support for Clinton) were all wrong.

The polls leading up to the 2000 election showed a close race, giving Bush a slight edge. On election day, Nader's support collapsed and made it closer than expected. The polls were right.

The polls leading up to the 2004 election showed a close race, givin Bush a few point edge. The polls were right.

I have no idea why Freepers insist that the pre-election polls were wrong. The exit polls on election day initially gave poor results, but they were refined as the day went on.

Polls are meaningful.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Bush's poll numbers are down because conservatives are stunned at how socialist he is. This is not due to swing voters moving, but because Bush has turned off so many Republicans and nearly all conservatives.

Bush has been a disaster, and the Republican Congress an even bigger disaster.

The only thing conservatives can do is hope that we can rebuild the conservative movement after the inevitable RAT victories in the coming elections. One thing is for sure--Bush has permanently tarnished the Republican name since Republican was the party of conservatives.

[NYC Republican]

Polls are definitely a good gauge of public's general perception. It drives me bonkers when fellow FReepers dismiss these polls with flippant comments like "Oh well, Bush isn't going to get elected to another term"... Either they are being ignorant of the facts on the ground, or have their heads in the sand

If Bush's polling numbers don't improve over the next few months, it could be a very difficult night for the GOP on election day. Leading up to it, Bush will be ridiculed by the libs in ad after ad, and the GOPers who will be running from Bush will be tied to him in all of these ads, usually in the most non-flattering way...

I used to get BLASTED by some FReepers for getting irate that Bush and Cheney/Frist/Hastert didn't fight back at these outrageous charges. As the old phrase goes... if a lie is repeated often enough, ESPECIALLY IF IT DOESN'T EVEN GET CHALLENGED, it will be believed as fact by many...

It was a disgraceful thing to all for years, and now we're seeing the fruits of the libs' lies.

Is there anyone out there that STILL thinks turning the other cheek at all times was the right move? Come on now.

[crasher]

David Frum made a similar point a year ago (before things really headed south with his approval). I think you are right and I don't understand why that problem can't be solved.

[DarthVader]

You saw what happened in Iraq today. You'll be seeing a lot more in the weeks and months to come. Bush will get a 10 point bounce from this attack today. They hit one of the big AQ hornet's nest today.

[Torie]

Bush will get a 10 point bounce from this attack today.

Nope.

[DarthVader]

Yep

[over3Owithabrain]

The last poll Bush cared about was the election. Over 60 million Americans said run the country for the next 4 years. And that is what he will do.

AMEN!!! I'm appalled that even here on FR so many are saying Bush should look at the latest media polls to decide every move, no matter how important. For God's sake people, wake up! The reason we have elections every 2, 4, and 6 years is THE POLL. We are not supposed to have a leader who asks for a show of hands every damn day on what he should do.

[georgia2006]

Bush doesnt care what his approval rating is.