Bush No Longer Seen as Effective Manager (Gallup has Bush @ 31%)

Gallup ^ | 5/8/06

[Recovering_Democrat]

Along with the lowest overall job approval rating of his presidency, the latest USA Today/Gallup poll gives President George W. Bush record low scores for his handling of a variety of national issues and perceived leadership abilities. Since January, Bush's ratings have fallen most sharply with respect to his handling of energy policy and Iraq.

[Spiff]

If I was stalking you, I would be following you from thread to thread.

Going over to another forum to mine my few posts there in an attempt to smear me is a form of such stalking. You don't want to debate the issue here, you want to insult and smear.

[new cruelty]

But clearly he can't articulate himself well. He won his elections despite this. His success was dependent on momentum, a perception of invincibiliy, and circumstances. Reagan could be charming and speak his way back to the top when he was down. Bush doesn't have the same ability.

You make it sound like 2000 and 2004 were cakewalks.

[JFC]

If people of our OWN PARTY would stop their B*&^%$#@ and whining... and start being proactive and supportive.

[onyx]

BUMP!
Good point.

[aShepard]

.........he must be doing the right thing, which is often not very popular...........

I guess that's exactly why the Founders decided that the electoral college was the only way to bring some sense and balance into the voting population!

What wisdom in the late 1700's! (Of course, the country has prostituted that vision with the direct popular election of the Senate!)

[MaineVoter2002]

Yes! And I supported Reagan's Amnesty. I was behind it knowing it would be one time and the last time and the government would secure the borders. It was not as unpopular then as it is now.

I dont support amnesty this time.

[No Truce With Kings]

Almost certainly the 31% approval is an artifact of sampling. Consider an AP-Ipsos poll that had Bush with a 33% approval rating. According to DJ Drummond of Polipundit blog (http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=13243):


• The poll made no inquiry as to whether the respondent was a regular voter or had voted in the most recent elections or primaries; 18% of respondents stated they were not registered to vote.
• As often happens in such polls, Democrats out-sampled Republicans, 34 to 28 percent. Note that this leaves 38 percent as “independent” or “other”, which would include Communists, Socialists, Greens and whatever else lies at the dregs of political activity. This balance cannot be reasonably claimed to represent the voting public as a whole.
• When “leaners” were added in, the registered voter pool tilted even more to the Left, with Democrats leading Republicans 50 percent to 41 percent. This is clearly at odds with the actual participation of the last several elections, and therefore casts doubt on the results.
• 31% of the respondent pool was in the youngest age group, which is far greater than the actual voter participation of the young.
• Atheists represented 19% of the pool, far in excess of actual representation in Society, and far greater than actually vote as a portion of the electorate.
• Only 24% of respondents reported income between $50,000 a year and $100,000 for their household. The middle class therefore was significantly under-counted.

Gallup/USA Today isn't stupid enough to allow folks a look at the internals of their poll, but I would bet it is similarly skewed.

[onyx]

I didn't then and I don't now.

[GraniteStateConservative]

That issue came out just before Reagan admitted mistakes regarding Iran-Contra. Reagan's approval rating went above 50% because of that speech. Bush has no plans for such a speech, so, the answer is probably "no" for him.

[tcrlaf]

Some old crap we saw in 2004......
Media trying to present the impression that all is already lost, no matter how biased they have to make the polling........

[frannie]

I care because this thread has been about that "other" poll.

Also Rasmussen has been much more accurate in the last two elections than the "other" poll.

It would do all of you who continue to bring up the "border" to also check the poll on Ramussen about how politicians have missed the point on immigration. Very interesting. Does not favor either party.

[onyx]

You cannot possibly know what President Bush has in mind.

He has continuously outsmarted the opposition.

[N3WBI3]

31% rating means he must be doing the right thing

So when he was at 50% does that mean he was doing the wrong thing?

[Peach]

I'm going to copy Texasforever's excellent post to this thread for the complainers:

Reagan signed the first Gay-rights legislation in California; Bush has never signed any gay rights legislation.

Reagan broke his promise never to raise taxes with his “revenue enhancement” programs along with the largest FICA increase in history. Bush hasn’t raised taxes in any way .

Reagan cut and run in Lebanon after the first taking of casualties. Bush has stayed the course and held to his promise not to back down.

Reagan appointed 3 liberals and one conservative to the Supreme Court. Bush hass appointed 2 Conservatives and numerous lower court Conservatives.

Reagan talked a good game on abortion but Bush pushed for and got the late term abortion ban passed.

Reagan left office and immediately endorsed the Brady Bill in his first public appearance as an ex-president.

The myth of Reagan is exactly that. A myth. He was a great president because he could say the right things at the right time to make the country feel better. It is beyond dispute that Reagan beats Bush hands down when it comes to communication BUT Bush beats Reagan in every conservative category anyone cares to offer.

And I will add, Reagan signed an amnesty bill for illegals.

[onyx]

Good idea!
I'll cut and paste it too.

[LibWhacker]

Ruggles has updated his chart to show it:

Think I'm gonna be sick if we can't turn this around.

[Peach]

Save it and drive the complainers crazy. Especially the trolls who PRETEND to be conservatives and act like they LOVED Reagan. LOL

[Mr. Mojo]

G.W.B. has bounced back before; will he this time?

If the economy keeps a-rollin', gas prices come down, the illegal alien situation is effectively addressed, Iran's nuke program is neutralized, and the Iraqis start showing some competence in running their own show the Prez's numbers should bounce back to well above 50% and the GOP will win big in the midterms.

Tall order, though.

[billybudd]

You make it sound like 2000 and 2004 were cakewalks.

Not at all. In fact, his poll numbers crashed whenever he engaged in debates, both in 2000 and 2004. Like I said, he won despite his oratorical shortcomings.

[onyx]

Exactly. I have it saved.