USA Today/CNN/Gallup Polls Results (GWB back at 60% job approval)

USA Today ^ | August 7, 2003 | USA Today

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Ummm ... put a "not" in there above ;-)

[CyberAnt]

I have a question for you - we know David Kay is cataloging all kinds of WMD info - when it get released - I think Bush's numbers could go back up in the 70's again .. if they do, do you think Hillary will abandon her plans to run in 2004 ..??

Or .. will she be so power hungry that she will believe she can get Bush's numbers down again by manufacturing some type of scandal ..??

And .. if the scandal doesn't work (and none of them have so far), will she still take the risk ..??

[Republic]

Good news! And all I heard today ( til now, that is ) was the cheerfully given news that Bush had dropped to 53%. I guess balancing the USA GALLOP POLL against the PEW POLL was just a little too honest for the mainstream agenda driven jerks.

[Destro]

When did we conservatives become poll driven?

[Chad Fairbanks]

Walter Mondale LOL

[rewrite]

Are you series? This is Hugh!!! (nyuk! nyuk! nyuk!)

[justlurking]

I almost hope that happens. I would love to see her run.

I have mixed feelings about this.

If she were to run, the resulting trouncing would put an end to the Clinton's influence on the Democrats.

Now you know why I have mixed feelings. :-)

[AGreatPer]

Nothng personal against you on this post. Think I am very confused.

[rwfromkansas]

Great work.

Where did you get those numbers for Clinton and Bush? Pollingreport.com maybe?

[SuziQ]

when it get released - I think Bush's numbers could go back up in the 70's again .. if they do, do you think Hillary will abandon her plans to run in 2004 ..??

Maybe he'll wait until she throws her hat into the ring to drop all that info into the media, then she'll be STUCK!! LOL! That would be a sight to see!

[rwfromkansas]

Arnold and Kobe have both worked in tandem to help get the media out of "What did the President know and when did he know it" mode, a mode that is very tempting for reasons of intrigue and searching for a coverup, not just to get Republicans, which makes that reporter mode strong. But, it finally has been broken.

I just pray we do have the evidence that we say we do.

The Washington Post did a story the other day quoting "senior officials" as saying we haven't found anything significant yet, but of course I take that with a grain of salt considering the other reports. But still, it is something that worries me. It would be good political fodder for the Dems.

[rwfromkansas]

If we can have it up around 70 at election time, the President could have significant coattails...

[rwfromkansas]

There is not even a 1% chance we will have a budget surplus.

AINT GONNA HAPPEN.

[GUIDO]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- White House 2004: General Election All data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older. . NOTE: State polling -- including election trial heats, and job ratings for the President, governors and members of Congress -- can be found in the subscriber area of our web site. INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polls listed chronologically. . . Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. July 14-Aug. 5, 2003. N=1,866 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.5. . "Looking ahead, would you like to see George W. Bush reelected president in 2004 or would you prefer that a Democratic candidate win the election?" Bush Democrat Other/ Unsure % % % 7/14 - 8/5/03 43 38 19 6/24 - 7/8/03 47 37 16 4/03 48 34 18 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. July 29-30, 2003. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

I clicked on your link and pulled this to better explanin. The 7/03 means just as it says above July of 2003, the number under that in the poll you cited is 8/01 which means August 2001. GET A LIFE!!!!!

[Brimack34]

What would the numbers look like if Pres. Bush ran against Rush Limbaugh??

[rwfromkansas]

I had to look to be sure, but you are right.

The numbers actually show 47 percent reelect, 40 percent somebody else. And these are numbers that tend to be skewed toward the opponents by a good margin anyway, so I would imagine the real number is closer currently to 50 percent reelect numbers.

But again, these are not the best measures.....against actual candidates is better.

However, the generic ballot test last year GOP vs. Dem did turn out to be pretty accurate. It will be interesting to see how that turns out next year.

Currently, we have a slight edge in the generic ballot, but even a slight edge is big. I am not sure how big an edge we had before 2002, but it was 2 points or so I think. The generic ballot keeps waffling back and forth, but the Dems can never gain enough traction to take it over for long. As long as Bush does enough to get folks excited about voting GOP close to the election, we should be in good shape.

That is, unless the economy tanks and no WMD's are found.

[Reagan Man]

A total hypothetical. It's not worth considering.

[rwfromkansas]

The first line, 7/03 means July 2003.

Below that is the last record they have of the polling organization asking the question, which was in 2001.

[Common Tator]

How about FOX News polls? Do we believe those?

One thing we know for sure. Liebertarians have no say in who is or is not President of the USA.

People reading this know that Libertarians are always trashing Bush. They will tell you Bush is just as bad as any Democrat. They will launch into a long diatribe saying Bush is just as liberal as a democrat.That is truely how they see things.

Libertarians do one of three things in elections. They vote for a libertarian candidate. If there is no libertarian candidate they mostly don't vote at all. And those that do vote, vote just like they talk on Free Republic. Since they see no difference between the Pubies& Democrats, half of them vote for the R and the rest vote for the D candidate.

The truth is Libertarians never change the out come of an election. They will tell you that if Bush did a b,c, and d they would vote for him. But they wouldn't The same is true of all fringe parties. A Democrat,...even Gore, was not Green enough for the Nader voters. And no Republican has ever been Conservative enough for a Libertarian voter. Yes some of them will say they voted for Bush in 2000 and they are telling the truth. But for every Libertarian who voted for Bush another one voted for Gore.

The only people who doubt dope rots brain cells, are those that have never met a Libertarian.

[Reagan Man]

>>>The only people who doubt dope rots brain cells, are those that have never met a Libertarian.

Worth repeating.