Poll: Bush approval hits new low

USA TODAY ^ | Posted 2/2/2004 5:42 PM | Susan Page and Richard Benedetto, and Associated Press writers Patricia L. Garcia and Susan Montoya

[Federalist 78]

President Bush's approval among Americans has sunk to a new low, and Sen. John Kerry would likely win the presidential election if it were held today, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll.

In addition, support for going to war with Iraq also dipped below 50% for the first time, to 49%. The proportion of Americans who were certain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to develop them before the war fell dramatically. More than four in 10 Americans, 43%, said the Bush administration deliberately misled the public about whether Iraq had outlawed weapons.

[colorado tanker]

This is temporary.

We've had saturation coverage of the Rat races and nothing from Bush. Nobody except Massachusetts and political junkies know who Kerry is - so these are generic numbers that will go down when people find out.

Bush has had a bad month, much self-inflicted with the illegal alien proposal, the busted budget and a lukewarm received SOTU. He will recover and get right again with the base.

His numbers could hit the stratosphere again if we get Osama's head on a pike in, say, May.

[Steve Eisenberg]

When the boat is taking on water, waiting too long to begin bailing it out greatly increases the likelihood that it will sink no matter how much effort you put into saving it later.

True in England where the campaign is six weeks. Here it is a mistake to go negative too early. Besides, the last thing we want is to torpedo Taxachusetts Kerry and wind up with Edwards to face.

[FreedomSurge]

What he needs to do is to go after the black vote by endorsing reparations.

[Krodg]

Bush is alienating his conservative base.

Could you please tell me who his base is??

then tell me every issue the base agrees on...

at least you'll be able to tell me all the issues the base disagrees on.....

I guess I should as one more time....What is a 'conservative'?

[festus]

Sakes alive I've gone blind.........


Did you have to post that ?!

[DrDeb]

REALITY CHECK:

1.) Benedetto, et al, ignored poll results that even CNN found interesting:

"Despite the apparent rising fortunes of Democrats, the poll showed Bush enjoyed advantages over his rivals in several areas.

For example Bush was seen as a stronger leader than Kerry --53 percent to 39 percent --and, despite Kerry's military service in Vietnam, more patriotic than the senator from Massachusetts, 49 percent to 34 percent.

And,on the question of Iraq, more Americans trusted Bush than Kerry, 50 percent to 44 percent."

2.) After reviewing the internal subsets/crosstabs for the Gallup poll, the Quinnipiac, Newsweek, and Rasmussen polls, I can emphatically state that the President's BASE, i.e., Republicans, have not deserted him. In fact, they continue to approve of his job performance at the same level (88% - 94%) as noted by earlier polls; similarly, Democrats continue to disapprove of the President at the same levels as noted by earlier polls. What has changed? Independents are in a state of flux -- a flux that began with the "poor" jobs report on January 9 and continues thru the current WMD controversy (a flux exacerbatedby the leftist media's veritable canonization of Kerry).

DID YOU KNOW:

1.) Polls at this juncture merely track the general public's perception of the economy/job growth. As predictors of events in November 2004, polls conducted January - August are MEANINGLESS and polls conducted September - October are highly suspect. BOTTOMLINE: The only poll that matters is the one conducted in November!

2.) Relative to the general public's perception of the economy/job growth, tracking polls indicate that this 'perception' started turning decidedly negative after the January 9 jobs report. This past week, 'perception' took another dive after Greenspan spooked the market and the 4.0 GDP growth failed to meet economists' expectations. FOR THESE REASONS (coupled with the WMD questions), THE PRESIDENT'S APPROVAL RATINGS HAVE AND WILL CONTINUE TO TAKE A HIT. CONCURRENTLY, KERRY'S RATINGS WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE PROPORTIONATELY.

What will change this trajectory? A POSITIVE jobs report on February 6! If this report fails to meet analysts' expectations, the President's ratings will take another severe hit! We will then have to wait until spring for continued GDP growth, continued growth in corporate earnings and some good news on the job front (some pundits earmark March, others April).

[*Jobs: Many pundits indicate that the way in which the government collects and reports job data is flawed. For example, job growth numbers differ greatly depending upon which report one references. The household survey indicates that OVER 2 million NEW jobs have been added since the President took office; however, the 'business' survey puts this number at fewer than 200,000. Of course, the survey that will be referenced on February 6 will be the 'business' survey!]

AGAIN, IT'S A WASTE OF MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL ENERGY TO GET EXORCISED ABOUT POLLS AT THIS STAGE OF THE ELECTION CYCLE! Remember, we are helping the President run a MARATHON not a sprint!!

BLAST FROM THE PAST:
According to Gallup, President Reagan posted job approval ratings in the 30s and 40s for 5 1/2 of his 8 years in office! [This is the President's first WEEK under 50%!]

[Miles Vorkosigan]

I notice that all the Establishment types are saying, "Kerry is no Dukakis. Bush can't win by portraying him as a liberal. He needs to focus on character issues."

This is, IMHO, exactly the wrong advice. Focusing on Dukakis's extreme leftist record won the 1988 election won the election for GHW Bush. Focusing on Clinton's character just served to convince people that he was too slimy to commit himself firmly to the far Left (and, in fact, there was some truth to this).

If you want to avoid a Kerry presidency, let the people know what he really stands for.

[Steve Eisenberg]

Polls at this juncture merely track the general public's perception of the economy/job growth. As predictors of events in November 2004, polls conducted January - August are MEANINGLESS and polls conducted September - October are highly suspect.

Excellent post.

[Krodg]

as = ask

[Lancey Howard]

Excellent post bump.

[mystery-ak]

So far, to my dismay, his antiwar performance after Nam is not hurting him, especially in the primaries....and I heard the Fox roundtable on Fox the other night say it won't hurt him at all with the Dems...their only issue is , is he electable.

[deport]

Do you think the Republicans in Congress would let
any non-Republican spend more?

---

What, the Congress controls spending, approves the money? Shucks from what you read around here I thought it was up to the President.... darn. There isn't a dimes worth of difference or so we've been led to believe... What makes you think they wouldn't let a democrat spend more... How much pork do you want to take home... put enough out and they will all vote for their share and more...... excluding a very few congress critters...

[deport]

it won't hurt him at all with the Dems...their only issue is , is he electable.

---

They circle the wagons around their nominee unlike the republicans in some instances...... So the fact that he won't be hurt amongst the democrats isn't that surprising.... The real test is what will the independents do? We they cut him the slack and support or will they prefer the existing CinC...... My guess is they'll not change the CinC at this time.....

[dwilli]

You're just trying to spin a non-spinner. No reasonable person would believe there would be a 2.4 trillion (probably lowball) budget on Capitol Hill If the government were divided.

[Guillermo]

Oh, and it has nothing at all to do with the $500 billion deficit, the trillion dollar new entitltements, huge budget increases for the NEA, amnesty for criminal immigrants, ad nauseum.

[RightWinger]

In the last election I gave Bush hundreds of dollars and my vote. Right now, Bush doesn't have my vote and I won't give him another dime.

Now, that should say something to the Bush campaign.
Are they listening?

[hobson]

Ok, so here's the plan. I'm going to re-post your post on the soon to come 100001 threads on this subject. Excellent!

[Steve Eisenberg]

Focusing on Dukakis's extreme leftist record won the 1988 election won the election for GHW Bush. Focusing on Clinton's character just served to convince people that he was too slimy to commit himself firmly to the far Left (and, in fact, there was some truth to this).

I agree, I think. There is a need for somebody--not necessarily the President--to point out, over and over, how Kerry, or at least his Bush-hating core supporters, look down on ordinary people. I supect that almost all the Deaniacs would agree with Ann Coulter's swing-voters-dumber-than-a-toaster remark, and we need to communicate that (the Democratic arrogance, not Coulter's). However, Miles is right that the focus has to be on how liberal Kerry is, not on his divorce or botox.

[deport]

No reasonable person would believe there would be a 2.4 trillion (probably lowball) budget on Capitol Hill If the government were divided.

---

Who said I was reasonable?......

No you are probably correct..... It probably would be larger than 2.4 trillion if the gov't was divided... you gotta asked for much more to have room to negotiate with and pork to spread around.... makes sense to me, but then I'm not reasonable.

[Brad’s Gramma]

THAT IS HORRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA