Poll Has Bush Approval Rating Improving

[jazz lady]

WASHINGTON - President Bush's job approval rating, which had slumped in several recent polls, has bounced back to 56 percent in a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll released Monday.

In mid-September, the president's approval was at 50 percent in a similar poll and at 49 percent in an NBC-Wall Street Journal survey - some of the lowest numbers of the Bush presidency. But the recent poll, conducted Oct. 10-12, shows the president's standing with the public improving.

Citing a specific reason for the change is difficult, said Gallup Executive Editor Frank Newport, who instead mentioned several possible factors for the recent increase. Newport pointed to signs of an improving economy, including the uptick in the stock market; the Bush administration lobbying on Iraq and media coverage of the California recall that pushed criticism of the president off the front pages.

In the survey, 53 percent of registered voters said the president deserves a second term, 45 percent said he does not.

Still, the poll hinted that the 2004 race appears close at this stage. Thirty-eight percent said they would definitely vote for Bush, 38 percent said they would definitely vote against him and 24 percent said they were unsure.

In the test of the Democratic presidential candidates, Wesley Clark held a slight lead with 18 percent among voters who are Democratic or lean Democratic. Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman were at 13 percent, John Kerry was at 11 percent and Dick Gephardt was at 10 percent. The remaining candidates were in single digits.

The poll of 1,004 adults had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The margin of error was slightly higher for subgroups such as registered voters, plus or minus 4 percentage points; and Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters, plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Break out the towels, democrats...

 

[Kizzy]

I still think the next race will be a tight one, way too many people sitting on the fence.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by jazz lady

Break out the towels, democrats...

Funny how when he was slipping in the polls, the polls were meaningless. Now all of a sudden he's improving, and it is time for the dems to break out the towels.

The 38-38 split for voting for him isn't exactly astounding in favor of Bush. Should be an interesting race, and being so close, it might get kinda nasty.

 

[jlabsher]

But what the jazz lady fails to mention is that:

W's disapproval rating is still at record levels-40%
his reelection potential (53%) is the lowest since being elected
his approval rating of 56% is the lowest since before 9/11
people saying they would vote for him or against him are tied- 38%
57% say Congress shouldn't give up the $87B for Iraq
43% say Bush lied (misled) the public on reasons for going to war
68% say U.S. is less respected overseas than before W was elected

Polls & statistics can be shown to mean whatever you want, huh?

 

[Bruzilla]

I think that Bush is going to win in a landslide.

 

[jazz lady]

Originally posted by jlabsher
Polls & statistics can be shown to mean whatever you want, huh?

Exactly. You can put whatever "spin" on numbers you want so they come out in your favor or against somebody. Look at the California recall election. I heard everything from the "recall will NEVER happen", "Arnold's going to lose badly" to "a landslide for Arnold" - all proclaimed at the same time and with "scientific polls" to support their position.

I just thought I'd throw the story out there and see what kind of reaction it would get, and it got exactly what I expected.

And jlab - nice numbers, but where'd you get them from? I'd like to see who they were "spun" by.

 

[jlabsher]

Originally posted by jazz lady
Exactly. You can put whatever "spin" on numbers you want so they come out in your favor or against somebody. Look at the California recall election. I heard everything from the "recall will NEVER happen", "Arnold's going to lose badly" to "a landslide for Arnold" - all proclaimed at the same time and with "scientific polls" to support their position.

I just thought I'd throw the story out there and see what kind of reaction it would get, and it got exactly what I expected.

And jlab - nice numbers, but where'd you get them from? I'd like to see who they were "spun" by.

Try here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2003-10-13-bush-poll.htm

The same place your numbers came from.

 

[SamSpade]

You know what gets me about the whole "Bush lied" scenario?

Way back when 9/11 happened, the Arabs were circulating the story that there weren't any Jews in the WTC that day, as all of them had been warned ahead of time that they'd be hit. This was in keeping with their story that the Jews did it. The stupid part of that argument - BESIDES the mile high pile of evidence otherwise - is how do you keep a secet in NYC among just a few *thosuand* Jews and *nobody* else? Is it even humanly possible for that many people to just not know the event was coming?

Fast forward to the war - almost everyone running against Bush was given most of the *same* intel HE got for going to war - and by God, they voted for it. You can find quotes from Kerry to Kennedy on the matter. Well now it seems that everyone was "misled". Yeah. They saw the data, they got the reports - some of them disputed at the time - but they had the chance to look stuff over and the consensus among them was - damn - we have to stop this NOW.

If you're having difficulty seeing my connection, I'll spell it out - how do hundreds of people have access to most of the same information, most of them even VOTE on it - but later claim to have been "misled" or "lied to"? Is it hypocrisy, or stupidity? They saw the same documents and intel the President saw, came to the same conclusions, voted on it with him - but NOW, it's the President who lied. Bull. If there IS a lie here - it's the goddamned CIA. Their intel just plain - SUCKS.

Blaming the White House makes about as much sense to me, as blaming the foreman on a jury for reaching a bad verdict. The whole jury voted on it but only he reads it to the judge. Why is it his fault? They all saw the same thing.

 

[jlabsher]

Hey, when the ship runs aground the Captain gets the axe, even if he's asleep when it happened.

 

[Sharon]

More lies?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sense. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelisse (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. - Henry Taxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weep on stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by jlabsher
Hey, when the ship runs aground the Captain gets the axe, even if he's asleep when it happened.

You're missing my point. Why is it "*Bush* LIED" when they ALL saw the same data? Is everyone else in Washington so very stupid that after reviewing the same data as the President, and agreeing with him - and PUBLICALLY saying so - they can turn around and say - hey, he lied to us and we were all "misled"? They're either complete morons - or hypocrites. They're either morons because they can't remember their own reasoning and rationale for agreeing, or hypocrites because they DO know but are saying otherwise now.

Regarding the point you're making - it's ridiculous. Nothing has run "aground". We're doing fantastically in Iraq. A poll came out today from Gallup saying something like >70% of Iraqis want us to stay a bit longer. They LIKE the way things are turning out. For some reason, the Iraqis are more in favor of us being there, than WE are. Maybe it's because we're doing something *right*.

Liberals have been saying "quagmire" since before it began. Of course, to them it's been a failure. When a free Iraq emerges and becomes an ally of the US - it will still be some kind of failure. I have to admit, this kind of staggering myopia will always bewilder me, because no amount of positive data will ever be convincing to them.

 

[Toxick]

Re: Re: Poll Has Bush Approval Rating Improving

Originally posted by SmallTown
Funny how when he was slipping in the polls, the polls were meaningless. Now all of a sudden he's improving, and it is time for the dems to break out the towels.

Yeah - that is pretty funny. Almost as funny as when Bush's number were slipping in the polls, the dems were dancing in the streets (figuratively speaking) and sizing up W for his political coffin.

But, of course, THIS poll means jack-sht.


Very funny indeed.

For what it's worth - I think all of these kinds polls are crapola. They're unscientific to the point of laughability, and the questions themselves often have a built in bias

1. Do you think George" Dumbya" Bush:
A) Sucks
B) Blows

2. Do you think Democrats are:
A) Evil Socialistic Freedom Haters
B) Misled commie bafoons

The fact that they are news at all - and a topic of discussion at that... the mind scarcely has the courage to boggle.

Originally posted by SmallTown
The 38-38 split for voting for him isn't exactly astounding in favor of Bush. Should be an interesting race, and being so close, it might get kinda nasty.

It's going to be very nasty. What kills me is exactly how MEAN the democrats are being so far.

I mean really.

I'm not saying that republicans are glimmering beacons of mercy and compassion, but then - they never claimed to be. The Democrats, however, have. I remember when the reps were coming down on Clinton, the dems were beside themselves with how MEAN-SPIRITED and SPITEFUL the republicans were with their HATE-SPEECH.

Remember those buzz-words?

But they seem to be completely blind at how ornery, vicious and downright barbaric some of the things they are saying are. I've literally been in discussions with dems where they've become simply obnoxious, I'll point it out to them - quote them, highlight where they were nasty - and they still deny that they've said anything out of line to my face.


Yeah - 2004 is going to be quite sickening.

 

[Bruzilla]

Re: Re: Poll Has Bush Approval Rating Improving

Originally posted by SmallTown
Funny how when he was slipping in the polls, the polls were meaningless. Now all of a sudden he's improving, and it is time for the dems to break out the towels.

The 38-38 split for voting for him isn't exactly astounding in favor of Bush. Should be an interesting race, and being so close, it might get kinda nasty.

Funny how when Bush is down in the polls the Dems say that the Republicans should be shaking in their boots. Now all of a sudden he's improving and the polls are now meaningless.

 

[SamSpade]

Sean Hannity mentioned - with regard actually to Rush Limbaugh, but the situation fits here too - 'now is the time for some of that famed liberal "compassion" '.

I've never seen it. I think it's a myth.