Outsports Discussion Board > Latest CNN-Gallup Poll Numbers for Bush

Full Version: Latest CNN-Gallup Poll Numbers for Bush

Outsports Discussion Board > Outsports > Politics & Religion

hockeyTom

Nov 14 2005, 02:10 PM

New numbers just came on from "The Situation Room":

New low for the Prez.
37% approval
60% do not approve.

Two thirds of independants now oppose Bush.
Of course he is hanging on to the Repugs for support, but thats it!
Another majority view him as not trustworthy/honest.

Ms. de Blazer

Nov 15 2005, 10:28 AM

Also, a recent poll asked who was more trustworthy, Clinton or Bush. Clinton came out ahead by about 12 percentage points.
Funny, because when Clinton was president the perception was that he was not personally trustworthy but people liked his policies generally. With Bush it was people disagreed with his positions but considered him a "straight shooter" and "regular guy", no mean PR feat considering he is 4th generation of one of America's wealthiest and most powerful political families.

hockeyTom

Nov 15 2005, 10:34 AM

I know Ms. Db. I saw that number as well yesterday. If that isn't telling, I sure as hell don't know what is....

PennState4Ever

Nov 15 2005, 10:44 AM

QUOTE

Ms. de Blazer:
Also, a recent poll asked who was more trustworthy, Clinton or Bush. Clinton came out ahead by about 12 percentage points.

I didn't see the results of that poll, but it seems to me the comparison of a sitting president with one who has been removed from office for nearly 5 years is inapposite.

President Clinton nows reaps the benefit of fading passions and removal from the daily political battles, allowing him to play the role of "elder statesman."

The more appropriate comparison would be to find a fixed point in Clinton's presidency and measure Bush against the same standard.

PennState4Ever

Nov 15 2005, 10:56 AM

QUOTE

hockeyTom:

Two thirds of independants now oppose Bush.
Of course he is hanging on to the Repugs for support, but thats it!

Again, these numbers hanging out there by themselves are meaningless without a basis for comparison.

What percentage of independents supported the President at various points in his presidency and how does that compare to other the relationship between independents and other presidents?

BTW - By their nature, aren't independents generally more likely to swing from side to side with the political winds -- aren't they just necessarily more likely to jump ship when it's not going their way?

Finally, during all this recent poll-hysteria and the almost breathless haste to post the latest numbers, one thing I have not seen discussed here or in the media generally is what percentage of the President's slide in recent months is attributable not to liberals, who never polled favorably for him in any case, but rather to conservatives frustrated by inaction on issues they expect him to address? Immigration, the transportation bill, illegal immigration, spending, Harriett Meirs, etc?

My own personal guess would be that a large part of his dropping numbers are not the result of unhappy liberals and independents, but rather of disenchanted conservatives.

RazorbackTX

Nov 15 2005, 11:20 AM

QUOTE

PennState4Ever:

My own personal guess would be that a large part of his dropping numbers are not the result of unhappy liberals and independents, but rather of disenchanted conservatives.

He fooled alot of the people alot of the time but finally people are starting to realize what an
incompetent "leader" he is.

Illini_fan

Nov 15 2005, 11:24 AM

QUOTE

PennState4Ever:

My own personal guess would be that a large part of his dropping numbers are not the result of unhappy liberals and independents, but rather of disenchanted conservatives.

That's definately it for a few reasons. The first would be what you mentioned before about liberals always being opposed to him. Another is something I read in another thread. About a month ago, many of the states were polled about the president. The results? Even in the red states the results weren't favorable:

QUOTE

Texas 42-52
Colorado 42-57
Florida 41-58
Virginia 41-56
North Carolina 41-56
South Carolina 40-58

And his numbers in Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Nevada, and Ohio are AS BAD OR WORSE (in the 30s) as in Minnesota (39-58), Oregon (38-59), and Washington (38-59).

thersis

Nov 15 2005, 11:32 AM

actually, according to this article , which seems to be where these poll numbers were drawn from, he still enjoys an 80% approval rating among republicans (lemmings, anyone?).

the article also touches on many of the questions pennst.... raised.

PennState4Ever

Nov 15 2005, 02:05 PM

A good source for some comparative information is www.realclearpolitics.com.

It's interesting to look at the job approval poll tracking, and easy to attach events of the day to slides in the President's ratings.

Late August -- Cindy Sheehan and the non-stop coverage of her encampment.

Early-Mid September -- Hurricane Katrina.

Late October -- Congressional Democrats get media traction with their "Bush Lied" drumbeat.

As the Administration starts "fighting back" on the Iraq intelligence issue, it will be interesting to watch over the next few weeks what happens with those numbers. One thing should have been clear to the President's advisor's in August -- don't let a campaign against you go unanswered. It becomes very difficult to recover when you're on vacation and do nothing. Just ask John Kerry.

hockeyTom

Nov 15 2005, 02:08 PM

Please. This guys has been on vacation since 2000! His numbers are severe trouble for anyone with a 37% approval rating, and the Repugs, are running away from him, especially if they are running for office.

PennState4Ever

Nov 15 2005, 03:03 PM

"Please" what? Your response is indicitive of the point. There is nothing that the President could do to garner your approval -- his real problem is generally within his own party.

If the President has been on vacation since 2000, what then explains Democrat defeats in 2002 and 2004? I'm not here to be the President's, or anyone's, defender, but simply throwing up numbers without any basis for comparison or analysis is of limited value.

thersis

Nov 15 2005, 03:31 PM

all the analysis that's fit to link. knock yourself out.

as for the question about 2002 and 2004, the republicans played brilliant, short-term politics. and despite what keynes said, (was it keynes? any economics geek feel free to correct me.) we are no longer in the short run.

in 2000, bush was the anti-clinton at a time of scandal fatigue. he was going to restore honor and dignity to the white house. gore thought he could get elected on his own and ran away from the clinton record instead of attaching himself at the hip to bill. the repubs forced the election to be about values, and won. it was gore's election to lose, and he managed to do it.

in 2004, bush was the war president, and amazingly, the draft dodger had kerry defending his purple heart!

well, now here we are in 2005. the war president's war isn't going so well. and there are enough declassified documents floating around that certainly raise a question about the veracity of some of the claims the administration made about the immediate necessity of war. d'oh.

and as for the whole 2000 values thing -- restoring dignity and honor, well, one indictment can ruin your whole day! and filling your administration with incompetent cronies, where is the honor in that? harry on the supreme court? puhleeze.

so you see, bush ran two empty, but brilliant campaigns, but the emptiness has caught up to him. the emperor never had any clothes or agenda, and people are beginning to realize that.

he was to restore honor and dignity, but did neither.

he is a war president who doesn't know how to prosecute a war.

RazorbackTX

Nov 15 2005, 04:08 PM

QUOTE

PennState4Ever:

As the Administration starts \"fighting back\" on the Iraq intelligence issue, it will be interesting to watch over the next few weeks what happens with those numbers.

You and other republicans need to get a clue - the gig is up dude, the sheep have finally started paying attention. Yeah, watch the administration start "fighting back" - stay the course!!!
That should do the trick.

[ November 15, 2005, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

Illini_fan

Nov 15 2005, 06:44 PM

He's not saying he's a republican, actually, the way I read it, he seems to be analyzing both sides critically.

PennState - Am I to assume sociology or political science major?

fantomas

Nov 15 2005, 07:22 PM

PennState, did you see Republican Senator Chuck Hagel's strong riposte to W's attacks on war critics? It should be read by people of all stripes, because he makes the basic point that our Congress is charged, under the Constitution, with questioning the actions of the President. We don't live in a dictatorship. I realize that you still strongly support George W. Bush, but at this point, the rest of the country doesn't, and attacking his critics just isn't working. Even Republicans are abandoning him, and I don't just mean Hagel. There's a lot more in it, that criticizes the Democrats as well, but he directly takes W to task, which coming so quickly after W's new Rovian approach is a bit stunning. He also directly mentions Iran, which the Neocons refuse to discuss in relation to Iraq, even though Ahmed Chalabi is prancing about Washington after having spied for a country that even W himself labeled as being a part of the "axis of evil." Again, I understand your stalwart support of this man, but Bush is a disaster. Unfortunately, he still has three more years in office. Perhaps a Democratic Congress will wake him. He needs something to help him to change directions.

Hagel Speech at Council on Foreign Relations: \"U.S. Foreign Policy and the Middle East\"

QUOTE

The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform. This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies.

Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late. Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic – to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices.

Today, the Senate engaged in a legitimate debate over exit strategy in Iraq as the Senate considered and voted on two Senate resolutions. This is a significant step toward the Congress exercising its Constitutional responsibilities over matters of war.

As we consider the regional context of stability and security in Iraq, there is another issue that we must deal with – a relationship between the United States and Iran. The fact that our two governments cannot – or will not – sit down to exchange views must end.

Iran is a regional power; it has major influence in Iraq and throughout the Gulf region. Its support of terrorist organizations and the threat it poses to Israel is all the more reason that the U.S. must engage Iran. Any lasting solution to Iran’s nuclear weapons program will also require the United States’ direct discussions with Iran. The United States is capable of engaging Iran in direct dialogue without sacrificing any of its interests or objectives. As a start, we should have direct discussions with Iran on the margins of any regional security conference on Iraq, as we did with Iran in the case of Afghanistan.

aquaman

Nov 16 2005, 06:47 AM

QUOTE

thersis:
so you see, bush ran two empty, but brilliant campaigns, but the emptiness has caught up to him. the emperor never had any clothes or agenda, and people are beginning to realize that.

I have to disagree with this one point: I firmly believe that the Bush folks had an agenda, at least at the outset. Their aim was to win at any cost so they could enact that agenda:

1. cut taxes (particularly on the "over-taxed" [read "wealthy Republicans"]) as much as possible

2. open our natural resources to exploitation (read "economic development") by oil and mining and logging companies

3. disengage the US from the political mire of Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Balkans, most of Africa, etc. (the anti-"nation building" mantra)

4. enact tort reform and enact legislation that would shield US industry from lawsuits

5. minimize the power of labor unions and any group that represents a couter-weight to Republican hegemony

6. pack the courts with as many strict constructionists that it could

7. remove Saddam from power. The sanctions could not go on indefinitely and there were grumblings that they would need to end sometime in the next several years after the 2000 election... and then there was all that luscious Iraqi oil Saddam sat on, giving him the potential to be one of the richest and least hindered despots in the region.

So they did have an agenda, but it is almost all destructive, or at least short sighted, in my opinion.

illini n milwaukee

Nov 16 2005, 08:27 PM

Two polls that I thought were interesting:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Nov. 11-13, 2005.

"Just your best guess: Do you think U.S. troops or government officials have or have not tortured prisoners in Iraq or other countries?"

Have: 74%
Have Not: 20%

"Would you be willing or not willing to have the U.S. government torture suspected terrorists if they may know details about future terrorist attacks against the U.S.?"

Willing: 38%
Not Willing: 56%

That one is interesting cause it's not just a general torture question, but includes the stipulation if they know about a terrorist attack in the U.S.......and still a strong majority say NO.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the numbers are pretty much identical to the President's approval ratings...

PennState4Ever

Nov 16 2005, 08:55 PM

QUOTE

Illini_fan:
He's not saying he's a republican, actually, the way I read it, he seems to be analyzing both sides critically.

PennState - Am I to assume sociology or political science major?

Exactly.

My undergrad work was a pretty wide range of the liberal arts, with a Russian language and literature minor and a concentration in Peace and Conflict Studies.

I corrupted it all by going to law school. And then going on for a graduate law degree (LL.M.). What was I thinking!?!?

illini n milwaukee

Nov 17 2005, 11:02 AM

Actually, lawyers are often more democtratic than republican. That's really the only 'money' job that tends to be more democrats. Doctors probably used to be, but not anymore.

dinger

Nov 25 2005, 11:05 AM

As far as Bush winning in 2000 and 2004, Al Franken said it best - he won because of fears, smears and queers. And people are beginning to understand there are worse things in this country, like corrupt incompetence.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.