Some interesting carrying of the water for Bush in this Newsweek story about Bush’s polling.
A bitterly divided electorate gives President George W. Bush an approval rating of only 36 percent in the latest NEWSWEEK poll, matching the low point in his presidency recorded last November. His image as an effective leader in the war on terror is tarnished, with less than half the public (44 percent) approving of the way he s handling terrorism and homeland security. Despite a series of presidential speeches meant to bolster support for the war in Iraq, as well as the announcement of a major military offensive when the poll was getting under way, only 29 percent of the people questioned approved Bush s handling of the situation in Iraq. Fully 65 percent disapprove.
“Bitterly divided”? I don’t think by any measure a 36% approval rating is dividing, it’s pretty lopsided. 51-49 is “divided”, or even 55-45. 36% approval is pretty darn close to outright rejection (all Bush has right now is the conservative cult). But it seems Newsweek can’t come out and say that. It might offend the right’s tender sensibilities, and Newsweek could never do that.
>> Right winger Rich Lowry: “Polls Matter”
Just curious…..
How many seats did the republicans pick up during the last election during Bush’s previous low polling point?
Is bush running for the presidency again? If not, what DOES polling matter if the republicans continue to pick up seats even as Bush’s poll numbers nadir?
Bush was polling in the mid to high 60% approval rating during the 2002 congressional elections.
and in 2004 they gained seats as well, what was Bush polling then?
You’re right Pedro. That’s why Republicans need a little TX redistricting and a little gay bashing to excite their base and get out the vote in order to pick up seats. Besides, wasn’t Bush in the high 40’s to low 50’s in 2004?
Oliver is right about the right’s tender sensibilities. If Newswek hadn’t used the word “divided” they would have been branded part of that ubiquitous liberal media that is brain washing our minds. We sacrifice objectivity to appease the conservative extremists.
Bush was polling over 50% in 2004. The facts seem to keep getting in the way of your argument, but keep pluggin’.
Is bush running for the presidency again? If not, what DOES polling matter if the republicans continue to pick up seats even as Bush s poll numbers nadir?
And that’s why they were all so quick to back up the administration on the port fiasco, and in such unison too! They certainly didn’t want to miss out on W’s stamp of approval for this election did they? Thanks for clearing that one up.
my point is that come election day, he will be back up, and republicans will again gain seats….
So no, polls don’t matter as a snap shot for this pres.
Oliver, would you say the same thing about a 45 – 38 disparity?
drpedro Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
and in 2004 they gained seats as well, what was Bush polling then? >>
About 13 – 14 points higher than now.
45 – 38 = 7.
64 – 36 = 28.
No, frank, I would say that a 28 point difference is four times as much as a 7 point difference, but thanks for asking.
What are you? Are you some kind of hyper-advanced AI posting bot? Do you ever actually answer an argument, or will you always, in every case, pull the political discussion of “I’m rubber and you’re glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you! BING! FWIP!”
What a dumbass.
Heh heh…Franks says: “I’m rubber and you’re glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you! Dumbass”.
lmao.
Yes, Frank, I know you were trying to be funny. You succeeded (sp?), though likely not in the way you intended.
The reason I attacked you, Frank, is because I have never once seen you say or do anything which smacks of not just spouting the party line. Dugger, while we usually disagree, every now and again he notes that all is not perfect with the WH. This means that we can form small balancing center from which we can discuss things…even when I think he’s being an idiot, I’m still going to discuss his ideas because I think his mind is open..if only a tiny crack.
You, on the other hand, have never once come across as anything but a mindless, thoughtless drone. A mouth piece for a hive mind. A shill, if you will.
Which is why I don’t generally bother with you.
That’s an awful long post to answer a comment I made to Oliver.
If you didn’t like what I said, you could have kept it to yourself. You didn’t have to be a jerk, and pretend I don’t ever comment or debate — that’s just stupid.
Sometimes, what you say about another person turns to be more instructive about you than you planned — dumbass!
q – w: That should be “Which is why I generaly don t bother with you.” Think about it, dumbass.
So, you prefer to talk to Dugger because, every now and again he notes that all is not perfect with the WH. I guess that means If I agreed with you more, you’d enjoy arguing with me more. Did I get that right?
You are a dumbass! In the first place, there is a major point where I disagree with President Bush, and some minor ones. It isn’t my fault you don’t know what they are, because I’m not hiding them, when it’s appropriate to raise those points. You’re just generalizing, like most of the liberals who talk out of their butts on these threads.
You say all kinds of silly crap about all kinds of things, including me, and then call me names when I make a comment about it. You make unwarranted assumptions, but demand I find “proof” of everyhting I say. You make crass generalizations about me, then wonder I get nasty and sarcastic in retaliation.
You may not be too much, but you’re damn sure more than enough.