logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Does it even matter?, 31% approval, 65% disapproval
Paladin Elspeth
post May 9 2006, 02:49 PM
Post #1


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



President Bush has consistently stated that he does not let polls determine his actions. However, the USA Today/Gallup poll stated yesterday that Bush approval rating hits new low.
QUOTE(USA Today)
The survey of 1,013 adults, taken Friday through Sunday, shows Bush's standing down by 3 percentage points in a single week. His disapproval rating also reached a record: 65%. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

"It is a challenging political environment," acknowledges Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, "but we are confident that ultimately voters in November will recognize that a Democrat Congress would simply not be equipped to ensure either economic or national security for our nation."

Bush's fall is being fueled by erosion among support from conservatives and Republicans. In the poll, 52% of conservatives and 68% of Republicans approved of the job he is doing. Both are record lows among those groups.

<snip>

Only four presidents have scored lower approval ratings since the Gallup Poll began regularly measuring it in the mid-1940s: Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush. When Nixon, Carter and the elder Bush sank below 35%, they never again registered above 40%.

Speaking realistically, can the GOP pull another rabbit out of their hat and save their majority in both houses of Congress this November?

Are the poll numbers abysmal enough to lend crucial support to Carl Bernstein and organizations calling for an investigation of the Bush presidency?

In other words, does the message inferred from these poll numbers really matter to the American people, or will Tracey Schmitt's words ring true?

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: May 9 2006, 02:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 48)
TedN5
post May 18 2006, 05:40 PM
Post #41


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Carlitoswhey, you have to be kidding! What moderate Republican? Clinton was the last moderate Republican president, only one in Democratic clothing. Bush has been the most radical reactionary president in American history and incompetent besides. Many of the initiatives you cite as moderate were taken when war hype was holding his poll numbers high. To be sure, they was mostly poorly crafted or under funded and eventually added modestly to his accumulated failure. The main reason people give for disapproving his performance when asked is Iraq. This is because they finally realize they were lied into it, lied to about its purpose, lied to about turning point after turning point that failed to materialize, and now realize that the whole invasion was a failure. Of course gas prices add to the disillusionment.

My real concern is whether his low numbers will prevent him from carrying out an attack upon Iran? My guess is that his gang will try a "hail mary" play shortly before the 2006 elections and try to reignite the war hysteria by bombing Iran. If they do, the entire world will bear the consequences for decades. A congressional resolution asserting the right of the Congress to vote on a declaration of war before any attack upon an additional country might prevent this from happening. Given the control of the Congress by ideological right wing Republicans such a resolution seems highly unlikely. So, in a sense, maybe his low numbers don't matter.

This post has been edited by TedN5: May 18 2006, 05:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carlitoswhey
post May 18 2006, 06:20 PM
Post #42


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,094
Member No.: 3,059
Joined: May-8-04

From: chicago
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(TedN5 @ May 18 2006, 12:40 PM)
Carlitoswhey, you have to be kidding! What moderate Republican?  Clinton was the last moderate Republican president, only one in Democratic clothing.  Bush has been the most radical reactionary president in American history and incompetent besides.

Well, I’d be willing to debate incompetence, but I have to ask you to give me some more backup on this. Bush has given us zero “radical” solutions to domestic problems, you could only be citing foreign policy and even that is debatable. As for being “extremely conservative” you should take a look at what conservatives say about Bush on education, spending and immigration. Reactionary indeed.

QUOTE(dictionary.com)
rad•i•cal    adj.
Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the problem.
Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education.
Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views.

re•ac•tion•ar•y    adj.
Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.



QUOTE(TedN5)
Many of the initiatives you cite as moderate were taken when war hype was holding his poll numbers high.  To be sure, they was mostly poorly crafted or under funded and eventually added modestly to his accumulated failure.

So, in order to further his radical, reactionary agenda, this alleged “most radical reactionary president in American history," at the peak of his popularity, does what? Round up gays into internment camps in Vermont? Revoke habeus corpus? Make pornography and abortions illegal? Pull out of the United Nations? Exhort his brownshirts to break the windows of every mosque in town?

No, he passes an education bill, prescription drug benefit and tries unsuccessfully to reform Social Security. He expands government at an increasing rate, and receives criticism from his own base. Your logic is flawed here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post May 18 2006, 07:21 PM
Post #43


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ May 18 2006, 02:06 PM)
My comment was that the tone was ridiculous.  The wire services like AP and Reuters manage to get Bush's "all time low" approval ratings into every story, whether it's on gas prices, Iraq, "domestic" wiretapping, immigration, etc.  I don't remember the drumbeat being this consistent in Clinton or Bush, or even Reagan's second term.


Well, I guess people see what they want to see. This isn't a minor hiccup, this is a slow and steady slide that has been going on for some time now. Secondly, there are an all-time low for Bush Jr, his numbers have never been this low. I hardly thing stating the truth is 'lefty propaganda'.

As for the 'drumbeat of polls', then you misremember, it was just as bad for Bush's father, who scored even lower in the polls at one point than his son currently does.

QUOTE
I mean, 62 million people did just vote for this guy. 


Yes, they did. And now they wouldn't. Whats the problem?

QUOTE
I don't think that these ratings should be newsworthy, given that every president ebbs and flows.  The media tell us day after day that the president "is" something, then survey us and are amazed that we believe it.  Well, duh.


Well, in this case I think the opposite, the media is not creating the sentiment against Bush Jr, its not like the country secretly loves him, then picks up the paper, hears a fabricated poll and decides based on that not to like him. Instead, the media is reporting the widespread discontent with the current President.

QUOTE
So, was I using hyperbole, yeah.  Kind of like claiming the stock market is at an all-time high 99 days out of 100 I guess.


No, that is essentially accurate for the last fifteen years or so, not hyperbole. But whatever.

QUOTE
His approval ratings are prima facie evidence that the nation doesn't want a 'moderate' republican. Clinton could get away with this moderation; it appears that Bush cannot. Every piece of good news is followed by "BUT."
Economy is great BUT gas prices are still high ...
Toppled Hussein BUT can't 'win the peace'
Home ownership at all-time high BUT no one is saving


Is it possible that people are putting 'buts' behind those because they are not in fact good news at all, just what Bush Jr apologists try and dress up as good news?

Economy is not great AND gas prices are high. Toppled Hussein and are now embroiled in an endless insurgency which has consumed lives and half a trillion dollars.

Home ownership is NOT at an all time high, it has in fact dropped from where it has been the last three years, AND the housing bubble with literally every economist in the world is warning about still exists, and is due to cause some damage when it pops. Oh, and yes people are not saving.

I think the trick is, when you have a complaint about the media 'not reporting good news' you should first check to see if the news is actually good at all.

This post has been edited by Vermillion: May 18 2006, 07:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carlitoswhey
post May 18 2006, 08:01 PM
Post #44


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,094
Member No.: 3,059
Joined: May-8-04

From: chicago
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Vermillion @ May 18 2006, 02:21 PM)
QUOTE
So, was I using hyperbole, yeah.  Kind of like claiming the stock market is at an all-time high 99 days out of 100 I guess.


No, that is essentially accurate for the last fifteen years or so, not hyperbole. But whatever.

Well, you initially said "10 years" and now it's fifteen. I can't even find two.
During the past 800 days of non-recession recovery since Janurary 2004, just eyeballing this chart, I see about 750 days of *not* all-time high. You are perhaps exaggerating to make a point?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lederuvdapac
post May 18 2006, 08:36 PM
Post #45


*********
Mr. Free Market

Sponsor
August 2006

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,940
Member No.: 2,573
Joined: March-4-04

From: A New Yorker in DC
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Vermillion)
Economy is not great AND gas prices are high. Toppled Hussein and are now embroiled in an endless insurgency which has consumed lives and half a trillion dollars.

Home ownership is NOT at an all time high, it has in fact dropped from where it has been the last three years, AND the housing bubble with literally every economist in the world is warning about still exists, and is due to cause some damage when it pops. Oh, and yes people are not saving.

I think the trick is, when you have a complaint about the media 'not reporting good news' you should first check to see if the news is actually good at all.


This is just incorrect. The economy is doing very well but none of the positives are being attributed to Bush...only the negative. The biggest proof in my mind aside from the numbers that tell me so is how our economy responded to Hurricane Katrina. Fighting two wars, financing a war on terror, and a natural disaster wiped out one of the largest cities and most important financial centers in the country yet the economy barely missed a step.

Data show economy firing on all cylinders

QUOTE
Activity in both the vast U.S. services sector and at factories accelerated more than expected, according to data on Wednesday that pointed to fresh economic vigor and the risk of more interest rate hikes.

<snip>
n addition, the government reported new factory orders rose a stronger-than-expected 4.2 percent in March, beating estimates for a 3.5 percent gain, as demand for transportation equipment, computers and electronics proved robust.

Treasury debt prices fell and the dollar firmed against the euro after the data.

"It does suggest that the overall economy is improving and for the market it is part of the recent theme -- all the numbers are coming in on the stronger side of expectations," said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates in St. Petersburg, Florida.

<snip>
"This suggests GDP growth momentum of 4.5 percent to 5.0 percent, rather than the slowdown to 3.25 percent trend growth the Fed is banking on," said Ian Morris, chief U.S. economist at HSBC. "As a result we think this piece of news is significantly hawkish."

<snip>
ADP Employer Services, a private firm, estimated the 178,000 private jobs were added in April, based on a survey sample of 14 million workers. It also estimated 22,000 government jobs were added, which would bring the month's total payrolls increase to 200,000, in line with current Wall Street consensus.


Gas prices being high has absolutely nothing to do with the strength of our economy. Its just simple supply and demand and something that has to be adapted to. The housing bubble may burst, but only in certain areas...others will be unaffected and thats just how the market works.

I am interested in your comment that people are not saving. What is this meant to imply? We have a consumer driven economy and the idea is for people to spend money to enhance growth.

The real reason Bush's poll numbers are so low? Its because he doesnt speak to the people. He has a press conference every blue moon and does not get his message out through his words. He then allows the media to frame his message and frame his positions on issues and it hurts the people's impression of him. As you see from the recent immigration speech, his poll numbers jumped a bit which is expected. Well, if he was to speak more often and not allow his opponents to frame the debate, than maybe his numbers wouldnt be so poor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post May 25 2006, 02:53 PM
Post #46


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Here's an interesting take on explaining Bush's low poll numbers (which have rebounded slightly over the last few weeks).

Bush's September 10 Approval Ratings

QUOTE
I don't think that a fifth of the American people--the number who supported Bush then and disapprove of him now--have changed their minds and want us to lose in Iraq. Rather, I think they turned against Bush precisely because they no longer think defeat is a real possibility. To be sure, people are tired of the way the war is dragging on. They are tired of hearing about IEDs and suicide bombings, and they are very tired of having to hear about the wrangling over Iraqi cabinet posts by a succession of obscure foreigners with unpronounceable Arabic names. But the point is that they now feel they have the option of being tired of the war and directing their attention to other issues.


Americans feel comfortable with Iraq now, feel comfortable with the security situation, and so are willing to turn to other issues (specifically gas prices and immigration) to carp about.

An interesting take, to say the least.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedN5
post May 25 2006, 03:44 PM
Post #47


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
(Amlord)
Here's an interesting take on explaining Bush's low poll numbers (which have rebounded slightly over the last few weeks).


Please cite some evidence for a "slight rebound."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post May 25 2006, 03:57 PM
Post #48


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Bush's September 10 Approval Ratings

QUOTE
I don't think that a fifth of the American people--the number who supported Bush then and disapprove of him now--have changed their minds and want us to lose in Iraq. Rather, I think they turned against Bush precisely because they no longer think defeat is a real possibility. To be sure, people are tired of the way the war is dragging on. They are tired of hearing about IEDs and suicide bombings, and they are very tired of having to hear about the wrangling over Iraqi cabinet posts by a succession of obscure foreigners with unpronounceable Arabic names. But the point is that they now feel they have the option of being tired of the war and directing their attention to other issues.


Americans feel comfortable with Iraq now, feel comfortable with the security situation, and so are willing to turn to other issues (specifically gas prices and immigration) to carp about.

An interesting take, to say the least.


The take may be interesting, but as my grandmother used to say, it’s “all wet.”

Item 4 in the May 15 Washington Post-ABC News Poll poll found that 33% favored the way Bush is handling Iraq, while 66% disapproved.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...poll_051606.htm

This is from the latest Newsweek poll.:

QUOTE
Iraq continues to be the biggest drain on the president’s popularity: 86 percent of Americans say the Iraq situation, coupled with new information about the decision to go to war, have negatively influenced their view of the president. Asked about Bush’s performance on a variety of issues, from the economy to taxes, respondents gave the president some of the worst marks of his tenure, and in no instance did approval reach more than 50 percent.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/

The only poll Bush has done remotely better in is Rasmussen. Rasmussen has him al least five point better than any of the others, hardly a light at the end of the tunnel.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

The word "carp" is defined by The New Oxford American Dictionary as "complain or find fault continually, typically about trivial matters"

Amlord I don't think many of the complaints against Bush, particularly Iraq, fit the definition of "carp."

Perhaps you need to dust off your thesaurus and come up with a better synonym.

This post has been edited by BoF: May 25 2006, 08:46 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nemov
post May 25 2006, 05:33 PM
Post #49


******
sleeping is giving in...

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 448
Member No.: 5,152
Joined: June-17-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(BoF @ May 25 2006, 11:57 AM)

The only poll Bush has done remotely better in is Rasmussen. Rasmussen has him al least five point better than any of the others, hardly a light at the end of the tunnel.
*



This has been consistently the most reliable poll the past five years. It nailed the last election and their sampling is weighted a lot more correctly than some of the other polls out there. However, a 39% approval rating is hardly a rebound.

I would agree in part with this assessment. The gas prices, the media's terrible coverage of Katrina, and a generally sour American public is not helping Bush. I have wondered though if this sour mood benefits either party. I think American's are just in very cynical mood these days.

Things were a lot worse when Bush lost to Clinton in 92 and without Perot in the election there's no telling how it would have ended up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 2nd, 2021 - 10:54 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.