CNN/Gallup Poll: Bush Approval Rating Unchanged at 59%

Gallup, PollingReport.com ^ | August 28, 2003 | nwrep

[spokeshave]

Yeah,,,,and I bet the ashtrays are flying fast and furious tonight....

[Clintonfatigued]

This report is a pleasant surprise. Bush has gotten so much bad press. Furthermore, the economy is still sluggish and things still look iffy overseas. Clearly, the American people know a man of good will. Also, Bush had promised to return honor and dignity to the White House. He has done that, and the people appreciate it. The younger generation cannot remember a time when the White House was not a place of neverending scandals, until Bush. Also, Bush appears to be a man of deep faith. He is said to engage in Bible study regularly, but he doesn't try to draw attention to it. If so, more power to him.

[Southack]

"I have watched the "Nine Nattering Nabobs" for the last month and I have yet to see one of them offer anything in a way of change.... Just non-stop attacks on a President who has had more on his plate than any other President in recent history."

The Democrats have no new ideas.

We've heard them blather about being "pro-choice" since before Roe v Wade decades ago.

We've heard them prattle on about enviro-nonsense since before they banned DDT and condemned entire continents to rampaging insect-borne dieseases.

What the Democrats don't have is a new idea.

They have no alternative to President Bush's faith-based charities idea.

They have no competing option to President Bush's ABM nuclear missile shield idea.

They suggest only tax **increases** during a recession to counter President Bush's tax cut ideas.

They want to pour more money into failing inner-city public schools rather than give a chance to President Bush's plan to send Black children to winning private schools with vouchers.

You don't win with no new ideas, though.

...And the Democrats have no new ideas.

[Reagan80]

Actually, the polls are probably accurate; just be observant of what they are actually polling. It may be true that only 40% approve of Bush; but keep in mind only 50% vote. If all 40% that approve of Bush vote, he would win 80% to 20%. If only 75% of those who approve of Bush vote, he would win 60% to 40% (only Roosevelt won with 60+% over Hoover).

The only polls that are worth noting are those that count likely voters.

Not registered voters.

Not the 'American people'.

Not the 'man-on-the-street'.

Gallup is as good as any. 59% = 48 states. The D's get MA, WI, and DC; what's that? About 20 Electoral Votes. OK, I'll take a 400+ Electoral Vote victory! With minor coattails, that's +5 in the Senate, and +10 in the House. Anyone who thinks we can do +9 in the Senate is nuts. Won't happen. 60+% majorities in the Senate only happen after Great Depressions. 55 is as good as it gets. Now, if only Pat Toomey can knock off Arlen Specter in the Primaries, maybe we'll get a majority of ACTUAL Republicans in the Senate. That will be enough...

Reagan80

[Brandon]

Clearly, the polls are good for Bush. So why all the fuss about Hillary thinking of jumping in? I thought she would only go for Prez if Bush proved weak, and his support has remained rock solid. Maybe Hillary's starting to panic, figuring her rearend isn't getting any smaller, and 2008 is too long to wait.

Well, she must think there is some vulnerability, or she wouldn't even consider it. But I think the DLC/Clinton gang are genuinely afraid of the consequences if Howard Dean is the nominee. They're okay with Bush winning, but they don't want a slaughter; that could cost them dearly, since they still control the Party machinery.

[Proud Legions]

So right. Need the Judges to get approved, and it surely takes 60 repub senators now to do it.

[Proud Legions]

"Anyone who thinks we can do +9 in the Senate is nuts. Won't happen. 60+% majorities in the Senate only happen after Great Depressions. 55 is as good as it gets. Now, if only Pat Toomey can knock off Arlen Specter in the Primaries, maybe we'll get a majority of ACTUAL Republicans in the Senate. That will be enough... "

(posted by Reagan80)


Reagan80,

I don't necessarily disagree with you--and certainly would have agreed with you without reservation 10 years ago. But a large realignment has taken place that might actually permit Republicans to eventually get 60 Senate seats.

As we have urbanized more, Democratic votes are concentrating more and more in a few coastal cities. That doesn't change House seat alignment necessarily a lot, but could have long ternm Sanate Seat implications. It is very possible that places like Neb, NC, etc, that are becoming overwhelmingly Rebuplican, will eventually have Republican Senators. 60% of the House seats is likely never going to happen again, but 60 senate seats (eventually)....hmmm, I am not so sure.

Your thoughts?

[Proud Legions]

Help out a digitally challanged guy, would you? How do you folks italicize when you copy down a previous remark like you did on this posting.

Humbly,
PL

[LS]

Easy: when you say, "Would you vote for 'x' again?" there is no named opponent. As soon as you put in a name ("Would you vote for 'x' or 'y'?") voters/poll respondents make an instant comparison/contrast, and now (if you're a Democrat) you are bad shape, because NONE of the Dems match up well with Bush. He beats them all badly, even Hillary. That accounts for the big difference in numbers.

[LS]

Yes. This is very close to "landslide" territory in the Electoral College, and is already well into "blowout" territory. I'm not sure of the exact journalistic/scientific definitions, but my working definition is anything above 400 electoral votes is a blowout, and anything above 425 is a landslide.

[LS]

Isn't "landslide" a term used for the EC and not popular vote?

[LS]

Yah, the Gibbons thing in Nev. and wasn't there a good candidate in either Montana or ND who isn't running? And the GOP Congresswoman from WA, Jennifer Dunn, was considered the best shot at beating Osama Mama Murray. So we are hurting ourselves with candidate recruitment. Too many skeletons?

[LS]

He looks good, but even with Clinton, I'm shocked by how damaging the office of the presidency is to a person's looks and health. They age at a shocking rate when they get in there. Clinton look like he added 20 years. Bush already looks about 7-8 years older in his hair and face.

Right after 9/11, I wrote a piece on Bush called "The Weight of the World." I never meant it in the sense that it turned out to be in its effect on the Pres.

[LS]

No Dems will defect. I can see, though, with a 58 maj., that we could get 2 votes as a crossover on most issues. The problem is that one of our pickups will be Zell Miller, our most "reliable Dem" crossover.

[LS]

+7 is a possibility IF we can hang on to the Murkowski seat in Alaska and IF we get good candidates in WA, NEV, and ND. I think we can pretty much count on getting NC, GA (which is no great shakes, given that it will replace Zell Miller, our "best" Dem in the Senate!), and possibly SD with "Puff."

But we are almost certain to lose IL without a major candidate coming forward. Schumer is vulnerable to the right opponent. So I think getting 7 is on the far outside, and we will likely get +3-4. What we need is to make sure that the 3-4 are conservatives, and that in itself would have given us ANWAR, no CFR, and no drug program.

[wny]

Sure. If CNN is reporting 59%, its probably in the low 60s

[wny]

Anyone else notice that during Clintons many scandals, - one of which was even covered by the presstitutes - the lib/dem/media whiners all pointed to the stock market and claimed we had a great economy. Nevermind any other economic indicator. Now with W in office, the DOW is up 40% in 2 years and we hear nothing about the stock market.

[ChadGore]

GWB ended the recession in the first year of his first term and defeated 2 of our declared enemies in less than 18 months.

GWB has EARNED my vote.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Please: ALWAYS turn "OFF" the formatting when you use it. Some commonly used codes of this type are:

<b> and </b> -- BOLD
<i> and </i> -- Italic
<u> and </u> -- Underline
<s> and </s> -- Strike
_and -- Subscript
^and -- Superscript
<font size=7 font color=red> and </font>-- big red type

These codes can be "nested" to produce multiple effects at the same time. For instance:

<b> <i>Bold and Italic produces Bold and Italic

HTML Sandbox

HTML Sandbox is locked - Requesting HTML Information, Links, etc. for FReeper Newbies

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

They age at a shocking rate when they get in there

Especially true of Carter. Not true of Reagan, tho. I think it's mostly to do with whether you actually have a clue as to what will affect the problems you are facing.