"a new low"

Me

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Now this is interesting.

WaPo 1

-----------The survey found that 38 percent of the public approve of the job Bush is doing----------

How can that be "a new low"? I mean, picture this. Bush's numbers are so low, they can't get much lower than 38%. That's practically his lowest ever. Does the Washington Post really want to go down this road? Every time numbers come out, no matter what the number is, it's categorized as a new low? So if they come up to 40%, will that be "a new low" too?

Somehow, I think that's the case. Just two days earlier, the WaPo had this to say.

WaPo 2

--------Just 36 percent of the public approves of his job performance, his lowest-ever rating in AP-Ipsos polling.---------------

So if that was his lowest ever, wouldn't the proper way to categorize the prior article be, "jumping up a scant few points"?

The short answer would be yes, that is the proper way it would be categorized. But not when liberals run the presses and a political enemy is in the whitehouse.

Remember this? DNCBS 1

Yes, that's the CBS poll where they overweighted themselves with democrats in order to get the result they wanted. Which was 34%.

But yet we have this......

DNCBS 2

------------found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.----------------

The lowest of his presidency? When did 37 become lower than 34?

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

I was just having a little fun with google.............

[Halfmanhalfamazing]