Posted on 11/15/2005 8:22:22 AM PST by mallardx
Beset with an unpopular war and an American public increasingly less trusting, President Bush faces the lowest approval rating of his presidency, according to a national poll released Monday.
Bush also received his all-time worst marks in three other categories in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. The categories were terrorism, Bush's trustworthiness and whether the Iraq war was worthwhile.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
For the first time, more than half of the public thinks Bush is not honest and trustworthy -- 52 percent to 46 percent.
This is resultant from the ineffective GOP Senators and Congressman and White House, who are not responding to the media/Democrat party hammering on his "untrustworthiness." If more than half the public believes that the Clintons are more credible than George W. Bush, this can only be labeled "disastrous" as far as PR is concerned. I know many of you are aware of the stunning dishonesty of the Clinton Administration, but we are seriously losing a war that needs to be won TODAY. This is unacceptable - and extremely serious. We need to combat the corrupt and dishonest media and I think TV commercials are the only way. The high road is honorable, but it is not a winning strategy. The Administration needs to combat this with every response by McClelland to the whiny WH reporters, and state clear factual talking points to their every sneering question.
We are very seriously losing the war here. I know it is only CNN polling, (blah blah blah), but Americans better wake up to the evil that is creeping into American society. If the media can convince average people that Clinton is trustworthy and Bush is not, then all is lost.
How many times has the MSM reported this damn story in the last week?
All part of CNN's 24/7 Bush-Bash Marathon.
It seems like everyday..
Ahh much ado about nothing. Polls go up Polls go down. At one point Reagan was in this territory. I wonder if we polled today who was more trustworthy Reagan or Clinton what would you get hmmm.....
Posted by DrDeb to faithincowboys; All
On News/Activism 11/15/2005 4:58:07 AM PST · 91 of 111
If you want to know what's happening with the polls today, just read the following:
A POLLING PRIMER:
When producing polling data for ACTUAL ELECTIONS, pollsters do the following:
1.) survey 'likely voters',
2.) weight 'likely voter' responses according to party affiliation/demographic constants from previous elections, e.g., 37R:37D:26I (11/04)
3.) avoid push polling questions like the plague (responses to such questions are too easily disproven by actual polling results).
When 'manufacturing' polling data BETWEEN ELECTIONS, pollsters do the following:
1.) survey 'adults' only (i.e., anyone with a pulse -- typically the elderly and the unemployed)
2.) rarely (if ever) weight according to party affiliation/demographic constants -- this gives pollsters license to grossly OVERSAMPLE Demcrats/Democrat-leaning Independents -- review the polling samples for recent AP/Ipsos Reid, Pew, Newsweek, CBSNews/NYTimes, ABCNews/WashPost, and Gallup polls!
3.) use 'push' polling techniques designed to shape rather than elicit public opinion; after all, who's going to challenge them . . . certainly not the MSM!
QUESTION:
"Don't you think it odd that Republicans have won the last three elections (2000, 2002, 2004) and hold the House by a ratio of 53R:46D:1I and yet it's the Democrats who are consistently oversampled by 8-12 points?! If the situation were reversed, how do you think the Democrats and their media enablers would respond? . . . We need to respond similarly!
BTW: I'm not sure you would have survived late 1981,1982, 1983, and most of 1984 when President Reagan's JA ratings averaged less than 44% (often plummeting to the low to mid 30s). Late 1986 through 1987 were also VERY difficult years for the Reagan White House; in fact, President Reagan still holds the record for the biggest single month 'plummet' in Gallup polling history -- 23 points (after Iran Contra broke)!
Did any of this affect Reagan's legacy?! . . . 'nuf said!
Not as low as Clinton's :)
I know people here will mostly blame the media. So the media is out to get Bush. What else is new?
I'll tell you what's really new: a president who has a staff that has zero ability (and seemingly zero interest) in countering the media lies about the president.
Zero ability. Seemingly zero interest.
Fire Card. Fire McMilktoast. Fire a bunch of others. (Including the Great Genius Himself, Rove.) And get a staff in there who knows how to do battle, wants to do battle, and will fight to win.
I'm sure as soon as he rebounds in the polls they'll report that just as frequently. /sarcasm
Who wants to bet me that they under represented Republicans in the Poll? I think it was Newsweek, but I'm not positive, that recently did this with one of it's polls. Nothing like Push Polling to get the answers you want.
Ask me if I care?
Clinton's pants?
Yeah, better now than in October 2006... a lot can happen in a year.
Katrina hit us bad. Blanco and Nagin will also be out of a job soon, but that's not much comfort for the rest of the country.
Poll: Bush approval mark at all-time low [among radical Muslim extremists]
"Forty-six percent said the country would be better off if Congress were controlled by Democrats, while 34 percent backed a GOP majority."
Weighted poll. I'm not saying the presidents ratings aren't low but dang. That's weighted by about 12 percent.
These polls are rigged.
He's going to President for the next three years and the MSM just can't stand it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.