Bush's approval rating hits new low

Reuters ^ | Mar 13, 2006

[capt. norm]

The media sets up these polls and with the question wording and weiging way too many Democrats into the equation. The result is something they can portray as news and it has the added benefit of furthering their liberal cause.

Reason number two is, it works. Look how many of us here that have already swallowed the bait.

[Marine_Uncle]

He must somehow deliver a series of potent speeches highliteing success in Iraq. Most Americans have not a clue as to where Afghanistan is located or what goes on there. With all the negatives that the L/MSM have been able to drum into the voters minds, the cards are simply stacked against him.
Problem is how can one provide speeches that will turn the tied. Other then a robust economy, what else can he plug.
The voter is so ill informed on the wot, and lets face it social security, and other things went flop. And the US/Mexican border issues rave on, with little positive movement.
They guy does have a problem, and obvious to us it could spell bad for 2006 republican bidders.

[HitmanLV]

Many polls have Dubya in the mid 30s. Rasmussen in the low 40s. That's really the only one. The fact is that neither number is notably good and the idea that it's a somehow good thing that Bush isn't at a rating of 36, but in fact a rating of 43, is pretty silly to me. Both numbers stink (and show broad disapproval) and the truth is probably somewhere between 36 and 43.

[iPod Shuffle]

Of all the polls, I trust Rasmussen the most - they employ the same methodology, night after night, and were the most consistent and accurate throughout 2004.... They have Bush at 42%. That isn't 36%, but it isn't anything to brag home about either.

[TASMANIANRED]

I got push polled last week. Automated.

When I didn't answer questions 1 and 2 the way they wanted the machine went silent and skipped #3.

Continued with 4 and 5.

There are a dozen ways to make a poll say what you want it to.

These are nothing but bias pieces.

[Irish Queen]

Message 2 MSM - BALDERDASH!

[moose2004]

"If they are, then the fact that so many more Americans now identify themselves as "democrats" portends very ill for the 2006 elections."

THESE LIBERAL LEANING POLLING ORGANIZATIONS CONSISTENTLY ESTIMATE THAT DEMS OUTNUMBER REPUBS BY 10-11%, WHICH IS CRAP. IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW A LEGITIMATE POLL CHECK OUT:

www.rasmussenreports.com

RASMUSSEN POLLS EVERY DAY, HE WAS THE MOST ACCURATE POLL IN 2004 AND HE HAS HAD BUSH AT 43/44% EVERY DAY FOR THE LAST WEEK OR MORE.

[moose2004]

We're doomed.

[aligncare]

I've got some news...Reuters News Service Approval Hits All Time Low...Film at Eleven.

[jmc1969]

The problem is al-Qaeda doesn't have kill Americans in Iraq to hurt support for the war. The media will focus on every Iraqi death that happens in country each and every day and that is wearing down the American public like nothing since Vietnam.

Iraqis are going to be dying in the same numbers next year and the year after and possibly the year after that. Hell, low level sectarian violence could go on for half a decade or more. If the media keeps on doing what it has been doing by reporting every Iraqi death it will get more and more ugly.

[iPod Shuffle]

I do not disagree with your point that Bush is doing badly in the polls.. I DO disagree with your premise that it somehow should matter to us. The real question to ask... has Bush been doing a good job as Prez?

Reagan was at his worst in the polls in 81-82, when he was laying the groundwork for the coming economic boom.

The passions of the moment never end up meaning very much over the long term.

[adorno]

I think that any one poll is suspect, but that when you look at several polls and they all tell the same basic story, you can't dismiss the message.

When the source of the polls and the agenda of the pollsters are to destroy Bush, then you have to question the pollsters and their methods and samples, even if they conduct a thousand polls in a thousand different weeks. Faulty and agendized polling should always be disregarded or in the least questioned..

The democrats would love nothing better than to show that Bush is unpopular and therefore that he has no mandate to propose or enact any new programs. Stalling the Bush agenda is the main reason for the slanted and constant polls. And some Bush haters and some not so intelligent people easily fall for the gimmick.

[threeleftsmakearight]

I remember during the election of '04, Gallup did a poll several weeks before the election showing Bush with a slight lead. Democrats and their leader, Michael Moore, were freakin' out. They even claimed Gallup had some connection with Bush, or some such thing.
I wonder if these same Dems are upset with Gallup now.

[HitmanLV]

I think more people are self identifying as democrats and independents, at the expense of the GOP. The Freeper Poll Blindness Brigade always dismisses that concept, too.

[JFC]

W.... Come on home to TEXAS we will welcome you and Laura with open arms. The Bush's are too good for Washington.

[moose2004]

"I agree that Bush's numbers are nothing to write home about.."

I CLEARLY SAID HIS NUMBERS AREN'T GREAT (SEE ABOVE), AND I TRULY BELIEVE A POLL OF LIKELY VOTERS WOULD PLACE BUSH AT 48-49%.

[Siena Dreaming]

"We"? Apparently YOU would not rate him highly.

Nominations of John Bolton, Roberts, Alito, Kyoto decisions, Pro-life stance, Education standards, Keeping us out of the International Court to name a very few things. I rate Pres. Bush very highly.

[HitmanLV]

I know you said that, which is why I said that those numbers aren't anything to be pleased about.

Do you think the spread between polling of adults and likely voters is over 10%? A few points, sure, but specifically what makes you think that?

[lugsoul]

As opposed to those persons who flock to non-scientific internet polls in an effort to affect the outcome?