[HitmanLV]

Yea, but I used to think the same way when polls showed no support for impeachment of Clinton. Every day Freepers hypnotized themselves into thinking the polls were not only inaccurate but wildly inaccurate. Soon it became clear that the polls were more accurate than they were inaccurate.

These polls showing Dubya at remarkably low approval are more accurate than inaccurate.. Disregard them at your own peril.

[adorno]

These polls showing Dubya at remarkably low approval are more accurate than inaccurate.. Disregard them at your own peril.

Ok. But, you're still disregarding who is doing the polling and how they're doing the polling and how they're reaching their desired results. An agendized poll will never be scientific or accurate.

[jveritas]

The ultimate question of course is if those low approval numbers of President Bush (I am sure they are not that low) will translate into a democrat victory this coming 2006 elections:

Will a majority of real voters, not adults whose 50% of them do not vote, trust the democrat more than Republicans on national security issues? The answer is no.

Will majority of real voters think that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are true leaders? The answer is no.

Will Iran become a major issue if not the major issue in this election year and hence gives a big advantage to President Bush and the Republican Party? The answer is yes, most likely Iran will be a very important issue and it will benefit the Republican Party.

Will great and positive events are likely to occur like the capture of Bin Laden or Zawahiri or Zarqawi? It is likely that this can happen and in this case a Republican victory is guaranteed.

Finally will the Republican Party play on the ultimate but real and true fear factor that if the democrats win the House they will certainly impeach President Bush? I think they will and that will greatly energize the base and the independents leaning Republicans.