No Comparison: Bush Poll Numbers Beat Bill Clinton’s

Roll Call ^ | September 9, 2003 | David Winston

[Coop]

Kinda puts things into perspective. And IIRC Ronald Reagan was at 46-47% job approval at this approx. time in his first term.

[rhombus]

I think your figures about Reagan are a better perspective guide since Clinton always had the lamestream media doing his bidding and actively working against Republicans.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Okay... I'll admit it: reading this did make me feel a whole lot better about our party's immediate future, re: '04.

Thanks, Veronica! :)

[tsmith130]

Excellent article. All the ammo I need in one convenient location. Thank you!

[My2Cents]

[Coop]

I'll admit it: reading this did make me feel a whole lot better about our party's immediate future, re: '04.

:-) Then you need to read a few of the articles about the Dem Senate prospects for that same election. Not lookin' too good!

[sheltonmac]

No Comparison: Bush Poll Numbers Beat Bill Clinton's

Hmmmmmm. I didn't know Bill Clinton was running in the upcoming election. At any rate, W's numbers are lower than his father's were at this time in 1991, so I fail to see the relevance of the author's point.

[thecanuck]

I agree with those suggesting Reagan is probably a slightly more appropriate comparison. The Perot/Reform factor in '96 I think played as big a role in the margin of victory as Willie's personal polling. Dole might not have won either way but the gap would have been tighter. Bottom line: don't take anything for granted.

[Bigg Red]

It is also important to remember that Bush has been able to maintain what is a strongly positive job approval in a period when voters are increasingly concerned about the economy and complications in Iraq.

---

And when they are constantly being inundated by the emphais on the negative as performed by the DNC's Ministry of Information, aka CBSABCCNNNBC-NYTWASHPOST.

[zencat]

It's comforting. I believe Bush is very likely to win in 2004, particularly as the economy and job situation improves. However don't become complacent and let's all work hard for a Bush landslide. It could also impact the House and Senate.

Some more advice to help re-elect Bush:

1. Donate to Bush-Cheney '04 re-election campaign.
http://www.georgewbush.com

2. Join the Republican National Committee.
http://www.rnc.org/

3. Put a Bush 2004 bumper-sticker on your car, buy a Bush hat or t-shirt and wear it around. I get more complients and thumbs up on my Bush hat than anyone would believe. It shows grass root support.
http://www.georgewbushstore.com/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/scstore/bush_cheney_04_line.htm?L+scstore+qbgg9331+1063155855

4. Get involved with a your local Republican party and work the Bush campaign in 2004. Canvass, do literature drops, work a get out the vote phone bank.

5. Never back down from your beliefs!

[Grampa Dave]

Great post and thanks for the ping!

[ReaganRevolution]

Compare this with Dickie Morris having a fit over the President's plummeting poll numbers. I wonder what he was thinking when Willie was in the 40's. There was no way the President could remain at 80, or 70 percent approval, it just doesn't work that way. Approval ratings in the 50's are the norm.

[My2Cents]

The author's point is that the Democrats shouldn't wet themselves in excitement over Bush's polling numbers.

[My2Cents]

There was no way the President could remain at 80, or 70 percent approval

Certainly not with the election now in full swing, and straining itself to bring Bush down. My one complaint about W is that he doesn't seem to take credit for things he's achieved as President. It's interesting that Bush is still in the upper 50s in approval, when you consider he's done little to address his opponents, or to toot his own horn. I think Bush's high-50s approval rating, in the face of negative media spin out of Iraq, and negative spin on the economy, shows a large bedrock of good will with the American people. George W. Bush is a man to be trusted in the Presidency, and most people know that, and are thankful for it. This kind of good will isn't swayed by the latest headline.

[ReaganRevolution]

I agree, I wish he would be more agressive with some of the garbage coming from the nine clowns running for President.

[Bluntpoint]

When is Bush, for the good of the party, going to step aside and make way for Tom McClintock?

[sheltonmac]

If that's the case, then Republicans should also avoid enumerating their fowl prior to their emergence from the shell. After all, the similarities between 1991 and 2003 are striking: popularity following a military campaign in Iraq, a sagging economy, slowly dipping poll numbers.

A more appropriate comparison would be between W and his father. Remember, the elder Bush was still enjoying an approval rating of around 70% in Sept. 1991.

[Peach]

Definitely puts the poll numbers in perspective. AND, I don't for a second believe half the alphabet networks poll numbers and studies - they are so skewed conservatives never get a fair shake.

[My2Cents]

The elder Bush showed no interest in addressing the economic woes of the nation leading up to the '92 election. That's where the comparison ends.