[Coop]

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

[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]

[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.

[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.

[Bluntpoint]

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

[lasereye]

You have to remember Clinton had a weak opponent and strong economy. Bush will hopefully have both, but if not, the comparison is probably not valid. But their point that 55% approval is not historically low is valid.

[Paleo Conservative]

But, to paraphrase Newton, what goes up eventually comes down.

Newton never said that!

[Fledermaus]

As usual, it's the question and how it was asked and to whom it was asked like adults, likely voters, or registered voters.

Then there is the subset of figures you never read that weigh on the polls like the number of men vs. women, blacks vs. whites, Dems vs. Republicans vs. Independents, etc.

And the Bush's ratings have been up and down for the last nine months. He was in "decline" back in July but suddenly shot back up to the 59-60% level and then back down to the 55% level and it's another "decline". And forget Zogby, his poll is asked as "excellent, good, fair and poor" and he puts 'fair' with 'poor' and implies it's a negative.

Even toe-sucker extraordinaire, Dick Morris, says that most polls are "defintely or somewhat" approve or the same for disapprove and he'd consider 'fair" as 'somewhat approve'. And Zogby doesn't give you the numbers in those categories. I'd like to see the percentage of 'poor' only to compare.

But the bottom line is like the article says. These numbers are high for any president. The Dems jump on generic polls but never talk about the "Bush vs. X" where X is named. Once you put X=Gephardt or X=Dean, Bush's percentage increases to the mid 50's, well enough to beat anyone in the election.

[america-rules]

I think the Dems are making a huge mistake right now. Taking Bush on directly on Terrorism, Iraq etc. is stupid. The average american won't go for it and they know we have to be strong. The UN sucks and Americans know it. We hate the French and don't want to be friends with them anymore. We want a missle shield, our SUV's and Lights on.

The Dems would be better off promising the never-never-land big Gov't promises but the problem is Bush has cut them off on most of their issues.

Dem in the 2004 debates: We need better Education and pay teachers more Bush: I gave them another 80 Billion dollars

The only thing that will save the Dems right now is a third party miracle that takes votes away from Bush II

[RedBloodedAmerican]

This got posted almost a month ago and only two dozen replies?

Why, where are all the anti-Bushies who have been trolling FR, spouting GW's plummeting poll numbers as (according to them) an indication of his failure as President?

I should build a ping list of these folks.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

bttt

[RedBloodedAmerican]

bttt