Bush approval in polls remains strong at 63% [my title]

MSNBC ^ | Sept 8, 2002 | AP

[The Raven]

.....Overall, the poll found that 63 percent approve of the way Bush is doing his job. .... strong for a president almost two years on the job

Click for full article

[The Raven]

The article has the headline "Polls: Bush approval rating drops" [pardon me for changing it] and the above was the only positive thing I could find in it...........more Bush bashing by the libs.

[Dog]

Wolf Blitzer had a poll on his show today .....Bush at 66%.......then made the comment that it has dropped since January when it was at 77%...seemed almost happy saying it. So it seems the Talking point today is Bush's falling poll numbers...

[deport]

Also from the Washington Post poll was the following.....

---

Generic House Ballot Test Polls listed chronologically.

Washington Post Poll. Latest: Sept. 3-6, 2002. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Field work by TNS Intersearch.
						.
"If the election for the U.S. House of Representatives were being held today, would you vote for [rotate:] the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate in your congressional district?" If "Other," "Neither," "Don't know," or "Refused": "Would you lean [rotate:] toward the Democratic candidate or toward the Republican candidate?"
		Repub- lican	Demo- crat	Other (vol.)	Neither (vol.)	Not Sure
		%	%	%	%	%
	9/02	49	41	1	2	6
	7/02	45	47	1	1	5
	Among registered voters:					.
	7/02	46	47	1	1	5

[wienerdog.com]

Hmm... remember how with Clinton they used to break out his "personal approval" to inflate his job approval? I hope this doesn't disappear down the memory hole.

[LS]

Bush has weathered the storm. ENRON, "corporate scandals," the PLO/Israel thing, the "White-House-Knew" thing, and the plodding economy---none of it has stuck. With this kind of string of bad news, for Bush to be at over 60, the Dems and libs are in HUGE trouble, because when either we go into Iraq or the economy starts to chug a little faster, they are dead meat. He will be back in the 70s, which is as high as I ever think a "peace time" president will go with our modern media.

[tomahawk]

Gosh that looks good. Is it for real?

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

60% to 40% huh? How's this for a headline: Bush approval rating is 50% higher than disapproval.

[PianoMan]

Well shoot that looks like a landslide. Except for the "dead people" demographic that never seem to answer their phones, but vote Democratic in droves.

[Ensonicus]

It doesn't mean squat if it doesn't get the senate back and keep the house.

[fhayek]

Look, I am happy to see high approval numbers as much as anyone, but I think we get too hung up on them sometimes. It is better to do the right thing, even if it doesn't improve your popularity. I refer, of course, to kicking Iraq's butt. Great men do things that, in the short run, may diminish their approval ratings. After all, in the final analysis, all Bill Clinton had in his record, is his job approval ratings.

[rb22982]

Asked if the United States should attack if it thinks Iraq plans an attack, even if none has occurred, six in 10 said yes. Three-fourths said the United States should pre-empt a feared nuclear attack from Iraq.

Amazing that 2/5ths and 1/4th, respectively, of the people they asked are idiots.

[deport]

Real... who knows? But it is the results posted on Pollingreport.com There are other polls that show differently. People seem to like their incumbent over a challenger....

http://www.pollingreport.com/

[DrDeb]

FYI:

GWB's approval ratings in September 2002 ( http://www.pollingreport.com ):

Washingon Post/ABC News (9/3-6/02):
69% Approval 28% Disapproval 3% Don't Know
(EXACTLY the same as the Post's last survey on 7/24-28/02)

CBS News/New York Times (9/2-5/02):
63% Approval 28% Disapproval 9% Don't Know
(within margin of error from the Times' last survey a month ago)

Gallup/USAToday/CNN (9/2-4/02):
66% Approval 29% Disapproval 5% Don't Know
(1 point higher than Gallup's last survey two weeks ago)

Bottomline: The RATS/liberal media have thrown EVERYTHING in their pitiful arsenal at the President and yet his approval numbers have stabilized in the mid to high 60s -- PHENOMENAL. Comparatively, Clinton had a 40% approval rating at this same point in his presidency!

DOUBLE FYI: Clinton had an approval rating in the low 60s when he left office and now has an approval rating slightly below 50%. According to Gallup, he is the only modern president other than Nixon to experience a DROP rather than an increase in approval post-presidency! [Makes sense given that Clinton's favorability ratings were always in the 40s!]

[DJtex]

The Democrats are finding it so hard to attack Bush either directly or indirectly. When you have approval in the low to mid 60's then you are just making 2 out of 3 people real mad at you for playing politics.

But they are desperate to dent the President because if Bush has any coattails at all, if his popularity helps in even a few of the 2002 elections, then the Democrats are dead--at least for the next two years.

If they lose the Senate (increasingly likely) and don't retake the House (always unlikely), the Dems will really start sounding like whiners and petty politicians in the runup to the 2004 Presidential Elections.

[Common Tator]

There is something the media and most people in the political arena do not know.When times are tough or the nation faces danger the people will support the politician who is trying to fix things and reach out to the other side. In this bad economic or national saftey situation the public traditionaly has punished the party and candidates who want to fight the other party.

Look at what happened in Georgia. A very partisan attacking type Democrat named McKinney got beat in a district she had easily won before. Bob Barr an agressive tell it like it is Republican got beat in a Republican district by a go along, to get along, Republican. Those are two recent cases of the phenomenon.

FDR was elected President in a terrible depression. The Republicans and the media fought him evey step of the way. Over 80 percent of the News Papers in 1936 endorsed the Republican, Alf Landon, for president. This was before TV. Newpapers were thought to have huge influence. The economy was in worse shape in 1936 than it had been in 1932. Everyone thought FDR was toast. The Republicans were attacking and Roosevelt was proposing even more fixes to follow his failed or rejected fixes. Roosevelt won a huge landslide victory. The public in the great depression went for the falied fixer rather than the unfailing attacker.

The Democrats and the media have yet to learn that you can't take Dubya down in these kinds of times with attacks. The only way to destroy Dubya is to propose very leftist fixes and then attack Dubya for not adopting them. Here is how to fix things and dubya won't do it, is effective. But the Democrats don't have a clue.

In bad times the candidates that oppose the fixer lose.

It is very simple if you think about it. When times are good the public does not want any change. When the only way to move is down, they want gridlock.

But when times are bad or danger is afoot, the public wants the bad stuff fixed. It wants the nation made safe and the economy fixed. It wants people in government to work togther to fix things. That is just human nature. The public will elect the candidate who proposes fixes. If he is the president they will elect his party to control the house and the senate. If he is an out of party leader,they will elect his people to control the congress.

Either Dubya or the people he listens to have a real understanding of how things work.

The public will punish the Democrats for attacking Bush. The Democrats don't understand why. Just like the FDR years, the more they attack the less effect the attacks have.

When the economy was down in 1981 and 1982 Tip O'Neil worked with Reagan. Tip passed Reaganonomics. Reagans approval rating dropped to well below 50 percent. When the congress works with a president and the economy is still down on election day, the president takes the blame. If the economy is bad and the congress fights the president then the congress takes the blame. The president only needs to be the fixit man. His fixes don't even have to work as long as the other side fights him.

If the economy comes back up by 2004 as it most likely will, then Bush's approval ratings will go through the roof. And as FDR proved back in the late 30s and early 40s, that situation gives the president coat tails. O'Neil chose not to fight Reagan, and that denied Reagan 1984 coat tails.

It seems to me that Daschle, Gephardt, McAuliffe and Clinton have it all wrong. They are doing their best to give Bush coat tails. They need to study human nature.

How can they study human nature when their nature is inhuman.

[shiva]

It doesn't mean squat if it doesn't get the senate back and keep the house.

You signed up just to say that?

[Sonny M]

If the dems don't keep the senate and get the house, they are dead in the water no matter what. In 2004, a strong majority of the senate canidates are democrats, not to mention a huge group of dems in the house will be retiring, and if Bush has control of both the house and senate, and there is a war with Iraq, he will coast to re-election in a blow out.