Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 20 of 965 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
At least the public sees it that way. Nice legacy too war, highest gas prices ever, highest deficit ever (he had to work hard to beat Ronnie), stagnant economy, and he's managed to do this with his party in control of both the house and senate. I bet the perception of us abroad is quite favorable as well.

Approval rating during 2nd term:

Johnson, 1965: 69%
Eisenhower, 1957: 65%
Clinton, 1997: 59%
Nixon, 1973: 57%
Reagan, 1985: 56%
Bush, JUNE 2005: 45%

I think the lowest ever was Nixon at 24% right before he resigned. By contrast, Bill Clinton’s approval rating during the impeachment was 68%. He left office with a 70% approval rating. Clinton’s lowest ever rating was 53%.

And now a new LOW (we knew you had it in you Georgie boy!)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_ap_poll

Wait until the Abramoff trials, this could get him past Nixon's 24% all time low. You can do it George, just keep that same "deer in the headlight" look you had when told about the attacks 9/11, that what the hell do I do now look that inspires confidence.

The coat tails have disappeared, can Rush and O'Reilly be far behind?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Going from a poll number, taken directly after a natural disaster we've never seen the likes of. After six years of the most venomous press ever known to the US. With every opportunist in the country taking shots at every corner.

This has to be the most fair poll ever taken.

As for Klinton's high numbers,, it's easy to be loved when you're cooking the books to make the economy look better than it is, and didn't have to deal with any real trouble for your eight years. Not that nothing happened, you just didn't deal with it.

I'd bet you can find a pole that says 96% of the people of New York hate milk if you look hard enough.

Chris...
 

·
6th Grade
Joined
·
14,918 Posts
284_shooter said:
Going from a poll number, taken directly after a natural disaster we've never seen the likes of. After six years of the most venomous press ever known to the US. With every opportunist in the country taking shots at every corner.

This has to be the most fair poll ever taken.
Chris...
His numbers were almost as bad before Katrina.

I'm sure it is difficult for you to understand, but Bush's lousy numbers may well be the result of Americans simply seeing him for what he is.
 

·
Founder of the STFA
Joined
·
8,668 Posts
Sharky said:
His numbers were almost as bad before Katrina.

I'm sure it is difficult for you to understand, but Bush's lousy numbers may well be the result of Americans simply seeing him for what he is.
Nobody knows what he is. He loses 15-20 points in the polls simply from people who disagree with the Iraq effort. Not much will change that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Sharky said:
His numbers were almost as bad before Katrina.

I'm sure it is difficult for you to understand, but Bush's lousy numbers may well be the result of Americans simply seeing him for what he is.

Sharky,

You must agree that much of the outcome is a derivituve of the question. For example, if I ask you, " What do you think of President Bush's job performnace based upon the quagmire in Iraq?" I'd say that you will get a differnt response than, "How do you feel about President Bush's job performance, regzrding his policy on the war on terror?"


They are basiclly asking the same thing, no?

Since none of the pollsters actually post the exact question that they ask, and may don't post the demographic and time the calls were made, how can you take any of them for real?


If I was called today, and asked, " How do I think Bush is handling the war in Iraq?" I woud give him less than stellar remarks. However, it's not due to the fact that we are in Iraq, but rather our lack of offensive actions in the last 14 months or so. If I was asked, "do you feel we should have gone back into Iraq, and condidering the current situation, should we continue on with the mission?" my answer would be yes on both accounts.

We could do the same with the immegration policy, or lack there of. Bush is pissing off a lot of his base over his in-action with sealing the borders. If a pollster was to average the negetive responses, over a wide range of varying questions, Bush is going to get a very low mark. It doesn't matter how many support him overall, if the question or the poll is squed.

Here is a copy of the question AP asked; http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com/ . Notice there is no middle ground. They take people from the middle and force them into an approve or disapproved catagory. I, personally, don't think things are that black and white.


We could do this all day, but let's not.

Chris...
 

·
6th Grade
Joined
·
14,918 Posts
284_shooter said:
Sharky,



Since none of the pollsters actually post the exact question that they ask, and may don't post the demographic and time the calls were made, how can you take any of them for real?


Chris...
We could do this all day because YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT half the time.

Pollsters nearly ALWAYS report the question that prompted the answer.

READ:
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pa/presidentialRatings.cfm

The question was:
"Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President? (IF APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE, ASK:) Is that strongly (approve/disapprove) or somewhat (approve/disapprove)? (IF HAVE MIXED FEELINGS OR NOT SURE, ASK:) If you had to choose, do you lean more toward approve or disapprove? "

As for demographics, it was a poll of 1002 Americans, with 831 of those being registered voters polled from September 6-8th. What more do you want? Time of day, race, geographic location of those polled?

Your arguments become even less valid when you figure in that it isn't just any one poll that shows what the people think; when you average them all, Bush is viewed as doing a poor job by any measure.

DUH.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Sharky said:
The question was:
"Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President? (IF APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE, ASK:) Is that strongly (approve/disapprove) or somewhat (approve/disapprove)? (IF HAVE MIXED FEELINGS OR NOT SURE, ASK:) If you had to choose, do you lean more toward approve or disapprove? "

As for demographics, it was a poll of 1002 Americans, with 831 of those being registered voters polled from September 6-8th. What more do you want? Time of day, race, geographic location of those polled?
So,, you agree with the AP, that there is no room for middle ground?

And yes, if those 1002 American were polled at 1pm in the afternoon, in San Fancisco, or Manhatten, or the Astro dome, I would like to see that.

Overall, I think everyone is disappointed with some of the things the administration is doing. That doesn't mean that a true 69% of the people in the US think he's wrong on all accounts, and is doing poorly at each and every thing he is doing.

But,, think what you want. Not one damn bit of the poll shit makes any difference. Not like he's up for re-election.

Chris...
 

·
6th Grade
Joined
·
14,918 Posts
284_shooter said:
So,, you agree with the AP, that there is no room for middle ground?

And yes, if those 1002 American were polled at 1pm in the afternoon, in San Fancisco, or Manhatten, or the Astro dome, I would like to see that.

Overall, I think everyone is disappointed with some of the things the administration is doing. That doesn't mean that a true 69% of the people in the US think he's wrong on all accounts, and is doing poorly at each and every thing he is doing.

Chris...
WAKE UP.

Here are some more poll results

Notice how they show each question for each separate poll.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

They key word in most of the polls is "OVERALL." The question is not open-ended. He's either Ok or he isn't.

This means that for whatever good those polled believe Bush might be doing, OVERALL he sucks SO BAD it doesn't matter what good he's done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Sharky said:
WAKE UP.

This means that for whatever good those polled believe Bush might be doing, OVERALL he sucks SO BAD it doesn't matter what good he's done.
A further note about the AP poll regarded Katrina, and the gas poll.

My bet is, if I polled a customer the day after you hit them with a $1200 bill for front end work, you'd get less than stellar poll figures. And I don't think most people understand the President doesn't have much control over gas prices. What's he going to do, fix the price? If there is no colusion between oil companies to artificailly inflate prices, what power does he have over them to drop their prices?

How'd you like it if GW rolled up to MO and said, "Sharky, I know every other mechanic in the workd is getting $90 an hour for VW work, but you're only gonna be able to charge $45, because the people of MO are pissed it costs so much to fix their cars"

Should that be allowed? How do you think you'd poll if you had to raise the price of your labor, because your insurance went up 45% and you had no control over it?

But yes,,, Yes,, it is that black and white. You have opened my eyes oh exhualted and enlighted one :icon_eek: How could there ever be middle ground or more to the story. When it's all or nothing,, he must be a schmuck.

Chris...
 

·
6th Grade
Joined
·
14,918 Posts
284_shooter said:
My bet is, if I polled a customer the day after you hit them with a $1200 bill for front end work, you'd get less than stellar poll figures. Chris...

Just for the record, the customers I make the most money from are the happiest.

Yes, really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,236 Posts
Well, you can't base your rating purely on polls. James Buchanan (1857-1861) is still widely considered the worst president of all time. Lincoln is often rated the best president, although if you took a poll after the Civil War, a good 30-40% would have called him the worst president ever. It's not like W is going to crack the top 20, but he has a long way to go (i.e. failing to reuinte the country after civil war) to hit the bottom.

Most people realize that the Katrina disaster was a result of local government and federal government, so his rating isn't necessarily down on that (only 13% of people blame him for that). The economy has performed reasonably well. People fault him for the Iraq war and gasoline prices. Americans are used to paying 1/4 of what Europeans pay, so now that it's 1/2, they're getting angry. Bush isn't directly responsible for gas prices, as it's ridiculous to think he can control expanding markets in China and India. However, his policies of allowing car companies to continually produce vehicles that realistically get 9-10mpg as well as a failure to devote money to alternative sources have caused prices to rise on demand concerns. American consumers who purchase these vehicles are also to blame. Almost no one driving an SUV has the right to complain about gas prices.

I would be willing to bet that Bush's approval rating will now fluctuate directly with gas prices. If they drop below $2.40-2.50, I would guess he'll be sitting at 50%. If they remain constant at $3.00 or go higher, you'll see a steady decline in ratings. I don't think he'll ever go below 35% though...there are too many Bush fanatics to allow that to happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
The storm has nothing to do with his ratings, his frozen deer in the headlights not knowing WTF to do reaction does. If this had happened in Flordia he'd have acted before the hurricane even hit to help his brother look good. Any wonder that a state lead by democrats got nothing from the feds until the nation demanded it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Sharky said:
Just for the record, the customers I make the most money from are the happiest.

Yes, really.

You must have very understanding, and informed customers.


ct47 said:
If this had happened in Flordia he'd have acted before the hurricane even hit to help his brother look good. Any wonder that a state lead by democrats got nothing from the feds until the nation demanded it?
Do you honestly believe that? If so,, how much tin foil are you wearing right now? :poke:

Chris...
 

·
My pornstar name came up "Jay the Snork."
Joined
·
5,611 Posts
284_shooter said:
After six years of the most venomous press ever known to the US....
you seem to forget the previous 8 years. the press is neither liberal or conservative, they merely go after whoever is currently in power.However, the more rabid the opposition, the more aggressively the press seems to go after a sitting administration.Personal hatred of Clinton (and his wife, and even his 12 year old daughter:crazy: ) was vigorously pushed and promoted by the GOP during clintons eight years in office, with one witch hunt after another.

284_shooter said:
As for Klinton's high numbers, it's easy to be loved when you're cooking the books to make the economy look better than it is,
:crazy: I have no idea what you are talking about. Clinton was the first president to balance the budget in a generation and no cooking was required.He also oversaw one of the greatest expansions of the US economy ever (and while he was minimally, if at all, responsible for the economic growth, he certainly did nothing to destroy it either) Any economist not on the GOP payroll can state these as simple, undeniable facts.
.
284_shooter said:
Going from a poll number, taken directly after a natural disaster we've never seen the likes of.

As for Klinton's high numbers,, it's easy to be loved ..........................and didn't have to deal with any real trouble for your eight years. Not that nothing happened, you just didn't deal with it.
Historically, natural disasters and war make a presidents poll numbers go up, not down. The fact that Bush's numbers went even lower after Katrina are a pretty good indication that people are seeing past the "gee I'm a swell, patriotic, loyal kinda guy" persona to his underlying incompetence.Bush has got to be the luckiest politician alive. His poll numbers were dropping right before 9/11 and then he got a break.

ANYONE could and would have responded to 9/11 by attacking the taliban in afghanistan, it was a no brainer.But it made Bush look like "the great american war president" and he and his handlers milked it for all it was worth, ("mission accomplished" my ass, and how many times did he say "i'm a war president" during the last campaign?) Unfortunately bush's true potential was eventually realized as he dragged the US from record budget surplusses to record deficits, into a stupid costly war in Iraq, and now his inept response to katrina, etc.

as for clinton, he had his war in kosovo (opposed by republicans, but one of the most successful, best executed american war efforts ever- just look at the end results ), his attempted missle strike against bin laden (characterized as a diversion by republicans) ,ethiopia(a mess), and a few severe florida hurricanes to boot.

Face it, Bush's luck is wearing off, his true lack of insight and his shallowness of character are showing through and all over the country, people who voted for Bush are taking their heads in their hands and screaming " Oh my God!!! What have i done?":Yikes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
I'll start this by saying, I was using Klinton as an example, as he's a recent pres., with lots to talk about. I'm not trying to bash Klinton, as there really is no point. But...


mfitz said:
Personal hatred of Clinton (and his wife, and even his 12 year old daughter:crazy: ) was vigorously pushed and promoted by the GOP during clintons eight years in office, with one witch hunt after another.
They never said anything about the daughter in the press. It was the tabloids that hammered her. Guess you think the GOP runs the tabloids? Can you say that about what they've tried to do to the party twins?

have no idea what you are talking about. Clinton was the first president to balance the budget in a generation and no cooking was required.
actually, the republican led congress balanced it, over his intial veto's, but he got credit for it, as he was the pres. Pretty standard fair. Suppose he was responsible for welfare reform as well? Can you say Newt Gingrich and the contract with America? Klinton basiclly was forced to sign many of the lines of this contract, and it was what got things rolling in the right direction. The GOP lost on taxes,, but got a lot of other stuff that helped. Klinton was lucky to have that hapening while he was in, or he would have been known for nothing but a BJ and some purgery.

He also oversaw one of the greatest expansions of the US economy ever (and while he was minimally, if at all, responsible for the economic growth, he certainly did nothing to destroy it either) Any economist not on the GOP payroll can state these as simple, undeniable facts.
This is the part I disagree with. His "anything goes" attitude allowed shit like Yahoo, Amazon, Enron, Tyco, etc. Bush got handed a huge pile of shit, as far as the economy goes, with the stock market free falling until the tax cuts. Call it a correction if you like, but everything was over inflated, and Klinton did nothing to monitor the biggies (enron and tyco). He was too busy buring up a bunch of little kids to worry about oversight of corporations that were public utlilities, etc. He exuded an"I'm gonna get mine" attiutude, and it created an enviroment that the corruption thrived in.

I'm not going so far as saying it's Klintons fault that these guys were corrupt. It was their own doing, but if Bush could have forseen FEMA's lack of response, I guess Klinton could have seen ENRONS.

The "projected" surpluses weren't gonna happen either, as many of the blue chips were going in the toilet. We had a small surplus, but nothing like the 5 trillion they were projecting. If you project you'll be getting a $6 an hour raise, and it doesn't happen, did you just get a pay cut? Did your job spend you're surplus?

ANYONE could and would have responded to 9/11 by attacking the taliban in afghanistan, it was a no brainer.
Same could have been said for the USS Cole, but to be fair, party boy was on his way out. He didn't wanna rock the boat in the last 9 months, especially after somalia.

Unfortunately bush's true potential was eventually realized as he dragged the US from record budget surplusses to record deficits, into a stupid costly war in Iraq, and now his inept response to katrina, etc.
We'll just have to disagree on the war. It's hurting now, but will pay off in the future. If you're not looking at the next generation, I can see where you'd miss that. What would two more 9/11's cost us? How about a "Russian School" incodent?

We are collecting more than enough tax revenue. But I'll give you the fact that Bush has been overspending. It's been one of my pet peeves. I'm not talking about the war, but his bullshit farm bill, his corporate welfare and a host of other HUGE spending bills that were pretty much just pandering. Not very GOP like. His inability to reign in the pork spending is disappointing as well. And statement like I JUST typed, are what makes his numbers look bad. Not that I want him out, but I'm not happy with all his policies.

But to be fair though, BUSH can't spend one red cent unless congress approved it. How much restraint have you seen from either side of the ailse? For that matter, why is it that congress, who makes the laws and the budgets, appears to be standing on the sidelines and complaining about all that's wrong, yet does nothing to try and fix what they're bitching about?

as for clinton, he had his war in kosovo (opposed by republicans, but one of the most successful, best executed american war efforts ever- just look at the end results ),
Yeah,, Klinton said, "we'll be out by Christman." We're still there. And Republican supported the war, as well as his embarrasing supremee court appointee. I won't go so far as to say it was a diversion, but it wasn't as clean and sucessful as you'd be led to believe.

The difference between times of old an now is,, the left doesn't stop politics at the shores edge. They take every opportunity to try and hurt Bush and the GOP, and what is it getting them?

his attempted missle strike against bin laden (characterized as a diversion by republicans) ,ethiopia(a mess), and a few severe florida hurricanes to boot.
I'm sorry,, was that an example of his leadership abilities?

Face it, Bush's luck is wearing off, his true lack of insight and his shallowness of character are showing through and all over the country, people who voted for Bush are taking their heads in their hands and screaming " Oh my God!!! What have i done?":Yikes:

I'll agree that some of the traditional platform issues of the GOP, and many libriatrians, is being shyed away from. Ran away from in some cases. He's no perfect pres., but he's had to deal with a lot of stuff Klinton and many other shrugged off and left for the next guy. He's also trying to fix stuff that many won't touch. SSI is a prime example.

I'm sure you'll come back with some examples of Klintons shining achievements, but I'm affraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on the greatness of presidents 42 and 43.

Have a nice night.

Chris...
 
1 - 20 of 965 Posts
Top