Bush's Poll Position Is Worst on Record

[UpInArms]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43180-2005Apr11.html

With apologies to George Tenet, the first 100 days of President Bush's second term have been no slam-dunk.

How rough has it been? Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president at this point in his second term, according to Gallup polls going back to World War II.

Bush's erosion of support among independents in particular has helped bring his overall approval rating down to 45 percent. Fort-nine percent disapprove of his performance.

Compare Bush's numbers, as of the most recent Gallup poll, to the previous six presidents who served second terms:

Clinton: 59 percent approval versus 35 percent disapproval

Reagan: 56 percent versus 37 percent disapproval

Nixon: 57 percent versus 34 percent

Johnson: 69 percent versus 21 percent

Eisenhower: 65 percent versus 20 percent

Truman: 57 percent versus 24 percent

...more...

[Danmel]

1. Except it's too f'ing late

We're stuck with him. They only comfort I can draw from this is that maybe some of his wish list won't be granted. But if they go nuclear, we're screwed on the courts and he doesn't care and will just issue executive orders right and left and there is still a long way to go before the 2006 elections. Who knows what will happen between now and then. With this crew, anything is possible.

I think we need Tom Delay to stay and keep talking all the way to the midterm elections.

[Arkana]

32. All they have to do is say the magic words

"Yew don't want them QUEERS to git married, do yew?" and people would flock back to vote for them anyway. :grr:

[TexasSissy]

41. Yep. The Bozos who voted for him have no right to complain NOW.

It's too late. But don't blame me..or us...we didn't vote for him.

[calimary]

69. Indeed. ANYONE you know who feigns outrage over bush's Big Brother

government stomping around in jackboots in their bedrooms, doctors' offices, or hospices with "gee, I didn't vote for THAT..." you KNOW what the reply must be.

"YES, YOU DID."

[Kimber Scott]

72. Maybe, the Bozos didn't vote for him, either?

Stinky. Stinky. Those exit polls just might have been on to something....

[SammyBlue]

54. Agreed. . .you know the saying

You can bullshit some of the people all of the time, all the of the people some of the time, but you only need to bullshit them on election day.

At least queers can't marry. <sarcasm>

BTW, isn't it time to start bombing another nation that had nothing to do with 9/11?

[not fooled]

65. yeah, and in *'s own words:

sorry folks can't remember where I found this but from chimpy's mouth to your ears:

"you can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you have to focus on"

doesn't that just epitomize his opinion of politics (and the stupidity of the 'Murkan voters who support him)?

[Mark E. Smith]

2. The Twin Albatrosses: Smirk & Bug Boy

2006 could be rough for the GOP.

[indepat]

6. Nah, Rove will roll out a new product line to follow Iraq and SS

[tavalon]

23. If only Diebold weren't in the mix

You would be so right. And we would have our little impeachment come 2006.

[Inland]

3. You mean, the worst president has the worst numbers?

How does THAT happen?

[Art_from_Ark]

21. Amazing, isn't it, that the worst pResident has the worst numbers

Just one of Life's Great Mysteries, I suppose

[tavalon]

24. Obviously the poll is wrong

Just like the exit polls. I guess his supporters just aren't willing to talk to the pollsters, just like with the exit polls. Yeah, that's it.......:eyes: :sarcasm:

[TheUnknownPoster]

49. Well of course Bush supporters didn't talk to the pollsters

They don't have phones at the compound up in the mountains. That's how the queers use their mind control on you to make you marry 'em! :)

[tavalon]

63. LOL

Welcome to DU, TheUnknownPoster!

[ixion]

4. so much for the 'popular war-time pResident' moniker

:woohoo:

[wellstoner]

74. Time to talk about terrah again, just announced...

Lets see, we're polling at 44%

Time to talk up the war on terror again.

that should do'er!

Oh, hey, looky there! CNN just
announced that Bush will give
a speech on the war on terrah
this week.

I'm sure they were planning that
for weeks. yeee-up fer sure.

ugh.

[Goldeneye]

5. You have to agree with him here as well though

"The Republican triumph of 2004 was less about the electorate's overwhelming love for the Bush agenda than it was about the failure of Kerry and the Democrats to present an enticing and viable alternative and a cohesive vision for the future.

As it stands today, there's little evidence -- outside of the Social Security issue -- that the Democrats have changed all that much since Kerry's defeat in November. They don't appear positioned to take advantage of Bush's dropping poll numbers any more than Republicans are queuing up behind the president as a strong leader of the party. It seems in some ways that both parties are doing their best to lose."

The democrats better get their asses in gear if they want to win.

[Yavin4]

9. Both Parties Are Politically Boxed In

Both parties are heavily dependent on corporate money to finance their campaigns, so they cannot do the things they need to do in order to build political support. Specifically, they need to reign in these free trade agreements which have created internatinal labor arbitrage. Also, we need to massively invest in alternative fuel sources in order to alleviate the gas crunch.

Instead, politicians have fallen back on the "values" argument in order to build political support. If you can't answer the public's needs about jobs or high gas prices, then give them Jesus.

[tavalon]

25. Or choice number three

the election was just a little stolen. Oh wait, that can't be. Diebold has completely transparent programming and voter verified receipts. Don't they?

:sarcasm:

[Goldeneye]

57. I believe that the election was stolen.

I also believe the democrats could do better. This election shouldn't have even been close.

[tavalon]

62. Amen to that one! But......

A friend of mine says they couldn't have stolen it if it wasn't that close. I wonder sometimes if Diebold couldn't just as easily rig many votes as a few votes. In a computer, what's the difference between a million and fifty million, you know?

[Goldeneye]

75. That's a tough call.

It will start to look funny if they have to steal too many votes though. Maybe some people will snap out of it, if they steal 06 too?

[mistertrickster]

27. I totally agree with that--Dems have to cut themselves loose from sucking

up to the same big money interests that run the Republicans if they want to appeal to all those voters who sit out the elections.

Kerry's campaign really caught fire when he talked about "Benedict Arnold" corporations who benefit from the US but pay nothing back . . . but then Bob Shrum and the DLC boys got him to cool the rhetoric and all the heat went with it.

[Javaman]

29. You are absolutely right.

I have been ranting about just this issue.

Unless we get our act together, have a unified vision and message, 06 and 08 will be more of the same.

[Bo]

35. Kerry had no Za Za Zoom

he was stick in the mud...Big Dog would have destroyed frat boy

[Ready4Change]

39. No I don't.

I think 2004 was due in large part to the right promoting fear and hatred of homosexuals and foreingers, and only to a lesser degree by the Democrats reluctance to capitalize on their opponents weaknesses.

And maybe with a little help from Diebold. ;)

[Goldeneye]

58. I can agree with all that too.

I guess I'd say most of the loss is due to diebold. Another good chunk of the loss is because the republicans aren't shy about lying and manipulating. And a smaller part is attributable to the sloppy campaign. We can't do a damn thing about the republicans. We're working on election reform. That leaves the democratic party to get itself reorganized.

[Laurab]

60. I don't either

I agree with you, except I think it was probably a LOT of help from Diebold.

I'm not sure any campaign, with any message, would have been able to overcome that one little tiny thing - the vote counting. It's not as if bushit ran a good campaign, and we did capitalize on some weaknesses, we're just not as good at playing dirty. *'s numbers were bad then, they were bad after the election, and they're worse now. The only thing that makes sense to me is Diebold.

[leQ]

50. where the hell is howard? about the only thing i've seen of him lately

is that he wants jesus part of the new strategy.

i have to wonder, is this the same howard i caucussed for?

[DUBYASCREWEDUS]

52. FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH

I emailed a copy of this article to the DNC. I just hope someone there actually reads it.

Don't you all just love hearing a Moron supporter complain about the price of gas or that Chimpster might touch their Social Security? Can't tell you how many times since Nov, '04 I've said "I told you so!"

[Teaser]

7. Hey Americans...

If I wasn't one of you, I'd have no sympathy for you at all.
Fucking shot yourselves in the foot, didn't you?

(Of Course DUers are exempted from this).

[yurbud]

8. another log on the election theft fire--or proof of divine intervention

[Toucano]

10. Wow.

Just "wow".

[emad]

11. Bush's Poll Position Is Worst on Record

Second Terms are Tough, and No President Has Banked Less Political Capital for the Fights Ahead

By Terry M. Neal
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, April 11, 2005; 8:29 AM

With apologies to George Tenet, the first 100 days of President Bush's second term have been no slam-dunk.

How rough has it been? Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president at this point in his second term, according to Gallup polls going back to World War II.

Bush's erosion of support among independents in particular has helped bring his overall approval rating down to 45 percent. Fort-nine percent disapprove of his performance.

Compare Bush's numbers, as of the most recent Gallup poll, to the previous six presidents who served second terms:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43180-2005Apr11.html

[Wickerman]

12. Damn, if this were California we could have us a recall!

:dilemma:

[RaRa]

13. The DNC better milk this in the mid-terms! t/n

[Pirate Smile]

16. Six year itch

"Among political professionals, the campaign season runs continuously. So even though there's little news about it in the nation's papers and broadcasts, both parties are already in the thick of candidate recruitment for the 2006 midterm congressional elections. Much is at stake. Elections in the sixth year of a presidency are typically perilous territory for the party of the president in power.

"There have been six of these elections in the post-World War II era (1950, 1958, 1966, 1974, 1986, and 1998). The average loss for the White House in these sixth year elections has been six Senate seats -- double the overall midterm average loss of three seats," wrote Larry J. Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, in a recent analysis.

A loss of six seats for Republicans would put Democrats back in control of the Senate. But averages are nothing more than academic debating points. In truth, each election has its own dynamic.

[natrat]

38. diebold=new and exciting dynamic

[MessiahRp]

20. Not according to Rove...

From the article linked above:

• Overconfidence: The president beamed with confidence after his November defeat of John Kerry. After the election, Bush told a news conference, "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style." This statement was certainly no surprise, given that Bush governed as though he had a clear mandate even after losing the popular vote by a half-million to Al Gore in 2000. But the reality of Bush's victory in 2004 was that he won with 50.7 percent of the popular vote to Sen. John F. Kerry's 48.2 percent. You'd have to back to at least the early 1800s to find a president who has been re-elected by a closer margin.

Here's what slimeball said the other day in Wisconsin:

After the next four years, Bush will "be known as one of the great domestic reformers," said Rove, a deputy White House chief of staff who has taken on a greater role coordinating policy since the election. The American people gave Bush a sweeping mandate to do so, he said.

"The next time one of your smarty pants Democrat friends tells you that he doesn't have a mandate," Rove said, "you just remind them of this: he got a higher percentage of the vote than any Democrat candidate for president since 1964."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WI_GOP_ROVE_WIOL-?SITE=WIFON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Rp

[Toots]

14. Johnson did not serve a second term.

:shrug: Hard to have a 69% approval for second term when he didn't serve one.

[Jacobin]

15. Well, he sorta did

Got the last half of Kennedy's term and then his own full term, after which he didn't run for a second full term since he screwed the pooch on Viet Nam

[Itchinjim]

17. Johnson assumed office in 1963,

and won in 1964. Technically his second term

[gratuitous]

18. The Post actually ran that headline?!

Holy smokes, there's gonna be a call made to the top office there! Imagine reporting the unvarnished truth and making Chimpy look like the chimp he is! Somebody at the Post had better be ready to get called on the carpet for a major-league dressing down.

"Worst on record." I think that sums up the entirety of the corrupt Bush administration.

[Demeter]

19. How Low Can It GO?

or better yet, how soon before they dump this idiot into the Impeachment/prison barrel?

[Al-CIAda]

22. The election was STOLEN. We will never have another fair

election...whats more, the press, instead of reporting these findins and treating officials with the suspicion the public does, they will continue to manufacture consent and shill for the corporate state.

[Robeson]

37. And the rigged elections are the 10,000 pound gorilla in the room.

[skip fox]

26. Wait til we wake up to the fact that he was canonized secretly by the Pope

BREAKING in DU's Lounge!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x3029675

[joefree1]

28. Tin Hatters can bite me, Bush can still be beaten

We could've have won the last election with a better campaign. Now we have an excellent chance to stop an unpopular pResident and congress. We can win back the congress in 2006 if we fight for it. It's time for Democrats to take advantage of these poll numbers.

Tin hatters who want to sit on their hands and whine about unstoppable conspiracies should go watch TV and get out of our way.

[gordianot]

34. True enough.

At some point spin and hyperbole will not cover the fact you are a rat. I am afraid though for a Democrat to win they will need a landslide. When that happens the current alpha males will revert to the lowest primate behavior and soil the nest.

[xxqqqzme]

56. '...and get out of our way.'

I wish that were true. The democrats R busy giving California away 2 the rethugs and it seems as if no one will be able to stop them from putting a bow on it. If it wasn't for teachers, nurses and CA For Democracy, there would be NO opposition to the signature pimps out here.

[joefree1]

70. Huh?

Arnie's poll numbers are sinking and he just gave up a major effort to do away with Government pensions.

... but we must be vigilante.

[Laurab]

61. Although I disagree with you

I don't care to "bite you", thanks, anyway. Just plain common sense tells me the jackass didn't win the election, without a little help from Diebold, or Divine Intervention, as someone else pointed out. I don't believe we could have won the last election, no matter who we ran.

That being said, I continue to be a "tin hatter", but that doesn't mean I don't believe we can't take advantage of this. I don't think it's unstoppable, I certainly hope it isn't, but I certainly don't think election fraud should be discounted.

Of COURSE we should fight to win back congress, and I don't think "tin hatters" necessarily sit on their hands and whine. I want election reform, and I think we can multi-task here, and fight for both that AND regaining the Senate and House.

I can accept that you don't believe the election was stolen, and would never insult you or tell you to "bite me" because you didn't agree with me. Of course, I can't for the life of me understand how anyone who has read about all the little "malfunctions" and abnormalities, combined with approval polls BEFORE and AFTER the election, and exit polls, can actually believe the chimp won.

Much as I disagree, I respect your opinion, and I think it would be nice if you did the same to us "tin hatters".

[joefree1]

67. "I don't think it's unstoppable"

Then I'm not talking to you. :crazy:

on edit: and by the way I do think the election was stolen. I just think we can still win.


Download the free PDF letter size art here:
http://www.ediablo.com

[wabeewoman]

71. What makes me SURE

bush stole 2004 was when the TV showed him walking on the WH lawn on election day and he looked physically sick, stricken with bad news, then during the voting he called the networks and wanted them to photo him with his family DURING the voting. Peter Jennings commented on how strange that was. Sometime between the lawn shot and his call, he got word that the fix was in. I just wish it could be proven!

[Griffy]

64. I'm sorry.. are you saying if someone believes the election was stolen..

they are a tinfoil hatter? I agree with you when it comes to the few people that think there is no way out. But the election was rigged.. and we can fix it, but it will take public awareness first.. so if you think you can win without fixing the system, your in denial of the big lie. I advocate just the opposite of sitting on your hands.. but I tell people to look into the voting machine companies.. I tell people to get involved, I am.

I would like to know why you think a better campaign would have won... do you think the MSM reported the powerful things Kerry did say.. did they echo chamber the negatives? I agree in theory that if Kerry had done even more, the election theft would be even more skewed... Its already 1 in-a-million odds that bush won (as reported by multiple university studies), how much more would it have taken? Because Kerry did win, but the official diebold count was for bush. No one can prove bush won, without referring to the numbers that heavy right-wing companies gave us (conveniently unverifiable), and the only semi-independent result showed Kerry winning! (till the computers "went down" on election night.. 3 hours later they come back and bush is winning!)

So I say we CAN stop bush.. 1st, get public awareness of the fraudulent election system, after that we can vote in a democratic house and impeach this crook!

[joefree1]

68. "I advocate just the opposite of sitting on your hands"

Then I'm not talking to you either. :crazy:

on edit: I'm talking to those who say there's nothing we can do because Diebold, Rove, or space aliens will always make sure we loose. :tinfoilhat: Those people can bite me.

Yes, I think that if Kerry had fought better we would have won. Ignoring the Swift Boat liers was a bad move. Not touting his anti-war activism or Senate record was also not wise.

We did come close to winning.


Seating now available in the Smoking Section:
Politics, humor, death and the Devil - http://www.eDiablo.com

[Griffy]

80. "We did come Close to winning"?.. Kerry won, but the machines were rigged!

This is something that is as obvious as the WMD lies if you look at PNAC. Its all about having enough info, and connecting enough dots! bush had the means, the motive and the ability to steal the election no matter who showed up... the more Kerry voters that showed up that day, the harder it will be to convince nah sayers, and thus the public! I dont understand why you think it was "close"... it was "rigged"! You dont come close to winning 3-card monty... This is the public awareness I work towards. We need to have the discussions about what to do WITHOUT the premise that more people voted for bush, and all the right-wing media BS they have heaped on this "loss".

Propaganda is not just lies, but distractions and diversion!

[Javaman]

30. Worst president ever.

[thinkingwoman]

42. echo. nt

[shanti]

31. just like the beginning of his first term

and you know the result of THAT!

[nolabels]

78. Yea, but it's now on the AWOLS watch

There will be no more planed 9/11's

I can only admit I, myself, was fooled for all of about 3 weeks with that 9/11 B.S. Thank goodness I found DU, this place is the best

Balls to the walls and grit it out, no glory with out a worthwhile sacrifice of something. Keep your wits about you and try not to fall for anything, more tricks to come, to be sure.

[The_Casual_Observer]

33. It's simple, after all the killing and lies about Iraq, he didn't deliver

cheap gas or Osama. He didn't deliver a ban on gay marriage, a ban on abortions, or school vouchers, either. Besides, he looks like a monkey and he slurs his speech.

[progressoid]

36. Oh Boy, Freedom is on the march...........n/t

[Catamount]

40. Just get ready for the next 'terrist' warning, to boost his numbers! n/t

[Renew Deal]

43. The next Hoover?

There are reasons to believe that. Repub congress and president for the first time since then. Bush was "re-elected." Hoover was not. Hoover mismanaged the economy and drove the country into the ground. There are parallels that I don't have time to compile this minute.

[Javaman]

45. I think moron* is in a catagory all to himself.

If he creates a depression, he will be worse than hoover.

[Renew Deal]

46. Certainly

He would take America in it's most prosperous time and drive it into oblivion. Very Hooveresque.

[byronius]

44. And The Scales Fell From Their Eyes, And Justice Was Served,

...but will Diebold spike the Punch?

[mpendragon]

47. Lewis Black quote. . .

"They say you get the government you deserve but I don't remember knife raping any nuns."

[pinniped]

48. They are trying to make the monster sound human by...

telling us the jerk has an iPod and what's on it.

Probably a bunch of devil chants.

Warning: There is a pic of the tough guy POS at the link below. I suggest turning off 'images' before proceeding.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/11/MNGQTC699Q1.DTL

The jerk can ride his devil bike straight back to the fiery depths of hell where he came from.

[NJCher]

66. owwwwwww; I looked

I suggest turning off 'images' before proceeding.

How I wish I'd heeded your warning.

There's something wrong with this guy. Everytime I look at him I say the same thing. He ain't right.

Oh and this is exactly what I would expect his choice in music to be and no, I'm not surprised he doesn't download his own songs.

What a jerk. What a total, effing jerk. The man is just pitiful.


Cher

[oasis]

51. Bush fatigue.Folks are just now realizing how tired they are of seeing his

dopey mug. :dunce:

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

76. "Bush Fatigue" we need to use that phrase all the way from here to '06

because we just know the lib'rul media will repeat as much as they did 'clinton fatigue", don't we?

[Voltaire99]

53. Meaningless numbers.

Yes, it's better than soaring popularity. But he's a lame duck fulfilling a scorched earth policy domestically and internationally. Further, gaming elections has proven wildly successful, and you're up against one of the weakest opposition parties in memory.

If you're Karl Rove, these numbers are mildly disappointing but of no real moment. There's always fear to jerk the public back into obedience...

[UrbScotty]

55. Sounds like Al-Qaeda isn't doing its job.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

[Mr_Spock]

59. He's still the chimperor/

Polls mean nothing - he needs to go...

[dArKeR]

73. Dems are sucking scum wimps! Should be saying Bush runs WH same as

Delay runs the HR, corrupt arrogant, uniformed. Where are the Dems with backbone?

[freethought]

77. Careful! We still have three years

of the Connecticut Emperor. Actually three plus years. Don't put too much on the poll numbers. Optimism should always be steeped in some caution.

[Kool Kitty]

79. Is anyone on the TeeVee

MSM actually talking about this? *crickets chirping* No, I didn't think so.