Gallup... that's GALLUP... has Bush at 50% (47% disapproval)!

[Brotherjohn]

New Gallup Poll, here... http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-22-bush-poll_x.htm

It's the lowest his approval has been since in office, and the highest disapproval (by far).

Note the RNC spokesperson, trying to say how he compares favorably with Clinton and Reagan at the same time in their first terms. That may be true as far as raw numbers. But one look at the graphic below shows that Reagan and Clinton's approval ratings were increasing at that point in their terms, whereas Bush is heading in the opposite direction. If he compares most closely with anyone as far as what's happening to his approval at this point in his term, it's his father, or Carter.

[Brian Sweat]

1. Isn't 47% disapproval kind of high?

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Yes the boy

who wanted to be Prince seems to be now in free fall

[Merlin]

18. I think these may be some of the highest disapprovals in history.

I don't know of any that were higher. Not that I'm a student of the subject, but it seems to me these are extraordinary. It is hard to imagine anybody with such high negatives being re-elected.
:nopity:

[Beetwasher]

2. The comparisons are invalid if you look at the gradients

Both Reagan and Clinton had gradual movements in their numbers. Bush's numbers are manic.

[DBoon]

5. Both Bush's

Interesting to compare daddy and tike

[Brotherjohn]

6. I wouldn't say that makes comparisons invalid.

I would say perhaps that it artificially elevates Bush's numbers.

If you're saying the RNC spokesperson's comparison is not valid, I agree... but for other reasons. Even if the 50% number is more-or-less accurate, Bush is trending in the opposite direction of those two presidents. That alone makes the comparison misleading at best(and desperate).

The events of 9-11 (and to a much lesser extent, the Iraq invasion) have merely delayed the poll numbers' returning to a "real" approval number for Bush. The decline, however, has been incredibly steady. Even Iraq didn't do much to change it, in the big picture. In that light, his numbers have not really been "manic". They have been very predictable: an unprecedented huge bump from an unprecedented world-changing event, and a VERY steady decline ever since then.

[Beetwasher]

9. That's what I meant, the RNC's spokespersons comparison

is not valid for both the reasons you and I mentioned. His decline is steady in it's precipitousness...

[jenk]

4. it means the "middle ground/no opinion" crowd is starting to dissaprove

And you can't compare him to Reagan and 1984, because Bush isn't going to have some pushover like Mondale in the general election with a female VP. Mondal = Lieberman, it's not happening.

[mistertrickster]

7. Bush I lost with 55 approval rating -- Bush II is already below that

Limbo . . . Limbo
How LOW can you GO?

[Brotherjohn]

10. Not that I don't think Bush is in trouble (I do, very much)...

...but to be fair, that 55% from the graphic above was at the VERY end of his term. His approval numbers at the time of the election were in the 30s (about "3.75" on the X-axis; 3 years and 9 months through his term). He probably had a bit of a bump after he lost. Kind of a "reverse honeymoon"... people giving the old guy a break after a tough loss.

That being said, I think Bush IIs numbers are headed into the low 40s at best. He is very closely paralleling his father's numbers. In fact, he's about 3 months ahead of his dad in the "loss-in-popularity" game!

[TacticalPeek]

14. The 'reverse honeymoon'

may have come as the public compared Poppy to the 'failed Clinton Presidency', much ballyhooed in the last months of the first empire.

[Cappurr]

8. What you guys are missing is

That both Kerry AND Clark beat Bush in a head-to-head. Close, but they beat him. :bounce:

[Brotherjohn]

11. I saw that, too! Great news! I just thought I'd limit my post to...

... Bush's new "approval" numbers. There were already other posts discussing the head to head poll results (earlier "Crossfire" posts), although they hadn't posted a link to the Gallup numbers as of when I posted.

[AndyTiedye]

15. If a stock is performing like that, it's time to dump it

[TacticalPeek]

12. Is there a link for the graph?

Maybe just an eye trick, but the frequency of datapoints seems to be higher for Shrub and the Big Dog, compared to the others. Did the polling rate change?

One thing that leaps off the screen is that for both father and fortunate son, the main reversals of southward drift are caused by war. No surprise, but the visual representation is stunning.

[Brotherjohn]

19. See the Pollkatz site.

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/

[kanrok]

13. Freaking fascinating!

After one year in office, Clinton mirrored Reagan, but maintained a steady lead, and ended up being more popular in the end. Boy...Rush would be apoplectic if he understood these charts (and even more apoplectic if he understood the word "apoplectic")...Let's remind our repug "friends" of this little nugget whenever possible.

[Brotherjohn]

16. Tells you a lot about the relative importance of Iran-Contra & MonicaGate

... in the people's minds. One registered a "hit" on the president's approval, the other didn't. When push comes to shove, the American people can be pretty smart after all.

[Buns_of_Fire]

17. Very encouraging, BUT

(and I'm sure I don't have to remind those who've followed politics for a while) this is not the time to let up in the slightest. Now that he's down in the polls, it's incumbent upon the Democrats to kick the crap out of him again and again and again until he's a little tequila-scented greasy spot on the expressway of politics. :evilgrin:

(Metaphors by MixMaster. Cliches be DeCarload.)

Edit: By now, you'd think I'd know how to spell "cliche." :shrug: