Bush approval at 45%, disapproval at 47% with registered voters
 

Among Americans registered to vote, 47% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 45% approve. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 51% of registered voters disapprove and 38% approve.

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/arg45.html

Better get that war started quick! :)

*ONLY* 51%??? Thats Low I think

:sleep

Bush is a prick fucked the USA ever since he took office

:eek7

I wonder what % of that 45% has economic gain, or are racist, or extremists...

Cheers,
Matt

Most of those polls are as far off the mark as the pollsters who take them - 10 polls, 10 different results.

Like asking: - Have you stopped beating your wife?

It's all in how you ask the question.

Doesn't matter anyway - the last thing we need is a Government run my polls.


But thanks for sharing!!!

:1orglaugh

Correct.

Well

no suprise

Those stats match the actual presidential vote count.

In that case, then the numbers must be even worse for Bush. Here are the exact questions they asked - notice they say "approve" first. I bet if they switched it around he'd be even lower. They probably did that to try to give him a little boost:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the economy?

Pretty vague questions... most people don't really have a clue what the President has to do with the economy really - but...

what part of the country was this poll taken. Where I live is about 2 to 1 Democrats - there are other areas where it's 2 to 1 Republican.

Some areas are having very good economy's - some others aren't. Were they retired people, high school kids or unemployed circus workers?

Polls just can't be taken too seriously.... :)

In the united states even the presidential vote isnt to be taken serious as someones brother can effect the outcome single handedly

Not that Gore was a better choice.

But the real question is can we get him out of office in 04?

If the war goes bad - yes, you can replace him - if the war goes well, he'll probably get a 2nd term.

Let me ask you - do you hate Bush so badly you'd rather see the nation fall in a war just to get a democrat in the White House.

Personally - I hope he's got a 90% approval after the war - that meant it went well, quickly and successfully.

And at this point - I'd have to say that no matter who was President right now.

If you recall, a high approval rating after the war didn't provide his father with a second term.

Man... you can sure say that again...

His approval rating dropped like a lead balloon didn't it.

He made a serious mistake bowing in to the democrats and doing the tax increase. I really don't think JR. will make that mistake.

(But then... I'd never thought SR. would have, so what do I know)

NO actually... I'm wishing that we wont have to go to war...
and you just said it... If we go to war... and it goes as well as the republican are thinking... they'll be reelected...
This is why Republican are so Pro War... because they know it unify the country... Patriotism is at his highest point... Republican are a patriotic party and they are gaining votes because of it! Emotional manipulation... Thats their speciality... And you sir... you're falling for it!
Damn... the pope is agaisnt the war... the republicans are more or less a religious party but couldnt be more Pro-War....
Strange? No... Being pro war gets them votes... this is what counts....

Did you know that alot of republicans would be pissed if Saddam would step down and surrender!! :helpme

good point..

Also I would wager there will be a 2-5% death rate for US troops involved in urban warfare so the body count will eclipse '91.
That and the possible economic destabilising influence of a slightly-protracted war (over say 4 weeks) or the nation building afterwards and likely terrorist reprisals (given that there are about 10 other countries more involved with al-quaeda and the major concern with Iraq is WMD dissemination not actual terrorism) mean that this is a knife-edge situation for him.

utter nonsense... the risk Bush is taking could easily kill his career forever - as it was just pointed put - winning the war didn't get daddy re-elected - did it?

that argument just doesn't hold water...


Oh.... and yes - the Pope is against the war....

Daaaaaaa

:1orglaugh

agreed - he's not doing it to get re-elected is he?

mmhh... seems like you are contraticting yourself... a Republican trademark!

You just said that if he win the war... he's approval will be sky high and he will be reelected..

And yes thats what will happen....

As for as the risk... no... when you are that pro-war... you never think of losing.... hell... did George say that good will prevail against evil...!?


AS far as the pope.... I think you dont get it... if the republican are more or less a religious party... what is with this pro war thing....
Every country of the G8 and then some are moderate... even england... if you watch the news (other than cnn) you'll see that overthere.... his popularity is dropping dramaticaly....
How come the republican are so pro-war.... And im not only talking about the Iraq situation... Im talking of every situation...

Can you explain that to me little buddy!

I think the goals are longer term than that.

That comment already shows how bias you are. There's no sense in reading any more of your posts in this thread or responding because you have already made up your mind.

Dave, don't waste your time.

haha how bias I am...
Like Dave is not a Hard core Republican....

And p.s. the only way you can be bias is when you dont have opinions right?

Are you blaming me for having made up my mind...?
But not blaming DavePlays...

who isnt bias here??? :helpme

Little buddy... you flatter an old man.

no problem.... I was basicly refering to the question - can we replace (Bush) in 04. And I was saying if the war went bad - then yes - and I questioned if it would be worth it to see the country do badly in the war just to see a Democrat in the White House....

(no answer yet)

Anyway - on the other side, I was forced to quickly remember how fact SR. lost it after the war - and as I said above, I believe that was because of a mistake he made that JR won't.

Does that clear it up for you?

:eyecrazy

Dave is a conservative first, a Republician second.

And you are damn right I've made up my mind...
I'm supporting the United States Government.

That's not bias pal.... that's just the way it is.



:thumbsup

and....? thats what im saying.... if we win the war... bush ratings will be sky high.... unless he make some major mistakes...

War/defense/patriotism is the only way to convert democrat to republican.... And republicans know that.... Thats why Im not even worry about bush reelection if the war goes well....

As for your question... I've I ever said I was whishing the war to go bad to get the democrat back in power...?? :eek7 :Hollering :eyecrazy

p.s.. you didnt answer my question:

<b>AS far as the pope.... I think you dont get it... if the republican are more or less a religious party... what is with this pro war thing....
Every country of the G8 and then some are moderate... even england... if you watch the news (other than cnn) you'll see that overthere.... his popularity is dropping dramaticaly....
How come the republican are so pro-war.... And im not only talking about the Iraq situation... Im talking of every situation...

Can you explain that to my very old republican buddy!</b>

DavePlays

If I recall correctly Bush Sr. raised taxes quite some time before the war (I may be mistaken). The Democrats won with the "its the economy stupid" which overcame Bush's high approval after the war. I think that could be Bush Jr.'s downfall also (the economy).

hahahahaha...

thank you!! you just summed it up for us!

a perfect exemple of that republican patriotic emotional propaganda/manipulation.....

You have to support the government, the republicans... whatever they do or say... because you'll be seen as unpatriotic otherwise!

And I must say.. Its working well...
And war ofcourse raise the patriotic level, it unify people...

p..s. I dont say im against war at any occasion... I believe that war Might be the answer with Iraq... but like the rest of the world and half of americans.... the G8 and some other country.... I'm on the moderate side... unlike the bush administration, a very dangerous pro-war party.... and not even close to be moderate... You think thats good?? You've been brainwash good..!!

If you think we are going to back off this time I think you are mistaken. We will take Iraq one way or the other. When Sadam leaves we will see the global community fall in line with our actions. Many left leaning commentators will be spinning as fast as possible to cover their prior support of his regime. Sadam chose the wrong time to oppose the USA. He won't be hurt too much (most likely) and will escape with billions as many other despots the world over have done.

It is natural for the young to be idealistic and to think that all things can be solved with words. A full grown man sees that action is sometimes necessary, whether or not there is public support.

haha... another that as been brainwash.. dont you follow other news than CNN??

We would attack Iraq because we think they have weapons of mass destruction... and they can be dangerous to the world....

Exactly the same situation with North Korea... if we follow the logic... North Korea will be next.... Do you really think that North Korea will patiently wait his turn.... if we attack Iraq... you can count on North Korea to attack his neighbors...

And like a hostage situation... the more you try to attack them or Iraq the more they will kill people...

But ofcourse... if North Korea kill his neighbors... what do we care... they are far far away....!
:helpme

the war "going well" is a very nebulous equation.

America will "win" the war no if buts or questions.. and it'll happen in a timely fashion.
But even if it "goes well" there are still the issue of conquering Iraq having absolutely no effect on terrorism. WMD are more likely to come from former soviet bloc countries or created by al-quaeda itself.
In the event of the war only taking several weeks, no use of WMD even in low-level chemical attacks, and an unlikely low amount of american deaths, <1000, you've still got to deal with terrorist reprisals, the creation of more terrorists by bombing Iraq (which will be in direct proportion to how few americans die as it means missles and other "collateral damage" susecptable weapons were used on a greater scale and contributed more civilian deaths, as well as a rise in anti-westernism across the board) an ostracised and emboldened european union with higher military spending, an uncertain future for the US dollar as the standard oil currency, and a doctrine that will most likely require further war in the region further increasing military spending which will further stress an economy likely to suffer more terrorist attacks, the "trickle-down" or "dual-use" effect of military spending is dubious in the strongest economies and in a weakened one like US '03 will not provide the neccessary counterbalance to expenditure.
whoever gets the presidency in '04 will inheret a swathe of problems that you might not even wish on the particular political head you side with.

Patience Grasshopper...

We will deal with each problem as needed.

You are confusing what I said might be the result with the foolish accusation that getting re-elected was the REASON.

Quote:

p.s.. you didnt answer my question: <b>AS far as the pope.... I think you dont get it... if the republican are more or less a religious party... what is with this pro war thing.... Every country of the G8 and then some are moderate... even england... if you watch the news (other than cnn) you'll see that overthere.... his popularity is dropping dramaticaly.... How come the republican are so pro-war.... And im not only talking about the Iraq situation... Im talking of every situation... Can you explain that to my very old republican buddy!</b>

That's just so foolish... It would not make one bit of difference to the Pope who is in power in America - he's going to lobby them for peace -

As far as one party being for war more than another - history doesn't always bare that out - and you have to deal with things when they happen. Now is when this is going to happen.

Deal with it I guess...

I'm supporting the United States Government.

WOW - You mean ONLY a Republician would make such an outragious statement as that huh?

No democrats should feel that way - according to you?


You're right... that sums it up.

Do you have that line copied in memory so you can just paste it in before you start off ?

everyone but YOU is brainwashed and you are the enlightened one.... and CNN is where you tune to get all the lies and the news YOU watch is the only holder of the truth....

You are a funny funny man....

:thumbsup

"...unlike the bush administration, a very dangerous pro-war party..."

Every President in America's history has been Pro War in the sense that war gave birth to our nation and we have engaged in war multiple times. It is a fact that every President since the Second World War has engaged our military. Thus every President has been pro war regardless of political party.

damn... you're bad....

what part you dont get when I say ...half americans, UN, G8, the rest of the world basically are moderate....
And then you say that Iam the only holder of the thruth...???
:helpme
You are a joke really...

as for what news I watch... well, canadian news...which they often highlight other countries top news....
As oppose to the ever so patriotic CNN, abc, nbc...

As for your other recent messages...
can we stick to the present here??
DEmocrate are not an extreme pro-war party and are much more moderate than the republicans... their views are more similar... to UN, g8 countries...

Hey by the way... you seem to be a good conservative christian republican... what do you run.. any porn site...? or just that "delete the porn on your computer" software....!???

half americans, and a lot of un countries are lazy socialists who would let hitler do the same things he did all over again.

No - actually I was saying YOU thought only you held the truth -

Moderates never got anything done in this world - your UN example is perfect for that - close to worthless.

Quote:

as for what news I watch... well, canadian news...which they often highlight other countries top news.... As oppose to the ever so patriotic CNN, abc, nbc... As for your other recent messages... can we stick to the present here?? DEmocrate are not an extreme pro-war party and are much more moderate than the republicans... their views are more similar... to UN, g8 countries...

You know so little - the news here is always been a thorn in the side of the government - they'll go after anything they can find -
CNN totally fucked up reporting about the cell-phone deal during the gulf war - to say they are in the government's pocket foolish - they have a serious lean toward anti-Buch if anything.

but if you really think your news in Canada is better - all righty.

Quote:

Hey by the way... you seem to be a good conservative christian republican... what do you run.. any porn site...? or just that "delete the porn on your computer" software....!???

You maybe shouldn't make assumptions.....

Every President and Congress inhierits a swath of problems and every President and Congress has delt with the problems (the way the problems are delt with is always debatable). It is not unusual and probable that in dealing with existing problems new problems are created that in turn have to be delt with. The world is complicated, problems are not a new phenom, and problems will always exist. The sky is not falling, the end is not near, the world will still turn and the sun will still rise. Will there be continued military conflicts, death, destruction, mayhem...yes.

haha... ofcourse... republicans are right and the rest of the world is not.... is the word propaganda ring a bell???
Muslims countries are very good at that... you sounds like them!





yeah yeah.. whatever... ofcourse...
If you cannot see that cnn, nbc , etc.... are there for the ratings then you are one damn fool... and what sells right now is patriotism....
actually...most americans are pro war... and dont want to see stories that might suggest that the French and Germans have some good points....

dont you find strange that alot of stories regarding the war in Iraq make th headlines of every major countries... but no mention on CNN, NBC, etc.... mmmh... strange??

I'm out.... peace..... (oops... thats an offensive word for republicans...)

Actually I don't think going to war will effect Bushes ratings much either way at this point, those that are for it will think its good and those that are against it will think its bad, people have pretty much already made up their minds on it.

Bush being re-elected will depend on a few things. If the economy is better, which I think it should be somewhat better then he has a good chance, and who is running against him. Right now I don't see any dems that excite anyone.

I think that if there is another major terrorist attack it will severely hurt Bush and have the opposite effect that 9/11 did.

mmmh... depends...

if after a war... yes it will hurt him.. because people might think it is a consequence of the war... if it is before the war... nope...
because the Bush administration is considered as the best party to protect and defend the united-states...
hell... they put so much emphasis on the army... it can just turn into their favor...
The more America feels fear... the more the support for Republicans will be high....
Code orange anyone...?
:1orglaugh

republicans will see next US president from their party in 2 decades

I was inferring that in the same way that Bush gets blamed for the economy now, popularity after the war and the '04 election is going to depend on a swathe of issues being created and dealt with now.. Nothing to do with the sky falling, we're talking politcal popularity here and the effects of the war on it. I actually believe the Democrats have a better shot in '08 at the moment but i'd be stupid to put money on it until 6 months after any Iraq action.

Well...my post was more for general consumption than directed at you. I wouldn't put my money on the next election even six months prior to the election. Anything can happen that would sway public opinion and often does. I do not see any powerful opponents from the Democrats at this point in time, but I certainly do not see Bush as having a lock on being the next President at this point in time.

That is a key issue. Even some of the noises of note that would benefit from an anti-war swing have been from opponents that were unviable... Someone like Robert Byrd may have prestige and influence, but isn't likely to become president :)

Byrd is old and he has some bad shit in his background, he could never be president. To his credit, he's one of the few Democrats who will actually stand up to Republicans without fear. When he leaves, the Senate Democrats will have even less spine than they do now. Where is the next Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan? Neither party has anyone who inspires people these days.