MyDD :: Gallup Finds Bush At 40

Gallup Finds Bush At 40

by Chris Bowers, Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 02:01:55 PM EST

A new Gallup Poll reflects further erosion in President George W. Bush's job approval rating, continuing the slow but steady decline evident throughout the year so far. The poll -- conducted Aug. 22-25 -- puts Bush's job approval rating at 40% and his disapproval rating at 56%. Both are the most negative ratings of the Bush administration. Bush's previous low point in approval was 44% (July 25-28, 2005) and his previous high point in disapproval was 53% (June 24-26, 2005).

The current poll finds a drop in support for Bush among independents, and a small drop in support among Republicans to the lowest level of his administration.

In two July polls in which Bush averaged an overall 49% approval rating, an average of 46% of independents approved. In the subsequent three polls (July 25-28, Aug. 5-7, and Aug. 8-11), Bush's overall approval average dropped to 45%, and his average support among independents fell to 37%. Now, in the current poll, 32% of independents approve. (An average of 41% of independents have approved across all 2005 polls to date, excluding the most recent poll.)

Bush's support among Republicans -- although still very high -- is now at the lowest level of his administration. His current 82% approval rating among Republicans is down from the 85%, 86%, 87%, 87%, and 86% recorded in the last five polls prior to this one, and is below the 89% Republican approval rating he has received across all 2005 polls before the most recent poll. He has averaged a 92% approval rating among Republicans for his entire presidency.

Bush's approval rating among Democrats remains very low. His current 13% is down slightly from his 2005 average (excluding the current poll) of 17%

That makes the last four polls for Bush the four worst of his presidency by any polling firm:

	 App	  Dis	 Date
Gallup	  40	   56	 8/25
ARG	  36	   58	 8/21
Harris	  40	   58	 8/16
SUSA	  41	   55	 8/14
Mean	  39.25    56.75

(Sources: Gallup, Harris, ARG and SUSA)

Bush's average margin over these four polls is -17.5. That is a lot of confirmation: Bush really is in the crapper right now. He is dropping among Independents the most, but Republicans are also starting to edge themselves away from him, and are now less united than Democrats (there's a first). This is no time to stop, however. Just imagine how sweet would it be to push his disapproval over 60%.

Tags: General 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 31 Comments :: Post a Comment

2006 a banner year for Democrats (none / 0)

If these numbers hold, gas prices remain high, and if Iraq is still Iraq, the climate will be ripe for a perfect storm for Democrats in 2006.

Any Dem who is thinking about running for anything, anywhere, will not find a better condition to run than in 2006. So get off your asses and run. Are you listening, Paul Hackett?

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 02:09:24 PM EST

Re: 2006 a banner year for Democrats (none / 0)

Agreed. The only way Democrats lose in 2006 is if they run an incompetent, 2002-style kissing-Bush's-ass-and-having-no-message campaign. Of course, that's very possible...

by raginillinoian on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 02:31:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2006 a banner year for Democrats (none / 0)

"The only way Democrats lose in 2006 is if they run an incompetent, 2002-style kissing-Bush's-ass-and-having-no-message campaign."

Guess what? The DCCC is already telling candidates not to talk about the war if they expect funding.

by craverguy on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 02:38:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Source? (none / 0)

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 02:48:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Source? (none / 0)

Here.

by craverguy on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 05:11:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's not what that says (none / 0)

It doesn't mention Iraq (or any other policy positions) at all. It basically said, "Democrats have a chance in even heavily Republican districts in 06 and Hackett is the proof". That's it.

by Geotpf on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 07:20:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It does say that. (none / 0)

"Incredibly, however, in a memo sent to all Democratic House Members about what Democrats should learn from the Hackett race, the DCCC makes not one mention of the Iraq War and its effect on the election. Not one. It is as if the party is going out of its way to deny the importance of Democrats taking a strong position against the war, or making the war a serious issue in their campaigns."

by craverguy on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 07:37:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's what I said (none / 0)

I said it doesn't mention Iraq.

You said it says that if a paerticular House member takes a stance against Iraq, they will not receive DCCC money. It does not say that. It says nothing about Iraq at all. Your quote of Kos agrees with me.

by Geotpf on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 07:39:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's what I said (none / 0)

I didn't say "House member," I said "candidates." And you just wait and see how many really strongly anti-war challengers end up getting DCCC money.

by craverguy on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 07:47:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok, canidate for a House seat then (none / 0)

Whatever. The point is, the fact that the memo doesn't mention Iraq doesn't mean that the DCCC won't fund anti-Iraq canidates. The memo doesn't mention Iraq-therefore, it doesn't mention Iraq or take any stance on funding on any canidate who has any stance on Iraq.

by Geotpf on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:54:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The problem is, though... (none / 0)

that, neanderthal though he may be, Bush isn't the real enemy. Were the Democrats to take control tomorrow, we'd still have a system in which half of all voters going to the polls would be a triumph, most of the country would have no meaningful vote for congressional representation because of where they live, and political success would be easier to obtain through destruction of opponents than meaningful action.

If we want health care, a cleaner environment, less racial division, etc., we need to be able to have a substantive national dialogue about serious issues. That can't happen with a winner take all voting system.

If we want our country to ever be better than it is, Democrats need to make real political reform -- proportional representation for federal elections, instant run-off voting for presidential elections, etc., -- the center of the agenda. Not hope for low poll numbers.

by dobbler on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 02:52:06 PM EST

Re: Not happening (none / 0)

You can promote, engage, attempt to dialogue all you want, but the average voter is going to care diddly about these issues. Just look at the inertia and institutional obstacles to ensuring that all voting has a verifiable paper trail, which should be a slam dunk.

Any political strategy dependent upon multi-seat districts, reform of the Electoral College, and/or IRV is doomed.

A better strategy is a program that you can ultimately sell to more than half the voters...it will be more durable in the long run anyway.

by InigoMontoya on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 03:38:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bush factor (none / 0)

In 2002, Bush's ability to go out and campaign for GOP candidates while his approval rating was high probably played a huge factor in the congressional race breaking towards Republicans. Now no GOP candidate will WANT Bush to come to his state or district... and the break (done by undecideds, the independents) is already going towards Dems. We can and should pick up 3 seats in the Senate and 8 seats in the house.

by AC4508 on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 04:15:04 PM EST

Re: Bush factor (none / 0)

It may have been a big factor, but not as large as controlling state legislatures during redistricting and thus being able to decide a huge number of races before they even happen.

To InigoMontoya: if pr and IRV are doomed as strategies, and the lack of their use is manifestly a cause of our empty-headed politics, does that mean then that we're forever doomed to black and white, lowest common denominator elections that don't address our most important concerns? If they're good enough for the rest of the democratic world, why not us?

by dobbler on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 04:36:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush factor (none / 0)

Dobbler, the merit of IRV, reforming the Electoral College, and proportional representation is irrelevant. Push those issues and you'll be in the same position as LaRouchies proselytizing about nuclear power...there is extremely little interest there, no compelling case to be made that will grab the attention of the average voter, and, more importantly, there are huge institutional obstacles to making changes.

by InigoMontoya on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 08:21:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush factor (none / 0)

And what other issues are going to bring fundamental change, then?

We're caught in an endless downward cycle of increasingly vapid politics -- from both parties. The cause is structural, and unless we change the structure we'll just have more of the same.

It may be a difficult case to make, to start with (but maybe not as difficult as we think -- it's not as if the average voter is terribly enamored of either party or our political institutions. It will be harder to sell to politicians -- they have a lot invested in the inequities of the winner-take-all system). But that's what leadership is for -- to build a case for necessary action. The fact that change is hard isn't a reason to pursue policies that won't lead to change.

by dobbler on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 10:23:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush factor (none / 0)

You're probably going to need Constitutional amendments at both the state and federal levels to achieve your program. The track record is not good.

To be blunt, there is always someone wildly passionate about one issue or another that the vast majority of the electorate will never give a rat's ass about and, if you continue to harrangue them, will roll their eyes. Q.E.D.

Against issues of war, the economy, education, the deficits, the environment, etc., electoral reform in this direction will rate 197 out of 199 issues in the public.

I'll be happy if we can voting with paper trails everywhere and I bet that's a ten-year project and that is much more concrete and less controversial.

by InigoMontoya on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 02:47:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush factor (none / 0)

If people understand how the system itself makes progress, or even meaningful debate on issues of war, education, the deficits, the environment, etc., then effective leaders can make a strong case for political reform. Consider the anti-government feeelings that motivated the Perot boomlet in 1992, and the boost to the careers of John McCain and Russ Feingold from their involvement in campaign finance reform. Both of those movements had problems, of course, but the point is: there are votes to be had in political reform. Voters do care that their governmental instutions are fair and representative, and they will vote on those interests. Indeed, one of the reasons so few vote now is not because they're unmotivated idiots (although I'm sure a few fit into that category) but because they sense, quite rightly, that their vote just doesn't matter.

The advantage to the kind of refom I'm talking about over, say campaign finance reform, is that if enacted it would actually do many of the things campaign finance legislation only purports to -- make races more competitive and fair, increase voter turnout -- in addition to bringing more minorty and female representation, injecting new ideas into the debate through third parties, etc.

by dobbler on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 08:32:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush factor (none / 0)

Your intial "If..." premise is exactly where your vision falls apart. Few people are interested in the structure of the system, fewer still understand it more or less accurately, and fewer still have any passion for changing it.

Sometimes tilting at windmills can accomplish something via a side effect.

In this case, I doubt it highly. There's also an opportunity cost in terms of both time and dollars.

by InigoMontoya on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 02:39:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush factor (none / 0)

I don't disagree that it would be very difficult, but:
a) no one has any idea how difficult because no one has advocated for it on a national scale before;
b) The point of political leadership is to make a case for necessary action. The fact that people aren't now paying attention says nothing about how they'd react to a strong leader making a clear case;
c) There's a greater opportunity cost for advocating other well-meaning policy options -- universal health care, substantive action on global warming, for example -- when systemic problems prevent them from being enacted. If the real enemy is the system, which I truly believe it is, even more than the Republicans, then the only logical response is to work to change the system, however hard the road may seem. Working within the boundaries of our antiquated voting system is where the windmills lie.

by dobbler on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 05:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush factor (none / 0)

Hmm. You don't need to have attempted promoting a specific cause before to have some idea of how a proposed action is going to come out.

The supposition that people might pay more attention if there were a "strong leader making a case" doesn't mesh with the basic fact that people have their own priorities. Cf., when the people lead, the leaders will follow. War, terrorism, and the economy are always going to rank very high. Furthermore, the vast majority people aren't interested in abstractions. [I don't mind chatting/discussing/arguing the point with you because I find it an interesting consideration, even if I ultimately find it a dead end.] It's an issue that doesn't appeal to the average voter's gut...and the average voter is someone who starts paying close attention to politics in September of an election year. Moreover, there is a limited attention span and a limited number of issue "slots" you can occupy in the collective consciousness as a whole. Oh, yeah, a few people on the net may be passionate about Iraq AND pro-choice AND CAFTA AND the environment AND the shape of tax policy, etc., but it's a vanishingly small minority in the electorate as a whole.

Your use of the word "logical" in the third paragraph betrays you. Voting behavior is only partially logical and mainly it isn't. Witness the number of people voting against their own economic interests in voting for Bush over Kerry on the basis of some inarticulable "values" gut feel...or those voting for Bush because they didn't connect with Kerry as a person or they thought his wife was too weird.

Note, while I'm not wild about aspects of your idea, I'm very carefully not saying they don't have merit. What I am saying is that you can't get there from here. And there's no way that you're going to accomplish them as a package. Given 20-30 years, you might get IRV accepted in some local elections, then occasionally get it adopted by the states, and THEN start getting some traction at the national level. Maybe.

I probably don't have more than 20-30 man-years of political effort left and see a lot of better places to put my chips in that time.

by InigoMontoya on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 06:01:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush factor (none / 0)

I think you're underestimating both the appeal of "reforming the system" as a campaign issue and the degree of disgust voters feel with politics in general (see the generally positive response to the fusion voting thread today). I also think you're overestimating the amount of progress you can make on other issues, no matter how hard you work on them, without changing the fundamentals first.

And issues get introduced into the political dialogue from all over the place -- not just, as you posit, "when the people lead."

Your point about tactics is well taken -- maybe starting small would work better. My sense is that that's what's going on right now, to limited effect, and that we'd make more headway quicker from shooting for the moon and settling for a percentage of what we ask for; but I'm not a political operative and defer to those with more experience. [I enjoy batting the issue around, too; I hope I'm not coming off too strident here].

My only point is that the current state of affairs dictates that political reform be a major priority.

by dobbler on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 11:20:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush factor (none / 0)

I don't know how to say this without it coming out bombastic, which is not what I want to do. But as for the electoral appeal of "reforming the system," I'd push five full stacks of chips across the table, betting against it. [No, you're not coming off strident at all...impassioned, maybe, which is a different thing.]

Fwiw, I'll take a demographic shot in the dark: you're male, single, under 30, right?

Your argument is a more specific case of a general observation that I see in the blogosphere all the time: mistaking the on-line community as a fair representation of the voting public. There are times that I think that anyone seriously interested in politics should work for a year in some sort of public contact position that brings you into a wide range of people in places like a jury room or hospital waiting room, places that don't more or less select for class/race.

You can't appeal to Joe Sixpack and Tammy Tupperware until you have some visceral idea of how they react, how they think.

by InigoMontoya on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 11:56:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush factor (none / 0)

To my demographic shot in the dark, I'd add white and college educated.

by InigoMontoya on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 11:57:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush factor (none / 0)

FWIW -- I'm male, married, over 30 with two kids, and work as a public school teacher -- where I come in contact with just such people every day. Before that I covered Congress for a wire service where I became intimatley in touch with the vagaries of the system. I may be wrong, but I'm not naive...

by dobbler on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:52:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Just to throw a wrench in things... (none / 0)

...here's a poll showing him at (a still bad) 46%:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

Still, this is an obvious trend, and it is quite possible that Rasmussen (who is a Republican in the sense that Zogby is a Democrat-that is, the man personally is a Republican, but he is officially nonpartisan) has bias towards Bush.

by Geotpf on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 07:14:19 PM EST

Re: Just to throw a wrench in things... (none / 0)

The important part of that poll is the 78% of Republicans that support him. Who knows what the party breakdown is for Rasmussen but 78% from the GOP is low.

by elrod on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 12:33:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How to Push Bush into the 20's (none / 0)

What's propping up Bush's approval rating is the illusion that he's a pious Christian. If we want to push his approval down further, we must shatter this illusion.

Revealing the torture and human rights abuses is a good way to start.

Does anybody have ideas on how we can reveal that his pious Christian bit is a charade put on for political gain?

Take that away, and he'll have nothing left, because right now it's all he has.

by Ryan on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:06:59 PM EST

Re: How to Push Bush into the 20's (none / 0)

oh, c'mon, these fundies don't care that he tortures people. get real.

what they'd care about is if it ever got out that he curses like a drunken sailor. that could help deflate his image a little. other than that, not much, unless it's something sexual.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 10:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How to Push Bush into the 20's (none / 0)

As far as I understand the morality of Evangelical Christians, accepting Jesus as your divine saviour is far and away the most important component (I've heard that "turning away from God is only unforgiveable sin"). If its true that Bush is a sincere believer, and I don't have any reason to doubt it, then its pretty much of a hopeless uphill battle to convince Evangelicals that Bush isn't a "moral Christian". Practically speaking it only seems possible if he admits or is convicted of terrible atrocities. Take the case of the BTK killer for example - even though he claims to be a Christian believer and was active in his church, his actions were so horrendous that Christians seem forced to claim that he doesn't really accept Jesus after all.

by LastToKnow on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 11:33:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How to Push Bush into the 20's (none / 0)

Corruption will hurt him among some Evangelical Christians. But screwing them on stem cells will hurt even more. If that bill gets through the Senate Bush will have to veto it, or lose a lot of support.

by elrod on Sat Aug 27, 2005 at 12:35:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.