President Bush Sinks Further in the Polls

February has not been a good month for the White House. After listening to George W. Bush's State of the Union Address, approval ratings for the President began to fall, and the news of Dick Cheney's hunting accident and the administration's approval of the sale of control over American ports to a company wholly owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates have not played well with the American people. Today, Rasmussen Reports finds President Bush's approval rating to be its lowest in a month and a half, and new polling from the Cook Political Report indicates that the administration is once again nearing a danger zone in terms of dropping support.

The Cook survey, which was conducted by RT Strategies from Friday to Sunday, found President Bush's approval rating to be 40 percent -- down a whopping seven points in the last month. During this time, Bush's disapproval rating also went up four points.

A quick look at the generic congressional ballot numbers might raise some concern among Democrats, as their lead dropped from 12 points in January (51 percent to 39 percent) to nine points this month (47 percent to 38 percent). Such a seeming drop at a time when the President's numbers are also falling might raise questions about the public's faith in the Democratic Party. However, a closer look at the polling from the last two months shows that RT Strategies' methodology changed slightly from January to February, with respondants now having a choice to respond "other" instead of just Republican or Democrat when asked which party they would like to see in control of Congress. When the "other" is taken out of the question and simply the two choices are left in, the share of voters preferring a Democratic Congress to a Republican Congress remains roughly the same (55.3 percent of those chosing either party from 56.7 percent in January).

With sinking approval numbers for the President and continued Democratic strength in generic congressional ballot questions, it sure looks like President Bush is a lame duck already, no?



Display:


Although he's a lame duck.... (none / 0)

Bush is still delivering to his constituents, giving them the supreme court nominees they want, and facing down threats with decisive military action.

Generic polls are meaningless.  Once real names and faces are put on ballots, the Democratic selection process always undermines whatever good faith they might have earned from the public.


by truthiness on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 06:34:10 PM EST

Re: Although he's a lame duck.... (none / 0)

What conditions on the ground in Iraq would be necessary for you to reconsider your continued support for Bush's Iraq war?  

Shouldn't there be a pre-requisite for "decisive military action" so that such action also proves to have been: 1) Necessary, 2) Less detrimental than not having taken such action, and 3) Proportionate and Justified?


Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus
by bedobe on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 07:51:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are one of the few who actually ask.... (none / 0)

and debate without gratuitous namecalling, so I will be happy to discuss this....

As for the conditions.....

The conditions that I DO SEE are three successive elections held by the people of Iraq in an attempt to establish a non-secular democracy (Could you see Americans voting if they thought they might be blown up by terrorists?).  I see Iraqi civilians in long lines to join police and military forces in an attempt to take back their home from foreign terrorists and Saddam loyalists, again risking being blown up in the process.

We must directly face down these terrorists using their own means - deadly force.  Syria and Iran will be next.  Although war is ugly, it is necessary, less detrimental in the long run and justified.


by truthiness on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 11:05:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are one of the few who actually ask.... (none / 0)

"I see Iraqi civilians in long lines to join police and military forces in an attempt to take back their home from foreign terrorists and Saddam loyalists, again risking being blown up in the process."

You post demonstrably false crap like this and you expect not to be name-called?

Those are long lines there we're talking about? Got recent pictures?

Ok, here's another polite question for you. How many level one troops (Irakis able to fight against the "insurgents" on their own without US support) are there right now....

You know, dear leader has been telling us all about the day the Irakis will start fighting for themselves, so this is no small matter.

Ok now, three years after dear leader, fully supported by your morons and many of the Democrats, decided to invade, how many are there?...

that's right, none.

Which is why your post reveals you to be either intellectually challenged or a fucking tool.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/2 4/iraq.security/index.html?section=cnn_t opstories


by redstar66 on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:56:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Iraqi people want democracy, in spite of.... (none / 0)

the efforts of the Bathist party loyalists and foreign insurgents.

It's good to hear that the Iraqi's have battalions that can fight on the front lines with American troops now as backup.  Is this the best situation - no.  Is it better than having US troops in front, yes.

Sadly, when you make statements so self-assuredly, as if your conclusions are the only perspective any intelligent person could conclude, you expose yourself as someone who is not very enlightened.  Here's a very wise saying that I try to keep in mind -

Why are fools so certain, when wise men are so full of doubts?

I am willing to listen to your opinions and discuss them, because I concede that I may not have all the facts and may be wrong, but I have yet to encounter anyone who shows the same willingness to honestly discuss and debate issues on this site.


by truthiness on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:03:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are one of the few who actually ask.... (none / 0)

You didn't answer my real question, instead you chose to answer the rhetorical questions... and, with your answer, you've affirmed what each of our sides knows about the other: we simply cannot agree on the facts, and I guess that this will be the case until one of our sides delivers a decisive electoral blow to the other (up to now we're essentially a 50/50 nation, but hopefully that will soon change).  

So, back to the real question, I see your republican't president's actions as having done far more damage to the ACTUAL war on terror than you would ever recognize and admit to; hence, I would have to answer that Bush decisively wrong as a military leader.


Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus
by bedobe on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:23:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

By what measure? (none / 0)

1) Afghanistan is a democracy, which eliminates one of the main causes for terrorism - a feeling of helplessness most muslims feel under totalitarian regimes - and what do you know, no more terrorist training camps.

2) Libya abondoned their nuclear weapons programs.

3) Lebanon booted Syrian troops out of their country and held free elections.

4) Palestine elected Hamas, who will recognize Israel to receive all the money they need.

5) Saddam was removed and a democracy put in place, removing a destablizing force in the region.

6)  Germany, France and Russia are now brow beating both Syria and Iran, instead of aiding and abedding.

Osama is on the run, and Al Quieda has run out of cash, resulting in no terrorist attacks since 9/11, when prior to 9/11, Al Quieda hit two of our foreign embassies, a warship, and the World Trade Center once before.

So again, by what measure are we less safe?


by truthiness on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 04:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By what measure? (none / 0)

"1) Afghanistan is a democracy, which eliminates one of the main causes for terrorism - a feeling of helplessness most muslims feel under totalitarian regimes - and what do you know, no more terrorist training camps."

Kabul is a democracy. The rest of the country is under warlordism. And you morons dropped this ball when you went to Irak.

"2) Libya abondoned their nuclear weapons programs."

This is true. The linkage to Bush policy is not a slam dunk, but could be credibly made. Your one valid point. Have a cookie.

Man, Libya was a threat though, wasn't it? They were as close as my 14 year old to actually building a bomb. What about NK though smart guy?

"3) Lebanon booted Syrian troops out of their country and held free elections."

I am also aware that the two strongest waves of anti-Danish riots in the Middle East happened in Lebanon and Syria. Coincidence? I don't think so. And in any case, elections do not always equal a good outcome, as Irak is showing.

Is Lebanon closer to having good relations with Israel now that Syria is gone? Wait - don't answer. I know the response to that one too.

"4) Palestine elected Hamas, who will recognize Israel to receive all the money they need."

One Hamas politician said they might, if Israel jumps through hoops they will not jump through. But one politician does not a Hamas make. Nice try though.

"5) Saddam was removed and a democracy put in place, removing a destablizing force in the region."

And inserting an even more destabilizing force. Refer to recent comments of the Director of Shin Bet.

"6)  Germany, France and Russia are now brow beating both Syria and Iran, instead of aiding and abedding."

Please provide citations to the aiding and abetting and provide evidence that they do anything more than US companies (as, for examply, Mr Cheney's Halliburton, which still does business in Iran). Diplomatically broaching the subject of bringing Iran before the UNSC is serious stuff, but it is not brow beating. That's what you morons do.

"Osama is on the run, and Al Quieda has run out of cash, resulting in no terrorist attacks since 9/11, when prior to 9/11, Al Quieda hit two of our foreign embassies, a warship, and the World Trade Center once before."

No terrorist attacks since 911? Did I miss Richard Reed's connections to Al Qaeda? How 'bout all that stuff in Saudi Arabia, those attacks on Western Compounds. How 'bout Madrid's 311. How 'bout London last year? How 'bout Indonesia?"

Please provide evidence Al Qaeda is "out of cash". That's right, you can't. You've pulled it out of your ass.

"So again, by what measure are we less safe?"

See above. Terrorist attacks have increased, not decreased, since the US invaded Irak. Simple numbers, and you know, facts are stubborn things.

Not that that troubles ignorant idoelogues such as yourself.


by redstar66 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:00:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you'll note Truthy didn't respond to the question (none / 0)

He just repeated the GOP Talking Points. He calls that debate.

You ask what would it take for Truthy to reconsider his support for Bush's Itaq policy.

His response: A nonsequitor that I think was supposed to be an attempt to say Bush's Iraq policy is working. The first time I ran across one of his posts,  I thought that he might be a brilliant satirist of wingnut talking points. Sadly no.  

Truthy is not a serious person. His nonsequitar response suggests reading  comprehension problems or intelluctuall honesty issues.


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 09:03:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Although he's a lame duck.... (none / 0)

that's about all you are left with after such devastating numbers.


by bruh21 on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 07:58:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Although he's a lame duck.... (none / 0)

Let's see if the republican president delivers to his constituents on the Dubai port deal; after all, many in the conservative base are pissed that their president would betray national security in such a blatant manner.


Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus
by bedobe on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 08:06:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

34% in CBS Poll (none / 0)

The new CBS poll has himat 34%, down from last month's 42%.  Lots of other bad news regarding Iraq, Katrina, Dubai, and, well, just about anything else they care to ask about.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/2 7/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml


by danielj on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 07:11:52 PM EST

Yes, But, Cheney's At 18% (none / 0)

So Bush is still far and away the most popular man in the White House....

Would you believe, the West Wing?

Would you believe, his underwear?


by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 08:08:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 34% in CBS Poll (none / 0)

 name=

The image says it all...
Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus
by bedobe on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 08:12:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Bush Sinks Further in the Polls (none / 0)

I almost feel bad for him...NOT!!

The Extremist Rantings Of A Mainstream Progressive


by frizzle on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 09:18:21 PM EST

Re: President Bush Sinks Further in the Polls (3.00 / 0)

"...facing down threats with decisive military action."

ROFL!!

What threat would that be in Iraq? I guess I missed the big announcements when they found weapons of mass destruction. Boy, that Bush. He's decisive. He decided to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 and proceeded to drive this country into the worst quagmire since Vietnam. Tens of thousands are dead ... Boy, howdy, that sure was decisive!


by Oregonian on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 10:12:20 PM EST

Re: President Bush Sinks Further in the Polls (3.00 / 0)

It was [i]decisive[/i], just not [i]successful[i]. Like the Japanese attack on Midway.


by Left for the Left on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 11:29:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Bush Sinks Further in the Polls (none / 0)

and debate without gratuitous namecalling, so I will be happy to discuss this....

As for the conditions.....

The conditions that I DO SEE are three successive elections held by the people of Iraq in an attempt to establish a non-secular democracy (Could you see Americans voting if they thought they might be blown up by terrorists?).  I see Iraqi civilians in long lines to join police and military forces in an attempt to take back their home from foreign terrorists and Saddam loyalists, again risking being blown up in the process.

We must directly face down these terrorists using their own means - deadly force.  Syria and Iran will be next.  Although war is ugly, it is necessary, less detrimental in the long run and justified.

antivirus
antivirus
antivirus
divx
divx
divx
divx
divx
divx
edonkey
emule
emule
emule
kazaaa
kazaa
logiciel
logiciel
logiciel
logiciel
logiciel
logiciel
logiciel
logiciel
logiciel
messengerr
messenger
messengerr
nero
neroo
shareaza
spybot
winamp
winrar
winzip
msn
msn
msn
msn
msn
msn
msn
msn
msn
msn
msn
msn
ad aware
gratuit
gratuit
gratuit
gratuit
gratuit
gratuit
gratuit
gratuit
gratuit
gratuit
gratuit
gratuit
gratuite
gratuite
gratuite
gratuite
gratuite
gratuite
gratuite
gratuite
gratuite
telechargement
telechargement
telechargement
telechargement
telechargement
telechargement
telechargement
telechargement
telechargement
telecharger
telecharger
telechargerr
telecharger
telecharger
telecharger
telecharger
telecharger
telecharger
telecharger
telecharger


by kimi98 on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 05:58:23 AM EST


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.