• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush Approval hits 29%

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
While I have to say I am tired of all the conspiracies and crap, Bush has done some good. The economy is booming, if you are educated and can?t get a job you suck, and we haven?t had any terrorist attacks since 9/11. If he is responsible for all the bad you have to give him credit for the good.

I have a feeling the next president is going to come in try and make the people happy and really screw the pooch.
 
we need a moderate president, both parties we have now only apeal to the extreme left or right, and most americans aren't in those categories
 
Originally posted by: BriGy86
we need a moderate president, both parties we have now only apeal to the extreme left or right, and most americans aren't in those categories

We need a party that isn't filled to the hilt with corruption. Unfortunately that doesn?t exist and probably never will.

You have to wonder how many start out planning to make a difference and how many are corrupt from the get go.
 
Originally posted by: HBalzer
Originally posted by: BriGy86
we need a moderate president, both parties we have now only apeal to the extreme left or right, and most americans aren't in those categories

We need a party that isn't filled to the hilt with corruption. Unfortunately that doesn?t exist and probably never will.

You have to wonder how many start out planning to make a difference and how many are corrupt from the get go.

i completely agree with this as well

the party that looks best to me so far is the libertarian party

here is a link to their brief general views on certain topics
 
Originally posted by: BriGy86
Originally posted by: HBalzer
Originally posted by: BriGy86
we need a moderate president, both parties we have now only apeal to the extreme left or right, and most americans aren't in those categories

We need a party that isn't filled to the hilt with corruption. Unfortunately that doesn?t exist and probably never will.

You have to wonder how many start out planning to make a difference and how many are corrupt from the get go.

i completely agree with this as well

the party that looks best to me so far is the libertarian part

here is a link to their brief general views on certain topics
<----Libertarian :thumbsup:

 
Originally posted by: SP33Demon

<----Libertarian :thumbsup:

i found out about them after the election, and even though i don't agree with legalizing ALL drugs, they seem to be the most logical, and as long as they get a representative with an open mind and considers other view points, they'll be getting my vote
 
Originally posted by: BriGy86
Originally posted by: SP33Demon

<----Libertarian :thumbsup:

i found out about them after the election, and even though i don't agree with legalizing ALL drugs, they seem to be the most logical, and as long as they get a representative with an open mind and considers other view points, they'll be getting my vote
Yeah, I don't agree with some of their views like the drug stance you mentioned (I personally only think marijuana), repealing the minimum wage, or that they're against a "national ID". But I agree with 85% of their main views: less government (less taxes, deregulation of transportation, cut foreign aid + farm subs), self governing on the economic/social scale, decriminalization of useless + costly crimes like prostitution + soft drug arrests like pot (although hardcore Libs want to abolish the war on drugs completely and let people regulate themselves), gun ownership for all, relaxing immigration policies (to a certain extent), abolishing tariffs (and advocating free trade), and abolishing Aff Action.

 
Originally posted by: HBalzer
While I have to say I am tired of all the conspiracies and crap, Bush has done some good. The economy is booming, if you are educated and can?t get a job you suck, and we haven?t had any terrorist attacks since 9/11. If he is responsible for all the bad you have to give him credit for the good.

I have a feeling the next president is going to come in try and make the people happy and really screw the pooch.

Bush policies have little to do with the overall economy. The Fed basically fueled the economy with easy cash. The primary Bush contribution has been deficit spending.

Homeland Security didn't get created until AFTER the 2004 election. In fact, Bush OPPOSED the idea for nearly two years. The ports, trains, and general air cargo remain easy targets.

If anything the primary reason their hasn't been another terrorist attack since 9/11 is the time necessary to plan a big attack. The first WTC was 1993 . . . the second was 2001.

We've lost 2800 lives (American), 18,000 wounded, $400B, and invaluable political currency in Iraq.

I hope the next President comes in and tries to do a good job of fixing the various fluster ducks CAUSED by Bush and the GOP Congress. Only the moron fringe that still supports Bush fails to realize that he's going to be the WORST two-term President EVER!
 
Originally posted by: HBalzer
Originally posted by: BriGy86
we need a moderate president, both parties we have now only apeal to the extreme left or right, and most americans aren't in those categories

We need a party that isn't filled to the hilt with corruption. Unfortunately that doesn?t exist and probably never will.

You have to wonder how many start out planning to make a difference and how many are corrupt from the get go.
What we need to do is put a lid on the Lobbiest.
 
For comparison - Tony Blair's personal approval is sitting on 26% as of 11th May. Party approval ratings show the Tories on 37%, Labour 31% and the Liberal Democrats 17.
 
Bush is an utter failure...I wish that the Constitution had provisions to recall a president. I don't know if we can take two more years of this.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: HBalzer
Originally posted by: BriGy86
we need a moderate president, both parties we have now only apeal to the extreme left or right, and most americans aren't in those categories

We need a party that isn't filled to the hilt with corruption. Unfortunately that doesn?t exist and probably never will.

You have to wonder how many start out planning to make a difference and how many are corrupt from the get go.
What we need to do is put a lid on the Lobbiest.

"the" lobbiest?

like, people that are paid by big companies to stick to politicians like $hit on velcro and force the companies views down their throats? i agree with with you in that aspect, but its still useful for people to have access to politicians and let them know what they think should happen
 
Originally posted by: Atheus
For comparison - Tony Blair's personal approval is sitting on 26% as of 11th May. Party approval ratings show the Tories on 37%, Labour 31% and the Liberal Democrats 17.

That's also because Tony is facing numerous problems with Ministers and other government leaders in his party that have been judged to have acted inappropriately....oh, wait, so does Bush Jr.... :disgust:

Future Shock
 
What if we offered these 29% holdouts their own country, say we give them Texas, and built a wall around it to keep out the unwanted?

Would the sun shine brighter? Would the birds chirp louder? Would the beer flow freely in celebration? 😀

 
Originally posted by: Future Shock
Originally posted by: Atheus
For comparison - Tony Blair's personal approval is sitting on 26% as of 11th May. Party approval ratings show the Tories on 37%, Labour 31% and the Liberal Democrats 17.

That's also because Tony is facing numerous problems with Ministers and other government leaders in his party that have been judged to have acted inappropriately....oh, wait, so does Bush Jr.... :disgust:

Future Shock

and because in the UK they have three major parties
 
Originally posted by: Eddieo
29 percent is still to high for that bum.

Thomas Friedman agrees with you in the NY Times today.

Saying No to Bush's Yes Men

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: May 17, 2006

President Bush has slipped in one recent poll to a 29 percent approval rating. Frankly, I can't believe that. Those polls can't possibly be accurate. I mean, really, ask yourself: How could there still be 29 percent of the people who approve of this presidency?

Personally, I think the president can reshuffle his cabinet all he wants, but his poll ratings are not going to substantially recover ? ever. Americans are slow to judgment about a president, very slow. And in times of war, in particular, they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I think a lot of Americans in recent months have simply lost confidence in this administration's competence and honesty.

What has eaten away most at the support for this administration, I believe, has been the fact that time and time again, it has put politics and ideology ahead of the interests of the United States, and I think a lot of people are just sick of it. I know I sure am.

To me, the most baffling thing about the Bush presidency is this: If you had worked for so long to be president, wouldn't you want to staff your administration with the very best people you could find, especially in national security and especially in the area of intelligence, which has been the source of so much controversy ? from 9/11 to Iraq?

Wouldn't that be your instinct? Well, not only did the president put the C.I.A. in the hands of a complete partisan hack named Porter Goss, but he then allowed Mr. Goss to appoint as the No. 3 man at the agency ? the C.I.A.'s executive director ? Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, whose previous position was chief of the C.I.A.'s logistics office in Germany, which provides its Middle East stations with supplies.

Mr. Foggo has spent almost his entire undistinguished C.I.A. career in midlevel administrative jobs. He ingratiated himself with Mr. Goss during his days as a congressman by funneling inside dope about the C.I.A. under George Tenet to Mr. Goss, Newsweek reported. When Mr. Goss was tapped by the president to head the C.I.A., he plucked Mr. Foggo from obscurity to handle day-to-day operations at the agency, where he immediately made his mark by purging the C.I.A. of veteran spies and managers deemed unfriendly to the White House. I feel safer already.

Mr. Foggo resigned, along with Mr. Goss, after the C.I.A.'s chief internal watchdog opened an investigation to determine whether Mr. Foggo had helped steer a contract, apparently involving bottled water, to a company run by his old friend Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor who has been identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case involving the corrupt San Diego congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who is now in prison. Mr. Foggo is not an expert on Iran or Iraq or Russia, but rather on Perrier, Poland Spring and Fiji water. That is the guy the Bush team chose as its chief operating officer at the C.I.A.

Is there no job in this administration that is too important to be handed over to a political hack? No. In his excellent book on the Iraq war, "The Assassins' Gate," George Packer tells the story of how some of the State Department's best Iraq experts were barred from going to Iraq immediately after the invasion ? when they were needed most ? because that didn't pass Dick Cheney's or Don Rumsfeld's ideology tests. And that is the core of the matter: the Bush team believes in loyalty over expertise. When ideology always trumps reality, loyalty always trumps expertise.

Yes, Mr. Bush has seen the error of his ways and has sacked the Goss crew, but we just wasted a year and saw a number of experienced C.I.A. people quit the agency in disgust.

It's comical to think of this administration hoping to get a popularity lift from shaking up the president's cabinet, considering the fact that it has kept its cabinet secretaries so out of sight ? even the good ones, and there are good ones ? so the president will always dominate the landscape.

When you centralize power the way Mr. Bush did, you alone get stuck with all the responsibility when things go bad. And that is what is happening now. The idea that the president's poll numbers would go up if he replaced his Treasury secretary is ludicrous. Replacing him would be like replacing one ghost with another.

I understand that loyalty is important, but what good is it to have loyal crew members when the ship is sinking? So they can sing your praises on the way down to the ocean floor? I just don't understand how a president whose whole legacy depends on getting national security and intelligence right would have tolerated anything but the very best in those areas. What in the world was he thinking?
 
Originally posted by: Atheus
For comparison - Tony Blair's personal approval is sitting on 26% as of 11th May. Party approval ratings show the Tories on 37%, Labour 31% and the Liberal Democrats 17.
Go figure... birds of a feather...

 
Remember what I always said about no one being able to escape the consequences of their actions forever?

Confidence in GOP is at new low in poll

Democrats favored to address gas, health care in particular

By Richard Morin and Dan Balz
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON - Public confidence in GOP governance has plunged to the lowest levels of the Bush presidency, with Americans saying by wide margins that they now trust Democrats more than Republicans to deal with Iraq, the economy, immigration and other issues, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll that underscores the GOP's fragile grip on power six months before the midterm elections.

Dissatisfaction with the administration's policies in Iraq has overwhelmed other issues as the source of problems for President Bush and the Republicans. The survey suggests that pessimism about the direction of the country -- 69 percent said the nation is now off track -- and disaffection with Republicans has dramatically improved Democrats' chances to make gains in November.

Democrats are now favored to handle all 10 issues measured in the Post-ABC News poll. The survey shows a majority of the public, 56 percent, saying they would prefer to see Democrats in control of Congress after the elections.

The poll offers two cautions for the Democrats, however. One is a growing disaffection with incumbents generally. When asked whether they were inclined to reelect their current representative to Congress or look around for someone new, 55 percent said they were open to someone else, the highest since just before Republicans captured control of Congress in 1994. That suggests that some Democratic incumbents could feel the voters' wrath, although as the party in power, Republicans have more at risk.

Using Republicans' weaknesses
The second warning for Democrats is that their improved prospects for November appear driven primarily by dissatisfaction with Republicans rather than by positive impressions of their own party. Congressional Democrats are rating only slightly more favorably than congressional Republicans, and 52 percent of those surveyed said the Democrats have not offered a sharp contrast to Bush and the Republicans.

Only a third want the GOP to remain in the majority in Congress. Nearly three times as many Americans say they will use the elections to express opposition to the president (30 percent) than to show support for him (12 percent).

Based on the public mood, the midterm elections are likely to be a referendum on the president and his party. The poll suggests that, if Republicans can turn the election into a choice between the two parties, as they are attempting to do, they could frustrate Democratic hopes of capturing control of one or both houses of Congress. Some Democratic leaders already are warning against overconfidence, given how quickly conditions could change by November.

Bush's job approval rating now stands at 33 percent, down five percentage points in barely a month and a new low in Post-ABC polls. His current standing with the public is identical to his father's worst showing in the Post-ABC poll before he lost his reelection bid to Bill Clinton in 1992. Bush's father fell below 30 percent in some other independent polls that year.

The current president's decline has been particularly steep among Republicans, who until last month had remained generally loyal while independents and Democrats grew increasingly critical. According to the survey, Bush's disapproval rating among Republicans has nearly doubled in the past month, from 16 percent to 30 percent, while his approval rating dipped below 70 percent for the first time. Nearly nine in 10 Democrats and seven in 10 independents do not like the job Bush is doing as president.

Iraq views suffering
Public dissatisfaction with Bush has grown in lock step with opposition to the conflict in Iraq. Not quite a third -- 32 percent -- said they approve of the way Bush is handling Iraq, down five points in the past month and a new low in Post-ABC polling. Fewer than four in 10 -- 37 percent -- say Iraq has been worth the cost, the lowest level of support recorded in Post-ABC polls. Nearly two in three Americans believe the war has not been worth it, a view shared by eight in 10 Democrats, seven in 10 independents and a third of all Republicans.

The clearest sign of how Iraq dominates the public mood came in answer to another question, which asked those who disapprove of Bush's performance to cite a reason. Nearly half, 46 percent, said Iraq, easily the most frequently mentioned reason. In equal proportions, Republicans as well as Democrats who disapprove of Bush cite his performance in Iraq as the principal reason.

The findings buttress comments Monday by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who said Iraq "looms over everything," although he said he remains confident about Republican prospects in November.

Bush's fading popularity is matched by waning popular support for the Republican-held Congress. A third of the country approves of the job Congress is doing -- identical to the president's poor job performance rating -- and a 10-year low. Even Republicans are divided over the performance of the Republican-controlled Congress: 49 percent approved while 47 disapproved, a view shared by seven in 10 Democrats and political independents.

Both parties affected
The survey suggests that dissatisfaction with Congress extends to members of both parties. Only 39 percent approve of the job Democrats in Congress are doing, while 58 percent disapprove -- slightly higher than the level of disapproval registered before the 1994 midterm elections, when Republicans evicted Democrats from power on Capitol Hill.

On one other measure, incumbents look slightly less threatened. More than three in five, 62 percent, said they approve of the way their own representative is doing his or her job, up from 59 percent last month. At this point in 1994, an equal percentage gave good ratings to their representatives, but by October that number had plunged to 49 percent.

A total of 1,103 randomly selected adults were interviewed by telephone May 11-15. Margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

Democrats hold an advantage of 52 percent to 40 percent when voters are asked whether they plan to vote for the Republican or Democratic candidate in their House district, a margin that didn't narrow when the preferences of only those most likely to cast ballots were analyzed. That 12-point Democratic margin is slightly smaller than in several previous polls.

The survey also found Democrats also had double-digit lead over Republicans on nine of the 10 issues when respondents were asked which party they favored to deal with the problem and a smaller lead on the 10th.

Gas, health care better for Democrats
By 2 to 1 or better, the public preferred Democrats to handle gas prices and health care. And by double-digit margins, they preferred Democrats to deal with education (23 percentage points), the budget (20 points), the economy (18 points) and protecting privacy (15 points). Democrats also had a 14-point edge on handling Iraq, immigration and taxes.

Only on terrorism did Republicans come close -- though, by 46 to 41 percent, the public still preferred the Democrats.

The economy, followed by Iraq and immigration, lead a long and wide-ranging list of issues that voters say are most important to them at the ballot box this year. Among those who say the economy is their top issue -- about 17 percent of the public -- 56 percent say they will vote for the Democratic candidate in House races. Eleven percent named Iraq as their priority, and 79 percent of these plan to vote Democratic.

On one issue, Americans were less pessimistic than a month ago. In April, 70 percent said higher gasoline prices were causing financial hardship. In the latest poll, 57 percent said that was the case.

bush is draggin down the entire GOP. Maybe NOW they'll begin the Constitutionally mandated oversight that the GOP led legislative branch has been failing to provide.

A GOP impeachment of bush would be poetic justice!

🙂
 
Originally posted by: BBond
The economy, followed by Iraq and immigration, lead a long and wide-ranging list of issues that voters say are most important to them at the ballot box this year.
Rasmussen said something interesting today on that issue.
The President has received very poor marks on the immigration issue in recent state surveys, including solid Republican states like Nebraska.
If it is true that immigration is that important for this election and if the voters very much dislike the president's plan, look for another significant drop in the polls.
 
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Atheus
For comparison - Tony Blair's personal approval is sitting on 26% as of 11th May. Party approval ratings show the Tories on 37%, Labour 31% and the Liberal Democrats 17.
Go figure... birds of a feather...

The Economist has a great cover story this week. Axis of Feeble

I don't agree with everything in The Economist but they make an apropos point about Bush having at least a few good ideas . . . but looked totally incompetent in trying to execute them.
 
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
What if we offered these 29% holdouts their own country, say we give them Texas, and built a wall around it to keep out the unwanted?

Would the sun shine brighter? Would the birds chirp louder? Would the beer flow freely in celebration? 😀

Naw, let's keep Texas (at least for now), the real culprits are these contigious states:

Idaho
Wyoming
Utah
Nebraska

This are the states (according to George Will) that still have over 50% approval rate for Bush. I say let's build a wall around THEM!

It also says a lot to me that his base is pretty much concentrated all in this one area. It's also telling that NONE of those states are in the South. Even his home state has less than 50% support for him!

 
Originally posted by: DanceMan
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
What if we offered these 29% holdouts their own country, say we give them Texas, and built a wall around it to keep out the unwanted?

Would the sun shine brighter? Would the birds chirp louder? Would the beer flow freely in celebration? 😀

Naw, let's keep Texas (at least for now), the real culprits are these contigious states:

Idaho
Wyoming
Utah
Nebraska

This are the states (according to George Will) that still have over 50% approval rate for Bush. I say let's build a wall around THEM!

It also says a lot to me that his base is pretty much concentrated all in this one area. It's also telling that NONE of those states are in the South. Even his home state has less than 50% support for him!

Fair enough. I hadn't put much thought into it. Your plan sounds better. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: DanceMan
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
What if we offered these 29% holdouts their own country, say we give them Texas, and built a wall around it to keep out the unwanted?

Would the sun shine brighter? Would the birds chirp louder? Would the beer flow freely in celebration? 😀

Naw, let's keep Texas (at least for now), the real culprits are these contigious states:

Idaho
Wyoming
Utah
Nebraska

This are the states (according to George Will) that still have over 50% approval rate for Bush. I say let's build a wall around THEM!

It also says a lot to me that his base is pretty much concentrated all in this one area. It's also telling that NONE of those states are in the South. Even his home state has less than 50% support for him!
LoL, the first letter of each of those states spells: I.-W.U.N.

 
Back
Top