One picture, and its story about the Bush presidency

[Craig234]

Here's the picture

A little editorial comment: notice how the story of the Bush presidency is consistent - falling approval ratings for 6 years, starting upon taking office.

The few bumps are only military actions (9/11, Iraq, Saddam) or runups to elections.

It's a remarkable chart at showing how much of a gap exists between the public and his agenda.

And it's a scary chart in showing how he can use the military to gain approval rating bumps, if he wants to.

Of course, approval ratings directly tranlslate into his ability to get laws passed to reward his donors - and so he wants them. And people wonder why we have unnecessary war.

(Note: they keep the page updated, so it's handy to bookmark for reference)

 

[Pens1566]

Good link. Thanks OP.

 

[wazzledoozle]

I like how Fox's approval ratings are consistently the highest.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
I like how Fox's approval ratings are consistently above the rest.

Find historical data from the Clinton era and you will find that his ratings via Fox were higher than the others then too. It is all about how you ask and who you ask.
Now if Fox rated Clinton lower than average and Bush higher than average you would have a point, but they don't so your "point" is worthless.

 

[wazzledoozle]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
I like how Fox's approval ratings are consistently above the rest.

Find historical data from the Clinton era and you will find that his ratings via Fox were higher than the others then too. It is all about how you ask and who you ask.
Now if Fox rated Clinton lower than average and Bush higher than average you would have a point, but they don't so your "point" is worthless.

You find it, I have better things to do.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
I like how Fox's approval ratings are consistently the highest.

Gallup looks the highest.

 

[Slew Foot]

They ought to compare the approval rating to gas prices.

 

[slash196]

Note that the last sampling was about 10 days ago, the new update will probably be a nosedive.

 

[tweaker2]

so from this graph can one make an assumptive leap and safely presume that pure spin has some effect on image but actual job performance will always dissolve the maple syrup that's poured over the proverbial piles of fresh steaming crapola that a politician lays on his/her watch?

 

[ericlp]

Funny... How people can be for him one month and against in the next month then for him again....... I've been pretty much well, I can't think of a time even on 911 when the approval ratings were at 90% that I was for him... It amazes me he is back up to 40%. Pretty sad especially how he has lied consistently about the war and spending habits and twisting the constitution to his way only.... I guess I am not a religious person so anyone that claims he can talk to god is pretty much "worthless" to me or anyone quoting the bible is even more worthless, and anyone the dumbs down science and takes a back seat to the world passing out cash to (selected) religious foundations like candy... I wish he would just go on vacation more often and remain there.

Did I tell you I don't like the guy?

 

[Lemon law]

While I may be biased and think that ericlp has it pegged right---it still does not explain the aggregate behavoir of the American sheepel---but I will hazard a guess. In the beginning Bush was just more likable than Gore---but when the American people realised Bush was a do nothing except for for biased tax cuts---and Bush's popularity dropped---then came 911 and we had no choice but to rally around the Pres---and as we took pre=emtive ation in Afganistan---up Bush's popularity went---and as he botched things--it went down slowly--briefly perked up when we got Saddam---and when things did not improve as a result---down it went again.

Kerry never connected with the American public---but America was still polarized--but better teh devil we knew than the devil we did not know---then Bush decided to capilize on his political capital---and discovered the American public would let him play games in Iraq---but when it came down to monkeying around with something important like social security---no one trusted GWB---as no progress occured in Iraq---the GWB popularity then slowly declined declined---until Katrina when it briefly tanked to 35%---absent any giant scandals it then went up to 40%--and then down again to 33% when the the congressional corruption scandals hit---and now its edged back up to maybe 38-40%---but could really tank in a heart beat if another one of Bush's chickens comes home to roost===like Iraq blowing up---right now everything is focused on keeping bad news away until after the mid-term elections.

At least thats my Liberal liberal liberal take on it---and in a few years all of the chickens Bush has in bad public policy will come home to roost---but so far---he has been very effective in getting his way. Much is the fault is in GWB---but the rest is in the American people---who will get to pay for this mess.---and I never trusted the guy either---and GWB has yet to change my mind.

 

[ProfJohn]

ericlp and Lemon, a lot of us on the right would say the exact same thing you said about Bush in regards to Clinton.
Don't like him, don't trust him, never voted for him, and yet his aproval numbers were between 50 and 60 most of his term hmmm wonder how that happened?

 

[umbrella39]

Your shilling is not working. If anything, you are losing votes for the GOP every time you post. Keep up the good work. We need more like you to show exactly what is wrong with this country. :thumbsup:

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ericlp and Lemon, a lot of us on the right would say the exact same thing you said about Bush in regards to Clinton.
Don't like him, don't trust him, never voted for him, and yet his aproval numbers were between 50 and 60 most of his term hmmm wonder how that happened?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was never impressed with Bill Clinton either---but at least he did not do totally stupid things like invade Iraq---and the country prospered---we actually had a small budget surplus.---and the Clinton administration was most scandal free administration in recent history in terms of public policy. The stock market shot up===and has yet to equal the inflation adjusted highs.

Now we have a President who does stupid things---the budget surplus was sqaundered inside of a few months---even before 911---and its nothing but red ink as far as the eye can see.---a looming diaster in Iraq--a totally corrupt Republican congress--- A President who flaunts the constitution and is morally bankrupt.

Such is the power of stupidity---which discribes GWB&co. to a T. And now any moral high ground the USA had is history. ---we have huge defecits---and we have a totally dishonest administration.

By any rational comparison---its Bill Clinton over GWB--when it comes to results.

 

[Corbett]

Sorry, if America wanted a president who performed certain duties based on poll numbers, they would have elected John Kerry or Al Gore.

 

[IamDavid]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Sorry, if America wanted a president who performed certain duties based on poll numbers, they would have elected John Kerry or Al Gore.

And next: Hillary Clinton...

This is a very interesting link. Thanks. I personally believe the more people dislike a politician the better job he must be doing for the whole...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: IamDavid

Originally posted by: Corbett
Sorry, if America wanted a president who performed certain duties based on poll numbers, they would have elected John Kerry or Al Gore.

And next: Hillary Clinton...

This is a very interesting link. Thanks. I personally believe the more people dislike a politician the better job he must be doing for the whole...

Nice theory, too bad Bush blows it out of the water.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

haha. The Republicans on low poll numbers: Those are GREAT numbers! Up is down! Black is white! Truth is lies! unfvckingreal....

 

[Agent11]

There used to be republicans that actually stood for something,like ike. . but after him everything started to go downhill for the party.

I dare any republican to use the term 'fiscal conservative' in november, they will be laughed out of washington.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Agent11
I dare any republican to use the term 'fiscal conservative' in november, they will be laughed out of washington.

No argument from me there. However, I dare the democrats to mutter the words "protecting our country" and the laughs will be twice as loud.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Agent11
I dare any republican to use the term 'fiscal conservative' in november, they will be laughed out of washington.

No argument from me there. However, I dare the democrats to mutter the words "protecting our country" and the laughs will be twice as loud.

I think that goes for any pro-Bush republican too :laugh:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I think that goes for any pro-Bush republican too :laugh:

Er, let's be realistic here. If the election were to be decided squarely on protecting this country, the "pro-Bush republicans" you speak of would win in a landslide.

 

[Aisengard]

Well, if you consider a consistently shrinking (now) 6 percentage points a landslide, then sure. But I'd hate to know what 10 percentage points is. An avalanche?

http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm

And if Iraq is included in the discussion of 'protecting our country', well, then the tables would be turned, and the Democrats would win 'in a landslide' on that issue.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I think that goes for any pro-Bush republican too :laugh:

Er, let's be realistic here. If the election were to be decided squarely on protecting this country, the "pro-Bush republicans" you speak of would win in a landslide.

and protecting the US is creating a war that turns about 20,000 al queda into 50,000 al queda. you really believe a democrat would have accomplished that?

 

[IamDavid]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: IamDavid

Originally posted by: Corbett
Sorry, if America wanted a president who performed certain duties based on poll numbers, they would have elected John Kerry or Al Gore.

And next: Hillary Clinton...

This is a very interesting link. Thanks. I personally believe the more people dislike a politician the better job he must be doing for the whole...

Nice theory, too bad Bush blows it out of the water.

Maybe, maybe not... I see the economy stronger than ever. It's not based on a crazy bubble. And companies who have broke the law have are are in proceess of eing brough to justice.. Without witch hunts.
I see a level headed approach to border security... No, militarization on the border and no amnesty.
Ou country is safe. I haven't seen any foreign fighters attack us on our soil, can't be said about other countries who have tried to appease.

That said I would not vote for Bush today if this was an election year. He has no "unity" skills at all. Not even with the people of his own party. He may be the most dedicated president in our history but he can't do anything alone. If only we could find a president with Clinton's people skills and Bush's dedication... Unfortunately those kinds of people are smart enough not to enter politics...