A real look at Bush and Poll Numbers

[JP226]

Now, this requires you to put away your blind ideology and diatribe and take an objective look

Why are Bush's poll numbers so low? The economy is strong, 4% GDP growth, stockmarket hitting record levels, unbelieveably low inflation and employment. My state alone has about 3.4 or 6% unemployment. The war is not a disaster by any means, and more importantly it's not really on your Average mind. Despite what most believe here, the war really doesn't affect Americans day to day life. Gas prices may have a partial effect, but still, all time low numbers? WHat is driving it? Bad marketing skills? Are these polls real? Million upon millions of Americans were out protesting Johnson during 68 and he had poll numbers 10 points below Bush is currently. It just doesn't match up. Why?

Let's say clinton was in the exact same situation as Bush is now, would his poll numbers be the same, or could he sell the current situation much, much better.

[God]

Maybe it's because everyone thinks the 'misunderestimated' George Bush is an idiot?

And even though the Iraq war doesn't affect most people, it's still very unpopular.

[Kscott]

[QUOTE=JP226]Now, this requires you to put away your blind ideology and diatribe and take an objective look

The economy is strong, 4% GDP growth, stockmarket hitting record levels, unbelieveably low inflation and employment. My state alone has about 3.4 or 6% unemployment.

Dispite this we have an ever increasing national debt. This is something many Americans are concerned about.

The war is not a disaster by any means, and more importantly it's not really on your Average mind.

Not a disaster? Iraq is in a state of civil conflict(not war, but the shiites and sunni sure are taking their stabs at eachother), we are ever loosing international support, and to make things worse terrorism hasn't been stopped at all, infact by the look of things its growing. Not all of this is Bush's fault, I mean it is a bad situation to begin with. However, from the looks of things Bush isn't making it any better.

Despite what most believe here, the war really doesn't affect Americans day to day life.

Not true, we loose are tax money to it by the billions every week.

It just doesn't match up. Why?

The situation isnt exactly terrible, but that is becuase the American sytem was set up so one bad president can't harm the nation(too) much. I think anything positive about the times are soley becuase of American productivity, not becuase of anything Bush can claim.

Let's say clinton was in the exact same situation as Bush is now, would his poll numbers be the same, or could he sell the current situation much, much better.

Its possible, but to say either way is real just a wild guess. I would think Clinton would atleast do a better job.

[Erik]

Not a disaster? Iraq is in a state of civil conflict(not war, but the shiites and sunni sure are taking their stabs at eachother)

According to the scientific defenition it is a civil war.

Anyways: I don't think his approval rates were ever high.
Last election he won not because 51% beleived he did a good job but because 51% beleived he would do a better job than Kerry would.

But why are they lower now than they were before?
I think because he didn't do many positive things recently.
What was the last great thing he did for America? (except for putting a man on Mars of course, like he promised, but sadly my TV doesn't work so I missed that)

[Kscott]

According to the scientific defenition it is a civil war.

Its really a matter of linguistics(read an article devoted to this exact topic). In truth you can call it a minor civil war or a high level of insurgency. Regardless calling it a civil war can be confusing due to common perceptions of the word so its best to avoid calling it that.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Its really a matter of linguistics(read an article devoted to this exact topic). In truth you can call it a minor civil war or a high level of insurgency. Regardless calling it a civil war can be confusing due to common perceptions of the word so its best to avoid calling it that.

I think this is a pretty good definition of a civil war:

"Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter's ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain."
(Errol A. Henderson and J. David Singer, "Civil War in the Post-Colonial World, 1946-92," Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, May 2000.)

That definition was arrived at by the Corrolates of War Project at the University of Michigan through the study of dozens of civil wars over the last 50 years, looking for common elements and baseline measures.

By that very good definition of 'civil war' what we are seeing in Iraq right now is definitely a civil war.

[Erik]

I think this is a pretty good definition of a civil war:

"Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter's ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain."
(Errol A. Henderson and J. David Singer, "Civil War in the Post-Colonial World, 1946-92," Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, May 2000.)

That definition was arrived at by the Corrolates of War Project at the University of Michigan through the study of dozens of civil wars over the last 50 years, looking for common elements and baseline measures.

By that very good definition of 'civil war' what we are seeing in Iraq right now is definitely a civil war.

Yeah, thats the scientific defenition I was talking about.
Thanks for finding that.

[Scar Face]

Now, this requires you to put away your blind ideology and diatribe and take an objective look

Why are Bush's poll numbers so low? The economy is strong, 4% GDP growth, stockmarket hitting record levels, unbelieveably low inflation and employment. My state alone has about 3.4 or 6% unemployment. The war is not a disaster by any means, and more importantly it's not really on your Average mind. Despite what most believe here, the war really doesn't affect Americans day to day life. Gas prices may have a partial effect, but still, all time low numbers? WHat is driving it? Bad marketing skills? Are these polls real? Million upon millions of Americans were out protesting Johnson during 68 and he had poll numbers 10 points below Bush is currently. It just doesn't match up. Why?

Let's say clinton was in the exact same situation as Bush is now, would his poll numbers be the same, or could he sell the current situation much, much better.

My thoughts are

1) Poll numbers are WRONG- though his rating is anything but good, they still didn't poll enough people.
2) While the war might not be on everyones mind day to day, that doesn't mean they don't have resentment about it. He attacked Afghanistan (granted!) and cant keep control. He attacked Iraq (Ok now...this is getting foolish) and cant keep control. And now? Hes ****ing with Iran. (Anyone see a pattern?!)
3) He's just an idiot. With all these problems, and a pretty stupid president- at least speech wise, people are going to look for someone to blame for everything, and thats him.

[IamthePope]

Its really a matter of linguistics(read an article devoted to this exact topic). In truth you can call it a minor civil war or a high level of insurgency. Regardless calling it a civil war can be confusing due to common perceptions of the word so its best to avoid calling it that.

Can you say "Semantics"?

He's just an idiot. With all these problems, and a pretty stupid president- at least speech wise, people are going to look for someone to blame for everything, and thats him.

This is a common misconeption people have. Actually its a downright moronic misconception with little basis in reality. It's like saying Clinton couldn't do his job cause he couldn't keep it in his pants. Its pretty clear that Dubya's a really smart guy. But I think this is part of the problem. the masses who are ignorant of politics believe these types of things. These misconceptions only re-inforce themselves over time through avenues like the daily show(Great show) and SNL.

People will build up increasing resentment towards any political leader with enough time. But the current Polls do strike me as an anomoly. Dubya was governing just as good 5 years ago as he is now so what's changed?

-Misperceptions and anxieties of Iraq war
-Misperception of government inaction in Hurricane Katrina (W's going there for his 8th visit this week)
-Irrelivant Scooter Libby investigation
-Iran crisis (which is being handled superbly)
-OIL PRICES which overshadows the good news about the economy
-Upcoming midterm elections and renewed Dem. Attacks

But most importantly, the adminisration doesn't feel a need to engage in the "dog and pony show" media relationship that the Clinton administration did. This administration sees press relations as a side show not really worthy of attention. I think they veiw the press with a certain amount of contempt (partly due to the beleif that the media gives them a bad shake) and the media does likewises.

[Kscott]

Its pretty clear that Dubyas a really smart guy.

Pretty clear? What has he done that makes it clear?

Can you say "Semantics"?

Yes I can, why do you ask?

[IamthePope]

Pretty clear? What has he done that makes it clear?

It's not really what you do that makes you smart but who you are isn't it. George Bush is a clever guy, a good politician, and a formidable debater. If he wasn't he wouldn't have been elected Gov. of Texas twice and President twice. How many times have any of us been elected to public office?

Yes I can, why do you ask?

The whole matter of whether or not the conflict in Iraq is a "civil war" seems slightly irrelevant. It is what it is. People who want to make a bigger deal of it call it a "civil war" and people who want to downplay it call it an "insurgency". It's just what you call it.

[Kscott]

It's not really what you do that makes you smart but who you are isn't it. George Bush is a clever guy, a good politician, and a formidable debater. If he wasn't he wouldn't have been elected Gov. of Texas twice and President twice.

So your base that is is intellegent is that he is clever, a good politician, and a formidable debator. Only the last point forms any kind of explanation, but I would label it false. Many Bush fans even admit Bush can be a little weak on the debate side. Re-election simply means that Republicans like him alot, that certainly doesnt at all mean intellegence.

How many times have any of us been elected to public office?

Zero. One, im not even old enough to run, two I could just be a moron which doesnt negate make Bush smart, and three I am not the former President's son having acces to immense wealth and contacts with not only American politicians, but politicians from around the world(*cough* Saudi's *cough*).

The whole matter of whether or not the conflict in Iraq is a "civil war" seems slightly irrelevant. It is what it is. People who want to make a bigger deal of it call it a "civil war" and people who want to downplay it call it an "insurgency". It's just what you call it.

did my post not express this point?

[Erik]

It's not really what you do that makes you smart but who you are isn't it. George Bush is a clever guy, a good politician, and a formidable debater. If he wasn't he wouldn't have been elected Gov. of Texas twice and President twice. How many times have any of us been elected to public office?

He won those elections because he has one of the best campaign strategists the world has ever seen: Karl Rove.

I would say Karl Rove is super smart because he can even make somebody like Bush win elections.
(super smart and super evil, btw)

The whole matter of whether or not the conflict in Iraq is a "civil war" seems slightly irrelevant. It is what it is. People who want to make a bigger deal of it call it a "civil war" and people who want to downplay it call it an "insurgency". It's just what you call it.

That's why I go by the objective SCIENTIFIC defenition (1000 casualties or more = civil war).

[Red Harvest]

It's not really what you do that makes you smart but who you are isn't it. George Bush is a clever guy, a good politician, and a formidable debater. If he wasn't he wouldn't have been elected Gov. of Texas twice and President twice. How many times have any of us been elected to public office?

You keep saying how clever he is but I've not seen anything to support it from an *intelligence* standpoint. What I've noticed is that he has a smarmy used car salesman approach. He plays to populist sentiments mostly.

Intelligent folks don't foul up the numbers as badly as Dubya has. And his economic theories are bunk. If he's "clever" it would be in the negative connotation of the word...a clever deciever/manipulator.

Don't confuse the machine for the man. Texas has a powerful GOP machine that displaced the Dems in the early 90's. Democrats don't even run for many of the offices there anymore. I had a number of "opportunities" to vote for Dubya in Texas and never did. (I'm proud of that.) When my wife met Dubya in an official capacity her comment to me was, "from shaking his hand I could tell he's never done an honest day's work in his life." Dubya has always been a "face" man.

He's an awful debator. He's the sort of debator people want to be up against. I don't think you will find anyone who will agree that his debate skills helped him get where he is. He got there in spite of them.

Dubya never would have been elected to any office had it not been for his daddy. And he didn't really "win" his first presidential election...he was awarded the election on a technicality (say what you want, but I pored through the precinct votes in Florida after the election to see what happened...voter intent was obvious.) It surprised me, because Dubya should have been able to steamroller over Gore. If the Democrats had reversed their ticket it would have been a landslide in the other direction.

[Garbarsardar]

-Misperceptions and anxieties of Iraq war
-Misperception of government inaction in Hurricane Katrina (W's going there for his 8th visit this week)
-Irrelivant Scooter Libby investigation
-Iran crisis (which is being handled superbly)
-OIL PRICES which overshadows the good news about the economy
-Upcoming midterm elections and renewed Dem. Attacks

1.2500 dead, more then 15000 injured after the war was "won", and civil war is quite a "misconception". 70% of the American public (or more according to the latest fox poll) must suffer from "Acute misconception disorder".

2.You mean 8 visits after he was holidaying during the crisis, and after he ignored expert's warnings about the danger? 1008 visits would not be enough!

3.Irrelevant investigation probing into the the heart of this administration's mentality? How more relevant can you be?

4.Iran crisis, where the administration discovers that, with an overstreched military and a disastrous foreign policy there are very few things the US can do...

5.Oil prices are part of the economy, in my dictionary...

6.That is gross! :laughing: The Democrats are the most failed opposition in the history of failed oppositions. Are you seriously blaming the lame attempts of a party that controls nothing, has no comprehensive strategy, and its performance is lamented by the more vociferous liberals (like in the Daily show), for the shortcomings of the administration?

[JP226]

1) Poll numbers are WRONG- though his rating is anything but good, they still didn't poll enough people
2) While the war might not be on everyones mind day to day, that doesn't mean they don't have resentment about it. He attacked Afghanistan (granted!) and cant keep control. He attacked Iraq (Ok now...this is getting foolish) and cant keep control. And now? Hes ****ing with Iran. (Anyone see a pattern?!)
3) He's just an idiot. With all these problems, and a pretty stupid president- at least speech wise, people are going to look for someone to blame for everything, and thats him.

2) The war is a nuissance more than anything. Come on, 2,500 dead over 3 or 4 years. More people die from household accidents a year. I'd understand that argument if we were being bombarded with hundreds or thousands of caskets a month. Trusts me, Iraq is far behind bills, picking up the kids, what's for dinner, what's on tv tonight, I don't want to go to work tomorrow, got to feed the dog, then maybe Iraq, just maybe, and at that point maybe 3 out of 5 are indifferent towards it. Afghanistan, even if there were problems, don't want to argue that, i doubt, highly doubt, that woul be ahead of iraq.

3) first off, did you not read the first sentence? Secondly yes people look for someone to blame, but outside of gas prices, what is so bad? Even gas prices, according to the CPI people are not, on the whole, being held back by it. Spending is up, budgets aren't being rearranged, household ownership is at an all time high and so on. People can still get gas, no shortages, no lines. If anything people ***** about prices while they fill up and then forget about it as soon as they pull away from the gas station.

I think if clinton was in this exact situation he'd have phenomonal poll numbers because he could market it better.

[Scar Face]

2) The war is a nuissance more than anything. Come on, 2,500 dead over 3 or 4 years. More people die from household accidents a year. I'd understand that argument if we were being bombarded with hundreds or thousands of caskets a month. Trusts me, Iraq is far behind bills, picking up the kids, what's for dinner, what's on tv tonight, I don't want to go to work tomorrow, got to feed the dog, then maybe Iraq, just maybe, and at that point maybe 3 out of 5 are indifferent towards it. Afghanistan, even if there were problems, don't want to argue that, i doubt, highly doubt, that woul be ahead of iraq.

3) first off, did you not read the first sentence? Secondly yes people look for someone to blame, but outside of gas prices, what is so bad? Even gas prices, according to the CPI people are not, on the whole, being held back by it. Spending is up, budgets aren't being rearranged, household ownership is at an all time high and so on. People can still get gas, no shortages, no lines. If anything people ***** about prices while they fill up and then forget about it as soon as they pull away from the gas station.

I think if clinton was in this exact situation he'd have phenomonal poll numbers because he could market it better.

Hey I was just throwing out my thoghts there. Dont ask for them if your going to give me hostility afterwards.

[Lord Kal]

All American politicians are terrible at debate. The George Galloway vs. American Senate incident proves this. George Galloway is hardly brilliant but he still managed to tie them in knots.

[danzig]

All American politicians are terrible at debate. The George Galloway vs. American Senate incident proves this. George Galloway is hardly brilliant but he still managed to tie them in knots.

You cant call what Galloway did as debate all he did was sit there not answer questions and rant and rave. That isnt debating what Galloway does is little more then speaking just because he likes hearing his own voice. Regardless how does one incident 'prove' Americans are terrible at debate? Someone like Reagan or Clinton would own Galloway.

[Red Harvest]

The economy is strong, 4% GDP growth, stockmarket hitting record levels, unbelieveably low inflation and employment.

This is looking like a typical peak before a recession, yet the stock market has still not regained its 2000 peak (rather than looking at an individual index, look at the Wilshire Index...don't recall the name of the one in particular, but it encompasses most of the total U.S. market across NASDAQ and NYSE.)

Inflation is not that low. In fact it is a concern now (ask the Fed.) There is a reason gold is hitting new highs... Inflation on average has been low for a 15 years or so. "Unbelievably low" doesn't mesh with reality.

Inversion of the yield curves and run ups in oil prices usually signal a recession (as do long hikes in rates by the Fed.)

Employment is interesting in that it is not producing wage growth. Some recent studies have show that the most educated workers are seeing substantial salary declines. That's a very disconcerting sign, but reflects the loss of high tech jobs, and reduced research in the U.S.

And that's the good news.

The war is not a disaster by any means, and more importantly it's not really on your Average mind. Despite what most believe here, the war really doesn't affect Americans day to day life.

I guess if you don't mind shipping half a trillion dollars off into an overseas venture that isn't going very well...and shows no sign of ending. It has been a disaster. It has not gone as "planned" (not that there was much planning for the time *after* the invasion.) We are spending 10 billion a month over there. (Roughly $33/month from every man,woman, and child in the U.S.) So you might not think it effects us, but I certainly do. And those with friends and relatives in the military would agree that it effects them.

It has tied our hands for dealing with Iran and North Korea, and has produced ~20,000 U.S. casualties so far. Worse than that it has become a net producer of terrorism.

And let's not forget Abu Ghraib, as well as other torture *condoned* by the administration.

The loss of credibility for the U.S. is extreme and will take decades of competent leadership to correct. There was no present WMD threat, so the need for immediate action was not there.

Gas prices may have a partial effect, but still, all time low numbers?

Have you watched your other utility bills? It's not just gasoline. And the president's policies have a definite negative impact on the situation...which is why his initial energy policy drew such criticism.

WHat is driving it?

See my list in a previous thread...the concerns there are a good indication.

Bad marketing skills?

No, overmarketing instead of the truth would be a more accurate assessment.

The chickens are coming home to roost. The problem is that most of the things Dubya claimed were going to go one way have instead gone the opposite...the direction his critics said they would go. He has no credibility left and his policies are not seen as working. There isn't much room left for spinning all of this.

Are these polls real?

Yes. They poll ~1,000 per poll and we have dozens of different polls now all indicating the same thing.

When I look at the polls I ask, "what took you so long?" I'm always amazed by how slow folks can be at seeing the obvious.

Million upon millions of Americans were out protesting Johnson during 68 and he had poll numbers 10 points below Bush is currently. It just doesn't match up. Why?

Give it time. If things don't improve in Iraq, or if they get worse, then you could very well see the same again. I hope Iraq improves, but it looks like it is just limping along.

Let's say clinton was in the exact same situation as Bush is now, would his poll numbers be the same, or could he sell the current situation much, much better.

Wouldn't happen. This isn't a case of salesmanship. The concerns are real.

If Clinton had done the things Bush has done he would already have been removed from office.