Bush Approval Rating History

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

“Hmm, now what could boost mah poll ratings? Think, Karl, think.”

Well, with another terrorist attack or war not forthcoming (and anyone who thinks we’re in any kind of position to really attack Iran or Syria is loony - even they don’t believe that after watching us founder in Iraq) how about a concert hosted by The Pentagon?!

The Pentagon would hold a massive march and country music concert to mark the fourth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an announcement tucked into an Iraq war briefing today.

“This year the Department of Defence will initiate an America Supports Your Freedom Walk,” Rumsfeld said, adding that the march would remind people of “the sacrifices of this generation and of each previous generation”.

The march will start at the Pentagon, where nearly 200 people died on September 11, 2001, and end at the National Mall with a show by country star Clint Black.

Word of the event startled some observers.

“I’ve never heard of such a thing,” said John Pike, who has been a defence analyst in Washington for 25 years and runs GlobalSecurity.org.

The news also reignited debate and anger over linking September 11 with the war in Iraq.

Kuntry Musik for da Dubya crowd! Who’d da thunk it?

Think they’ll get the Dixie Chicks?

Gallup polls seem on the high end, AP on the low.

i love how right after saddam, ratings drop to about 48%. then they shoot up to 55% for the election. then immediately drop right back to 48%. way to go, american public.

Jesus, I didn’t realize he was actually up to ninety percent after 9/11. Christ. That’s exactly why the Democrats are never going to win another election, ever.

didn’t the first bush have 90% after the first gulf war?

didn’t the first bush have 90% after the first gulf war?[/quote]

I don’t know, did he? If so, that’s even more upsetting.

didn’t the first bush have 90% after the first gulf war?[/quote]

I don’t know, did he? If so, that’s even more upsetting.[/quote]

I remember in run-up to the election, SNL was doing skits about how he was such a shoo-in that no serious democrat wanted to run against him. It was the ‘race to bow out of the race against Bush in 92’ or something like that.

Then Bush the Elder had that incident when he threw up in that banquet in Japan. We were studying Macbeth at the time. My English teacher said this incident was like the banquet scene in Macbeth, the beginning of the fall from power. He predicted that Bush was doomed in the next election.

Where’s a MacDuff when you need one?

didn’t the first bush have 90% after the first gulf war?[/quote]

I don’t know, did he? If so, that’s even more upsetting.[/quote]

From memory I believed he reached 88%.

[size=2]For the record, this is my 4000th post.[/size]

So the piss-poor economy, tax hikes despite his promise, military cuts and lack of an internal agenda didn’t doom Bush 1, it was all a scene from Macbeth?

Damn.

Well, not that I believe the Macbeth theory, of course, but I think you could contruct a similar list of positives if George the First had won his second term. All the problems were there when he had 80% approval. It’s not like George the Second had a stellar record by comparison.

The ‘image’ (or mythic) element is a very real part of politics, and the image for both banquets was: this guy is not a fit leader.

Dude, since when have Americans ever voted based on issues?

Dude, since when have Americans ever voted based on issues?[/quote]

Yeah! Give up! Everyone is stoopid! Only the cynics know the real deal!

God, looking at that you realize just how hard they had to work to eek out that win, and they did it by getting the single issue voters to show up to vote against “the gays”.

The most significant aspect of that graph for me is that Bush’s approval rating has only dipped below 45% three times since he took office and then only briefly. What the?

I’m not saying that people are stupid, and my position is only cynical if you see “voting based on issues” as a worthy ideal.

I’m just saying that people don’t vote based on issues. People don’t even vote for the candidate that they like the best; otherwise Howard Dean probably would have won the nomination, not Kerry.

Bush 1 lost the election because of one thing: Ross Perot.

Come back, Ross!

That’s not true. Exit polls showed that people who voted for Perot would’ve voted fifty/fifty for Bush and Clinton if he weren’t there.

I’m not saying that people are stupid, and my position is only cynical if you see “voting based on issues” as a worthy ideal.

I’m just saying that people don’t vote based on issues. People don’t even vote for the candidate that they like the best; otherwise Howard Dean probably would have won the nomination, not Kerry.[/quote]

I think voting on the issues (as opposed to things that a lot of people do vote on, such as religion and haircuts) is a worthy ideal. I also think you’re right, and a lot (probably most) people don’t bother with those things. It’s too much work.

I’m not saying that people are stupid, and my position is only cynical if you see “voting based on issues” as a worthy ideal.

I’m just saying that people don’t vote based on issues. People don’t even vote for the candidate that they like the best; otherwise Howard Dean probably would have won the nomination, not Kerry.[/quote]

People do vote on issues. Not all of them, but many of them. THey not only vote on the issues, many vote on a single issue.

One thing that I’ve been thinking about is how the right is spending more and more time and energy pandering to their most extreme elements secure in the knowledge that the center right will stick with them. These are sick people that have been legitimized not by their actions, but by the political system. And we’re getting the first inklings of fractures as the extremists discover their dogmas don’t match.

No, it’s not new. Plato called it the “Tyranny of the Masses”, and it’s why he thought democracy wasn’t a good idea.