POLITICS: Bush Approval Rating Lowest Ever for 2nd-Term President

Guys, let's not let this thread turn into a partisan arguement. The topic is Bush's popularity, if you don't like it, don't post.

Here are the results of a 22 nation poll (including US) on Bush's re-election in case you're interested. Conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland for the BBC World Service.

Poll results

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
We need more than a 2 Candidate system nowadays.

Originally, dozens of candidates were likely to get elected - now we have 2.

Anyways, Reagan was a president that I respect. He has been thrown down and humiliated by Dem's who still hold a grudge against him. Get over, already.

As to Bush, I still approve of him. And what is broken? In three years he'll be gone, and you can all stop crying that he is the "anti-christ" and what not.

-wD

I would be one to admit that i supported him for his second term. I simply preferred him over the option. As mentioned earlier, i believe there are many messes left to clean up. Whether his remaining three years would make a difference,...I don't know....It would sure help if America would pull together instead of remaining devided. Honestly it could be that John Kerry scared the hell out of some on what his policies might be with the war and homaland security. Polls tended to show that most supported bush on that issue during the election.

Id like some more info on that birdie pic if possible. Where and when was this? Got anymore? lol

Originally posted by Simulacra

With a 45% approval rating within a few months in office, it makes you wonder just how President Bush was elected in the first place?

theres something called money, it's buys everything.

Heh, I never liked Bush, I was quite sad they picked him over Gore and Kerry, however, on the flip side, we get to have "Assault" style weapons now...the only thing I aprove of (I don't want to hear you on the AWB people).

I'd say give an independant the whitehouse for a change...

Originally posted by Mr Carburetor
Honestly it could be that John Kerry scared the hell out of some on what his policies might be with the war and homaland security. Polls tended to show that most supported bush on that issue during the election.

Let's face it, it couldn't be much worse anyway. I really don't see giant strides out nation is supposed to be making in the area of homeland security. I heard from an official the exact opposite -- that it's amatter of time before the next significant attack. Go figure. And with the war? Looks like the US won't be able to have permanent bases in Iraq anyway, so why bother. Again, I don't see that Kerry would have made any negative impact in that area either.

Originally posted by AlwaysLearning
Here are the results of a 22 nation poll (including US) on Bush's re-election in case you're interested. Conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland for the BBC World Service.

Poll results

INCREDIBLE Even if sometimes I consider my fellow Mexicans quite uninformed, just check the ratio on the Poll >>>>> WOW support for troops in Irak

ZERO NADA NIET NOTHING........

way to go enchilada country.....

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by Mr Carburetor
Honestly it could be that John Kerry scared the hell out of some on what his policies might be with the war and homaland security. Polls tended to show that most supported bush on that issue during the election.

Let's face it, it couldn't be much worse anyway. I really don't see giant strides out nation is supposed to be making in the area of homeland security. I heard from an official the exact opposite -- that it's amatter of time before the next significant attack. Go figure. And with the war? Looks like the US won't be able to have permanent bases in Iraq anyway, so why bother. Again, I don't see that Kerry would have made any negative impact in that area either.

It probably wounldn't have made much of a difference. I know that many Americans were undecided up until the final hours of the election. I wouldn't be surprised if many just went with their gut feelings

Originally posted by CmptrN3rd5
Id like some more info on that birdie pic if possible. Where and when was this? Got anymore? lol

If you are referring to the pic in whic Bush gives the camera the finger, then it actually comes from a video of him doing an interview in the early 90s in Texas, I'll see if i can find it floating on the net.

I for one, am still not convinced that Bush was legally elected the second time, forget about the first time. There's still too many voting irregularities around the country that haven't been answered to my satisfaction concerning uncounted votes, electronic voting mishaps, and worst-of-all Kerry's falling down and playing dead after the debates. The skull and bones just may have called in their chits.
But were stuck with Bush and his poll numbers make no difference to the ones calling the shots. They plan to accomplish their agenda in such a fashion that it won't matter who wins the next election.

I certainly don't approve of him. Glad to hear that so many others don't

Let be fair now, the war on terror cost money, keeping our nation safe cost money, keeping our troops around the world cost money.

When all these expenses are put together any president will have problems with the budget and our domestic agendas.

We like smooth things, jobs, good pay and somewhere to live.

When one of these things are not doing good, we tend to blame our government.

So let be fair.

Originally posted by Aelita
...................
And with the war? Looks like the US won't be able to have permanent bases in Iraq anyway, so why bother. Again, I don't see that Kerry would have made any negative impact in that area either.

Well, Bush once said to Kerry on public tv that if he was president that Saddam would still be in power. To this Kerry responded: "not necessarily."

Appart from this if Kerry was elected we would be looking at the US having a system which Kerry called "New Army of Patriots." To me that system sounds too similar to the national system that exists, or used to exist in communist countries. Here is an excerpt to Kerry's proposed plan.

quote: John Kerry believes that in these times, we need to bolster these efforts with a nationwide commitment to national service. Whether it is a Summer of Service for our teenagers, helping young people serve their country in return for college, or the Older Americans in Service program, John Kerry's plan will call on every American of every age and every background to serve. John Kerry will set a goal of one million Americans a year in national service within the next decade.
.............
As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service.

Excerpted from.
web.archive.org...

So pretty much, Kerry wanted all US citizens to be part of this, making it mandatory for high school students to serve for two years in exchange for tuition. I personally know of one other country that has pretty much the same system, and that is Cuba.

I remember that about a month and a half ago, a member in these same forums gave us also a link with information that Kerry was trying to convince president Bush to accept this plan.

I made a thread with more links and info about this some time ago. here is the link.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So Kerry would have taken us to war too, and he would have made mandatory service for all high school children and adults in exchange for services.

Muaddib, you may be right but it was for commitments generated by Good Ole Dubya.

Partisian politics, not played here.

I trust neither of them.

Who cares about Kerry?! He lost, why must we always compare Bush to Kerry? How about we compare Bush to Badnarik?

All I have to say is Democrats should not worry, Bush will have the state of affaris so messed up during ths last term of office that Hillary Clinton will easily win the 2008 election, if she can win her party.

Originally posted by Sugarlump
I certainly don't approve of him. Glad to hear that so many others don't

We saw that most members in ATS and ATSNN did not approve of Bush before the elections....

So you will find most members in here do not approve of him, this is nothing new.

I have also said this before. IMO polls made by asking a few thousand people does not really make it what a whole nation thinks.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Sugarlump
I certainly don't approve of him. Glad to hear that so many others don't

We saw that most members in ATS and ATSNN did not approve of Bush before the elections....

So you will find most members in here do not approve of him, this is nothing new.

I have also said this before. IMO polls made by asking a few thousand people does not really make it what a whole nation thinks.

So are you debating his approval rating?

Originally posted by Muaddib
I have also said this before. IMO polls made by asking a few thousand people does not really make it what a whole nation thinks.

This is why a knowledge of sampling techniques and margins of error is of value to people who want to make genuine comments on polls.

As news coverage varies on the continuum of reliability from Fox at the comedic end of things to *state your preferred newscaster* at the more credible end, so to do polls vary in their quality. Not much wrong with Gallup historically, but the 45% is surprising on the basis of performance that Bush gets so high a "record low second term" rating.

[edit on 5-4-2005 by MaskedAvatar]