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

Originally posted by intrepid

So are you debating his approval rating?

I think if you read what I said above, it clearly states my opinion. if you don't agree with me that's fine....it is your opinion.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by intrepid

So are you debating his approval rating?

I think if you read what I said above, it clearly states my opinion. if you don't agree with me that's fine....it is your opinion.

No, I felt what you said was fairly ambiguous, I want a "black or white" statement.

Are you saying that his approval rating is "doctored", "skewed", "real"?

You're up.

Rasmussen on 4/5 has Bush at 48% yesterday he was at 50%.

Thank goodness we have a President that is not "poll driven" like Slick Willie Clinton.

www.rasmussenreports.com...

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Here they are, our beloved leaders...

[/img]

That photo of Bush giving the finger is actually photoshopped (manipulated). The middle finger is too white compared to his almost tanned hand. It looks as Bush was either thumbing at something or just counting while stressing about something (thumb first, index finger second and so on...) but somebody somewhere had an idea about adding a finger to Bush's hand and make it look like he's giving the finger.

There are actually a lot of photoshopped images of Bush on the Net that are in a bad or terribly negative light.

Meanwhile, the lowest approval rating is somewhat similar to that of the first few months of the first Bush term in 2001. Hmmm, is there a pattern leading up to what?

Few people like the guy. Few people liked the other guy. Anybody who loved one or the other probably had a lot of misinformation, or a general lack of information. Of course, being able to think critically helps in separating the truth from the BS when it comes to promises and these so called 'values' everybody claims to have.

I would love to see a more involved citizenry, both in the armed forces and in politics. Many countries have mandatory service requirements, and I think they've generally worked well. Israel has the requirement, but I think you can substitute community service. If not, you should be able to, it makes perfect sense.

I long for the day real-time, totally secure, home-based internet voting makes participation practically guaranteed. I look forward to many candidates, instead of a douche and a turd (South Park fans will get a chuckle). I really want more participation in the armed forces and the political system, in exchange for minor luxuries, not necessities like education.

Approval ratings low, so he takes a vacation. Remember when everyone assured us that, while he wasn't so bright, he surrounded himself with talented, inteligent people who would advise him appropriately? Yeah, well, we've seen the calibre of his minders, and frankly, I'd be happier with an idiot president than a idiot president with a handful of worms in his ear.

Originally posted by intrepid

No, I felt what you said was fairly ambiguous, I want a "black or white" statement.

Are you saying that his approval rating is "doctored", "skewed", "real"?

You're up.

Who knows it could very well be. It is easy to fool anyone with these polls. We all know that some states are pro-Bush while others are fairly liberal. You would get two different results depending on where and who you ask this question.

For example, we have about 3,000+ members in these forums. If we were to make a poll in here about wether or not people believe there are real conspiracies (as an example) we would assume that the whole nation thinks so because the majority of 3,000+ people believe this is true. But would that make it what in reality the majority of people in a country think?

So M, you're basically saying that polls are unnecessary? Because they are skewed.

Originally posted by Muaddib
For example, we have about 3,000+ members in these forums. If we were to make a poll in here about wether or not people believe there are real conspiracies (as an example) we would assume that the whole nation thinks so because the majority of 3,000+ people believe this is true. But would that make it what in reality the majority of people in a country think?

I'm going to have to agree with Muaddib on this and I like your example. The population of people the poll encompasses obviously has a direct correlation with the result it outputs. If you pose the question 'Was Titor a Time Traveller' from members of a 'Time Travel Forum' then we are going to see a high spike of people saying that he was a time traveller. But does the world believe he's a time traveller? Who knows.

Another thing, the more people you poll, the more universally the poll becomes. However using a selected population (1 person of each...hair color) than this poll is inaccurate because it searches for members of a certain population and thus, doesn't represent the total members of society.

Standardized scientific polls with a reported margin of error overcome any skews in sampling. That is what makes them standardized and scientific.

Interpreting polls is an issue that many members of ATS just get plain wrong.

Here are two useful sources:

www.electoral-vote.com... (Polling Methodology)

www.ncpp.org... (20 Questions A Journalist Should Ask About Poll Results)

ATS Polls are not relevant to any discussion of scientific polls.

My take on the "presidential" approval stakes is above - the question is not so much about the accuracy of the approval rating, which was scientifically mesured, but about the purpose of the question in the first place, when nothing can be done about the "president" in the current environment of fiscal irresponsibility and war on accountability.

Originally posted by intrepid
So M, you're basically saying that polls are unnecessary? Because they are skewed.

Ok...i think i said it enough times already....I am saying, once again, that polls done to a couple thousand people do not necessarily convey what a whole nation thinks. And yes, it is fairily easy to "skew" these polls.

I have seen a scene of bush giving the finger to a camera man...he definitly did it in the past, and that pic might very well be real

Originally posted by Muaddib

I am saying, once again, that polls done to a couple thousand people do not necessarily convey what a whole nation thinks.

I think I see where your challenge is.

You see, a "whole nation" does not think. A "whole nation" with a history of a few hundred years, notwithstanding the many previous nations that existed before European conquest, cannot think as one at all.

And nor does the Electoral College represent what a "whole nation thinks".

But administering scientific sampling and standardized questions does indeed give representation to what diverse individuals think, and counts that, and statistically extrapolates that to the eligible voting population with a margin of error. Of course, that is still not what a "whole nation thinks". It's not meant to be.

[edit on 5-4-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar


I think I see where your challenge is.

You see, a "whole nation" does not think. A "whole nation" with a history of a few hundred years, notwithstanding the many previous nations that existed before European conquest, cannot think as one at all.

And nor does the Electoral College represent what a "whole nation thinks".

Where did i say that a whole nation does not think?.... That is not what i said.... and if you really knew the history of the United States, you would know that we have never thought as one. There have always been divisions in our country and on what people thought was best for the nation. At the end, most of the time, the country has been run in what the majority of voters saw was best for the nation.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
But administering scientific sampling and standardized questions does indeed give representation to what diverse individuals think, and counts that, and statistically extrapolates that to the eligible voting population with a margin of error. Of course, that is still not what a "whole nation thinks". It's not meant to be.

[edit on 5-4-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

If we were to follow to the letter what is "scientifically approved", many members in these forums would be in a mental institution right now. Maybe even you would be one among them, because of your conspiracy theories. Who knows, maybe i would also be thrown in because of some of my beliefs.



[edit on 5-4-2005 by Muaddib]

And people are just catching on what a schlep Bush is? Are our fellow Americans really that self absorbed and shallow? Don't respond to that, I already know the answer. Impeach Bush? NO absolutely not...his whole #ing adminstration should be procusuted and the whole lot of them should be facing hard jail time ( in a texas jail) along with his co-conspirators in congress.

Originally posted by grover
NO absolutely not...his whole #ing adminstration should be procusuted and the whole lot of them should be facing hard jail time ( in a texas jail) along with his co-conspirators in congress.

Aye, Aye. But I'd send them to Abu Ghraib, at least if they were all holed up in there, the insurgents wouldn't bother trying to cause a prison break.

Bush's Approval rating was at or below 45% at the time of the election.
So yeah, how did this guy get into office again?
Easy answer, the same way he got his war in Iraq, deception and corruption.

Question, since many here are think approval ratings are such a big issue:
What does approval rating mean to a President that is on his last term of office?





seekerof

That depends on issues to do with vanity and the "schlep's" (borrowing from grover) self-anticipated place in the history of great and not-so-great US Presidents.

In the case of a true incompetent such as Bush, it probably means quite a lot to him.

Personally, I think you and a few others are going to be surprised at how he is portrayed and remembered in the annuals of History.

Wait, maybe I should have said "disappointed" in how is he is going to be portrayed and remembered...





seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Personally, I think you and a few others are going to be surprised at how he is portrayed and remembered in the annuals of History.
seekerof

I doubt it, but I would be careful to distinguish the "annuals" of history from what you mean, which is either the "annals" of history or the "anals" of history. In any case I assume you mean the latter of those options.

If the question is how he can regain influence to get his agenda passed the answer is simply launch another terror attack on the US like he did on 9/11. I expect a bio weapon this time because recently quite a few microbiologist have been murdered. Plus if you think about it a bio attack preserves property values and the tax base.

We just had a little anthrax attack inside the DOD but it didn't help his ratings any. Throw in a few Osama tapes and ratchet up the terror rating and he might squeeze another 5 fear based points out.

Another attack right now sure would help him to get the draft started so he can attack Iran or some other country where they need to build an oil pipeline. He may order Israel to nuke Iran and then drag the US into it by saying we are defending our Israeli allies. He would have to be mad to use ground troops in there. We would no doubt prevail but our troops would most likely be slaughtered in great number. Iran is not Iraq.

In any case I was astonished by the way he walked boldly up to the third rail of politics, social security, and gave it a big slobby kiss. Now that he’s frying like bacon in the pan the rest of his party seems a little reluctant to follow their leader. I guess an act of political suicide like that might make sense if you knew you could be back at 90% approval with a staged terror event.

Gallup is usually skewed to Bush’s favor, 35% might be a more accurate rating. Stats can be incredibly accurate but its all in the question and the timing as the Masked Avatar has pointed out. I believe this particular Gallup poll sampled more Republicans than Democrats. The methodology is available on the Gallup web site.