The latest series of polls from Gallup, ABC, NBC and FOX all show President Bush's approval ratings up significantly in the last week, including a 4 point jump in the FOX poll and a 3 point jump in the NBC poll, with ratings back in the 40% range in most polls, a range they haven't been in consistently since January.
The President's disapproval ratings are down even more dramatically, dropping by as much as 7 points in the FOX poll as a lot of voters seem less negative or at least willing to withhold judgement after his series of message-reinforcing speeches over the last week. Of course, there's only so much he can do to improve his popularity by giving essentially the same speech over and over again, but by now he does seem to be learning that the more open and in-touch he is when dealing with the public the more they're willing to forgive and accept.
In reviewing the polling data this week I was reminded of all the comments about how dismal Bush's poll numbers are and how horribly unpopular he is, with his average approval for the past year hovering right around 40% and occasionally dipping down to around 35%. In the Gallup poll, which is the only one with a long, historic track record, Bush has one of his lower current numbers at 39% - 6 higher than the lowest number Gallup has ever given him, which occured in June.
That's not so great, but think of it in the historical context. Compared to the ratings other presidents have had in the last 50 years it's actually not that bad. Ford and Clinton bottomed out at 37%, Johnson and Reagan both hit 35%, G. H. W. Bush got down to 29%, Nixon had a lowly 23% and the alltime least popular president was Truman at 22%. Compared to some of those numbers Bush doesn't look so bad.
Article comments
1 - Nancy
Good comments. I, too, am frequently stunned by how people can utterly disregard the facts of Bush's actions & the subsequent fallout/results, in order to accept at face value the generally false & incredible pronouncements of him and his flunkies, including his handler, Cheney. Are Americans really that abysmally stupid & gullible, to accept at face value the spoutings of ANY politician? It would seem to be so, unfortunately for this nation & our future. Maybe a sweeping pandemic of bird flu would be a good thing: it would seem most people are just too goddamn dumb to live (and breed) let alone vote.
2 - Georgio
Nancy I couldn't agree with you more..I actually like Bush to go on TV because he always says something stupid but the American ppl just don't get it,,when he says "I know you are asking me WHY we went to war my answer is BECAUSE SADDAM WAS A THREAT"...now any intelligent person knows that is not true and besides how many times has he changed his position on why he went to war ?..and then Cheney tells Russet that he would do it ALL EXACTLY THE SAME WAY TODAY...God if those two statements are not enough to convince the public that their leaders are delusional than I don't know what it will take to wake them up..If I was the Democratic leadership I would run ads everyday just saying ..I WOULD DO IT ALL EXACTLY THE SAME WAY along with their ugly faces.
3 - Nancy
I don't know what the hell is wrong with the DNC or the congressional leadership; the GOP has been HANDING them material to kick them from here to Petaluma - the war, Osama (still free), no WMDs, 9/11, various lies & BS, corruption, Katrina - the list goes on & on & on - and the stupid shits just sit around & vacillate with their thumbs up their collective butts & let Karl Rove define the issues-! This is why every time I got a call from someone panhandling from the DNC I hung up on them in a rage: I have no use for people who throw away opportunity after opportunity, or who can't get their act together enough to USE the loads of excellent material they've been given, f'chrissakes.
It goes without saying, I have no use for the GOP whose behavior & reckless stupidity/cupidity engendered these issues, either.
We have GOT to get another party in the US.
4 - Dave Nalle
Nancy, what comments are you referring to? Your comment is the first one, and I find it hard to believe that you think it's good that Bush's ratings are up.
Dave
5 - Nancy
I don't. I was referring to your comment about the media writing stunned articles that Bush's rating were up around 70% (6th PP, 2nd PP from the end). I get stunned, too, when people change their minds based on some BS speech a politician makes instead of the facts, of what's actually going on. Where are peoples' BRAINS - ?!?!?!? Obviously, most Americans don't have any, is my point, because a lousy speech doesn't make me change my mind or opinion, regardless of WHO makes it. Talk is cheap.
Anyway, good article, as ever. I like your writing, even if I don't always agree with it.
6 - Martin Lav
Karl Rove and the rest of BushCo. handlers have him back on message. "This is a War on Terrorism and it's the most defining moment in this century and we must use this drumbeat to continue to strike fear in the American people".
It's just like was written in this article by Dave: Apocalyptic Dreams for the New Millenium.
Make the people in the middle believe that BushCo. and his republic party will keep them safer. The Clintonista's and their party will NOT do what's necessary to secure the american people. In fact, as Dave pointed out in his article: Apocalyptic Dreams for the New Millenium, they will actually encourage more home grown terrorism in this country if they are voted into power.
Keep beating that drum and the polls go up.
It's the war stupid.
7 - Lumpy
There's a war on?
Who's playing?
8 - MCH
"There's a war on?
Who's playing?"
Not you, Lumpy.
9 - Dave Nalle
Make the people in the middle believe that BushCo. and his republic party will keep them safer. The Clintonista's and their party will NOT do what's necessary to secure the american people. In fact, as Dave pointed out in his article: Apocalyptic Dreams for the New Millenium, they will actually encourage more home grown terrorism in this country if they are voted into power.
This bears little or no resemblance to anything I wrote in my article.
The Democrats will certainly try to do something about terrorism if they get into power. It will make Bush's attempts to protect us look harmless and reverential towards the Constitution by comparison. And it's when they go to that excess and begin limiting free speech and free assembly and taking private property that the militias and domestic terrorists will start to cause trouble again.
Dave
10 - Martin Lav
"This bears little or no resemblance to anything I wrote in my article."
What? this:
"The Democrats will certainly try to do something about terrorism if they get into power. It will make Bush's attempts to protect us look harmless and reverential towards the Constitution by comparison. And it's when they go to that excess and begin limiting free speech and free assembly and taking private property that the militias and domestic terrorists will start to cause trouble again."
Dave
Not by wire tapping or checking your bank accounts huh? But the democrats will seize property.....from whom and for what?
And there's free speech now?
HA! Not if your a patriot there's not.
Free assembly?
What no more football rallies at the Austin High School Gym?