June 24, 2006

Bush Quietly Creeping Up in the Polls

Hatched by Dafydd

I just flipped over to Real Clear Politics' polling page and discovered that Bush's current average is 38.8% approve, 53.8% disapprove.

That's just 1.2% point off of the magic number of 40%, above which a president this late in his tenure is considered to be doing reasonably well. As we get close to November, I suspect his numbers will continue to rise slightly -- because of the fecklessness of The Men Who Would Be King in 2009, if for no other reason.

It wouldn't take much of a rise for Bush to end up with an approval rating in the mid-40s by election day... particularly if the pollsters begin looking at "likely voters" instead of "American adults;" they'll be doing that anyway for the match-up polls, so they may shift to that pool of respondents for the job approval (I don't know whether that's customary).

Thus, far from the president being a liability and having Republicans run away from him (as the Kool-Aid drinkers in the Democratic Party inevitably prophesy), Bush may yet again become a positive force in the reelection of Republicans and successful challenges to Democratic incumbents.

Let's keep an eye on those polls as we run up to the election.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 24, 2006, at the time of 3:51 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/893

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

His dispproval numbers are down more than his approval numbers are up. In fact he started doing better after his immigration speech. I know hardliners think he should have come out there and threatened to turn the southern border into a free fire zone or something but most Americans prefer something a little more pragmatic and a little less extreme.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 24, 2006 4:25 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

Rassmussen has bush at 44% with 38% STRONGLY dissaprove.
Bush Approval
Unfortunately they use different language for the Hillary meter, but I think strongly dissaprove is a lot like definitely vote against which for Hillary right now is also 38%

Hillary Meter


For a historical persepective

Presidential High and Lows

Looks like at 29% Bush dipped lower than Clinton's 36 %

OH LOOK! Clinton never went above 73% and Bush got all the way up to 92%

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 24, 2006 5:20 AM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

monkyboy, your problem in using stats to lie is that you have to hope other people just believe you.
********************, so no one, even the two friends you may have, is going to take anything you claim at face value.
And do remember that in two elections, clinton never once got as many votes or as large a percentage of votes, as W has.
Additionally, W has increased his party's majorities in Congress in every election he has been involved in as a national candidate or leader.
But good luck, troll.

[Sorry, the deleted phrase is a personal attack, forbidden by Rule 2 of the Reptillian Comment Policy. -- the Mgt.]

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 24, 2006 8:20 AM

The following hissed in response by: Infidel

How many "disapprove" because Bush is a closet "liberal"? That would describe the majority of Bush fans I run across.

Also, on the day he was assassinated, JFK's approval rating was 28% - perhaps the lowest of any president since Truman fired MacArthur. He was in Dallas trying to resurect his rapidly waning support.

The above hissed in response by: Infidel [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 24, 2006 9:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Closet liberal?????

Sheesh.... the man is either Hitler or he is a [gasp] liberal. Did it ever occur to thepeople who say these things that maybe they are the ones who are a tad off? Obviously they can not both be right.

Quick, someone tell monkyboy, Bush is a liberal.

So, in order to prove to the left that he is not Hitler he must abandon Israel, sign on to Kyoto, sign on to the ICC, withdraw the troops from Iraq and nationaize the oil industry and raise taxes.

IN order to prove to the part of the right that hangs out with neo nazis that he is not a liberal he will have to end all social programs and incarcerate illegals in concentration camps until we come up with a final solution to the immigration problem.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 24, 2006 11:47 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

monkyboy:

I can remember every president being this low in their terms. Why didn't you mention Carter's numbers? I think they were about 26%. Then of course there was Truman at 25% or so. I think Truman got a bum rap myself.

But you know Bush could not do what Clinton did, you can only kick that can down the road for so long. Now if Gore had won that election and the Democrats had been in control of the WH for a decade or more when 9/11 happened and there was no Bush around to spin conspiracy theories about one wonders what they would have done.

For instance, the Saudis say we have to leave SA and without those bases we can not fly the no fly zones anymore, what to do? At the time Gore said it was time we dealt with Saddam once and for all, this time on our terms. Of course he says something different now but I wonder what the numbers would have been if the Democrats had to deal with their own intel failures and Chinese walls and incompetent bureaucrats etc instead of coasting along for years, refusing to deal with anything other than killing some women and children in Waco or spending more time with interns and pandering to Yasser Arafat than dealing with AlQaida and Saddam.

Yep, Clinton really left things in good shpae didn't he? helluva guy. Great numbers.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 24, 2006 1:23 PM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

Terrye,
monkyboy is like a wannabe michael moore - splicing and dicing facts to fit his neurotic point of view.
We don't elect Presidents to win popularity contests, but if you are lefty hack twit, that is all you have to fall back on. monkyboy is nothing if not a lefty hack twit.
What the extremists who have been dominating the public square don't realize is that with the major goals W set out in place, Iraq is only going to get better:
- liberate country
- catch saddam and Baathist leaders
- support Iraqi development of democratically elected govt.
- kill terrorists
- build up Iraq
Now Zarqawi has gone to meet his fate. The Iraqi govt. is fully functional. Most of Iraq is at peace and starting to prosper. Now we are starting to find that yes, there were WMDs in Iraq. Syria and Iran are frantic to resist the democratic tide sweeping out of Iraq.
And all the lefty twit trolls can do is pretend it is not happening, or denigrate it.
That will sell well to the American people in November.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 24, 2006 2:10 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

monkyboy is nothing if not a lefty hack twit.

Now now... Monkyboy is not a twit...

Nevertheless, his point was that Bush is lower than the other TWO TERM presidents in June of their 6th year in office. And he is right, Bush has the lowest numbers in the 80th month of his presidency of the last four Presidents to achieve that longevity. But like Tod Lindberg said in the Washington Times a few days ago, politician's popularity goes up and down... Monkyboy just takes advantage of a snapshot in time to score a weak rhetorical point.

Because of his (Monkyboy's) weak arguments he makes no headway in the debate at large, yet he DOES score points when he is able to goad commentors into silly namecalling games.

Have some faith in the other readers of Big Lizards to see all posts in context, even those made by folks acting like Monkyboy... but if you feel the need to address the post, address the POST; not the posterboy.

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 24, 2006 3:13 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Monkyboy-

Keep up the good work. We need more of the intelligent, insightful commentary you contribute.

Now please stop reading here. The rest of this post is for other readers, not for you.

Readers-

(You’re not still reading, are you, monkyboy? Good, I knew you could be trusted.)

Folks, I think it’s obvious by now that monkyboy is a plant, assigned by the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy to post here and on other conservative blogs. Their purpose, of course, is to lull us into complacency by making us assume that all tin hat lefties are as loony and inane as monkyboy. Don’t fall for it. He’s really very smart and is just putting on an act to make us think he’s wacko. Remember, lots of lefties are actually quite intelligent. You know, like … uh … Well, if I think of one, I’ll post here later.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 24, 2006 3:17 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Hehe (jeez it feels creepy to write that) monkyboy-

I'm shocked, shocked to think you continued reading after you were asked so politely not to.

But anyway, I see you're continuing your high quality input to this blog site. Let's see -- from Presidential polls to bird flu. Only the deepest thinkers among us could have come up with that logical progression.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 24, 2006 7:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Monkyboy-

    Pretty simple, Dick.

I'm reminded of the old comedian/ventriloquist Señor Wences. One of his lines was "Deefeecult for you -- eessy for me."

Your logic is, as usual, impeccable.

Readers (other than monkyboy)-

See again my post above at 3:17PM.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 24, 2006 9:04 PM

The following hissed in response by: Towering Barbarian

Monkeyboy,
Concerning your Moments of Truth...

1. I agree that 9/11 was a moment of truth for President Bush and he showed himself to be made of better stuff than John Kerry and the other congresscritters who just stood stunned at their desks for 6 hours until they were told to go home. He also showed himself to be made of sterner stuff than FDR who was said to be a nervous wreck for a month after Pearl Harbor. Note that this is not a putdown of either the Congresscritters or FDR. Vegetius notes in De Re Militari that even the best of men are easily put to rout when taken by surprise and that those who are brave and stand their ground the one time will be put to rout the next.

2. The Iraq Insurgency would count more as an hour of truth than a moment of truth IMO but that said it can't be denied that this too has been handled to the President's credit. Note that when Al Zarqawi died that his computers fell into American hands and that they were all in clear.

3. Katrina was a moment of truth for Democrats as well as GOPers. I wonder how many Louisianans are gonna forget the Blanco and Nagin Clown Show? My suspicion is that Nagin survived because those most unhappy with him voted with their feet but will that help Blanco?

4. Federal Budget deficits have been too ongoing a thing for the past 50 years for them to be a moment of truth. War is a time when you must open your purse whether the money is there or not. In any event a liberal talking about budget deficits is a bit like a whore preaching on the subject of chasity. Her words may be accurate but nothing in her background is going to give you any confidence in her words.

As for your "future" moment of truths...

1. Yeah, a competant politician would just wave a magic wand and cause all disease to just disappear from the face of the Earth, right? Get real. Flu will happen or not happen just as it happened under Woodrow Wilson. Are you going to argue that the 1917 epidemic was the fault of the Democratic Party?

2. Any particular reason you think the Chinese will pick the next 2 years to do it or are you taking this moment to *ask* them to do it? Barring inside information on your part I would asign the likelihood of this as less than 1%. In any event China is not the only nation doing this.

3. This one is more likely than the first two but again is a possibility that is low enough in probability that you should have mentioned it as something that *could* happen rather than predicting it with the certainy that you did. Quite frankly, you are starting to remind me of a John Brunner character from one of his "Traveler in Black" stories who predicted the fall of Ys to anyone who would listen and who made a wish before the Traveler that he would see it all happen. There is such a thing as enjoying prophecies of Doom a little *too* much.

4. Sigh. Yeah, you are definitely reminding me of Jacques and his predictions for Ys now (Wish I could remember the title of that story). Permit me to remind you that al Zarqawi is dead and that his computers are in our hands. That second part is actually more important than the first although the fact that he is dead means that they can't make changes as quickly as they would be able to otherwise. You should probably be grateful for that since Jacques did not enjoy the consequences of his wish coming true. :p

So all in all you may want to consider the possibility that your polls don't mean as much as you think they do. ^_~

The above hissed in response by: Towering Barbarian [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 25, 2006 1:36 AM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

It is not surprising that a psuedo-wit like monkyboy accepted the lies of the MSM/race baiters regarding Katrina.
As to our support of the Iraqi government, it is actually giong very well. monkyboys puppet masters were all over the place with firm predictions of how we would never take Baghdad, we would suffer 10,000+ dead in the process, etc.
But, just like the rest of the puppets, when those pesky facts keep getting in the way of the lefty predictions, they simply go on to the next phony claim.
The only thing consistent in the left's sedition in this war is that they are immune to appeals to reason, fact or patriotism in their obsessoin to help America lose this war.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 25, 2006 7:54 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

The real truth is that Bush is not going to be running ever again. The Democratic Partys Bush Derangement Syndrom, while doing damgage to Bush's and the Republican Party's approval rating may actually suceed in doing even more damage to theirs.


Democrats
will have an
"issue agenda"
for next year's Congressional elections

Nancy Pelosi says that the Democrats will have an "issue agenda" for next year's Congressional elections, but it will not include a position on Iraq.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.
Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sa(i)d.

If having NO position as a Party on the Iraq War is a source of strength, will having no position on any other issue but them in a position of unassailable strength?


Vote for us, we stand for Nothing?

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 25, 2006 4:13 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

The real truth is that Bush is not going to be running ever again. The Democratic Partys Bush Derangement Syndrom, while doing damgage to Bush's and the Republican Party's approval rating may actually suceed in doing even more damage to theirs.


Democrats
will have an
"issue agenda"
for next year's Congressional elections

Nancy Pelosi says that the Democrats will have an "issue agenda" for next year's Congressional elections, but it will not include a position on Iraq.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.
Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sa(i)d.

If having NO position as a Party on the Iraq War is a source of strength, will having no position on any other issue but them in a position of unassailable strength?


Vote for us, we stand for Nothing?

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 25, 2006 4:15 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved