Will Bush Drop into the 30s?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the beginning of a long-lasting and steep decline for the Republican Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not according to Michael Barone...

[Grey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the beginning of a long-lasting and steep decline for the Republican Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not according to Michael Barone...

[/ QUOTE ]Admit it. You didn't read that Washington Times article. Nowhere does Michael Barone (a self-described conservative) address the record low poll numbers, or theorize that one party or the other is on the decline.

"Recalling that his post-2000 commentary described America as "the 49-percent nation," evenly split between the two parties, Mr. Barone today concludes that "America is now, perhaps momentarily, or perhaps at the beginning of a long period, a 51-percent nation, a majority -- a narrow majority -- Republican nation."

He's hardly making any predictions.

Also, his whole focus is on the 2004 election, and he points out that the "red states are getting redder, while the blue states are getting less blue"- based only on the 2004 election results. What he fails to admit is that the Bush campaign was the only campaign to air ads specifically in 'safe' states to maintain his nationwide Kerry vs. Bush poll numbers because those numbers are widely used by the media to judge a candidate's success.

He also points to the 2002 election being one of the few off-year elections where the party in power gained seats, but fails to admit that 9/11 had just happened, causing Bush's approval rating to be atmospheric, and we were also building up to war.

He also talks about how much Democratic money went into 527s, but ignores that (almost surely) more Republican money went into 501cs, which are much harder to measure and keep track of.

He also looks to the changing county demographics and pretends they have some relevance to the future when all that really matters for the future is age demographics. It doesn't really matter where the people are, or where they're moving to.

Even his prognostications about the House and Senate are based entirely on the 2004 election results, which is just, like the terrible polls I post, one snapshot in time.

Again, since his article is outdated, and doesn't take these record low Nixon-like poll numbers into account, it's pretty worthless. Most of his arguments could have been made after Nixon's 1972 re-election victory and as anyone who follows politics knows, Nixon's Presidency had very deep and very long political repercussions.

[Grey]

And 2 other things:

1) I've never seen the Mooney Times have any informational value.

2) If you're going to use Presidential election results to draw conclusions about the future, use 2000 or 2008 when it isn't incumbent vs. challenger. Even a first year undergrad polisci major knows that.

Sadly it doesn't surprise me this guy is a talking head on FoxNews.

[Grey]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/20...mes_slide.html

[ QUOTE ]
While it looked like his poll numbers had bottomed, a new CBS News poll shows President Bush's job approval rating "has fallen to his lowest rating ever." Just 37% "now approve of the job he is doing as president, while 58 percent disapprove."

In addition, an astonishing 69% "say things in the U.S. are pretty seriously off on the wrong track -- the highest number since CBS News started asking the question in 1983."

Huge finding: "And for the first time in this poll, fewer than half the public approves of the way he is handling the campaign against terrorism. 46 percent now approve, but 46 percent disapprove."

[/ QUOTE ]

Still waiting for more Post-Miers polls to come out. For reference, the last CBS poll had Bush at 42%, along with most other pollster.

[Dynasty]

AP: Bush at 39

CBS News: Bush at 37

Rasmussen: Bush at 47

[stephan]

[ QUOTE ]
AP: Bush at 39


CBS News: Bush at 37

Rasmussen: Bush at 47



[/ QUOTE ]

Figures that Grey would look for the lowest possible rating on any certain day from any source possible to slime Bush as much as he can. Doesn't do much good to skew the facts.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Answer: Rasmussen

I don't think much has change since then. Rasmussen is the champagne of poll takers. The rest suck!!! The rest just tell their customers (the democrats) what they want to hear so they can keep their business. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Bush approval at 47 is the correct number. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[newfant2]

The only thing keeping Bush from the 30s is the number of conservatives in total denial.

(The same 'ol Newfant. But twice the intellectual firepower.)

[Grey]

[ QUOTE ]
Answer: Rasmussen

I don't think much has change since then. Rasmussen is the champagne of poll takers. The rest suck!!! The rest just tell their customers (the democrats) what they want to hear so they can keep their business. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Bush approval at 47 is the correct number. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]Funny how some people prefer the clear outlier poll, as opposed to the 10 or so others that disagree; including FoxNews and ABC.

[Grey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AP: Bush at 39


CBS News: Bush at 37

Rasmussen: Bush at 47



[/ QUOTE ]

Figures that Grey would look for the lowest possible rating on any certain day from any source possible to slime Bush as much as he can. Doesn't do much good to skew the facts.

[/ QUOTE ]No, I picked the only one that was taken after Miers was nominated.

Also, Scott Rasmussen is a Republican who has always had Bush higher than anyone- even interal polling done by Republican campaigns. He may even beat the push polls (deliberately biased polls done by one party or the other to get good media coverage on a particulare campaign) but I haven't looked into it.

Go to www.pollingreport.com or pollkatz.com to see compilations of all the real polls.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm