Bush wins!

[mook]

Not so much the rest of us, though.

Bush disapproval rating is worst in history

On the day that President-elect Barack Obama is visiting the White House, a new national poll suggests that the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the most unpopular president since approval ratings were first sought more than six decades ago.
Seventy-six percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday disapprove of how President Bush is handling his job.
That's an all-time high in CNN polling and in Gallup polling dating back to World War II.
"No other president's disapproval rating has gone higher than 70 percent. Bush has managed to do that three times so far this year," says CNN polling director Keating Holland. "That means that Bush is now more unpopular than Richard Nixon was when he resigned from office during Watergate with a 66 percent disapproval rating."
Before Bush, the record holder for presidential disapproval was Harry Truman, with a 67 percent disapproval rating in January of 1952, his last full year in office.

"But-but--Congress is disapproved of even more, so it's really the Democrats who are in trouble!" was the retort I heard throughout 2008.

I'm really wondering what the response is now.

 

[Reep]

Oops. Wrong place.

 

[mook]

Seriously, though, why the recent further drop in his approval? Is it all about the economy? Is he just looking worse now because people have bought in to Obama?

 

[mook]

Oops. Wrong place.

Doah! Second time I've done that since coming here.

 

[hasoos]

And I missed my chance to make millions with my bumper sticker "I thought I was voting for more Bush, not George Bush!".

 

[SodaPopinski]

What's more amazing to me is that if you subscribe to the theory - like I do - that anywhere from 10-20% of Americans will always approve of how a president is doing his or her job regardless of performance; and if you subscribe to the theory that somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/3 of Americans who associate themselves with either major party will always favorably rate their party's representative in the White House ...

It's reasonable to assume there isn't a sane American out there who actually thinks the guy is doing a good job.

-Pop

 

[Masbee]

Seriously, though, why the recent further drop in his approval? Is it all about the economy? Is he just looking worse now because people have bought in to Obama?

It isn't really that important. It is more or less trivia now. My guess is that he has lost the "approval" of some holdout ("Bush isn't THAT bad") Republicans for contributing to a crushing election defeat in Congress. All a Democratic candidate had to do is post a picture of the Republican with Bush and they won. The fact of the election snapped these semi-delusional folks back into the real world.

Really, who cares if his "approval" rating is a bit lower than the low numbers he has been running for a while now or a bit higher. His lame duck status is the same either way.

Bush is yesterdays news.

 

[¹²³]

I heard people in Africa likes George quite a bit.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Well, it's not necessarily a good barometer of how good his presidency was. I mean, it could be. For example, I read a lot of non political revisionist history and Clinton's administration is considered by nonpartisans as the 3rd most corrupt in history and he's beconing regarded as the 10th worst president. Yet he had a favorable approval rating.

As to Bush, I think revisionist historians will treat him poorly. He passed far too little major legislation and was unable to get congress to work with him (I realize that's greatly due to partisan politics, but I think Bush could have done more to building compromise solutions) and the war in Iraq may have been based in necessities, but it was so poorly planned that it ranks with Vietnam as a hoplessly blundered war.

 

[Денг Гордон]

Still, if there were no term limits, he probably would have beaten Obama for the presidency.

 

[e_blazer]

Still, if there were no term limits, he probably would have beaten Obama for the presidency.

Are you referring to Bush or Clinton? I'd say you're wrong on either count...but especially Bush.

BTW, since the Dems won the election, why the fascination with continuing to kick Bush, McCain and Palin around? Aren't they yesterday's news?

 

[Haakzilla]

Still, if there were no term limits, he probably would have beaten Obama for the presidency.

...only by corruption and theft [PA would have been the state of "controversy" too...just like Ohio and Florida before it]

 

[barfo]

Are you referring to Bush or Clinton? I'd say you're wrong on either count...but especially Bush.

BTW, since the Dems won the election, why the fascination with continuing to kick Bush, McCain and Palin around? Aren't they yesterday's news?

McCain is truly yesterday's news. No reason to kick him anymore.

Palin is being promoted by some as a 2012 candidate, or a senate candidate. As such she's still news.

Bush is still President for a couple more months. He's not old news quite yet.

barfo

 

[e_blazer]

IMO, Palin's yesterday's news, but just doesn't realize it yet.

 

[mook]

BTW, since the Dems won the election, why the fascination with continuing to kick Bush, McCain and Palin around? Aren't they yesterday's news?

Yeah, Bush is yesterday's news. Unless he makes news. That this story was on the home page of CNN today shows, and that it was historically the lowest point ever measured for a president, made it seem worthwhile bringing up to me.

Four years from now when everybody is comparing Obama's presidency to Bush, it seems pretty likely that this topic will come up.

 

[e_blazer]

Four years from now when everybody is comparing Obama's presidency to Bush, it seems pretty likely that this topic will come up.

What, are you thinking Obama can do the political limbo dance to a lower approval level than Bush?

 

[e_blazer]

BTW, who was the last president you can think of that you weren't happy to see leave office when their term was up? Some can keep it going for two terms, but it generally seems like we feel like we're ready for a change after a few years.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Still, if there were no term limits, he probably would have beaten Obama for the presidency.

That's an interesting post. I wonder how he would have done against him.

 

[ABM]

That's an interesting post. I wonder how he would have done against him.

I'd venture to guess that, in his campaign efforts, Bush would have incessantly trotted out WrightGate.

 

[Minstrel]

How would Bush have been competitive? McCain's only chance was to avoid being tied to Bush. Obama could have tied Bush to Bush even more easily.

When a person drags his entire party down, across all the races in all the states, that person doesn't stand much of a chance of being elected, himself.

 

[barfo]

BTW, who was the last president you can think of that you weren't happy to see leave office when their term was up? Some can keep it going for two terms, but it generally seems like we feel like we're ready for a change after a few years.

I would have been happy to see Clinton get a third term. I suspect there are many people who would have been happy with a third Reagan term. I'm too young to remember how people felt at the end of Eisenhower's 2nd term. I guess everyone was ready for LBJ to go at the end of his 1+ terms. Ford and Carter and Bush 41 got voted off the island, so clearly people were ready for them to go. Nixon and JFK were special cases.

barfo

 

[ABM]

I would have been happy to see Clinton get a third term.

Clinton couldn't have left soon enough for me.............the piece of crap.

 

[mook]

I was definitely ready for Clinton to leave. Didn't realize how good I had it.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

The parents of young White House staffers were happy to see Clinton go.

 

[Dumpy]

I never understood why people thought he would be a good president eight years ago.

 

[julius]

I bet the parents of all the young soldiers who died are glad Bush is leaving office.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I never understood why people thought he would be a good president eight years ago.

I think because he, in many ways, was a contrast to Clinton. Clinton was a weak person and were it not for deeply partisan politics would have been removed from office. Also, appeasement as a foreign policy was getting very old.

Bush represented a "whoop ass" type of mentality. '

When a pendulum swings too far one way, people want it back the other. So our national politics goes back & forth. That's why we have 2 parties. Eventually, people get sick & tired of being governed by one or the other and want a change.

 

[MARIS61]

A criminal and a traitor to our country, he's very lucky Americans are stupid and lazy.

Any other country would have put him in front of a firing squad long ago.

 

[barfo]

I think because he, in many ways, was a contrast to Clinton. Clinton was a weak person and were it not for deeply partisan politics would have been removed from office. Also, appeasement as a foreign policy was getting very old.

Not that it is worth the debate, but if not for deeply partisan politics, he wouldn't have been impeached in the first place.

Bush represented a "whoop ass" type of mentality. '

Is whoop a synonym for dumb?

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

BTW, since the Dems won the election, why the fascination with continuing to kick Bush, McCain and Palin around? Aren't they yesterday's news?

Well, a lot of pundits have no job once they wind down this election so they're milking it for all it's worth.

As is Palin. She refuses to go home and govern her state, and continues to grab every microphone and tv camera she can find to whine about her "mistreatment". She has shot her wad politically, so to speak, but apparently didn't get the memo.