… just unwilling to entertain the idea that they might haev been wrong, and that Kerry at the very least would have brought divided government as well as ten times more sincere focus to getting policies correct rather than just 100% focus on covering ones political ass on talk shows.
And maybe we would have been able to avoid so quickly becoming the nation that happily embraces and defends torture and complete abdication of all the freedoms we supposedly stood for.
Today’s WSJ. The pollees show similar negative feelings about everyone and everything in it, though.
The question is a little misleading.
I supported Bush during the election mostly because I disliked the politics of Kerry even more than I disagreed with Bush’s. When given the two choices, Bush was my choice. I know, it is a sad world when those are the only two choices to be the president.
This is very different than whether I support Bush’s politics against all other possible politics out there, which I don’t now or ever. I think that is what the current poll is asking since there really isn’t a comparison against anyone in particular in the poll.
Then again, I wasn’t polled so I am not really a part of the 17% anyway. But, if I was, I would have been part of the 51% and 17% before and after the election.
The “those who voted may not have approved” issue is a bit of a red herring; Bush’s approval rating right before the election was about 50% (http://poll.gallup.com/BLOG/default.aspx?a=11012004) So there has clearly been a shift on the part of many people who did once approve.
True as that might be, it still isn’t correct to assume the truth of the OP. If the election were held today, would Kerry collect 66 percent of the vote? I think not… 
Maybe not 66 percent, but it’s not a stretch to assume that Kerry would win if the election had it been held this year and not last.
The question now is if this level of dissatisfation with Bush and the GOP will continue for another 11 months.
66%? Probably not. More than 53%. Oh, yeah. Lump together the lefties who didn’t vote for Gore because he wasn’t left enough with the honest right who are disgusted with a rotting-from-the-head-down admin. Add in the former Bush supporters who simply won’t get up out of their chairs to support someone who has embarassed them, or even to stall the desperate threat of Bruce marrying Kevin…
66%? Maybe not. You are welcome to whatever comfort that provides you.
It doesn’t follow that 51% of the population approved of Bush. They may have voted for him because they disapproved of Kerry more and thought that voting for someone else was useless.
50% approved of him according to polls. 51% voted for him. Perhaps there is some small amount of overlap, but those two numbers seem pretty strongly connected to me.
As a weak former supporter coming from the libertarian philosophy, this one about sums it up for me. The man has all the bad qualities of Reagan in that regard except he has a much less focused and indecipherable philosophy. I have no idea how he decides to spend money.
I think Roberts was a slam dunk best possible pick though. The Supreme Court will carry his name for decades. I have no idea what he was thinking with the second round. Maybe he is a genius because his strategy is incomprehensible to lesser men.
No, it’s incomprehensible to me as well.
Clinton only got 43% & 49% in '92 and '96, yet his approval ratings were always well over 50%. Your OP is flawed because it’s apples & oranges:
*Just because I voted for Bush doesn’t mean I approve of the job he’s doing
*Just because I approve of the job he’s doing doesn’t mean I voted for him
*Just because I disagree with him politically doesn’t mean I disaprove of the job he’s doing.
*Just because I agree with him on political issues doesn’t mean I approve of the job he’s doing.
*And just because I may disapprove of the job he’s doing does not mean I think Kerry (or Gore) would be doing a better job.
And so on, and so on.
Election day is usually a decision between a kick in the ass or a kick in the nuts. For me Dems are almost always a kick in the nuts. Regardless of whether or not I agree or approve of what President Bush is doing, I’m confidant that I’d agree & approve even less if it were Kerry or Gore doing their thing.
So, we got this guy, squandered a couple thousand of our lives, God alone only knows how many of theirs, pissed away our repuration amongst the world, and threw a quarter of a trillion dollars down the crapper.
What does that leave for Gore to do? A compulsory homosexuality Amendment? Pour anthrax spores into the water supply? Surrender California to North Korea?
Bars set pretty high, you know.
How would I know? He’s never won a Presidential election. But if he did I probably wouldn’t like what he did.
Then again, like I said before, just because I don’t vote for someone doesn’t mean I disapprove of the job their doing. Were talking about the OP and how the question is skewed, remember?