Gallup’s number put Bush in a better place than Zogby’s.
Shrug
If you look at all the polls it’s bad news for Bush:
http://pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
His ratings have fallen in almost all the polls. The last three polls (including Zogby) show approval ratings of 45,52 and 52 for an average below 50.
The latest CNN polls has more bad news:
http://pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
29% say they will definitely vote for him and 41% say definitely against. That’s terrible.
Bush still leads against individual Democrats but considering they are largely unknown this means little. In the head-to-head his margin has fallen dramatically. 9 months ago he was beating Kerry by 16. Now it’s 5.
The Iraq war has also become less popular:
The latest CBS poll asks whether the war was worth the loss of American life and other costs and it’s dead even at 46% for yes and no.
http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
So the totality of the evidence is quite bad for Bush. It’s not certain that he will lose of course but certainly the general presumption that he is likely to win no longer holds. The election is wide open. Another bad month or two and Bush will be in serious trouble.
Sure, no sweat. But unless Zobgy’s numbers are infected by interstellar viruses, something pretty serious has happened this last month. Two points calls for somber reflection, seven…?
I heard Bill Schneider talking on CNN tonight about a new poll showing what the American people consider to be the most important issues to them:
-
The Economy/Jobs
-
The Economy/Jobs
-
The Economy/Jobs
Unless Shrub manages to pull off a combination of smoke and mirrors and bait and switch, he’s screwed.
Well, so much for plausible deniability of the claim that Americans care about nothing but their wallets…
I’d say it’s too early to tell. A year is a long time in politics and a lot can happen in that time. Now, if the poll numbers are still the same a year from now, Bush is pretty much screwed, but right now, it’s far too early to tell accurately.
What do these new numbers really mean? Is he really in trouble? What would it take for him to get his numbers back up?
In short, is he toast or isn’t he?
Gosh, for the sake of our nation’s survival I can only hope that Dub-duh will be toast next year 
from Zogby:
“Do you think President Bush deserves to be reelected or do you think it is time for someone new?”?
Why not this?
“Do you think President Bush should be reelected?”
It seems the former question is a bit negative. Is this typical for Zogby or are they studying something specific?
-LC
If the Iraq occupation is going much better in a year, it will help him. If not, it will hurt him.
If the economy is showing signs of recovery, it may help him. If not, it will hurt him.
If Bin Laden and Hussien have been captured/killed by then, it will help him. If not, it will hurt him.
If WMD have been found in Iraq and verified by the UN(or someone objective), that will help him. Though right now that’s looking like a long shot.
If the Democrats pick a moron, that helps Bush a lot. If they get somebody good, It’s going to be that much harder for him to keep his job.
Etc, Etc.
A year is a long time and there are a lot of factors to consider.
And thus my name gets invoked again, eh, Bricker?
Just a jackleg look at things I’m not certain that those soldiers coming home will do that much for GWB.
On the one hand bringing them home will be good for families.
On the other hand if they come home without a viable resolution in Iraq it’s a made-for-TV election issue for the democrats.
On the gripping hand if unemployment is shaky now what happens when all those reservists come back and need jobs again. My pal in Iraq wrote me last week saying he couldn’t really complain about being there as it’s the best paycheck he’s gotten in years (he was laid off as an engineer at AOL quite some time ago).
Tough call. This sucker ain’t gonna be a shoe-in at all. And I feel confident that I’ll be collecting.
But it is a long way until the election.
"Less than half (45%) of the respondents said they rated his job performance good or excellent, while a majority (54%) said it was fair or poor. " “29% say they will definitely vote for him and 41% against”
As a conservative, I am completely puzzled why even 29% would want to vote to re-elect Bush, and how anyone at all!!! could say he was doing a “good” job. Exactly what is “good” about bush? Can anyone name anything “good” in the past 3 years?
Our borders are being overrun by illegals, no place in america is safe from terrorism now, everyone is either out of work or knows someone close who is, our budget deficit might be over half a trillion dollars this year, etc.
I find nothing good at all in bushs presidency, it could hardly have been worse, even if Gore was elected. Frankly, if Gore was elected president, and we had the same situation as we do with the economy and with terrorism and with war, all the conservatives, all the former “bush supporters”, all the democrats and all the republicans and all the libertarians, would attacking bush’s record.
Yes, bush is in trouble, serious trouble. Perhaps he already sees it and that is why he is doing nothing to help our economy and has no plans to bring back our boys from Iraq.
In the summer of 2004, bushs record will become clear to everyone when the primaries will highlight all of bushs accomplishments(none), and then list all of his negatives(war, terrorism, no jobs, insecure borders, factories closing, budget deficits, trade deficits, falling dollar, invasion of privacy and bigger government intrusion, etc. It will be obvious even to the most diehard former bush supporters by then that America has declined in all matters from 2000 to 2004. Even current bush supporters will see that we are not better off with bush in the white house.
Worst of all, bush is not even “trying” to make things better. It would be one thing if he proposed and tried a hundred things to help get our jobs back and us out of Iraq, becuase, like FDR, it would show his concern whether or not he was successful,but bush seems to be ingoring the concerns of all americans, conservative and liberal.
To answer your question, in order for bush to get his number up, he would at least have to try to do something to improve America.
It is too soon to tell.
Doesn’t matter anyway, IMHO, if the powers that be want him to be president again, he will be , the will of the voters be damned.
That question sounds a bit negative. Why not this?
“Is this typical for Zogby?”
To address the OP. Just wait 'til Karl Rove gets the democratic nominee in his crosshairs. I bet he’s already got volunteers standing by at banks of phones ready to make his own special brand of Rovian polls.
“Do you support Dr. Dean’s plan for mandatory homosexual marriages for Eagle Scouts?”
Two minutes to come up with that? Damn, elucidator, you’ve got a career in politics just waiting for you.
What did I ever do to you, Pantom, that you should say such things to me?
Hey, I hear there’s money in it. Much of it isn’t taxed, if you catch my drift.
As I’ve said in other threads, I sincerely hope that Bush is defeated in the election (actually, I hope that he’s crushed in a landslide of flaming repudiation and humiliation), but I’m also pragmatic enough not to confuse my wishful thinking with reality. It’s just too early; too many things could happen between now and then.
Actually, in a dark, dark corner of my soul, I hope Bush is re-elected, so he gets the opportunity to truly and royally screw up the country, thereby making it inarguably clear just how philosophically bankrupt his extremist politics really are, and thus precipitating a sudden and violent swing of the pendulum back towards reason and moderation for decades to come. Painful, but useful. And no, I don’t really hope that happens.
So… at what point will the “liberal” media finally stop referring to GWB as “a wildly popular wartime president” who is destined to crush any one of the lame Democratic contenders seeking to take his place?