Bush’s numbers appear to be getting worse, according to this AP poll:
1. Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?
-Right direction, 36 percent (35)
-Wrong track, 59 percent (59)
2. Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
-Approve, 42 percent (43)
-Disapprove, 56 percent (55)
6. When it comes to handling the situation in Iraq, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?
-Approve, 40 percent (41)
-Disapprove, 59 percent (56)
7. When it comes to Social Security, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?
-Approve, 35 percent (37)
-Disapprove, 61 percent (59)
Gutshot. If these numbers don’t turn around, the best way to know they are accurate is to watch candidates in 2006 run from Bush, fearing reverse coat-tails. I just don;t know of any event that could change these numbers, but I could, as I frequently am, be wrong.
KC
If nothing happens to Rove or anyone else in the administration, I predict something could happen along the lines of what the Bull Moose suggests.
Doug
If Rove was not the leaker, the White House should identify who it was, deal with that person, apologize to the American people, and move on.
neil
I can think of a few such events but they would all require a regrettable loss of innocent life.
p.lukasiak
I just don;t know of any event that could change these numbers, but I could, as I frequently am, be wrong.
Well, “another Pearl Harbor” worked for him before….
The important numbers to watch are the ones about whether Bush shares your priorities, and the “trust/credibility” numbers. And both of those are tanking — which is a serious problem not just for Bush, but for the nation as a whole. You can “lead” people where they want to go even if they don’t trust you, and if people trust you, you can lead them where they’d rather not go. But you can’t lead them where they’d rather not go if they don’t trust you.
The combination of low “same priority” and low “trust” numbers leaves the US vulnerable, because if there is a genuine national security crisis (i.e. not something like the Iraq War) that requires unpopular actions to be taken, appropriate action might become politically impossible.
Defense Guy
Interesting. I would like to see the numbers for the Democratic party as well. It seems equally likely that they would be as low.
Lamont
Away from Washington, out here in Red State America, you would not believe how the tide is turning. Almost everyone is talking about Karl Rove and wondering why Bush keeps him. Also wondering why Bush – if he is really in charge – can’t deal with the leaks and the leakers himself.
It would be interesting to see a state-by-state breakdown of some of the most recent polls.
Steve
Bush misses every opportunity. In his last speech on Iraq, he could have offered up some straight talk about the difficulties we’re facing and addressed what we’re going to change to fix it. But instead, it was more of the same, more of the National Review “we’re winning” bullshit, more determination to stay the course and never acknowledge that anyone in this Administration could make a mistake or a misjudgment.
The public is forgiving but they’ve lost patience with this “we’re perfect” attitude, and if they keep assuming they can pull it off forever, things will just become more and more of a train wreck.
Anderson
What Lukasiak said.
At what point will Rove et al. actually permit/fake an attack to boost Bush’s numbers? Not a 9/11 size attack, more Londonesque …
(I *think* I’m wearing tinfoil on that, but damn, I just don’t know any more ….)
arkabee
DefenseGuy
“Interesting. I would like to see the numbers for the Democratic party as well. It seems equally likely that they would be as low.”
my gut level reaction is to agree.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
The attitude from America is “everything in Washington sucks.” America sees politics as too partisan, too mean, too self-concerned. The Democrats don’t poll any better, Congress’s numbers are tanking, and the ’06 election polls show the same old “My Guy’s Great, But Throw the Other Bastards Out” syndrome that we see every election. So what’s the effect of these poll numbers? Not much. People admittedly aren’t paying much attention to Social Security and other issues, but their general negative attitudes towards DC come through in their answers (which often contradict each other, which goes to how little the public cares/knows about the issues).
Marcus Wellby
Might even be lower. Say what you will about Bush, he plays to his base, and he plays hard. Thats the only reason his numbers are even as high as they are. Shit, his approval should be in single digits.
The Dems for the most part ingore their base.
Kimmitt
That’s reassuring, actually, given that Bush’s vision of “appropriate action” is often much worse than doing nothing.
p.lukasiak
At what point will Rove et al. actually permit/fake an attack to boost Bush’s numbers? Not a 9/11 size attack, more Londonesque …
ARggghhh…
The Bush administration neither permitted nor arranged 9-11, and it really is a blood libel to suggest that they would allow (let alone fake) another attack. 9-11 doubtless happened because terrorism was not a priority for Bush, but to suggest that it was “permitted” to happen goes to far.
Indeed, I don’t think that the deliberate outing of Valerie Plame by the White House was done with the full understanding of its National Security implications. Reportedly, Plame had transitioned to State Department cover as a covert agent prior to the Novak column — and its not much of a secret that lots of people with “diplomatic” passports are working for the CIA.
Its still a crime, and still wrong, to identify someone with State Department cover as a CIA operative — but the damage of such a disclosure is minimal.
Rove, Libby, etc were careless in disclosing classified information in the malicious attempt to damage Joe Wilson. It probably never entered their minds how much damage outing Valerie Plame could do.
That doesn’t excuse their actions but any means; “I didn’t know” doesn’t count for shit when the disclosure of National Security secrets is involved. But I think it does present a more plausible explanation of what happened.
Jimmy Jazz
Does this mean the Mission to Mars is off?
sidereal
Mars, bitches!
Apples to oranges. You could compare the Republican Party numbers to the Democratic Party numbers, but comparing the President’s to the opposition Party’s doesn’t make a lot of sense. He is, after all, the freaking President.
Rick
Oh, no! Another death spiral? Nothing can save Dubya now!
Forget this summer’s similarities to the pre-9/11 period. The ranting is like that surrounding the Starr investigation in ’98. All kinds of positive declarations; bupkis as a result.
Cordially…
capelza
For some reason, that statement is loaded with some very sad irony. Will some other wonderful 9/11 period rescue W’s numbers?
Defense Guy
I don’t want to compare, just laugh.
Lee
Personal observation here as well. I live in Texas; I work around a bunch of Bush Zealots (this is really not too far from the truth). Lately they have been wondering what the hell Bush has been thinking. It started with the Social Security fiasco. Every one of them wondered why he was working on that and not changing the tax code.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
At this rate, Bush won’t get re-elected in 2008!
Don
I think the big 2004 failure was in not going after competency over decisions. Kerry et all could have stood up and said that no matter what we wanted before or now, what we do we should do WELL. For our soldiers, for our jobs, for our dollars and for our deficits. Not this nebulous (to many people) yellowcake he said she said, but rather “why did you say it would cost this much and now it costs 3x as much?” and “why did we let all those explosives go for a walk?” etc.
But of course the democratic party doesn’t trust their members to look at the big picture the way the republicans do. ‘pubs will throw the Jeebus warriors some bones that the moderates don’t like knowing they’ll hang onto them if they do enough. In their terror that Nader might take too many patcholie-stinking granolla eaters the demos failed to capture any middle road folk like our generous host.
Stormy70
Every single summer, there is some overblown “scandal’ du jour, and all the polls show Bush is really in trouble this time. Whatever. Last summer, it was all “no incumbent President with such low approval numbers has ever been reelected.” Look how that turned out. I’m the only person I know following this. Everyone else appparently has a life, or something.
PS I encounter new people everyday, not sit at my terminal like a geekette. Well, mostly anyway.
Doug
Poll numbers are meaningless now. But, Dems can probably make some hay in ’06 running against Bush instead of the opponent in their district. I don’t see it happening, but it’d be interesting to see how Bush dealt with Democrats with subpoena power.
Bob
I’ve lived through the sixties, where leaders of the left were dropping like flies. Lone gunemen roamed the land, bumping off a generation of leaders, just like Germany in the 20s. Somehow the lone nuts all fixated on those left of center (unless you were running to the right of Nixon).
Gulf of Tonkin? How many of the 53,000 Americans died after that lie? Remember the Maine? We’re still paying for that one. Why should 9/11 be so different? Hey, all that has been proven so far for the 9/11 attacks is the “whoopsy daisy” theory of governance, a convenient excuse for a war that Big Oil wanted. Did Bush et al permit the attacks on 9/11? Was BushCo in on it? The whole thing smells. I certainly don’t have the proof, but please don’t be so shocked, shocked that people in power do nasty shit to increase their power and wealth. Ooo-weee! People died so someone could make a buck? That’s what the fuck history is all about.
Kimmitt
Well, that explains the Administration’s laser-like focus on port security, nonproliferation, and capture of the man responsible for 9/11.
C’mon, we know — and the Administration knows — that what they have to do is look like they’re doing a good job and hope that something gets through. There are absolutely no downsides to a terrorist attack on US soil for this Administration, especially given that such an attack would almost certainly hit in a “blue” state.
That said, I don’t think they’re actively looking for one, just being extremely comfortable with doing a poor job on preventing one.
Veeshir
There is one problem with those polls, there’s no context.
Each of the questions just asks if you approve or disapprove of Bush’s actions without follow-up.
Of those who disaprove, what percentage think he should be killing more jihadis in Iraq and what percentage think he should be killing fewer jihadis in Iraq?
Those two camps won’t agree on who they should vote for. Bill Quick,Spoons, Kos and Atrios would probably be in the ‘disapprove’ category but do you think it’s for the same reason and do you think they would vote the same way?
I see a push-poll that gets the desired result.
Kimmitt
Er . . . no. This is not even vaguely a push-poll. You bring up a good point about the poll’s likely limitations, but words, you know, mean things.
PaulB
A new Iraq constitution and election will give him a temporary boost. Unless the security situation there improves, though, the boost will truly be temporary.