Bush’s poll numbers have ‘soared’ to roughly 44%:
Amid falling gas prices and a two-week drive to highlight his administration’s efforts to fight terrorism, President Bush’s approval rating has risen to 44% in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. That’s his highest rating in a year.
The poll also showed likely voters evenly divided between Democratic and Republican candidates for Congress, 48%-48%. Among registered voters, Democrats had a 51%-42% advantage.
The results come seven weeks before closely contested elections for control of Congress. Republicans have struggled to overcome problems, including Bush’s low ratings, continuing violence in Iraq and the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina.
They also come as terrorism is making headlines: an alleged plot to blow up planes headed from Britain to the USA, the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and weeks of focus by Bush and other top Republicans on terrorism and whether Democrats can protect the country.
The new findings reflect “a consistent, persistent, tenacious effort to make … the Republican Party’s ability to deal with terrorism the No. 1 issue in the campaign,” said political scientist Richard Eichenberg of Tufts University, who has studied presidential job ratings during wartime. He called it “a carbon copy” of the successful 2004 playbook.
A couple quick notes-
1.) A 44% approval rating is not much to cheer about. By comparison, the Clenis™ was roughly in the high 60’s during the impeachment business. Perhaps Bush should start shopping around for some young interns.
2.) The cynic in me thinks the ‘leap’ in his numbers has more to do with a drop in gas prices than anything else.
3.) I think voter apathy with the GOP, to include the widespread disillusionment within the ranks of the former ardent supporters (yours truly included), and the inevitable hard campaigning from the Democrats will make this a bad year for the GOP. Or so I hope. We need some time in the wilderness and we need to get rid of the crazies currently running the show.
nichevo
What do you mean “we,” paleface? Please direct me to a recent post of yours that might make one think you to be a Republican!
salvage
Why are you so rare? Why is it so hard to find sane conservative GOP types these days?
Jim
I’ll be interested to see the numbers in about 2 weeks. A month removed from the 5th anniversary of 9/11; things still suck in Iraq (not that I want them to, just that they will).
scs
I believe that’s wrong. Although Clinton did have a surge up to the 60’s he also plunged to lows as well. The average presidential approval rating is I believe in the high 40’s, as that reflects the natural rate of the number of people who voted for him. So if you’re a President in the high 40’s, you’re doing okay, so he only has a little more to go.
Pb
So the media is hyping the latest outlier from Gallup–that’s because they’re morons. Bush has lost the country–he lost it some time ago–and his approval is currently at 40% at best; I’ll tell you what it really is when the next SUSA numbers come out.
David
2.) The cynic in me thinks the ‘leap’ in his numbers has more to do with a drop in gas prices than anything else.
Exactly my thought. Except I didn’t think of it as cynical, just logical.
Daniel DiRito
This recent polling data tells me that voters have a clear perspective on the war in Iraq…perhaps more cogent than either Party. They feel it is being handled poorly, they know what a civil war looks like, they believe Congress has failed to do its part in guiding and overseeing the executive branch, and they realize that the notion of exporting democracy to the Middle East is a Bush Doctrine that fails to recognize the realities in the region. Finally, they believe that Middle East stability is important and that a withdrawal that leaves Iraq in chaos may well be detrimental to the United States.
That, my friends, is one spot on analysis and suggests that voters have discerned fact from fiction with an impressive demonstration of acuity. Perhaps both parties will someday learn that the truth is, in the final analysis, the most powerful campaign strategy available. Don’t hold your breath.
Read more here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
Pb
Actually, the average Presidential approval rating is in the high 50’s–more like 56% or 57%. Bush’s war in Iraq has basically ensured that he’ll never see those approval ratings again as President.
And while we’re at it, the average high is around 78%, and the average low is around 36%. Interestingly enough, George W. Bush has managed to beat both of these as well.
SeesThroughIt
Well, they’re damn near impossible to find on the intertrons, but I know several in real life. That alone gives me hope that the crazies haven’t won the party permanently. In fact, I’m kind of hoping that win or lose, this is their last gasp for a while.
jaime
I think these Gallup numbers are an outlier. For the past two months, the only poll that showed Bush consistently in the 40s was Rasmussen. That was the poll that Bushbots pointed to to prove that all the other polls were biased.
The Gallup telephone poll took place between 9/15 and 9/17. Their rolling average poll and Samplemiser poll all showed a 42% average. The Rasmussen poll bushbots will now forget they ever liked shows Bush dropping from 45-41% on those same dates and now down to 40% today; in line with other major polls such as AP Ipsos. If Republicans want to make themselves comfortable clinging to outliers, then all the better for Democrats.
Pb
And lo and behold, the SUSA numbers are out! He’s at 39% now, up from 38% last month.
Tsulagi
Yeah, me too. It’s funny when now, quietly and sheepishly, they try to claim “Well, really, I’ve been independent all along.” Riiiiight.
S.W. Anderson
With breathtaking good sense, John wrote:
.
If the New Dark Age of Bush poisons the well permanently for the plague known as neoconservative Republicans, if only perversely, George W. Bush will have done the country a great service. However, he will have done so at a staggering cost.
Meatball55
Yeah, me too. It’s funny when now, quietly and sheepishly, they try to claim “Well, really, I’ve been independent all along.” Riiiiight.
I remember in 74 nobody admitted voting for Nixon.
ats
The less costly gas is being employed too early. The WH will still need an October Surprise.
SeesThroughIt
So what does everybody think the October Surprise is going to be? I’m betting it’ll be something along the lines of “Waterboarding and beating (which is soooo not torture!) a swarthy Middle-Eastern guy (who is absolutely, positively a terrorist, otherwise we wouldn’t have him in custody) revealed crucial intel that allowed us to stop a gay atheist child porn ring before it could child porn (what? “child porn” is now a verb, bitches) again.
The Other Steve
You sure do believe a lot of things which are wrong.
Clinton’s low in the 40s was around 1994, then it surged upwards and stayed in the 60s throughout his second term.
Reagan had two lows, in ’82-’83 around the time of the recession, and then again in ’87 following Iran-Contra. He left office in around the 60’s though because he apologized for what had happened in Iran-Contra and let the investigations move forward rather than fighting and whining.
The kind of slide Bush has had is rather unique. It’s not caused by just one event(although it’s mostly Iraq), but by a deluge of events(We’re in a longterm bull market effectlively). There’s nothing he can do right now to change his approval fundamentally without completely reversing course and going a different direction.
Going a different way is not uncommon for Presidents. Many have done it, including Reagan and Clinton. You gain back the middle, but you piss off the faithful. But for Bush, he’s pissed off the middle so badly that i’m just not sure he could do anything to fix that other than resign.
Pb
Pick three of the below:
* Osama puts out another tape
* sabre-rattling with Iran increases
* troops are drawn down from Iraq
* gas prices fall
* another alleged ‘major terror plot’ is thwarted
* another ‘al Qaeda number 2’ is captured
* someone gets bombed
scs
Yeah I’m not too sure about those averages cited above. I will have to look them up later. This is why we need Darrell back, as he had a way with the poll stats.
dedgeorge
[a]someone gets bombed AND another ‘al Qaeda number 2’ is captured
[b]troops are drawn down from Iraq (and sent back around November 12)
[c] gas prices fall
Tsulagi
Well, since this admin has given him so much, I’d think he would want to return the favor again a little more. A tape from Osama released on Halloween. Boo to The Base. Gotta jack them up now and then to keep them producing.
Pb
Hey, don’t take our word for it, look it up, or go call Gallup or something.
Mike in SLO
Why look later? You’re already online…
Pb
Maybe we can get Osama to wear a Scream mask. He could say “Want to see something really scary?” in Arabic, and then take off the mask, or something.
jg
I hope nothing. I’m going to europe before the elections and coming back (I hope) shortly after. I don’t need no stinking terror alerts messing with my travel plans. My worst fear is that they’ll issue a new alert saying that they’ve busted a plot where terrorists have learned to build a bomb using cotton threads so we’ll all be flying naked or in polyester.
Keith
Massive, non-nucular cruise missile attack. Bush will hedge his bets on an all-out aerial attack & pull a Clinton, albeit on a larger scale. Pundits will claim there is no parallel since Bush will launch a few hundred missiles instead of the few that Clinton launched.
CaseyL
A strike on Iran’s awfully risky, since Bush would be doing it without any international backing at all, and the blowback (esp. the effect on oil prices) would be pretty damnear immediate. And that’s if he goes with just a conventional strike. If he goes with a nuclear strike, Game Over. Won’t matter a damn how the elections turn out.
Failing Bush deciding to usher in the End Times, my money’s on a last-minute, narrowly-averted terrorist attack. Maybe one that involves hostages, to start the wall-to-wall news coverage early…
OK, got it: “terrorists” strike the World Series, take both teams and tens of thousands of fans hostage; demand the US pull out of the Mid-East or they blow up the stadium.
It’s perfect. There’ll be major media coverage already on the scene. Lots of close-ups of kids, esp. crying scared kids. Maybe Bush lets a few hundred people, including some All Pros, get killed, to squeeze even more anger and bathos out of the situation. It can go on for days, nonstop you-are-there coverage, with fancy graphics of AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE.
Then a commando team swarms in, dispatches the “terrorists,” and Bush arrives in person, and in uniform, to congratulate the commandos. The finale will be the commandos lined up on the playing field to get medals, which Bush personally awards while giving a speech.
Try beating that scenario.
Krista
Why yes. We all remember how much he contributed to our knowledge of polling data. He’s renowned for that.
Larry
GW Bush, Tuesday, Sept. 19, 2006.
So, Bush is the Peace Candidate. Of course his approval is going up, why shouldn’t it? He’s a uniter. He’s a man of peace.
Aaron Adams
Rasmussen shows Bush’s JARs peaked about the time the Gallup poll data was being collected and has since then declined back to where his numbers wer prior to the 9/11 speech.
In other words, nothing to get excited about.
The thing that is worrying however is the decline in the advantage dems had over repubs once the switch from all adults to RV and LV samples was made recently.
stickler
Didn’t ABC broadcast this as a miniseries in the early ’80s? There was a blimp involved, as I recall. Or maybe a Zeppelin.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Maybe the Republicans can start selling Osama masks this Halloween, or something. That’s an election-winner for ya.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
It’s a good one, I’ll give you that. But if the terrorists wore Osama masks it would be even scarier.
RSA
Terrorists would be no match for some baseball fans I know.
Grok
Does it strike any of you as suspicious that the Republicans always seem to surge in the polls shortly before a national election? Is this because the Republicans were truly behind or because the national elections are the one time that we have valid data to compare to the polls?
If the polls are biased between elections, as you have occasionally questioned, would the pollsters try to bring the polls back in line with reality as election time nears so as not to embarrass themselves, and would this not present itself as a surge for the Republicans.
More thoughts on this at my blog entry:
http://grok.typepad.com/life/2006/09/poll_numbers_fa.html