POLITICS: Recent Poll suggests Americans divided on Bush

An AP poll conducted this week has the nation sharply split in how they feel about the job Bush is doing. It seems he has the lowest job approval rating in 50 years for a president entering into a second term in office. Not surprisingly, Repubicans overwhelmingly approve of the job he is doing while Democrats overwhelmingly disapprove. However, both groups disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq (54%)



Seems that although Republicans generally approve of the job Bush is doing, no one, approves of his handling of the war! Can't see it getting any better and those who approve of the job he is doing will, sooner or later, have to see the forest for the trees.

Before the election I read an interesting poll by the Center on Policy Attitudes of the University of Maryland about what a cross section of American voters believed about Bush - see "Three in Four Say If Iraq Did Not Have WMD or Support al Qaeda, US Should Not Have Gone to War " on link below.

Related News Links:
www.pipa.org


[edit on 7-1-2005 by Banshee]

Polls are becoming almost irrelevant and meaningless. You can look at a variety of polls and find a variety of variations. GALLOP pollings had Bush approval rating at 52%.

As to your title: "Recent Poll suggests Americans divided on Bush", this is not a matter of "recent", more like "current". The past pollings (last couple years) on Bush have been virtually the same, with variations based on varying events and happenings.

As to this:

...no one, approves of his handling of the war!

I'll contest that and match it with this:

Sixty-three percent of respondents approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, and 60 percent remain convinced it is a war worth fighting. And support for the war is even greater among those who have served longest in the combat zone: Two-thirds of combat vets say the war is worth fighting.

--snip--

� 75 percent oppose drafting men into the military.

� 60 percent blame Congress for the shortage of body armor in the combat zone.


--snip--

The troops also are fully behind their commander in chief, giving him a 71 percent approval rating on overall handling of his job...

We asked what you think. You told us.

As for the general public (non-military), the support for the war is fairly steady, also with slight variations, and in regards to handling, this too varies, but is fairly steady. But then again we are talking polls....

Besides what the polls say at home, isn't it amazing that the polls are not being mentioned in Iraq and what they indicate? That despite the hemming and hawing at home over Bush's handling of the war, that despite the 'fiasco' that some deem is currently taking place in Iraq, that despite the daily acts of terrorism in Iraq and on Iraqi citizens, that nearly 80+/-% are:

....willing to take on the risks necessary to wrench back control of their nation. Even in a dangerous, quasi democratic election.

Will the security problems cause you to?
Not come out and vote the day of elections = 18.3%
Come out and vote the day of elections = 78.3%
No opinion = 3.4%

Do you support the Iraqi Government having its own official newspaper?
Yes = 67.7%
No = 30.9%
Do Not know = 1.4%?

Do you support military action against the terrorists?
Yes = 87.7 %
No = 11.1%
Don�t Know = 1.2%

Election poll from Al-sabah



seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Polls are becoming almost irrelevant and meaningless. You can look at a variety of polls and find a variety of variations. GALLOP pollings had Bush approval rating at 52%.

Election poll from Al-sabah

Sixty-three percent of respondents approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, and 60 percent remain convinced it is a war worth fighting. And support for the war is even greater among those who have served longest in the combat zone: Two-thirds of combat vets say the war is worth fighting.

seekerof

Might I bring forward that one is from a Gallup poling, using scientific method, while another is from a website which claims it got it from a local newspaper, which might or might not have followed scientific method?

Surf

"Scientific method"? ROFLMAO.
Seems that both take random numbers of people and asks them their opinions?

What's the "scientific method" in that?
Please....
Funniest thing I have heard yet...."scientific method". You mean like what scientist use, that "scientific method"?

As to your questioning of those Iraqis willingness and eagerness to vote, any search engine will suffice.




seekerof

.
Seekerof is correct,

If you can steal the election, what people think is irrelevant.

The polls just don't matter. PERIOD.

Saddam Hussein got 99% of the vote in his country.
.

Saying "Americans are divided on Bush" is stating the obvious don't ya think? We don't need polls to tell us that.

Seems to me we found out just a couple of months ago that Americans were sharply divided about Bush. As it happened, it came out about 51/49 if memory serves me.

I also seem to remember that a great many of these "scientific" polls predicted a Kerry victory. But that would hardly be the first "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment in the rocky history of opinion versus fact.

Having myself seen the almost nonexistent relationship between opinion polls and election polls demonstrated repeatedly over many elections, I have found the overwhelming majority of opinion polls to be utterly worthless.

And that's based on a "scientific" sampling of opinion polls.

What a racket.

Hey - there's a Portuguese expression that I like: I'm selling it for the same price I paid. Saw it, thought it interesting, even though there's always room to question, there's got to be some accuracy in there.

Watching from outside the country...I keep waiting for some sign that people south of the border that voted Bush-Cheney are waking up. All the terrible facts about BushCo are out there, one just has to be brave enough to really want to know.

Its not that I particularly liked Kerry, but for me going to an illegal, immoral war that can't be won and will result in so many needless deaths and disabled survivors (American & Iraqi) trumped absolutely everything for me.

Unfortunately for too many it seems to be as clear as mud. Give it time though...one can hope.

Actually, George Bush is the dumbest president of the last 100 years, and it's hard to beat his dad, but for that reason alone, he'll go down in history as being the worst. Most leaders that are lacking in grey matter surround themselves with very smart people but George isn't even smart enough to do that. Oh, I know how the republicans and press try to spin his stupidity by saying," he has a weak grasp of the english language, but he really is about as sharpe as they come". Not. I know it, Republicans know it and the rest of the world knows it. Never in our history has a president been bought and paid for like this one. George as our president is akin to letting an imbecile play with dynamite.

The funny thing about approval ratings for George is that he doesn't know what they mean.

And let me guess here, Kazi, you have that "grasp" of what polls implies also, eh?

It's further amazing how many people can assert, claim, and literally call someone, namely the President, as stupid, etc. and yet not a one of those who have or are, have attended Yale or Harvard.....interesting, huh?

Carry one....



seekerof