Bush Approval Rating Lowest in History...

[iGary]

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/10/bush.transition.poll/index.html)

WASHINGTON DC (CNN) -- On the day that President-elect Barack Obama is visiting the White House, a new national poll suggests that the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the most unpopular president since approval ratings were first sought more than six decades ago.

[Unspeaked]

I thought this had been true for some time now...?

[Blue Velvet]

Almost a quarter of the country thinks he is doing a great job? :D

[leekohler]

But he'll be vindicated by history! :D:rolleyes:

[atszyman]

Almost a quarter of the country thinks he is doing a great job? :D

Well I doubt that all of them think he's doing a great job.

At 76% disapproval leaves the entire spectrum from neither approving nor disapproving of the job all they way to thinking he's doing a phenomenal job. I can't fathom how much more than a third of that 24% would think he's doing a great job, which would mean that less 1 in ten thinking he's doing a "great job."

[freeny]

I thought this had been true for some time now...?

yes, he earned this honor, several months ago. CNN is recycling news.
No idea why they are calling this a new poll??

[macfan881]

any one wanna start takeing bets on how low it will get before obama is sworn in? anyone? :D

[Me1000]

any one wanna start takeing bets on how low it will get before obama is sworn in? anyone? :D
new MacBook Pro says it will drop below:
20%

[Peace]

Well another CNN poll gave Obama a 75% approval rating and he's not even in the White House yet.

[valdore]

any one wanna start takeing bets on how low it will get before obama is sworn in? anyone? :D

I don't see it moving a whole lot more unless Shrub manages to start another war or add another trillion to the deficit in the next seventy or so days.

[iJohnHenry]

He will "find" Osama. I have already predicted it. :rolleyes:

[MacNut]

He will "find" Obama. I have already predicted it. :rolleyes:Look everyone I captured Obama, he is in the White House, where is my prize.:D

[iJohnHenry]

Unfortunately, he now looks like this.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Achmedlg.png

EDIT: Oh dear, I have fallen for the Republican brain-washing of confusing Obama with Osama. Whip me with wet noodles.

[synth3tik]

Well another CNN poll gave Obama a 75% approval rating and he's not even in the White House yet.

I believe that like me a lot of people are going to hold him to his word. We will see when he actually gets in. So far his prep work for the job has seemed solid.

[MacNut]

I believe that like me a lot of people are going to hold him to his word. We will see when he actually gets in. So far his prep work for the job has seemed solid.Anybody can get the ingredients ready, lets see how good a cook he is.;)

[Peace]

Anybody can get the ingredients ready, lets see how good a cook he is.;)

You've obviously never worked in a restaurant. I've seen prep cooks that couldn't read a recipe.:p

[aethelbert]

But he'll be vindicated by history! :D:rolleyes:
Can't even wait to let history decide that one, eh? Most of the presidents that we honor today were hated by the people when they were in power. I'm not saying that it will work this way with Bush, but let's first take note that the views of people can vary greatly between their life and years after death.

[CalBoy]

Most of the presidents that we honor today were hated by the people when they were in power.

I'm sorry, but this is blatantly false.

Americans have been polled on the best (and worst) presidents for many years, and these three always round out the top:

Lincoln

Washington

Roosevelt (Franklin).

All three had very high approval ratings at some point during their presidency (in the case of Washington and FDR, for the majority of their time in office) and Lincoln's approval ratings were lowest half way through the Civil War when the North was not doing well. He rapidly turned that around and won reelection quite handily in 1864 and never really saw his popular support drop.

If you want to look at other highly regarded presidents, we can look at Reagan and Clinton, both of whom and fairly high approval ratings when they were ready to leave office and for most of their tenure.

[Counterfit]

Well I doubt that all of them think he's doing a great job.

At 76% disapproval leaves the entire spectrum from neither approving nor disapproving of the job all they way to thinking he's doing a phenomenal job. I can't fathom how much more than a third of that 24% would think he's doing a great job, which would mean that less 1 in ten thinking he's doing a "great job."

I just did a paper partly on this today, so it's fresh in my mind. Ever since 9/11, the unsure/undecided response of Bush's job approval ratings have been in the single digits.

[gibbz]

This goes until June 2008.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval_files/Approval_27267_image001.png

[Schtumple]

This goes until June 2008.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval_files/Approval_27267_image001.png

Wow, just keeps going down, doesn't show much sign of slowing either :p

[hulugu]

Wow, just keeps going down, doesn't show much sign of slowing either :p

With this kind of velocity, his approval rating might continue to decline for years after he's left the White House.

[63dot]

With this kind of velocity, his approval rating might continue to decline for years after he's left the White House.

Maybe he will go below 10% percent. The lowest I have ever heard W getting was an 18% percent approval rating, lower than Truman at his worst and lower than Nixon at his worst. I will be so glad to see him go.

Note that both Truman and Nixon had more than four years in office. Maybe the Presidency should be limited to one term so no one President can wreak that much damage upon a nation. And if a VP takes over with more than two years left, he/she should not be able to run for President the next term.

It might take a constantly fresh approach from any winning party that walks into the White House to keep the executive branch honest.

It could be said Clinton and Reagan had popular two term Presidencies, but I can't think of anyone else since FDR won in '32 and '36 where the country had faith in a two or more term President. And even FDR had serious detractors.

Maybe there should also be very short term limits on Senators (2 terms) and Congresspeople (6 terms). To me that makes sense since our economy, foreign affairs, and our demographics change at a furious pace. A President in his/her second term may just slack and become a lame duck. We don't want a lame duck being in the White House, regardless of party. I think W's second term lame duck-edness was a huge factor in this recession.

[CalBoy]

Maybe there should also be very short term limits on Senators (2 terms) and Congresspeople (6 terms).

That has the potential to go very badly for the country. Just look at the California Legislature. With such severe term limits, no legislator ever has the chance to gain enough experience to be competent. Instead, interest groups and lobbying firms have more real power, not the voters.


To me that makes sense since our economy, foreign affairs, and our demographics change at a furious pace.

Do we really want governments to shift every time there is a change in the economy? That's not what produces good governments. It's better if governments are phased in and out gradually and instead exercise good judgement while in office.

If we consider the fact that the US has the most national elections for a wealthy democracy, with all of the House and 1/3 of the Senate up for election every two years (the UK for contrast generally dissolves Parliament once every 4 years).

[63dot]

That has the potential to go very badly for the country. Just look at the California Legislature. With such severe term limits, no legislator ever has the chance to gain enough experience to be competent. Instead, interest groups and lobbying firms have more real power, not the voters.


Where does the line get drawn between gaining competence and becoming complacent?

The only way I would really know is if I personally worked in the California Legislature and compared personal memoirs and stories, assuming we were all telling the truth, with other California Legislature members.

There has to be a happy medium where one can gain competence, produce at a decent rate of success, and not go in a job too long.

I had a landscape gardening business I ran for 20 years. Before that, I had done fine antiques for 12 years and was over with that gig for good as I couldn't picture myself selling antiques for one day more. But from the beginning of either job, I got better, and improved from my mistakes, but when I realized that my body or spirit was not holding up to my expectations and my ambition was weakening and I was getting jaded, I saw to it to retire and let someone else take the reigns of the business. My father ran a business for 28 years, 6 or 7 days a week, and by age 62, he was completely ready to retire from any full time work forever. He continued on part time until nearly 70, but that was it for him. My mom is past 70 and will continue her current job for another five or six years and then retire.

Everybody has a learning curve, their peak performance years, and a time to move onto something else. I just don't think a Senator getting into office and serving for fifty or more years can keep up such a hectic schedule and overwhelming responsibility and serve his/her constituency with the fervor it takes. Same for 80 year old judges who have served for more than half a century.

That' why I believe in changing careers, like I did, 12 years, 20 years, and hopefully one more 20 year run before I quit and resort to a low key job(s) with no big expectations. I do plan to work until I die, which if I am lucky, will be in my 80s, but by then I may just be like the part time mail mart clerk, the host at the local French restaurant, the math or physics professor who works one day a week, or the coffee machine attendant at the supermarket down the street. I did know of a 98 year old shopkeeper in town but I don't picture myself living that long. But like she wished, she died with the store. Great for her, but would you want her to be your State representative?

[Iscariot]

This goes until June 2008.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval_files/Approval_27267_image001.png

The immediate jump in his approval rating following 9/11 is pretty ridiculous.

[October 2001]
"Why is George Bush a good president?"
"because… he was attacked. Keep up the good work, George. You're a fine example of presidents… who are attacked."

[.Andy]

He's the best at something! Congrats George!




edit: From gibbz's graph he only time his approval went up was when people were being killed....

[Counterfit]

This goes until June 2008.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval_files/Approval_27267_image001.png
I could have used that about 16 hours ago. :mad:
Where does the line get drawn between gaining competence and becoming complacent?

The only way I would really know is if I personally worked in the California Legislature and compared personal memoirs and stories, assuming we were all telling the truth, with other California Legislature members.

There has to be a happy medium where one can gain competence, produce at a decent rate of success, and not go in a job too long.

This could be resolved somewhat with some minor to moderate changes in how elections for Congress are run. Incumbents have a HUGE advantage, both in name recognition and in fundraising ability. Address that, and there will be less complacency (which really isn't that much of a problem).

[solvs]

Bush memoirs? Publishers are underwhelmed (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008360756_webbushmemoirs.html)
In less than three months, President-elect Barack Obama will take office and the Bush administration will belong to history. With the president reportedly interested in writing about his White House years, publishers have a suggestion:

Take your time.

"If I were advising President Bush, given how the public feels about him right now, I think patience would probably be something that I would encourage," says Paul Bogaards, executive director of publicity for Alfred A. Knopf, which in 2004 released Bill Clinton's million-selling "My Life."

"Certainly the longer he waits, the better," says Marji Ross, president and publisher of the conservative Regnery Publishing, which is more likely to take on anti-Obama books in the next few years than any praises of Bush.

"There's a pent-up frustration among conservatives that will focus their attention on a Barack Obama presidency and lead them to buy a lot of books about Barack Obama. But that's not the kind of emotion that anyone is going to use to turn to reading a memoir by a conservative president."

In a poor economy, it's not a great time for anyone to shop a book, and certainly not for a deeply unpopular president. Bush's approval ratings are in the 20s and Republicans are at a low moment after Tuesday night, when Obama defeated Sen. John McCain by a convincing margin and Democrats expanded majorities in Congress.
Keep comparing yourself to Truman, somehow I don't think it will help.

[yg17]

The immediate jump in his approval rating following 9/11 is pretty ridiculous.

[October 2001]
"Why is George Bush a good president?"
"because… he was attacked. Keep up the good work, George. You're a fine example of presidents… who are attacked."

Yeah, it's ridiculous.

I'm proud to say that I never, ever supported Dubya. Not after 9/11, not after we went into Iraq, never. I disapproved of Dubya before it was the cool thing to do :D

[solvs]

I thought this was funny:

Comedy World Devastated by Obama Victory (http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2008/11/the-wounded-cou.html)
As the majority of Americans continue to bask in the glow of Barack Obama's landslide victory on Tuesday, comedians nationwide have suddenly fallen on hard times. Some literally.

Widespread reports of comics leaping from windows on Election Night have received little attention in the press. Some historians liken the turn of events to the stock market crash of 1929. But Freddy Roman, Dean of the legendary New York Friar's Club, called it "worse, much worse, mayo on corn beef bad."

The Daily Show host Jon Stewart put a good face on it during Comedy Central's election night coverage. Yet sources at the show say Stewart retreated to his office afterward and "went, like, totally ballistic."

"We had Grandpa Cranky McCrazyPants and Sarah ********* Palin! Now we're stuck with Obama! There's nothing funny about him! It's like cracking jokes about Lincoln following his Gettysburg Address! ****** me twice with a motherf**king hope stick, people!" Stewart cried amid the sound of breaking glass, a shrieking cat and overturned furniture. "And Michelle?! She's the most likable First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt! We had Cindy McCain, Cruella De Vil incarnate, but nooooo! Goddamn America's good fortune!"
It goes on like that.

In a way, I'm going to miss the incompetence. In another, not so much. Thankfully, the not so much won out. And hey, we always have Biden.