Most Voters Not Happy With Bush

[Busheses]

http://www.time.com/time/election200...0.html?cnn=yes

Bush's ratings are little changed in past few weeks. His overall job approval ratings continues to hover at the 50% level (50% approve, 46% disapprove), the same as our previous poll's finding of 50%-47%. His weak spots remain the economy and Iraq.


A majority of voters disapprove of his handling of the economy — 54%, compared with 43% who approve. Our previous poll found 52 percent disapproved, while 44% approved.

On Iraq, 45% approve of the President's handling of the situation, while 52% disapprove, compared to 41% approve - 55% disapprove last time.
Bush's ratings on handling of the war on terrorism are up a bit, with 56% approving and 41% disapproving, up from 51% approve - 46% disapprove.

And in the overall sentiment that weighs against President Bush's re-election chances, little change has been recorded:


A majority of voters still believe the country is going "off on the wrong track" — 51%, compared with 44% who answered that it was headed in the right direction. July's answers were 52% wrong track, 42% right direction.

A majority maintain that it's time for someone else to be president — 54%, while 42% maintain President Bush deserves to be re-elected. That's a one-point shift from our last poll, in which the breakdown was 53% - 43%.

Voters are evenly split, 47% - 47% on whether the United States was right or wrong to go to war with Iraq, where July's poll found a slight majority 49%-46% answering that it was wrong to invade.
Finally, Dick Cheney's appearances on the campaign trail in recent weeks have had little impact on his favorability ratings. He's now at 37% favorable - 43% unfavorable. In July, he stood at 34% favorable - 40% unfavorable.

[ajohnson]

http://www.time.com/time/election200...0.html?cnn=yes

Bush's ratings are little changed in past few weeks. His overall job approval ratings continues to hover at the 50% level (50% approve, 46% disapprove), the same as our previous poll's finding of 50%-47%. His weak spots remain the economy and Iraq.


A majority of voters disapprove of his handling of the economy — 54%, compared with 43% who approve. Our previous poll found 52 percent disapproved, while 44% approved.

On Iraq, 45% approve of the President's handling of the situation, while 52% disapprove, compared to 41% approve - 55% disapprove last time.
Bush's ratings on handling of the war on terrorism are up a bit, with 56% approving and 41% disapproving, up from 51% approve - 46% disapprove.

And in the overall sentiment that weighs against President Bush's re-election chances, little change has been recorded:


A majority of voters still believe the country is going "off on the wrong track" — 51%, compared with 44% who answered that it was headed in the right direction. July's answers were 52% wrong track, 42% right direction.

A majority maintain that it's time for someone else to be president — 54%, while 42% maintain President Bush deserves to be re-elected. That's a one-point shift from our last poll, in which the breakdown was 53% - 43%.

Voters are evenly split, 47% - 47% on whether the United States was right or wrong to go to war with Iraq, where July's poll found a slight majority 49%-46% answering that it was wrong to invade.
Finally, Dick Cheney's appearances on the campaign trail in recent weeks have had little impact on his favorability ratings. He's now at 37% favorable - 43% unfavorable. In July, he stood at 34% favorable - 40% unfavorable.

So if President Bush is re-elected, will you still agree that the "majority of voters are unhappy with Bush" or will you say that polls don't actually mean what they report?

The problems with polls are numerous - the biggest is the questions thay ask. I used to be on the list of callers for many surveys. And the questions they asked were phrased in such a way that you can only give one reasonable response. For example

During the Clinton Administration I got a call and the question was "If President Carter were running for President of the United States, would you vote for Him"?

There were several other questions dealing with the current administration (President Clinton) but all dealing with something from past administrations. Later the poll stats came out "Clinton would win re-election if voters had their choice" This was during the brief talk of a 'third' term. That was when I quit answering surveys.

On a similar note our household was a Neilson Family a few of times for a couple of years. They didn't believe we watched so little TV (about 8 hours a week.) So they said I wasn't the kind of family they were looking for. They said our family wasn't the "average" family. I said how do you really know if you only use families who watch a lot of TV? To which the response was 'click'.

Regards,

Alan

[CatholicSage]

Nothing terribly new here. It seems to me that while some people may disapprove of Bush, they are often equally afraid of Kerry. Quite a dilemma for those people.

[Tickle Me Goody]

Nothing terribly new here. It seems to me that while some people may disapprove of Bush, they are often equally afraid of Kerry. Quite a dilemma for those people.

Libertarian

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Libertarian

Still a dilemma, since the Libertarian candidate doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the presidency in the near the future, unless we can find some way of curing the two-party stranglehold.

[CatholicSage]

Libertarian

Well, it's better than Green I suppose

[Twilly Spree]

I'd rather be Green than Libertarian.

Thanks for the info Busheses

[Busheses]

Bush's ratings are little changed in past few weeks. His overall job approval ratings continues to hover at the 50% level (50% approve, 46% disapprove), the same as our previous poll's finding of 50%-47%. His weak spots remain the economy and Iraq.


A majority of voters disapprove of his handling of the economy — 54%, compared with 43% who approve. Our previous poll found 52 percent disapproved, while 44% approved.

On Iraq, 45% approve of the President's handling of the situation, while 52% disapprove, compared to 41% approve - 55% disapprove last time.
Bush's ratings on handling of the war on terrorism are up a bit, with 56% approving and 41% disapproving, up from 51% approve - 46% disapprove.

And in the overall sentiment that weighs against President Bush's re-election chances, little change has been recorded:


A majority of voters still believe the country is going "off on the wrong track" — 51%, compared with 44% who answered that it was headed in the right direction. July's answers were 52% wrong track, 42% right direction.

A majority maintain that it's time for someone else to be president — 54%, while 42% maintain President Bush deserves to be re-elected. That's a one-point shift from our last poll, in which the breakdown was 53% - 43%.

Voters are evenly split, 47% - 47% on whether the United States was right or wrong to go to war with Iraq, where July's poll found a slight majority 49%-46% answering that it was wrong to invade.
Finally, Dick Cheney's appearances on the campaign trail in recent weeks have had little impact on his favorability ratings. He's now at 37% favorable - 43% unfavorable. In July, he stood at 34% favorable - 40% unfavorable.

So if President Bush is re-elected, will you still agree that the "majority of voters are unhappy with Bush" or will you say that polls don't actually mean what they report?

The problems with polls are numerous - the biggest is the questions thay ask. I used to be on the list of callers for many surveys. And the questions they asked were phrased in such a way that you can only give one reasonable response. For example

During the Clinton Administration I got a call and the question was "If President Carter were running for President of the United States, would you vote for Him"?

There were several other questions dealing with the current administration (President Clinton) but all dealing with something from past administrations. Later the poll stats came out "Clinton would win re-election if voters had their choice" This was during the brief talk of a 'third' term. That was when I quit answering surveys.

On a similar note our household was a Neilson Family a few of times for a couple of years. They didn't believe we watched so little TV (about 8 hours a week.) So they said I wasn't the kind of family they were looking for. They said our family wasn't the "average" family. I said how do you really know if you only use families who watch a lot of TV? To which the response was 'click'.

Regards,

Alan

I don't know how people are going to vote come November. The title of this thread is "Most voters not happy with Bush" If I had used a title such as "Most voters will not vote for Bush" it would be a different story

[Duder]

So if President Bush is re-elected . . .

AJ -

Nothing to add to your major topic - but I just wanted to correct your notion that GW Bush can be re-elected. To be re-elected, one must first be elected. GW Bush was not elected by the people, but appointed by an outrageous, absurd, and disingenuously written Supreme Court decision.

[Cowthulu]

AJ -

Nothing to add to your major topic - but I just wanted to correct your notion that GW Bush can be re-elected. To be re-elected, one must first be elected. GW Bush was not elected by the people, but appointed by an outrageous, absurd, and disingenuously written Supreme Court decision.

BEAT THAT DEAD HORSE!

And FYI, the President is never directly elected by the people, so get over it. GW Bush was appointed by the electors from the states, not the Supreme Court. Just like we have been doing it for over 2 centuries.

[Busheses]

BEAT THAT DEAD HORSE!

And FYI, the President is never directly elected by the people, so get over it. GW Bush was appointed by the electors from the states, not the Supreme Court. Just like we have been doing it for over 2 centuries.

Wrong. Presidents are elected by the Electoral College, not the people. Even if the people vote for one candidate, the Electoral College for that State could give the electoral votes to another candidate.

[Cowthulu]

And the electoral college is the electors from the states. Nothing wrong at all.

[Duder]

And the electoral college is the electors from the states. Nothing wrong at all.

mstorrie-

Are you familiar with the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Gore v Bush (2000)? Do you understand the decision and the way in which it forced Florida to cast its electoral votes for GW Bush? Or, since the candidate you like was appointed, do you not particularly care to know?

[Cowthulu]

mstorrie-

Are you familiar with the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Gore v Bush (2000)? Do you understand the decision and the way in which it forced Florida to cast its electoral votes for GW Bush? Or, since the candidate you like was appointed, do you not particularly care?

I am quite familiar with the Supreme Court decision that correctly took down the erroneous decision made by the Florida Supreme court. The SC did the correct thing. GWB won Florida therefore Florida's electors went GWB. Guess what? That means he was elected and can now be re-elected. And now even with all the hand waving and continued recounts after the fact he still had more votes, so even in hindsight he was the correct one to receive the electors.

So yes, to answer your other question I care a great deal. The SC did its job and the correct person was elected. I would be more concerned if the incorrect ruling made by the FSC was not overturned.

[Duder]

I am quite familiar with the Supreme Court decision that correctly took down the erroneous decision made by the Florida Supreme court.

Let us examine that grevious error of the Florida court, and the US Supreme Court's remedy. The Florida court said, in effect, "This election is too close to call, and a few votes either way will decide it. Therefore, let's manually examine those ballots that the counting machines did not tabulate (because of hanging chads or whatever). On ballots where a human examination reveals clear voter intent, we can count votes that the machines missed, and thus establish who really won this election."

"No, you don't!" said the US Supreme Court. "That would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution." Here's why: Some voters (those whose ballots went through the machines with no problem and were duly registered for Gore or for Bush) would not have their ballots examined with the same care and loving concern as the ballots that the machines couldn't read. In other words, some voters got their ballots looked at real carefully, while other voters did not. This is unfair to the voters who have a Constitutional right to Equal Protection under the law. And so the Supreme Court ordered that this recount - this terible injustice to the Florida voters - be halted at once. That meant that the machine count that had Bush in the lead held sway, and Florida had no choice but to cast its electoral votes for Bush.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution had never been applied in this novel manner. And it is total nonsense. It is no injustice to me if my ballot sails through the machinery just fine, but another voter's ballot does not and must therefore be examined by a human to establish voter intent.

The majority of the Justices decided before the fact that whatever decision they rendered would favor GW Bush. This far-flung justification for their decision demonstrates that fact very well.

The SC did the correct thing.

By that you mean that their choice of GW Bush was a good choice. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. But that choice had no valid basis in the law. Why didn't the Supreme Court try to ensure that the VOTERS decided who won the election?

GWB won Florida therefore Florida's electors went GWB.

No, GW Bush was awarded Florida by the Supreme Court, therefore Florida's electors went GWB.

Guess what? That means he was elected and can now be re-elected.

No, that means he was appointed and now qualifies to be elected, not re-elected.

And now even with all the hand waving and continued recounts after the fact he still had more votes, so even in hindsight he was the correct one to receive the electors.

No, the totals are in dispute. Different news organizations give different results. We do not know who won the Florida vote - it could have been Bush. We do not know.

So yes, to answer your other question I care a great deal. The SC did its job and the correct person was elected. I would be more concerned if the incorrect ruling made by the FSC was not overturned.

Explain to me what was incorrect about the Florida Supreme Court's ruling? Surely you are not going to repeat that embarassingly ridiculous argument from the Equal Protection Clause?