Poll shows jump for Bush approval rating today

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Sure it ain't much but it strikes me as a bit odd with all the negative PR and media shown by the left this week leading up to the final showdown that his approval rating would jump 4 points. Actually the last reported poll on this forum by a liberal showed Bush at 28% so that would be a net increase of 15% points just for todays showdown.

How is that for extrapolation?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
BTW - Pres Bush approval number is higher then the Democrat Congress

How do you libs feel your Congress has a lower approval number then Pres Bush?
 
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
166
Reaction score
7
Points
16
from 2% to 3% ??? Surprising that ANYONE supports such a miserable failure....how pathetic
 

akiboy

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
574
Reaction score
39
Points
16
Location
Mumbai
from 2% to 3% ??? Surprising that ANYONE supports such a miserable failure....how pathetic
Dude ..I am surprised. How can you ignore the fact that there havent been terror attacks on AMerican soil due to Pres. Bush after 9/11? No other U.S President could have tackled terrorism the way Pres. Bush has.
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
22,347
Reaction score
7,012
Points
360
Location
Charleston, SC
Osama-bin-Forgotten -and we are LESS safe now. Do your homework.
Are we really "less safe?"

I mean, do you feel threatened? Unsafe?

I have never once felt scared or threatened. I have never hesitated to get on a plane, travel, go to a mall, leave my house. I have felt as safe since 9/11 as I did before 9/11. I suppose this could be a product of where I live, a medium sized community about 40 miles northwest of Los Angeles, not exactly a hotbed of terrorist activity. But then again, I have not once hesitated to go to L.A.. Terrorism is not a factor in any of my decisions, in fact, I can't remember the last time I gave it any thought outside of the evening news reports.
 
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
166
Reaction score
7
Points
16
I will NEVER feel safe as long as Bush is in office- he doesn't know what the hell he's doing and won't listen to anyone. The longer we stay in Iraq, the stronger Al-qaida gets. Another major attack is inevitable- not if but when.
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
22,347
Reaction score
7,012
Points
360
Location
Charleston, SC
I will NEVER feel safe as long as Bush is in office- he doesn't know what the hell he's doing and won't listen to anyone. The longer we stay in Iraq, the stronger Al-qaida gets. Another major attack is inevitable- not if but when.
While I understand your feelings about Bush, I'm not sure our presence in Iraq is the determining factor in whether or not the U.S. gets hit again. He is not the reason the U.S. is a target. They would want to attack the U.S. if all of our troops were home patrolling our borders and Shirley Temple Black was president. I always figured another attack here was a foregone conclusion, it's to be expected. Iraq, in my opinion, is a non factor in the equation. I'm also of the opinion that the assets needed to carry out the next attack(s) are already in the U.S. or, at the very least, on the continent. It's a wonder there haven't been coordinated attack on malls across the nation.
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
22,347
Reaction score
7,012
Points
360
Location
Charleston, SC
So kill us over there AND over here??? That makes A LOT of sense.
That's not what I'm saying at all. My point is simply that our troops in Iraq and Bush being president are not factors in whether or not there is another attack on American soil.

Now, some have and will argue that having our troops and al Qaeda in Iraq means that the focus of al Qaeda is there rather than here. Al Qaeda is too busy in Iraq to worry about any other operation. While I understand this vein of thought, I personally don't agree with it as I feel our troops should not be offered up as cannon fodder.
 
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
166
Reaction score
7
Points
16
the longer we stay in Iraq the more resentment for our presence there will build and "embolden the enemy", as Bush likes to say. The stronger Al-qaida and other anti-American zealots get, the more resources they can control to muster another attack. There may even be one in the planning stages now, but we'll never know- all our resources are being used up in Iraq fighting losing "war" instead of targeting Al-qaida -the REAL terrorist threat.
 

Vintij

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
105
Points
48
Location
Anaheim, CA
More people have died in the Iraq war than in 9-11. so your wrong about how the world is safer, its basically like 9-11 happend twice. And im not even going to count the hundreds of thousands of iraqi civilians. Still no osama, still fear is in the heart of everyone because it is the easiest way to controll a country.

Who cares about the polls, people in this country have ADD, they watch a presidential speach and he sounds tough and strong so they change there poll vote by 2 percent. No big deal, the thinking americans are still waiting for our troop pullout. You dont elect a democratic congress because you want to piss off bush, you elect a democratic congress because you want out of this war. And finally the democrats are growing some balls.
 

mattskramer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
5,852
Reaction score
362
Points
48
Location
Texas


Dude ..I am surprised. How can you ignore the fact that there havent been terror attacks on AMerican soil due to Pres. Bush after 9/11? No other U.S President could have tackled terrorism the way Pres. Bush has.
This is speculation and imagination. No one can answer the question, “What would have happened if…” I doubt that anyone is ignoring the fact that there have not been terrorist attacks on American soil since 9-11. There have been attacks on soil when Clinton was in office. Bush was president before 9-11. These are facts too. Once can’t logically conclude that there has not been a terrorist attack since 9-11 because Bush is president.

Perhaps there has not been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11 because it rained in Texas yesterday. There is no way to scientifically prove that no other US president could have tackled terrorism the way that Bush has. This is merely your pro-Bush opinion.
 

Paul Revere

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
374
Reaction score
25
Points
16
Location
Fayetteville, PA.


Dude ..I am surprised. How can you ignore the fact that there havent been terror attacks on AMerican soil due to Pres. Bush after 9/11? No other U.S President could have tackled terrorism the way Pres. Bush has.
As for myself, I have not ignored the fact that there has not been another terror attack on American soil since 9/11.

I hope that the Bush-Cheney terrorist organization do not create another need to attack us again before they leave office.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,493
Reaction score
16,384
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Image Courtesy of whitehouse.gov Thirty-nine percent (39%) of American adults Approve of the way that George W. Bush is performing his duties as President. Fifty-nine percent (59%) Disapprove of his performance. These figures include 19% who Strongly Approve and 44% who Strongly Disapprove. (see comments on comparing Approval Ratings from different polling firms.)

In addition to low Job Approval ratings, the President’s performance is leading to a significant decline in the number of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans. While the number of Republicans nationwide sank to a new low in April, the number of Democrats has also declined a bit since their party took control of Congress. As a result, there are more unaffiliated voters today than Republicans.

The general public still has a different perspective on immigration than the President. Most Americans still prefer an enforcement-first approach and oppose granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens… even if those children are born in the United States.

In the competition for the Republican nomination, former Senator Fred Thompson has caught Arizona Senator John McCain. But, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani remains on top. In the Democratic race, Senator Barack Obama now holds a two-point advantage over Senator Hillary Clinton.

Most Americans (52%) oppose President Bush’s veto of the Iraq funding bill. Just 29% believe that the troop surge ordered by Bush has improved the situation in Iraq. Most Americans favor either an immediate troop withdrawal or a firm timetable for bringing the troops home.

Growing pessimism about the War in Iraq has also had an impact on one of its biggest supporters. Just 49% of Americans now have a favorable opinion of Arizona Senator John McCain. To keep up with all the Election 2008 hopefuls, check out the Rasmussen Reports overview for both Republican and Democratic candidates. You can also check out favorables for Congressional Leaders, Journalists, and other Political Figures.

Rasmussen Reports Job Approval ratings are based upon national telephone surveys of 500 adults each night. Results are reported on a three day rolling average basis. Like all professional survey firms, Rasmussen Reports weights the survey results to reflect the population at large.

Our party identification weighting targets are established by measuring the party identification from our surveys over the past 90 days (a total of 45,000 interviews). For the month of April, 2007, those targets are 37.5 Democrat, 31.8 Republican, and 30.5% Unaffiliated. That’s little changed from March when the figures were 37.8% Democrat, 31.7% Republican, and 30.5% Unaffiliated.
Did anyone bother reading the link. The poll went up two points for one day. It's back to 39% now. Gee willikers.... *rolling eyes* :rofl:
 

mattskramer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
5,852
Reaction score
362
Points
48
Location
Texas


Dude ..I am surprised. How can you ignore the fact that there havent been terror attacks on AMerican soil due to Pres. Bush after 9/11? No other U.S President could have tackled terrorism the way Pres. Bush has.
By applying the same reasoning, I can ask: How can you ignore the fact that there was a terror attacks on American soil due to Pres. Bush after on 9/11?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I will NEVER feel safe as long as Bush is in office- he doesn't know what the hell he's doing and won't listen to anyone. The longer we stay in Iraq, the stronger Al-qaida gets. Another major attack is inevitable- not if but when.
another victim of Bush Derangement Syndrome
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
the longer we stay in Iraq the more resentment for our presence there will build and "embolden the enemy", as Bush likes to say. The stronger Al-qaida and other anti-American zealots get, the more resources they can control to muster another attack. There may even be one in the planning stages now, but we'll never know- all our resources are being used up in Iraq fighting losing "war" instead of targeting Al-qaida -the REAL terrorist threat.
So we are responsible for the terrorists for killing innocent civilians? Maybe White Flag Reid and San Fran Nan should push for funding to provide anger management classes for the terrorists
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top