Gallup poll: Bush continuing to slip

[Bucky]

http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm

According to Gallup's CNN/USA Today poll, Bush continues to slip in public opinion polls, despite the "upturn" in the economy.

For the first time in his presidency, less than 50% of persons polled say that characteristic of "Caring about the needs of people like me" applies to Bush. Just 49% agree with the statement, which is down 8 points since June and down 11 points from a year ago (Nov 02).

59% say he's honest and trustworthy, down 6 points from June and down 11 points from Jan 03.

50% say he's a person I admire, down 4 points from June and down 14 points from May 02.

66% say he's a strong and decisive leader, down 9 points from June and down 14 points from July 02.

53% say he shares my values, down 13 points from Nov 02.

48% say he generally agrees with me on issues I care about, down 16 points from May 02.

48% say he can get the economy moving, a first time question.

And 42% say he's in touch with the problems ordinary Americans face in their daily lives, another first time question. 57% said that statement doesn't apply to Bush.

[Justice]

1. Thanks For Posting

Gallup is apparently not calling people who make more than $200,000 per year.

[Randi_Listener]

2. Au contraire.

n/t

[opihimoimoi]

3. Bad news for the Pubs. They are now shittin big time.

what to do what to do??

Lie

Cheat

Steal

Anything to win

Whats the big dea;

This time, if Dean is the nom

The Pubs will have their hands full.

Come, we watch Dean saddle up, he gonna rope/hogtie the Bush

[whirlygigspin]

6. 59% say he's honest and trustworthy

:wow:

[opihimoimoi]

20. I know......To fool is to RULE

EEt efrident he try berry hard to foo us into tinkin he ackruary know what he es doing.

[Woodstock]

4. The 59% honest & trustworthy is astounding but there's hope here

Another poll below this one says 63% say he favors the rich, 23% all the same, and 9% he favors the middle class. I've heard the theory that people don't mind this because they figure they will be rich one day (and some even think they are rich, at $50K a year!) Hopefully reality has set in for them of late.

[grasswire]

8. soon someone will challenge him for the nomination

That's my dream. That someone will challenge Bush for the nomination. Peel some Pugs off. That's the best-case scenario for us.

[buycitgo]

17. funny you should mention that

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=792059

where's our George Wallace?

did you know he won a plurality in FIVE states in 68?

come on, David Duke!

Run Jesse, run!

[elperromagico]

19. Yeah, Wallace won a plurality in five states,

and the Democrat lost. Damn you, George Wallace! That was basically the end of the Solid South for us; there were inklings of it in '60, and Goldwater did well in some Southern states in '64, but '68 showed we had lost the South.

Five years of Nixon. Damn you too, Tricky Dick; I hope wherever you are, the rest of your hair has finally fallen out.

[Zomby Woof]

5. people have NO memory

Bush Sr was driven from office because the people rightly perceived that he was out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans too.

Then his cretinous goon of a son gets in there and we have to learn it all over again!

Of course, proof that we have no memory is that before Clinton left office, there was supposedly a poll saying that Bush Sr was more "moral" than Clinton, and that segment wished they had voted for him again instead of Clinton back in '92. Yeah, right. :eyes:

As for this poll, where the hell are they finding these people who say they "admire" him, and he is "trustworthy"? Are we really that dumb???

[ibegurpard]

7. You'd think wouldn't you?

Did everyone besides me who was alive in 1992 die?

[Bucky]

11. Diverse people view the world diversely

I've worked in market research. The methodologies are pretty accurate and time tested. The majority of people who view the president as sharing their values (53%) and as being trustworthy (59%) and admirable (50%) are different from us in one major respect.

They don't gather and reinforce their views solely from within the narrow, self-referential tunnel vision of Democratic Underground.com. Don't get me wrong; I love this place. But lurking here and getting your views reinforced by like minded individuals tends only to reinforce our prejudices and disconnects us from the larger public who will cast the swing votes next years.

This is why the flippant, ignorant Bush-Nazi comparisons and the petty minded name calling (Rethuglicans, Rush Limpballs, LIEberman) are bad habits of mind. They sing hymns to the converted and turn off everyone else who might be in the middle.

I think we'll stand a better chance of winning the VERY CLOSE election next year if we pull our heads out of our asses and spend a little more time listening to our undecided neighbors.

[Zomby Woof]

14. you're right

I usually defend polls because I know how sampling is done, and how they can be accurate within the MOE, etc.

I also think it is valid what you say about the satirical names we create, and their potential to alienate the "swing" voters. But the "preaching to the choir" aspect is why we come here - it is one of the VERY FEW places where we aren't bombarded with the media's OWN echo chamber and narrow self-interests and so forth. Your criticism of DU applies to the mass media, and is exactly WHY many Americans DO think the fucking Chimp (yes, I use those names too) is a "great" leader and all that happy horseshit. They have learned to love Big Brother.

I also reserve the right to regard the attention span and general intelligence of the population with great skepticism. Judging by the mass tastes in music, television, film, and books, I never really needed DU to reinforce what I already suspect about Americans and the depth of their intellectual thought. I am what they would call an elitist, and they would be right.

[PurityOfEssence]

16. Here's a whopper of a hole in your theory

You say that "they" don't get and solidify their views from within this narrow, slanted and self-reinforcing cul-de-sac, but this infers that others are getting their information from better or more diverse sources, and it flatly states that "we" get our views "solely" from here.

The latter is ridiculous; many of us learn and gather information from many sources, and even the most casual glance at threads will bear this out. A cursory reading will also show that the refining is also done by much interaction elsewhere.

The former doesn't clearly pronounce that "they" are getting their information from more diverse--hence more credible--sources, but the taint of suggestion is definitely there. Most people get their information from very few sources, and "they" are definitely subject to that habit too.

As for turning people off with our derisive self-congratulatory bon mots, I'm sure we do. It's also fun to vent, and we are exercising our release among friends. If we turn off people, then so be it. I'm personally sick of the abject fear some people have of ever alienating anyone, and it reeks of the same kind of timidity and self-apology by distancing oneself from the term "liberal", and being cowed in general. Fuck them. If it bugs people to hear those terms, then they should also read the many, many posts that are well reasoned and without the epithets.

If you want us all to live up to your standard of eating at the grownup's table, I just hope you get a tummyache from hunger as you properly eat your chicken wings with knife and fork so the upper crustaceans don't speak ill of you. Habitual cringing propriety is also a sign of intellectual laziness.

[snippy]

23. You make a valid point. However, keep in mind that a slight majority of

Americans do not pay any attention to politics at all. Many of them believe that whoever is president must be okay or he wouldn't be president in the first place. Those people are included in polls of adults. Many, although not all, are excluded when polls are are limited to registered voters or likely voters. Several months ago, Fox News had a poll on Bush in which 1% of the respondents did not know who he was.

[wtmusic]

9. 59% trustworthy? Either a stupid wind has swept across the land or

this is just a bad dream...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. Both.

[buycitgo]

18. whenever you see poll numbers like that, remember two things

the exit polls in Florida, 2000 and

the fact that over 60 percent of those polled believe that most of the suiciders on 911 were Iraqis.

public is gullible enough to believe ANYthing, and, even when the polls do get it right, the pugs are capable of rendering them meaningless, through whatever means necessary.

Both of these points assumes, of course, that the media actively participate in the shell game that replaced democracy three years ago.

[Stone-Cold]

10. Good..

hopefully, by this time next year, 90% of the people will not like him.

[newyawker99]

24. Hi Stone-Cold!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[JackSwift]

13. Dubya makes me appreciate Nixon, Reagan and Poppy

and that is disappointing

[elperromagico]

15. These figures don't surprise me.

"Honest and Trustworthy"? "A person I admire"? There are a lot of people who like Bush as a person (they think he's a decent fellow), but who dislike him as a President and feel he ought to be replaced.

"Strong and decisive"? Hell, even I'll agree with that. He's just strong and decisive about the wrong goddamn things.

"Shares my values"? If the values involve the maximization of personal profit, sure...

[VOX]

21. Kick for night owls and early-morning birds...

:kick:

[radfringe]

22. numbers drop....and we get

Al Qaeda tape likely used to rally, recruit
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/05/holiday.terror.threat/index.html


Officials worry that shopping malls
could become terrorism targets during the holidays.

--snip---

The release of the video adds to concern over recent intelligence that has counterterrorism officials increasingly worried about a possible attack against soft targets, such as shopping malls, as the holiday season approaches.

"As recently as two weeks ago, the intelligence community was telling the Homeland Security Department that this felt a lot like the summer of 2001," said Roger Cressey, a former counterterrorism official with the National Security Council. " seeing lots of data, lots of information coming together that paints a very disturbing picture."

A senior U.S. official stressed increased threat information, including Web site activity, is common before and during key holidays. The problem is separating the legitimate intelligence from the rest.