Bush's inflated approval rating.

[AndyHammond1970]

I saw today an article declaring Bush all but re-elected due to his approval rating. Their citations of previous administrations showed that if Bush can keep his approval over 50% thru the spring, he is almost assured re-election. I have one problem with this; his approval ratings are artificially high because he operates unquestioned in the media. None of the corporate press every takes him to task for his policies. The Whitehouse press corps is spoon-fed the party line on all issues and they report the news accordingly. There is also a stark lack of organized opposition from the Democratic incumbents that are in the House and Senate. It's no wonder his approvals are high. He governs in a near political vacuum. Of course there are voices of opposition in America but they are muted. To find a truly critical voice you have to seek it out. This brings me to the upcoming election. If the Democratic candidates for the Presidency do their jobs as they run next year, then Bush will for once be forced to defend his positions in the light of day. Partisans on both sides are already set on who they support, but the small swing vote group, most of whom are apolitical except during the final stretches of the race, will finally be faced with deciding if Bush's Regime is taking us in the right direction or not. There will be a concerted effort to let the truth about their policies be known. Let's see if in the face of sound factual debate about the direction we are heading if Bush can keep these high polling numbers. I feel that ran correctly the Democratic opponent for 2004 should be able to drive home to people the potential disaster that four more years of Bush will be for the future of our country.

[ProfessorGAC]

1. That Study Is Worthless

I read that too. There are a few very large problems with the analysis that leads to the conclusions.

First, his own dad had approval ratings, 7 months before the '92 election that are 40% than Li'l Georgie's and lost. So, within 3 election cycles, there's already a case that refutes the conclusion.

Secondly, they moved the approval rating dates around. Clinton was not at 51% as stated in the article, 11 months prior. That number was where he was after the rebound from the health care fiasco. By December of 1995, he was 58%, composite of 5 polling services. (The writer could have looked this up, but obviously didn't.) That's higher than Georgie is now.

Ford was at 48%, which is within the margin of error of the values used in this article and got beat.

Prior to 1968, the stratification techniques were underdeveloped and the reliability of phone polling were substantially lower. So, any data prior to 1968 needs to be viewed as suspicious. This study doesn't do that.

Lastly, the most weight is given the last 4 election cycles. One cannot infer a trend from 4 data points, when one of them is radically opposite the finding. (1992)

This conclusion is wishful thinking on the part of someone who supports Li'l Georgie.
The Professor

[Stuckinthebush]

4. Excellent analysis, Prof

Right on the money.

Thanks.

[Atman]

2. 50% means a win because it allows them to steal election

and just shrug it all off by saying..."But all the polls said it would very close!" and hope no one questions it. Gauranteed. The 50% number is just a sham. ALL polls of individual groups, ie, seniors, minorities, women, men, anyone...they ALL indicate approval rating in the 30's-40's at best. It is only when they show off these aggregated poll numbers that somehow all these negative polls add up to an amazing 50-50 split. Just like in Florida, remember? What made Florida happen is the shear closeness of the race. It was too close to ever really know. They are setting us for the same thing only different. Diebold will return a victory of 51% to 49%, right where these fake aggregated polls say it will be. And it will rob us all of the chance to do a damn thing about it, because they'll just shrug and say "Well, the polls said it would be close!"

Print this post and hang it on your fridge. I hope I am wrong, but it the only explanation I can come up with for the disparity in aggregated numbers and individual groups.

[leesa]

7. That's what I think too. They just need to maintain the illusion that

he is popular and they can do that with their corporate media and canned audiences. A bit of progress has been made on the potential voter fraud being repeated again, but is it enough to stop the theft?

[izzie]

9. I think they do that also. Maybe people vote for who they think will win?

I just stick to who I want.

[atldem]

3. You are right.

Paul Krugman has some words of wisdom for his fellow reporters for the upcoming election, I sure hope some of them heed it. Although I'm not terribly optimistic.

[mopinko]

5. paul krugman for president.

[RBHam]

6. Thank God Krugman is so pre-eminent...

Or he might suffer the same fate as Steve Kangas:

In early February 1999, Steve Kangas died and his body was found in a restroom near Richard Mellon Scaife's office. This death was not reported in mainstream media until nearly a month later. In the meantime, Scaife proceeded to send his investigator, Rex Armistead (who did so much work in the Scaife-funded get-Clinton snipe-hunt), to investigate Kangas. To no ones surprise, Armistead returned with very non-flattering information about Mr. Kangas...information that is contradictory to information known about Kangas.
Kangas' death is being called a suicide. Yet there are many inconsistencies and downright holes in the story that is being put forth by Scaife and his staff.
There are many questions that have to be answered about Steve Kangas' death, and it is imperative that independent investigators review the work that has been done to date and make a public accounting of the facts surrounding Kangas' death.
As it stands now, there are too many problems with the official explanation of Kangas' death for suicide to be believed..
http://www.politicalamazon.com/kangas.html

[randr]

8. The fear is showing

The far right can see the writing on the wall. By propping up questionable polls they are actually rolling over and exposing their lily white underbelly. You can sense the fear in the vitriolic attacks they are already waging.
There are so many issues that are going to play out in the run up to the elections and the right is on the wrong side of every one.
It ain't over till its over!

[AlinPA]

10. Without a media to report our case, it will be very tough

BushCo controls (or they control him) almost all broadcast media and many newspapers. They are going to have hundreds of millions to spend on TV and radio broadcasters. We will have to do it on the ground. (We did it in 2000)