Gallup: Bush Approval Rating at New Low, Compares to Other Presidents

[rainbow4321]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000981193

A Gallup poll analysis released Tuesday finds President Bush's job approval rating at the lowest of his presidency and, at 47.4%, below 50% for only the second time.

This compares to the following at the same point in their time in office: Eisenhower 63.6%, Reagan 58.7%, Clinton 56.3, Truman 48.7%, Nixon 44% (during Watergate) and Johnson 42% (at a low point in the Vietnam war).

By Gallup's chart, Bush's current rating is 171st out of 236 for any quarter of a year, going back to Truman in the White House.

“Broadly speaking,” Gallup comments, “presidents who have had similar quarterly averages to Bush's most recent one did not show much improvement going forward …



:party: :bounce: :toast:

[BrklynLiberal]

1. 47.4%!!!?? How could that many people still be so stupid???

[Celeborn Skywalker]

5. Gallup

Their approval rating is always a few points higher than the rest of the polling orgs, so his actual approval is probably around 42%.

[rniel]

6. Never misunderestimate

The stupidity of the american people :0

[blm]

13. It's Gallup...subtract 5 points for a more accurate read.

They weight their polls heavier towards Republican voters.

[Lorien]

26. Gallup traditionally polls more repubs than Dems. n/t

[tritsofme]

45. Gallup does nothing of the sort.

They do not weight their polls according to party ID, they use a random sample.

Because of this if a Republican looked at the raw data of this poll they would probably claim that they were oversampling Democrats.

When the political winds are moving toward the Democrats, more people identify with Democrats, and vice versa.

[Lorien]

48. Someone posted information here during the 2004 elections

which showed that on a number of polls leading up to the election Gallup had oversampled Repubs by a fairly wide margin (sorry-too long ago to find a link). The Gallup polls were generally running 2-3 points more to Bush's* favor than other mainstream polls.

[Leafy Geneva]

49. Yes, they do.

The Gallup Organization - Frequently Asked Questions

In most polls, once interviewing has been completed, the data are carefully checked and weighted before analysis begins. The weighting process is a statistical procedure by which the sample is checked against known population parameters to correct for any possible sampling biases on the basis of demographic variables such as age, gender, race, education, or region of country.

And their bias may be more like 10 points:

PROFESSOR POLLKATZ's
POOL OF POLLS> (see Fudge Factors for Different Pollsters link).

[mvd]

52. When there are more registered Democrats than Republicans..

their polls seem pretty suspect to me.

[tritsofme]

54. Thanks for proving my point

They only weight against "demographic variables such as age, gender, race, education, or region of country" that can be checked against the census.

Party identification is not one of those variables that they weight against, because it is not fixed, or written in stone.

[Roland99]

57. That's a crock of shit. Want proof? A simple search reveals:

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/06/123833.php

The Gallup Poll, despite its reputation, assumes that this November 40% of those turning out to vote will be Republicans, and only 33% will be Democrat. Gallup just confirmed for me that this is the same sampling methodology they have been using this whole election season, for all their national and state polls.

According to John Zogby ... the spread (of actual voters historically) was

39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and
39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000.
Given that Gallup’s CEO is a GOP donor, this should not be a surprise. http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002806.html]

Thus, based on recent voter turnout, the number of Democrats should be 11% higher rather than 17% lower than the number of Republicans sampled to get even remotely reasonable results.

So the next time you see a poll, especially if it's from Gallup or TNS, ignore the "margin of error" and instead consider the Margin of Bias - that could be 10-20% unfairly favoring the Republicans.

[tritsofme]

60. That's not true, and I've been saying it for more than a year now

probably.

The LeftCoaster was very decieving in the way he worded his entry.

They do not assume any partisian composition.

After interviewing a random sample of voters, they simply ask at the end of each interview "Do you identify yourself as a Republican, Independent, or Democrat?

This is what Gallup said in their blog in October:

Some consumers of the polls (including the Gallup Poll) have questioned poll results because party identification and other characteristics do not match the 2000 exit poll data. There are very good reasons why they may not match the exit poll data.

First, some treat the exit poll as a census. It is not a census, it is a survey based on sampling of voting precincts. There is a reason it is called an "exit poll" and not an "exit census." That's because it is a poll, and as such is subject to sampling variation and other polling errors just as any other poll would be. In fact, because exit polling relies on quota sampling (hand selection of survey spots according to population size and other factors), it has a higher degree of potential error than do the random samples on which telephone surveys are based. Thus, there is no basis on which to believe the exit poll numbers are in any way more accurate than any other number you get from a poll. They are all estimates. The one advantage of the exit poll is that they know everyone they interview is a voter, while pre-election polls rely on models to determine who is likely to vote and who is not. However, that does not mean their estimates are necessarily better, and they are definitely not error-free estimates of the electorate as many treat them. In fact, when multiple exit polls existed in the past, they very routinely differed in their estimates of the vote as well as their estimates of the demographic characteristics of the electorate. Even today the Los Angeles Times exit poll differs from the larger exit poll used by the networks.

Second, the exit poll measure of political party ID is fundamentally different from ours. We know that survey results can differ depending on how the data are collected. Our questions are read and responses obtained verbally over the phone. Their responses are obtained in self-administered questionnaires that present the questions in a visual format. Most survey research experts would be extremely cautious in comparing data obtained by a telephone interview versus that obtained in a self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire. That is in addition to question wording differences in the party ID question that can also have an effect on the results.

Third, a lot has changed since 2000. In the post-9/11 environment, terrorism has become one of the chief problems for government to deal with. The Republican Party has a large perceptual advantage on the terrorism issue. To assume that everything is as it was four years ago is a very risky assumption. While it is possible that in the end things could change once again so that partisanship looks much like it did in 2000, that is by no means certain or even likely.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/blog/default.aspx?a=10012004

[Roland99]

63. Uhh...that wasn't a link to the Left Coaster. Are you doubting Zogby now?

[tritsofme]

66. If you read my post you would know

that party ID according to exit polls, and self identification in a Gallup poll are not necessarily related.

Yes, those were the party ID numbers from exit polls over the last few elections, but its just not relevant to the way the question is asked, and how it used.

[paula777]

31. Have you been to the South?

[Clark2008]

43. I live in the South and I see the reminants of ripped of

Bush/Cheney 04 stickers all the time!

:rofl:

[QC]

51. Sorry, but anyone whose governor is Arnold Schwarzenegger

has no right to talk about people anywhere else being stupid, politically or otherwise.

[WhiteTara]

56. Diebold stole our state for the boobengroper!

although I do know a few very stupid people who voted for the recall.

[ClassWarrior]

35. They're not stupid - they're just not paying attention... I mean...

...Nixon with 44 in the depths of Watergate?? <wtf?>

NGU.

[radfringe]

61. overall average - 50.5% Disapprove

President George W. Bush - Job Approval Ratings
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html

Poll Date Approve Disapprove Spread

RCP Average 7/11 - 7/21 44.8% 50.5% -5.7%

Rasmussen 7/19 - 7/21 49% 50% -1%
ARG 7/18 - 7/21 42% 52% -10%
Pew Research 7/13 - 7/17 44% 48% -4%
CBS News 7/13 - 7/14 45% 50% -5%
FOX News 7/12 - 7/13 47% 47% EVEN
AP-Ipsos 7/11 - 7/13 42% 56% -14%

[RedSpartan]

2. Nice!

Still too high, though, if you ask me.

[rzemanfl]

3. Gallup rates about 5% high on the Repug side. n/t

[Melodybe]

4. When it goes under 40% then I'm throwing a party!

Not just a DU party with smilies but a real one with booze and champagne.

I have long suspected that Gallup has been puffing his numbers the entire time, and theat Bush's base is more in the 30-35% not the 40-55% that this republican pollster would have us believe.

Once it hits 39%, party time is here.

[rniel]

7. I'm saving my party

For when they are all dragged out of the white house in handcuffs.

[WhiteTara]

12. I'll be drinking champagne

right here with you, wherever you are! :toast:

[KansDem]

19. I'll be drinking Thunderbird.

I believe the quality of the drink should correspond with the quality of the administration.

:hangover:
What's the word? Thunderbird!

[WhiteTara]

24. good point

but I believe the quality of the defeat will be so great that it will call for some bubbles to match my effervescence! :)

[KansDem]

39. You know, I like your way of thinking!

Then forget the Thunderbird...I'm buying a bottle of 18-year old Macallan!

mmm...mmmm :9

[WhiteTara]

42. here's to the best day of our lives yet to come

:toast:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

64. Macallan 18?! Can I come to your party!??!?!

:toast:

[Poiuyt]

9. Do all of us get an invitation?

[Sparkly]

18. I've been hoping for that, too.

How is it possible his approval is even as high as it is? I mean it's low, but it ought to be at 3%, imho (and those only due to error). :)

[CBHagman]

27. And the Washington Post talks about "sagging popularity"

I've noticed that the Post doesn't state openly that Bush's disapproval rating is higher than his approval rating. Instead they refer to "sagging popularity," as if the popularity were the normal state and it had just gone down a bit.

Then again, these are the same folks who shoehorned the phrase "popular wartime president" into articles about Bush for about 18 months after 9/11. :eyes:

[endarkenment]

8. Worst. pResident. Ever.

Quite simply, junior's place in the history books is assured, but not as he thinks it ought to be.

[WhiteTara]

10. Gallup really loves chimpy and will do anything

to keep his ratings up. Elsewhere (in more reliable polls) it is 42% but even with the boost, they can't deny that he is definitely going down, down, down the drain, to be washed out at the Hague.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

11. And we're talking Gallup here

:rofl:

[senseandsensibility]

14. The Gallup/CNN poll was always

wildly pro-* during the 2004 election, and CNN would only quote that poll. It was so midleading. Even FAUX was more unbiased when it came to polls.

[tritsofme]

44. Their final 2004 prediction was Bush 49 Kerry 49%

Sure sounds wildly pro* to me...

And of course CNN would quote that poll...they paid for it...

[mvd]

53. They pulled that figure out right at the end

Much of the time, their polls seemed to be all over the place. Mostly bigger shifts for Bush than seemed warranted.

[tritsofme]

55. I don't think so.

They had Kerry leading through most of the spring, Bush got a pretty good convention bounce, Kerry rebounded after the debates.

If anything I disagreed with their final prediction in which they gave 90% of the undecideds to Kerry so they would not have to make a call. If they had gone 50/50 with their undecideds, they would have gotten the call correctly.

[Moxygirl]

15. Is it just me or

do the recent poll numbers seem to follow this trend.

Lowest numbers ever at 43%

then next week

Bush lowest approval ever 43%

then next week

Shithead poll numbers dropping currently at 43%

I swear they keep telling us his poll numbers are falling but it always comes up 43%

I guess i just hate AMERICA or something.

[Lexingtonian]

16. Matches Rasmussen

within a point and Rasmussen's little trick is get people other polls count as Undecideds (always 6-8%) to admit to some support for Bush.

It's a bit of argument, but it all seems to along with Bush's top rating (in 'handling terrorism') topic's ceiling dipping under 50%. Every time Al Qaeda attacks his rating hits that ceiling, then he and it fall off to some lower levels.

London peaked him for a little bit (low fifties) and the subsequent dropoff took him and that ceiling reportedly (according to Pew polling) under 50%. I wouldn't mind if it continues to fall a bit further...to 45 or 40, hell, even 35 would be acceptable....

The grind down of Republicans with the American electorate is taking a lot of time and energy. But it's definitely milling them all down, in every respect, and to very fine dust indeed. There isn't going to be much left of the GOP by 2008.

[Arkansas Granny]

28. I've noticed that Rasmussen always shows him higher

than the other polls. Therefore, I figure that when Rasmussen shows Bush's approval percentage lower that disapproval, things are really looking bad for him.

[Cha]

17. Time for another Terra Alert..

Code Red!..OR, are our citizens catching on to their Slime politics?

The rovebots are like the little boy who cried "Wolf!" one too many times.

[OneTwentyoNine]

20. Hell,time for a terra attack.....

Just like when Chimps numbers were sinking right out of the box in 2001.

[Cha]

21. I think about that BUT..

have you not heard that's one of their talking points..there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11(they're keeping us safe(sic)).

And that's wrong too because we had the Anthrax attacks, although, that was mostly on Dems so I guess it doesn't count.

So in my way of thinking if we have another terrorist attack they've FAILED BIG TIME! They have no talking points LEFT!

[iconoclastic cat]

40. Hey, bushbots: Wanna buy this rock? It keeps away tigers!

You don't see any tigers around here, do you?

[Disturbed]

22. 22% is most likely the accurate rating.

That's his base of "haves and haves more", plus the Fundies.

It doesn't matter because the RW is going to hold the line and keep their Multi-Corp. Alliance.

[sunnystarr]

59. I would count on the next attack coinciding with

Fitzgerald's indictments.

[Supersedeas]

29. troops in the subways-way the flag-circle the wagons

[rainbow4321]

30. And now he drags his mommy out...

to try and help give him a boost. Can't wait to see who he starts to take around with him when his approval tanks into the 30's.

[LittleClarkie]

23. That was a dead cat bounce after London then

good. Waking up, America?

[RJRoss]

25. Clinton's rating

during the Monica impeachment hearings was higher than Shrub's is now. Too damned funny!

[Rainscents]

32. Clinton's rating during impeachment process, he was at 68%

[shelley806]

33. Zogby International had a recent poll in which the majority

favored impeachment...and this included Republicans... Even Zogby was surprised by the results, but do you dind this published or reported anywhere in the MSM?

It was posted here at DU a few days ago...I'll see if I can find the link.

[ikri]

62. Didn't that poll

Ask people if they would favor impeachment if it was shown that * had lied to the people during the run up to war?

Since it will take his impeachment to prove that he lied (at least prove it to the masses) you're looking at a closed circle. He'll be impeached for lying after he's been impeached for lying.

[realFedUp]

34. drip, drip, drip....nt

[mmonk]

36. And that's in the more closed

and propaganda infected America of today. That's a pretty good sign.

[Jane Austin]

37. Can you imagine what his numbers would be if he didn't have

24/7 boostering on Faux News and right wing talk radio?

Whew!

He'd be in the crapper for sure.

[ProgressiveFool]

38. I had to laugh

When CNN reported about some other poll that *'s approval rating was "holding steady" and "stabilizing" ... at 42%. They made it sound so good until you got to the actual number :)

[Ishoutandscream2]

46. Unbelievable, isn't it?

I have to come here to get my news. The MSM is so pathetic.

[rniel]

41. Bombing Iran will fix that n/m

.

[laugle]

47. The only thing that would improve

his numbers is if he pulls out of Iraq. And I don't think that will happen.

[Roon]

58. We are one terrorist attack away

from Bush having a 90% approval rating again.

[napi21]

50. I don't recall what poll they were talking about, but yesterday, CNN

said his #'s were 38%, at least a little better than Aanuld's at 34%.

The comment was obviously about Schwartz, but I definately heard the 38% and laughed hysterically!!!!

[Catchawave]

65. How honest are the people they poll ?

:shrug: