Again, don't freak out about the polls

[jpgray]

People want to believe their government is led by good men and women who will keep them safe and lead well. That's why after a torpid, delayed and bewildered response to 9/11 Bush's approval rating shot to 91%--people saw what they desperately wanted to see, and forgot or ignored what didn't fit. Traditionally, these disasters shoot a pol's ratings in the stratosphere, because looking calm and in control, managing the crisis well, getting your hands dirty and showing some compassion (ersatz or genuine) is all easy and a huge PR boon. 46% is very weak after a massive disaster--far fewer people are able to ignore the problems and see what they want to see. That's very bad for Bush. Also, since the ABC poll was mostly taken on the first a lot of the incompetence had yet to be revealed. Let's not be a bunch of headless chickens about polls, okay? In my view saying "it only surveyed x people!" is a copout, so long as the margin of error is within 4% or so--there are better reasons not to be concerned about a poll.

[benburch]

1. You are spot-on. As usual. nt

[Benbow]

2. I heard an analysis of this poll yesterday, on BBC

It seems that, usually, Americans give the President the "benefit of the doubt"; and that is why, in this instance, 46 per cent is very bad indeed for the President.

[Child_Of_Isis]

3. Does anyone even believe the polls anymore?

Rove is in charge of them.

[jpgray]

4. I think that's a copout

And ascribing to Rove more power and abilities than he actually has does us no favors. You can then explain away any failure on our part by saying "Rove's magic powers did it," and that isn't helpful.