September 24, 2003
Bush Approval Rating Lowest Yet
49 percent (obligatory ±3.1% MoE thingy). That’s how many people who were polled by a joint NBC/WSJ sponsored poll think Bush is still doing a good job. Bush’s presidential numbers haven’t been this low in well… ever. For the naysaysers out there, please tell me how the Wall Street Journal is suddenly a bastion of liberals and anti-Bushites who are foaming at the mouth to make him look bad. The good news is that 6 in 10 think giving Afghanistan back to the Taliban is a good thing Bush is doing a good job at handling the War on Terror.
What you fail to realize is that the second number you mention will be a lot more important than the first when election day comes. For the past few weeks, Democrats have done nothing but hammer Bush while he’s focused on his job. When the real campaign season starts… and Bush begins spending his $100 million on campaign ads, that first number is likely to go back up.
I wonder if someone could find Clinton’s approval numbers or Regan’s approval numbers from this point in their first terms. If I have a chance, I’ll look em up.
Posted by: CJ at September 24, 2003 08:22 PMCJ: I don’t have those polls, but I just wanted to say “like father like son”. And comparing Clinton to Bush at this point in order to make his numbers look good… hoo boy, smells like panic.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 24, 2003 08:31 PMPanic? I’m asking for context. It’s a rather valuable thing when using numbers to make assumptions.
Posted by: CJ at September 25, 2003 01:34 AMCJ,
Reagan’s approval rating at this time during his first term was 40%. I just heard that on CNN the other day, which is why I don’t trumpet “overall job approval” numbers.
What I am impressed with is Bush is losing ground in almost every category, except the “War” on Terror (cue stupid music). The reality is Bush isn’t the iron man everyone thought he would be after 9/11 nor are the Democrats on solid ground to take over.
I predict another exceptionally close race in 2004, but I could be wrong. As Reagans’ numbers reflect, you can’t judge who’s going to win an election one year from now based on today’s numbers.
Posted by: joestump at September 25, 2003 10:10 AM
