Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589

You guys wanna talk polls? You're awfully silent on your own low democrat-controlled congressional approval rating.

Herb

We've been discussing this on another thread.

proof the troll isn't reading most posts.

Yeah - I know. I'm surprised about the poll. Still.

This will pass.

It's a bullshit story. First of all, the margin of error on these polls is +- 3%. Bush could actually be LOWER than the Congress in approval ratings based on that. So where's the story?

Secondly, approval rating of the Congress is ALWAYS low, compared to the president's. This Democratic Congress STARTED OUT with an approval rating of only 37%, when hopes were high and people were optimistic! Remember, that's 37% for a Congress that had just been elected in a blow-out over the Republicans. A drop of only 8 points (maybe less with the margin of error).

The Congress is a body of 535 people; the president is ONE person. No body of people is going to please everyone. One reason for the low approval ratings (of ANY Congress, even a Republican Congress). By contrast, Presidental approval ratings swing the gamut. Bush's rating was something like 90% after 9/11. Bill Clinton's approval rating after his 1996 re-election hovered pretty consistently around 60%. So 33% for Bush is significantly lower.

A complete non-story - not a surprise given who posted it...

Andrew

Author: Missing_kskd
Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 9:29 pm


"This will pass."


Ya....well so did my kidney stone......but like that probably not without a whole friggin lot of pain!!!!!

"..approval rating of the Congress is ALWAYS low..."

Nice attempt at spin. It's reminiscent of the guy, who when caught in bed cheating on his wife yells at her: "What are you going to believe...me, or your own lying eyes?"

Bottom line: Democrat-controlled congress has LOWER approval ratings than the President. But since the left has tried to make approval ratings a key issue in their Bush bashing strategy, they're now running from this one post haste. Talk about hypocrites.

It's a fact and you simply can't make this stuff up.

Herb

And it will pass.

Unlike that deep, flat and ever widening valley of disapproval (P)resident Bush presents, as the top GOP party member.

Fact is, Mr. Bush has higher ratings than the democrat-controlled congress.

In addition, Mr. Bush's ratings remain far higher than the nadirs of the now praised Mr. Truman and Mr. Nixon.

Spin on.

Herb

Ok, here it is.

Bush sucks ass, has sucked ass, will go down in history as sucking really huge ass. With that suckage goes the GOP. They rubber stamped the whole affair, hammered anyone including their own, who even thought of getting between the stamp and the (P)resident, and continue doing so to this very day.

They are on the hook for this crap, everybody that matters knows it.

The low approval ratings are not any affirmation of the GOP. They are essentially a call for some backbone. They are actually a call for just the sort of backbone demonstrated by Ron Paul last night, who as a member of the GOP, has the strength of character to say those things even the Democratic party hasn't had the strength to come out and say.

I'm with those numbers in that I do not approve of how things are going so far!

Most Americans are anti-war and anti-lie. That's where the disapproval is coming from.

So, at the end of the day, the GOP really sucks from the top down. It's nearly lost any potential to be otherwise. The Congress as a whole is not performing well right now, but has the potential for change, unlike the GOP.

(which is why I'm hoping for a schizm!)

The people are growing pissed. With that will come pressure and from that action, meaning this low approval rating will pass.

Let's at least put the low number into context huh?

"They are on the hook..."

Right. Just like Mr. Clinton was on the hook for Whitewater, his own impeachment for lying under oath thereby losing his license to practice law, plus the Rose Law Firm records, and on and on and on.

This too shall pass. And when voters are given the choice of nothing but pro-abortion candidates who are soft on terror, vs. a majority of pro-life candidates who are strong on terror, 2008 is gonna be great.

Herbert Milhous

Nobody cares about Clinton.

See other thread on predictions!

"Nobody cares about Clinton."

I'm sure the left doesn't, because it exposes the hypocritical nature of their Bush-bashing.

Herb

WAH WAH WAH WAH!!!! Herb time to change your diapers.

Just how many times do we have to go here? (Maybe you like getting spanked on a regular basis? You know, kind of like that GYM teacher on Beavis and Butthead!)

I bashed Clinton plenty. Posted reasons here many times, REPEATEDLY. Had PDXRadio been running, as it runs today, we would have had plenty of Clinton discussion and not all of it would have been good.

He's not the (P)resident, who got Selected and not Elected, and was not backed by the Rubber Stamp Republicans, who led us into a War of Lies where our Young People Die, for Oil, not Democracy.

I said I would back off somewhat. Hell, I even posted a thread where the (P)resident has it pretty damn right! But I gotta say I find your unwavering support for these asses tough to bear.

Given FOUR SOLID YEARS of posting on this topic, BACKED WITH AS MANY FACTS as I could find, and many corrections, etc... when I hosed it up, history of answering nearly every question to the best of my ability, seeking that common ground when it's not even indicated all things considered:

I've got the totally high ground when I say Bush Sucks and the GOP sucks. It's real, well supported daily, and just not easily refuted. If it were, we would have seen it by now.

And, if I recall, Clinton was taken to task for his issues, was he not? Didn't the GOP work their asses off double time to make sure that happened?

That's how I remember it. Seems to me, the GOP just went to town, spending a lot of money on what was essentially a sex scandal!

Result: Nobody really cares today because it just was not that big of a deal, given the potential scope of things we could be worried about.

Now here we are today, the GOP up to their necks in corruption, scandal, lies, death, terror, incompetence, crime, etc...

Do I see that same Rubber Stamp Republican party taking their leader to task as they did Clinton? Nope. All we see is them eating their own, as they try to bring some sanity to an otherwise pretty hosed up state of affairs.

Again Herb, most Americans are anti-war and anti-lie. Nobody wants to be killing people they don't have to and nobody wants to be lied to, manupulated, cheated, etc...

Right now, here, today, it's all about the GOP and it's (P)resident. Their show, their accountability. Right now we care, because we are living it right now.

How that gets remembered will be a direct function of the harm caused and this is where Clinton and the Democratic party differs from the GOP in general.

You might not like Clinton, but the overall tally of harm / good falls on the side of good. We generally didn't lose ground with Clinton.

Now, let's take a look at that same ratio today with our (P)resident. Oohh... Damn ugly! Lots of harm being done, despite the best efforts of a lot of people to mitigate it and work through it!

That legacy isn't gonna be pretty Herb, and that's gonna be the gift that keeps on giving for a really long time.

That's exactly why your team took it in the sack --hard! (and yes I over use that, but it's perhaps the best thing ever written by RIP here!) People are getting harmed daily, despite there being plenty of choices we could take on the matter.

It's not so much that Clinton was so great. It's more like having a problem finding language that can fully realize just how bad the (P)resident and GOP are today. That's the issue and everybody, that matters, cares about that.

There are NO hypocritical elements to that, just brutal reality.

"You might not like Clinton, but the overall tally of harm / good falls on the side of good. We generally didn't lose ground with Clinton."

Wrong. He kept stockbrokers happy, but many of our current security problems can be traced to Mr. Clinton's neglect of our defense posture.

Herb

Herb writes:
Fact is, Mr. Bush has higher ratings than the democrat-controlled congress.

Herb, do you understand anything I wrote above? Margin of error? The difference between approval ratings for a body of 535 people and for one person?

In addition, Mr. Bush's ratings remain far higher than the nadirs of the now praised Mr. Truman and Mr. Nixon.

You're bragging about Bush's 33% approval rating compared to Clinton's 60%+ rating? That's rich!

Andrew

Andrew

Facts are hard for ol' Herb.

>>>"Herb, do you understand anything I wrote above? Margin of error? The difference between approval ratings for a body of 535 people and for one person? "

Good you pointed this out Andrew. What you're saying, I guess, is that Bush could be even higher than the survey shows and Congress could be even lower. Or, do these margins of error only work in favor of the liberals?

Margin of Error is affected by the sampling pool, has nothing to do with the subject.

Bush could be at 36% and the Congress could be at 26%, sure. Or Congress could be at 32% and Bush could be at 30%. The point is, a story that claims Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush is meaningless from the margin of error alone.

And as I said before, approval rating for a body of 535 people can't be easily compared to the approval rating for a single person. Congressional approval ratings always swing low, whether they are Democrats or Republicans in charge. Presidental approval ratings can be all over the map. It's silly to compare the two poll numbers. Meaningless. It would have been just as silly when Congress had a 37% approval rating to claim they had a higher approval rating than Bush; you couldn't say that on the basis of these polls.

Andrew

Andrew is right. These numbers show the entire country is fed up with politicians.

Clearly this Congress is going to have to kick it into a higher gear, and do the things they promised to do. I thought they ought to hit the ground running in a unified direction, and by and large, that hasn't happened.

Yes, the Democratic Party has a slight edge in the power base at this point, and should not get comfy. Still, these numbers really show an overall American disgust with the institution on the whole. It is backlash for everyone in those chambers.

Congress has been a power-drunk circus with our bread, and if they still feel as if we see them as clowns, they ought to take heed. The GOP was given a clear message last fall. There are no free passes for anyone anymore.

>>>"These numbers show the entire country is fed up with politicians."


That I will wholeheartedly agree with.

[Raises hand]

Me too.

For some context, the Congressional approval rating in October 2006 was a dismal 16%. Democrats have got a long way to fall until they go that low.

Do you think people are upset that the Democratic Congress hasn't ended the Iraq war yet?

Andrew

Whats interesting, is that if you took everyones opinion of their individual congressman, the average would be much higher, its just when their rated as a group, they have a bad rating.

Wow, Nwokie, you're actually agreeing with me?

Andrew

!?!?

Can't Herb talk about anything else other than Clinton???
His Clinton bashing has got to stop! It's never ending....
If it isn't about Liberals, Leftists, Pinko Commies or Clinton he has NOTHING to talk about....