Newsweek poll: drop in approval for Bush on Iraq(19% drop to 55%)

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N12370848.htm

WASHINGTON, July 12 (Reuters) - Public opinion of President George W. Bush's handling of Iraq has dropped about 20 points since U.S. forces took Baghdad in April, a Newsweek poll said on Saturday.

Bush's approval rating for his handling of the military operation in Iraq fell to 53 percent among those surveyed on July 10-11, from 65 percent in a May 29-30 poll, and a high of 74 percent in an April 10-11 poll taken just after Saddam Hussein was ousted from power in Iraq, Newsweek said.

The president's overall rating slipped to 55 percent from 61 percent in the May poll.

more

[qanda]

1. That's just beautiful news...

By the end of the summer we'll probably be preparing for another invasion or raise in the terra alert.

[barbaraann]

2. Something to note:

Disagreeing with Bush's policies is one thing.

Thinking he misled you is something different.

He has crossed over into "LIAR" territory with many Americans and this is one thing Americans don't ever "get over."

[David Zephyr]

3. And The Momentum Is Spiraling Downward.

This poll, just concluded yesterday, is a snapshot of public opinion only as the story of Bush's Great Lie to the nation was becoming known by American citizens. As this story grows and the true impact of its meaning sinks deep within the American psyche, Bush's numbers will only fall more.

And with the some 10 to 25 attacks per day against our soldiers in Iraq continuing without any sign of slacking up, with the accumulating loss of life, Americans will correctly juxtapose Bush's lying with the mounting death toll.

[kentuck]

7. You have hit the nail on the head DavidZ...

"As this story grows and the true impact of its meaning sinks deep within the American psyche, Bush's numbers will only fall more."

The whole key to Bush's popularity is that the people are told what is going on. Up to this point, the press and media have been fawning...

[are_we_united_yet]

25. I'd like to clarify....

Bush Adminstration's great lies. It really is a team effort.

[TruthIsAll]

4. Yes! Yes! Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!Yes!

And the next poll will have him under 50%...

Humpty Dumpty is falling with his house of cards..

[MidwestTransplant]

5. What is the date of this poll?

Was it taken before the Uraniumgate thing blew up a few days ago?

[Maeve]

6. Second paragraph of the article

"Bush's approval rating for his handling of the military operation in Iraq fell to 53 percent among those surveyed on July 10-11, from 65 percent in a May 29-30 poll, and a high of 74 percent in an April 10-11 poll taken just after Saddam Hussein was ousted from power in Iraq, Newsweek said."

[jamesinca]

9. He is getting painted into a corner

He has stated that the military is to stretched to pick up another battle right now. I do know from experience that one needs to watch what he does and not what he says. But if he truly is stretched on the military and he can not get the international help to police Iraq then he has no more war rabbits to pull out of his hat. I am thinking a domestic thing, something that does not require the military. What will the Iraq sponsored terrorist blow up next, what very large cell will be found and save America at the last second? I am hard pressed to think he would do something good to get his popularity up, I think he will go the other way and try the "be afraid, be very afraid" thing again.

[twilight]

19. yep now its resign Katami in Iran

Makes me angry ... such a low blow really when you think about it. Why doesn't he work on solving problems here in MY country!

* is such a liar and a thief it is not funny!

:grr:

[Eloriel]

27. That won't work and I hope they're smart enough to know that

It would backfire badly. There has been virtually NO preparation for adequate security at home. Any further terrorist attacks would be seen as a dismal failure for his administration.
Eloriel

[snippy]

14. Most had not heard of the "Uraniumgate thing."

"And in an indication of how the controversy over an incorrect assertion by Bush in his January State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Africa was playing to the public, 72 percent said they had not heard about it."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N12370848.htm

This might be the most encouraging number in the poll. Without his percieved strength on national security issues, Bush could have trouble polling higher than the low to mid 40's. That day may be coming.

[diplomats]

16. Yes, I just read that figure

in a N.Y. Times article linked on buzzflash. So he's dropping not because of the uranium thing but because of other issues. Wow!

[UCLA02]

8. Anybody read the BSNBC story for this?

July 12 — Forty-five percent of Americans say the Bush Administration misinterpreted intelligence reports that proved Iraq was hiding banned chemical or biological weapons before the war, says a new Newsweek poll. And while a significantly smaller number—38 percent—believe the administration purposely misled the public...
<more>

http://www.msnbc.com/news/938073.asp?0cv=CB10

So, 45% think the info was misrepresented and 38% beLIEve he outright lied. So why does that indicate a "significantly smaller number." The linked article in the original post put the margin of error at between 3 and 4%, so that means that it's about the same amount of people (of the whopping 1017 polled).

I'm a bit rusty re statistics, but does this article imply that 83% (45+38) beLIEve that this was bullshit to some degree? Now THAT would be a more significant number to report. But don't expect much from Newsweek. They've gone quite limp in the past few months re the war and the * Administration's lies.

On edit: Damn typos!

[snippy]

13. The 45% group and the 38% group probably are not two distinct groups.

For example I believe that "the Bush Administration misinterpreted intelligence reports that proved Iraq was hiding banned chemical or biological weapons before the war," and I believe that "the administration purposely misled the public...." This is just a guess, I would have to see all the poll questions and responses to be sure. And even then I might be wrong.

[osaMABUSh]

23. Significantly smaller number my ass - 7% is not significantly smaller

[Nottingham]

10. The Sheeple have Awakened

:bounce:

[aquart]

11. You can't fool all the people all the time.

Got that, Karl?

[regnaD kciN]

12. History repeats itself?

WHILE 55 PERCENT of those polled say they approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president, his ratings have fallen 6 points from the end of May, 16 points from mid-April when Baghdad first fell to American soldiers, and nearly 30 points from the weeks immediately following the September 11 attacks.

Remember just after Gulf War I, when Poppy enjoyed approval ratings of 90%, and Democrats were seriously discussing the possibility of nominating him (with a Democrat as VP instead of Quayle) on our 1992 ticket as well?

Like father, like son...?

[Sophree]

15. It's about freakin time

he dropped below 60%.

Come ooooonnn 49%- you can't be too far away.

[classics]

17. How low until hes considered unelectable?

Whats the lowest a president every recovered from to win reelection?

[trapper914]

20. I think Clinton fell into the 40's in his first term

Hopefully, if *'s numbers continue to fall, we'll run someone in 2004 stronger than Bob Dole.

BTW, I saw an ABC/Washington Post poll yesterday that also put his approval at double nickel.

[calimary]

21. Shit. I'm sorry, guys. That's still just too damned high.

I'm swearing now. Sorry. It's hot here, the kids are unruly, I'm behind, and in a really lousy mood.

But even when I haven't been in a lousy mood - that bush could have ratings 55 or higher on ANYTHING other than "how many people think this guy is a complete embarrassment?" is just totally mindblowing. How anybody could think he's doing well on ANY score, ANY topic, ANY endeavor, is just beyond me. I CANNOT understand it.

Fifty-five or 53 percent or 50-anything percent is just too high. His performance on the job so far should earn him high 30's at the most. He is the poorest excuse for a "president of the united states" that we have EVER had. I'm 50 years old, so I remember back more than a few presidents. He is the worst in my lifetime. Worse than Nixon, worse than Reagan (thought I'd never find myself saying that) and certainly worse than his abysmal dad.

That "giant sucking sound" Perot talked about once is the sound around him from the circumstances he's caused, and the vitality and hope and upbeat future we USED TO HAVE aplenty in this country. He is a human "giant sucking sound."

[VolcanoJen]

18. Kick!!

:dem:

[MODemocrat]

22. It's too bad there are still that many fools

His poll numbers should be dropping down into the 30's. He's by far, the lousiest president ever.

[osaMABUSh]

24. Give it time - he will be THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER

History will show that over time. In the short term - one year - we can make him a one term, "what were we (<50% of us) thinking?", back to Texas, ex-president.

Here's an interesting thought to ponder - what will * do in 2005 as an ex-president? Nothing, of course. Not that we really care but it is fun to think about it. At least Nixon had enough intelligence to write books.

[burr]

26. shadows of the past...

"Among registered voters, 50 percent said issues of the economy and jobs would be more important than terrorism and homeland security in determining their vote in next year's presidential elections. Twenty-two percent said terrorism and homeland security would be more important issues.

The registered voters surveyed were split on whether they wanted Bush to serve another term, with 47 percent saying they would like to see Bush re-elected and 46 percent saying they would not, while 7 percent were undecided.

The margin of error for the telephone poll was plus or minus 3 percentage points. Of the 1,017 adults surveyed, 837 were registered voters, and the margin of error for that subgroup was plus or minus 4 percentage points."

The margin of error among registered voters was 4%. If you assume the same people that voted for Gore say they plan to vote against shrub, and the same people who voted for shrub say they plan to support him...then this would mean that the 3-4% of the undecided, in 2000 voted for Nader and other third party candidates. Everything seems much clearer when this is factored in.

Could this mean that only 50% approve of Shrub's handling of Iraq? This would include the 48% that backed him in 2000, the 1% that backed Buchanan and Browne, and 1% of voting independents and Republicans who voted for Gore.

[Spangle]

28. Bush Voters

I know several Bush voters in 2000 that will not be voting for him in 2004. And I know a few non-voters that are regretting the fact that they didn't vote.

However, one has to factor in the "sheeple" effect. Those of both partys and "other" partys whom vote for the assumed "winner" or don't follow the "deep" news. Such persons will be voting for him. Then again, these might equal up to be about the same peope who thought they were voting for Bush SR in 2000!

I think alot of people will be waiting to see who the "WE" choose to run against him.