Bush Poll Numbers Drop to Nixon Levels

As President Bush gets ready for yet another State of the Union Address, his poll numbers have dropped to levels that rival Richard Nixon's.

President George W. Bush's approval ratings are now the lowest for any president the day before a State of the Union speech since Richard Nixon in 1974, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll. Sixty-five percent of those surveyed said they disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president while 33 percent approve. The rating matches Bush's career low in a May 2006 poll.

Seventy-one percent of Americans said the country is on the wrong track, up from 46 percent in an April 2003 poll, the month after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. A majority of those polled this month don't approve of how Bush is handling the Iraq war, terrorism or the economy.

CNN's most recent poll also shows a big drop for Bush.

Sixty-three percent of those surveyed said they disapprove of how Bush has handled his presidency and 34 percent said they approve. Sixty percent disapproved and 38 percent approved of Bush's performance in a March 2006 CNN poll.

In a CBS poll, Bush's approval rating dropped to 28%.

Bush reached an all-time low 28 percent approval rating in a CBS poll released today. Sixty-six percent of those surveyed in the CBS poll said they opposed Bush's sending 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, and 75 percent said the war there is going badly. Fifty percent said Congress shouldn't provide money for the 20,000 additional troops.

Can we say yet that he is the most unpopular president ever?

< Libby Jury Selection Completed | Supreme Court Issues Big Sentencing Decision >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I can't watch (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 08:37:23 AM EST
    I have work to do. Call me when the impeachment proceedings start.

    I can't watch (none / 0) (#9)
    by desertswine on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 09:51:56 AM EST
    Me neither.  I have to wash the cat... or something.

    I'll depend on TL commenters instead.


    gee, i'm shocked (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 10:23:16 AM EST
    mr. bush failed at everything else in his life, why should his abject failure as president be a stunner?

    i'll bet mom is so proud! she always said, "if you're going to do something, do the best possible job of it that you can." by golly, george is looking to hit #1, with a bullet!

    unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view), just being woefully inept is not grounds for impeachment. probably a good thing, else congress would never get anything accomplished.

    Soon (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 10:40:19 PM EST
    Can we say yet that he is the most unpopular president ever?

    Give him a few months more....being unpopular is the best thing he does. With his learning curve I am sure he will wind up in the teens just before he is impeached.

    The public is smarter than it looks.

    Also the conservatives have been troubled by him for some time. He is a radical, or relies on radicals to advise him. In either case it's the same: failure and instability.

    The corporations recent pressure on Bush regarding global warming represents a big shift.

    I wonder what poll number would force his impeachment.

    19% or 20%?

    Oh silly me, I forgot that we are not a parliment and polls do not matter. hehehehe

    Squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:30:08 PM EST
    Poll numbers force his impeachment?

    Gosh squeaky, even for you that is an outlandish remark.

    And I am glad to see that you finally understand that we are not a parliamentary form of government.

    BTW - Love your giggle. Pretty well describes you.


    Leak (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 12:18:24 AM EST
    ABC News, however, has learned new details of what remains a classified incident that has been dealt with at the highest levels of government.

    Such breaking news on the WOT...and right before the State of the Union speech. WOW. Those poll numbers are going up as I write this.

    Oh, and find those leakers and fire them immediately.

    Is this the same Al Qaeda (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 03:16:32 AM EST
    that didn't exist in Iraq before George invited them? Friends of Liz Cheney, I hear.

    Good. (none / 0) (#3)
    by TomStewart on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:09:36 AM EST
    I say we don't allow him a 3rd term.

    TomS (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:33:44 PM EST
    Well, if he calls for a vote of confidence, and fails that he can disolve parliment and call for elections.... oh.

    You mean we don't have a Parliment?

    Uh... You mean polls are meaningless if wants to ignore them.

    Great scott. How shocking.

    What is a good Lefty to do??


    hahahha (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:53:28 PM EST
    What planet are you on ppj?

    We will see how little polls matter when the chimp's numbers drop into the teens.

    Translation: A nod to Congress from the American people that it is time to start the impeachments/indictments.


    polls and impeachment (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 02:02:57 PM EST
    Certainly Bush is a candidate for impeachment. His actions have been far worse that Clinton. When the polls sink low enough, the pols will come to the conclusion that they have the support of the American people to proceed. If everything continues to spiral down hill, impeachment may be the only way for Repub. to put enough distance between themselves and Bush in time for 2008.

    Squeaky (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 06:57:13 PM EST
    Disapproval is not a preq for action.

    The Demo leadership know that, and are not that dumb.


    Polls are an indicator (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 07:19:14 PM EST
    Disapproval is not a preq for action.

    Not a pre-requisite.

    No one is talking about pre-requisites here. As we all know Clinton was very popular and he got impeached.

    The only two reasons Bush has not been impeached to date is that up until now the house was under Republican lockstep control. After just regaining control of Congress the Dems do not want to blow their political capitol on impeachment which may hurt them in 08. They are more interested in getting legislation back on track and doing what the American people voted them in to do: represent them.

    If Bush polls go down below 20%, not impeaching dear leader will clearly be on the minds of 80% of Americans, guaranteed our elected leaders will give the public what they want, or face a large majority of angry voters in 08.


    squeaky (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 08:00:49 PM EST
    What we know about Cinton was that it was well established that he had committed a crime.

    Popularity had nothing to do with that. That he was not convicted is a reflection not of his innocence, but that the Senate, in its historic and constitutional job of cooling the partisian flames of the House, would not convict. His crime was real. The cause of the crime wasn't enough to warrant his removal.

    Clinton did suffer other set backs, lossess, etc. He has recovered nicely.

    The Left's ardor to impeach Bush, especially when we  are engaged in a world wide struggle with a gaggle of organizations that want to destroy our culture and our constitution demonstrates that they care little for the country and have no knowledge of what will happen to them should our enemies win.

    As to you, I have long understood who you are and your method of operation from the following comment written by yourself.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    You know squeaky, if I agree with you about Rove, I ask you this??

    How can I tell you and Rove apart?


    pathetic (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 09:01:22 PM EST
    misdirection and untruths

    Be nice soccerdad ... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Sailor on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 09:38:03 AM EST
    ... misdirection and untruths are all he has;-)

    Time to start (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 03:22:48 AM EST
    redacting all the history books.

    Bush (none / 0) (#6)
    by TomStewart on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 04:05:06 AM EST
    doesn't care about popular support, or anything else it seems. Like my mom used to say, he 'don't know, don't care.'

    Bush has it all figured out. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 08:11:22 AM EST
    He knows exactly how he's going to turn this around tonight.

    His SOTU will downplay Iraq and Afghanistan and the deaths and maimings of tens of thousands of US troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and give heavy emphasis to all of the domestic economic progress his administration has made...

    There'll be dancing in the streets by the time he's done talking.

    US political crisis mounts over war escalation (none / 0) (#14)
    by Andreas on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:57:00 PM EST
    The WSWS writes:

    While public opinion has become implacably opposed to a continuation of the war, the Bush White House is proceeding not merely to continue, but to expand it, dispatching additional troops to Iraq, positioning additional air and naval forces in the Persian Gulf, and openly threatening to extend the conflict to Iran and Syria in an increasingly desperate bid to salvage military victory out of the debacle.

    The principal enabler of the Bush administration's military adventurism is the congressional Democratic leadership, which claims to oppose the escalation of the war in Iraq but has renounced the two constitutional methods for forcing the executive branch to halt the bloodbath: cutting off funds for the war or impeaching and removing Bush from office.

    The Democrats seek to balance between the mass opposition to the war--which produced their electoral victory last November--and the policies of an administration whose basic aims and goals in the Middle East they share.

    On the eve of State of the Union speech
    US political crisis mounts over Iraq war escalation

    By Patrick Martin, 23 January 2007

    * * *

    The World Socialist Web Site and the International Committee of the Fourth International call on all socially conscious workers, students and youth throughout the world to dedicate 2007 to the development of an international mass working class movement against the American-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    For an international mobilization of workers and youth against the war in Iraq
    Statement of the World Socialist Web Site and the International Committee of the Fourth International, 22 January 2007

    pp (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 02:03:48 PM EST
    You booked passage on another leaky vessal; what'll you do when they start rushing the life boats in drag, join them?

    Jondee (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 06:59:41 PM EST
    Life boats in drag?

    We have male lifeboats dressing like female life boats??

    Gosh. Do you have a fever?


    To make it even harder (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 04:44:40 PM EST
    to be a winger today, Glenn Greenwald, and the LA Times, and various other sources have pre-debunked what is likely to be one of Bush's strongest attempts to reprogram his followers tonight in the SOTU.

    Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq arms link

    President Bush promised to "seek out and destroy" Iranian networks that he said were providing "advanced weaponry and training to our enemies." He is expected to strike a similar note in tonight's State of the Union speech.

    For all the aggressive rhetoric, however, the Bush administration has provided scant evidence to support these claims. Nor have reporters traveling with U.S. troops seen extensive signs of Iranian involvement. During a recent sweep through a stronghold of Sunni insurgents here, a single Iranian machine gun turned up among dozens of arms caches U.S. troops uncovered. British officials have similarly accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs, but say they have not found Iranian-made weapons in areas they patrol.

    Some days you just can't get no respect. Especially if you lie through your teeth.

    Edger - Wrong again (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 07:47:32 PM EST
    On Iraq, what we have is a "he said - she said." Somehow I tend to believe our side over an LA Times reporter and a Brit who obviously has a dog in the fight. i.e. If true, he hasn't been doing his job.

    As to the schooling of Obama, in his very own words: (n his book Dreams Of My Father (p.142)

    In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies

    This is echoed in your linked WP article by Howard Kurtz.

    This is a public school," Priyono told CNN correspondent John Vause in Jakarta. "We don't focus on religion." Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school, CNN reported.

    Uh, given that it is in a, basically, a Moslem country and given the words of Obama himself, do you think CNN/WP was accurate, or was it doing a white wash?

    Me? I think they were using the best Glidden Easy Glide and Full Cover they could find.


    But of course you do (none / 0) (#23)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 08:00:11 PM EST
    delusions are all you have.

    SD (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 09:20:13 PM EST
    You know, the one thing I find remarkable about you is your ability to read information written NOT by the opposition, but by those you support, and then try and dismiss it.

    listen (none / 0) (#27)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 09:36:28 PM EST
    you are the one on the other  thread where you chose to believe the allegations rather than the news reports simply because they fit your agenda.

    Isnt it a little early to be playing the race issue?


    sorry (none / 0) (#28)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 09:38:28 PM EST
    it was actually above, based on nothing but your preconceived notions you chose to hypothesize a cover up. Well I guess leaping to conclusions is another of your strong suits.

    SD (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 09:44:33 PM EST
    Cover up? No. I said whitewash. Please note there is a difference, even if you don't understand it.

    But whatever you choose to call it, I have accurately exposed it.


    you have exposed nothing (none / 0) (#34)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 09:46:49 PM EST
    You simply chose to accept one over the other based on your biases.
    Truly pathetic.

    SD (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 09:41:52 PM EST
    What thread? I posted the same response to the same claim.

    And what is racist about quoting what an individual wrote, and what a school offical said?

    You have no response. Nothing. Nada. Beat at every turn.

    How angry that makes you.


    you are delusional (none / 0) (#31)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 09:43:59 PM EST
    Nada. Beat at every turn

    in your wet dream


    SD (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:09:32 AM EST
    What news reports?

    Oh, you mean the one that implies that Obama didn't go Islamic religious trainging when Obama himself admits it?

    Or the one by the Brit General who claims Iran isn't attempting to help the Shia milita? That is an "opinion" SD. Of course the Left always has trouble undersatnding the difference.


    btw (none / 0) (#29)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 09:39:58 PM EST
    who do you think I support?

    SD (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 09:45:24 PM EST
    Why do you think I care?

    because you brought it up (none / 0) (#36)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 05:32:53 AM EST
    dont read your own writings?

    SD (1.00 / 2) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    So? Does that mean I care??

    as usual (none / 0) (#43)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:48:34 AM EST
    you are just dropping by to leave your trail of snark and useless comments

    "our side", Jim? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 01:08:27 AM EST
    "Our side"? You're trying to include me in some delusional "our side" with you that you think everyone belongs to along with Bush? Have you noticed his support levels lately? "Our side"? If you're trying to legitimize yourself it's not working very well.

    My point was that it's quite obvious that Bush's attempts to reprogram his followers will always work on someone. And somehow you'll always find a way to delude yourself into believing him even (and especially)  when he provides you with zero evidence - otherwise known as lying to you. You've demonstrated that well. But there is no "our side" Jim. Sorry to break that to you.

    Oh and btw, there was no reference to Obama in my comment. You are attempting to refute hallucinations now...


    Edger. (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:23:33 AM EST
    You're right. I shouldn't have included you in the side that supports the troops and understands that the WOT is real and necessay and understands that negative comments ALL the time helps the terrorists morale and hurts our troops' morale.

    Sorry. I'll try to exclude you next time.


    Pretty sad, Jim. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:28:01 AM EST
    You really have no conception of how transparent you are, do you?

    Or is it that you just don't care?


    "I tend to believe our side " (none / 0) (#38)
    by Sailor on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 09:46:14 AM EST
    that would be the side of the giggling murderer and serial liar whose poll numbers are so low.
    'imminent threat'
    'drones of mass destruction'
    '9/11! 9/11, 9/11'

    Not even repubs believe him anymore.


    more swiftboats (none / 0) (#44)
    by Sailor on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 12:42:08 PM EST
    CNN sent a journalist to Jakarta to check out the reports and determined that the school was a public one unaffiliated with Islamic fundamentalism. We linked to the CNN story and a Washington Post critique on Tuesday. (Officials told CNN and other news media that the public school doesn't focus on religion at all.)

    Pre-view SOTU (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 04:55:03 PM EST
    For a sneak peek of SOTU and the Dem response, here is a  link.