Why don't the approval numbers ever fall below 43%?

[Dawgs]

I have seen it this low in many polls over the past few months, but never lower.

When will the dam break? I keep waiting for the magic number of 39%, but it never even falls below 43%. Are we too close to the election(7 months out)? Is this number really accurate? Are there really 43% of Americans that support this jack-ass? Are the polling agencies adjusting the number?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5064735,00.html

[Zynx]

1. Those are the Christian Taliban and the fascists

[Dawgs]

7. Maybe that is why it is important for this number to fall...

If his base starts to turn on him, then it should ALL start to fall apart.

The Bill Clinton and 9/11 excuses are not working anymore.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. 43 at 43

kinda poetic, no?

I think they're way lower than that. I think there at least at your benchmark 39. Maybe lower.

[rooboy]

3. 43% does seem a little high... n/t

[acmavm]

4. Because they lie about it and artificially inflate the figures.

.

[Atman]

5. They do. You just have to ask the right questions

We are deliberately fed these numbers to allow Bush "wiggle room." If you believe the bullshit "exit polls were wrong" meme, then 43% is still within striking range for the GOP to steal the next election and blame it on faulty polling.

[Inland]

6. Here's MY math. There are the nutbags who would sacrifice all

for a shot at theocracy, criminalizing abortion, or destroying the government as it now exists.

I have put that figure at 27%, based on the vote Alan Keyes got in the Illinois Senate race this year.

Throw in the number who think it's either unpatriotic or futile to not "support the president" in a general sense, and you get more.

How many of that 43%, then, are quietly wishing that Bush would be thwarted in most every way and secretly wish he would go away? About ten percentage points.

Therefore the real leavel of political backing that Bush can count on for any issue, about a third, those that will accept anything, say anything, to keep Bush around long enough to bring theocracy, jail terms for abortion, a national security police state, a corporatist fascist state, or conversely no federal government at all.

[trotsky]

9. And consider that 27% was in Illinois, a fairly liberal state...

I'm sure it's much higher in "red" states, probably making the national average somewhere in the 33-35% range. Yeah, just a few people thinking you're a traitor if you don't "Support the president AND the troops" and you're up into the 40s.

[katsy]

16. I can buy that the 27% would be higher in red states...

but somewhere in this equation, we need to account for the greedy tax cuts at all costs voters. I would venture that they account for more of the monkey's support than the "support our troops" voters.

[Inland]

22. I don't think Illinois is a "fairly liberal state"

It has a fair amount of liberals in it, but centrist democrats--and centrist republicans--are popular. Since there aren't any centrist republicans allowed to win primaries nowadays, the centrist democrats win the general.

IOW, Illinois is deep blue but not liberal all and all.

Despite the lack of liberal strength, that Keyes was able to pull 27% was still an eye opener. The man didn't even have a cousin in state to vote for him, and did nothing except stick his foot in his mouth and campaign in churches, and the latter got him that much.

[trotsky]

29. If a state has a "fair amount of liberals in it"

doesn't that make it a fairly liberal state? ;-)

[Inland]

32. No, just has it's fair share.

Seriously, it's not a liberal state. Yet it's blue. It's the hope for the future.

And Keyes STILL got 27%!

[Dawgs]

10. Agree...

but I also think a big part of it is the election. Most Americans that voted for him do not want to admit they made a mistake. Shit, we're still seeing the right bash Kerry. It makes them feel like they voted for the best of the two.

As we get farther from the elections, I think we will see a more dramatic change.

[Inland]

23. Now that you mention it, I think that's right

particularly about Bush. Who wants to admit even to themselves that your president is all the things those liberal latte-drinking Saab driving snotnose atheists meediots said he was?

[AlGore-08.com]

11. I don't agree with your math

Illinois is not the nation. There are many more conservative places than Illinois that don't have a major liberal city like Chicago to balance them out. Plus, Alan Keyes is... how shall I put this... too chromatically challenged to have every single right wing nut cases support him.

43% is probably reasonably accurate.

The thing that's equally important is that the Dems have not broken 50% approval yet. 2006 is not a given - - if we run the wrong candidates, we could still lose like we lost in 2002...

[Dawgs]

13. The Dems number will change...

as AAR, and others, become more popular. More media attention for the left will make the difference. The right has made liberals out to be whackos. I think once the public realizes that we are fighting for them, the number will rise.

At least I hope so.

[kliljedahl]

14. "chromatically challenged"

Nicely put, may I borrow it? It'll be very rarely.



Keith’s Barbeque Central

[Inland]

20. Your mistakes are:

Illinois is in fact the nation. A particularly large city, for sure, but the demographic mix includes rural, a southern third that is geographically and culturally closer to Memphis than Chicago, midsize ex-manufacturing towns, sprawling suburbs, megachurches, and a crapload of corn and soybeans.

And Chicago is not a "liberal city". It has liberals in it, but it's a hotbed of moderation. Blue is not liberal.

You remember that Keyes was running against a black liberal urban man.

That the democrats could still lose is neither here nor there: in fact, I would say that the prescence of 27% that would vote for Keyes for no ascertainable reason except for his penchant for theocracy and revivalism makes it clear enough that someone like him, or Bush, starts with a core of people who don't care how incompetent or evil a candidate is, as long as they are for elevating fundamentalist christianity. Aligning oneself with the fundie theocrats gets 27% that will provide support through just about everything..

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. 20% hardcore theocrats + 20% hardcore greed/hate mongers

And 3% still utterly clueless.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. That's just about the percentage that will vote for him no matter what

Cassius. But, soft, I pray you: what, did Caesar swound?

Casca. He fell down in the market-place, and foamed at mouth, and was speechless.

Brutus. 'Tis very like: he hath the failing sickness.

Cassius. No, Caesar hath it not; but you and I, And honest Casca, we have the falling sickness.

Casca. I know not what you mean by that; but, I am sure, Caesar fell down. If the tag-rag people did not clap him and hiss him, according as he pleased and displeased them, as they use to do the players in the theatre, I am no true man.

Brutus. What said he when he came unto himself?

Casca. Marry, before he fell down, when he perceived the common herd was glad he refused the crown, he plucked me ope his doublet and offered them his throat to cut. An I had been a man of any occupation, if I would not have taken him at a word, I would I might go to hell among the rogues. And so he fell. When he came to himself again, he said, If he had done or said any thing amiss, he desired their worships to think it was his infirmity. Three or four wenches, where I stood, cried 'Alas, good soul!' and forgave him with all their hearts: but there's no heed to be taken of them; if Caesar had stabbed their mothers, they would have done no less.
--Julius Caesar, 1.2.251-75

[ProfessorGAC]

15. Here's My Hypothesis

The way the polls are taken, there is a segment of the apolitical or apathetic. They are not particulary concerned with events that happen beyond their property lines.

So, no matter what's going on, they get asked if they approve of the job of the prez, or Congress, and you'll get an "It's ok by me" motivated response. My guess is that this is a solid 20% of the population. As a result, 20% is the absolute floor.

If Satan came and said "Li'l Georgie's my boy. We got this deal.", that 20% would still say "Whatever, he's doing an ok job."

As a result, 43% is really 23% of 80%. (Assuming my numerical guesses are more or less accurate.) So, if i'm right, it's really less than 30% of the people who care that approve.
The Professor

[earth mom]

17. The number is inflated...

if it falls too low there will be an uprising of the people and riots and impeachment...

Damn them all to hell that we don't get the real numbers! :argh:

[BringEmOn]

18. If it drops below 43%, it's time to pull another play from the

"Operation Northwoods" playbook.

[blm]

19. They will always poll "likely voters" to skew the figure higher. Meaning

they poll more Repubs than Dems.

[SoCalDem]

21. All during the Clinton "troubles" , there was a firm 30% who

wanted him crucified on the WH lawn, so 30% of that 43 are probably those same people..The other 13% are probably just the "shaking-in-their-boots" fraidy-cats who think he's a "strong leader".

[Inland]

24. The Clinton numbers do correspond with the Keyes number (see my post 6)

as the irreducible nutbag hater minimum that are willing to throw just about anything out the window.

[SoCalDem]

25. That 1/3 is the "base"...and always has been

That's why this whole mandate thing is just plain nuts.. The repoubes have 1/3 and that's IT/ They DO have Diebold et al to make up the difference so they can 'win' elections.

Election irregularities are what wins elections for them...not voters.. They have the media, who reports the bogus polling info, and Diebold & pals to manufacture the votes that agree with the polls..


Nothing else really matters when they can configure their own vote tallies..

We cpould raize a Gazillion dollars and be ahead in 'most' polls, and yet still lose...If we cannot prove it with a hand recount of real ballots, we lose.. every time..just like we have since 2K

[Carni]

36. That is an excellent point

I would be willing to venture that whatever number disapproved of Clinton are the ones who approve of bush and clinton had like a 68% approval rating on the day he was impeached...it was just on a local radio show I was listening to yesterday.

I would bet about 20% actually approve of bush and 10% are just idiots afraid of *terra* that have decided he is their savior.

[SoCalDem]

40. or they are "niche" dem-haters

Remember that the republican stool has 3 legs...guns...abortion...god... G.A.G.

The 'true' republicans cou;ldn't care less about those issues, ...they are the MONEYED class..but they take that bloody shirt out of the ziploc and wave it at the "torch-carrying townspeople"..the G.A.G.ers...

There's your 30%

[genieroze]

26. I think they oversample the nut jobs.

[leftofthedial]

27. that's the floor programmed into the Diebold polling machines

at all the Murkan gummint propaganda outlets.

No way do 43% of the people support the bushturd. I'd be surprised if 25% support him.

They have to allow poll reults to track reality somewhat; if the discrepancy became too large, people would recognize the sham that is our democracy.

But they need some semblance of an actual poll to determine whether to stage a new terrorist attack, a new attack on a "democrat," a change in interest rates, a wave of "shark attacks," a pretty blonde kidnapping, a celebrity trial, the capture of a new bin Laden :lieutenant," or a Murkan execution in Iraq. Manipulating a complex disinformation network is as much an art as a congame.

[DaveinMD]

28. that is the core Republican vote

Presidents rarely fall below that approval mark.

[lala_rawraw]

30. Because the reality myth of

Bush as the elected leader with a mandate other than gannon would then really smack true.

[lala_rawraw]

31. Because the reality myth of

Bush as the elected leader with a mandate other than gannon would then really smack true.

[LightningFlash]

33. Corporate media doesn't tell the truth. Not real numbers.

[leesa]

34. Interesting, ain't it? I would guess they are between 28-32%

[Carni]

37. I agree and that is about what my guess would be

I don't talk to many people lately that have anything nice to say about the resident and some of them are repukes who are disgusted with HIM in particular. The die hards that think he's a great guy are the one's who had a Clinton hatred fixation.

[Carni]

35. I have noticed the same thing

The polls have been at these levels since pre-selection.

I think they keep saying they are "at their lowest point ever" about every two weeks to deflect from the fact that this dumb MF was just as unpopular before he supposedly *won* the 2004 election.

[Dawgs]

39. When they finally do get the balls to show a numbe lower than 43,...

I think we will finally see it free fall. I don't think we will ever see it go below 33%. The faithful is too full of excuses to ever go against stupid.

Look at some of the responses in this thread from a Georgia sports site.

http://uga.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=83&tid=53776141&sid=&style=2

[kodi]

38. because at the least 43% (and up to 50%) of the american people are idiots

.

[michaelwb]

41. Because

Because some idiots will support him up until the moment he drops his pants and starts flinging his own poop at people.

Even then the MSM will applaud his "bold leadership."