28%

[underpants]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118047452890317616.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Despite President Bush's low popularity, he is still getting better marks than the weakest ratings for Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, according to a new analysis from Harris Interactive. <----WOW good for him :rofl:

In an April poll, Harris found that President Bush's popularity had sunk to the lowest level of his presidency, with 28% of U.S. adults giving his job performance positive ratings and 70% rating him negatively.


but WAIT can you give us some context some better understanding of this...hmmmmmmm????
Though President Bush is flirting with historically low levels of popularity, he has also etched some of the highest approval ratings in recent history. Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, his approval ratings soared in Oct. 2001, with 88% giving his job performance positive marks. No other President has achieved such high ratings in the history of the Harris Poll. That approval rating bested the marks his father, George H. W. Bush, received in March 1991 following the U.S. military victory in the Persian Gulf War. At that point, 83% responded positively when asked about the elder Bush's job performance.

:eyes:

[KoKo]

1. Spinning as fast as they can....tapdancing their feet off....

sheesh.

[CJCRANE]

2. "70% rating him negatively" n/t

[On the Road]

4. That 70% is Absolutely Stunning!

With the 50-50 split in this country, it's means 40% of his support has actively turned against him.

[underpants]

5. 70% on anything is stunning in this country

that is very telling.

[racaulk]

3. Spin spin spin...

With the comparisons to Nixon and Carter, they may as well have said, "Hey, at least he's not the worst President we've ever had." That would have basically been the same thing.

:eyes:

[gratuitous]

6. Notice they also didn't mention his historic decline

Can any other president in history "boast" of losing 60% off his popularity numbers?

[whistle]

7. After September 11, 2001 the 88% who approved of GW's performance

...did that I suppose on the bases of the impressions the media and the WH propaganda machine generated about what the official causes were of 9/11 and who was responsible, namely al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Bush sent U.S. forces after Osama claiming intelligence placed Osama and his terrorist training center to be somewhere in west Afghanistan mountain region. But within six months the administration namely Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bush turned their focus on Iraq claiming "better targets" there and the lies and real purpose and focus of the Bush administration began to be more fully understood. The approval ratings plummeted as more and more people became aware and the propaganda lies had less and less impact.

I also believe that the poll takers being paid by the administration and the media that reports the news and manipulates public opinion, are deliberately shaping the results to suggest higher approvals than the American public actually would give on a broader independent poll census would ever give GW, perhaps being as low as the low 20's or mid to high teens. That's just my personal opinion.

[harlinchi]

8. Why are they reporting April poll numbers in a news article dated...

...5-30-07? Wouldn't the WSJ have conducted its own poll since then? Hasn't anybody polled on the topic since then? We know manipulations are occurring (How many Dems get sampled versus Indy's and GOP'ers? How was the question phrased?) in the polling about the president but must they be transparent?

[Lobster Martini]

9. Alternate headlines using the same data

Alternative headlines using the same data:

Bush Is Marginally More Popular Than Other Really Unpopular Presidents

Or how about this one:

Carter Was As Popular as Reagan--Who Knew? (Their highest approval ratings were within 2%. That has to be within the margin of error. Yet Carter gets dissed while Republicans try to blow air into Reagan's rotting lungs.)

[underpants]

10. "Your suck worse than our suck"

even if they have two sucks to our one

it's all statistics and semantics

[CJCRANE]

11. What were Nixon & Carter's highest disapproval ratings?

That would also be interesting to compare with *

[LiberalFighter]

12. If the same event (9/11) had happened under Carter or Nixon's watch

their rating wouldn't be as high if not HIGHER than the useless piece of flesh called Bush?

In fact... wouldn't Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton's rating be much higher than Bush 43 if 9/11 had happened on their watch?

[underpants]

14. I won't go that far

the way they tore into Clinton for Desert Fox (which we found out later actually did END Saddam's WMD programs for good) shows that nothing he did would escape criticism. I think it is safe to say that if 9/11 had happened under Clinton there would have been a virtual pitchforks and torches scene.

That being said I don't think it has set in on people yet that they greatest event, their trump card, still is the single greatest security failure in the history of man. Think about that--they actually opening take credit for what happened that day. They basically held a convention and danced on the graves. I am not on the LIHOP or MIHOP bandwagon but it is hard to figure how they still are given CREDIT for 9/11 and no one dares mention how they were so ready and geared up to take advantage of the situation in mostly political ways by that afternoon. Their (Rove) organization and eerie manipulation of the whole thing makes my skin crawl.

[CJCRANE]

16. Just read up on

Philip Zelikow...he was an expert in "public myths" and predicted what would happen if the twin towers were destroyed, years before it happened. (Of course I'm sure you're familiar with the PNAC stuff as well).

Even if you think it was just Bushco incompetence that allowed it to happen you have to realise that the neocons had been imagining this "catastrophic event" and how to capitalise on it for years beforehand.

[LiberalFighter]

13. Would Nixon or Carter stand idly by and allow 9/11 to happen?

[Hippo_Tron]

15. I wouldn't put it past Nixon