Maybe impeaching George Dubya Bush is a BAD idea...

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Though I usually don't put much credibility with polls, this one took me by surprise.

WASHINGTON - The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll might sound like a broken record, but the tune grows louder as congressional midterm elections get closer and closer: President Bush is once again facing the lowest job approval rating of his presidency, the lowest percentage of Americans who believe the country is headed in the right direction, and an electorate that greatly prefers a Democratic-controlled Congress over a Republican-controlled one.

Yet the poll also shows something else that goes beyond the November midterm elections: A strong majority believes Bush is experiencing a long-term setback from which he’s unlikely to recover. “He’s losing his grip on governance,” says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican Bill McInturff. “It’s now a sense that we’ve seen the best that he’s going to produce as president of the United States.”

According to the poll, only 37 percent approve of Bush’s job performance — his lowest mark ever in the survey. That’s a two-point drop since the last NBC/Journal poll, and a one-point decline from his previous low of 38 percent last November. In addition, just 26 percent believe the nation is headed in the right direction, a tie from the previous Bush administration low, which also occurred in November.

What’s more, 58 percent believe Bush is facing a long-term setback from which he’s unlikely to improve. Twenty-six percent think he’s experiencing only a short-term setback, and 11 percent say he’s dealing with no setback at all.

In February, Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot a hunting companion in the face at a South Texas ranch, which created a weeklong distraction for the White House. Soon after, voters and Congress became furious at the news that the administration approved a ports sale to a United Arab Emirates state-run firm; the deal was later scuttled. And then a wave of sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites erupted in Iraq.

Indeed, it’s the situation in Iraq that appears to be at the heart of Bush’s problems. According to the poll — which was taken of 1,005 adults from March 10-13, and which has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points — 61 percent disapprove of Bush’s handling of the situation. Moreover, 57 percent are less confident that the war in Iraq will come to a successful conclusion, which is a seven-point increase since December. And 61 percent say the United States should reduce the number of troops there, while just 31 percent want to maintain the current troop level.

Republican pollster McInturff puts it this way: “It is hard to pivot … when every day the core decision in your presidency is Iraq” — and the situation there appears grim.

Looking ahead to the midterm elections in November, the poll shows that 50 percent prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress versus 37 percent who want it controlled by Republicans. McInturff says it’s a “problematic environment” for the Republicans. “You are working harder as a Republican [candidate] because you are pushing uphill.”


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11843383/

Dubya's continual fuck-ups are costing the GOP points. I foresee that by 2008, the supreme court decision on Roe v. Wade will have a huge impact on elections. The majority of Americans don't want that overturned, and republicans are worried. With Dubya there to absorb all the blame for Iraq, the debt/deficit, and the whole medicare mess, Americans will increasingly blame republicans for the current situation. The mid-term elections might cause republicans to at least abandon the neocon agenda.
 
What's the breakdown of the registered voters in the poll by party? Last time there was a 30%~ Bush approval rating 69%-64% of those polled were Democrats and I think like 22%-18% were Republicans.
 
You're not going to like this then - Fox News conducted their own poll:

NEW YORK — Is George W. Bush now a lame-duck president? A new FOX News poll finds that over half of Americans think the president has lost a great deal of his power and effectiveness. The president's overall job approval rating remains stable this week and approval of Congress shows a modest decline. In addition, a majority of voters say they want to see Democrats make gains in Congress in the midterm election.

President Bush's job approval rating held steady this week at 39 percent, unchanged from polling conducted two weeks ago and 3 points higher than his record low rating of 36 percent approval (November 8-9, 2005). Just over half — 51 percent — disapprove of the job Bush is doing.

Bush's approval among Republicans has dropped 6 points since January and 13 points since last year this time. Today, 74 percent of Republicans approve, as do 36 percent of independents and 8 percent Democrats.

In addition to the 66-point partisan gap, there is a 10-point gender gap on Bush's job approval: 44 percent of men approve compared to 34 percent of women.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188124,00.html
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']What's the breakdown of the registered voters in the poll by party? Last time there was a 30%~ Bush approval rating 69%-64% of those polled were Democrats and I think like 22%-18% were Republicans.[/QUOTE]

There have been numerous polls showing Bush's approval rating being 33-36%. Can you cite any polls that have him over 40%? How recent are they?

I'd also implore you to cite the poll that oversampled Democrats and undersampled Republicans to that great an extent. Such a spread is almost impossible from *random* sampling, and the consistency of polls showing poor ratings for Bush certain aren't the result of intentional sampling bias, no matter how liberal you think the media may be.
 
George Bush may well be the worst president this country has EVER had. I'm feeling Nixon more than Bush at this point.

Way to blow all of our surplus cash f@g.
 
[quote name='coltyhuxx']George Bush may well be the worst president this country has EVER had. I'm feeling Nixon more than Bush at this point.
f@g.[/QUOTE]

As if you were even a sparkle in your momma's eye when Nixon was president.


And FAUX news reports on a poll unfavorable to Bush. Oh, no, what is an E-Z-B to do about this conundrum ? Let's see what happens at election time. Opinion polls means nothing, just ask Howard Dean.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']There have been numerous polls showing Bush's approval rating being 33-36%. Can you cite any polls that have him over 40%? How recent are they?

I'd also implore you to cite the poll that oversampled Democrats and undersampled Republicans to that great an extent. Such a spread is almost impossible from *random* sampling, and the consistency of polls showing poor ratings for Bush certain aren't the result of intentional sampling bias, no matter how liberal you think the media may be.[/quote]

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_bush_022706.pdf

UNWEIGHTED
Total Respondents 1018
Total Republicans 272 27%
Total Democrats 409 40%
Total Independents 337 33%

WEIGHTED
Total Respondents 1018
Total Republicans 289 28%
Total Democrats 381 37%
Total Independents 348 34%

I exaggerated a little, but you get the idea. I don't figure in Independents as a seperate block because I find that roughly 4/5's of them are usually liberals that think the Democratic party is too weak. Nevertheless, if you want as accurate poll as you can get then I'd think you'd need to measure the party split accordingly. Republicans should have 50-55%, Democrats should have 45-50%, and Independents should have 1% if any. Republicans only have a slight majority among voters, they shouldn't have less representation than Independents for goodness sake.

That's why I ask.
 
I am an independant who tries to give every president the benefit of the doubt, regardless of political affiliation. Right now, I am just not happy with the direction that the country is going in at the moment. I really get the sense that this government has become more bloated and more concerned with controlling peoples lives instead of making personal freedoms and personal rights an important concern.

My greatest wish is that one day the Congress will have more regular citizens elected to help shape issues domestically. Now that doesn't mean I want Cletus McFeedus dictating foreign policy, but most people elected today (both sides) don't have any idea how the majority of Americans live. If they did, schools would be safer, taxes would be more reasonable, and alternative fuel sources would be more common.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']My greatest wish is that one day the Congress will have more regular citizens elected to help shape issues domestically. Now that doesn't mean I want Cletus McFeedus dictating foreign policy, but most people elected today (both sides) don't have any idea how the majority of Americans live. If they did, schools would be safer, taxes would be more reasonable, and alternative fuel sources would be more common.[/quote]

I can't help but agree with that. There was a recent article saying how the minimum level of funds a potential U.S. Presidental candidate would need to run an effective campaign was like 100 million dollars. U.S. Senate/House campaigns needs a ridiculous amount of money as well just to compete on the same level as your opponent.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I exaggerated a little, but you get the idea. I don't figure in Independents as a seperate block because I find that roughly 4/5's of them are usually liberals that think the Democratic party is too weak.[/quote]

:lol: Wow, you're really displaying your ignorance here. And it continues below...

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Nevertheless, if you want as accurate poll as you can get then I'd think you'd need to measure the party split accordingly. Republicans should have 50-55%, Democrats should have 45-50%, and Independents should have 1% if any. Republicans only have a slight majority among voters, they shouldn't have less representation than Independents for goodness sake.

That's why I ask.[/QUOTE]

You're out of your mind. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans in this country, that is just a simple fact. And your suggestion discounts a significant bloc of voters, independents. You act as though if someone has no party affiliation they should not have a voice, which is beyond stupid. And given the fact that there are more registered Democrats than Republicans and Bush won the popular vote, that kind of blows out of the water your ridiculous assertion that most independents are ultra-liberal.

[quote name='GuilewasNK']My greatest wish is that one day the Congress will have more regular citizens elected to help shape issues domestically. Now that doesn't mean I want Cletus McFeedus dictating foreign policy, but most people elected today (both sides) don't have any idea how the majority of Americans live. If they did, schools would be safer, taxes would be more reasonable, and alternative fuel sources would be more common.[/QUOTE]

Amen. Career politicans are very bad for this country. One of the reasons we have career politicians is our two-party system. I tend to favor people who aren't in politics for life (the only thing they know how to do is get votes) and who are members of the two major parties.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'] You're out of your mind. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans in this country, that is just a simple fact. And your suggestion discounts a significant bloc of voters, independents. You act as though if someone has no party affiliation they should not have a voice, which is beyond stupid. And given the fact that there are more registered Democrats than Republicans and Bush won the popular vote, that kind of blows out of the water your ridiculous assertion that most independents are ultra-liberal.[/quote]

Based off of November 2004, no, I'm not. Unless you plan to tell me George W. Bush is a big enough winner to have Democrats switching parties to vote for him. Republicans got 50.7 percent of the vote, Democrats got 48.3, and all the independent candidates combined got 1.

Even if all the independents swang their votes either way, popularly speaking, the outcome would've been the same. Hence my statement that they should have little, if any, representation on some poll. You can tell me all you want that 33% of America is actually independent, but until the combined candidates for third parties even comes close to 30 percent that's just a bunch of bs.
 
I don't think you understand what the term independent is. It means you do not predominately side with one side. You don't automatically favor a candidate just because of an R or D next to their name. It's not an affiliation, it does not mean you vote for independents. Ideally it means you give everyone relatively equal consideration.

Now what party you're registered with is simply that. In your state, when you registered to vote, which party did you register as a voter of? This is different from whether you truly vote along those lines.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
In your state, when you registered to vote, which party did you register as a voter of?[/quote]
I've been wondering about that really, is it different by state? When I registered to vote I don't remember anything asking to be registered as democrat or republican.

EDIT: Just found out, VA doesn't have registration by political party, kinda ruins some arguments eh? :p
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Based off of November 2004, no, I'm not. Unless you plan to tell me George W. Bush is a big enough winner to have Democrats switching parties to vote for him. Republicans got 50.7 percent of the vote, Democrats got 48.3, and all the independent candidates combined got 1.

Even if all the independents swang their votes either way, popularly speaking, the outcome would've been the same. Hence my statement that they should have little, if any, representation on some poll. You can tell me all you want that 33% of America is actually independent, but until the combined candidates for third parties even comes close to 30 percent that's just a bunch of bs.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you need to actually complete your high school government class before spouting stupidity like this. Here are a few convenient facts that contradict your, shall we say, supremely ignorant view:

1. *gasp* Not everybody votes for the party they are a registered member of, or even that they most sympathize with.

2. http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...ependent"+registered&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
That is the first thing I could find, since no way I'm wasting much time replying to your idiotic assertions. Let me quote:

American youth are nearly evenly split when it comes to relating to political parties....Overall, 32 percent say they are Democrats, including 12 percent who are strong Democrats. Comparatively, 28 percent identify as Republicans, including 8 percent who are strong Republicans. A quarter of youth are independents (25 percent), and 15 percent say they do not know which party they identify with.

That is just youth, but you get the idea.

3. Yes, 30+% of voters are independent. They vote for morons like Bush and Kerry because they see them as the only realistic winners, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
 
The real reason not to impeach Bush:


cheneysneer4cc.jpg
 
[quote name='coltyhuxx']George Bush may well be the worst president this country has EVER had. I'm feeling Nixon more than Bush at this point.

Way to blow all of our surplus cash f@g.[/QUOTE]

Take away Watergate and Nixon was one of the greatest presidents of the twentieth century. And we will have no idea what the impact of the current administration for about 30 years. So please, let's stop the whining, f@g!!!
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']The real reason not to impeach Bush:


cheneysneer4cc.jpg
[/QUOTE]


Cheney would retire before taking the presidency. He likes to lie low, work behind the scenes. His current health condition doesn't allow him to handle the stress that the presidency entails.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I don't think you understand what the term independent is. It means you do not predominately side with one side. You don't automatically favor a candidate just because of an R or D next to their name.[/quote]

[quote name='Dictionary.com']often Independent One that is independent, especially a voter, officeholder, or political candidate who is not committed to a political party.[/quote]

Exactly, neither a Republican or a Democrat because they can't decide which one they like/don't like either/apolitical... for whatever reason they don't side with either party. (Although I will admit because of the low voter turn-out rate, who knows how many there really are)

[quote name='elprincipe']1. *gasp* Not everybody votes for the party they are a registered member of, or even that they most sympathize with.[/quote]

Not every state has an open primary.

Also, *gasp* Thanks Sherlock! You don't have to use tired, out-dated sarcastic catch phrases over the internet to make you sound cooler.

That is just youth, but you get the idea.

Now we just have to find a country that's only represented by people aged 15-25. Speaking of which, tell me again how 15 year olds are registered voters? This survey means nothing.

3. Yes, 30+% of voters are independent. They vote for morons like Bush and Kerry because they see them as the only realistic winners, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I just do not see it that way, then again there's really no way of proving it either way. If you told me a majority of the people in this country were moderate party members that sometimes swing, then I'd agree with you. To say they have absolutely no inclination toward either party is nonsense, and maybe one percent of the country could say that honestly. Aside from libertarians and populists, even those in other third parties are basically a different form of either the Republicans or the Democrats.
 
Exactly, neither a Republican or a Democrat because they can't decide which one they like/don't like either/apolitical... for whatever reason they don't side with either party. (Although I will admit because of the low voter turn-out rate, who knows how many there really are)

It does not mean they avoid either party. The definition you posed said a person not committed to a particular party, the vast majority still vote for a major party, but they are not committed to that party in principle. They may side with parties at particular time and with particular issues, but their is no overal affiliation with that party.

I just do not see it that way, then again there's really no way of proving it either way.

Well, there is a way. Take the registered category of a particular type of voter (republican, democrat, independent) in each state and then calculate the total. Those that don't have voters register as a particular type you could get a general idea of, but it would require significant comparison across elections and states. But only a few states are like that. You would get a ballpark figure if you simply calculated the states that do keep records on that.

Though whether someone has the desire to do that, that's something else entirely.
 
Ace, once again your ignorance and, frankly, stupidity have amazed me. Go on believing that independents make up 1% of the electorate and Republicans 50-55%. When you're ready to get a clue you can always ask those with any knowledge whatsoever on the subject for information, or even just Google it on these fancy internets.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It does not mean they avoid either party. The definition you posed said a person not committed to a particular party, the vast majority still vote for a major party, but they are not committed to that party in principle. They may side with parties at particular time and with particular issues, but their is no overal affiliation with that party.[/quote]

I understand what your saying, I just don't believe it. People are going to lean one way or the other, even if it's just slightly. There are probably a lot of politically ignorant people who claim to be independent because they don't really know what either party stands for, there's probably some truth to that. But to say there are people with absolutely no inclinations at all is ridiculous.

[quote name='elprincipe']Ace, once again your ignorance and, frankly, stupidity have amazed me. Go on believing that independents make up 1% of the electorate and Republicans 50-55%. When you're ready to get a clue you can always ask those with any knowledge whatsoever on the subject for information, or even just Google it on these fancy internets.[/quote]

They do. You can insult and attack me over these "fancy internets" all you want, I guess it makes you feel like a big person or something, but that's what I believe.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']They do. You can insult and attack me over these "fancy internets" all you want, I guess it makes you feel like a big person or something, but that's what I believe.[/QUOTE]

It's not about belief, it's about fact. You won't accept the facts, so no use talking to you about them.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']It's not about belief, it's about fact. You won't accept the facts, so no use talking to you about them.[/quote]

Oh, that's right. This is because I ignored your "facts" about how 15 year olds would vote if they had the chance.

If it's no use talking to me, does that mean you'll shut up? (Or will it be a case like Msut where he says every other post that I'm a poop-head and tells everyone to ignore all the mean old things I have to say? I'm really starting to like that kid, he's like my sidekick now. Everytime I make a post he's there! :D)
 
Ace I didnt tell everyone to ignore what you said because you are mean.

I said everyone should ignore you because you lie.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Oh, that's right. This is because I ignored your "facts" about how 15 year olds would vote if they had the chance.

If it's no use talking to me, does that mean you'll shut up? (Or will it be a case like Msut where he says every other post that I'm a poop-head and tells everyone to ignore all the mean old things I have to say? I'm really starting to like that kid, he's like my sidekick now. Everytime I make a post he's there! :D)[/QUOTE]

I need only quote what I said before:

[quote name='elprincipe']That is the first thing I could find, since no way I'm wasting much time replying to your idiotic assertions. [/quote]

No way I'm spending time researching stuff for you when you are so obviously wrong and have a history of not accepting facts (or responding to them).
 
bread's done
Back
Top