digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Bush approval at 28%

thebluestate.com — President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to 28%, the lowest level of his presidency, according to a new Harris Poll released today

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -14/+18728% seems a little high, no?
    • InfamousAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -14/+102I hate to be cynical (well OK not really - I'm ***** cynical), but Americans don't have the greatest reputation for keeping themselves informed. If it's down to 28%, I'm pretty sure only the knee-jerk "liberals want us to lose" types approve of him now.
    • pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -7/+39not really, that's about the percentage of americans who are evangelicals. they don't let things like facts get in the way of their faith. and if reality starts to make them waiver, they can tune into the gospel of fox news to keep their faith strong.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -5/+40Don't forget. 30% of the country doesn't have the internet. How much you want to bet that these are the same 30% who still like bush.
    • Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14makes you wonder just what goes on in the minds of that 28%... or there lack of.
    • dealsdealer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7that implies 72% Disapproval
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8actually no because there are also the people with no opinion. Approval + Disapproval != 100% unless no opinion = 0%. But I think it's pretty close to 72% since this president definitely seems to get an opinion out of people.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3@thetauofbill

      and I bet the other 70% just have to be democrat supporters.... because the house and senate are SOOO stacked against
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@dealsdealer

      Actually, it implies no such thing. It only implies that 28% of the people approve of his actions....

      Don't count out the large amount of apathy in the USA.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make...


      I don't think the 70% are all democrats...I know quite a few republicans who think bush is a douche.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1He hasn't got a point, he just toots the neocon horn. No thinking, only repeating.
    • adb44, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=752 for more and better information than the blog.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4So 72% don't approve.

      Wow.

      That's a lot.
    • gomerspile, on 10/12/2007, -2/+370 % of the American population believes in angels!
      .... ANGELS.

      But lets remember rest of world, a little less than 1/2 our country voted against him twice, and that means we have more intelligent liberals here than you have in your little euro ***** countries. We just have a lot of rednecks too. Europeans are just lucky that all their redneck types were wiped out in world wars
    • claughery, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1amen
  • RevChris, on 10/12/2007, -7/+159I would not have a job if my approval rating was only 28% among my supervisors.
    • erickssm, on 10/12/2007, -6/+76i would bet you wouldnt have your job if your approval rating was less then 70%. I think most people in this country can say that. 28% is unreal!
    • Judicata, on 10/12/2007, -4/+45@erickssm

      But I doubt any President in history has maintained a > 70% approval rating (they've hit that high, but not for very long).

      Interestingly, the lowest historical approval rating is 22% by Truman. The highest in history? George W. Bush - 85% post 9/11. If he slips much more he could hold BOTH records.
    • pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10revchis: therein lies the problem. he doesn't consider the american public his superiors. the administration holds itself as the highest moral authority, accountable to noone.
    • solis365, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18its interesting that he was at 85% right after 9/11. maybe because people wanted to see heads roll... so we started hunting osama and such other things. or maybe its because it made us all feel so much more patriotic so we just approved of what we had. or maybe its because we werent exactly in iraq yet.

      regardless of the circumstances, I dont think a poll right after an event like 9/11 is when you're going to get the best measure of people thinking clearly.
    • IslandDog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"The second election was completely rigged."

      What proof do you have of this? You people amaze me that you constantly say "neocons" don't believe in facts, but then post something as stupid as this.
    • SanTe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Interestingly, the lowest historical approval rating is 22% by Truman. The highest in history? George W. Bush - 85% post 9/11. If he slips much more he could hold BOTH records."

      I very clearly remember George H.W. Bush's approval rating hovering at 90-92% after Desert Shield stopped Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
    • SanTe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I got cut off by the edit timeout, sorry...

      "Interestingly, the lowest historical approval rating is 22% by Truman. The highest in history? George W. Bush - 85% post 9/11. If he slips much more he could hold BOTH records."

      I very clearly remember George H.W. Bush's approval rating hovering at 90-92% after Desert Shield stopped Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. I think this says more about temporary patriotic euphoria than anything else. Clearly Americans love it when something bad happens (to others or to ourselves) and we can rally behind our president for a response and feel better about ourselves. (I'm sure most Amercians would deny this.) Reality always sets in within six months.
    • macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That whole dumbass get behind the pres. 911 tragedy thing scares the hell out of me. If you want to see the conspiracy wanker's heads collectively explode, just let a major "terrorist" attack happen in washington before the next election. It would be interesting to see which way the polls go then.
  • awinn233, on 10/12/2007, -27/+4According to the figures on the website, it's 29%. 22 + 7 = 29, someone can't add.
    • xekko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15More details stats here: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117752895118782401-uDkZU8lRXG_TdtfisPq050345ew_20070503.html?mod=blogs

      Bush is 28%, Cheney 25% and Rice 45%, all their lowest rating yet.
    • TomRitchford, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Due to rounding, statistics often don't match in the last decimal place when you add 'em: for example, the two numbers might be 21.7% and and 6.7% (rounding to 22% and 7%) which add to 28.4% (rounding to 28%).
    • TeatimeGrommit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I've never understood the rounding issue with statistics. You have something like 22.345% plus/minus 2.5%. So why keep all the extra digits? Why then use the extra digits in adding and create results that make it look like you can't add? With a 2.5% margin for error, we really have 1 solid significant digit and a second digit that adds some meaning but isn't fully reliable. When discussing meaning, nothing is lost here by just picking the numbers that add correctly!
  • jabroni9900, on 10/12/2007, -23/+7Spd998: "You're all idiots for voting him in."

    The elections were rigged... TWICE.
    • zioxide, on 10/12/2007, -9/+43No.. he won in 2004. 2000 was questionable.

      The electoral college is the worst idea ever. It should be the popular vote, so every vote counts. Bush would have lost in 2000 if it was by popular vote.
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14The electoral college was a good idea at the time. It made it a lot easier to count the votes a couple hundred years ago.
    • oddmanout, on 10/12/2007, -5/+262004 was questionable as well, it just wasn't contested by the opposition
    • scoobydoo84, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Stupidity doesn't require rigging!! Looks like the country is waking up to this W nightmare.
    • tehl3x, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@zioxide
      Well, the electoral college is put in place to prevent candidates from only campaigning in huge cities. Without the electoral college, a candidate could theoretically just campaign in 5-6 major cities and still win the election.

      While the electoral college showed us its flawed side in the 2000 elections, it has a clear and important purpose.
    • BlueScreenOD, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Personally, I'm a Democrat, but in no way should we do away with the electoral collage. The point of the electoral collage is to preserve the balance between state and federal government, and not because it was hard to count up ballots. If you take away the electoral collage than it takes away part of the power of state government.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@zioxide

      If he won in 2004, why are Ohio elections officials pleading guilty to vote tampering and fraud? Doesn't look like he won either election to me.
    • brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I posted this a couple days ago on another thread. Seems like it is worth posting again here for those who think people who claim there was fraud in the 2004 election are nut jobs.

      I lived in Ohio during the 2004 election and every time something about that election and that state comes up on digg I'm surprised how little information seems to have gotten beyond state lines.

      There WAS election fraud committed during the 2004 election in Ohio. There is no question. Ken Blackwell was the Chief Elections official and the honorary co-chair of the "Committee to re-elect George W. Bush" during the 2004 election. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Blackwell) and repeatedly made efforts (which were very successful) to disenfranchise voters and discount ballots. See the section on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Blackwell#Involvement_in_the_2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy

      Apart from Blackwell's clear (read: proven in a court of law) attempts to stand in the way of a democratic election there was the faked FBI warning which election officials used as an excuse to prevent people from observing the vote counts in Warren County (see: http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/11/10/loc_warrenvote10.html).

      On top of all that there were statistical anomalies which are in the realm impossibility when looking at the results county by county. (see http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen)

      Ohio is a "battleground" state. The southwest is extremely red while the northeast is blue. It is all together possible the election would have gone to Bush anyway but there was DEFINITELY fraud taking place in that state.
    • walkable, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I was in Southwest Ohio (Dayton) working at the polls for Moveon.org in 2004. There is no doubt it my mind that the elections were rigged. Ken Blackwell (then Secretary of State) was an evil man. Even Southwest Ohio was pretty blue in 2004. There were way more Kerry signs than Bush signs. In heavily Democratic precincts, they purposely limited the number of voting machines. I knew of people that waited 9 hours to vote. My girlfriend waited 3 hours.

      At the polling place I was working at, there were two precincts voting. One of them had ridiculously long lines all day. My precinct didn't have a line all day. I would guess my precinct was more Republican since it was generally poorer and had fewer minorities.

      Also, a Republican called the cops on us saying we were intimidating voters. My group was just sitting there checking in with people that we'd already met with and said nothing to anyone else. The election officials measured and we were more than 100 feet from the voting place and had the permission of the property owner to sit where we were located. About 5 of the cops came by and were cool and we explained that we weren't doing anything but having people we already knew check in with us. Then this one cop shows up and goes ballistic. Me and about 5 others were asked to leave the premises.
    • twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@walkable:

      Yeah, you're the perfect unbiased person to give evidence here! "...I was in Southwest Ohio (Dayton) working at the polls for Moveon.org in 2004. ..." Come on!

      If moveon or any other DNC organization had one shred of evidence, EVIDENCE, not allegations, rumors and unsubstantiated suspicions, Bush would have been out of office 90 days after taking office the second term. Stop spreading *****. You wouldn't know voter fraud if it hit you right in your hippie volunteer protesting ass.
    • twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@bluescreenod:

      The point of the electoral college is to prevent high-population density areas like NYC, LA and SF, which are all predominately single party (democrat) strongholds, from controlling or dominating any and all elections. It makes it fair for the folks in Montana, or any low population area. It allows their votes to count.

    • EntangledPhysx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@ twinklyJesus

      I wish I could digg you up more then once!
  • KarbonKopy, on 10/12/2007, -16/+9Isn't it time for his plane to crash?
    • insovietrussia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+46FBI knocking on your door in 3.. 2.. 1..
    • Fracture98, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Don't worry, you've just got to figure out which of the 3 FBI guys belongs to the 28%, and stick with the other two.
    • HamburglerJones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12They're all three in the 28%. The rest were fired.

      By the way, can we start calling Dubya "President Butcher" now? Sending more and more *real* soldiers off to die to redeem himself for his ineptitude is even worse than starting this war, regardless of whether or not the intel suggested wmds, which I doubt. Democrats and dissenting Republicans "trying to lose" the war? There is nothing to win. The only thing to lose is more American lives.

      President Butcher has butchered his own approval rating. He has butchered America's international reputation. He continues to butcher our troops. And he has fiscally butchered our country in the process.

      I hope our next president's name is "Patch."
    • Platypus3333, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0And apparently even that one guy will be 15% ambivalent.
    • KarbonKopy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4We call it freedom of speech. I honestly don't wish the guy dead, but there has GOT to be a end to the reign of such a HUGE moron? Oh, and I put a sign on the door to tell the FBI how to reach me.
  • shellwe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18Um....... And he is getting impeached when...?
    • goldfenix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+64Events that will occur when George Bush is impeached:

      Hell will freeze over.
      All canned sodas will use cane sugar instead of corn syrup.
      Men will cease masturbating.
      Jesus will return - as a gopher.
      France will conquer Europe, Asia and Africa.
      Bottled water will be comparably priced with tap water.
      Sony will lower the price of the PS3 to 300 dollars.
      Japan will cease all production of pornography.
      Apple and Microsoft will merge into the megacorporation, Mapplesoft.
      British people will have really nice teeth.
      Millions of people will attempt to hop the fence to get *into* Mexico.
      Starbucks will realize that they don't need a billion stores and will close 80% of their establishments.
      Jack Thompson will become a game designer at Rockstar.
      Al Quida will cease their terrorist activities and become a traveling comedy group in the vein of early Monty Python.
      Michael Bay will cease making films.
    • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Gas will go back to a buck a gallon.
  • BruceKelly, on 10/12/2007, -13/+13...and Harry Reid is at 22%
  • soaked, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Hey, what happened?
  • fatmansherb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4It's only going to get worse :/
  • darkphan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Thats not approval!
    • Fracture98, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Wait! That's right. We're buying the spin and not even noticing! Shouldn't that be "Bush's Disapproval Rating Grows to 72%"?
    • po43292, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Bush's disapproval rating at 72%!

      edit: fracture beat me to it.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Thats not approval!"

      No... it's a space station...
  • Wonkanobi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+50Bush claims God speaks to him directly.

    Apparently God is a horrible PR man.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Jesus was God's last PR man....

      ...lets just say that didn't go well...
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's not Jesus' fault that his client wouldn't come out and say "hi" to anybody.

      Then it was just a case of "shoot the messenger."
  • Hoogs, on 10/12/2007, -75/+8And it's all because of the liberal media. The sad thing is most of you here have been influenced by it.
    • zioxide, on 10/12/2007, -13/+29Go back to Fox News
    • xekko, on 10/12/2007, -9/+49You don't know the meaning of the word 'liberal' if you think the US media is liberal.
    • rawkenshtocken, on 10/12/2007, -47/+4agreed hoog
    • Bartboy919, on 10/12/2007, -9/+47I am totally with you man, truth has a liberal bias!
    • blurplevtx, on 10/12/2007, -42/+5Agreed hoogs, if these people would do their own research instead of letting the liberal media tell them what to think. Plus you can make numbers say anything you want, Apple for years claimed their PowerPC chips were faster than their Intel counterparts and we now see how that changed.
    • mccrusc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26No, usually, I dislike him the most when I'm listening to the words coming right out of his own mouth.
    • InsultComedy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I agree. The liberal media was a salesman for the neocons. We need independent media. Watch Bill Moyers show and how the liberal media echoed the right-wing media...but even moreso, because they were trusted over the neocon media.
    • dragonexe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28@hoogs

      "And it's all because of the liberal media. The sad thing is most of you here have been influenced by it."

      Sounds like one of the marks of schizophrenia to me.

      When you believe the majority is biased, you might want to make sure you're not actually the one who's a little off-center. I just love it when far-out neocons label centrists as "far-leftists" and pretend they represent a moderate view.
    • longbow486, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0***** CNN
    • dragonexe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6@blurplevtx

      "Agreed hoogs, if these people would do their own research instead of letting the liberal media tell them what to think. Plus you can make numbers say anything you want, Apple for years claimed their PowerPC chips were faster than their Intel counterparts and we now see how that changed."

      Yes, do your own research that confirms your bias, and then when a study disagrees with you, discredit it by saying these numbers come out of thin air. I have a friend of mine you might like to meet:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
    • pesh2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@Hoogs

      Ignoring Iraq, please name three things you think Bush has done that are good. I would like to hear why you think Bush is a good president.
    • msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Not to derail your circle jerk of left vs right extremism, but PPC chips were better performers (per clock cycle) than their x86 counterparts at the time of production. The problem was it didn't continue to scale, and they couldn't wedge a G5 into a laptop without all sorts of heat issues and power usage problems. The market has also began to shift towards "green" technologies, where Intel's line of low wattage chips pretty much reigns supreme (not to mention they offer an attractive integrated laptop platform via centrino, offering a clear and easy upgrade path for Apple to take advantage of without having to develop their own hardware in-house). The number crunching performance of PPC was not the deciding factor in Apple's switch. Obviously Apple had some confirmation bias when they were selling PPC chips, as any company would, but the PPC was a solid choice even then.
  • kushed, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1All hail king Bush.
  • gtluke, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10meh, i think lincoln's ratings were worse, and he still got his face on a mountain.
    • sodade, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I think that Lincoln and Bush have a lot in common. When the states signed into the union, where was the "on pain of death shall you not leave it" clause? We need to evicerate the power of the federal govt.
    • NotAChickenHawk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@sodade - Look up the text of Lincoln's first innaugural address - in it he lays out a pretty convincing argument as to why the constitution was perpetual and no state could revoke its participation. Namely, his argument was that the Articles of Confederation (which preceeded the Constitution) explicitly called out a perpetual union. The constution starts "We The People, in order to form a ***more perfect union***" Lincoln claims that the Union under the Constitution is not "more perfect" than the Union under the Articles of Confederation, if the former is not perpetual but the latter is. He also claims, correctly, that surely no government ever included in its basic law provisions for its own destruction.
  • Xeth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Distortion at its finest.

    FTA:
    "How would you rate the job President Bush is doing – excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"
    Excellent - 7%
    Pretty Good - 22%
    Only Fair - 22%
    Poor - 48%

    If I were given the poll I would have thought "Only Fair" would have been counted as an approval...
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Yeah, that kind of sucks. I think Rasmussen is more accurate, showing 38% approval.

      http://rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm
    • telemart73, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Yeah, those were my thoughts. I mean, I loathe Dubya but the first thing I noticed was that it was 48% who rated as poor. I mean, I would rate Red Hook as only a fair beer, but that doesn't mean i don't gladly drink it. Buried as inaccurate...
    • dragonexe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Much as I wish it were lower, that's an excellent point.
    • migbike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That is a good point, but for comparison's sake, it's the same way they've been doing them all along.

      So when they say "lowest its ever been" or comparing them to past presidents, the comparisons are still accurate.
    • msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The survey itself is slightly flawed. There are 3 options that let you select your level of satisfaction, but only 1 to represent dissastifaction. That immediately leads me to believe the poll will show a trend of false satisfaction since there isn't a neutral or somewhat dissatisfied option. Personally, I would view the "only fair" selection as a neutral response, not an approval, so 28% approve, 48% dissapprove, and 22% don't care.
    • HorseDick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1not to mention these polls rarely sample over 1000 people at a time....as opposed to the 122 million people who voted in the last presidential election

      ...but then again if these polls ARE from RANDOM samples (aka fair, if you know anything about statistics), then the chances are a huge percentage of these people being polled didn't even vote in the first place

      its so funny how easily everyone is influenced by this stuff
    • steamer25, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Why is it that content from crooksandliars needs to be constantly buried as inaccurate?
    • mre5765, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Indeed, and what of the gap between "pretty good" and "fair", i.e. "good".
      Add that category, and I guarantee you Bush is 50% positive even without adding in
      "fair".

      Bush has high fair, vg, ex numbers because the economy is growing, stocks
      are up and unemployment is lwoer tha under CLinton.
  • BlueScreenOD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16The harris poll is always low because of the way it's conducted. He's at around 34% right now: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
  • rawkenshtocken, on 10/12/2007, -83/+7Bush is an excellent president (minus border policies) what has he done poorly? Iraq is as good as it could be? Economy is on the rise from clinton's ***** policies? He's trying to prevent the little decency our country has morally from slipping down the drain... great man. not the smartest, but a great man and an excellent president
    • zioxide, on 10/12/2007, -14/+67He's the worst president this country has ever had.
    • Xeth, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12-1 Flamebait
    • djSyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -8/+37"Economy is on the rise from clinton's ***** policies?"

      We're further in debt than we've ever been, Social Security is going to be drained by the time I'm ready to draw from it in thirty years, personal savings are at an all-time low, and social programs are being cut left and right. Home ownership is at a high only because interest rates were kept artificially low (and most of these new homeowners can't actually afford the houses they're living in anyway).

      Record spending does not equal a healthy economy.
    • rawkenshtocken, on 10/12/2007, -33/+4anyone wanna tell me what he has done so poorly?
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24@rawkenshtocken,

      Well, for one thing, constantly lying and promoting a culture of lying is not a good way to get prevent the US from "morally slipping down the drain".

      Your attitude is pretty unbelievable, but I conclude that you are not a troll, but really are as naive and ignorant as you appear.
    • carguy84, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21Can you tell us what he has done right?

      /me goes and does the dishes as you search google...

      To answer your questions:
      Let's see, he's ***** up iraq
      He preaches religion(YIKES)
      Every single public appearance
      Social Security, thanks for doing nothing about it
      Oh and umm, he believes people can levitate from a stone grave...
    • 21chrisp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22"anyone wanna tell me what he has done so poorly?"

      He's put us in 3 year war for no good reason, one that could go on for many years.

      The government financial situation is in the gutter. If it were your finances you would have a credit score of -700. Our government is going bankrupt - and no it's not from Clinton. This started happening after Bush came in and changed the policies. Government was actually decreasing debt under Clinton.

      He's lied on many occasions. Sure he's not the first one, but his lies have cost lives and a ton of money. Especially bad is that he lied about Iraq's cooperation with weapons inspectors and the presence of WMDs in Iraq. Thousands died, the world hates us, we're going bankrupt, and the war goes on.

      He has not instituted any of the religious related policies that he championed other than banning rights to gay partners.

      He has allowed multiple monopolies to (re)form and seems to actually encourage this.

      He has not proposed a realistic plan to secure our borders.

      He has instituted government condoned torture (not sure how any Christian could like him after that one)

      He has instituted government condoned nation-wide spying on american citizens (blatantly unconstitutional)

      In 6 years, he still hasn't caught Bin Laden. You have to wonder if he's really trying.

      And again...
      He's put us in 3 year war for no good reason, one that could go on for many years.

      All in all, yeah, a swell guy...

      I wanna re-phrase your question. What has this man done that's GOOD?? I can't think of a single thing. I'm not sure how torture and spying add a "sense of decency."
    • Racerx52, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20""Economy is on the rise from clinton's ***** policies?""

      Please tell me you are a meth addict
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@rawkenshtocken

      Go to CNN News and see how well the economy is doing. The dollar's tanking, house sales are dropping, people are worried, and you lock step with the Bush propaganda machine and claim everything is beer and skittles, remarkable how people can allow themselves to be so thoroughly deluded.
    • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2People, people ... look at the BRIGHT side. Things can only get better!!
    • msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Better? America is in a sad state, but we're a long ways from hitting the bottom. Things could continue to get worse for a long, long time.
  • sodade, on 10/12/2007, -12/+25When Bush got reelected in 2004 and all my friends were shocked, my answer was: well, at least 1/2 of the voters in this country are total ***** idiots - gee go figure. Now I hear that 28% STILL approve of this insanity. These people are diametrically opposed to the rest of us - succession is the best answer. Soon enough, the red states will become a 3rd world country and we can exploit them for cheap labor.
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -21/+6I'll bet a lot of those idiots know how to spell "secession" and many of them are not nearly as bigoted as you are.
    • carguy84, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11oh wow, he mispelled a word.
    • stewymcstewstew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3in 2004 roughly 50% of the population voted. 51% of those people voted for Bush. So 25% of the population voted Bush in.

      I don't find it scary that we have a president with a 28% approval rating, I find it scary that the other 72% (or 60% or whatever depending on the poll) don't vote.
    • carguy84, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I think a lot of people voted their mind by not voting. Kerry versus Bush, I mean seriously, this is the best America can come up with???
    • meteors, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I like John Kerry, and I think he would have made a great president (I wish he was running again).

      I'll never understand why people slam him, probably while knowing very little about him.

      (BTW, Dukakis would have made a great president too, and we probably would not be in Iraq today if he had been elected.)


      -j
  • rawkenshtocken, on 10/12/2007, -15/+0oh and btw

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
    • neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4If only the population was evenly distributed.
    • evilregis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1oh and btw

      http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2069
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This page is much better. It's the Purple Map page to end all purple map pages.

      http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@Achalemoipas

      Thanks for the link, and why don't I find this at all surprising?

      "My mama always said stupid is as stupid does." F. Gump
    • neuropsychguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@Achalemoipas

      "2004 elections by States' average IQ: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/US-Election-IQ2004.htm"

      I can't believe people are still posting that as true. I hate to cast aspersions about anyone but if you seriously believe what's in that link you need to either stay in school a lot longer and learn something or you need to go back to school and learn critical thinking skills.

      Let me just say this as someone who studies and gives IQ tests: that whole states who voted for Pres. Bush are dumb thing is not true.

      It is true that the people in the NE states tend to have slightly higher IQs (by a couple points or so) than people in the south but then again they also tend to have more education. IQ and socioeconomic status are quite related and people in the NE on average have higher SES than those in the south. Control for SES and the differences go away.

      Next time post something original, true, and useful.
    • fasdfa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"I can't believe people are still posting that as true. I hate to cast aspersions about anyone but if you seriously believe what's in that link you need to either stay in school a lot longer and learn something or you need to go back to school and learn critical thinking skills."

      What exactly are you disputing about that link? The only thing that you can dispute about the link are the IQ's of each state, which you are not disputing. So what exactly is wrong with the link?

      "Let me just say this as someone who studies and gives IQ tests: that whole states who voted for Pres. Bush are dumb thing is not true.
      It is true that the people in the NE states tend to have slightly higher IQs (by a couple points or so) than people in the south but then again they also tend to have more education. "

      So? IQ does not measure education, right? Since you are the IQ test expert, what's the answer to my question?

      "IQ and socioeconomic status are quite related and people in the NE on average have higher SES than those in the south. Control for SES and the differences go away."

      Irrelevant. Assuming the IQ numbers there are correct, you have states with lower IQ's, for whatever reason that may be, voting one way, and higher IQ's another way. It doens't matter why the IQ numbers are lower or higher in certain states.

      If the IQ numbers in the link are correct, than it's a valid argument.
    • Lennalf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The "Election results vs Average IQ" site has been floating around for a long time now, and has been repeatedly disproven from a number of angles. The original author of the page even admitted that the numbers were made up. Even without that confession, though, it's pretty clear that the data is fraudulent.

      (A) You'll notice that there is a near-perfect linear correlation shown by the "data" that average income is directly proportional to IQ. However, several credible studies have shown there to be no such connection, while others have shown that if any connection exists, it is statistically insignificant when compared with other predicting factors, thus rendering a correlation of this strength extremely unlikely.

      (B) A statistical analysis of the claimed IQ averages for individual states will easily reveal that the numbers are phony. For example, Connecticut is listed as having an average IQ of 113. A person with an IQ of 113 is more intelligent than roughly 85% of the total population. Does that seem even remotely credible? It shouldn't.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IQ_curve.svg
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg

      (C) You will note the comment on the bottom of the table that reads:
      "* Retarded is considered 75-85."

      Yet, the commonly accepted definitions of retardation based on deviance-based IQ are as follows:
      Profound mental retardation: Below 20
      Severe mental retardation: 20–34
      Moderate mental retardation: 35–49
      Mild mental retardation: 50–69
      Borderline mental retardation: 70–79
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation)

      Besides, the term "retarded" would not be expected from any respectable source. So it is clear that person tacked that on there with an obvious bias towards those whom he is essentially slandering (all red states).

      (D) The site also claims Kerry has an IQ of 128. I would be amazed if that is actually the case, since people who are actually that intelligent generally don't make very good politicians. The general population doesn't trust people who are perceived to be significantly more intelligent than themselves.

      So as much as we all hate Bush and as much as Blues love to bash Reds, let's not be so zealous in our convictions that we would accept such a blatantly incredulous and false website as hard fact. If you let your bias blind you to the facts, you are no better than Bush.
    • fasdfa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Lennalf, unlike other people, you present a valid argument against the validity of the link. Nicely put.
    • gweezil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Uh, dude, you DO realize that a state going either "red" or "blue" simply means that over 50% voted for a particular candidate in the LAST presidential election, right? It sure as hell doesn't mean that every single person in a blue state is a Democrat or that every single person in a red state is a Republican.

      So, in essence, the people who wrote that stupid piece of propaganda garbage and you for believing it are insulting every single Democrat that lives in one of those red states. How exactly do you square that?
  • billsil, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7i voted for bush, but only b/c kerry was a moron. granted bush is too but he had cheney instead of edwards. its not like my vote counted anyways...
    /lives in california
    • gtluke, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3i'm in your boat
      kerry was such an idiot that i had to vote for bush. the guy was a complete disaster.
      unknown democratic candidate vs george bush, polls show dems win in a landslide
      kerry vs bush, bush wins
      i live in jersey so my vote hardly matters too.

      ***** i'll take bush over kerry or gore. at least i know wtf bush stands for. i still can't figure out what kerry wanted to do, and all algore wants to do is make me feel bad for having a car, and his ideas will crush our economy.
    • panzykilla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9You're making baby Thomas Jefferson cry.
    • Haapi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Kerry is a windbag but hardly a moron. Bush can't say more than three words before his brain takes a cache miss and he pauses.

      And so you .. voted for Bush.
    • BearToy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Are you kidding? Kerry likes to hear his own voice but he is intelligent and eloquent. I would have been proud to be in a country represented by President Kerry. Of course, after the first 4 years of criminal behavior, arrogance, ignorance, and contempt of the US Constitution by the smirking prick currently in the White House I would have voted for a box of hair if it was running against him.
    • rubicante, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I think a lot of people voted for Bush using this line of reasoning, and I can see that.
      For me, I could see the next 4-years laid out before us and I knew that at least with Kerry there was a _possibility_ of something better.
    • dr0evil, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Unfortunately, *****-for-brains, your vote DID count! Next time, carefully consider your ignorance and stay home. And BTW, spare Californians the association with you - tell people you're from Idaho.
  • fatmansherb, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5I'm seriously laughing at the people praising bush. just gtfo
  • Owned1Up, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3how the hell did he get that high?
  • FortyCaliber, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT

    I saw parts of the DNC debate last night and saw that every single one of the Democratic nominees are saying, more or less, "I will pull the troops out of Iraq." Great. Then what. Everyone knows that you are going to do that.
    What I want to know is what are you going to do to restore my liberties that are infringed upon by an over-oppresive Supreme Court and Legislation? What are you going to do about knee-jerk reactions to things like school shootings? What are you going to do about the economy? What are you going to do to make sure that taxation is an equal and equitable process?
    I want to know what plans for all 4 years are. I want to know what's going to happen come January 2010.

    Now Ron Paul... he makes statements about my Consititution. He makes statements about troops and the military, but as a "large scheme," scenario. He makes statements about my state's rights and my state's abilities to govern me. He says the things that every red-blooded American, Republican or Democrat, should want to hear. Ron Paul is the everyman's candidate.
    • greysun, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Dude... I want to digg you up because I really like Ron Paul, but that just seemed so cheesy and out of place. I'll just forego clicking either icon.
    • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Forget Ron Paul. Let's just go a tiny step further and put Rush Limbaugh in the White House.

      When is the Ron Paul spam going to be put to an end?
  • CTGrey02, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5You guys crying for impeachment are idiots. The guys got another year or so of NOTHING getting done due to congress and him bickering back and forth. Not a single president has been removed from office due to impeachment as well. His approval rating might as well be 0. Approval ratings mean jack ***** when your not up for reelection, and he's not.
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6A president's approval ratings affect the elections for his party whether he's running again or not. Republicans will be marginalized for at least 20 years because of Bush.
  • DiggityDugged, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Really? I thought 28% was an improvement...
  • gopher043, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3It doesn't surprise me.

    Good thing he doesn't have anyone in his cabinet named Brutus. (or maybe that's a bad thing)

    Etu Brutus
  • tehelsper, on 10/12/2007, -29/+6OK... what is so bad about President Bush? If you look at the facts we can see that things really arent as bad as people make them out to be...

    1. We havent been attacked since 9/11
    2. Economy is doing great - DOW 13,000
    3. Lower taxes - people have more money to spend, spurring economy
    4. Federal Deficit falling
    5. Unemployment rates low

    .... Should I keep going? People insist on being negative when things arent so bad overall. I understand small areas or certain cities will all have their own problem from time to time. However, as a whole, the United States looks pretty attractive right now. Why else would all the Mexican immigrants try to come over here?
    • Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7All those might be true. But what about the multi billion dollar war he has us in. He lied to congress about WMD and entered us into a war that we do not need to be in.
    • nfriedly, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Holy crap! That's one of the first intelligent comments I've seen on digg about politics. Nicely done!
    • BarneyF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But as my wife remarkéd her first visit to East Tennessee "God sure does do a lot of advertising around here!"
    • leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1there was no deficit when he entered office. besides don't those deficit numbers ignore the entire cost of the war in iraq?
    • ammosponge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11i'm only going to address #4

      4. federal deficit FALLING? put down the crack pipe. our deficit was falling under clinton. under dubya, it's expanded at an absolutely unprecedented rate.
      matter of fact, they predict that the deficit will be TRIPLE what it was when W took office.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@ tehelsper
      1. We haven't been attacked since 9/11
      Tell that to all the young men and woman who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      2. Economy is doing great - DOW 13,000
      Wake up.

      http://money.cnn.com/index.html?cnn=yes


      3. Lower taxes - people have more money to spend, spurring economy
      My taxes went up, but I here the multi-millions are doing OK.

      4. Federal Deficit falling
      What planet are you living on?

      5. Unemployment rates low
      Tell that to all of the Ford, GM, and IBM employees who have lost their jobs due to downsizing our outsourcing.

      Seriously, wake up.
    • dr0evil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah, look on the bright side! You're an idiot but you have a computer!
  • lewhich, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9And I used to think only 3rd world countries have rigged governments
    • laserblazer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Our rigged government costs more, so it must be better!
  • Luhps, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4rawkenshtocken
    your kidding right? i mean, the guy gives tax breaks to the rich, an obvious ploy to get continued support from the only thing that matters in the US, money. he then plays the role of Shiite Christian to win the religious faction. the man has got to be a genius with balls about the size of the Sun. the elections have shown, popular vote doesn't win, money and idiocracy do.

    on a side note, who cares if his popularity is 28%, it could be 2%. at this point, he's not going to get impeached, its to late in the game for anyone to care, so he's probably doing the smartest thing he can, he's doing whatever he wants. what’s the consequences? oh no, he'll loose a few months in office if he gets impeached.

    i hate him, but i gotta give to the guy and his cabinet some credit, they're better sales men then Used Car Dealers.

    just my crappy 2 cents.
  • edebolt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I am surprised its that high. Jimmy Carters got down to 18%. Harry Truman who is considered by historians to be the least popular president of the 20th century might have been in the 10% range(predated modern polling).

  • Rimrock, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4And to think he won twice! The dem challengers completely sucked! Ha ha! Its the Economy Stupid! According to the dem's circa the 1990's the economy is the only thing we should be worried about. Soooooooo what cha got? Oh so you are changing the game to meet your needs..right.....
    • azAZ09, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@Rimirock
      That depends on if you consider wins by election fraud winning.
    • dr0evil, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Yeah, rimjob, ya got us!
  • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Question: George W. Bush - Great President, or The Greatest President?
    You have only two choices...
  • Cherubim, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Bush is a terminal lunatic and an utter disgrace to the United States of America and its people. He should have been impeached years ago.








  • pauljaroszewski, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11IMPEACH
  • aresef, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7And as Colbert said to Dubya's face, the last third is usually backwash.
  • fatmansherb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@mutatron

    Even if that souce is more accurate, 38% is still very *****.
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5And many people believe Rasmussen is right-biased, so if they peg him at 38% you know it's bad.
    • THE4IRON, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@fatmansherb
      That's only funny because it's 100% correct.
  • edebolt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4other historical levels.

    Clinton left office with a 83% approval
    Reagan 88%
    Carter 20%
    Nixon 33%

    Don't remember the first Bush or Ford except it was a very close race so Ford would not be very low. Another week later and Ford would have been reelected as he was closing very fast.
  • TheWretched, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3how low do we have to go already?
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Only 1 and a half more years until I can be proud to be an American again.
  • diggbot7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8My American friends: Impeach this moron and redeem yourselves.
  • brimg87, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Worst President ever.
    • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5That's not one of the choices. Once again: Great President, or The Greatest President.
    • po43292, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2You forgot to put a period between each word.
  • therealist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Americans, justifiably I would say, don't hold any politician in high regard. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) approval rating 30%. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) 22%. President Bush (R) 28%.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's hard to judge approval ratings of people like Nancy Paloci because most americans don't even know who she is believe it or not. There would be a lot of "No opinions" on that poll. President approval ratings have been on the upside though. Clinton speant a lot of his presidentsy in the 50%+ approval rating margin. Regan was pretty popular too.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3But the Dems have only been in majority status for a few months, what's Bush's excuse?
    • gweezil, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Shhh, don't mention that. You are supposed to think that Bush is the Devil and that any politician with a D by their name has an automatic 100 percent approval rating!

      It's all about the Bush hatred, man.
  • lancert, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7We need to modify the constitution so that if you're approval rating drops below 30% you are automatically removed from office, along with your entire cabinet...
  • 1Cycopath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Bush poll vs. Wife poll

    After 7 and a half years of marriage . . . .

    "How would you rate the job (insert wife's name) is doing – excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"
    Excellent (daily hummers) - 7%
    Pretty Good (hummers on special occations) - 22%
    Only Fair (sex every week) - 22%
    Poor (less than once a month) - 48%


  • Tsujigiri, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I predict this will get dugg by 72% of us.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4You do know where you are right? This is digg. Most people here are so liberal they are practically socialists. Not that I am exactly a conservative but my point is I think it would be much higher than 72% here. Just look at the comments.
  • edebolt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1interesting concept but would have ejected many good presidents such as Truman who got very low popularity for ballooning federal debt to 110% GDP to rebuild Europe and Japan via the Marshall plan and surely Abe Lincoln would have been tossed as he won with only 40% of the vote(3 way race) and then was hated for the Civil War.
  • Markers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Is anyone really surprised by those numbers?
    • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2We haven't hit bottom yet. It's like a rolley-coaster. Wheeeeeee! And when we finally do hit bottom, boy will all those republicans get wet!
    • amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Then the blood will congeal and they'll be sticky.
  • LandmanBurns, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Has anyone posted the approval ratings of the congress? Last I saw the Democrat controlled congress was running a low 30's approval. I think this says more about the general public's view of politics all together. They don't think anybody is doing the job they promised to do.

    We also have to remember that there has never been as hateful environment like we have today. Even Regan didn't have the kind of open contempt and hate spewed their direction that Bush 43 has had. I'm not happy with a number of things that Bush has done, but he doesn't resemble the picture that is painted of by our pitifully inept, Dan Rather-type, media.

    One of the early posters said those that approve are treasonous. What about those that have actively lied and misinformed in an effort to destroy a presidency? Is that not somewhat treasonous, also? We have the great blessing of freedom to speak our opinions but we do not have the right to actively injure others no matter how much we dislike them.

    Just for the Clinton-ista's: Clinton's rating reached down in the 20's also and spent a long time in the 30's and 40's. This was with the wholesale support of the mainstream media trying to protect his legacy. He also was a pedestrian president; he never pushed the envelope or rocked the boat (outside of cheating on his wife on a public scale). He should have never dropped below the high 50's. Sometimes historical perspective makes current situations make more sense.
    • edebolt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think good leadership will reemerge. We just can't count on it all the time. Recall that Johnson, Nixon and Carter had very low ratings/performance but then comes Reagan and Clinton who did a better job and enjoyed much higher readings.
    • dr0evil, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"Reagan didn't have the open contempt and hatred spewed his way that Bush has had." Well that's because Reagan was an amiable ***** and Bush is an arrogant fratboy ***** who just dares people to have a brain so he can rub it in to them that brains don't ***** matter to this administration.
      "What about those who have lied and misinformed to destroy a presidency?" Go ***** yourself! What about those who have lied and misinformed to destroy a democracy?
  • gthrank, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4sudo rm -r bush cheney allotheradministrationcronies
  • dingxisxgood, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2i hate the man just as the other 72 percent of our population, but we can not say the things we are saying on Digg. Sooner or later the F.B.I are going to investigate this site for Terrorists and shut down Digg because we are supporting Terrorist by coming to Digg.Com. Have a great day supporters of Terrorist..errrrr, I mean Digg.
  • truegodofwar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5In other news, 28% of Americans don't watch the news and don't have a ***** clue what is going on in the world.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.