It gets better. Now there’s a new poll with Bush at 29% you can crow about.

But President Bush’s low approvals don’t mean much as far as history is concerned. Truman left office with a 32% rating, after going as low as 22%. Historians often list him as among the more solid Presidents.

And going this low so early in his second term gives Bush some time to recover. If losses are not so big in November, this is more likely than not to happen.

Boy, you really are a Bush optimist, aren’t you? I mean, painting 29% as not that bad and even hopeful….

Try taking a look at Bush’s overall poll numbers throughout his presidency. Here’s a chart:

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_8911_image001.gif

Study it carefully. Note that there are upswings at four times, and four times only:

1. 9/11
2. The start of the Iraq War
3. Hussein captured (slight bump)
4. Massive campaign spending in ’04 elections (numbers barely rose, but just enough to slide through)

In short, Bush has seen a rise in popularity only as a result of some big news story or massive advertising campaign.

Aside from those four points, Bush has, as a rule, ALWAYS declined. “Not losing so big in November” will not be enough to bring up his poll numbers, especially since any stemming of loss for Republicans will be seen as despite Bush’s drag-down effect, and not somehow due to the people’s love for Bush.

So unless there’s another terrorist attack, or a new war, or $100’s of millions spent pumping up Bush directly, don’t count on Bush getting his numbers back up. It’s not impossible, but it is far from likely, and would have to buck 6 years of steady trends.

Luis, both parties are extremely unpopular in Congress. I expect some change over, but if the Republicans can get their act together and do some tough things they can hold onto some seats. Democrats will have to do some changing, too, but with Howard Dean as their chairman they have not made a lot of money to campaign with. If the Republicans do what needs to be done, they can keep at least one of the houses of Congress. If they keep both, even slightly, it will indirectly help Bush’s numbers. But this alone won’t give him positive numbers. He has to make radical changes in the way he communicates with the people. He has to be out there more, explaining his policies (not just Iraq) and he has to do this aggressively.

His poll numbers always have slight bumps when he actually talks to the people. When he had that series of speeches on Iraq his numbers had a slight upward move, but he didn’t continue to make that effort publicly and they went back down. A largely hidden President is perceived to be out of touch. This is one of the reasons his numbers are so low. And most polls still have him in the mid-30’s now. Not 29%. That’s one poll. I agree that this is trouble for the President, but if it serves as a wake-up call for him, he can still recover.

His poll numbers always have slight bumps when he actually talks to the people. When he had that series of speeches on Iraq his numbers had a slight upward move, but he didn’t continue to make that effort publicly and they went back down.Mind substantiating that? Which speeches on Iraq? What were the poll numbers?

I would also take issue with you on that for other reasons, namely that Bush went on a several-month-long campaign to destroy–er, privatize Social Security, speaking intensively to the people, enjoying hand-picked town-hall meetings where the audience members showered him with praise, and not only did he fail to successfully push his program, but his poll numbers fell steadily throughout. So I don’t think you’re right on this one.

Yes, that’s true…about the Social security plan, which for some reason didn’t gain traction (I think its because the opposition portrayed the problem as non-existent.) But the key word in my quote was Iraq. Remember the series of speeches he made several months ago about what is happening in Iraq and why success will happen? maybe you don’t since you probably didn’t bother to tune in. But his numbers had a slight bump upwards when he made those speeches. But as soon as he stopped the movement sank down again.

Cc: You’re still not being very specific, so I had to look it up myself the best I could. Bush has done several stump tours, more than one on Iraq. Right after the new year, Bush and Cheney started stumping–is that what you refer to?

If so, I don’t see any evidence at all that his approval numbers jumped at that time. There was a slight uptick around that time, but the uptick began in early December, a month before Bush started speaking. You may have been mistaken because you saw the speeches then noticed the higher numbers, but you were not correct about which preceded the other. There was one story about a poll that showed a slight uptick in one poll in response to the war being worth it, but that uptick was so small as to be virtually swallowed up by the margin of error for the survey–not to mention that it was just one survey. I think that’s why I didn’t notice a stump-speech-poll-jump that you claim–because it didn’t happen.

I would further point out the fact that Bush again took to the stump, in mid-March, for more than a week, on the same topic, and there was no change in the polls as a result.

This is what I refer to when I ask for specifics; a general claim looks nice, but the devil is in the details, and unless one can specify and back up with evidence, then claims are just claims.

I would further point out the fact that Bush again took to the stump, in mid-March, for more than a week, on the same topic, and there was no change in the polls as a result.”

This is the period I was referring to. I remember hearing that Bush’s numbers had minor movement as a result. Nothing major at all, but my point was that if the President got out to the people more often, preferably in prime time, he might be able to set the record straight. This would no doubt help him if people knew the real stories and not the hysteria engendered by reporters who insist on sensational, misleading headlines.

Hey maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m the one hearing the wrong news stories, but it certainly doesn’t look that way when the Iraqi gov’t is getting underway and the Iraqi forces are taking more hits than we are (yes, i’m aware that we had a couple of bad months). For a long time there were daily headlines of U.S. deaths, bombs and such. Now its less frequent. I agree that any deaths warrant interest, but I see things changing in Iraq. Why can’t you?

This is the period I was referring to. I remember hearing that Bush’s numbers had minor movement as a result.Well, here’s a link to Bush’s numbers, with the March numbers right in there. Take a look for yourself. Before Bush went out, his numbers were 36, 37, 39, 39, 37, and 36. After he started stumping, the numbers were 39, 37, 36, 36, 37, 37, and 38. So, where’s the jump? There isn’t one–the numbers were almost dead level. This is what I’ve mentioned to you before–it’s always a good idea to check stuff out before you post. And my larger point being that you were incorrect in saying that Bush gets better poll numbers when he goes out and speaks to the people. He doesn’t–in fact, he’s fallen in the polls repeatedly on such stumps. But that may not be cause-and-effect; as I pointed out in the blog, Bush’s natural state is one of falling poll numbers. Unless there’s something to artificially prop him up, he’s always going downhill.This would no doubt help him if people knew the real stories and not the hysteria engendered by reporters who insist on sensational, misleading headlines.Really? Like what? That the media reports on dozens of Iraqis each day found slaughtered in sectarian violence, when they should have been reporting on the local school that opened? Not to mention that the reporters actually try to report on school openings and such, but they’re told not to by the US military–they’re told that if they do, then the schools and so on get targeted and destroyed. Which, in itself, further demonstrates how bad things are in Iraq.I agree that any deaths warrant interest, but I see things changing in Iraq. Why can’t you?So, you’re claiming things are changing for the better in Iraq? Why can’t I see that? Ummm, well, maybe because they’re not. Have you ever considered that maybe the news you’re believing in, the news coming from Fox and from the administration–that maybe that’s the news that isn’t reflecting reality?