DarrylS

Today it is reported that 24% of Connecticut support Bush, http://www.courant.com/news/nationwo...es-nationworld

but more telling is a graphic that is taking from a poll on all of the states..it is pretty compelling that support for GWB is falling off of the board, please no one get their panties in a bunch over the source, it is only a graphic from Survey USA...the map would not copy, however the only four states still supporting GWB are Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska and Utah is pretty significant.

http://democrats.com/node/8712

Let's face it, watching George W. Bush's approval rating tick incrementally down to the single digits he has so rightfully earned is in some ways the political equivalent of watching paint dry. We know he's going down and the relevant issue seems to be when that will happen. At this point, the only interesting thing in examining individual approval polls is wondering how uninformed or Kool-Aid drunk this thirty-something percent must be to still actually believe he is doing a good job.

What's more instructive, is to look at where he started and how far he has fallen in just 18 months since the 2004 presidential election. On November 2, 2004, Bush received a 50 percent or more vote of confidence in 31 of 50 states --30 states if you believe he did not legitimately win Ohio. How many states give him that same vote just a year and a half later, based on April 2006 approval polls? Four.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

scout

Which brings up a question, how do they designate what people they call on these polls. Do random calls mean totally random or do they select randomly from different states? Quite honestly, who cares about opinions of people from North Dakota. When there is a presidential election, most candidates don't even travel to some of these places. Nice place to vacation, but not in the mainstream of thought.

BelichickFan

Bush is unpopular but "the target" is always less popular. For example, I vote no on "do you support Bush" and I didn't vote for him in 2004. However if CA were a swing state and the Presidential election were today with him against Kerry or Gore I would vote for him.

scout

This is what I don't understand. My brother-in-law will say the same thing. So what your saying is, we would be worse off today if Gore/Kerry had won one of the last two elections. How would things be different? No, we wouldn't have universal health care. No, we wouldn't have a gay agenda for our country. I believe if Gore was elected, we would have tighter controls on industry as it relates to our environment. Would this be so bad? We would not be fighting in Iraq. Although we probably would have some sort of investigation going on, whether it was justified (Plamegate) or not (Whitewater).

BelichickFan

Without going through issue by issue, I agree with Bush on more than I agree with Gore or Kerry. So although I'm not a Bush fan, he is still the lesser of two evils for me.

Patters

Of course that's true, but it's less likely you'll campaign, give money, or try to persuade people to support his policies. Some people like you may not even bother to vote, while others will consider a third party, and still others may make their feelings known in the Congressional elections by voting for reform, which is sure to be a major Democratic campaign theme next fall.