WHAT are the Republicans seeing that nobody else is?

[anitram]

According to a new ARG poll Bush is at a 19% approval rating (76% disapprove). The internals:

Among Republicans (33% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 48% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 46% disapprove. Among Democrats (40% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 3% approve and 95% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among independents (27% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 8% approve and 87% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.

What the hell, honestly?

Is this such blind devotion, or is there seriously something wrong with their thought process? The Dems are a given, but the Independents hold nearly identical views - so is everybody else crazy or what?

Somebody ssplain?

 

[Utoo]

Bush is at a 19% approval rating

That's awesome.

I'm glad I could have a beer with him in my backyard.

 

[Strongbow]

According to a new ARG poll Bush is at a 19% approval rating (76% disapprove). The internals:



What the hell, honestly?

Is this such blind devotion, or is there seriously something wrong with their thought process? The Dems are a given, but the Independents hold nearly identical views - so is everybody else crazy or what?

Somebody ssplain?

They recognize that despite many mistakes over the past 8 years, Bush has made many good decisions, especially when it comes to the most important issues.

Taliban removed from power in Afghanistan in 2001.

Saddam's regime removed from power in Iraq in 2003.

Resisting calls for withdrawal from Iraq and putting in place the Surge strategy that even Barack Obama now admits has been amazingly successful.

Cooperating with multiple governments in the killing and capture of Al Quada members all over the world.

An overall successful economic record even when compared to the Clinton years:

The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:
Clinton Years 64.5%
Bush Years 61.9%

Average GDP growth rate:
Clinton Years 5.4%
Bush Years 4.8%

Average Annual Poverty Rate:
Clinton Years 13.3%
Bush Years 12.3%

Average Annual Inflation Rate:
Clinton Years 2.60%
Bush Years 2.69%

Average Annual Unemployment Rate:
Clinton Years 5.21%
Bush Years 5.20%


These are just a few of the things that they see.

 

[anitram]

An overall successful economic record even when compared to the Clinton years

STING, this is your best work yet. Congrats.

 

[Angela Harlem]

The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:
Clinton Years 64.5%
Bush Years 61.9%

Average GDP growth rate:
Clinton Years 5.4%
Bush Years 4.8%

Average Annual Poverty Rate:
Clinton Years 13.3%
Bush Years 12.3%

Average Annual Inflation Rate:
Clinton Years 2.60%
Bush Years 2.69%

Average Annual Unemployment Rate:
Clinton Years 5.21%
Bush Years 5.20%


These are just a few of the things that they see.

Are they really that different, according to these numbers? I'm no economist. And if they are so different, does beating Clinton in the success stakes therefore make him an all-round great President? Because if beating Clinton is what it takes, then good luck with that! You've got a President who beat Clinton. Yep. Great stuff. Worth voting for him repeatedly for. Yay, Bush, you beat Clinton.
:rah-rah:

 

[Vincent Vega]

This chart comes up every other thread, and though it was already decomposed and argued he keeps on trying. Bonus points for efforts.

Other than that, the list shows what Republicans, according to Sting's understanding, care about: Going to war and staying there, and some economical figures which at first glance seem impressive, but put into context aren't that amazing.

 

[Liesje]

Somebody ssplain?

OK, well, based on the people I know that fit into this category - they don't think they are well-to-do, but compared to most of the country and world, they are (by way of having a job, a home, and some form of health insurance). They think that because things worked out OK for them, things are going OK in general. Along with this, they live in bubbles. They have decent jobs and nice families. Their world doesn't really extend beyond this. They've never asserted themselves politically or socially, many have not even traveled outside of the country or made any attempt to immerse themselves in any culture foreign to their own. Most of them are religious and traditional and yes, their views on secular politics are absurdly tainted. Again, because they live in a bubble and only look out for themselves and their immediate spawn, they happen to think than anyone who might ever need some form of government assistance (public education, welfare, health coverage...) is just lazy.

 

[Diemen]

I think that covers a lot of it, Leisje. Unfortunately.

 

[Utoo]

An overall successful economic record even when compared to the Clinton years

Is that before or after a certain trillion dollar bailout?




I keep hearing that some person was asleep at some switch....

 

[Strongbow]

Are they really that different, according to these numbers? I'm no economist. And if they are so different, does beating Clinton in the success stakes therefore make him an all-round great President? Because if beating Clinton is what it takes, then good luck with that! You've got a President who beat Clinton. Yep. Great stuff. Worth voting for him repeatedly for. Yay, Bush, you beat Clinton.
:rah-rah:

Actually I was pointing out how similar their overall records on the economy have been. The Clinton years are often held up as the example of what a great economy looks like, and when you look at the numbers, Bush is not that much different, and in fact has a better record than Clinton in several area's.

Thats part of the reason why there are millions of people out there that still approve his record.

 

[Angela Harlem]

The very fact that health insurance is a sign of a comfortable life is a very sad thing. Heath care and education are things you ought to be able to take for granted! They're certainly no privilege. That land of opportunity of yours should demand more. Come join the rest of us some time. We still manage to balance a budget and educate the healthy masses. It just might mean we have to engage in one or two less wars peace-keeping missions.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Actually I was pointing out how similar their overall records on the economy have been. The Clinton years are often held up as the example of what a great economy looks like, and when you look at the numbers, Bush is not that much different, and in fact has a better record than Clinton in several area's.

Thats part of the reason why there are millions of people out there that still approve his record.

Apologies, Sting. You've always been so critical of Clinton's record, so I thought you were saying the margins here were significant.

 

[Strongbow]

This chart comes up every other thread, and though it was already decomposed and argued he keeps on trying. Bonus points for efforts.

Other than that, the list shows what Republicans, according to Sting's understanding, care about: Going to war and staying there, and some economical figures which at first glance seem impressive, but put into context aren't that amazing.

I know you don't like the chart, but its a fact, a fact that many people in the years to come will look at when doing an assesment of the Bush Presidency when compared to other Presidents. These are basic macro-economic statistics that any historian looks at when assessing what life was like, or what the standard of living was like during a certain administration. These same statistics were used to trumpet the success of the Clinton administration at the end of his time in office.

But far more important than those factors was the necessary removal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and the Saddam regime in Iraq as well as rolling up the Al Quada network across the globe. National Security is the most important job of the President, and Bush has succeeded in ways that others have not.

 

[Strongbow]

Apologies, Sting. You've always been so critical of Clinton's record, so I thought you were saying the margins here were significant.

I'm sure I have had some criticism of Bill Clinton, but I thought he was overall a good President. I think you got me confused with someone else.

 

[Strongbow]

OK, well, based on the people I know that fit into this category - they don't think they are well-to-do, but compared to most of the country and world, they are (by way of having a job, a home, and some form of health insurance). They think that because things worked out OK for them, things are going OK in general. Along with this, they live in bubbles. They have decent jobs and nice families. Their world doesn't really extend beyond this. They've never asserted themselves politically or socially, many have not even traveled outside of the country or made any attempt to immerse themselves in any culture foreign to their own. Most of them are religious and traditional and yes, their views on secular politics are absurdly tainted. Again, because they live in a bubble and only look out for themselves and their immediate spawn, they happen to think than anyone who might ever need some form of government assistance (public education, welfare, health coverage...) is just lazy.

Thats the stereotypical view many liberals have of conservatives. But its just not true. For example, you realize, Bush's strongest group of support(except for evangelicals) comes from the US military. So much for this theory about all these Bush supporters living in a bubble and not traveling outside the country.

 

[Strongbow]

STING, this is your best work yet. Congrats.

If you really think the following makes the Bush years look like tough times for Americans, please explain.

The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:
Clinton Years 64.5%
Bush Years 61.9%

Average GDP growth rate:
Clinton Years 5.4%
Bush Years 4.8%

Average Annual Poverty Rate:
Clinton Years 13.3%
Bush Years 12.3%

Average Annual Inflation Rate:
Clinton Years 2.60%
Bush Years 2.69%

Average Annual Unemployment Rate:
Clinton Years 5.21%
Bush Years 5.20%

 

[Strongbow]

The very fact that health insurance is a sign of a comfortable life is a very sad thing. Heath care and education are things you ought to be able to take for granted! They're certainly no privilege. That land of opportunity of yours should demand more. Come join the rest of us some time. We still manage to balance a budget and educate the healthy masses. It just might mean we have to engage in one or two less wars peace-keeping missions.

Its rather easy to afford those things when you let Uncle Sam take care of your security, without which, no nation can survive.

 

[Liesje]

Thats the stereotypical view many liberals have of conservatives. But its just not true. For example, you realize, Bush's strongest group of support(except for evangelicals) comes from the US military.

Please refer to the boldfaced, italicized line in my post. NONE of the Bush supporters I know have ever been active in the military, or are even close to anyone who has been.

It's nothing personal, most of these people I have in mind are family members and I love them just the same. My dad might be more conservative than President Bush, and I still love and respect him, just don't want him running my country.

 

[anitram]

Yes I suppose invading other countries could be considered "travel."

 

[Strongbow]

Please refer to the boldfaced, italicized line in my post.

Well, I hope you see the mistake your making by forming an opinion about other Bush supporters based entirely on the relatively limited number of people you know personally, compared to the millions that support him from every ethnic, religious, career, political, and social background in the country.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I know you don't like the chart, but its a fact, a fact that many people in the years to come will look at when doing an assesment of the Bush Presidency when compared to other Presidents. These are basic macro-economic statistics that any historian looks at when assessing what life was like, or what the standard of living was like during a certain administration. These same statistics were used to trumpet the success of the Clinton administration at the end of his time in office.

But far more important than those factors was the necessary removal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and the Saddam regime in Iraq as well as rolling up the Al Quada network across the globe. National Security is the most important job of the President, and Bush has succeeded in ways that others have not.

I should tell my economic development professor that he is looking at totally the wrong indicators then, in assessing the standard of living.
As Economist you sure look at those figures as well, but you put them in context, look at the trends, look at previous years and most importantly, don't attribute it all the the current President, but rather take a look at the extent to which the administration of that time plays a role in it, and look at all the other determinants.
So far you really have to look hard to find economists that are applauding Bush for his economic policies, and the days of free market fundamentalists are counted as well.

 

[Strongbow]

Yes I suppose invading other countries could be considered "travel."

The idea that the military only travels when it invades another country is absurd. Even in peace time, the US military has personal stationed in dozens of countries around the world providing security that is vital to maintaining peace and stability.

 

[mobvok]

The main goal of the Republican base is making the rich wealthier. I don't believe income disparity between the peon and the richest 1% has ever been higher: Bush has done his job very well, if that's what you're aiming for.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Not to argue against the bases in south Germany or Italy (I really want them to stay as they are also an economic factor), but in some cases the bases are more strategic than vital.
And seriously, most countries in the world, i.e. all the others, don't need to set bases in a country so that their citizens can travel that place.

 

[Strongbow]

I should tell my economic development professor that he is looking at totally the wrong indicators then, in assessing the standard of living.

Even the UN's annual Human Development Index looks at GDP when they assess standard of living. I also think the poverty rate, inflation rate, unemployment rate, and the level of debt relative to the country's wealth are important factors to look at. I don't know many economist who would argue that their not.

As Economist you sure look at those figures as well, but you put them in context, look at the trends, look at previous years and most importantly, don't attribute it all the the current President, but rather take a look at the extent to which the administration of that time plays a role in it, and look at all the other determinants.

Oh yes, which involves realizing that the Bush administration had to deal with a recession early in its time in office as well as an event like 9/11. Bill Clinton never had to deal with a recession or an event like 9/11. Yet, despite the 2001 recession and a rise in Unemployment to 6.3%, the Bush administration succeeded in getting unemployment down to as low as 4.4% later on. It also succeeded in keeping poverty low, inflation low, and had a lower level of national debt to GDP than Clinton. The Bush administration succeeded in doing this despite dealing with a recession and fighting two wars, and higher gas prices, something that Clinton did not have to deal with.

Americans responding by re-electing George Bush in 2004 with OVER 50% of the popular vote, the first time any President received 50% or more of the popular vote since 1988. In addition, in being re-elected with over 50% of the popular vote, Bush achieved something that only two other Democratic Presidents had ever done before.

So far you really have to look hard to find economists that are applauding Bush for his economic policies, and the days of free market fundamentalists are counted as well.

There are plenty of economist that have supported Bush and his policies over the past 8 years and will be supporting John McCain over Barack Obama in November.

 

[Strongbow]

And seriously, most countries in the world, i.e. all the others, don't need to set bases in a country so that their citizens can travel that place.

That not why the United States has bases in other countries. It has bases in other countries to help protect area's that are vital to global security or key to deploying to other area's of the world.

 

[Vincent Vega]

It was meant in reference to your "The army as travel organisation" remark.

 

[Strongbow]

It was meant in reference to your "The army as travel organisation" remark.

I've never stated that the "army is a travel organization". Do to the job that the US military must do, its members often have to travel to many parts of the world.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Even the UN's annual Human Development Index looks at GDP when they assess standard of living. I also think the poverty rate, inflation rate, unemployment rate, and the level of debt relative to the country's wealth are important factors to look at. I don't know many economist who would argue that their not.

Oh yes, which involves realizing that the Bush administration had to deal with a recession early in its time in office as well as an event like 9/11. Bill Clinton never had to deal with a recession or an event like 9/11. Yet, despite the 2001 recession and a rise in Unemployment to 6.3%, the Bush administration succeeded in getting unemployment down to as low as 4.4% later on. It also succeeded in keeping poverty low, inflation low, and had a lower level of national debt to GDP than Clinton. The Bush administration succeeded in doing this despite dealing with a recession and fighting two wars, and higher gas prices, something that Clinton did not have to deal with.

Americans responding by re-electing George Bush in 2004 with OVER 50% of the popular vote, the first time any President received 50% or more of the popular vote since 1988. In addition, in being re-elected with over 50% of the popular vote, Bush achieved something that only two other Democratic Presidents had ever done before.

There are plenty of economist that have supported Bush and his policies over the past 8 years and will be supporting John McCain over Barack Obama in November.

It's included, no question. But the final assessment and ranking is much more complicated.
But they don't necessarily tell you if the economic policies of the time are that great, anyways. This current crisis, e.g., is due to policy made since the Reagan administration. Most policy changes rather have long-term effects.

Bush didn't do everything wrong. To the contrary, luckily in part he didn't do anything.
And the world is still shaking their heads how that re-election could have happened.
Monetarists will never go extinct.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I've never stated that the "army is a travel organization". Do to the job that the US military must do, its members often have to travel to many parts of the world.

It's called paraphrasing.