Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Books

California Bush Disapproval Ratings Highest Ever Recorded by Field Poll—Higher Than Nixon—By 75% to 15% U.S. is Seriously Off on Wrong Track

Californians Disapprove of Handling of War and Economy by Epic Margins

By Frank D. Russo

It is hardly news anymore that Californians disapprove of President George W. Bush’s performance in the White House. But these numbers—and the fact that he has slid lower than President Nixon who resigned in defeat as he was about to be removed from office by Democrats and Repubican Senators—is remarkable. 71% of California voters disapprove of the job Bush is doing while 24% approve, according to a California Field Poll Released today.

This is the worst rating a President has received in the 60 plus year history of the Field Poll—barely eclipsing the 24% approval and 70% disapproval of Richard Nixon in August of 1974. And the President’s rating is far lower than the lowest rating (45% approval) Bill Clinton had in eight years in office and his father, George H.W. Bush’s 37% approval rating before we had a regime change in the 1992 election.

On handling of the economy, Bush gets a 78% disapproval and an 18% approval and on “handling the situation in Iraq,” he gets 28% approval with 68% disapproval. Voters say the U.S. is “seriously off on the wrong track” by 75% to 15%.

Bush’s rating is based on epic levels of disapproval by Democrats (90% to 6%) and non-partisan/others (83% to 14%) and rather tepid approval from the third of the electorate that are Republicans (54% to 38%). The only ideological group that approves of his performance are the self-identified “strongly conservative voters.” From even moderately conservative voters he is disapproved 60% to 35% and “middle-of-the-road” voters disapprove 79% to 15%. His disapproval by moderate and strong liberals is 94% with 4% approval.

There is not a single region of the state, no matter how sliced and diced, that comes close to approving of his job performance. The closest is in the Central Valley, where he rises to 38% approval and has 55% disapproval. Different levels of disapproval are seen when the state is longitudinally divided with 76% to 19% disapproval in the coastal counties that make up almost 70% of the electorate and not much to cheer about 59% to 35% disapproval in the inland counties.

There is no statistically significant difference in Bush’s ratings between men and women and all racial/ethnic groups in Field’s poll disapprove. His “best” rating is the 28% to 68% disapproval by white non-Hispanic voters. He fares with 19% approval by Latino’s to 74% disapproval and does worse with Blacks and Asian voters.

As to Bush’s handling of the economy, it is hard to see how he could fare poorer than he does with California Democrats—90% disapproval to 5% approval—but he comes close with non-partisan/others with 90% disapproval and 6% approval, statistically the same. Even our state’s Republicans disapprove of his handling of the economy by 51% to 43%.

As to his handling of the situation in Iraq, at 68% disapproval and 24% approval, he is very close (within the margin of error of this subsample) of his prior ratings—perhaps a little bit better off than his last rating of 27% approval and 71% disapproval in May of 2008, and his low points in 2007 where his approval was at 24%. This is based on disapproval on the war by Democrats by 87% to 10% and by non-partisan/others 78% to 17% and tepid approval on the war by California Republicans 59% to 35%.

When asked: “Thinking about the country overall, do you think things in the U.S. are generally going in the right direction, or do you feel things are seriously off on the wrong track?” by the largest percentage in his Presidency, 75% to 15%, California voters feel we are on the wrong track. There is agreement by Democrats (81% to 10%) and non-partisan/others (83% to 12%) and California Republicans by 63% to 23% also agree.

Field’s poll was taken of 809 registered California voters between July 8 and 14. It has a margin of error of 3.9% as to Bush’s overall job rating. The margin of error is 5% as to other questions where a smaller subsample was questioned. Field has been polling in California since 1947 and is non-partisan and non-profit. It is considered the gold standard in the Golden State.

Posted on July 19, 2008

Comments

24% is still higher than the rating Congress gets. I notice you don't point the finger, or mention the Democrats (who are in charge of the budget).

Presidents can't even introduce bills.

Trumen left office with 22% approval. History doesn't look too unkindly now on Trumen. It won't with 43 either.

Its all relative isn't it.

Posted by: Guy Montag Doe at July 19, 2008 07:12 PM

Mr. Doe is on target!

Mr, Russo's mission is to make things appear in a way supportive of his politics, aka propaganda.

A very small sampling from a liberally based/managed polling group is considered "the gold standard" here. I guess you have to say it is "the gold standard" otherwise you may not think it is!

Of course, it is NO SURPRISE that a state such as California would embrace a more liberal approach/viewpoint on anything political...

...It is just kinda sad and cheap that that banner gets waived like it does here as like it is some startling revalation or something new.

What was the Congress approval rating again? Did they ever end that war in Iraq like they said they would to win seats in the last election? I'll bet Code Pink isn't very happy with democrats right now...were they polled too?

Posted by: Jay Gould at July 20, 2008 09:49 AM

Jay: I suggest you look in the mirror. Take a look at what the other papers in the state have written about the Field Poll, for instance the not so liberal Press Enterprise "Field Poll: Bush beats out Nixon in disapproval rating in California" http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_field19.127b884.html I never thought I would see a President with a lower rating than Nixon.

Talk to those who follow politics--Republicans and Democrats alike and you'll see that the Field poll is one of the two most respected polling outfits in the state--alog with the PPIC which you also malign when its results do not support your views on politics. Rather than being a small polling outfit afflicted with San Francisco bias, it has been reporting since the 1940's and has a sterling reputation.

The Congress and the state legislature do not poll well, and have not for some time. This has more to do with disatisfaction with the institution rather than one's own representative. Folks from the left, right, and center, can be disillusioned with the institution for failure to meet their own viewpoints.

What is significant with Bush is the extent to which his ratings have dropped. He was much higher during the earlier part of his 8 years in office.

In your daily comments on this site, you continue to push your political views, misstating facts and showing quite a bias. Take a look at the San Francisco Chronicle today and you'll see the Califonria Progress Report described as serious and wonkish and a repository of a great wealth of articles.

The readers of this site know about me and the authors of articles here. We post with our own names and do not hide behind pseudonyms and anonymity to slur folks, sommething continue to snidely do, caling folks comrade and the like.

If you don't like the facts, don't throw stones at the messenger. Do you have a life beyond criticizing just about every article that appears here? Come out of the shadows.

Posted by: Frank D. Russo at July 20, 2008 11:44 AM

Frank,

My point isn't so much what the information is, but how it is portrayed. "Facts" are in the eye of the beholder...

As Mr. Doe pointed out, the context of dissatisfaction with ALL government is lacking in balancing your "news" that Bush isn't polling well (is that really news?) with a mere 809 folks sampled in the very large and admittedly very liberal state of California.

Just how is the Congress polling?

How about our own Legislature?

Both "run" by the democrat majority party.

Frank, how and what you say can, do and should mean things. For example, in the upper left of your home page here it says:

"Advertise Here
Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day."

At the time of this writing there were 1,394,666 visitors to this site since March 13, 2006, a period of 863 days. Simple math then shows that an average of 1,616 "readers" aka "visitors" look here every day.

So either "thousands" (plural) or "every day" (Christmas? Thanksgiving? Etc.) is an exaggeration is it not? Please consider how many of said readers are perhaps not of your political persuation as well as how few readers seem to comment today when compaired to the past. (Have you any data on this point?) As you noted, I come here myself a lot.

Perhaps my participation too is good for your website! Think about it...

Back to point, I don't think the SF Cronicle would be hostile to your site, I do agree it contains a wealth of articles, some of which I do agree with, believe it or not.

Also consider:

You have many authors and THEY ALL show "quite a bias" do they not? That's fine, but they should be able to handle the questions/criticisms they create otherwise their points/views are hollow.

Many authors here subscribe to socialism in my humble opinion. Income redistrobution, an "elite" society knowing better than everyone who doesn't agree with them, etc. Take Cavala for example, his articles are often socialist-style propaganda aka "The Big Lie".

Lately, he picked on McCain for being "too old" yet didn't draw on a specific age when being "too old" takes effect. By his yardstick, Senator's Byrd, Feinstein, Kennedy, etc. are also "too old". Plus, If Cavala is a "child of 1960's Berekely", isn't he in 2008 "too old" himself? He must be between 60 and 70 himself, right?

Plus Cavala pointed out how McCain perhaps "dumped his first wife right when the ink was drying on the divorce documents to marry some sweet young thing (his current wife)"...words to that effect.

Where is the obvious comparison to Bill Clinton? Gavin Newsome? Antonio Villaraigosa? None of them bothered with any divorce paperwork before they performed their marital indiscretions, the latter two well within the political memory. Is that OK when compaired to McCain?

Therefore, Cavala is a propagandist, proponent to win at all costs, including credibility. He admitted the "at all costs" himself once as WINNING was the objective. So similar to socialist propagandists of past regimes he rates the title "Comrade".

Use of pseudonyms and anonymity? You have PLENTY of commenters on your side of politics who use them. (Where has Publius been of late?) Where is your being critical of that? Besides, my name AND EMAIL ADDRESS have always been available to you yet you never have asked me a question about anything. Please, drop me a line, anytime.

Thanks for your time.

Posted by: Jay Gould at July 20, 2008 12:54 PM

Jay: I don[t want to get into a pissing match with you, but your last comment reflects not just a different point of view, which I can accept, but it seems to me an attack on my integrity.

In your first comment here, you attack the headline. Now you are attacking the advertise here box. While your math is correct, this box has been up on the site since the redesign of the site. While in the first months or years the readership was not as high as it is now, we are getting a lot more readers than the average you cite.

Let's keep the comments above the belt, please, and not personal. You have a forum here that you have used almost daily and anonymously. Comments, please, that you would make if your name and identity were known.

What's next, an attack on my little dog Fala?

FDR

Posted by: Frank D. Russo at July 20, 2008 04:11 PM

Frank,

I am actually one of those who gets and appreciates your "little dog Fala" comment!

Sure, I appreciate facts and being above the belt, etc. But I feel the irony of those, not necessarily yourself, who are NOT of that mind (Cavala, Lyons, etc.) yet get a pass here all the time.

It is OK to state your political bias Frank. Heck, I guess I have one too. But lets try to be honest and open about it too. If it cannot stand up to a little scrutiny/comparison now and then, what good is it? And that goes for ALL SIDES of the political spectrum.

Thanks again for your time!

Posted by: Jay Gould at July 20, 2008 06:49 PM

Jay Gould is a "Comment Troll". Ignore him.

Posted by: Patrick Barnette at July 21, 2008 10:00 AM

Now Patrick, you are not showing any "enlightened tolerance" now are you?

Engaging in serious, pointed and even satirical dialog to make a point is one thing. To attempt to marginalize those you may not agree with shows both a bankruptcy of position and bad manners...

Posted by: Jay Gould at July 21, 2008 10:35 AM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker