The biggest puzzler in the whole poll sequence is the economic opinions. Polls have consistently registered dissatisfaction with the economy and Bush's handling of it, with the movement only marginal for the most part.

Bush got more credit for handling the economy, and people expressed more general confidence, back when we were still in a slowdown after the 2000-2001 recession and market collapses and the huge economic impact of 9/11. Over the last eighteen months, the opinions are all worse, despite the economy being arguably the best economy of all time anywhere.

Go figure . . .

When have you EVER KNOWN the Lame Stream Media to be Truthful? CNN and the NY Times specifically, are Propaganda organs of our Terrorist enemies, like Pravda used to be Russia's mouthpiece.

It is now a given assumption that ANYTHING in the Times is the REVERSE of the TRUTH. Be warned.

I wonder if those economic opinions have to do with where they are polling. In upstate NY, where I live, the economy has not grown at the pace of the national economy due to state politics. In fact, Eliot Spitzer referred to upstate as the New Appalachia. If the polling is weighted in similar high tax, low growth states then it would reflect the pessimism of the constituents. Not Bush's fault, but if you're answering one of these polling calls, you might not spend a whole lot of time differentiating between state and national pols when pronouncing your disgust.

People's measure of the economy is not how much stocks are growing, or new home sales, or defense contracts, or shitty service jobs, or low unemployment claims. It is much more personal, such as how well am I being paid, can I keep up with my bills, am I in debt, do I feel like I can go out and find a better job or should I be grateful to just have mine, and of course in my age group I know people with post-graduate degrees (and not in philosophy or English Lit) who look for months before finding a job, and it often pays 30-40 a year (which barely covers student loans+housing).

I know that economics is not simple, I know that the growth we are seeing is better than a shrinking economy, but the goal is not to have an economic juggernaut where the citizens of the country are struggling---that is the standard in 3rd world countries, where growth is high and wealth is in the hands of few and everyone else is worthless.

When you see wages increase and REAL employment up (i.e. full time jobs for people, fewer discouraged workers, fewer people who have USED UP all of their unemployment) then the polls will match the GDP growth.

As for me, from a cabinet of millionaires and a policy aimed at the rich and vetted by a Senate full of wealthy older people from the powerful, I am not shocked to see the rich doing very well while everyone else struggles along. I don't think Bush talks seriously to any middle class people, and I doubt he has since his days in the National Guard.

What about the Gallup/USA TODAY poll from 7/21??? - Yes, that one - the one that shows the trend going the opposite direction?

Does the Republican Propoganda Newsleter tell you to avoid that one?

Link - scroll down to the third poll

Bush's job approval rating has dropped three points.

Well Lee, I'm not so sure that particular compilation of polling tells me anything that I haven't read all over the headlines. Frankly, I find polling a very silly way to test the political waters. Are these people who actually go out and vote? Would some of those dissatisfied people be unhappy about winning the lottery?

Most important, why are they dissatisfied with the president's job handling? They might be conservatives irritated at hte president for immigration or not vetoing huge spending bills. They might be moderates who are upset at the handling of Iraq. Would these folks vote for Democrats just because they disapprove of the president's current job handling? I think not.

Clinton had high approval numbers and lost majorites in the house and senate during his tenure. November elections are the only real accurate accounting of voter opinion.

Kimyl Oh, even living in upstate NY where the economy is pretty much stagnant, most of our acquaintances (both highly educated and with only high school diplomas) are enjoying comfortable lifestyles and job security. The biggest complaint by everyone is the high tax burden. Everyone knows someone who is leaving the state to go where property taxes are less oppressive and constricting. Particularly egregious are the retirees who can no longer afford homes (paid off, no less) they have lived in for many years thanks to high property taxes. This is the price of living in a Democrat run state - high taxes, too much government, no economic growth. Who gets hurt the most? That would be your treasured middle class.

All politics is local I guess. Isn't Pataki in charge over there?

My question is, where do you want tax cuts? I mean, its nice to bitch about it, but where do you want spending cut in your area? I know there are some ridiculous measures and some places to save, but living in a nice area is like owning nice stuff. You don't get a million dollar mansion, a boat, a second home, etc. etc. without having to pay money to maintain it all---the same goes for your neighborhood.

Robin--I appreciate your sanity and rational debate, and I do hope the tax situation improves up there, by whichever way you voters figure out.