IrishHand
04-22-2003, 10:11 PM
As we've discussed before, I believe that polls tend to be highly overrated since they depend so much on the methodology. My biggest complaint tends to be the actual question being asked, since it often begs one answer or the other - and if the question doesn't, it's often too vague. However, I found the following very interesting, especially in light of the fact that US presidents, historically, have always enjoyed a huge boost in support immediately following the initiation of military action against a foreign nation.
President
Pre-War Approval Rating
Start of War Approval Rating
After U.S. Victory Assured Approval Rating
George H.W. Bush (1991)
64% (Jan 11-13)
82% (Jan 17-20)
89% (Feb 28-Mar 3)
George W. Bush (2003)
58% (Mar 14-15)
71% (Mar 22-23)
71% (Apr 14-16)
Read into that what you will. I tend to find historical comparisons a lot more interesting than poll results in the abstract anyway - they give at least a vague sense of perspective to an otherwise flawed source of information.
President
Pre-War Approval Rating
Start of War Approval Rating
After U.S. Victory Assured Approval Rating
George H.W. Bush (1991)
64% (Jan 11-13)
82% (Jan 17-20)
89% (Feb 28-Mar 3)
George W. Bush (2003)
58% (Mar 14-15)
71% (Mar 22-23)
71% (Apr 14-16)
Read into that what you will. I tend to find historical comparisons a lot more interesting than poll results in the abstract anyway - they give at least a vague sense of perspective to an otherwise flawed source of information.