PDA

View Full Version : Support for Bush's re-election falls below 50 percent


medea
Feb 27, 2003, 05:29 PM
The percentage of registered voters who say they would support President Bush in 2004 fell below 50 percent for the first time, according to a new CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll, which finds more Americans concerned about the economy.

Two-thirds of those who responded to the poll, released Thursday, describe current economic conditions as poor, a 10-point increase since December. Optimism about the future of the economy also dropped 10 points during that time.
Asked their choice for president, 47 percent of the registered voters polled said they would support Bush in 2004 -- compared with 51 percent in December. About 39 percent said they would support the Democratic candidate, compared with 37 percent in December.
Still, a majority of those polled, 57 percent, said they approved of the way Bush is handling the job of president. That Bush approval rating is the lowest since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The poll -- based on telephone interviews with 1,004 adult Americans between February 24 and 26 -- also found that support for sending U.S. troops to Iraq remains steady at 59 percent. Public attitudes, however, are likely to be shaped by the events of the next week or so as indicated by the respondents' answers to other questions. Nearly half of all Americans say they may change their minds on Iraq; about a third said they are committed to war.
The poll comes as Bush continues to lobby the U.N. Security Council to pass another resolution declaring that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has missed his last chance to disarm. And the president has made several speeches in recent weeks, emphasizing his concern about the economy and his administration's determination to strengthen it.
The poll numbers suggest Bush has further to go in convincing Americans that he can turn the economy around. About 45 percent of those polled said they favor Bush's economic plan, while 40 percent said they oppose it, and 15 percent described themselves as unsure.
On Iraq, the support for invading that country seemed to hinge on several factors. One example: Forty percent of those polled said they would support an invasion of Iraq with U.S. forces only if the United Nations approves another U.S. resolution against Iraq. And support for an invasion drops significantly if Saddam destroys missiles cited by U.N. weapons inspectors, falling from 71 percent to 33 percent.
As for Saddam's recent challenge to Bush to join him in a debate, poll respondents left no doubt about who they thought would win. Three-quarters of respondents said Bush would win a debate.
The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/bush.poll/index.html

conceptdev
Feb 27, 2003, 05:41 PM
yey, how does my cohabitant get her absentee ballot.

MrMacMan
Feb 27, 2003, 05:54 PM
I see...

Well with bush's ratings slipping... I don't see much the democrats are saying.

Currently nothing is happening in congress... nothing at all.

I haven't seen democratic leaders speak out against this or totally support bush on this. Nada, nothing.

I want to see a change. I don't like this nothingness.

I want a agenda.

GeneR
Feb 27, 2003, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
I see...

Well with bush's ratings slipping... I don't see much the democrats are saying.

Currently nothing is happening in congress... nothing at all.

I haven't seen democratic leaders speak out against this or totally support bush on this. Nada, nothing.

I want to see a change. I don't like this nothingness.

I want a agenda.

I think the Democrats know that Bush is hanging himself right now in the eyes of a great number of people in the country. So, why say anything? "Give him plenty of rope to hang himself..." is probably the subtext here.

Maclicious
Feb 27, 2003, 06:57 PM
Let's see--they're attempting to attach a provision to the budget bill that would open the Arctic Natl Wildlife Refuge to drilling. See, this way it'll get by without a debate. Never mind a bill specifically designed to allow this was killed last year. Never mind that if we started drilling now, none of that oil will reach market for 10 years. And never mind that even if we extract every last bit of projected oil from the refuge, it'll provide enough oil for 2 years (at today's rate of use, not the rate of use 10 years from now). Of course, when oil hits the market, its sells to the world, so we wouldn't even get all of it.

What else. Oh yes. They're getting ready to ban human cloning. Even theraputic human cloning. Never mind that unused embryonic cell clusters, in their thousands, are being thrown away now every day in In Vitro clinics. At least we could work some good from the current waste... but no. This way we get a brain drain on our brightest biotech talents who move to countries that allow therapuetic cloning.

But, at least they are not tied up with the war--they already abdicated all their power to the president. Nothing they could do about it one way or the other, now.

Am I bitter?

Maybe I'm just tired of waiting for my 17" AluBook.

macfan
Feb 27, 2003, 07:08 PM
So, if the election were held today, it would be a pretty big landslide for Bush. Given percention of the economy and the stock market and the uncertainty of war with Iraq, it's going to be very tough to beat Bush with numbers like those.

BrittasMac
Feb 27, 2003, 09:43 PM
These polls mean very little. There is no telling what events will happen between now and November 2004, there is no telling who the Democrat candidate will be, there is no telling what sort of political manuevars the parties will make.

This sort of speculation is largely pointless at the moment, at least hold off until we actually know who he will be up against in 2004.

bwawn
Feb 27, 2003, 10:12 PM
These polls really do mean absolutely nothing. Over three fourths of those polled believe Bush would win a debate with Saddam Hussein? I am in no way trying to put down Bush, but he really would in no way come close to winning any debate with Saddam, let alone anyone else in a similar position, no matter how evil or guilty Iraq may be. He simply is not a good speaker, and an even worse debater, and I'd say the majority of the American population should know this by now.

macfan
Feb 28, 2003, 12:37 AM
bwawn,

He simply is not a good speaker, and an even worse debater, and I'd say the majority of the American population should know this by now.

Bush has actually shown himself to be quite effective at delivering a speech. He has to work at it more than some, and this business of how to pronounce "nuclear" makes him look like a southern hick, but he is certainly not a bad public speaker. This is shown by the positive responses his speeches generally get in polls now. Like most people, he has improved with practice, and it's just not that hard to make a decent speech, especially when you have a whole army of writers doing the heavy lifting for you.

I agree the polls don't mean much right now.

filmcutter
Feb 28, 2003, 09:45 AM
Wasn't GWB elected by only about 38 percent of the people?? Oh, and the Supreme Court.

Isn't amazing that someone who lost the popular vote and was absolutely *not* elected by the majority is now telling the world that he knows what's best for everyone?

Pause for thought...

:rolleyes:

Backtothemac
Feb 28, 2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by filmcutter
Wasn't GWB elected by only about 38 percent of the people?? Oh, and the Supreme Court.

Isn't amazing that someone who lost the popular vote and was absolutely *not* elected by the majority is now telling the world that he knows what's best for everyone?

Pause for thought...

:rolleyes:

Damn, I am about to really loose my temper with this, 'Bush stole the election' ****! Get ****ing over it! He was elected by elections laws that were made PRIOR to the election. The state supreme court if Florida was remanded, and then overturned. They were changing election laws post facto. They can not do that. Are you so blind to reality that you cannot understand that!

As for this stupid poll. It means nothing. Look at more closely. 47% support Bush, but only 39% would vote for a Democrat. Furthermore, the title is that Bush falls below 50%. Look that the margin of error +- 3%. So, in political scientist terms this is a bad poll. See the byline says below %50, but with the +3% of error, it would put it at 50%, thus making the byline false. Bad, bad, bad political reporting. This would faill someones ass out of grad school in a second.


Oh, and one last thing. 38% of the people. Get friggin real! Gore and Bush both had over 50million votes each. That is each about 49% of the votes cast.

dabirdwell
Feb 28, 2003, 10:47 AM
B2TM, I don't want to be insulting, but I would really appreciate it if you would try not to make sweeping statements about things you obviously don't understand.

In your second paragraph you first use the poll to try to support your argument, and then you say it is meaningless. Your idea that the margin of error makes the poll "good" or "bad" seem to be totally based on a simplistic understanding of statistical methodology. I'm not sure how you can say that a poll like this would fail a student from grad school without providing any context at all.

As well, I think you misinterpreted the remark about the percentage of population who voted for Bush in 2000. Also, if you knew anything about the history of the Supreme Court and the decisions previously made by the Justices who elected Bush, you would see that their actions in 2000 blatantly contradict the stance that they had taken on every other decision based on similar precedent, and that in John Marshall's terms, the court was not acting like a court.

This is just one guys view, but my stepfther did run Bush's campaign for governor each time and the presidential campaign in 2000.

And I'm still a Progressive

Backtothemac
Feb 28, 2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by dabirdwell
B2TM, I don't want to be insulting, but I would really appreciate it if you would try not to make sweeping statements about things you obviously don't understand.

In your second paragraph you first use the poll to try to support your argument, and then you say it is meaningless. Your idea that the margin of error makes the poll "good" or "bad" seem to be totally based on a simplistic understanding of statistical methodology. I'm not sure how you can say that a poll like this would fail a student from grad school without providing any context at all.

As well, I think you misinterpreted the remark about the percentage of population who voted for Bush in 2000. Also, if you knew anything about the history of the Supreme Court and the decisions previously made by the Justices who elected Bush, you would see that their actions in 2000 blatantly contradict the stance that they had taken on every other decision based on similar precedent, and that in John Marshall's terms, the court was not acting like a court.

This is just one guys view, but my stepfther did run Bush's campaign for governor each time and the presidential campaign in 2000.

And I'm still a Progressive

Um no. The statisical problem is the problem with this poll. If the number was 47% and the margin of error was +-1% then yes, it would have fallen below 50%. That would be a true statement, but we don't know that it has because the margin of error is inside of the spread of response. Basic statistics.

Oh, and your stepfather Ran the campaign nationally? Or locally? Not being insulting just asking.

As for making sweeping arguements that I don't understand. BA. Political Science and Military History double major. 68 horus including post graduate work in Political science, need 6 hours for MA in Political Theory. Emphasis was terrorism/counterterrorism and statistics. I have served in the US Navy, and at the CIA. So, no, I do understand the arguement.

As for the court issues. Look, don't talk about previous decisions, because none laid a casework for this one. Except cases where election law was changed after the election. Then Federal Courts would deal with the issue if it was a federal issue. This was. It was going to nullify the results from every other state. Florida was going to elect the President, if, IF, the unfair, unbalance recount would take place. There was no law on the books before the election that would allow Gore to do what he wanted, nor for a total statewide hand recount. Thus, the justices on the Florida court were legislating from the Bench!.

Everyone talks about Ashcroft being evil, etc. This man lost his election when Mel's wife won by a slim margin. The polls were kept open late in the largest city where Carnihan's supporters were, and Ashcroft, had the class, style and dignitiy that Gore could never have by saying that he would not put the state, or Mel's wife through that type of recount, and he conceeded!

dabirdwell
Feb 28, 2003, 11:55 AM
So your logical response was:

1. to quote me some education background, which has nothing to do with whether or not you understand anything.

2. to suggest that the court ignore precedent (convenient)

3. to include some nonsense about Ashcroft and Carnahan, not sure of the relevance to the argument at hand...

And incidentally, it was the national campaign, I have been acquainted with the Bush family since my stepfather regionally directed Reagan-Bush '84.

macfan
Feb 28, 2003, 12:36 PM
dabirdwell,

Actually, backtothemac is quite right on the statistical question, and you are not. His response included that information, as well as his educational background, which indicates he might know something about this. The title on the post is not accurate given the margin of error. Rather like if there was a poll that has one candidate at 47 percent and one candidate at 48 percent with a margin of error of three points, and someone comes along and says that one candidate is "ahead" of the other. You can't say that based on the poll.

He is also right that there was virtually no precedent for the 2000 election case. As an aside on that case, if you understand statistics and measurement, then you know that the margin of Bush's win was within the margin of error for the system. It was never a question of telling who "really" won. It was a question of telling who won under the law. In a decision that was 7-2 on the essentials of the case, the US Supreme Court said, in effect, that Bush won. We are a nation of laws, not of men, those who understand this don't have any problem with the outcome of the election.

I think the Ashcroft reference is to the fact that there were technical problems in his election that probably cost him his senate seat. Instead of taking it to court like Gore did, he simply stepped aside. Since he is so hated as Attorney General, I wonder if those who kept the polling places open in a less than legal manner regret their action?

Backtothemac
Feb 28, 2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by dabirdwell
So your logical response was:

1. to quote me some education background, which has nothing to do with whether or not you understand anything.

2. to suggest that the court ignore precedent (convenient)

3. to include some nonsense about Ashcroft and Carnahan, not sure of the relevance to the argument at hand...

And incidentally, it was the national campaign, I have been acquainted with the Bush family since my stepfather regionally directed Reagan-Bush '84.

First off, what macfan said. Secondly, why attack me. I gave a very logical, thought out, explained, and intelligent post. It sounds to me like you just don't agree with your family's political affiliations, and want to lash out at someone for it, and I am good target.

Obviously it is you who has a problem with comprehension if you cannot understand the post that I gave. It was very clear, and easy to understand, and if my education gives me no understanding of the issue, how the hell is your family's political affiliations relevant?