NY Times Poll Finds Bush Well Ahead [Archive]

numediaman

Mar 16, 2004, 11:30 AM

I'm beginning to feel that the American electorate has far more in common with the Israeli electorate than the Europeans. There is a tendency here to express opinions bordering on paranoia -- everyone is against us, and we don't care. As a result, the behaviour of the government further alienates potential allies -- leading to further isolation, and more paranoia.

Take, for instance, the reaction to the vote in Spain. While some commentators have accurately concluded that Spanish electorate was angry about the lies of the Aznar government -- many here claim the Spanish are cowards, or at least bending to Al Qaeda. Just as the Israelis have moved solidly to the right in the face of violence, so too has the American electorate.

Because of this, I suspect that any further terrorism, any further loss of life in Iraq, will only save Bush from himself.

jelloshotsrule

Mar 16, 2004, 11:35 AM

i agree with everything you said... i just don't think it's time to give up hope yet

and i'm a terribly pessimistic guy. :)

Rower_CPU

Mar 16, 2004, 11:37 AM

Actually, the results are pretty meaningless if you look at a typical margin of error of 4%.

windowsblowsass

Mar 16, 2004, 11:50 AM

The most depressing poll numbers I've read yet: Bush ahead of Kerry, even with Edwards on the ticket. Looks likes four more years of war and recession. Enjoy.

Poll results attached.
war no
recesion no
war in iraq is over its just peace keeping now and the economys on the rebound also i dont know whats wrong with taking a dictator who openley harbored terrorists and tortured people out of power

jelloshotsrule

Mar 16, 2004, 12:04 PM

war no
recesion no
war in iraq is over its just peace keeping now and the economys on the rebound also i dont know whats wrong with taking a dictator who openley harbored terrorists and tortured people out of power

"just peace keeping"...? tell that to the families of the soldiers who are dying there everyday. to the iraqis living there. to the families of the missionaries who were just killed there...

are we going to take the saudi government out of power next? or how about the torture that the us military does? i guess we should be next on our own list...

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2004, 12:37 PM

Take, for instance, the reaction to the vote in Spain. While some commentators have accurately concluded that Spanish electorate was angry about the lies of the Aznar government -- many here claim the Spanish are cowards, or at least bending to Al Qaeda. Just as the Israelis have moved solidly to the right in the face of violence, so too has the American electorate.

Because of this, I suspect that any further terrorism, any further loss of life in Iraq, will only save Bush from himself.

I'm afraid you are right. Here's an example of just this sort of "either you are fer us or agin us" fear-mongering:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-include-ramirez,1,4857056.ssipage

Despicable, isn't it?

2jaded2care

Mar 16, 2004, 12:40 PM

Personally, I think the results are pretty meaningless until about a week before the election.

vwcruisn

Mar 16, 2004, 02:00 PM

The most depressing poll numbers I've read yet: Bush ahead of Kerry, even with Edwards on the ticket. Looks likes four more years of war and recession. Enjoy.

Poll results attached.

what really blows my mind is that after the past 4 years... why would ANYONE in their right mind vote for Bush? The only exception here would be the top 3 percent of America (based on wealth), and perhaps the mentally insane (but they don't get to vote right?). In a perfect logical world Bush would get no more than 5 percent of the votes, 10 tops. (of course in a perfect logical world, bush wouldnt have been elected... oh wait.. he wasnt :mad: )

numediaman

Mar 16, 2004, 02:33 PM

what really blows my mind is that after the past 4 years... why would ANYONE in their right mind vote for Bush? The only exception here would be the top 3 percent of America (based on wealth), and perhaps the mentally insane (but they don't get to vote right?). In a perfect logical world Bush would get no more than 5 percent of the votes, 10 tops. (of course in a perfect logical world, bush wouldnt have been elected... oh wait.. he wasnt :mad: )

You are assuming way too much.

What do Americans really think (I wish I was making this stuff up):

1) security vs. liberty:
An ABC-Washington Post poll last week showed that 66 percent of Americans would give up some civil liberties to fight terrorism. The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll puts the figure at 74 percent. (admittedly, an old poll)

2) basic beliefs concerning Iraq War:
Question 6 on the poll asked: "Is there evidence that Saddam Hussein (of Iraq) worked with Al Qaeda?" 65 people said yes, 33 people said no

3) First Amendment:
"About 49% said the First Amendment gives us too much freedom, up from 39% last year." Also: the least popular First Amendment right is freedom of the press. "Forty-two percent of respondents said the press in America has too much freedom." -- The First Amendment Center Survey

4) evolution:
Most recently, in Gallup’s February 19-21 poll, 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," the statement that most closely describes biblical creationism. -- evolution believers represented less than 20 percent.

The Republican Party, and George Bush specifically, derive their support from those who hold these kinds of beliefs. This represents the majority in America.

2jaded2care

Mar 16, 2004, 03:18 PM

(of course in a perfect logical world, bush wouldnt have been elected... oh wait.. he wasnt :mad: )

Of course he was. The Electors of the Constitutionally-mandated Electoral College voted. Bush won.

wwworry

Mar 16, 2004, 03:58 PM

war no
recesion no
war in iraq is over its just peace keeping now and the economys on the rebound also i dont know whats wrong with taking a dictator who openley harbored terrorists and tortured people out of power

Don't be a dope. Hussein did not harbor Al Qaeda. That was one of the lies Bush fed us to get into that war. Yes Hussein was bad. No the president should not lie and exagerate to get his way. Bush lies about too many things. :mad:

zimv20

Mar 16, 2004, 04:30 PM

3) First Amendment:
"Forty-two percent of respondents said the press in America has too much freedom."

we are so dead

G4scott

Mar 16, 2004, 05:28 PM

G4scott

Mar 16, 2004, 05:36 PM

Also: the least popular First Amendment right is freedom of the press. "Forty-two percent of respondents said the press in America has too much freedom." -- The First Amendment Center Survey

Actually, I think that the major news sources are so biased, that people are sick of reading trash from papers such as the New York Times. I know that I'm sick of my campus newspaper, which is so entrenched in it's own liberal culture, it's sickening to any non-socialist readers. I think they just want to get rid of this trash, and get good news that they can depend on. Also, these days, anybody can put up a website and make up their own "news". Too many people are fooled by this pseudo-news, and base their beliefs on distorted, biased, views.

The media is so screwed up these days, it's hard to get straight facts from anyone on certain strong issues. You just have to pick your sources carefully, and take everything with a grain of salt. Trust me, there is quite a bit of conservative 'news' out there that seems to come from far, far right field, as well as liberal news. But then again, the majority of people don't care where their news comes from, so they'll keep on reading whatever it is they get, whether or not the source is good or bad...

numediaman

Mar 16, 2004, 05:38 PM

I hate to break it to you, but your dream world isn't "perfectly logical"

People in America will vote for Bush because he is a strong and firm leader. He doesn't waiver to political winds, and he has proven that he will do what it takes to keep America safe. I think it's more like the "we're voting for Bush because we don't want to be attacked by terrorists" group that's voting for him..

He kept us safe on 9/11, didn't he? And what about the dead in Iraq? hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis, all for phantom weapons -- I guess you are safe when dead. What about protecting his (few) allies like Spain? Guess those 201 are safe now, too.

Of course Bush doesn't waiver -- he (and I guess you, too) really believe what he says. That's why I won't vote him. Bush believes in writing hate into the Constitution; large deficits and money for the rich; perpetual war and phoney WMDs. You have every right to like this agenda. But the idea of four more years of war, recession, and attacks on our rights does not sit well with me.

EDIT: so we can add one more vote for trashing the First Amendment, huh?

vwcruisn

Mar 16, 2004, 05:46 PM

I think it's more like the "we're voting for Bush because we don't want to be attacked by terrorists" group that's voting for him.

Hmm.. but werent we attacked already under his watch? And how does attacking a country that didnt have anything to do with the attack on us helping us not get attacked by terrorists? If anything, I would think it would increase terrorism as the hate for america rises.

Besides, give kerry a few more months, and I'm sure he'll have several mess-up's. Maybe he'll go down like dean

well how many times should we allow bush to "mess up" before he "goes down"

zimv20

Mar 16, 2004, 05:57 PM

good news that they can depend on.
and what exactly would that be?

trebblekicked

Mar 16, 2004, 06:35 PM

People in America will vote for Bush because he is a strong and firm leader.

you say tomayto, i say tomahto
you say strong and firm leader, i say arrogant a**hole

i think it's very sad that what GWB has done qualifies as "strong" leadership. stubborn is more like it, as evidenced by continued reports of his selective hearing when it comes to official reports (see cost of medicare, iraq intelligence).

i'm calling BS on anyone who thinks the country will be ANY less safe with Kerry in the white house. you have no proof of that and no reason to believe otherwise aside from personal political prejudice (which reminds me that all this talk is fruitless. the ppp will wipe out all this crap in 8 short years anyway)

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 16, 2004, 06:38 PM

Don't be a dope. Hussein did not harbor Al Qaeda. That was one of the lies Bush fed us to get into that war. Yes Hussein was bad. No the president should not lie and exagerate to get his way. Bush lies about too many things. :mad:its just a matter of spin, if a president says it over and over and over eventually we take it as fact no matter how much spin or half truths.

pseudobrit

Mar 16, 2004, 07:18 PM

its just a matter of spin, if a president says it over and over and over eventually we take it as fact no matter how much spin or half truths.

"When you lie, tell big lies. 'The grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down.' Above all, never hesitate, never qualify what you say, never concede an inch to the other side, paint all your contrasts in black and white. This is the 'very first condition which has to be fulfilled in every kind of propaganda: a systematically one-sided attitude towards every problem that has to be dealt with...'"

- Historian Alan Bullock

25 brownie points to the first person who can identify who he's quoting & paraphrasing.

Sayhey

Mar 16, 2004, 07:22 PM

- Historian Alan Bullock

25 brownie points to the first person who can identify who he's quoting & paraphrasing.

Sounds like Goebbels. Could be his boss.

JamesDPS

Mar 16, 2004, 07:38 PM

- Historian Alan Bullock

25 brownie points to the first person who can identify who he's quoting & paraphrasing.

Gotta be Hitler, or maybe Stalin. Sounds like their style...

"A single deaths is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic" - Stalin

Anyways numediaman's post makes me very sad -- I mean, I knew the majority in this country had everything bass-ackward, but if those stats are accurate (I'm scared by the "fewer than 20% believe in evolution" stat), seems like we're doomed. I dunno -- any thoughts on how we fix the mess? Seems so hopeless....

jefhatfield

Mar 16, 2004, 08:29 PM

from those results, i think america sees W as a strong leader who had a high approval rating during 9/11 but has slipped in the polls

he is seen as strong against terrorism but weak on the economy and it's his weakness on the economy which makes his approval rating lower these days after three lackluster years

his overall job satisfaction rating is nowhere near the time of 9/11 and isn't likely to go up much, if at all, before the election which is drawing near...it would take a political miracle for bush to enjoy a 89% approval rating again

i think america will still put W in for another four years even though the numbers are not super high...it would take a charismatic democrat like clinton, kennedy, or fdr to beat a modern republican president who the country feels so-so about...being an incumbent and having a so-so record is usually enough to regain the office

W has to both do very bad job and have to find himself running against a very stong democrat and i don't think either condition is in place for this year

if howard dean didn't lose steam early on, i think he could have made a strong candidate...i like the more conservative lieberman but his low key manner does not excite the populace

that being said, i wouldn't call W's job very bad, but i would still characterize his job done as somewhat bad or unsatisfactory

clinton did what i would call a good job in his two terms and he was able to rally a nation on domestic policies and make america feel good about themselves and the economy and that is a big part of why the country enjoyed its longest period of economic growth under his watch

on military matters, clinton was not a great president but it never threatened his presidency

what i would like to see is a person tough on terrorism, in favor of a covert (not necessarily large) special forces, be strong on the economy, work towards a free college education, and be strong on healthcare...basically, a candidate who can take the best attributes of both parties and make it work for them

like them or not, both reagan and clinton were able to take a smattering of left, middle, and right wing ideas, rename them, and call it their own...and more importantly, somehow convince the population that it was really "their" idea...teflon, slick, sneaky??? yeah, maybe, but political genius ;)

Sayhey

Mar 16, 2004, 10:41 PM

Anyways numediaman's post makes me very sad -- I mean, I knew the majority in this country had everything bass-ackward, but if those stats are accurate (I'm scared by the "fewer than 20% believe in evolution" stat), seems like we're doomed. I dunno -- any thoughts on how we fix the mess? Seems so hopeless....

Folks this is ONE poll that shows the race within the margin of error. Did anybody think this wouldn't be close? The idea of getting depressed because of one poll in March is just silly. This is a very winnable fight, but it does mean work and not giving up now! If you haven't already, go to Kerry's website and put your name on the volunteer list. Walking precincts and making phone calls will make a tremendous difference.

Kerry for President (http://www.johnkerry.com/)

jennyjennydz

Mar 17, 2004, 03:39 PM

Absolutely amazing....

Bush kept us "safe" since 9/11. I was safer before. Then he was elected, and then 9/11 happened. Hmmmm. But he's not to blame? Very interesting.

Kerry votes against a CIA funding bill so he's pro-terrorist.

What does that make Bush who implemented (or failed to implement) policies and in doing so presided over the greatest mass murder of Americans in history?

Yet another reason to vote Nader. He's climbing baby, 8% and going higher -- I smell debate participation coming. It's just a matter of time and the Democratic party sellouts can join the Tory party in the trashbin of politic history.

WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

wwworry

Mar 17, 2004, 03:45 PM

I like what Nader stands for so much I am NOT going to vote for him in the upcoming election. Better to have a little Nader than a total reverse of Nader.

jennyjennydz

Mar 17, 2004, 03:52 PM

I like what Nader stands for so much I am NOT going to vote for him in the upcoming election. Better to have a little Nader than a total reverse of Nader.

Everyone who thinks that should have seen the CSPAN telecast of the Iowa Democratic caucases. The tape was of a Dubuque (eastern Iowa/large city for Iowa) precinct.

At the start Gephardt had almost enough supporters for 2 delegates. Then the Dean people asked for a couple people to join their camp to get them 1 delegate. Some Gephardt people went to Dean. Then the Edwards people did the same. Some Gephardt people went to Edwards.

Then a couple of Gephadrt people just changed their minds and went Kerry. Suddenly all the desertions put Gephardt below the # of people needed for just 1 delegate. While the Gephardt precinct captain sought out the people who went to Dean and Edwards to have them come back to bring Gephardt back to 1 delegate, the captains for the other candidates descended on the untended Gephardt flock.

When the Gephardt captain returned, she found all but 3 of her people gone. No delegates at all for Gephardt.

Moral of the story....if all the people who agreed with Nader voted their conscience, Kerry would be finished and we could talk about the finer points of a Nader-Bush race -- a real choice.

WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

zimv20

Mar 17, 2004, 04:06 PM

Moral of the story....if all the people who agreed with Nader voted their conscience, Kerry would be finished and we could talk about the finer points of a Nader-Bush race -- a real choice.

wow, you lost me

wwworry

Mar 17, 2004, 04:11 PM

well I always liked Gephardt and I like Nader.
But most of all I like anybody but Bush. Go ahead and vote Nader but you'll get Bush. This is the nature of politics. It takes a little longer and a bit more perseverance but it is possible to wiggle your ideas into play. The "bomb-style" of politics almost never works and that's what Nader seems to be trying - "My way or the the highway." to the democrats.

Look at the conservative jugernaught. The hard right conservative republicans did not come out of nowhere. First they organized at low levels in their party then they started to take control of the GOP agenda. Now we have Bush.

The Naderites could do the same thing. Maybe it would take a while longer but at least in the meantime we would not have to put up with Bush lies, Bush deficits and Bush wars. We would not roll back environmental and safty laws that Nader was instrumental in implementing. It is possible to keep Nader in our political life but maybe not with him as a candidate. What may happen is that a lot of people who agree with Nader will think of him and his organizers as the tool that put Bush in office for 8 years.

I am sure you have heard this all before. I'm just sayin is all.

jennyjennydz

Mar 17, 2004, 04:17 PM

wow, you lost me

Rephrased then.

64 people required per delegate. No fractions.

The Gephardt people switched because they believed that their presence (since they had more than 64) was ineffectual. That they were in effect wasted because they didn't add up to 128. So they went off to count for someone they felt could get to 128. They left not becuase they agreed with Dean or Edwards, but because they wanted to "count." In the end, they lost all because the failed to stand on conscience....

Too many Nader people see their votes as not "counting" and switch to Kerry. Not because they prefer Kerry, but because of the "anyone but Bush," mentality. The problem is, Nader gets left with nothing.

And even if Kerry wins, the Nader supporter still loses. I know Ralph Nader, and Kerry is no Nader. Just Bush light.

Nader voters need to stay the course. Vote Nader.

--

WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

jennyjennydz

Mar 17, 2004, 04:20 PM

numediaman

Mar 17, 2004, 04:43 PM

Legitimate arguements all.

My response is simply that Kerry will not be any better than Bush. So, if he's just Bush-light I don't care which one wins. I'll stick to Nader. Just my opinions.

If Kerry stood up for a few liberal ideals (despite what the Bushies say, he's no liberal) maybe the Nader people would feel differently.

I think it is just plain wrong to say that if everybody would vote their conscious that Nader would be the choice. I am sure Dennis Kucinich can make the same claim. I am even sure Lyndon LaRouche can make the same claim. Both would be wrong.

Ask 'Rat, he'll tell you he's voting his conscious -- and his vote is going to Bush.

Your argument presupposes that Nader has something to do with the Democratic Party -- he doesn't. If he did, he would run as a Democrat. If you want the Democratic Party to change you have to be a Democrat. Otherwise, what's the point of complaining about Kerry's candidacy? Right now, you're outside the party -- you have no vote, no voice. I don't complain about who the Republican's nominate because I'm not a Republican.

I think that by saying that Kerry would do the same as Bush you are just trying to justify your decision. Do really think Kerry would start a war as Bush did? Do you believe Kerry would cut taxes for the wealthy and thereby create the largest deficit in our nation's history? or are you saying that he simply won't do some of the things you want? I suspect you believe the later.

zimv20

Mar 17, 2004, 04:47 PM

My response is simply that Kerry will not be any better than Bush.
i disagree, but i'd like to understand your reasoning.

is it that you're cynical and think both bush and kerry are sold out to corporate interests and therefore are no different, or do you really not see any difference in their positions, personalities and ideas? or.....?

jelloshotsrule

Mar 17, 2004, 05:02 PM

i disagree, but i'd like to understand your reasoning.

is it that you're cynical and think both bush and kerry are sold out to corporate interests and therefore are no different, or do you really not see any difference in their positions, personalities and ideas? or.....?

kerry is not as liberal as i'd like. he is too moderate by far for my tastes.... that said, i do not think he is "the same" as bush. yes, he might be bush light, but by now i've learned that bush light ? bush heavy..... by the way, i may very well vote for nader. i voted for him in 2k

numediaman

Mar 17, 2004, 05:35 PM

I once took a mathematical logic class -- the most difficult, painful class I ever took. I averaged a D+ on my tests. At the end of the year, the teacher graded each of us on a curve and I ended up receiving an A- ( I guess most others couldn't pass any of the test.)

If I had to put the Nader argument into a statement it might look like this:

You like A, B, C & D
You dislike E, F, G & H

Three people make you offers:

The first person offers you A & C, as well as E

The second person offers you D, as well as E, F, G & H

The third person says they like A, B, C & D, but that it is not in their power to give you any of them. So you will have to live with E, F, G & H.

What do you do? You go with the third person, of course. It's the principal of the thing.

pseudobrit

Mar 17, 2004, 07:05 PM

Sounds like Goebbels. Could be his boss.

It was indeed Hitler and reads frighteningly like a blueprint for the Bush administration's spin machine.

3rdpath

Mar 18, 2004, 12:07 AM

this poll certainly shows the race to be about even but if you read further...the majority of questions in this poll show a distinctly negative trend for bush on many issues. and cheney's numbers are dropping...

there's a lot of interesting info if you're willing to wade thru it.

this is not a positive poll for bush by any means.

jennyjennydz

Mar 18, 2004, 12:56 AM

I think it is just plain wrong to say that if everybody would vote their conscious that Nader would be the choice. I am sure Dennis Kucinich can make the same claim. I am even sure Lyndon LaRouche can make the same claim. Both would be wrong.

Ask 'Rat, he'll tell you he's voting his conscious -- and his vote is going to Bush.

Your argument presupposes that Nader has something to do with the Democratic Party -- he doesn't. If he did, he would run as a Democrat. If you want the Democratic Party to change you have to be a Democrat. Otherwise, what's the point of complaining about Kerry's candidacy? Right now, you're outside the party -- you have no vote, no voice. I don't complain about who the Republican's nominate because I'm not a Republican.

I think that by saying that Kerry would do the same as Bush you are just trying to justify your decision. Do really think Kerry would start a war as Bush did? Do you believe Kerry would cut taxes for the wealthy and thereby create the largest deficit in our nation's history? or are you saying that he simply won't do some of the things you want? I suspect you believe the later.

Not to nit, but I said if all the people who agreed with Nader voted their conscience.... I have no doubt of the convictions or beliefs of the supporters of other candidates - I just disagree with them.

Yes, my argument presupposes a Dem-Nader connection, but at a more fundamental level. My argument is that Kerry is dragging the party right and that Nader offers an alternative to that trend. An outside alternative, but an alternative many liberal leaning Democrats might find appealing. Oh, I change my registration every 4 years just to vote in the different primaries. This year I agitated for Kucinich from the inside and Nader from without.

You are accurate in that it is the later. I voted Gore in 2000 because I believed he was not Bush light and would "do" good deeds. The things you mention are certainly two major problems I have with Bush -- unfortunately they're done and I don't see Kerry fixing them (with a Republican Senate/House) or anything else I support. Hence my Nader support this time around.

If nobody is going to move the direction I favor, then I will vote my conscience and work for 2008.

--

WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

jennyjennydz

Mar 18, 2004, 01:00 AM

i disagree, but i'd like to understand your reasoning.

is it that you're cynical and think both bush and kerry are sold out to corporate interests and therefore are no different, or do you really not see any difference in their positions, personalities and ideas? or.....?

Cynicism founded on what I see as reality. My overall optimism doesn't extend to presidential politics (since Nixon's re-election).

--

WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

jelloshotsrule

Mar 18, 2004, 09:32 AM

i think gore was fare more bushlike than kerry is...

and i don't think kerry is dragging the democrats any further right than they already are... though i agree he is not "liberal" by any means....

Neserk

Mar 18, 2004, 09:37 PM

- Historian Alan Bullock

25 brownie points to the first person who can identify who he's quoting & paraphrasing.

Bush?

Zion Grail

Mar 22, 2004, 07:07 PM

Here are Bush's approval ratings results from recent polls. Most show a drop in support for Bush.

CBS News 2/24-27
Approve: 47 (-3)
Disapprove: 44 (+2)

Newsweek 2/19-20
Approve: 48 (-)
Disapprove: 44 (-1)

Fox 2/18-19
Positive: 48 (-5)
Negative: 41 (-)

Gallup 2/16-17
Approve: 51 (-)
Disapprove: 46 (-)

Pew 2/11-16
Approve: 48 (-8)
Disapprove: 44 (+10)

ABC News/WP 2/10-11
Approve: 50 (-8)
Disapprove: 47 (+7)

CNN/Time 2/5-6
Approve: 54 (-)
Disapprove: 42 (+1)

Quinnipiac 1/28-31
Approve: 48 (-5)
Disapprove: 45 (+5)

Zogby 1/15-18
Excellent/Good: 49 (-4)
Fair/Poor: 50 (+3)

NBC News/WSJ 1/10-12
Approve: 54 (-4)
Disapprove: 41 (+7)

numediaman

Mar 22, 2004, 07:14 PM

War, terrorism, recession, deficits, unemployment, scandals . . . and his numbers are still near 50%.

Guess it pays to pick on gays and the French, huh?

wwworry

Mar 23, 2004, 12:11 AM

If nobody is going to move the direction I favor, then I will vote my conscience and work for 2008.

--

WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

well isn't Kerry more in the direction you favor than Bush? Yes please work for 2008. Work now too.

but it's also important to look at political reality. Nader will get less votes in this election than in 2000. More people will see Nader as delivering the election to Bush. Nader's health and safety legislation will be dismantled by Bush. Ironic, isn't it? But that's how it works in politics. The more Nader pushes the less he will achieve.

(side note: the more I push for Kerry the more I alienate the Nader voter. must stop... I really do like Nader and Bradley and Tsongas and Wellstone and Gephardt and Hevesi and a million other people that never get elected.)

numediaman

Apr 19, 2004, 07:38 PM

The latest from the WaPo:

Bush Holds Advantages Over Kerry, Poll Shows
Survey Also Finds Situation in Iraq, War on Terrorism Surges in Importance Among Voters

By Richard Morin and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, April 19, 2004; 6:33 PM

President Bush holds significant advantages over John F. Kerry in public perceptions of who is best equipped to deal with Iraq and the war on terror and has reduced the advantages his Democratic challenger held last month on many domestic issues, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll.

The poll also found that Iraq and the war on terrorism have surged in importance and rank with the economy and jobs as top voting issues. Despite signs of concern among Americans about the violence in Iraq, the poll showed Bush's approval ratings holding steady and Kerry slipping in public esteem on a variety of issues and attributes.

By 49 percent to 44 percent, Bush is viewed as better able to deal with the country's biggest problems. Five weeks ago, those numbers were exactly reversed. By comfortable margins, voters see Bush as stronger than Kerry on the key national security issues of the campaign. On the economy, Bush has erased a 12-point Kerry edge and is tied with the Massachusetts senator on who is best able to deal with the country's economic problems.

In a matchup, Bush holds a 48 percent to 43 percent lead over Kerry among registered voters, with independent Ralph Nader at 6 percent. In early March, shortly after he effectively wrapped up the Democratic nomination, Kerry led Bush 48 percent to 44 percent . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25138-2004Apr19.html

They buried the lead.

zimv20

Apr 19, 2004, 07:51 PM

The latest from the WaPo:
so if i understand this correctly -- as iraq gets more violent, bush's numbers go up?!?

up is down, black is white, etc.

skunk

Apr 19, 2004, 07:58 PM

How refreshing to find a SH-free thread :)

Thomas Veil

Apr 19, 2004, 11:06 PM

Like Zimv, I sometimes feel like I've fallen down the rabbit hole.

Nevertheless, don't let those poll numbers discourage you too much. Consider that Bush's approval rating has gone from a post-9/11 high of 89% down to as low as 47% a few weeks ago.

And remember, those Bush/Kerry poll figures will swing back and forth a lot between now and November.

I expect Kerry to start doing better when he faces Bush in some live debates. If Bush performs as poorly as he did in that recent press conference, Kerry's gonna have him for lunch.

zimv20

Apr 20, 2004, 12:14 AM

I expect Kerry to start doing better when he faces Bush in some live debates. If Bush performs as poorly as he did in that recent press conference, Kerry's gonna have him for lunch.
yes, but...

i thought the same thing about the bush/gore debates. instead, bush prepared carefully, got out his (woefully) simple message, hit his talking points ("fuzzy math"), while gore imo concentrated on the wrong points and came off as not very appealing.

though i thought gore's statements were much more substantive, i watched in horror as the little focus groups afterwards repeated a lot of what bush said in this horrible, stepford-wives kind of way.

also, the format of presidential debates has gotten less and less, well, debate-like over the years. i think this greatly helped bush in 2000. put him up against either gore or kerry in a real lincoln-douglas style debate, and bush would be humilated.

in short -- i fear the same thing may happen this year

IJ Reilly

Apr 20, 2004, 12:56 AM

FWIW, a recent Los Angeles Times poll came to almost the opposite conclusions.

Sayhey

Apr 20, 2004, 01:12 AM

I take the 6% figure for Nader to be a great overestimation of what he will get come November. This will be a very tight race.

wwworry

Apr 20, 2004, 07:52 AM

those poll results are from 3/10/04. I wonder what they are now after the month of bad 9/11 press?

plus you never can tell until the results are in and the supreme court makes up their mind. ;) ;)

blackfox

Apr 20, 2004, 09:32 AM

I think it will all come down to which way the wind is blowing come November...as in what blows up, who gets captured, who has a job etc. Facts seem hard to come by in modern elections...personally I think Bush will find a way to win, but Kerry could give him a run for the money if his timing is right...either way this is shaping up to be a monumentally depressing/frustrating election year...at least in 2000, the primary candidates were more exciting...I liked McCain and Bradley, and could tolerate Gore...this time...uggh...you know things are bad, when I am praying for Kerry to win and I don't even much like the guy...

IJ Reilly

Apr 20, 2004, 10:39 AM

The recent LA Times poll was an issues poll. It doesn't show Kerry ahead, but it does give him an edge on what is likely to be a key issue.

Voters Favor Kerry on Financial Issues

Jobs are only one economic concern that could hurt Bush in the fall, a survey finds.
By Jonathan Peterson
Times Staff Writer

April 2, 2004

WASHINGTON — It is no secret that a lack of job creation has emerged as a pivotal election issue. But a new Los Angeles Times Poll suggests that Americans' pocketbook concerns extend well beyond the labor market, and the public thinks that Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry would better look out for their financial futures than would President Bush.

Asked to name the candidate who would be "best at protecting the financial security of the average American," 47% named Kerry, while 34% picked Bush.

Among independents, a group that could play a crucial role in determining the winner of the presidential election in November, the gap was even wider: 49% for Kerry and 26% for Bush.

Those polled also view the Bush White House as much more aligned with business interests than the interests of ordinary workers, and they express widespread doubts about the integrity of corporate America.

A 63% majority said the president was more concerned about corporations, while 21% said he was more concerned about workers. The view that the president sides with big business over rank-and-file workers has become more prevalent over time. In an August 2002 Times Poll, 55% felt that way.

The results suggest that the economic battleground in the presidential election campaign is taking an untraditional shape that transcends meat-and-potatoes issues such as employment and price levels. These days, people are also concerned about corporate scandal and the integrity of the financial markets — and the way their leaders are dealing with these matters.

[...]

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-fi-bizpoll2apr02,1,369482.story