Poll: Bush out of step with public

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Mar 12, 2005.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #1
    A very interesting CBS/NYT poll:

    Just a few of the individual poll results:

    • By a 50%-46% majority, Americans say we never should have gone to Iraq.
    • Twenty percent cite the economy and jobs as the greatest problem facing us today, versus 19% for the Iraq war, and only 6% for terrorism and 5% for Social Security.
    • By a 63%-31% majority, people feel Bush does not share their priorities on domestic issues. On foreign policy, the margin was 58%-37% against the administration.
    • Bush's job approval rating on the economy is 38%, compared to 54% who disapprove.
    • Fully 57% of people support either gay marriage or civil unions; 41% are against.

    Full poll

    Perhaps there's hope for us after all. It appears not nearly everyone believes in the goals of the GOP; they are merely tricked again and again into falling for the baloney being put out by the GOP propaganda machine.

    Theoretically, going by this information, we should be able to elect more Democrats and Independents to Congress than we actually are. I hope now that Howard Dean is on board, the Dems start actually doing something. The 2006 Congressional elections will be here before we know it. They need to (1) identify and run winnable candidates; (2) rapidly counter every bit of GOP baloney with the truth; and (3) turn out the vote.

    Right now I think (3) is the most important. In spite of all the Rove trickery in the last election, it really came down to the GOP getting more voters out than the Democrats did...in Ohio, if you want to put the blame squarely on someone. But (1) is also important. The poll suggests that taking a step to the left might be a smart thing for the Democrats to do. The people want the Dems to start looking out for the little guy, but they've got to get rid of their fascination with corporate interests and standing in the middle of the road.
     
  2. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
  3. daveL macrumors 68020

    daveL

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Location:
    Montana
  4. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #4
    It had that little squiggly mark at the end of the sentence which conventionally indicates the interrogative, so I suspect it was indeed a question.
     
  5. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #5
    americans are willing to keep a largely incompetent president if the challenger, senator kerry, does not come across with a strong plan for rebuilding our economy

    i believe howard dean or joseph lieberman could have mobilized america and won just one more state like florida or ohio...a democratic win in either state last november would ensure a democrat in the white house right now

    bush was raised out of touch...born rich, educated at andover, yale, and harvard, and entering the presidential race eight years after his dad vacated the office as if the presidency was a family business

    there is no way that you can make a man like this, democrat or republican, to fully understand the woes of the average american who lives from paycheck to paycheck
     
  6. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #6
    he almost did, Bush didnt get a mandate and he didnt get a landslide he just won and not by much. Kerry didnt have much of a record if you get down to it so he was kind of a weak candidate. America is split on philosophy and Bush is out of step with the public but he is right in step with big corporations who donate lots and lots of money hence all his policies are geared towards them not the people of the united states. We have democracy through corporate donations,lobbiest and influence.
     
  7. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #7
    kerry was a war hero, but the only problem is that he was mentioning something he did for america more than 30 years ago...he should have stuck with the current issues at hand and been more forceful

    i voted for kerry but i was not enthusiastic about him like i was with clinton and gore...but gore less so than clinton, but they both were much more viable candidates than kerry

    i don't know how important the first lady is, but kerry's wife did not come across very well over television and that certainly didn't help matters...a slightly more prepared candidate would have sent bush back home to texas..bush was a lame duck ripe for defeating and the democats blew it

    the republicans had a great opportunity to unseat truman in 48 and johnson in 64, but they blew those great chances at gaining the white house...this political drama is what makes the presidential race so interesting

    the last race besides bush-gore which we had with people not having a clue to its outcome was kennedy-nixon in 1960...if we have two relatively well known politicians run in 2008, let's say condi rice or john mccain vs hilary clinton or john edwards, then we may see a tight race and a major lovefest for the moderates of america
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    If we're going to inhabit Spin City along with the rest of media, I suspect Kerry could have swayed the 1% of the electorate who decided the election by running a massive "I Love John Kerry" advertising campaign and avoiding discussing the real issues that faced the nation.

    The sad part is, it might have worked.
     
  9. daveL macrumors 68020

    daveL

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Location:
    Montana
    #9
    First, I was being sarcastic (but I think you knew that). Second, just to be pedantic, there isn't actually a question mark at the end of the sentence, although it is certainly phrased as a question. Third, just to be clear, I do agree that Mr. Bush is out of step with the public, both here and abroad.
     
  10. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #10
    "Then why didn't Kerry win?" was a the question I thought you were responding to. I didn't have any way of detecting sarcasm in your reply. Could easily have been read either way.
     
  11. daveL macrumors 68020

    daveL

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Location:
    Montana
    #11
    Oh, sorry. I thought, since I didn't quote the preceding post, it was clear I was responding to the title of the thread. Obviously, it wasn't.
     
  12. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
  13. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #13
    Well, here we are deconstructing Kerry's loss again. :rolleyes:

    You can blame a lot of things: the simple-minded section of the voting public; Rove's trickery (Swift Boat character assassination & gay marriage issues, etc.); Bush's misleading answers, outright lies and pandering to terrorism fears; Kerry's inability to attack Bush effectively; and a Democratic party that is stubbornly sticking to the middle of the road. All of those things, and I'm sure some others I haven't mentioned, are why Kerry lost.

    The latter two issues rankle me the most, because the Democrats have it within their power to control those. Both Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 saw their numbers climb when they stopped playing nice and got more aggressive...Gore by taking on a more populist tone, and Kerry by attacking Bush. Regrettably in both cases, the change in tactic came just a little too late to help.

    But the fact that people responded to those would seem to jibe with what the poll says. People do want health care, they do want Social Security protected, they do care about the environment, etc...and "privatization" is not how they want to go about it.

    And IJ, you are probably unfortunately right. To the uninformed "swing" voters, non-substantive ads are probably what they best respond to.
     
  14. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #14
    Are you suggesting that Condi Rice is a moderate? If she is, then I'm left of left.
     
  15. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #15
    all four of the people i mentioned will be battling it out in the middle and reinvent themselves as some type of a moderate

    bill clinton rebuilt himself into a "conservative" republican and captured enough middle of the road voters
     
  16. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #16
    Well, he rebuilt himself into a moderate. He's far more liberal than the way he played his hand. However, I don't think that the moderates should rejoice, because for some reason, neoconservatives might play moderate for the election cycle, but they seem to return to their radical roots when decisions are to be made. Clinton, on the other hand, stayed relatively moderate (too moderate, on a few issues) throughout his terms in office.
     
  17. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #17
    For what it's worth, Rice has said she is not running.

    New York Times
     
  18. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #18
    Has a person's avowal not to run for an office really meant anything?

    It's not like Condi hasn't lied before...Was she batting her eyes when she said it? That always gives it away. :D
     
  19. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #19
    As long as we're picking on Condi -- and just to be completely superficial and petty -- here's a question I've always wanted to ask:

    What's with that Donna Reed hairdo of hers? That's just weird. :D
     
  20. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #20
    But its what got him elected, not being extreme. The Middle Moderate is where the people are. I know a lot of people who voted George but didnt really want to. Clinton got elected twice as a moderate and could work with a republican congress on lots of issues. At the moment we have a extreme right wing republican pres who cant work with the democarats on anything but since republicans run the house and senate he doesnt have to. A left wing Democrat isnt going to be elected. Look at the last 4 presidents not a one was a lefty but a few were very right. Bush doesnt care if hes out of step with the public because he is off on his own corporate missions and agenda's and once law is passed it takes almost a act of god to undo it.
     
  21. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #21
    THAT is why I started my post with "For what it's worth." Sorry, didn't see the program so I can't tell you if she was batting her eyes. ;)

    I just hope she is telling the truth this time! Not that I think she stands a chance in hell of winning, especially in the GOP primaries.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    Actually he did have a 20 year Senate record that was combed through by "oppo" people for any damaging votes (ie. Kerry voted to cut these weapons systems) that was a problem for him.

    Bush's lack of a 20 year voting record was a plus for him in a couple of ways.
     
  23. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #23
    True but when you look at Kerrys Senate record was there anything he did that was fantastic?great? did he sponser any bills that made a huge impact? I dont recall any hence he ran on vietnam. America likes to elect governors as president not some stinking political senator with years of partison politics behind them. Cant think of any Senators ever elected president in my lifetime. Being a governor is a prerequist for the American people it seems.
     
  24. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #24
    Of course JFK was the last sitting Senator to be elected President. Not many have even tried since then (Goldwater and Dole come to mind). In modern times, the Senate hasn't been a great jumping-off point to higher office. I can't think of many historical examples off the top of my head, but I doubt it was ever a much better prospect, especially in the era when Senators weren't elected. For some reason, we do like to elect governors as presidents, even though most governors are political do-nothings. I suppose that's counted as a virtue in today's political climate. Big hat, no cattle.
     

Share This Page