• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.

Is Bush In Trouble?

The Yankee

The New Yawker
Retired Moderator
Joined
Sep 1, 2002
Messages
19,467
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Posted on CNN.

Kerry leads Bush in new poll
Bush's approval numbers dip
Monday, February 2, 2004 Posted: 4:59 PM EST (2159 GMT)


ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner among Democrats vying for their party's presidential nomination, leads President Bush in a head-to-head matchup, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

And Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and retired Gen. Wesley Clark, two other Democrats in the field, come within a few points of beating Bush, according to the hypothetical match-ups in the poll, which also found a decline in Bush's approval numbers.

The poll, based on interviews with 1,001 adult Americans, including 562 likely voters, was conducted in the days after the New Hampshire primary.

The poll underscores both Kerry's momentum after his wins in New Hampshire and Iowa, and increased favorability among Democrats in general as they dominate political news with their primaries and steady criticism of Bush.

The general election is slightly more than nine months away and Bush has yet to launch his campaign in earnest, meaning the poll numbers are all but certain to shift.

When the 562 likely voters were asked for their choice from a Bush v. Kerry race, 53 percent of those picked Kerry, and 46 percent favored Bush.

When that same group was asked to pick between Edwards and Bush, the numbers were 49 percent for Bush and 48 percent for Edwards. With a Bush/Clark face-off, Bush was favored by 50 percent of those surveyed and Clark, 47 percent.

Howard Dean, the onetime front-runner in the Democratic field, had a poorer showing against Bush, 45 percent to 52 percent for the incumbent.

The question of choice for president among likely voters had a sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The margin or error was different for other questions, as some questions were posed to likely voters, others to just Democrats and others to all adults surveyed.

Kerry was the overwhelming choice of registered Democrats for the presidential nomination. Support for Kerry as the Democratic nominee stood at 49 percent, compared to 14 percent for Dean and 13 percent for Edwards. The other Democratic candidates were in the single digits.

The poll showed Bush's job approval rating at 49 percent among all the adults surveyed, the first time since he became president that his job approval has dipped below 50 percent. A month ago his rating was at 60 percent, as he enjoyed a spike in approval after the capture of Saddam Hussein.

A majority of those polled now say they disapprove of Bush's handing of the economy, foreign affairs, the situation in Iraq and health care. The poll also showed the nation evenly divided -- 49 percent to 49 percent -- on the question of whether it was worth going to war in Iraq, marking the first time approval of the war has dropped below 50 percent.

However, a majority of those polled -- 54 percent -- said they do not believe Bush deliberately misled the country on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, while 43 percent said they believe there was deception.

Despite the apparent rising fortunes of Democrats, the poll showed Bush enjoyed advantages over his rivals in several areas.

For example Bush was seen as a stronger leader than Kerry -- 53 percent to 39 percent --and, despite Kerry's military service in Vietnam, more patriotic than the senator from Massachusetts, 49 percent to 34 percent.

And,on the question of Iraq, more Americans trusted Bush than Kerry, 50 percent to 44 percent.

--CNN Polling Director Keating Holland contributed to this report.

I know most people, especially Bush backers, will dismiss this poll, probably as some form of liberal propaganda. :p

However, I believe some clues can be taken from polls. For instance, it does seemthat more independents are being turned off by Bush and some are going to the Democratic side. We can't say this is definite, since many presidents fall under 50% at one time or another. However, this is a decline and the lowest point...well...ever for this president.

I wonder how you answer a question over who is more patriotic and how people would define that. :confused:
 
Kerry is getting a bounce because he is in the news in a positive light, getting called electable and getting his primary victories and leads reported by the media.

That will all disapear once Bush gets his campaign off the ground. With Karl Rove and $200 million, Bush has nothing to worry about.

Remember, the last guy from Massachussets to run against someone named Bush lead in the polls this time of the year too. We all know what happened to him.
 
Not in much trouble, for someone he mostly has not yet started to campaign, and has his entire warchest intact, and who is skillfully dribbling out his negative news ahead of time, so that it will not be news during the main election campaign.
 
From the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down

That's all there really is to any election for President involving an incumbent. It's a simple referendum: do people want to keep the President, or get rid of him? If the former, it doesn't matter very much which candidate the opposition party nominates, because the challenger LOSES. If the latter, it doesn't matter very much which candidate the opposition party nominates, because the challenger WINS. Remember that when the Democrats argue endlessly about which contender is best able to take on Bush.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THEM IN 2004. IT'S THUMBS UP, THUMBS DOWN FOR BUSH.

So how do voters decide the direction their thumbs should go? Simple again. The most important factor is the economy. (Are they better off in the pocketbook than they were, and is the economy clearly picking up?) A close second in these jittery days is war and peace, national security, and the war on terror. (Are they safer today than on September 11, 2001, and are we at least making good progress in the war on terror?)

And finally, let's not forget the third-place but still mentionable unmentionable…Scandal. (Is there a big one, involving the incumbent administration? And are voters feeling better about the nation's values and standards than they were four years ago?)


There is some more commentary and a chart that I posted in another thread. This expresses the gist of the article.

This time in reelections it is normal for all the attention to be focused on the nominees for the other party. that changes when the press "vets" the nominee. One of the Professors at the Center refered to it as a "proctoscopic examination of the candidate."

J
 
Again, those numbers mean nothing when you factor in that Bush has yet to begin his re-election campaign and that all it's gonna take for Bush to get back into the 60's is another little victory in Iraq/Afghanistan (such as finding Bin Laden or WMDs -- I wouldn't put it beyond Bush to delay the announcement of either until a politically convenient time, such as Nov 1) or an upswing in the economy (which is all but inevitable at this point).

Kerry is hopeless.
 
Sadly, I must generally agree with SN. Bush has not started campaigning yet. That said, I do not believe the situation to be hopeless for the Dems... While the economy should probably get better by the elections, it will have to grow fast indeed to make Bush look good on the four past years. And wether the situation in Iraq will be better enough to gain points for Bush is hard to say now.

I am getting more and more annoyed at that whole issue of Bush's treasure chest though, more and more presented as one if his chief asset (not to single on him though - Clinton did much the same). How can you let the amont of money play such a large role in your elections? :eek: It's really starting to damage your democracy IMHO.
 
I tell ya, I can't wait for Kerry being President.

I'm starting to wonder how important politics really is.

nothings gonna change my world
 
Originally posted by Kinniken
How can you let the amont of money play such a large role in your elections? :eek: It's really starting to damage your democracy IMHO.

From the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What is money used for? TV commercials. What are TV commercials? Speech.
 
Kerry/Gephardt or Kerry/Granholm will win the 2004 Presidential election. Bush may not have started to campaign yet, but by the time he does the "first impressions" of John Kerry, as reflected in this poll, will have had time to set.

Plus, don't underestimate Democrats possessing the loathing they do for GW Bush ;). I'm sure he'll be able to raise enough money to fight an effective campagin.

Kerry has a better chance than Clinton did in '92.
 
Kinniken: However, regardless of my previous posts, which I still stand by, the guy with the most money doesn't always win.

Howard Dean had more money than all of the other Democratic presidential candidates combined going into Iowa and New Hampshire. Where is he now?

Granted, its a Democratic primary and not a general election, but it can happen. In 2002 in New York City, for example, the losing candidate was outspent by millions and came within a few thousand votes.
 
I thought Gephardt was retiring? :confused:

Anyway, I'm just saying that Bush may not be as invincible as many would love to say.
 
Bush in troubles ?

Well, I hope so, but I don't get too much illusions.
 
Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
What is money used for? TV commercials. What are TV commercials? Speech.
So in other words, the more money you have the more freedom of speech you have. Thats one of the biggest problems associated with the electoral process in this country.
 
Originally posted by Toasty
Kerry/Gephardt or Kerry/Granholm will win the 2004 Presidential election. Bush may not have started to campaign yet, but by the time he does the "first impressions" of John Kerry, as reflected in this poll, will have had time to set.

Plus, don't underestimate Democrats possessing the loathing they do for GW Bush ;). I'm sure he'll be able to raise enough money to fight an effective campagin.

Kerry has a better chance than Clinton did in '92.

I am sorry but this is at best wishful thinking. The ink on Kerry's status as a frontrunner is hardly dry and you have him beating Bush?

Bush versus any northeastern democrat is probably an electoral landslide; somewhere above 400 for Bush.
 
Well folks, remember that the only poll that really matters is the ballot box.

Never put much faith in opinion polls. There's simply too much weasle room for unscrupulous pollsters (of which there are at least a few).
 
Is Bush In Trouble?

Is the Pope Catholic? Is the sea wet?

Only 200 million dollars and a brain could help him now. Well, he can always borrow Mr. Rove's.

People misunderestimate the liberal sentiment in this country :D We can beat him!
 
Back
Top Bottom