Latest polls

[Mavdog]

The Bush staff are on the defensive, the Kerry camp thinks it has mo and plows the middle. It'll be a horse race when the conventions are done.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 14, 2004
Polls Show Bush's Job-Approval Ratings Sinking
By DAVID E. SANGER

ASHINGTON, May 13 - As President Bush was traveling through the Midwest on his exuberant bus tour last week, his campaign aides still sounded confident that the revelations of how Iraqi prisoners were abused would do far more harm to the United States' image abroad than to the president's standing at home.

But only a week later, at the very moment Mr. Bush's aides had hoped to be basking in the glow of improving economic numbers, months of setbacks in Iraq are clearly taking their toll.

Mr. Bush's job-approval numbers have sunk to all-time lows, with a majority of Americans now saying, for the first time, that the invasion of Iraq was not worth the mounting cost. At the same time, they give the president far higher marks for his execution of the battle against terrorists, even though he has argued that they are all part of one war.

Congress, including prominent conservatives, has grown so restive about the wisdom of Mr. Bush's strategy that on Thursday the deputy secretary of defense, Paul D. Wolfowitz, had to retreat from a Senate hearing when members of both parties demanded far more specifics than he could provide about plans for spending the $25 billion the president is seeking to pursue the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And for the first time, even some of the most loyal administration aides, who have regularly defended every twist in the Iraq strategy, are conceding that the president and his top advisers are stuck in what one of them called "the perpetual debate" about whether to change strategy or soldier on. Mr. Bush's usually sunny campaign advisers make no effort to hide the depth of the problem.

"Look, obviously events and the coverage and what's reported are going to have an effect on how people see the direction of the country," said Matthew Dowd, the chief strategist for Bush-Cheney '04. "In the last two months or three months, there hasn't been a wealth of positive news. It was bound to have an effect, and we expected that."

But Mr. Dowd said that changing Mr. Bush's tone on the campaign trail was not an option. So with some modifications, Mr. Bush is following the script he and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, drafted as the prisoner scandal emerged: He repeats his disgust with the abuses, then turns the subject immediately back to his broader goals in the war on terrorism, merging it with the action in Iraq. He did so again on Thursday in a West Virginia school gymnasium.

"We're being tested," Mr. Bush said. "People are testing our mettle. And I will not yield to the whims of the few."

After vigorous applause, he added, "I won't yield because I believe so strongly in what we're doing, and I have faith in the power of freedom to spread its wings in parts of the world that desperately need freedom."

Several of Mr. Bush's advisers have said in recent weeks that they believe the bigger mistake for the president would be to show any weakness, or to yield even to those in his own party who may not want to cut and run, but may be interested in moving quickly to the exits after June 30.

And so far, he is under relatively little pressure from his Democratic opponent in the presidential race, Senator John Kerry, to make a major course correction. Mr. Kerry called months ago for greater United Nations participation; for the last few months, Mr. Bush has done the same. And while Mr. Kerry harshly criticized the president on the prison scandal on Wednesday, he has said that a withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, and on Thursday he even endorsed, without qualification, Mr. Bush's request for the $25 billion in additional financing.

"The situation in Iraq has deteriorated far beyond what the administration anticipated," Mr. Kerry said in a statement meant to pre-empt any questions about whether he would hedge his support for the additional money, as he did on a larger request last year. "This money is urgently needed, and it is completely focused on the needs of our troops. We must give our troops the equipment and support to carry out their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Mr. Bush's advisers say they have been surprised that their own candidate's decline in the polls has not resulted in an equivalent boost for Mr. Kerry. But several members of Mr. Bush's foreign policy team noted Mr. Kerry's new line of attack on Wednesday, when he said that Mr. Bush's aides "dismiss the Geneva Conventions, starting in Afghanistan and Guantánamo, so that the status of prisoners both legal and moral becomes ambiguous at best."

Some Republicans close to Mr. Bush's campaign are concerned that Mr. Kerry's comments are the beginning of a new effort to fuel the notion that Mr. Bush's take-no-prisoners attitude created the conditions that allowed prisoner abuses to flourish.

"No one in the White House knows if that argument will stick," said one conservative who met with Mr. Bush's aides this week. "Clearly, it worries them. And it should."

Asked about the state of the presidential race on Thursday as he flew back to Washington from Little Rock, Ark., Mr. Kerry was upbeat. Saying there was much work yet to be done, he added, "I'd rather be where we are, growing, than where they are."

The polls out this week found Mr. Bush, by some measures, at the lowest point of his presidency. Only 46 percent of Americans told the Gallup Poll they approved of the way Mr. Bush was handling his job, and a majority, 51 percent, said they disapproved. Other polls had similar results. A poll by the Pew Research Center found that 44 percent of Americans approved of the president's handling of his job and 48 percent disapproved.

Those numbers alarm many of Mr. Bush's supporters, but Mr. Dowd said: "I always counsel people when we are ahead and behind that since this country is very divided, this thing is always going to be played by the 45-yard lines. And we are still in that place."

Perhaps most alarming for Mr. Bush is the public's assessment that things in the United States are not going particularly well, with only 33 percent of the respondents in the Pew poll saying they were satisfied with the way things were going in the country and 61 percent saying they were dissatisfied.

All this comes at a time when the public's support for the war in Iraq is rapidly fading. For the first time since the war began, a majority of respondents in the Gallup poll, 54 percent, said it was not worth going to war in Iraq; 44 percent said it was worth it.

Only 41 percent said they approved of the way Mr. Bush was handling the situation in Iraq, while nearly 6 in 10, or 58 percent, said they disapproved.

Still, despite the failure to find unconventional weapons and the failure to anticipate the rising insurgency, a majority said it was not a mistake to send troops to Iraq in the first place, a critical argument in Mr. Bush's stump speech.

The polls were taken before the beheading of Nicholas E. Berg was made public. The Gallup poll of 1,003 adults was conducted May 7-9; the Pew, of 1,800 adults, was conducted May 3-9. Each poll was conducted nationwide by telephone and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

[MavKikiNYC]

And why can't Kerry gain ground?

[reeds]

"And why can't Kerry gain ground?" Very good point... I hate to say it, but Kerry is a weak candidate in my opinion..Of course I still gotta vote democrat, but I wish we had someone better to vote for...

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
And why can't Kerry gain ground?

Is this the prelude to "Gore" part 2?

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Is this the prelude to "Gore" part 2?

Dunno. But his weathervane, now-you-see-me, now-you-don't candidacy shouldn't be enough to inspire anything more substantial than indifference.

And if he and the Democrats are running on nothing more than a not-Bush platform, with no more or no better a plan for bringing the war in Iraq to resolution than falling supplicant before the UN, then I pity the fool Democrats for the mess a Kerry administration will embark on without deep-rooted support among voters.

Indeed, God help us all if the American electorate were to go woozy and elect Kerry because the war in Iraq sounds messy.

[dude1394]

I still think that kerry is toast. I'm sure that the bulk of his record hasn't even been thrown out there yet.

The issue's going on now are really tough for bush. You have a bunch of hawks yelling at him for not leveling fallujah, but they don't really know what's happening either on the ground or not. We could easily do that, but it's not strategically the right thing to do (AND I HATE IT TO BE HONEST) because there would just be too much backlash from the shia. Sadr has basically been de-fanged and there is much,much less of a possibility of a country-side revolt, so it's been the right strategy.

However....the american people (imo) HATE, absolutely HATE lack of movement. Not to be seen as clearly moving forward is always a problem for americans. Also I don't think the "doing this for the iraqi's" is a winning slogan/strategy. Bush really needs to layout how this fits with the WOT, he hasn't, but needs to. Americans are starting to basically not give a flying rats **** about the iraqis, they don't seem willing (although this is bs, many more of them have died than us) to stand up for their country (this the shame of the msm) so most americans are saying, fine, do it yourself you crybabies. Ergo the falling approval numbers.

So it's tough as the media really isn't interested in progress but only news of regression. My political ears tell me that unless things really go to heck in a hand-basket, if a turn-over happens in june 30, we pull back and sort to let the iraqis either make it work or blow themselves up and we aren't losing guys, the numbers will begin to inch back up and he'll have about a 7 point lead come november. I don't predict a landslide but it wouldn't surprise me.

I know I'll be out there knocking doors, calling folks and doing my bit. Drbio inspired me.

[reeds]

"I know I'll be out there knocking doors, calling folks and doing my bit. Drbio inspired me. "

Dude- there is NO need for you to go knocking on doors..TEXAS is a Bush state already- there is NO way in hell BUSH doesnt carry TEXAS...now, you might wanna go to Ohio or Florida and do some door knocking..two huge states that are really up in the air....among others of course

[madape]

I read recently that California is a statistical dead heat. Ouch!

[dude1394]

Well I don't wanna hear the dems whining about popular vote again. All good texans need to get out there and blow it out of the water.

[dude1394]

How great would that be ape, the terminator brings home california. Of course even wacko left-coasters must recognise the difference between a republican grown-up out there and a nutty democrat running the place into the ground.

I hope even californians are completely brain dead, but we'll see.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Dunno. But his weathervane, now-you-see-me, now-you-don't candidacy shouldn't be enough to inspire anything more substantial than indifference.

And if he and the Democrats are running on nothing more than a not-Bush platform, with no more or no better a plan for bringing the war in Iraq to resolution than falling supplicant before the UN, then I pity the fool Democrats for the mess a Kerry administration will embark on without deep-rooted support among voters.

Indeedt, God help us all if the American electorate were to go woozy and elect Kerry because the war in Iraq sounds messy.

Kerry is making himself as tougher, vowing he would not leave yet and even calling for increasing troop levels. In effect, still not being anti-war, but anti Bush war. "It's a planning and management issue you see..."

If Iraq is the issue of the election, GWB's losing ground while all Kerry needs to do is look sad, say "it's a shame" and stop.

They saw this earlier, and that's why June 30 is so important to them. Enough time before Nov to make a positive out of a negative. Lots wagered on that, do they feel lucky? Will they shift to a compromise of some sort with Brahimii?

[Chiwas]

I hesitated to put this poll here. Maybe there would have been at the cartoons'.



"Who do you think is worse for the World?"




Edit: Btw, the results.

[u2sarajevo]

I am SHOCKED (not quite Savovic shocked) that a Hispanic poll is anti-Bush.

WOW!!!!!!

[MavKikiNYC]

Anti-American/Anti-Bush sentiment is not uncommon internationally.

I read a couple of Spanish newspapers online, or rather I USED TO READ them......but their editorials are so ignorantly, pig-headedly, uninformedly anti-Bush, that I have had to stop aggravating myself.

Tonight I was listening to a French broadcast of international news, with one of the pieces being coverage of a Republican campaing rally in Orlando. To a video clip of the Bushes walking out on stage waving to the crowd, the idiot-froggess reading the news actually said: "Here George and Laura Bush pretend to recognize someone in the crowd and wave enthusiastically, in a carefully calculated gesture to make them appear close to the people."

Quel stupidité!

It's one thing to have a stupid opinion, but to just make up petty lies about the Bushes pretending to recognize someone in the crowd is so telling about the manipulative mentality of the foreign press.

F'em. F'em dry.

[jacktruth]

No offense to anyone, but America is the strongest country in the world (in almost every way a country can be strong). Most of the world is anti-american already. This just tells me that Bush is more American than Kerry, making him better for America.

[mavsman55]

Exactly jack.

Terrorists hate the United States too. They also hate George Bush. Should we take their word and agree with them?

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: reeds
"And why can't Kerry gain ground?" Very good point... I hate to say it, but Kerry is a weak candidate in my opinion..Of course I still gotta vote democrat, but I wish we had someone better to vote for...

No F'ing sh!t. Do you know how many loyal republicans I know that would cross party lines to vote for somebody that they thought had a clue? OK, not very many, but a heck of a lot more than are voting for Kerry.

And the worst thing is, Kerry was considered the "most electable."

[chumdawg]

This is an interesting question now. In retrospect, would Dean have stood a better chance against Bush? Because Kerry is going to lose by nine...

[capitalcity]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
This is an interesting question now. In retrospect, would Dean have stood a better chance against Bush? Because Kerry is going to lose by nine...

I definitely think so - even though the guy is a loon.

He would of been attacked for being anti-war & unfit to lead being that he's from Vermont. BUT at least he forms opinions and sticks to them - as far fetched as some of those opinions may be. Kerry will forever be know as the Flip-Flop Frankenstein.

The democratic party is doomed. Eventually (fingers crossed) moderates from both parties will split off and give us a true third party. That would make it interesting.

It won't happen - but just imagine what that might be like:

08
(D) Hillary Clinton
(M) John McCain or Wes Clark
(R) Rudy Guiliani

[u2sarajevo]

Well, Rudy Giulliani is a moderate.

[dude1394]

Well at least with Dean, the dems would have had someone who believed in something besides a poll result.

[capitalcity]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
Well, Rudy Giulliani is a moderate.

His constituency in NYC demanded a moderate stance - i would think in a national election he would lean conservative.

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: capitalcity

His constituency in NYC demanded a moderate stance - i would think in a national election he would lean conservative.

Yeah, well, no. If Rudy runs, I'll be right behind him in Texas. But I have a hard time believing he wins the primaries.

[Dooby]

BTW, I'll commend Hillary fore being very smart. She keeps her head down. While everyone else runs around shouting, she keeps her mouth shut. She was one of the last people you heard from on Iraq and 9/11. She takes her time and takes the politically smart position. You put a strong, veteran like Wesley Clark on the ticket and she'd be hard to beat.

[kg_veteran]

The 2008 Republican primaries are going to be very interesting. Giuliani is too moderate for my tastes, as is McCain (that, and McCain plays both sides of the fence). But those figure to be the two strongest candidates.

[Usually Lurkin]

as long as we're making predictions about 2008, here's my dream lineup:
Alan Keyes/Arnold Schwarzenegger
v.
Hilary Clinton/Al Gore
v.
Ross Perot/Jesse Ventura


shut up. Chiwas' "political cartoons" would be the thread of the decade.

[chumdawg]

For what it's worth, these are the opening prices Trade Sports set for the 2008 Republican nomination:

32.3 - John McCain
22.3 - Rudy Giuliani
12.5 - Bill Owens
12.0 - Bill Frist
7.0 - Jeb Bush
5.5 - George Allen
4.0 - Mitt Romney
4.0 - George Pataki
3.7 - Tom Ridge
2.8 - Tommy Thompson
2.0 - Condoleezza Rice
1.8 - Chuck Hagel

[jacktruth]

Originally posted by: Dooby
BTW, I'll commend Hillary fore being very smart. She keeps her head down. While everyone else runs around shouting, she keeps her mouth shut. She was one of the last people you heard from on Iraq and 9/11. She takes her time and takes the politically smart position. You put a strong, veteran like Wesley Clark on the ticket and she'd be hard to beat.

A lot of people agree with you, but I think Hillary is a pretty easy one to beat. She'll do great with women, but she won't do well with men. Not only is she a woman, and there are a lot of people that just don't like the idea of a woman in the white house, but she is also reminiscent of a naggy wife. Not many men can imagine being nagged at for four years. Plus, she is like off the map left-wing. With her history, she will have a hard time swinging to the middle and liberal remains a four-letter word in America.

[u2sarajevo]

I ask God each night to let Hillary run in 2008.

[chumdawg]

Originally posted by: jacktruth

A lot of people agree with you, but I think Hillary is a pretty easy one to beat. She'll do great with women, but she won't do well with men. Not only is she a woman, and there are a lot of people that just don't like the idea of a woman in the white house, but she is also reminiscent of a naggy wife. Not many men can imagine being nagged at for four years. Plus, she is like off the map left-wing. With her history, she will have a hard time swinging to the middle and liberal remains a four-letter word in America.

I tend to agree with you, Truth. But a lot would probably depend on the second Bush term. If it's not a good one, the Dem candidate would have a huge leg up. And their party, after suffering losses with both Gore and Kerry, would doubtless be ecstatic to put a Clinton on the ticket.

If it's a strong second term, then I can't imagine Hillary would even run. Those Clintons aren't too fond of losing.

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: jacktruth


A lot of people agree with you, but I think Hillary is a pretty easy one to beat. She'll do great with women, but she won't do well with men. Not only is she a woman, and there are a lot of people that just don't like the idea of a woman in the white house, but she is also reminiscent of a naggy wife. Not many men can imagine being nagged at for four years. Plus, she is like off the map left-wing. With her history, she will have a hard time swinging to the middle and liberal remains a four-letter word in America.

Ah! But, what is Hillary's record really? She has 3 years of Senate votes and that is it. And pretty moderate votes at that. She had the health care thing that blew up in her husband's face as much as hers. She can lay claim to her husband's economy. If you attempt to tag her with Clinton's negatives, she is gonna bash him to draw the distinction to seperate herself from her husband. As a senator from NY, she can lay claim to a lot of the 9/11 legacy. She's in a great position.

[reeds]

check out electoral-vote.com today!!! They have Kerry winning big!!!! tomorrow will be very interesting to say the least

[chumdawg]

Originally posted by: reeds
check out electoral-vote.com today!!! They have Kerry winning big!!!! tomorrow will be very interesting to say the least

Notice how much of Bush's support is strong, though, and how much of Kerry's support is weak. If there is a pro-Bush sentiment that is going undetected in the polls--which I think there is--then all that soft support goes away.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: reeds
check out electoral-vote.com today!!! They have Kerry winning big!!!! tomorrow will be very interesting to say the least

Don't get too excited. As I have said ad naseum, the guy there is an openly biased dimocrat. To his credit he admits it. He told me in an recent email that I would not like his site as it approached election day. I knew he would flip the maps to blue. He said he was going to. I've had a great ongoing dialogue with this guy for weeks now.

I've already debunked 7 of his state polls with national poll data that shows Bush carrying states that he is now giving to kerry. He again to his credit stated that he was posting the poll that he was most comfortable with.

Bottom line: kerry may win, but don't go by this map. It has been a blast...a true blast getting to know that guy and going back and forth with him over the last few weeks. He's even changed up his map based on some of my own submissions. The guy is fairly open minded but he flat out told me he was going to do this. I guess it makes some of the dims feel better.