TIME POLL:60% want next president 'completely different' from Bush

Time poll: 60% want next president to be 'completely different' from Bush
RAW STORY
Early release to RAW STORY.


TIME Poll: Doubts About Iraq Bring Doubts About Bush -- President’s 41% Approval Undercut by Iraq / In 2008, 60% Would Like the Next President to be ‘Completely Different’ from Bush / Rice’s 53% Rating Is Highest for Administration / Only 27% Approve of Bush’s Handling of Immigration

New York -- President Bush’s counter-offensive against his critics shows little sign of reversing his flagging job approval ratings. His rating on the new TIME Poll -- 41% approve - 53% disapprove – is little changed from September following Hurricane Katrina (42%-52%).

The public is split on whether Bush can recover lost ground with half (46%) saying he is likely to recover and half (49%) saying he is unlikely to recover. Three-quarters (76%) of those who disapprove of the job Bush is doing say they are “unlikely to change their mind.” 2008

ELECTION: Looking forward to the 2008 election, three-in-five (60%) surveyed by TIME say they would like the next President to be “completely different” from George W. Bush (36% would like someone similar). If the presidential election were being held today between Bush and John Kerry, it would be a dead heat again (47% Bush, 48% Kerry). Red state residents are split on whether they will be more likely to vote for a Republican (42%) or Democratic (42%) candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in their districts next year. Blue states are more in favor of the Democratic candidate (55% Democratic vs. 30% Republican).
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Time_poll_60_want_next_president_1203.html

like Bush.

We seem to be surrounded on all sides by enemy fire.

America is longing for true opposition. Let's give it to them!

:thumbsup: (Now we can wait for the 'centrists' to pile on.) :eyes:

ya right. :grr:

and Bush again according to this poll, despite the fact that 60% want someone "completely different" from Bush.

real fighting progressive as their next President. If only the Democratic Party weren't too afraid to nominate such a person.

At this point even a competent moderate republican would be ok with me. Fiscal responsibility and someone who actually cares for Americans that are not millionares. A little bit of credibility and honest straight talk would also be good. There are alot of candidates from either party that would be a huge change from Bush.

So much for Joe-Mentum!

that really did hit home, about why Joe Lieberman would never be President.

In fact, I don't think he should even be a Senator, but ..........

The punchline of the joke is:

"Four words: 'First Lady Hadassah Liberman.'"

Truth wrapped inside a laugh.

n/t

in 2004, so before the Kerry bashers start claiming that Kerry is bad this and bad that, let me just say, if Time says it would be a dead heat, it actually means that Kerry would be in the lead. Time has done its part to put down Kerry in favor of Bush and to promote Conservative issues so much so, that I canceled my subscription after nearly ten years of receiving it.
The article calls for a Presidential candidate opposite of Bush, well who fits that description more than Kerry?
I will also add, I have to wonder when they actually asked that question and in what way. Other polls have Kerry leading with a 5% lead. Time wouldn't give Kerry and inch unless they had to.

He's promised us he will do NOTHING about the troops who are dying in Iraq.

That's the biggest issue with the public.

Gop congressmen are saying "get out of Iraq or lose one or both houses of Congress". "Do you want to spend the last two years of your term with constant investigations?"

We're in deep shit.

That is, unless they nominate someone who isn't going to turn himself/herself into a pretzel trying to "win the middle" by pandering to the right. As our last candidate did.

him. However, Hillary, Bidden, Warner and Bayh are. Just for your information.

Kerry's problem is that he allowed his campaign to listen too much to the DLC. He thus became the "Bush-Lite" candidate.

If it's a dem, expect almost as much of the same.

Honest folks are not electable and the last time we had an honest president was Carter. Honest about oil and that had cost him.

People don't like honesty, they like what makes them feel good.

It's a bit of a shame, really...

They WANT someone that won't lie his ass off or sell us all out to the oil cartels? I'm shocked. SHOCKED I tell you!

-----on a serious note----

Frankly, even the GOP regulars (the non-Neocons) are unhappy with the chimp and his deficit spending and failure to reduce government size. The exportation of jobs hasn't endeared him any either. One GOP buddy of mine told me point blank that he really expected a lot more out of a GOP controlled Congress, Senate and White House. He feels very let down and most unhappy with the elected GOP folks. I honestly don't think he's alone in that feeling, and think he's probably typical of the rank and file average GOP voter.

I seriously look for a very strong anti-incumbent voter sweep in this "off year" election, and it will potentially be affecting both parties. IF the Dems can save themselves from being seen as a big part of the same problem we can do well. If not--you better look for a LOT of new faces after the election is all finished.


Laura

:grr:

as much as it is to protect corporate and imperialistic America.

They hate us for our believe in democracy, not because they think progressive politicians or ideas will lose elections.

mega corporations control the media and therefore the message. Will there ever be a time in the future when the people, not the powerful, chose the candidates?