Four months later, Bush would STILL beat Kerry

A very interesting poll from John Zogby on Bush, Iraq, & most importantly, Dem vs Repub strenths & weaknesses:

about:blank

http://www.zogby.com/news/

The Dems win on Domestic issues, but lose on terrorism & family values.

To all those DUers who feel the need to ignore terrorism, & stress domestic policy, think again: Dems win on domestic issues, hands down. What they need to strengthen their overall appeal is to show they are as tough as the Repubs.

Also, if there was voter manipulation, this polls does not demonstrate that.

Results of this poll from General Discussion:

Despite the "success" of the Iraq "election", a Zogby poll released on 2/27/05 shows that the popularity of the Iraq war has plunged to 39%, down from 52% two week earlier.

Additional info in the poll:


If the Election was today, who would you vote for?

46% Bush 42%Kerry.

If you could, would you elect Bush to a third term would you?

29% Yes 58% No

Approval Rating: 46%

Disapproval Rating: 53%

Approval Bush's handling of specific issues Approve/Disapprove:

Iraq War:
39% Approve 61% Disapprove

Jobs/Economy:
37% Approve 62% Disapprove

Social Security/Medicare:
33% Approve 63% Disapprove

Education:
37%Approve 60% Disapprove

Environment:
32% Approve 61% Disapprove

Terrorism:
54% Approve 44% Disapprove

Taxes:
44% Approve 54% Disapprove

Foreign Policy:
40%Approve 56% Disapprove

Which Party do you trust on Specific Issues Republican/Democrat:

Health care:
36%/50%

Environment:
32%/55%

Taxes:
50%/38%

Integrity:
45%/31%

Jobs/Economy:
42%/47%

Terrorism:
51%/30%

Values:
47%/35%

Tolerance:
33%/50%

Family Values:
48%/32%

Foreign Policy:
42%/45%

Right track/Wrong track-
49%/47%

Iraq War Worth Cost

39% Yes 54% No

before Nov. I voted in every poll that came my way, now I don't give a shit.

I know others that do the same.

He gave Kerry 319 electoral votes.

Where are those extra 67 electoral votes, Johnny?

Yeah, sorry after seeing what fiasco it all was, i still think he won, look at the exit polls and tell me. That study they did that said the exit polls were wrong, were proven to be faulty. I am still sick over this and angry that noone will try and shake things up.

I agree as well. I just don't get how he got re-elected. Even with the ABB crowd. :shrug: And I don't do many polls either. Who cares?
It's not like Bush would listen to them (the recent SS one's for example).

DIEBOLD :eyes:

in retrospect. That may account for some of it.

The approval/disapproval numbers speak volumes. And what about that "third term" number? Do we have comparable numbers for Clinton?

This is from a Gallup survey, where in the same survey Reagan had a 64% approval rating:

Would you like to see Ronald Reagan elected to a third term, or not?

Questionnaire: The New Tax Bill
Questionnaire Field Date: 08/20/1986-08/21/1986
Questionnaire Sample Size: 771

Question Mean: N/A
Question Total N: 1241


Scale % N
Yes 32.37 402
No 61.88 768
No opinion 5.75 71


These are the only comparable questions I could find on Clinton, in this survey he had a 58% approval rating:

If Bill Clinton could run again and was the Democratic nominee for president this year, and Texas Governor George W. Bush was the Republican nominee for president, who would you be more likely to vote for?

Questionnaire: Post-Democratic Convention Poll
Questionnaire Field Date: 08/18/2000-08/19/2000
Questionnaire Sample Size: 1043

Question Mean: N/A
Question Total N: 1041


Scale % N
Bill Clinton 44.55 464
George W. Bush 50.90 530
NEITHER (vol) 2.73 28
OTHER (vol) 0.29 3
DON'T KNOW 1.37 14
REFUSED 0.16 2



If the Democratic nomination for president were still being decided and if Bill Clinton could run again, would you rather see the Democrats nominate... Al Gore or Bill Clinton; Bill Clinton or Al Gore for president?

Questionnaire: Pre-Democratic Convention
Questionnaire Field Date: 08/11/2000-08/12/2000
Questionnaire Sample Size: 1024

Question Mean: N/A
Question Total N: 1023


Scale % N
Al Gore 52.75 539
Bill Clinton 28.43 291
Neither/other (vol.) 14.41 147
Don't know/refused 4.41 45


Kind of unrelated, but I found this question interesting too:

If both President Bill Clinton and FORMER President George Bush could run for president again, who would you support -- President Bill Clinton or Former President George Bush? Former President George Bush or President Bill Clinton?

Questionnaire: Post-GOP Convention
Questionnaire Field Date: 08/04/2000-08/05/2000
Questionnaire Sample Size: 1371

Question Mean: N/A
Question Total N: 676


Scale % N
President Bill Clinton 49.92 337
Former President George Bush 45.49 307
NEITHER (vol.) 2.57 17
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 2.02 14

to third terms for presidents than with the popularity or unpopularity of any president.

When you put Clinton against an actual candidate, the numbers change considerably. I'm sure the same would have happened for Reagan... and would happen for Bush.

keep them scared.

Dumber than a sack of bricks? I'm sure bricks are smarter. Human stupidity and dishes needing approach inifinity more than anything I know.

people disapprove of everything this pathetic excuse for a human being does, and yet would still vote for him if the election was held today. truly sad.

but last week a DUer posted a very in depth poll from Pew Research, which was done several years before the election. And many of these same opinions were the same.

And his comment was that the Pew Research almost predicted the outcome of the race.

BTW, I'm all for election reform, paper ballots, etc., but when a party continues to lose, I think it's silly to pretend a problem does not exist.

A world lost. These polls can tell me what I think and feel forever they are like junk mail and spam

as the other poster said, zogby predicted a huge electoral landslide for Kerry.

Zogby's actual polls still had Bush with a slight lead at the end. Zobgy predicted a Kerry win based upon what appeared to be momentum for Kerry towards the end, but in retrospect it looks like the Bin Laden tape might have stopped that momentum. Regardless, after that fiasco, Zobgy said he plans to stick to reporting poll results and give up on such predicting.

I was watching FOX when Shepard Smith announced "BREAKING NEWS - a message from Osama Bin Laden." I froze. Something inside told me "The party's over."

See my exclusive report on Bush's New Years Resolutions posted December 31:
http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/2004/12/george-bushs-new-years-resolutions.html

One item included:
Send thank you gift to Osama--I'd be no where without that guy

Zogby was PISSED! when the election was over he was like, my polls were correct, there is something else wrong

in order.

How can voters think Republicans are wrong on almost everything except the war on terror and then vote for them? It's not because Democrats can't convince voters that Dems have trigger fingers as itchy as Republicans'. It's because they can't convince people they won't be safe if America turns into a banana republican without a middle class, no matter how itchy the president's trigger finger is.

They definitely need to tell people they'd keep them safe, but foreign policy and terrorism defy progressive vs conservative framing in the average voter's mind. Either you do everything you can to fight terrorism or you don't, and we can't do everything we can if we're a poor country with no middle class.

but why am I not surprised?

Other than talk about it, what has he or his Party accomplished?

(1) Incompetence and policy decisions allowed 9/11 to happen.
(2) Never got OBL, the alledged mastermind of 9/11.
(3) Went after a country that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and terror.
(4) Our actions in the ME have created generations of new terrorists who see us now as the evil Satan in this world.
(5) Big Oil Republicans, particularly the cowboy king may be compromised and/or blackmailed and are unable to fight the sources that fund terror.
(6) Republicans spent the 90s conducting a grand Inquisition of Clinton and hamstrung any efforts by CLinton to conduct a war on terror.

I really wonder, on what basis, a majority can conclude that Republicans are stronger on terror. None of these guys ever got anywhere near a war when they could have served their country. Given how terror seems to be tied with Big Oil interests, one has to wonder if they have any desire to see terror end.

is how the support for Iraq can be so low, yet his marks on terrorism be so high. I thought war supporters generally believed the Iraq war was part of the war on terrorism (we know better here...but still). How can they believe that Iraq isn't going well, yet think he's doing a good job with terrorism?

& the voters give him credit for that.

OTOH, they don't like the war.

Despite his obivious ineptitude, stupidity, and reactionary policies, they voted for him because he was so "salt of the earth", and spoke so "bluntly and honestly".

Reagan and Dumbya spoke to the worst of the American people and appealed to their fears and prejudices and they lapped it up.

Kinda like that German guy with the goofy mustache.

And the poll doesn't say who those third party voters are so there's no way to tell what the voters would really do with this poll.

Election today: 46% Shrub 42% Kerry ********** BUSHIT!

Peace!

with!!

Bush DIDN'T "beat" Kerry. Bush STOLE the election from the American people through fraudulent vote counting machines, disenfranchisement, and other sinister maneuvers.

Bush is part of the bush family mafia. They will do ANYTHING to keep their chimpanzee in power.

ANYTHING.

Kerry did NOT lose this election.

:kick::kick::kick:

Nobody likes Kerry cause he's Bushlite. Gore is too stiff. They wouldn't say that about other candidates. :cry: :cry:

The Kerry-Bush outcome would be essentially a tie, from those numbers.

Few of these numbers you cite are different from those prior to the election. The Iraq ones are down, of course (even though early February was a blip upward due to the "democracy" bit).

Democrats proved themselves on general economic and social policy between 1995 and 2001, that's what these numbers say. Family values...well, I think we can discount the Republican numbers in that because that amounts to an ideologically skewed question, tantamount to asking, if you wanted Democratic majorities, which party stands for social and economic justice.

Bush has also lost the Republican advantage, since 2001, with swing voters in matters of diplomacy. That is half of foreign affairs. But that's not noticed.

The number that really matters here is the one about the other half of foreign affairs, the one about Terrorism. That's the one Bush supporters duck behind whenever they're out of excuses, even though I've never gotten a coherent explanation of it. I think it's a measure of how much of the American electorate thinks that inflicting more violence and engaging in more barbarity will improve the situation. After all, The Old Way Of Doing Things is one of minimally discriminate violence against people 'we' don't like, and Republicans have made utterly sure to be identified with TOWODT. There obviously isn't an easy Democratic position to this, other than 'you know who we are, we'll do a better job and be more civilized about it'.

So the Terrorism question seems to me to be a question about American willingness to engage in barbaric behavior (how ever pretended to be otherwise) toward non-Americans. And it's in decline. Obviously, this one slowly breaking down is good news for Democrats and means the Bush game overseas is untenable in the middle future. But other pollings have the number a bit higher, around 57%. We need it around 45% or lower.

The other important important question here is the Integrity one. The good news is that only Republican leaners and Republicans think their Party and the Bush people have any. The bad news is that only hardcore Democrats are convinced of their Party having the stuff to rule. This one is going to matter a lot once the Middle East game stops being the major Republican prop, around a year from now. But all these scandals of various sizes- Gannon, Edmonds, Plame, WMD, Enron, Energy Policy- won't matter until the cover provided by the Middle East business wears out.

It is an evenly divided country at the moment. But Republicans get all the benefit of the doubt because they stand for The Old Way Of Doing Things, which must be shown to fail in all its pieces before it gets given up. Time is on the Democratic side, of course, but requires the work and sacrifice involved to continue until the grinding down of the Other Side is complete.

DUers like to ignore or deny this, but Bush's approval numbers were creeping up prior to November 2. Many polls had him at 50% or higher and the unmistakeable direction was north. At a legit 46-53 unfavorable, that would make the popular vote a virtual tie. As you mentioned, the terrorism issue continues to be a comfort pillow for the GOP and its apologists. Many voters would still vote for Bush over Kerry even if they disapproved of Bush. Kerry's favorables were not mentioned in that list. They were never high. Also, it would be interesting to see a "who did you vote for?" number. Inevitably, that favors the victor by much more than his actual margin.

No one wants him to get the nomination, and he'd lose worse to Bush than Kerry would.

It was discovered recently that a man using a fake name with absolutely no press creditinals, who happened to advertise himself as a homosexual military prostitute, was given WH press room access and was allowed to ask the President agenda-motivated questions.

Alan Keyes completely cut off his daughter after she came out as a lesbian.

Fred Phelps' "church" recently stated, among other things, that God killed John Edward's son as punishment for propping up the "homosexual agenda".

The confessed BTK Killer in Kansas is a Church leader and registered Republican.

Divorce rates are higher in red, Bible Belt states.


Those moral vaules, right?



And, come on! Integrity? The Swift Boat whores and Jeff Gannon represent integrity?

The administration and their pals in the media have done a damn good job of scaring the shit out of the American people and of convincing them that Bush's hyperaggressive attitude is the only thing standing between them and another terrorist attack.

I don't believe that and I'm sure that most of you don't either. The problem is that most people are getting their news from media sources that have not exactly highlighted the administration's failures.

People are scared and scared people do stupid things. How many times do you hear of people going out and buying a big watchdog after they've been robbed only to find they can't control the dog and in the end it turns on them unless they wise up and get rid of the beast before someone gets hurt.

At this point Americans are starting to realize they may have bought more than they can handle but they're still clinging to the belief that that big dog will scare off the burglars--it it doesn't kill one of the kids first.

on their bullshit, perhaps he would do better.

I believe the election was STOLEN AGAIN, but the candidate's mealy mouth buying into the PNAC terrorist meme, and not calling them out on their bullshit was awful.

He beats Kerry 46% to 42%, but his disapproval rating is 53%. Kerry can't even beat him when he's very unpopular, so why do people want him in 2008? I realize that, because of voter fraud, Kerry may have won. But we should've destroyed him, to the point where they couldn't steal it without people being very skeptical. We need a candidate who will do that in 2008.

and the late breaking bin Laden tape pushed Bush over the top for Nov. 2. And the economy was never bad enough to be factor.
In polls like this people tend to pick the "winner" because of the loser stigma.
That it is still so close now (and Bush well below 50%) shows how we are still quite evenly divided.

Did the easily manipulated take the OBL tape as "Ooooh..er . . he's still out there . . . oh jeepers, can't switch horsemen in the middle of the apocalypse" when they should have said "You know, shouldn't this be the giant neon sign above Bush's head that screams "WE FAILED"?

Proves positive why I look at a */Cheater sticker on a car and just shrug my head as if I'm looking at a simpleton who eats his/her boogers in broad daylight.

No way Bush would have been able to steal another one if the media had done their jobs--which they most assuredly did not!

At present, very few people realize there were irregularities in the election.

If there were a revote, we would be in a totally different situation than we are now as there would only be a revote if something came up which provided considerable reason for this.

and that Bush is winning the war on terror and all that other crap about terror they feed us.

Does the public KNOW that Bush refused to read the Hart-Rudman report on Global Terror that was handed to him on Jan30, 2001? NO....because the media was/is protecting him and his image as an anti-terror leader.

There will be NO Democrat who wins on this issue because the media will not tell the American people the TRUTH about Bush's failures and strategic mistakes in regard to terror.

This was a "hold your nose election"

Except for the true believers of each candidate, a great number of people didn't like either choice. And they voted AGAINST someone, rather than for someone.

who investigated and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history. Unless, of course, they have no clue about the last 35 years of American history. Unfortunately, the media wasn't too keen on educating the masses or those new to political activism so it's not like the newbies tried to be ignorant of the facts.

I do expect resentment for Kerry from those Republicans who are corrupt, though.

But I don't think he ran an effective campaign.

And my statement is backed by people I know: people who voted for Bush & Kerry. The majority of them were not excited by their choices.

BTW, I helped convince 2 people to vote for Kerry, strictly on issues, because they opposed Bush policies, but they were not thrilled by Kerry.

DU is a small part of the electorate. There are many opinions out there which may not agree with the consensus here.

way the media spoke of him as some sort of empty suit. Most people never researched who Kerry was, and everything he said during the campaign was subject to the media's spin or negligence through their deliberate ommissions.

The media never bothered telling the American people of the important work Kerry performed because THEY are the ones who dropped the ball on coverage of the crimes Kerry uncovered. Heck, most of the media should have been indicted as co-conspirators in the cover-up.

I'd love to see a revote happen just so we could see the bastards try to steal the election again.

Even putting aside questions of election fraud, it is hard to say how people would vote if they could revote now.

One recent pollshows that Bush would win when people are aksed how they would vote now, but that means little. Bush has had all the publicity, even if often bad, while there has been minimal news on Kerry.

If Bush knew there would be a revote, we could also be sure that he would have put off calling for privitixation of Social Security until after the revote, and would have kept the 9/11 investigation documents showing they really were warned classified even longer.

If you want to see how people would really vote if they had the chance again, then let's give them that chance. Otherwise, the poll is fairly meaningless in the component about how they would vote for Bush.

The other negatives do show that many Repugs running in 2006 may want to steer clear of any Bush visits in their state.

no, no, no, no and, um ... no !!!

Democrats need to convince Americans that our policies will make the country SAFER ... being tough like going to war when we're not attacked makes us LESS SAFE ... refusing to push for a non-nuclear world (including U.S. nuclear weapons) makes us LESS SAFE ... arrogantly marching around the world without a conciliatory foreign policy makes us LESS SAFE ...

Democrats don't need to be as TOUGH as repubs; we need to show that our policies would make Americans SAFER ...

anything is possible right?

results in terms of party affiliation (37% each). Seeing that this is based on re-scaling of the exit polls to match the official results, this may be create a Republican bias if the exit polls were right and the official results hacked.

had actually covered the election fraud story. If, for example, the country knew Kerry won but Bush hacked the vote, would that reshape how people would respond to a poll like this? You bet it would.

BS, BS, BS!!! Check out the polls for each topic and it just DOESN'T ADD UP!!

The election is over... unfortunately, bush is in. Let's work on '06 to get the democrats back into power because if the dems wish to regain the white house in '08... its imperative that at least some seats are gained in the congressional elections... that will give the party momentum and a chance to further their platform. It's time to stop wondering about "in 2004, what would've happened IF..." and start planning for the future.

I'm going to shoot myself....

Republicans win on those?


I am so sick of this nonsense. Really sick of being labeled lacking in family values, integrity and values. (screaming)

:mad:

Continuing mostly stupid, followed by hoped for enlightenment in the morning.