Rasmussen Poll Kerry 47% Bush 45%

Bush 45% Kerry 47%
Election 2004 Presidential Ballot

Bush 45%
Kerry 47%
Other 3%
Not Sure 6%
RasmussenReports.com

Rasmussen Reports Home


Wednesday April 14, 2004--The latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll was completed almost entirely before last night's Presidential Press Conference. So, those looking for hints of public reaction to that event will have to wait another day.



The survey found Senator John F. Kerry with 47% of the vote and President George W. Bush with 45%. The poll has found the candidates within two points of each other on 34 of the past 44 days. Kerry opened up a modest lead last week, but that vanished following the testimony of Condoleezza Rice and improving news from Iraq.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

Don't put too much credence on it either way.

Their results are very much in line with all other polls, with one exception.

The real joke are the USAToday/Gallup polls.
They are always way off from all the other polls.

odd perception differences.

Have been tracking exactly the same percentages as the Newsweek and ARG polls, all of which have Kerry head of Bush in the last few days.

n/t.

When we see a poll, it's a few days old. Not only that, the response to that poll is probably not the result of the news the day of the poll.

Rather, it appears that people do respond to the news, events, campaign themes, etc., but it can take a few days to weeks for minds to change. In fact, we're probably just seeing the response to events in Iraq and the 9/11 commission right now in the polls.

People are busy. Many times, they hear news in passing and in short bursts. It may not even register until a colleague, friend, and/or family member finally hears enough to talk about it. It's when that happens that the person begins processing the information in a different way, begins analyzing it. Decisions come from the personal analysis more than simply hearing the facts. When you think about the way you come to political and even other life decisions, it makes sense that as fast as the news cycle is, the response to it is much slower because in most folks, some form of analysis must occur to precipitate a change of mind.

That said, Bush is having a horrible month. This is his best month for jobs, and its lost amidst tax time, the Iraq debacle, and the 911 controversies. The coverage of Bush on these issues is mixed at its best and devastating at its worst. You might say it's death by a thousand paper cuts.

Add to this situation his latest press conference...the thing about major public appearances is that if they don't help, they usually end up doing some harm.

Cases in point:
The President's State of the Union
Meet The Press
The 4/13 Press Conference

The state of the union got mixed reviews, but because presidents usually do well in such a format, the lack of bounce hurt Bush. The Meet The Press interview was a disappointment, again, nothing devastating to the true believers, but the lack of strength sent a message --and it hurt him with undecideds who cannot take from the event a strong positive impression which helps them support the president. Remember back to his September speech about the $87 billion to Iraq. Again, more than anything else (Plame, war deaths, etc.) his numbers suffered when he looked weak after that address to the nation.

The final thing I'm noticing is that this president has stark weaknesses in terms of his personality that work against reelection as an incumbent. As a challenger, his ability to speak in generalities and in moral terms was considered a strength. As an incumbent, in tough times, he must make specific defenses of his record. Credibility in this regard is built on detail. Bush is horrible at communicating detail or insight and that's hurting him. His disinterest in such detail will harm his ability to be strong in this way. Unless he gets a lot of good news and soon, he may be finished.

There are exceptions to this. In good times, the standards are much lower. Bush 41 could run on platitudes, patriotism and Reagan in 1988. In 1992, with unemployment, recession, tax hikes, and all in all, a record to judge, Bush couldn't run the same campaign. In 1984, when things were looking up, Reagan could run as the successful incumbent and benefitting from better times, could run as the more positive candidate. It was that image and those times that allowed him to garner the popularity he became known for, it also spared him the need to explain away problems or propose many detailed solutions. Without good times and as a challenger, Reagan campaigned negatively and abrasively many times and was a divisive candidate, but that works for challengers. He was lucky in that the times and circumstances of his elections rarely demanded a strong, detailed defense of his record.

Bush is not lucky this way and neither was his father, but their lack of other qualities to counter this bad luck stops them from weathering tough times as many other leaders do.

With such glaring weaknesses, how did either Bush manage to win any election? What's becoming clear is that their connections to power and money more than any personal talent or achievement allowed them to get to the highest office in America. The problem is that connections and money can't always keep you there when the going gets rough.