Latest Pres. Polling Data

[5stringJeff]

The latest polls have shown that Bush's numbers have surged significantly in almost all measures. Specifically, Bush's job approval rating stood at 61%, a significant rise above the numbers from the last couple of months. The number of people who approved of his handing of the war in Iraq rose from 43% to 49%, and Bush's approval rating on the economy rose from 45% to 50%.

Meanwhile, the latest polling numbers for the Nine Dwarves show Dean, Clark, Lieberman, and Gephardt all polling, on average, between 10-16% of the vote. Kerry's average was 8.3%, very disappointing for someone who doubtless considers himself a front-runner.

Looking at the state polling numbers, it looks like Dean and Lieberman are lining up to win the most states. While Lieberman runs third nationally, he may be able to pick up enough states early on to make it interesting - and possibly force Clark out before the convention.

Edwards, Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton are most defintely also-rans.

 

[dijetlo]

Hey, congratulations on the uptick GOP_Jeff. I'm sure sphincters all the way up to the RNC headquarters just un clenched a half notch.
The only part that I can identify that could cause one pause (btw good source, kudos) is the swing in numbers over the three day (Bush in Iraq/thanksgiving) period. Polling data prior to the stunt were in line with trends, post trip the bumb is pronounced. He may be able to build on it or, like the aircraft carrier photo-op, it may provide popularity until the next bad day in Iraq. November is a long way off, but your numbers are definitely good news for the Bush camp.
Predictions on the Dems? I've been watching them and I don't have a prediction yet. Dean seems to have the best chance of unseating GWB, but he'll have to mobilize the under 30 vote to historical highs in order to acheive it. Leiberman is running as a Bush-Lite machine candidate and finding the Dem machine unwilling to back him regardless, seems the Dems are going to be the anti-war party, at least for the time being.

 

[5stringJeff]

My analysis of the Dems comes from the state-by-state polls. Like I said, Dean and Lieberman are ahead in most of them, with Clark and Gephardt picking up one or two. Edwards only has his home state. I think thatit is going to come down to Dean and Lieberman, in which case the Dems will have to choose: centrist, DLC-style policies, or Dean's far-left, "Democratic wing of the Party" policies. The former, I think, will be the one that gives the Dems the better chance of winning. The latter, I think, will give the Dems a marked difference between themselves and the GOP - not necessarily good news when running against a popular incumbent.
The only problem I have with Dean's campaign (not his policies - that's another thread altogether) is that it is run by young and enthusiastic volunteers who are also arrogant and unexperienced. We had a GOP gubernatorial candidate like that in 2000. He lost, despite being popular with the younger crowd, about 57-43%.
BTW, I agree that the uptick in Bush's numbers could very well be a bump. However, I think it shows that, at the very least, people have some respect for Bush by him flying into Baghdad over the holiday.

 

[Annie]

I agree that the poll #'s are probably a 'bump' from the visit to the troops, yet one cannot underestimate that people who have 'returned' may well tend to stay there.

The notion that 'bad days' in Iraq will turn the general populace against the war, I think, are a bit overblown. I believe the days of the US considering the type of casualties we've been having as justification for 'running' are truly over. Gulf War I found that the people actually recognized that war and death-of our troops and all other combatants was inevitable. For those that didn't get it then, 9/11 brought the terrible truth home to most.

Look at the numbers in Spain and Italy, two allies of ours that did not have previous public backing. Since they were targeted, their people are becoming more convinced that this war must be fought.

 

[acludem]

Kathianne you make one fundamental mistake. You assume that the populace was ever solidly for the war in Iraq. It wasn't, it never has been, and it never will be. There is a strong contingent of people who, from the beginning, have been adamantly opposed to this war. Most of Europe, as shown by the massive protests of Bush's last several trips there, still opposes our actions. Bush will have trouble defeating whoever the Democratic candidate is for the simple reason that this is a sharply divided country. Bush barely got in the White House in 2000, and if he wins in 2004 it will be by an equally small margin.

Acludem

 

[Annie]

acludem,

You make a classic mistake yourself, check the polls, the majority of people in US did support the war in Iraq, until after the battles were won. We do not like our guys getting killed, but my point is that we will take it, when the cause is right. Currently, the jury is out-at 50%, within the margin of error.

Huge EU demonstrations? Get a life. More protest demonstrators show up at book signings. As I said, check out the latests polls in Spain and Italy. There was an article a couple hours ago regarding Asian allies, they too did not find their people caving into being targeted.

Whether you agree or not with what is going on, all of us must take blinders off.

 

[acludem]

Regardless of whether a majority supported the war, it was not supported by the entire or even most of the populous. In fact support varied based upon how the war would be carried out. Protests in England over Bush's last visit numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Spain and Italy are far less significant then say UK, Russia, Germany and France where are staunch majority of the populace opposed the action, especially in the latter three countries. The battle in Iraq won't be won anytime soon. I wish I could say I believed it would ever be won. I'm not sure it's winnable, and I'm not sure the cost is worth paying.

I'm expressing my honest opinion on the war...civilized people can disagree. Bush may win in 2004, but it will likely be without winning the popular vote, and it will be extremely close.

 

[Annie]

acludem, the definition of the majority is +50%. That IS most of the people.

Aside, your take that "UK, Russia, Germany and France" are more important than Spain and Italy is begging the question. The later 3 are considered to many to no longer be friendly to the US, so whatever their position, it's not in our interests to put their take on things to the forefront. UK support has been growing, much like the Spain and Italy fronts that you consider insignificant. Why? Perhaps for much the same reason, check out the Turkey incidents.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by Kathianne
acludem,

You make a classic mistake yourself, check the polls, the majority of people in US did support the war in Iraq, until after the battles were won. We do not like our guys getting killed, but my point is that we will take it, when the cause is right. Currently, the jury is out-at 50%, within the margin of error.

Enjoying the exchange Kathy and ALCU, I just have a link to some data that might be useful to the discusssion
"Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in going to war against Iraq?"
11/21-30/03
Right Decision 55%
Wrong Decision 41%
No Answer 4%
6/03
Right Decision 65%
Wrong Decision 29%
No Answer 6%
Sorry for the interruption please continue.
GOP, I'm not looking at it state by state yet, we haven't had the first two primaries, where I think the back of the pack will drop off and the dynamic of that comparison will change. I think your analysis of the choice that the DNC may have to make is dead on, though.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by dijetlo
GOP, I'm not looking at it state by state yet, we haven't had the first two primaries, where I think the back of the pack will drop off and the dynamic of that comparison will change. I think your analysis of the choice that the DNC may have to make is dead on, though.

I agree. I think between New Hampshire and Super Tuesday, we'll see two to four of the no-name candidates drop out. Certainly after Super Tuesday's results, I except the field to be narrowed to four at the most - five if Al Sharpton refuses to face the reality that he'll never get nominated and decides to go the distance.