Latest TIME Poll: Bush 52%, Kerry 41%
 

As usual, the last convention has swung poll results (interesting what a few good speeches can do to public opinion). What I personally found interesting and confirming my own beliefs is that the majority of Americans trust Bush more than Kerry when it comes to fighting terrorists.

I also think that why this is less of an issue for young people (especially those here) is that the younger a person is, the more "invulnerable" they feel, that is, that their own mortality is not as real to them, while older people realize more that there are bad things and bad people that will hurt and kill us.

Just some ramblings.


http://www.time.com/time/press_relea...692562,00.html

----------------------------------------------------


Campaign 2004: Bush Opens Double-Digit Lead

TIME Poll: Among likely voters, 52% would vote for President George Bush, while 41% would vote for John Kerry and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader



Friday, Sep. 03, 2004
New York: For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2. Poll results are available on TIME.com and will appear in the upcoming issue of TIME magazine, on newsstands Monday, Sept. 6.

Most important issues: When asked what they consider are the most important issues, 25% of registered voters cited the economy as the top issue, followed by 24% who cited the war on terrorism as the top issue. The situation in Iraq was rated the top issue by 17% of registered voters, moral values issues such as gay marriage and abortion were the top issue for 16% of respondents, and health care was the most important issue for 11% of respondents.

Bush vs. Kerry:
The economy: 47% trust President Bush more to handle the economy, while 45% trust Kerry.
Health care: 48% trust Senator Kerry to handle health care issues, while 42% trust Bush.
Iraq: 53% trust Bush to handle the situation in Iraq, while 41% trust Kerry.
Terrorism: 57% trust Bush to handle the war on terrorism, while 36% trust Kerry.
Understanding the needs of people: 47% said they trust Kerry to understand the needs of people like themselves, while 44% trusted Bush to understand their needs.
Providing strong leadership: 56% said they trust Bush to provide strong leadership in difficult times, while 37% said they trust Kerry to provide leadership in difficult times.
Tax policy: 49% trust Bush to handle tax policy, while 40% trust Kerry.
Commanding the Armed Forces: 54% said they trust Bush to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, while 39% said they trust Kerry.

Bush on the Issues:
Iraq: Half (50%) of those surveyed approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 46% disapprove. In last week’s TIME poll, 48% approved of the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq and 48% disapproved.
Terrorism: Almost two thirds (59%) said they approve of how President Bush is handling the war on terrorism, while 38% disapprove. Last week’s TIME poll found 55% approved of Bush’s handling of the war on terrorism, while 40% disapproved.
The Economy: Survey respondents were split on the President’s handling of the economy. Almost half (48%) said the approved of Bush’s handling of the economy, while 48% said the disapproved.

Other results include:
Was U.S. Right Going to War with Iraq? Over half of those surveyed (52%) think the U.S. was right in going to war with Iraq, while 41% think the U.S. was wrong to go to war.

Have the United States’ actions in Iraq made the world safer? Almost half (45%) think the United States’ actions in Iraq have made the world safer, while 45% think the world is more dangerous. In a similar TIME poll taken Aug. 3 – 5, over half (52%) said the world was more dangerous, and 38% said the world was safer.

# # #

Methodology: The TIME Poll was conducted August 31 – September 2 by telephone among a random sample of 1,316 adults, including 1,128 reported registered voters and 926 likely voters. The margin of error for registered voters is +/- 3% points, and +/- 4% points for likely voters. Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs conducted the poll, and more complete results are attached.

God damn it.

Let's assume that Bush has made great strides in combating terrorism. Personally, I don't see that at all - but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for purposes of this discussion.

How afraid am I supposed to be?

There is a far greater chance of me being murdered by a drug dealer than from a terrorist. Should I ignore almost every other issue (like the increased possibility of losing my job and not being able to find anything comparable to replace it, like the crackdown on freedoms outlined in the constitution, like the incredibly expanding deficit, like the haphazard destruction of the environment for purposes of corporate gain) - should I ignore all other issues for the simple, base fear of being killed by a terrorist?

What about dying in an automobile accident? Sure, they are, by definition, accidents and therefore without intent - but the chances of my death by one is astronomical in comparison to death by terrorist action. Should I refrain from leaving my house?

Maybe young people do feel invulnerable. Or maybe old people feel hysterically at risk. Or maybe age has little to do with the issue considering I'm old (30) in comparison to the majority around here.

Since I made a living assessing and dealing with risk for a few years, I feel qualified to answer this question: You should look at the risks involved now and what may reasonably happen in the future.

In the case of automobiles (1 person dies in a car crash every 13 minutes, BTW), not wearing seat belts is foolish.

In the case of terrorism, not pursuing them and giving them a safe place to hide is equally foolish.


In either case, you will never reduce the risk to zero, but to ignore it is stupid.

Who said anything about ignoring it?

As I said, I would concede for the purposes of discussion that Bush has done much to combat terrorism.

But why should that be the primary, and in many cases ONLY, issue to vote on?

You can claim it will spiral out of control very quickly if Bush is no longer President - but I'm not going to concede such a baseless opinion. Kerry WOULD fight terrorism. Bush WOULD fight terrorism. There is no question of that. I see no logic in claiming that terrorism will spiral out of control, to the degree that our lives would actually become at risk to more than some essentially non-existent degree if Bush is not President. I do see it as a focal point of an election campaign - forsaking all other issues.

There are more important issues. And not suprisingly, Bush has been very ineffective dealing with them.

Oh, I get it. All the old people who support the war are like, "We're attacking Iraq now. It's for our own good." And they don't expect any young people to possibly fathom the true meaning of their motives... because they're young and naive. Yeah right. Young people are just as smart and just as aware. They're also less conservative and less religious. They are more rational.

I'm real fuckin' disappointed right now.

One poll does not a concensus make.

Most national polls are neck and neck. I am sure Bush got a boost from the convention, but like all of bush's ups, it will be followed by a steep decline.
Get about 10 to 15 major national polls and find the average point distribution in that.

It is very interesting to view presidential approval ratings over his term. Starts off very low, HUGE spike for 9/11 then a gradual drop off. Iraq war again boosts him, but not so much. Drop off gets a bit steeper after that. Capture of Saddam, another small boost. Dropoff is almost immediate. This will be his 4th little spike and I think it will be razor thin.

Also remember the Democratic Primary. Kerry appeared dead in the water. Dean had more than a 20 point lead and then almost immediately everything turned around and Kerry just took off running with everything.

Don't be.....there is a serious movement in this country right now. More and more....people of a certain intellect are coming to the realization that change is needed. I too have some dissapointment in the general state of affairs, but it is tempered with hope in the underlying intellegence of society as a whole. The Shrub will burn....in time. New growth will come from the ashes.

(crosses fingers and toes)

http://pollingreport.com/images/SEPTgenl.GIF

yes, Bush has a SLIGHT lead right now. But that is to be expected after the convention and the traditional vacation period for the challenger. There are still plenty of undecideds. And better than that, plenty of time.

This race is in no way over.
Besides, I would rather us Kerry supporters be slight underdogs for most of this race. It keeps us more fired up. It makes us work harder. You won't catch us relaxing and thinking we are content in some lead.

I'm suprised no one made the point that Kerry got almost no lift in the polls after his convention, while Bush gets a double-digit lead.

don't you think we're more conservative than the past 2 or 3 generations when they were young?

Are we more rational? I don't think so. From what information or whose opinions do you draw this conclusion? Your sentences could be read so that this third statement rests upon the first two. I hope that isn't true.

I re-read my post and I'm sure I didn't say any of the things you inferred.

And more idealistic.
;)

Oh nos the dread poll!

Whats funny is Time is the only one that even has that big of a difference - all the other polls show them in a statistical tie which is weird.

Anyways this is kind of expected after conventions - the real poll test for both candidates comes November..

Okay, 52% to 41% among 926 of 260,000,000 potential voters (.0000035615%). With the margin of error it could be 64% to 37% or 48% to 45%. And we know how woefully wrong presidential polls tend to be, and yet these results are plastered on every news program and paper. I really think the whole "bounce" phenomenon is mostly a media construction, I can't believe that many people are still undecided. It makes for a more dramatic story.

And people make money creating these statistics? I'm in the wrong field.

That stat oddity is what I was wondering about. I was always under the impression that the stat margin of error was set in stone by mathmatics, something like this many people questioned so the margin of error must be in this set of values (X%) in relation to the opinion of the entire country, if the group polled was random by poll standards and the question asked was not worded in a way to give a canidate an advantage.

Edit: After reading Wikipedia and google, I learned that the margin of error is correct X percent of the time, usually either 90 or 95. I think this might be a situation where the Time's poll simply fell far outside the expected margin of error range. I believe this is the case because the Zogby and ARG polls did not show anything like an 11 point gap.

I dont remember a time I was so disgusted by both candidates that it made me not want to vote. This situation sucks; were in for a Rocky future either direction.

Its funny that these two are cousins.

don't not vote. Look into a third party whose ideology you can generally agree with and help boost them to give them a better chance at hearing their message heard in the future.

I'm not in love with Kerry, but Bush is awful. He's got a nutcase for AG, who worries about naked statues. He's gotten us embroiled in a long-running action in Iraq, justified with lies about WMD, which is devastating the budget, getting people killed, and doesn't show many positive benefits. He has created a climate in which torture is being tolerated. He's busy subverting our civil rights... I could go on, but it's pointless; this post says it better than I can. This is easily the worst administration since Nixon's, and possibly the worst since Grant's.

Will he win? Who knows, but he sure isn't going to get my vote.

Oh great another one of these... fine I can do it in return. There is a serious movement among college graduates that are coming to the realization that to change course at this point and time would be devastating. Among low income and poorly educated they will never realize this.

Sucks when people spill bullshit about your beliefs and basically call you stupid huh?

1. I actually think polls, when administered and analyzed correctly, are quite accurate.

2. I would hope that a sitting president would get a boost from speaking to 'his' nation--a bump doesn't surprise or intimidate me.

3. Public voting patterns don't mean too much. We need to look at the electoral votes.

I suggest people not worry so much about what the public is saying right now. It's pretty volatile and will almost certainly wash around like ocean tide for the next few weeks, at the least, until things start to cool down again (if they actually do) and people get to think about what has been said by the respective candidates.

Oh, and we're a few months away from election and the president just caught up to his opponent. Not a resounding gong of success, in my estimation. For all the people espousing the view that one ought to stand by whoever is elected for the 'sake of the nation'--you might want to consider that nearly half the population isn't supporting the sitting president--the head of our nation. Bush may 'win,' but with only half the population supporting him--he's a sorry ass leader and it shows. At best, his name goes down in the books as a lame president--regardless if he gets to serve another term. How's that for posterity?

As far as the poll is concerend, I found what Congressman Meeks (D-NY) said on Crossfire yesterday pretty much sums it up:

(They had to go to break after that).
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/03/cf.01.html

Basically, the whole convention was to scare people, scare them about terror and Iraq (completely different things, in case you still don't realize it), and to remind them of how wonderful the president was on and after 9/11. I'm not contradicting that the president did a good job immediatly following 9/11 (well after 7 minutes past at least), but having the whole convention with speaker after speaker go on and on about Bush is Great and crap like that makes me sick. And then you get the VP and P up there lying about how the economy is doing well. It is just hilarious.

So some people were fooled by this "masquerade party", but "The truth is going to come out."

Two big blustering winds of truth are the prescription drug entitlement (oddly slated to kick in after Bush is reelected or far from the White House) and that big floaty, wet fart--privatization of Social Security.

In this cesspool of shit flying all over the place, neither candidate is speaking about the crunch of Social Security--and that's scary shit to me. It should be scary shit to 40-50 somethings now, because about 8 years ago it was my problem. Now it's become your problem, too.

Exactly how much would you be able to sock away each year for your own retirement? The vast majority of the workers barely make enough to live on now--how exactly are they going to put something in an account. In case many of you didn't notice, any retirement account you used to have was decimated. Yes, the iron clad safety of the private investment sector!

Oh yes, and another thing, if you didn't just toss out your yearly statement from the Big Gov regarding your piddly savings toward the amount that is supposed to support you for the rest of your life after you retire (because we all know how often those service jobs have retirement bennies, right?), please read the fine print and get back to us in this thread about what you saw after you clean your shorts.

The amusing thing is this poll was taken DURRING the convention.

If anything the numbers may well be higher for Bush right now.

Edit, this JUST in...

NEWSWEEK POLL: REPUBLICAN CONVENTION 2004


Bush/Cheney Lead Kerry/Edwards 54 to 43 Percent; in a Three-Way Trial Heat,
Bush/Cheney Receive 13-Point Margin Bounce

Bush Approval Rating Rises to 52 Percent; First Time Above 50 Since January;
Majority (53%) Wants to See Him Re-Elected-Highest Since May 2003

And even though more Americans (49%) say they are dissatisfied with the
way things are going in the U.S. at this time (43% are satisfied), President
George W. Bush's approval rating has gone up to 52 percent, a seven-point
increase since the last Newsweek Poll (July 29-30), and the first time it's
topped 50 percent since January. Also 53 percent of registered voters say the
would like to see President Bush re-elected to another term. The last time a
majority of Americans wanted to see the president re-elected was May 2003.
In comparing the two presidential candidates, more registered voters think
President Bush has strong leadership qualities than Kerry (65% vs. 47%), is
more honest and ethical (62% vs. 47%), says what he believes and not just what
people want to hear (66% vs. 42%), would trust him to make the right decisions
during an international crisis (57% vs. 44%), shares their values (54% vs.
42%), and is personally likeable (67% vs. 59%). In addition, more registered
voters think President Bush would do a better job than Sen. Kerry on various
issues: terrorism and homeland security (60% vs. 32%), the situation in Iraq
(55% vs. 37%), foreign policy (54% vs. 38%), taxes (52% vs. 38%), economy (49%
vs. 43%), education (48% vs. 42%), and gay marriage (44% vs. 36%). More
people say Sen. Kerry would do a better job than President Bush on healthcare,
including Medicare (45% vs. 43%) and the environment (50% vs. 36%).

Really? Clinton didnt get a positive approval rating until only after he left office. In 1993 his approval rating was a whopping 43% according to ABC/Gallop poles. 46% doesnt look too dissimilar in retrospect now does it?

No it doesn't. What's your point?

I didn't vote for Clinton, if that's what you're after. I suspect you already think he was a sorry ass leader.

I just can't get why you pulled his name out. I was wondering the same thing when Bush blasted Kerry as not defending the "defense of marriage bill, which Bill Clinton signed" as if suddently you're aligned with him when it suits your point.

I followed your link to another link http://www.badnarik.org/Multimedia/

and was very impressed with him. I agree with the philosophy fully. This however was the first time I actually listened to what he had to say; even though Im fairly versed within that mindset. I suppose Im one of those conspiracy theorists that burnt out trying to understand how so many millions of people view what they percieve as theories in the first place. While there is part of me that sees this as a situation that one must never lose sight that its worth the fight; that whatever source continues to keep the shroud over the financial bondage; hence slavery- is so entrenched into the American life that the main body debates and votes over which side will fuck them in their own unique way. Then for some to only be happy that the side they voted for won and will fuck them at an acceptable level.

One way of seeing it is; We have an acceptable level of free enterprise choices and options; as well as freedoms to live what is generally seen as rights to live a "happy" life; and for that we should be thankful. Having been all over the world and having the opportunity to engage in many cultures there may be an element of truth to that. But that doesnt give what I have label the "parasitic society" the right to enact the power the fuels they're obvios belief that everyone else is below them. That is BULLSHIT.

Neither one of the main 2 candidates is going to dismantle the IRS and federal reserve. THe counterbalances between the DEMS and REPS- morals/taxes vice versa make no sence until its understood that someone is winning reguardless which side wins.

I cant see how that entity would or will ever let that power fall to where is ws designed to.