CNN did a poll of 1001 people, and John Kerry is ahead of Dubya. I know the relevance of this poll is little, but it is still fun to post and watch you hardcore Republicans and Democrats tear each other apart. ENJOY!!!!!! http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/elec04.poll.prez/index.html
That's not a surprise. If you consider yourself a fiscal and/or social conservative, why would you be excited about Bush Part Two? If you consider yourself a social liberal, you know that despite his moderate tone, Kerry is in favor of outwardly appointing federal judges who will legislate from the bench.
If Bush wins he will be the first President since WWII that possibly a war helped him get re-elected. I am not even sure WWII helped FDR in 1944. FDR would have won regardless at that time. He may have gotten more votes without the war. Lincoln was re-elected in 1864, but he expected to lose until Sherman captured Atlanta and probably swung a lot of votes his way. At least that is the way Lincoln himself saw it. The Spanish-American War probably helped McKinley, but Wilson won in 1916 as the man who kept us out of WWI; Korea probably convinced Truman not to run in 1952; Vietnam ended LBJ's career, and The Gulf War did not help Bush's Daddy. The perception in 1992 was that the war was not a complete victory or that we blew the peace agreement, and it may have even hurt him.
I don't think Gulf War I hurt Bush Sr. He had 90% approval ratings coming out of that war. He was just unable to maintain that momentum all the way to the campaign. 21 months is an eternity in presidential politics, especially when the country is in the midst of a bad economic recession, as the U.S. was in 1992. As for the latest poll, Kerry rides high now, but some Democrats will be unhappy with him and will defect to third party candidates, maybe even Bush, if he is the nominee. And a brutal campaign might leave him battered and vulnerable this summer. But we shall see.
One factor that may play a part in November is the environment voters. Nader got almost all of those hardcore voters last time and had between 2 and 3 million votes. Gore got 400,000 more votes than Bush did. Bush has trashed the environment to the nth degree, and it will be interesting to see if those ex-Nader voters are so angry that they vote Democrat. Normally I do not think the environment plays a big part in Presidential politics. I always had the feeling that it is not an issue that people actually vote on, as some one issue voters are with anti gun control or anti abortion voters. Those people don't care about anything else. As long as rivers are not catching fire again, the environment is not something that convinces minds one way or the other. Other issues probably swing those voters in the end one way or the other. This poll shows numbers against and for Bush, but Bush is by far the most hated Republican President since Nixon or maybe even Hoover. Huge numbers of people literally despise him. Those people will be highly motivated to vote and to contribute money. It will be interesting if those Green ex-Nader voters make the difference in the end.
Another reason that could be attributed to these numbers is that currently you only see Kerry and his "promises and whatnot" on tv. Once Bush gets his campaign going and is out there debating and everything these numbers could be different. Bush isn't the greatest thing out there in my opinion, but I still believe him to be a better choice for me than Kerry.
Is Nader planning to run again? I haven't heard for sure. I haven't seen any evidence that Bush has "trashed" the environment, although he did catch some heat from the Greenpeace nuts for not signing on to the ridiculous Kyoto Treaty (even Clinton didn't want a piece of that). CB66 is correct in that the environment is rarely a hot-button issue unless people start getting affected en masse, like when environmentalist candidates took a beating in the Pacific Northwest because thousands of loggers were put out of work to save the spotted owl, or a chemical release gets some kids sick and makes people good and angry and in a mood to attack a corporation. There are a lot of voters out there with the attitude of "If it ain't happenin' to me, it ain't happenin'." Pat Buchanan is not running again, so there is no one to draw rightist votes away from Bush except the Libertarians, and they are not as noticeable as they used to be. What if Dean runs as an independent if he isnt' the nominee? He just might be crazy and power-hungry enough to do it.
Man are you peeps in for a BIG suprise LOL they never poll country folks only city dwellers LMAO Bush will win in a land slide this time. read it an weep. be sure to come back to this post after NOV. JUST like the tigers whooped the Hogs and the Dogs.
I will say this..... IF Bush finds Osama before the election, he is good as gold. Nobody will run him out of office for catching the man responsible for the tragedy on Sept 11. But, if this WMD probe blows up in his face, which it very well could it appears, the race will be very close in November. Throw in his constant urges to spend huge sums of money (going back to the moon and Mars for one), and he is digging a huge financial hole for America that will be talked about daily until the election, and that is very bad publicity indeed. On a side note, I am glad to see Cottonbowl being so civil in this thread!
That poll means nothing. It's way too early. And Bush will NOT win in a landslide. If I had to lay money down I'd say he wins a close one. You have to remember that 52% of the vote went to either Gore or Nader in 2000. Very few of those votes will go to Bush this time. And there won't be a far-left spoiler because the people who went for Nader last time know they elected Bush. They won't make that mistake again.
