Why the crumbling support?
I'm not being facetious or trying to draw broad statements from what are probably just be standard fluctuations, but I'm curious why Bush's poll numbers are falling. It genuinely seems surprising to me considering the economy is recovering, Iraq seems increasingly stable, and Bush is struggling to appeal to moderates that suddenly Bush's poll numbers are falling.
You know, I've said all along that Democrats had no chance in this election, and I'll still be surprised if we win, but I'm increasingly curious. Regardless of Kerry's voting inconsistancies - which are a wash against questions, valid or no, of Bush's military service - it seems that Democrats and liberals are much more interested this time in uniting behind whoever they see as the most electable candidate. In 2000, Democrats were so wrapped up in splitting the votes across the spectrum of the left, and that seemed to be the case right up until everyone suddenly said 'Dean will never win', and now the Democrats are trending more toward the party that is uniting.
My actual question is this, why, as he seems to be reaping the successes of 3 difficult years, is he suddenly losing support in the polls? Will he, unlike his father, bounce back?
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis
I don''t claim to know much about American politics aside from what I read here but maybe it''s because the fear of terrorist attacks has lessened and the US is not ""at war"" anymore. Stuff that shot Bush way up in the polls are now starting to settle down it seems.
That''s assuming the polls mean anything of course.
Certis beat me to it. - Elysium
I think that Bush is suffering from alienating his fiscal conservative base with his spending and social policies. The domestic expansion of government has turned people like me off, and the immigration issue has disaffected the isolationists. While these people would probably never vote Democrat, they could sit on their hands on election day in protest.
All he has to do now is come out in support for gay marriage or some other anti-biblebelt policy. This would lose the South, putting the Democrats back in the White House.
I never minded piracy. Anyone who minds about piracy is full of sh*t. Anyone who pirates your game wasn't going to buy it anyway! -Warren Spector
I don''t actually see things improving yet. That may be part of it. Certainly the idea that Iraq is more stable is illusory. And the economy is overshadowed by the budget deficit and the spending that Bush is engaging in.
And then there is the whole credibility thing. Yesterday, he said he made Federal spending ""steadily decline"", comparing that to a 15% gain in Clinton''s last year. Yet he''s raised spending by about 25% in the last two years (that''s a decline?) and spending in the 90''s averaged 2.5% per year increase (not 15% per year as he implied).
I think it''s things like that that eventually have made him look bad. Although he did the same thing to Gore in the debates, and was elected, people have had more time to notice it happening again. Hopefully there is a limit to how long the public will take this kind of arrogance.
Robear
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
I don''t think he is losing support. It is a flavour of the month thing. The Democrats and Kerry have had months of non-stop coverage, bashing bush, running ads, with no response. Wait until Bush responds with his 200 mil war chest.
For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance. ~Ron Shelton, Bull Durham, 1988
I don''t think you have anything to worry about Elysium. Bush just now moved into ""campaign mode"" this past week. Now he can began to discredit a lot of the mudslinging and lies generated by the three stooges.
Xbox Live: Kooter06
""And then there is the whole credibility thing. Yesterday, he said he made Federal spending ""steadily decline"", comparing that to a 15% gain in Clinton''s last year. Yet he''s raised spending by about 25% in the last two years (that''s a decline?) and spending in the 90''s averaged 2.5% per year increase (not 15% per year as he implied). ""
You''re wrong. He is talking about discretionary spending. The last year Clinton was in office they did spend 15%, but I don''t blame Clinton on that. It was an election year and that means everyone was taking home the pork. Bush did cut down on that.
Not in direct response to anyon here. Does anyone find it interesting on how both parties view 9/11? The Democrats think of it as a crime scene (You do not hear them talk about it as a war, what we should do next, etc) they talk about it in pasttence. I think this will be the reason they lose big this November.
For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance. ~Ron Shelton, Bull Durham, 1988
Ulairi, it also should be viewed as crime and fought as one. It wouldnt give bonus points to president, for sure, but it would actualy help in fighting the terrorism. When ""war"" on terrorism was announced, the word itself gave terrorists and potential recruits a morale boost and created very clear distinction: ""us"" and ""them"". Instead it should have been - ""some psycho criminals"" and ""law forces"". Dont forget that almost all terrorist movements have revolutionary roots. Declaring war on revolutionary mind is the same as patting him on back.
As it is now, terrorists have gotten popularity and fame points, which in turn gives them funding. No one would like to fund no-names. But every sicko would like to fund Osamas` children.
Well, I`m oversimplifying things, as ""terrorist minds"" topic is broad enough to waste hundred academic lives, but basically, thats how I see things.
And anyway, ""war on terror"" is rethorics, just like ""war on drugs"".
I`m Artsy Partsy Gun For Hire
Really?
http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-01-03.html
It''s out of date, we know spending is higher since then, but it shows that Bush has increased discretionary spending, both defense and non-defense, each year he''s been in, at a large rate. So he has not
cut discretionary spending.
Robear
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Speaking of illusory...what are you basing this on?
So how many cops would it have taken to overthrow the Taliban? Also, on what charge would you have arrested Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan?
First of all, why does everyone ignore the fact that America being willing to kill you and potentially your people if you become a terrorist is a deterrent, not a morale boost? Secondly, when looking at a group of people who want to murder women and children because they don''t like infidels in Saudi Arabia, I think there is already a pretty clear ""us"" versus ""them"" distinction - and we didn''t make it.
Which ignores the reality that Osama was better funded before 9/11. Before, he could get his funding through relatively open channels which would include banks and organizations in the public eye. He cannot anymore.
As to Bush''s falling poll numbers, I think it is two-fold. First, teh Democrats are gettign a lot of media attention as their primary season is in full gear, and all they have to offer is Bush-bashing. Secondly, David Kay''s statements that ""we were all wrong"" and that the WMD stockpiles never existed drags Bush down, just like capturing Saddam pulled him up. People''s opinions in polls follow media trends. But luckily they vote on more basic and substantial issues.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Is it really when you''re entering a mindset where sacrificing your life to Allah gurantees eternal reward?
I think that was the case with Dean, but I think Kerry''s increasing support is precisely because he offers more.
What makes you think this favors Bush? He''s been riding a wave of patriotism, but outside war time his approval ratings have been consistently low.
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis
Very few terrorists are suicidal types (most of the 9/11 hijackers didn''t know it was a suicide mission, for example). For the majority, they are soldiers in a war. These people are offered two futures: 1) they are told by extremists - fight the West and maybe die gloriously for Allah 2) they are told by moderates - to murder is evil and you serve Allah by living within society and caring for your family and others. Now add in the deterrent that the West is going to kill you without you making any difference in the jihad, and I think that helps to push people away from fruitless causes.
Without looking anything up, can you explain Kerry''s policy on healthcare or the economy in any detail? I can''t, and I''ve watched most of the debates and folllow this stuff pretty closely. The number one reason for people supporting Kerry in exit polls has been ""electability"", which is nothing but a dig on Dean. But being more electable than Dean is a lot different than being electable in a general election.
Becuase you know where he stands and what he has done. You may not like the Patriot Act, the tax cuts, the Iraq War, No Child Left Behind, the Mediare prescription drug benefit, his stance on gay marriage, etc., but you are aware of these real actions, accomplishments, and positions and the President''s role in them. The same cannot be said of Kerry. And personally, I believe that the presiden''t view on these will prove to be more in touch with a majority of voters, and the fact that he has been consistent (again, unlike Kerry) will be just as important for those looking for strong leadership.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Yes. He trashes Bush and he fought in Vietnam.
Can someone ask me this simple question: Why do the Democrats call Bush an extreme Republican?
For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance. ~Ron Shelton, Bull Durham, 1988
Really?
""I want you to fly a plane into a large building but don''t worry, you''ll be totally fine!""
Those guys were idiots!
Certis beat me to it. - Elysium
Supposedly, (from notes found left by Mohammad Atta, if I remember correctly), only the pilots knew - the rest of the team (2-3 on each plane) were back in the cabin doing crowd control.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Current rise of suicide attacks all over the world somehow contradict your statement. Anyway, I wonder what statistics do you use.
And if you think you are living in a safer world because of current war on terror strategy, try to remember when did you have more nation-wide alerts and cancelled flights.
I`m Artsy Partsy Gun For Hire
Well Al Qaeda alone at its height was supposed to have about 20,000 members (according to the State Department). Compare this to the total number of suicide attacks byallterrorist groups in the last few years, which is a few dozen.
And try to remember that these alerts and cancelled flights are part of that strategy you seem to think doesn''t work. Maybe being on alert or cancelling a few flights on 9/11 would have helped...
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Polls smoles, it''s still too early to tell. In January Dean was ahead 30 points. But, Kerry didn''t get his message out yet. Whatever.
Here are some examples of polls in the past:
http://www.poliblogger.com/poliblog/archives/002789.html
The most interesting one is the January 1996 poll where 45 per cent were in support of reelecting Clinton, and 52 per cent where opposed.
Unfortunately, the polls really won''t matter until late October, as the independents settle down on a candidate.
However, polls are interesting to talk about so don''t let me stop you.
""Regardless of Kerry''s voting inconsistancies - which are a wash against questions, valid or no, of Bush''s military service ""
Ely, do you really think this election will come to whether Bush fulfilled his National Guard service? Come on, I expect more from you.
It didn''t help McCain. Besides, Kerry is so soulless and contradictory, the Republicans just need to pull quotes and speeches where he commented on Clinton''s service to the Country, or lack thereof.
The issues will come down to National Security and the economy, and which President has a better ""plan"".
If Kerry wants to run a smear campaign, Bush can certainly oblige. Kerry''s personal life, leaves much to be desired, his actions and statements immediately after the war of the behaviour of GI''s during Vietnam will raise eyebrows, and his Senate record is unremarkable and rife with inconsistencies (his vote on ""no child left behind"" , the Iraq War, and cutting intelligence spending after 2/26, first terrorist attack on World Trade center).
I'm bringing sexy back!
Recent news reports. What else would I base it on? We are increasing our troop commitment there for *some* reason, and peace and security sure isn''t it. Baghdad still has 3 hours on, 3 hours off power. Many areas don''t have running water yet, nearly a year after the war (also in Baghdad). There''s an active insurgency. Gasoline is still in very short supply, and very expensive. Food stocks are in disarray, since farmers are used to selling to the government, so we''ve been buying up wheat and destroying it, due to quality issues. Since the summer, thousands of Iraqis have been killed, many over local or regional politics. Some cities have alternate popular movement government structures in addition to appointed leaders. Most of these are religious in nature. Terrorists are moving freely and striking in all areas of the country, aiming to destabilize it. American troops can''t move freely outside of convoys, and don''t mix with the Iraqis in most areas. A recent poll rated security as the number one concern for Iraqis; crime is rampant in the major cities. The Shi''ites in the south submitted a request in December to the governing council, to remove the ability of women to drive and hold jobs.
I dunno, just does not sound very stable to me. It sounds like it''s being held together by military force - ours. Maybe you have a different take?
Robear
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Robear: Another one for your list, educated Iraqis are seemingly being murdered to further destabilize the country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/international/middleeast/07ASSA.html
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. "
- Aldous Huxley
Most presidents usually have a lull in their poll numbers at this stage in a campaign.
Kerry is getting huge amounts of positive press and Bush has gotten beat up lately. With WMD, the deficit, and a dud SOTU address Bush will need to do some extra work to catch up. But, in the end he WILL catch up.
Kerry looks strong because he is a liberal Democrat AND a war hero, which is a novelty. His past record, and arrogant, elitist attitude will will come back to bite him in the end. The Dems are only rallying to him because he is the only one who stands a chance against Bush.
Let the primaries run their course. By April Bush will be back in the lead.
(WAR) Snaek - Black Orc -- Iron Rock
(WAR) Whyppet - Magus -- Iron Rock
(WAR) Snaekolf - Engineer -- Badlands
Attacks on the coalition are down 60% in the last month, we are rounding up insurgents and their leaders every day, Iraqi security forces outnumber coalition forces and are becoming the primary keepers of peace, power in Baghdad has more uptime than it did under Saddam before the war, all of the country''s universities and colleges are open as are most of its schools, surveys of business owners in Iraq all show optimism and plans for hiring and growth, the religious sects you are worried about revolting are able to practice their religions openly for the first time in decades, the banking and currency systems are stable, almost 200 newpapers are available and free speech is ubiquitous.
Basically, there''s poor infrastructure - which was there well before the war, and a small insurgency being fought by ex-regime members and terrorists. The infrastructure gets better day by day, but doesn''t lead to instability, as it is already better than what they had under Saddam. The insurgency is being fought by a small number of individuals who cannot gain popular support, and cannot even show their faces while attacking.
As to the idea that different factions have different ideas, well, welcome to democracy. A few vocal leaders won''t stop a government being created that recognizes religious and minority rights, anymore than it did in Afghanistan. The only way that would happen would be for us to become less engaged. Any guess which political party is pushing for that result?
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Sounds like CA under Governor Davis.
Yes somehow Baghdad has lower murder rates than any US city of comparable size.
On topic: I think it is the usual interest in the new candidate. When the new wears off Kerry, his numbers will probably decline.
Come on Gorack, we all know that the idea that US cities are stable is illusory....
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Maybe we should bring in the troops...
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
Really? According to what? I know the Coalition Authority was not releasing crime statistics last Fall, but that may have changed. I''m influenced by the over 4000 killings in July and August alone that were reported by various sources.
Just curious as to the source of that information. Curious, not skeptical.
Robear
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Never mind, found the report. It only works if you discount the attacks on Coalition soldiers, but you are correct. It appears that the political and revenge killings have died down.
Sounds like the Iraqi police are finally having an effect. That''s a good thing.
Robear
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
I saw it on C-Span so I didn''t have a link handy.
Always fun to ask for a source while making wild assertions with no source of your own... Ah, irony.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer