Nearly half of Americans wouldn't vote for Bush again

AFP ^ | 08-23-03

[Brian S]

Sunday August 24, 6:48 AM

A growing number of Americans don't want to see US President George W. Bush re-elected next year, and fear US troops will be drawn into a long, costly occupation of Iraq, according to a Newsweek poll.

For the first time the poll has found that more registered voters -- 49 percent -- would not want Bush to return for a second term in office if the elections were now, compared with 44 percent who would.

Only 23 percent said terrorism and homeland security would be the most important issues for them in the November 2004 election, compared with 48 percent who said deciding factors for them now would be the economy and jobs.

Meanwhile, 69 percent are now convinced the United States will become bogged down in Iraq, without achieving ostensible goals in getting the country back on its feet.

Some 40 percent of them are now "very concerned" US troops will be there for the long-haul.

A majority also fears that US forces will be overextended in the event of a security threat elsewhere, according to the poll in the latest edition of Newsweek -- 29 percent very concerned and 30 percent somewhat concerned.

Americans also think that reconstruction costs in Iraq are too high at one billion dollars per week -- 66 percent said they do not support such spending, compared with 34 percent who said they support current spending levels.

And 53 percent said they would oppose an increase to the figure being spent, with only seven percent not opposed to an increase.

Almost half of people polled -- 47 percent -- said they were very concerned that maintaining troops in Iraq is too expensive and will cause a higher budget deficit, seriously damaging the US economy.

Despite some indications the US president's popularity is on the wane, a majority still approves of the way Bush is handling his job. Some 53 percent supported him compared with 36 who did not, with 11 unsure.

In a Newsweek poll released a month ago, 49 percent said they would like to see Bush re-elected compared with 43 percent who would not.

Voters said they prefered Republican President Bush's stance for dealing with terrorists than what they have seen so far from leading figures among the Democrats.

Some 57 percent said they prefered Bush's position on terrorism to 21 who prefered the Democrats. But 45 percent felt the Democrats had more to offer on stimulating the economy, compared with 36 percent who thought Bush had a better approach.

The survey was taken between August 21-22 on some 1,011 adults aged 18 and above. The poll has a plus or minus three percent error margin.

[Brian S]

Excerpt and Link to the Newsweek article

When is Enough Enough?

By Jennifer Barrett, Newsweek Web Exclusive

Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the U.S. mission in Iraq, saying the United States should reduce its spending and scale back its efforts there, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll.SIXTY-NINE PERCENT of Americans polled say they are very concerned (40 percent) or somewhat concerned (29 percent) that the United States will be bogged down for many years in Iraq without making much progress in achieving its goals. Just 18 percent say they're confident that a stable, democratic form of government can take shape in Iraq over the long term; 37 percent are somewhat confident. Just 13 percent say U.S. efforts to establish security and rebuild Iraq have gone very well since May 1, when combat officially ended; 39 percent say somewhat well.

Nearly half of respondents, 47 percent, say they are very concerned that the cost of maintaining troops in Iraq will lead to a large budget deficit and seriously hurt the U.S. economy. And 60 percent of those polled say the estimated $1 billion per week that the United States is spending is too much and the country should scale back its efforts. One-third supports the current spending levels for now, but just 15 percent of those polled say they would support maintaining the current spending levels for three years or more.

[B Knotts]

A serious, massive crackdown on illegal immigration could boost his numbers quickly.

[Apple Pan Dowdy]

"Nearly half of respondents, 47 percent, say they are very concerned that the cost of maintaining troops in Iraq will lead to a large budget deficit and seriously hurt the U.S. economy"

OH! I seem to remember the same crowd was yelling a while ago that we were in the war for "oil"??????? Well., where are the oil profits?

[Choose Ye This Day]

A whole lot can happen in 14 months.

Call me an eternal optimist, but I'm betting those numbers will look decidedly different come next October. It may not be a landslide, but it will definitely not be 50:50 again.

[Dog Gone]

Blah blah blah. Gimme a poll of likely voters in about 6 months after the economic recovery can't be hidden by the press.

[B Knotts]

And, it would win him California.

[ambrose]

He won't do it. Wouldn't be prudent.

[B Knotts]

That's true. The economy is improving, but it's not obvious to most people yet.

[B Knotts]

I wish he'd send Rove to the doghouse on this one.

[Jim Robinson]

LOL. More than half of Americans didn't vote for him the FIRST time. He was selected, not elected. Remember? Bwahahahhahaha.

[Burkeman1]

I would be interesting to see the numbers on his father at the same point in his first term. I think at one point Bush I had approval ratings as high as 85 percent after the first gulf war and then they dropped. How far and how fast is the question? The economy is anemic and may or may not be getting better. Iraq is a concern as well and from the numbers above the spending on Iraq seems to concern Americans more than the continuing casualties.

[B Knotts]

Or, better yet, the woodshed. :-)

[dogbyte12]

This is a jobless recovery. When 3,000,000 more people are out of work, it's hard to tell them in the midst of another layoff of 1,300 at HP, and 1,400 at Boeing, that technically the economy is growing, even though unemployment is up. Somebody refinancing their home in order to stay afloat while they look for work is not interested in technical arguments.

[Timesink]

This is a classic polling/reporting trick. When you pair up an elected official with a hypothetical "somebody else" and ask the public to choose, you always get relatively high numbers choosing "someone else." But when you pair the same elected official against the actual human beings that are fighting to challenge said politician in the next election, the percentage of people choosing that specific Somebody Else drops sharply.

Put another way:

Pollster: "So do you think Bush should serve a second term, or would you rather have a new face in the White House?"

Voter: "Well, I'm getting tired of Bush. It turns out he doesn't agree with me 100% on every single political issue, so he should probably go. I'd like to see someone else elected."

Pollster: "Okay, say that in November 2004 the election will be between Bush and John Kerry. Who would you vote for?"

Voter: "John Kerry? That psycho? Holy crap! Bush all the way, dude!"

Thus far, Bush is handily beating all potential RAT candidates when he is placed head-to-head with them individually in political polls.

[Burkeman1]

I wonder if Nader is going to run again? Haven't heard anything from him in some time (except his incredible claim that if he were President- 9/11 would never have occured.)

[Brian S]

Did even half of the American people even vote at all? ;)

[anniegetyourgun]

yada yada yada....

So, where's the poll that says more than half of those surveyed are gonna vote for Howard Dean instead?

[deport]

Hang tight Brian....... Lots of water to go under the bridge before the electorate will choose one of the following, imo......

---

---

---

.

---

..... 44 DAYS until the CA Recall Election.....

[sf4dubya]

But 45 percent felt the Democrats had more to offer on stimulating the economy, compared with 36 percent who thought Bush had a better approach.

Excuse me, did I miss the Democrat's fantastic plan they developed on their own to stimulate the economy? Is it published somewhere?

[Timesink]

I would be interesting to see the numbers on his father at the same point in his first term. I think at one point Bush I had approval ratings as high as 85 percent after the first gulf war and then they dropped. How far and how fast is the question? The economy is anemic and may or may not be getting better.

There are two very big differences between Bushes 41 and 43 when it comes to public approval. First, Dubya hasn't said and then broken a "no new taxes" pledge. People were very angry that Bush 41 raised their taxes, and many never forgave him. Second, two words: Ross Perot. He insured that Clinton was elected with a mere 43% of the vote.

[Libertina]

The mainstream media must be proud of themselves... they've finally disparaged the President's every action long enough that doubts are percolating. "It's Krystal time!" /s

[Fraulein]

Americans also think that reconstruction costs in Iraq are too high at one billion dollars per week

That is awfully high, IMHO.

[Burkeman1]

Yes- I was just thinking about the "no new taxes" debacle. And Perot was a factor in both of Clinton's elections. But what about Nader? Is he running again?

[EGPWS]

Nearly half of Americans wouldn't vote for Bush again

There obviously is a lot of uninformed or misinformed Americans out there if this is the case.

I however don't believe the poll tally, but only time will tell.

I'm a proponent of Dubya's re-election and am lacking concern to this date as to that not becoming a reality in '04.

[Normal4me]

"Excuse me, did I miss the Democrat's fantastic plan they developed on their own to stimulate the economy?

Yeah, they intend to raise taxes so that the unemployed don't have to suffer. And they are also going to pay the terrorists so they won't attack us. UTOPIA!!!

[cricket]

Would like to see the questions posed for this poll; and who responded to it.

Otherwise; a sad statement about the 'informed' American public. . .

. . .as for the question, 'are we better off' that they like to throw around. . .no matter how bad it might seem to these folks; the alternatives would already be the worst hell with a Democrat in the White House.

More need to 'get it'.

[Timesink]

Excuse me, did I miss the Democrat's fantastic plan they developed on their own to stimulate the economy? Is it published somewhere?

You didn't miss anything. The results are actually proof that the vast majority of the public is not paying the slightest attention to political issues this early (and probably won't for another entire year), and are pretty much pulling their opinions out of their asses. The 45-36 number is just the public saying "Well, Bush is president and the economy's not currently booming, thus the Other Side's approach is probably worth trying." If you were to ask them just exactly how the RATS had "more to offer," their brains would explode.

[Tacis]

Newsweek? Was Eleanor Clift counting the returns? Any poll by an outfit that isn't ashamed to say the Clift works for them, is pure manufactured, [b]arbra [s]treisand propaganda.

[kms61]

Don't know about Nader, but there have been some rumblings (and a thread on FR) about Roy Moore launching a third party bid from the Right.

[Brian S]

But what about Nader? Is he running again?

All indications have it that he is going to run.

Plug "Nader" into the FR search engine and there are some articles supporting that indication.

All good Freepers should contact ole Ralph and encourage him on... :)

[dogbyte12]

Agreed. Tack on 10-15 points to Bush's numbers. This is against a generic candidate. Everybody running against Bush is worse than generic.

The democrats prove how hopelessly out of touch they are, when they realistically have no chance to win an election in a crappy economy, recovery or not.

[Reb Raider]

If Bush would just make decisions based on focus group opionions this would never happen. He needs to quit being a leader and making hard choices to keep us safe.

I am always amazed at how quickly many Americans forget our Sept.11th wake up call. I do wish there were more administration officials out talking about the tremendous accomplishments in Iraq to help counteract the doom and gloom news coverage, but trying to make a serious dent in terrorism with very little help from the rest of the world (minus our Iraq coalition partners) is going to come at a cost. The cost of doing little or asking our soldiers to give up in Iraq is going to exact a terrible price we might not recover from very easily if at all.

Does it occur to these people that the economy doesn't matter much if they are dead?

[JoeSchem]

Well., where are the oil profits?

Well, just to play Devil's Advocate, I assume the liberals would say that they've gone to the Oil Company Executives, which is why we can liberate Iraq and four months later get record high gas prices.

Don't blame me, I'm just predicting what they'll say.

[sf4dubya]

Exactly -- and Republicans need to hammer the Dims on that question over and over again.

"What's your plan to stimulate the economy, if you hate our ideals so much? Let's see it!"

They never had one, they won't have one, and their entire platform is bashing the Republicans. That's extremely shakey. We need to turn it around on them, and get the public to question the Dims.

[mystery-ak]

What really bothers me in all these polls is the low percentage of people who do not consider terrorism/homeland defense a major issue...that scares me, people have become to complacent...don't they realize that if it wasn't for Bush, we probably would have been attacked again.

I know people vote with their pocketbooks, but if you don't have security, nothing else matters.

[Imal]

Nearly half of Americans wouldn't vote for Bush again

For the first time the poll has found that more registered voters -- 49 percent -- would not want Bush to return for a second term in office if the elections were now, compared with 44 percent who would.

The survey was taken between August 21-22 on some 1,011 adults aged 18 and above. The poll has a plus or minus three percent error margin.

The headline is deliberately misleading. There is nothing in the article which claims that ANY of the people they surveyed had ever voted for Bush, yet the headline very clearly includes the word "again", suggesting that those polled had been Bush voters.

This isn't polling, nor reporting, but political fraud. I despise those who lie to me, and do not trust them.

The unattributed author(s) of this hit piece are nothing more than Democratic operatives, and lying scum, as most Democrats are.

[EGPWS]

Yeah, they intend to raise taxes so that the unemployed don't have to suffer. And they are also going to pay the terrorists so they won't attack us. UTOPIA!!!

Oh yea the party (Democratic) that is eventually going to change their title for they are on the brink of extinction. They will always be a political force however they must realize by now that using that title will get them nowhere.

[Brian S]

I know. Polls are only as good as their results...

I only hope that the White House is not dismissing the bad ones and hanging on to only the good ones.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

This is a classic polling/reporting trick.

Exactly. Many of those would "rather" have Ronald Reagan, or George Washington, or me. Mostly me.

[Timesink]

But what about Nader? Is he running again?

Not as of yet. But he hasn't ruled it out, and the Green Party is on record as saying it hates the Democratic Party so much (for not being left-wing enough) that they would be ecstatic to run Nader again, or anyone at all, who would draw enough votes to destroy the RAT candidates's chances in 2004.

And make no mistake: If Nader gets back into the race, or the Greens can find anyone with the slightest bit of political persuasiveness, the RATS' chances of recapturing the White House in 2004 will be zero.

[Bill Davis FR]

jobs, iraq and taxes

[Burkeman1]

Roy Moore? Who is he? I have never heard of him?

[aimhigh]

49 percent -- would not want Bush

Well,.. then, ..There is no change from the first vote that put Bush in office.

[Timesink]

Exactly -- and Republicans need to hammer the Dims on that question over and over again. "What's your plan to stimulate the economy, if you hate our ideals so much? Let's see it!"

Which is precisely what the Bush campaign will do next year (assuming it's even necessary; personally, I think the economy will be in full recovery mode by then). Then, the moment the Anointed RAT has his Walter Mondale moment ("Mr. Bush will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."), that'll pretty much wrap things up, and Karl Rove can take an early vacation in October.

[Brian S]

Disclaimer: I did not place nor bump this thread up into "Breaking News". I hold that category sacred for true "Breaking" news.

[Paleo Conservative]

But when you pair the same elected official against the actual human beings that are fighting to challenge said politician in the next election, the percentage of people choosing that specific Somebody Else drops sharply.

That's quite an assumption. I thought Mondale and Dukakis were robots.

[concerned about politics]

Nearly half of Americans wouldn't vote for Bush again

So? Nearly half didn't vote for him before.
Keep the more than half, and he's in.