Support NeoGAF

[Halo]

BUSH: 52% KERRY: 41% NADER: 3%

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.

see for yourself:
http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html


4 more years!!! chant along with me! 4 more years!!!

 

[Teddman]

I've always wondered about phone polls and how accurately they reflect America's voters. First of all, you have to get someone on the line who's willing to actually participate in the poll, which usually takes 10 minutes or more.

It's not your average voter who's going to bother with that, I mean most people probably wouldn't be troubled, even those planning to vote.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Perhaps this will at least put an end to the "liberal media" bs.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

U.S. owned.

 

[sprsk]

U.S. owned.

Yeah pretty much.

 

[Halo]

U.S. owned.

I strongly disagree

 

[beerbelly]

Simple explanation. The bush voters are jobless

 

[Diomedeskun]

I would be careful of taking a poll too seriously, especially when it is so close and it may easily have sampled too similar an audience. Just look at the polls that led to the Dewey beating Truman cover for newspapers that were actually released due to a missampled poll. I say this as someone who plans on voting for Bush.

 

[sprsk]

Id like to point how stupid this question is

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.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Something else to consider: this doesn't bother breaking things down into states. And as we all know, the popular vote is pretty pointless. If, for example, Bush just stole 100,000 votes from Kerry in Indiana, that makes 0 difference.

 

[heavy liquid]

Polls are bullshit. Not that it matters much anyway, since you can win an election without having the majority of the popular vote.

 

[Drinky Crow]

Kerry and the American public, you done been ROVED!

That said, I wouldn't take this poll too seriously. Polls conducted like this are notoriously bogus: http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000635.php

 

[Diablos]

ugh.

John Zogby, the first to predict “The race is Kerry’s to lose,” tells Wall $treet Week with FORTUNE viewers that investors are moving in Bush”s direction to Kerry’s peril.

Zogby identifies "make or break" battleground constituencies...

As Republican delegates say goodbye to the glitter and fanfare of Madison Square Garden, self-identified investor voters say they now favor President Bush over John Kerry by an eleven point spread (49% vs. 38%) according to a Zogby/Wall $treet Week with FORTUNE poll conducted on August 30th through September 2nd.

In tonight’s post RNC Convention episode of PBS’s Wall $treet Week with FORTUNE, Zogby will be interviewed by Karen Gibbs, W$WwF co-anchor, where he will announce that President Bush now has the advantage of a double-digit lead among self-identified Investor Class voters. Of those voters who identify themselves as owning stock, 54% say they would vote for Bush compared to 34% for Kerry’s 20 point difference.

In analyzing the poll data, Zogby will probe the “make or break” role of two key groups, the Investor Class, and the Undecideds, both of whom are increasing in numbers and potential impact as Campaign 2004 speeds toward election day.

Both the Investor Class and the Undecideds may prove to be battleground constituencies for Kerry. The poll indicated that Kerry’s support fell as the number of undecided voters rose, suggesting that by [August 30th] some of the Senators supporters may have lost confidence in him and joined the ranks of the undecided.

Zogby International conducted interviews of 1,001 likely voters chosen at random nationwide. Of these likely voters, 307 described themselves as “members of the investor class” All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from August 30th through September 2nd. The margin of error is +/- 3.2 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest percent and might not total 100.

 

[Desperado]

.

U.S. owned.

 

[SKluck]

They should install implants in every single person at birth so they can just create a pop up window in your eye to ask you questions like this and have 100% accurate polls/elections/etc.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

They should install implants in every single person at birth so they can just create a pop up window in your eye to ask you questions like this and have 100% accurate polls/elections/etc.

Thank Deity for Mozilla FireCornea.

 

[Doc Holliday]

amazing...this country is freagin doomed. You cannot fuck up more than this guy has and he still gets votes. A lot i guess there are a lot people between the east and west coasts lol

 

[Cool]

ROFL! Sure that wasn't a Fox News poll?

 

[G4life98]

the thought of bush getting a second term makes baby jesus cry.

 

[MetatronM]

Over the last two or three weeks I could really feel this election slipping away from Kerry. Did you see Kerry's speech last night? He had powerful stuff written down for him to say, but he just looked and sounded totally shellshocked. I think he's utterly confounded by the efficiency and potency of the Bush administration/supporters' attacks, and I think at the moment he is at a loss as to how to carry himself as it seems like he can take no stance, no general tone, and no message without the Bush administration not only attacking it, but attacking it in a manner that truly resonates with the mainstream American voter (and it doesn't matter if it's the truth or not, since it will take long enough to uncover the truth that our ADD society's attention span will have long since lapsed). I've seen few candidates and campaigns who can use simple words so effectively to cover-up, get around, distract from, or justify such prolific and severe errors in their candidate's policies as the Bush camp can.

In short, I think Kerry is a terrible candidate, and I think the closer we get to the election, the more and more clear it will become that he can't win.

 

[Che]

U.S. owned.

Word.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Over the last two or three weeks I could really feel this election slipping away from Kerry. Did you see Kerry's speech last night? He had powerful stuff written down for him to say, but he just looked and sounded totally shellshocked. I think he's utterly confounded by the efficiency and potency of the Bush administration/supporters' attacks, and I think at the moment he is at a loss as to how to carry himself as it seems like he can take no stance, no general tone, and no message without the Bush administration not only attacking it, but attacking it in a manner that truly resonates with the mainstream American voter (and it doesn't matter if it's the truth or not, since it will take long enough to uncover the truth that our ADD society's attention span will have long since lapsed). I've seen few candidates and campaigns who can use simple words so effectively to cover-up, get around, distract from, or justify such prolific and severe errors in their candidate's policies as the Bush camp can.

In short, I think Kerry is a terrible candidate, and I think the closer we get to the election, the more and more clear it will become that he can't win.

.

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

Bush and co. just repeat the same lies over and over and over again, and they seem to work, and most people don't seem to care that they're lies. I'm not sure how you can counter that. Is it a symptom of a deeper spiritual problem with the country?

 

[Ghost]

U.S. owned.

If only it was just the U.S. that will be 0wned if bush gets 4 more years :-/

 

[MetatronM]

Bush and co. just repeat the same lies over and over and over again, and they seem to work, and most people don't seem to care that they're lies. I'm not sure how you can counter that. Is it a symptom of a deeper spiritual problem with the country?

Bush and co.'s lies make Americans feel good about themselves and about their role in the world. A spoonful of sugar.

So to answer your question, I would say it's a definite yes.

 

[TheDuce22]

Something tells me the rest of the world will hate america no matter who we elect.

 

[RiZ III]

 

[IntestineBoy]

aside from my normal forum nerdiness, i am a political scientist. i think you can't say "US owned" yet. the debates are going to be HUGE for bush or for kerry. gore basically handed bush a tie in 2000 with his lame debates. kerry has to be smart in the debates, or else it is bush's.

another thing is that these polls dont factor in one key group of people: those who are registering to vote now, to vote against bush. and believe me, there are a lot. those polls, the first question they ask is "are you a registered voter?" and if not, click. you dont get a say.

also, the big national poll numbers don't really matter right now anyway. if kerry was ahead by 11 points right now, i'd still say the same thing. it seriously comes down to the last two or three weeks before the election.

and another thing, when presidents run for re-election, its never close, one way or another. remember clinton in 96? he owned dole. remember bush 41 in 92? he lost it like a prom date after four bacardi breezers and a sandwich from mickey dees.

and now, the spending gap is closed finally. the bushies pushed their convention back as far as possible, to maximize two things: 1- 9/11 anniversary; 2-a whole month where they can raise money while kerry can't (thanks to the law saying once you're the official nominee, you get your 75 mil from the government, and that's it until november 2). the dnc has been running a lot of ads for kerry, but now its going to be different out there in tv land as well.

lastly, theres something that is coming up very soon, that could ruin it for bush: the 1000th american dead in iraq. if kerry had half a brain in his douchebag head of his, he would capitalize upon that and ride it into the white house. people know that there are kids dying in iraq, but once it hits 1000, it'll change a lot of things. it's probably going to happen in 3 weeks or so. but we'll see. iraq is getting worse and worse, and it will decide the election. every "milestone" or achievement in iraq has been followed by a lot of death and destruction. "Mission Accomplished was followed by an escalating insurgency. Then there was the capture of Saddam - followed by April's bloody uprising. Finally there was the furtive transfer of formal sovereignty to Ayad Allawi, with implausible claims that this showed progress - a fantasy exploded by the guns of August" (Paul Krugman's column on tuesday)


so basically, if you're going to say anything about the race right now, it's too close to call. and i dont think we'll be able to accuratley have a good idea about who will win until mid october...god willing.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

I don't put much stock into the polls until after the debates. That is where Kerry is going to have to do his work. And the bottom line is he needs to come into the debates with solutions to the problems he says Bush has.

 

[Socreges]

I don't put much stock into the polls until after the debates. That is where Kerry is going to have to do his work. And the bottom line is he needs to come into the debates with solutions to the problems he says Bush has.

Do the debates generally get a lot of attention? Would there actually be a considerable influence on public opinion?

I'm not implying "no" for either question. I just don't know.

 

[Diablos]

Over the last two or three weeks I could really feel this election slipping away from Kerry. Did you see Kerry's speech last night? He had powerful stuff written down for him to say, but he just looked and sounded totally shellshocked. I think he's utterly confounded by the efficiency and potency of the Bush administration/supporters' attacks, and I think at the moment he is at a loss as to how to carry himself as it seems like he can take no stance, no general tone, and no message without the Bush administration not only attacking it, but attacking it in a manner that truly resonates with the mainstream American voter (and it doesn't matter if it's the truth or not, since it will take long enough to uncover the truth that our ADD society's attention span will have long since lapsed). I've seen few candidates and campaigns who can use simple words so effectively to cover-up, get around, distract from, or justify such prolific and severe errors in their candidate's policies as the Bush camp can.

In short, I think Kerry is a terrible candidate, and I think the closer we get to the election, the more and more clear it will become that he can't win.

Ever since he became the candidate I knew the democrats were kind of screwed. Kerry was the worst choice for a presidential candidate. I never liked that fact that it ended up being him. Edwards, Clark, Dean... all of these guys would have been better candidates IMO.

But really the democrats WERE lacking a strong standout candidate altogether, which surprises me.

 

[heavy liquid]

Do the debates generally get a lot of attention? Would there actually be a considerable influence on public opinion?

Yes and yes.

 

[IntestineBoy]

Do the debates generally get a lot of attention? Would there actually be a considerable influence on public opinion?

I'm not implying "no" for either question. I just don't know.

Sadly, they really do. They're covered on every network, usually a decent amount of hype, and often its the first time the candidates have seen eachother face to face, which can make it a bit awkward. in 2000, gore walked up to bush in a mcenroe-esque "you can not be serious" manner, and bush sort of smirked at him like a chimp. gore didnt handle hsi personality wlel during the debates, and it definitley did hurt him.

i think this year you may see more than the normal 3 debates though. kerry's asking for weekly debates. but as they say, if you're the one asking for more debates, you're probably the side who needs them. :|

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Do the debates generally get a lot of attention? Would there actually be a considerable influence on public opinion?

I'm not implying "no" for either question. I just don't know.

Yep, the debates ended up hurting Gore in 1999. Even though he was a more well rounded politician his elitest demeanor hurt him in the eyes of the voters. It was almost looking at the Fonz picking on Barney Fife or Cooter.

 

[xsarien]

I didn't trust the polls when Kerry had a lead over Bush, and I don't trust them now. But, just as a matter of reference:

Howard Dean lost his popularity in a little more than 24 hours, the Bush camp shouldn't be popping the champagne corks just yet.

 

[Mercury Fred]

+1
George Orwell

 

[Drinky Crow]

Conventions and debates provide the out-of-context sound bites and newsblurbs that the average American gets spammed with and which form the majority of the impression they have about a given candidate.

Thanks to this approach, people are likely to think "John Kerry" whenever anyone mentions Botox, and probably in a negative light. What effect Botox has on one's qualifications for office have yet to be ascertained, but it seemed to be important to the media.

 

[Socreges]

Howard Dean lost his popularity in a little more than 24 hours, the Bush camp shouldn't be popping the champagne corks just yet.

To be fair, his status of popularity was far more fragile. Just look at what Bush has managed to withstand. Really, what's it going to take besides some huge gaff where he calls Americans "fat and stupid"?

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

To be fair, his status of popularity was far more fragile. Just look at what Bush has managed to withstand. Really, what's it going to take besides some huge gaff where he calls Americans "fat and stupid"?

Outside of sacrificing a Christain baby to his Malevroian Overlord masters on live tv I don't know what it will take to put a dent in his ratings.

 

[xsarien]

Outside of sacrificing a Christain baby to his Malevroian Overlord masters on live tv I don't know what it will take to put a dent in his ratings.

Which somehow reminded me that Ann Coulter is probably sporting quite the erection right about now.

 

[Kon Tiki]

U.S. owned.

Don't be selfish.

World owned.

 

[DJ_Tet]

Sadly, they really do. They're covered on every network, usually a decent amount of hype, and often its the first time the candidates have seen eachother face to face, which can make it a bit awkward. in 2000, gore walked up to bush in a mcenroe-esque "you can not be serious" manner, and bush sort of smirked at him like a chimp. gore didnt handle hsi personality wlel during the debates, and it definitley did hurt him.

lol! I remember Gore hawking over Bush's shoulder looking like he was trying to physically intimidate or beat him up. Bush glanced back, said something smart-alecky about Gore being a bully, and basically won the election. It was classic, I'd love to see a clip of that, if anyone remembers that moment.

 

[SlickWilly223]

Either way the world keeps spinning, folks.

 

[Mumbles]

Sadly, they really do. They're covered on every network, usually a decent amount of hype, and often its the first time the candidates have seen eachother face to face, which can make it a bit awkward. in 2000, gore walked up to bush in a mcenroe-esque "you can not be serious" manner, and bush sort of smirked at him like a chimp. gore didnt handle hsi personality wlel during the debates, and it definitley did hurt him.

That's odd. From what I remember, polls of people who saw the first debate placed Gore as the winner. It was only when he decided to be kinder for the second debate that viewers turned on him.

Of course, there was a good amount of "Gore's a bully!" spin going on after the debate, which may have hurt him among people who didn't watch the debates.

 

[cvxfreak]

The only victims are the American people.

 

[AssMan]

That's odd. FOX News reported something like 49% Bush and 45% Kerry as of now, and also CNN has a different set of numbers. Who to trust!

 

[pestul]

The only victims are the American people.

If only that were true.. sadly, the rest of the world will be victims as well if their policy doesn't change.

 

[Cool]

Although, my views are left wing, I still think this is interesting and I just can't envision Bush winning again when he seems so unpopular. I guess we'll just have to see what happens this November.

 

[Halo]

The only victims are the American people.

i'm gonna vote for Bush and that's going to make me a victim??

 

[Pimpwerx]

Halo: It makes you a lot of things, but not a victim. I don't know why anyone is gonna vote for Bush. But I don't know why anyone would vote for Kerry either, besides the fact that he's not Bush. Vote for Nader. PEACE.