some interesting stats from the latest polls, via NRO. looks like independants are more likely to feel Kerry is engaing in negative campaigning than Bush. read another interesting tidbit elsewhere that note democratic turnout in the 2004 primaries is running barely ahead of turnout in 1996, when clinton ran unopposed, suggesting democrats aren't quite as passionate about this election as some would suggest. http://nationalreview.com/york/york200403091240.asp -- March 09, 2004, 12:40 p.m. The Poll Results You Haven’t Seen The public's verdict on which campaign has been fighting fair — and which hasn't. By now you've read about new polls showing Democrat John Kerry leading George W. Bush in the presidential race. The most recent Gallup poll, for instance, has Kerry leading Bush by a 50-percent-to-44-percent margin, with third-party candidate Ralph Nader pulling two percent. Kerry leads Bush 52 percent to 44 percent in a one-on-one match-up. The results have attracted a lot of coverage. But there are some other results in the poll that haven't gotten as much attention. For example, Gallup found that the public seems to believe Kerry and the Democratic party have, at least so far, conducted a dirtier campaign than Bush and the Republican party. Gallup asked, "Would you say that George W. Bush and the Republican party have — or have not — attacked John Kerry unfairly?" Twenty-one percent said yes, Bush and the GOP have attacked Kerry unfairly, while 67 percent said no, they have not. Twelve percent had no opinion. Then Gallup asked, "Would you say that John Kerry and the Democratic party have — or have not — attacked George W. Bush unfairly?" Thirty-five percent said yes, Kerry and the Democrats have attacked Bush unfairly, while 57 percent said no, they have not. Eight percent had no opinion. Breaking down the numbers by party, 33 percent of Democrats said Bush and the Republicans have attacked Kerry unfairly. But 53 percent of Democrats said Bush and the Republican party have not attacked Kerry unfairly. Twenty-one percent of independents said Bush has been unfair, but 65 percent of independents said Bush and the GOP have not attacked Kerry unfairly. Nine percent of Republicans believe Bush has been unfair, while 84 percent believe he hasn't. Looked at from the other party's perspective, 59 percent of Republicans said Kerry and the Democrats have attacked Bush unfairly, while just 35 percent said Kerry and the Democrats have not attacked Bush unfairly. Thirty-five percent of independents said Kerry has been unfair, while 55 percent said Kerry has not attacked Bush unfairly. Thirteen percent of Democrats said Kerry has been unfair, while 80 percent said he has not. In all, it appears that Republicans feel more aggrieved at the moment — not surprising, given the months of Democratic campaigning and the Bush campaign's belated counterattacks. But perhaps more importantly, more independents seem to believe that Kerry and the Democrats have been unfair than believe that Bush has been unfair. Finally, the poll had one more surprising finding. Gallup asked respondents, "Regardless of whom you support, and trying to be as objective as possible, who do you think will win the election in November?" Fifty-two percent said Bush, while 42 percent said Kerry. Six percent had no opinion.
basso, you mentioned the record low turnout for Democrats during the primaries... you forgot to mention that it's a record low for Republicans as well. (and it is a record low for both) I don't have a link handy, but the figures I remember reading going through Super Tuesday are 9% of registered voters voting in the Democratic primaries and 6% of the registered voters voting in the Republican primaries. That compares to about 24% of registered voters voting in the Democratic primaries of '68 and '72, for a comparison. I don't know what the numbers were for Republican primaries back then, but I'm sure it was somewhat lower than the Democrats and somewhat higher than what we're seeing today. It's a disturbing trend for both parties. Apathy reigns. I don't have a comment right now about the poll you mentioned, except to say that it doesn't fit the other numbers I've been reading lately about Presidential preference.
rim- i have no idea what you're trying to say there- a river runs through it? i dunno... deck- the point about low turnout is that it's to be expected in an uncontested race with an incumbent running. clinton in 1996, W now. on the other hand, the democrats in 2004 have had multiple candidates up until super tuesday and still turnout has been remarkably low. extremely passionate about defeating bush, but still, very few people are voting. that's not a good sign if you're a democrat. two other thoughts. in most of the polls i've seen, democrats' reasons for voting for kerry are overwhelmingly that he can beat bush, suggesting they're not that interested in what he believes in. as republican attacks start to hit, this could suggest that kerry has very little base to fall back on- democrats, outside of a committed core base, may just stay home, or vote for someone they more ideologically identify with, like nader. on the flip side, while it's easy to write of Bush's position in the polls relative to kerry, his personal approval rating is now hovering right around 48-50 percent. not a good indicator at this stage, suggesting no matter how you parse the numbers, it's still a dead heat. turnout will be key.
Basso, you've really got to lay off the conservative talk radio. You just typed the exact thing Limbaugh was saying on my way to lunch. Some of us do listen to you guys you know.
Don't underestimate the deep, deep dislike of Bush, not only among Democrats, but independents and moderate Republicans. I think many of them are just saving their energy for the Fall. (the Fall of Bush II )
i'm glad you tune in, because i don't. some of us don't need a pundit to "interpret" the news for us, or to tell us how to think.
Well if you weren't listening, you guys certainly do think a lot alike, down to talking about the same thing on the exact same day.
It's the Nile. Stuart Smalley anyone? The "unfair" charge was one of only a few questions that Bush led Kerry on, so I guess it's not a surprise that the GOP media blitz would focus on that. It's important to remember that the poll was taken before Bush's crush of ads... that means 21% think Bush had attacked Kerry unfairly before he even really started his campaign. Conversely, only 35% said Kerry had attacked Bush unfairly after a protracted primary battle. My guess is that Bush has already (or is close to) blowing his lead in this category and looking at those numbers and the timing, i'd rather be in Kerry's shoes at this moment (assuming you think this stat is actually important). I would love for Bush to focus on this number and commit to running a clean campaign, We all know how well it worked for Dukakis. Here's some other nuggets from the same poll... Of those polled, 45% said they are certain to vote for Kerry and 38% for Bush. Men, usually a Republican strength, split 47% for Kerry, 46% for Bush. Kerry has his party's typical lead with women, 53%-43%. 54%, said Bush's use of the 9-11 images was inappropriate. The president's overall job approval is 49%, which is equal to his all-time low in late January. He has slipped on leadership, the theme of his ads: 57% say he has the personality and leadership qualities a president should have, down from 66% in January. Kerry rated 57% on leadership, too. I don't see how you can look at the above graph and think it's even... Kerry leads in Gore states, he leads in even states, and he is within striking distance in Bush states. (Go to the Rove thread for a list of recent state polls.) It's interesting that a number of big names in the local GOP have refused to enter races lately... perhaps they see the writing on the wall and fear a Bush loss would drag them down as well? (See CO) Bush is in big trouble. Just do me one favor and don't tell Kerry this... I won't feel comfortable until he's won by enough to convince even Republicans. He needs to run like he's behind.
in any case, i'm not trying to score political points in this thread, just pointing out some interesting anomalies in the numbers.
"George Bush is running on the same old Republican tactics of fear — and they're already getting tired... It's clear that this president will fight like hell to keep his own job, but he won't lift a finger to help Americans keep theirs." --John Kerry, inoculating himself against the general GOP smear machine, diminishing Bush, and driving home the jobs message all in the same soundbite.
What are the numbers, basso, if John McCain were to join Kerry on the ticket? There is some serious speculation about that. I think it's unlikely, but just as a hypothetical, I wonder how that ticket would fare. Bush would probably be toast.
This will really help Bush appeal to those centrist voters... Looks like Delay is already jumping ship... ________________ Tom DeLay to be more independent of Bush WASHINGTON, (UPI) -- The second ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives plans to push his own legislative agenda -- with or without White House approval. Tom DeLay, the Republican's House majority leader, promised to be less subservient to President Bush in future sessions, the Washington Times reported. "I have not discussed this with President Bush or anyone else in the White House, and have no desire to," DeLay said. "But if you don't set these conservative goals, you don't get conservative governance." DeLay Wednesday plans to take the extraordinary step of introducing his own set of legislative and policy goals for this year and beyond. One goal will be to re-establish what he sees as the rightful role of religion in public places, so that Christian, Jewish or Muslim symbols could not be barred from holiday displays in front of town halls. DeLay, first elected to the House 20 years ago, was a favorite of conservatives until he began taking flak for pushing some presidential initiatives that were anathema to many grass-roots Republicans, such as Medicare prescription-drug legislation.
More inside the polls from Donkey Rising... http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/ _______________ Here are the most interesting results from the latest Gallup/CNN/USA Today and ABC News/Washington Post polls. 1. In the ABC News poll, Kerry is leading Bush by 9 points (53-44) among registered voters. With Nader thrown in, he still leads by 4 points, with Nader drawing 3 percent. In the Gallup poll, Kerry leads by 8 points (52-44) among likely voters. He also has more "hard" support (those who say they are certain to vote for him) than Bush (45-38). With Nader thrown in Kerry still leads by Bush by 6 points (50-44), with Nader at just 2 percent. Note that these two polls measure Nader support at 2-3 percent, while the much-publicized Ipsos/AP poll had his support at 6 percent. I suspect the Gallup/ABC News figures are better measures of his current support. Update: Gallup has issued a report on their new poll. In the report, they break down states into red (Bush won by 5 percent or more), blue (Gore won by 5 percent or more and purple (the margin of victory for Gore or Bush was less than 5 percent; this includes of course almost all the swing states the current campaigns are likely to focus on). In blue states, Kerry is ahead of Bush 55 percent to 42 percent among likely voters. Not unexpected. But in purple, swing states, he is ahead of Bush by even more, 55-39. And for those fretting perhaps more than they need to about Nader, here are the analagous figures with Darth Nader in the mix: 55-42 in blue states and 52-39 in purple states. Not so bad, huh? So relax (at least about Nader). 2. Bush's overall approval rating in the ABC News poll is 50 percent, with 48 percent disapproval (his highest ever). His rating in the Gallup poll is 49 percent, with 48 percent disapproval (tied for his highest ever). 3. Bush's approval ratings in the ABC News poll are only above 50 percent in two areas: the US campaign against terrorism (63 percent) and protecting Americans constitutional rights and freedoms (61 percent). Significantly, his rating on the economy has now dipped below 40 percent (39 percent approval/59 percent disapproval). His other poor to very poor ratings are, in descending order: education (50 percent approval/45 percent disapproval); taxes (50/47); the situation in Iraq (46/53); the issue of same-sex marriage (44/52!); creating jobs (43/54); prescription drug benefits for the elderly (41/49); Social Security (38/55); the cost, availability and coverage of health insurance (32/62); and the federal budget deficit (30/65). 4. In the ABC News poll, Kerry is now 5 points ahead of Bush (49-44) on who would do a better job coping with the main problems the nation faces ove the next few years. He has also now caught up with and surpassed Bush on who would do a better job handling the situation in Iraq (48-47). And he has widened his lead over Bush on dealing with the economy to 12 points (53-41). 5. Also in the ABC News poll, here are voters' choices for the single most important issue in deciding their vote for president: economy/jobs (36 percent); terrorism (17 percent); Iraq (10 percent); education (8 percent); Medicare/prescription drugs (7 percent); and health care (6 percent). And here are Kerry's leads over Bush on dealing with these issues: the economy (+12); terrorism (-21); Iraq (+1); education (+12); Medicare/prescription drugs (no data available but a reasonable guess is that Kerry would have a substantial lead); and health care (+20). 6. In the ABC News poll, 41 percent say they want to keep moving in the direction Bush has been taking the country, compared to 57 percent who want to elect a president to take the country in a different direction. 7. Kerry beats Bush on every characteristic ABC News tested except "is a strong leader". On "tolerant of different points of view", he beats Bush 73 percent applies/17 percent doesn't apply to 47/51. On "honest and trustworthy" he beats Bush 59/30 to 54/45; on "understands the problems of people like you" he beats Bush 58/34 to 41/57; and on "stands up to special interests" he beats Bush 54/30 to 51/44. And even on "strong leader", Kerry is virtually tied with Bush, 61/29 to 63/36. 8. In the ABC News poll, just 26 percent say Bush cares more about protecting the interests of ordinary working people, compared to 67 percent who say he cares more about protecting the interests of large business corporations. That's his worst rating ever, including during the summer of corporate scandals in 2002. In contrast, by 60/23, the public says Kerry cares more about the protecting the interests of ordinary people. 9. In the Gallup poll, by 66/30 people say it is inappropriate for political candidates to run camapign ads using images depicting the 9/11 terrorist attacks. When asked specifically about Bush's use of such ads, people still say by 54/42 that it is inappropriate. 10. In the Gallup poll, 40 percent of likely voters now say that they usually, almost always or always vote Democratic, compared to 36 percent who they typically vote Republican. Two months ago, Republicans had the advantage on this question, 44/37. -------------------- More on Young Voters' Democratic Leanings I had a brief note in DR on March 2nd about the latest Newsweek "GENext" poll that showed young voters leaning toward the Democrats. The full results of that poll have now been released, so a more complete account of these pro-Democratic leanings--and strong leanings they are--is given below. In the poll, Bush's approval rating among young voters is just 46 percent, down 8 points from a month ago. His appproval ratings on the economy and “domestic issues like health care, education, the environment and energy” are even worse: 40 pecent approval/56 percent disapproval and 39 percent approval/58 percent disapproval, respectively. Young voters are also strongly convinced the country is off on the wrong track (58 percent), rather than going in the right direction (40 percent). And the number saying they will definitely vote against Bush is up to 47 percent, a 13 points rise from last month. That compares to a mere 28 percent of young voters who say they would definitely vote to re-elect him. Moreover, in a direct Kerry-Bush matchup, young voters choose Kerry over Bush by an impressive 15 point margin (56 percent to 41 percent). The strong pro-Democratic tilt among young people extends to the question of which party they want to see gain control of Congress: by a 13 point margin (50 percent to 37 percent), they prefer the Democrats.
if McCain joined, i'd almost changing my vote, but only if i could be assured he'd playing the cheney-svengali role... don't know if this is where rush got his story, but the boston globe makes some similar observations in today's paper: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a..._turnout_seen_so_so_despite_party_assertions/ -- Democratic turnout seen so-so, despite party assertions Nonpartisan study indicates intensity level was less than described By Anne E. Kornblut, Globe Staff, 3/10/2004 WASHINGTON -- Turnout in the Democratic primaries, heralded by party leaders as a strong showing of unity and outrage against President Bush, was actually in line with past primaries, lower than many recent Republican contests, and included some record lows in later states, according to a full accounting released yesterday. At the height of this year's presidential primaries, on Feb. 20, Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe declared that "people are turning out in record numbers" -- even though in the Virginia primary 10 days earlier, the 7.5 percent of Democrats who voted failed to match the only previous Democratic primary, and the figure was well below the 13.2 percent of Republicans who voted in their party's 2000 primary. Only New Hampshire and Wisconsin saw truly impressive increases, according to Curtis Gans, who conducted the survey for the nonpartisan Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. That may bode well for Democrats in the general election, given that both are important battleground states, but the lack of significant improvement elsewhere could signal that Democrats are not quite as mobilized as party officials once proclaimed. "Democratic turnout in the party's presidential primaries through Super Tuesday was generally low -- in the aggregate, the third-lowest on record," Gans said. Democratic officials insist the data should be read differently. In an era of decreasing voter turnout, they argue, several swing states -- especially New Hampshire, Iowa, and Wisconsin -- saw numbers that held firm or increased somewhat. And party leaders refused to back away from their insistence that the primary turnout reflected growing momentum. "Regardless of which study you look at, it is very encouraging to see that there is a call for change among Democrats," Democratic strategist Jenny Backus said. A spokesman for McAuliffe, Tony Welch, said that compared to typical data in national elections, "Democrats were more enthused, more energetic than anyone can remember in recent history." Some of the lower-turnout states were later in the primary process, they said, when voters may have concluded the nomination would go to Senator John F. Kerry after his victories in Wisconsin, Virginia, and Tennessee. Meanwhile, earlier states saw greater numbers, in part because so much money and time were poured into those races and the nomination, at that point, truly appeared to be a free-for-all. According to Iowa Secretary of State Chet Culver, that was especially true in his state's caucuses -- at least by his method of calculation. The number who voted in the Democratic race doubled from the last election cycle, to approximately 125,000 voters in this year's caucuses. "It's pretty impressive, when you really consider what we were asking people to do on a cold winter night," Culver said. "We set an all-time record for an Iowa caucus -- at least since we really started keeping numbers, prior to 2000." But about the same number went to the polls in the 1988 caucuses, undermining the argument that this year's was really a record-setter. Indeed, whether the votes were record highs or lackluster seems to be largely in the eye of the beholder: states that saw "record" increases had in some cases only had one or two primaries ever before. One such example is South Carolina, which Democrats this year claimed as a huge triumph after drawing 9.49 percent of party voters to the polls, up from 4.44 percent in 1992. But by a different measure, turnout there, the third state to hold a contest, was mediocre at best. The "record" number of voters was almost inevitable given that South Carolina has only held one other Democratic primary. And Republicans appear to have a sizable edge in turnout: About 19.5 percent voted in the 2000 Republican primary and 9.95 percent voted in the same contest in 1996. Apart from New Hampshire, Gans said, "Other states could claim `records' but those claims are somewhat specious," arguing that like South Carolina, Arizona and Delaware also made shallow claims of shattering past records by comparing 2004 with uncontested races or only one prior race. In New York, on the other hand, the Super Tuesday primary on March 2 marked a historic low: just 5.39 percent showed up to vote in the Democratic primary, down from 7.40 percent in the 2000 race between Al Gore and Bill Bradley. In Massachusetts, Republican participation plummeted this year, understandably, given that Bush has no competition on the GOP ballot. Democrats voted at a rate of 13.65 percent, up from 12.55 percent in 2000, but down from the 17.99 percent who voted in 1992 and the record 22.24 percent who voted in 1980.
American Research Group. 3/9-11. MoE 3.5%. (February results) Bush 43 (46) Kerry 50 (48) Republicans Bush 81 Kerry 11 Democrats Bush 5 Kerry 87 Independents Bush 42 Kerry 51
