Bush sees large spike in polls; Dean suffers

This spike won't last. It'll be interesting to see where it settles out at.

I'm surprised that a majority believe that the Iraq war has made us safer from terrorism. If a majority believes that, it takes a big selling point away from the Dems (especially Dean).

 

Polls, Polls, Polls....

Who cares about opinion polls??

Bill Clinton had a 73% approval rating after the Monica scandal, do you think he would have won the next election by 46 points ???

That goes with Howard Dean's polls in New Hampshire as well. I'll even predict he ends up "losing" New Hampshire by finishing barely ahead of John Kerry, giving Kerry a boost because the polls said he would do better.

These media polls stink. What happened to covering the issues and policy differences between candidates?

After Saddam was caught, one of the first things the media talked about was how this would boost Bush's "ratings". It's nauseating.


Republican, Democrat, Green, or Libertarian, is anyone else sick of these sorry ass polls?

 

I think the polls reflect a snap shot of popular opinion. At this point in time that's what folks in the country thing. They will change go up come back down and whatever it's fine to look at them to see how events change opinion.

I hope they do change in favor of someone other than Bush prior to the election, but who knows what will happen.

 

And when Osama's caught it will seal the deal.





Actually, who knows.

 

The capture of Saddam should have spiked Bush's numbers, and it did. There is lots of time until November 2004. Anything can happen....and probably will between now and then!

 

More analysis from Dem pollster Ruy Teixiera...
________________
It seems likely we’ll see some kind of bump up in Bush’s approval ratings and related indicators with the capture of Saddam Hussein. But it seems unlikely that the bump he gets will be particularly large or particularly long-lived. As for the idea that Saddam’s capture somehow eliminates the President’s Iraq problem and makes him a lock for re-election....puh-leeze, you’ve got be kidding me.

The three big problems with Iraq have been–and will continue to be–casualties, financial costs and WMD (the abundance of the first two and the lack of the third). It is these problems that have undercut public support for the Iraq war and occupation, not the failure to capture Saddam. Nor has the failure to capture Saddam been central to the arguments of Democrats and others who have criticized the war and how it has been conducted. Therefore–unless Saddam’s capture really does break the back of the Iraqi resistance, which seems quite unlikely–his capture, by itself, is unlikely to produce either a large short-term bump for Bush or a significant boost in Bush’s chances for re-election, eleven long months from now.

Polls taken right after Saddam’s capture support this viewpoint. The ABC News/Washington Post poll shows a modest bump in Bush’s approval rating from 53 percent percent a week ago to 57 percent today. Note that the latter figure is exactly where Bush’s rating in this poll was in mid-November which, in turn, was 20 points lower than it was in early April.

Approval of Bush’s handling of Iraq gets a larger bump, from 48 percent in mid-November up to 58 percent today. But that’s still 17 points below where this measure was at the end of April. Moreover, Saddam’s capture seems to have had little effect on the public’s perception of whether the Iraq war was worth fighting, considering its costs and benefits. In mid-November, 52 percent thought the war worth fighting and 44 percent did not; after Saddam’s capture, 53 percent now think war worth fighting and 42 percent do not. Finally, 90 percent think big challenges lie ahead in Iraq versus only 9 percent who feel the big challenges are over.

The Gallup poll finds a similarly minor change (up 3 points) in the number who believe “the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over”. On the critical issue of casualties, 67 percent believe Saddam’s capture will either result in only a minor drop in US combat deaths (41 percent) or have no effect on combat deaths (26 percent). And–speaking directly to one of the issues raised above–a very modest 3 percent say they were not planning to vote to re-elect Bush prior to Hussein’s capture but now feel that it’s more likely that they will do so. That’s in comparison to the 45 percent who were planning to vote for Bush prior to the capture and the 43 percent who were planning to vote against Bush and say the capture hasn’t changed their minds.

Bush, no doubt, is hoping for a much larger bump from Saddam’s capture, since all the other things that were supposed to have that effect recently haven’t: economic good news; the passage of the Medicare bill; and the Thanksgiving Day surprise visit to the troops in Iraq. The latest Newsweek poll, taken right before Saddam’s capture, gives Bush a 51 percent approval rating, down a point since their last poll in the first week of November (more evidence that the early December Gallup bounce is suspect–see DR’s December 11 post). And his re-elect number–those who say they would like to see Bush re-elected to another term–remains low at 45 percent, with 50 percent saying they would prefer not to see him re-elected.

And Bush continues to get a number of net negative approval ratings in important areas: 45 percent approval/46 percent disapproval on the economy; 45 percent approval/50 percent disapproval on Iraq, 31 percent approval/55 percent disapproval on the federal budget deficit and–significantly, in light of the recent passage of the Medicare bill–35 percent approval/52 percent disapproval on health care, essentially unchanged from early November.

Most intriguingly, on a number of current Bush administration policies, voters who say they are less likely to vote for Bush because of these policies outnumber those who say they are more likely. This includes the Bush administration’s Iraq policy and decision to go to war (40 percent less likely/39 more likely); the way Bush and his administration have handled the situation in Iraq (44 percent less likely/34 percent more likely); the amount of money the US is spending to rebuild Iraq (54 percent less likely/18 percent more likely); the current state of the economy and job situation (37 percent less likely/30 percent more likely) and the recently passed and signed Medicare bill (36 percent less likely/27 percent more likely).

 

Wouldn't surprise me if the Administration already has him and simply holding him for an October 2004 surprise.

This administration is all about the politics. I wouldn't put this past Karl Rove.

 

Nor would I.

 

Of course, how dare we even think about questioning the Almighty Perfect Dubya?

If only we had some "shady" land deals or some fat women taping phone conversations to go on...sigh.

 

..and do you know what the difference is? The difference is that I hope we actually do have him, whereas you do not. Judging by your post, it is a *bad* thing if we capture Osama. Pathetic.

 

Yes, yes....

Anyone with a differing opinion is un-American , unpatriotic, and a traitor to the country...

You're either with Bush or Against America.

 

Proposing that a poster would rather have Osama loose than captured shows both an inconceivable deficit in reading comprehension skills and also a corroded, pathetic, darkened heart.

Who will visit T_J this season to show him the magic of Christmas? Who will tap on the darkened windshield of his luxury SUV and show him a holiday smile filled with human warmth?

 

Polls are kind of disheartening.

Saddam gets captured and Bush's approval rating goes up, as we all knew it would. But he's still the same sorry excuse for a president. People's opinions fluctuate too much on a single event. Saddam's capture is like this morning's breakfast: it, too, will pass.

And that goes for Clinton and his poll numbers. I never really paid much attention. I guess they have to keep polls so that they can keep some sort of barometer of a president's "progress," but polls can affect our leaders too much. Clinton played to polls way too much. Bush said that he wouldn't but any President who says that is just blowing smoke, even if he knows that sweet sugar high will settle into a more normal trough.

Polls. Bah! Humbug!

 

I'd be absolutely estatic if we had OBL, as would nearly everyone on the globe, liberal or without heart.

I'd be equally horrified if someone kept it under wraps for political reasons.

 

Yeah, I'm sure that's feasible.

 

T_J, as usual, you are so full of sh*t I can smell you from here.

 

I doubt it is either, but I'm just saying with Karl Rove, master of politics, nothing would surprise me. I don't actually think they're doing it.

 

wow...do you think he did that with saddam?? really??

 

Uh... you do understand that it is commonplace to keep captures unknown for periods of time, so that the prisoners' cohorts can more easily be located. Not everything is politically motivated, as you so cynically assume. The party of pessimism rears its ugly head again. Sigh.