Poll Shows New Gains for Bush Lead Over Kerry Widens On Issues of Security By Richard Morin and Dan Balz Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, April 20, 2004; Page A01
President Bush holds significant advantages over John F. Kerry in public perceptions of who is better equipped to deal with Iraq and the war on terrorism, and he has reduced the advantages his Democratic challenger held last month on many domestic issues, according to a Washington Post-ABC News Poll.
The poll also found that Iraq and the war on terrorism have surged in importance, and ranked with the economy and jobs as top voting issues. Despite signs of concern among Americans about the violence in Iraq, the poll showed Bush's approval ratings holding steady and Kerry's slipping on a variety of issues and attributes.
By 49 percent to 44 percent, Bush was viewed as better able to deal with the country's biggest problems. Five weeks ago, those numbers were reversed. By comfortable margins, voters saw Bush as stronger than Kerry on key national security issues.
On the economy, Bush has erased Kerry's 12-point edge and is tied with the senator from Massachusetts on who can better deal with the country's economic problems.
Lordy. That is worrying. The story I was listening to on Air America Radio when you posted this was that GWB has made arrangements with Prince Bandar, Saudi ambassador to the US, for the Saudis to increase the production of oil (and therefore drop prices) just before the election, and thus make GWB look good at the right time. Apparently journalists asked for details of this deal, and the government representative said something like, 'you'd have to discuss this with Bandar.' The followup question was, 'do you have any knowledge of such an arrangement?' Continued waffling. Al Franken was amazed that they didn't just deny it--'even if it's true, at least have the sense to deny it.'
I find it inconceiveable that Bush still has an edge over Kerry despite the fact the a majority disapprove of his job concerning both the economy and Iraq. It's also unbelieveable that a majority still support his war on terrorism even though a majority disapproves of his war in Iraq, Bush's self-proclaimed most important fight in the war on terrorism.
Have you ever read Andrew Sullivan? Gay British Conservative of the old cloth, smaller government, state rights, etc. He has a lot to say about this, and basically, the end result is that Bush get the national security votes because Kerry won't take a solid definable stand.
Like him or hate him, Bush makes clear defined answered, [snark]probably cause anything longer or more complex confuses him at the teleprompter.[/snark]
What Kerry needs to do, IMO, is to steal a march from Rove. The liberals learned 4 years ago what happens if they vote their ideals, they get something considerablely WORSE than their ideals, thus Kerry needs to placate the hawks and the scared citizens that fear that if Kerry gets elected he won't prosecute the war on the terror.
Kerry needs the people to FEEL safer, whether or not they actually are or not, hell the 3500 that died on 9/11 are a drop in the bucket compared to automobile crashes, however, the emotional and psychological impact of the deaths is far greater and immediate.
Here's my issue with viewing pools. One. something like 34-38 states are already taken. They are basically forgone conclusions, unless something amazing happens, like Kerry receiving bribes from Osama, or Bush gets caught sodomizing a pack of catholic school girls.
Is this poll of the general public OR of those likely to vote, cause it doesn't matter what someone's views are if they don't vote. *Shrug* This is why I try to not hold TOO much stock in the polls that aren't fairly specified.
It sounds like you're suggesting that Bush has set up a situation where, in order to vote for an alternative, the people need a candidate that can both appear to duplicate Bush's failing but clearly-defined ideals, but not actually do so so as to prevent America digging itself even further into the hole it's in. The people want a more competent liar?
The people want someone who will make them feel safe and secure. It doesn't matter what the actuality of the situation is, but we want to feel safe and secure. It's sort of like consumer confidence, it has nothing to do with actual market factors, but it has everything to do with how those market factors are PERCEIVED.
Thus I am saying that that Kerry needs to become much more aggressive and hawkish, to stop mealy-mouthing around issues of national security and such, and take a much stronger stand. He's already won the battle over the economy. Now he needs to win the battle over security.
The people want a more competent liar?
In short, yes. They want someone who's going to give them everything they want and not force them to pay for it, they want someone who's going to make them feel safe, make sure they have a home, a job, safe streets, and low taxes to boot.
They want someone who's going to give them everything they want and not force them to pay for it, they want someone who's going to make them feel safe, make sure they have a home, a job, safe streets, and low taxes to boot.
Agreed. Many people don't understand, and don't want to take the trouble to understand, the complex issues that their leaders have to decide on. That's one reason Kerry is sometimes perceived as waffling*; he presents very nuanced, complex views on a topic where Bush has a simple, black and white answer. The simple answer is often completely wrong on it's face, and even more often simply doesn't sufficiently address a complex issue. But it's simple and sometimes that's all people want.
An alternative would be someone who can inspire them to look at the challenges head on and see why they're worth accepting. Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy were good at this. I don't see either of the current candidates managing this. I think Dean was capable of it, and I think McCain was too.
*Sometimes, of course, Kerry is perceived as waffling because, well, he's waffling. :-) Most politicians do waffle from time to time, and, in fact *should* do so. Most politicians are elected to be representatives of the people, not to act as independent people--after all, that's why there are frequent elections, to give voters the opportunity to replace elected leaders who aren't doing what they want. Sometimes elected officials need to vote their conscience and try to lead their constituents towards what they believe is right. But mostly they need to listen to the people and do what the people want, whether it's what they believe or not, and whether it's what they said the week before or not. One of the thigns I don't rspect about Bush is that he refuses to admit that he's ever been wrong or made a mistake; if someone can't change their mind or never makes a mistake, I'm not prepared to trust them.
Several years ago I saw a fascinating documentary about Ayn Rand, which included several interviews with her. In one of them she claimed that she had not changed her opinion about anything since she was nine years old; the impression I got was that she thought this statement demonstrated her integrity. It struck me as pathological.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-04-20 09:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-20 12:59 pm (UTC)Poll Shows New Gains for Bush
Lead Over Kerry Widens On Issues of Security
By Richard Morin and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 20, 2004; Page A01
President Bush holds significant advantages over John F. Kerry in public perceptions of who is better equipped to deal with Iraq and the war on terrorism, and he has reduced the advantages his Democratic challenger held last month on many domestic issues, according to a Washington Post-ABC News Poll.
The poll also found that Iraq and the war on terrorism have surged in importance, and ranked with the economy and jobs as top voting issues. Despite signs of concern among Americans about the violence in Iraq, the poll showed Bush's approval ratings holding steady and Kerry's slipping on a variety of issues and attributes.
By 49 percent to 44 percent, Bush was viewed as better able to deal with the country's biggest problems. Five weeks ago, those numbers were reversed. By comfortable margins, voters saw Bush as stronger than Kerry on key national security issues.
On the economy, Bush has erased Kerry's 12-point edge and is tied with the senator from Massachusetts on who can better deal with the country's economic problems.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-20 03:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-20 09:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-20 10:00 am (UTC)Like him or hate him, Bush makes clear defined answered, [snark]probably cause anything longer or more complex confuses him at the teleprompter.[/snark]
What Kerry needs to do, IMO, is to steal a march from Rove. The liberals learned 4 years ago what happens if they vote their ideals, they get something considerablely WORSE than their ideals, thus Kerry needs to placate the hawks and the scared citizens that fear that if Kerry gets elected he won't prosecute the war on the terror.
Kerry needs the people to FEEL safer, whether or not they actually are or not, hell the 3500 that died on 9/11 are a drop in the bucket compared to automobile crashes, however, the emotional and psychological impact of the deaths is far greater and immediate.
Here's my issue with viewing pools. One. something like 34-38 states are already taken. They are basically forgone conclusions, unless something amazing happens, like Kerry receiving bribes from Osama, or Bush gets caught sodomizing a pack of catholic school girls.
Is this poll of the general public OR of those likely to vote, cause it doesn't matter what someone's views are if they don't vote. *Shrug* This is why I try to not hold TOO much stock in the polls that aren't fairly specified.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-20 10:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-20 10:29 am (UTC)Thus I am saying that that Kerry needs to become much more aggressive and hawkish, to stop mealy-mouthing around issues of national security and such, and take a much stronger stand. He's already won the battle over the economy. Now he needs to win the battle over security.
The people want a more competent liar?
In short, yes. They want someone who's going to give them everything they want and not force them to pay for it, they want someone who's going to make them feel safe, make sure they have a home, a job, safe streets, and low taxes to boot.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-20 01:16 pm (UTC)Agreed. Many people don't understand, and don't want to take the trouble to understand, the complex issues that their leaders have to decide on. That's one reason Kerry is sometimes perceived as waffling*; he presents very nuanced, complex views on a topic where Bush has a simple, black and white answer. The simple answer is often completely wrong on it's face, and even more often simply doesn't sufficiently address a complex issue. But it's simple and sometimes that's all people want.
An alternative would be someone who can inspire them to look at the challenges head on and see why they're worth accepting. Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy were good at this. I don't see either of the current candidates managing this. I think Dean was capable of it, and I think McCain was too.
*Sometimes, of course, Kerry is perceived as waffling because, well, he's waffling. :-) Most politicians do waffle from time to time, and, in fact *should* do so. Most politicians are elected to be representatives of the people, not to act as independent people--after all, that's why there are frequent elections, to give voters the opportunity to replace elected leaders who aren't doing what they want. Sometimes elected officials need to vote their conscience and try to lead their constituents towards what they believe is right. But mostly they need to listen to the people and do what the people want, whether it's what they believe or not, and whether it's what they said the week before or not. One of the thigns I don't rspect about Bush is that he refuses to admit that he's ever been wrong or made a mistake; if someone can't change their mind or never makes a mistake, I'm not prepared to trust them.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-20 03:50 pm (UTC)no subject
OTOH, if Kerry got elected, it would solve the country's biggest problem. -;)
no subject
Date: 2004-04-20 12:16 pm (UTC)Also right now, Kerry is low on money.