Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll: Bush 49% Kerry 44%

Rasmussen Reports ^ | 2.25.04

[ambrose]

Survey of 1,500 Likely Voters February 22-24, 2004

Bush 49% Kerry 44%

Election 2004 Presidential Ballot

Bush 49%

Kerry 44%

Other 3%

Not Sure 4%

RasmussenReports.com

Rasmussen Reports Home

February 25, 2004--The latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows George W. Bush with 49% of the vote and and John F. Kerry attracting support from 44% of the nation's likely voters.

Over the past three weeks, Bush's numbers have stayed between 45% and 47% with just a handful of exceptions. Kerry has stayed generally between 44% and 46% of the vote during this period.

A related survey finds that 55% of American voters believe the U.S. should make sure that Iraq becomes a peaceful nation enjoying freedom and democracy. Thirty-eight percent (38%) want troops brought home as soon as possible.

The Rasmussen Reports Presidential Election Survey is updated daily by noon Eastern.

[LS]

I said Ras was way off. Battleground and everyone else was pretty much off too, although Battleground has been extremely reliable. For now, I'd trust Battleground over Ras. Unfortunately, I'd trust Zogby over anyone.

[LS]

Getting Edwards right in one poll is hardly a reason for celebrating Ras. However, I'm open. I hope he's right, because he consistently has Bush/GOP higher than most other pollsters.

[The Wizard]

my guess is GWB will never be behind Kerry again.

[Coop]

Unfortunately, I'd trust Zogby over anyone.

I'm really surprised you're still saying that, given how Zogby was fairly humiliated during the 2002 elections.

[Walkingfeather]

stop publishing these idiotic polls, figure this out.

1.If Bush's poll show he is going to landslide do you think you will sit through all the commercials on the nightly news?

2.Bush's job approval rating is still in the high 50's and these polls show below 50% why?

3. Whose interest would it be in to fudge the numbers of polling data? a) the news media with 10's of millions of advertizing dollars at stake b) the democraps who are also in the news media c) the republicans?

[Coop]

Unless ambrose works for Rasmussen, I think you're placing publication blame in the wrong place.

[reformedliberal]

Yesterday, Linda Vester on FNC's Dayside was interviewing someone from the Kerry campaign about why Kerry thought he had Bush *on the run*. The Kerry guy cited *the polls* and the fact that GWB had finally entered the campaign as proof Kerry was ahead and W on the defensive. Linda said she hated to tell the campaign this, but FNC had polling data that showed GWB at 49% to Kerry's 44%. Campaign guy just segued to his other TPs that he wished had been asked.

All the rest of yesterday, at least when I was able to pay attention, the graphic they put up was the W-43%; Kerry-42% and Nader 4%.

I hope this starts to show in the rest of the polls. Today, it seems that polls drive opinion, instead of the other way around.

Kerry's "I am an optimistic sorta guy" speech last night was totally devoid of real enthusiasm and Kerry looked like he had just learned his dog had died a hideous death. OTOH, the Bush-Cheney campaign surrogates seem calm and relaxed.

I would love to see the internal polls.

I think the change, if it turns out to be solid and repeted in other polls, is due to Kerry becoming more quantified in terms of the issues. I think taxation,foreign policy and the total pandering the Dems are doing in relation to jobs are showing the electorate just what Kerry has planned for them.

[Verginius Rufus]

The first President Bush launched his re-election campaign on February 12, 1992, so the present President Bush is not starting abnormally early.

I remember the date in 1992 because it was Charles Darwin's birthday, and I wondered if that might cost him some votes from the religious Right.

[SamAdams76]

Remember back to 16 years ago today...February 25, 1988.

After a slow start, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts began steamrollering towards the Democratic nomination. His name was Michael Dukakis and he was going to inflict the "Massachusetts Miracle" upon the nation at large. He was going to end the Reagan/Bush era.

The polls were showing it too. Mike Dukakis enjoyed double-digit leads over George H.W. Bush right through the middle of summer. Surely George Bush didn't have a chance against this guy. Or so everybody thought.

I bring those memories back again to show just how meaningless polls are at this stage. Dukakis led the polls during a good part of the 1988 campaign but ended up losing in a blowout. John Kerry could well go down in defeat by Walter Mondale or George McGovern proportions by the time the election rolls around, despite how he is polling today.

16 years ago today, most Americans did not yet know just how bad Mike Dukakis was. It wasn't until after the GOP convention that people started finding out. Many outside Massachusetts still don't realize how bad he would have been for the country had he been elected.

Consider that Mike Dukakis was the very last Democrat governor that Massachusetts has had. Since 1990, Massachusetts has elected nothing but Republican governors because the last thing we want around here is "another Dukakis." Perhaps the candidacy of John Kerry will result in the fact that he will be the last Democrat senator Massachusetts will see for a while. Let's hope so.

[LS]

Whatever. Until he is shown wrong in national elections, I think he's pretty reliable. Far better (so far) than Ras.

[LS]

Well, we do need to keep repeating---whether 10 points up or 10 points down---"it's only Feb.!" On the other hand, historically for an incumbent to be at this strong a position at this point in his term is nearly unheard of. As many Freepers have pointed out, Reagan trailed Mondull about this time, and Bush trailed the Dukakoid.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Seems like the rR will grasp at any excuse to jump the reservation so that one would work as well as any. Thank God he didn't have a beagle too.

[Coop]

National? Here you go:

Final Zogby polling numbers (Nov 3-4) prior to 2002 Senate elections:

CO: Strickland 51%, Allard - 46% (Allard won by 5 points)

GA: Cleland 50%, Chambliss - 48% (Chambliss won by 7 points)

MN: Mondale 51%, Coleman - 45% (Coleman won by 3 points)

SD: Thune 52%, Johnson - 47% (Johnson won by 1 point)

TX: Cornyn 50%, Kirk - 46% (Cornyn won by 12 points - heck, at least he got the ultimate winner right!)

An embarassing performance by America's "premier" pollster, wouldn't you say?

[Verginius Rufus]

What breed was Millie (mother of the recently deceased Bush dog Spot)?

[Stentor]

An embarassing performance by America's "premier" pollster, wouldn't you say?

It is unfair to blame Zogby for the lacluster performance of deceased voters. Special sauce ya know.

[Stentor]

Lackluster.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have no idea.

[LS]

Pretty funny. You're bashing me for sticking with Zogby, another guy is bashing Battleground, and everyone loves Rasmussen---who was off by more than anyone in 2000. Go figure.

[fqued]

We know that polls that include Friday and/or Saturday are biased toward the Left/Democrat, so your prediction was spot on.

The question is, why is this so??

Is it that Republicans/Conservatives have a life, and are out having fun on Friday and Saturday, and Democrats have nothing to do?

Or is the TYPE of people who are home on Friday Evening and Saturday?

What are your thoughts?

[puroresu]

LOL!

There could be an entire CD set of Kerry's greatest oldies:

I Can't Get No Affirmative Action
Happy Abortion, Sweet Sixteen
Ballad Of The Red Berets
Kind Of In Drag
I Say A Little Humanist Manifesto
I Can't Stop Bussing You
Wake Up Little Brucie
J.F.K. Superstar
1-2-3 Red Light District
He Ain't Heavy, He's My Lover

And many more classic hits!