Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nearly half of Americans wouldn't vote for Bush again
AFP ^ | 08-23-03

Posted on 08/23/2003 4:31:16 PM PDT by Brian S

Sunday August 24, 6:48 AM

A growing number of Americans don't want to see US President George W. Bush re-elected next year, and fear US troops will be drawn into a long, costly occupation of Iraq, according to a Newsweek poll.

For the first time the poll has found that more registered voters -- 49 percent -- would not want Bush to return for a second term in office if the elections were now, compared with 44 percent who would.

Only 23 percent said terrorism and homeland security would be the most important issues for them in the November 2004 election, compared with 48 percent who said deciding factors for them now would be the economy and jobs.

Meanwhile, 69 percent are now convinced the United States will become bogged down in Iraq, without achieving ostensible goals in getting the country back on its feet.

Some 40 percent of them are now "very concerned" US troops will be there for the long-haul.

A majority also fears that US forces will be overextended in the event of a security threat elsewhere, according to the poll in the latest edition of Newsweek -- 29 percent very concerned and 30 percent somewhat concerned.

Americans also think that reconstruction costs in Iraq are too high at one billion dollars per week -- 66 percent said they do not support such spending, compared with 34 percent who said they support current spending levels.

And 53 percent said they would oppose an increase to the figure being spent, with only seven percent not opposed to an increase.

Almost half of people polled -- 47 percent -- said they were very concerned that maintaining troops in Iraq is too expensive and will cause a higher budget deficit, seriously damaging the US economy.

Despite some indications the US president's popularity is on the wane, a majority still approves of the way Bush is handling his job. Some 53 percent supported him compared with 36 who did not, with 11 unsure.

In a Newsweek poll released a month ago, 49 percent said they would like to see Bush re-elected compared with 43 percent who would not.

Voters said they prefered Republican President Bush's stance for dealing with terrorists than what they have seen so far from leading figures among the Democrats.

Some 57 percent said they prefered Bush's position on terrorism to 21 who prefered the Democrats. But 45 percent felt the Democrats had more to offer on stimulating the economy, compared with 36 percent who thought Bush had a better approach.

The survey was taken between August 21-22 on some 1,011 adults aged 18 and above. The poll has a plus or minus three percent error margin.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: britain; electionpresident; polls; presidentbushlist; publicopinionlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181 next last
To: B Knotts
A serious, massive crackdown on illegal immigration could boost his numbers quickly.

I agree. In fact the Immigration issue is Bush's only ace-in-the-hole; but I'm afraid he won't play it, allowing that issue to default to the Democrat Candidate (Hillary! God forbid). In my nightmares I can hear that witch next October screaming: "Elect me ... I'll close those borders!"(Of course she won't, but her workers will cheer loudly, and the American voters will scream: "YES!")

61 posted on 08/23/2003 5:18:28 PM PDT by bimbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
As an aside. Does anyone else think that the Perot put up was a Clinton black bag operation both times? The guy had no clear platform other than "reform" and wasn't his company rewarded both times with nice government contracts by Clinton?

I don't know about the contracts, but I do know Perot had (still does, I'm sure) a gigantic ego and a major league hatred for Bush 41. Combine it with the fact that the American voting Zeitgeist in 1992 was little more than "throw the bums out!", and I think you've got pretty decent evidence that Perot just saw an opportunity to screw with an enemy, have a lot of fun, and make himself famous, so he ran with it.

62 posted on 08/23/2003 5:19:25 PM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
You were expecting honesty from Newsweek ..??

These people LOVE Hitlery - and I believe they will do ANYTHING to help her.

What they don't realize is that the lower they try to force the numbers the LARGER GROWS THE FORCE TO STOP THEM. Besides, this 49 is more than 10 points lower than most of the other polls, including USAToday/CNN's which is at 61.
63 posted on 08/23/2003 5:20:33 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - "The Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thinktwice
Two mispellings of the same word tells me we have a suspect foreign -- and biased -- source.

AFP is Agence France-Presse, the French news agency.

64 posted on 08/23/2003 5:22:13 PM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
As it applies to the "War on Terror".................

"Meanwhile, 69 percent are now convinced the United States will become bogged down in Iraq, without achieving ostensible goals in getting the country back on its feet."

What is our exit strategy?

What are our "goals" in this war?

I think President Bush could be a stone-cold cinch if the objectives of the "war" could be quantified.
65 posted on 08/23/2003 5:24:32 PM PDT by WhiteGuy (It's now the Al Davis GOP...........................Just Win Baby !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy
Well., where are the oil profits?

When the war looked inevitable last March, I bought shares in Halliburton ... Keep looking at Halliburton's bottom line. The profits will show up there long before the Exxons, Shells, and Texacos see their profits improved by Iraq. Unfortunately, American citizens won't see a dime returned on their "investment" in Iraq.

66 posted on 08/23/2003 5:25:08 PM PDT by bimbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Typical liberal approach:

1. Come up with a lie, fabrication, exageration, etc.

2. Put it out in the media.

3. Have the talking heads repeat it over and over and over........

4. The lie takes on a life of it's own.

5. See if the results hurt the object of their scheme.

Of course, liberals believe this approach always works because they deeply believe that the vast majority of Americans are STUPID, ILLITERATE, UN-EDUCATED BAFFOONS.

Well, probably true for a small percentage :)

67 posted on 08/23/2003 5:25:11 PM PDT by technomage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
As an aside. Does anyone else think that the Perot put up was a Clinton black bag operation both times?

Uh yeh! It was reported Perot met with Clinton in private meetings twice during the campain! I think it was in NM?

68 posted on 08/23/2003 5:25:42 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Lucifer lefties are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Saying you won't vote for Bush in the next election is different than saying you would vote for Howard Dean (or whomever) over Bush. These polls mean nothing and I'm happy we have a President who does what's right. He could have sat on his sky-high numbers after 9/11 and coasted to re-election, but he chose to do what was needed in Iraq which dropped his poll numbers rapidly.
69 posted on 08/23/2003 5:26:15 PM PDT by Texas_Dawg (I will not rest until every "little man" is destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
"There are two very big differences between Bushes 41 and 43..."

And Don't forget Ross Perot, if it wasn't for Perot, Clinton would never have been elected. He took something like 15-19%, did he not? I believe a substantial portion of Perot's support would have gone to Bush in a two way race.
70 posted on 08/23/2003 5:26:39 PM PDT by TimPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: technomage
3. Have the talking heads repeat it over and over and over........

You can almost bet this poll will be cited by Russert on Meet the Press tomorrow as gospel.

71 posted on 08/23/2003 5:26:54 PM PDT by Brian S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
The Ten Commandments guy. Speculation is that Howard Phillips is courting him to be the Constitution Party standard bearer. In a close race he may pull a percentage point or two from Bush.
72 posted on 08/23/2003 5:26:55 PM PDT by kms61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
The nine Democratic candidates for president were in Philadelphia recently. A reporter asked Governor Rendell who would win if the election was held today. Rendell, without any hesitation, said Bush would win.
73 posted on 08/23/2003 5:27:11 PM PDT by TracyPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Border security now Bush!
74 posted on 08/23/2003 5:27:57 PM PDT by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS

I agree with you. Presidents always poll poorly in August, anyway. It's the Dog Days, and no one, no one is paying attention to the next election.

But yours truly is, and he clicked on the Drudge article that led to the Newsweek story. Scrolled to the bottom of the page. The poll was of human beings over 18. I don't event think it was of "registered voters", much less likelies.

That's it. That's like taking a poll of fire hydrants and tombstones.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

75 posted on 08/23/2003 5:29:13 PM PDT by section9 (To read my blog, click on the Major!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MNLDS
I have consistently expected Dubya to win with 300-325 electoral votes, though not much more since large pockets are just out of reach (NY, Cali-Wash-Oregon, CT, Mass, IL)which means it will be over before the left coast chimes in (and since they will all go for the dem, it won't matter).
76 posted on 08/23/2003 5:29:23 PM PDT by HitmanLV (I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: technomage
Of course, liberals believe this approach always works because they deeply believe that the vast majority of Americans are STUPID, ILLITERATE, UN-EDUCATED BAFFOONS.

Well, probably true for a small percentage :)

We know the exact number and percentage. 50,994,086 (48.4%)

See post #51

77 posted on 08/23/2003 5:29:24 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Lucifer lefties are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
FLASH: Over 75% of Americans never voted for Clinton, and he lived in the White House for 8 years, I'm sorry to say.
78 posted on 08/23/2003 5:29:31 PM PDT by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
Border security now Bush!

And replace Karl Rove with Joe Hadenuf. (Because he's a political mastermind, you know.)

79 posted on 08/23/2003 5:30:23 PM PDT by Texas_Dawg (I will not rest until every "little man" is destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
This is a Newsweek Poll. It is therefore obvious that is therefore constructed to place a doubt into the public discourse.
80 posted on 08/23/2003 5:30:58 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson