[Timesink]

This is a classic polling/reporting trick. When you pair up an elected official with a hypothetical "somebody else" and ask the public to choose, you always get relatively high numbers choosing "someone else." But when you pair the same elected official against the actual human beings that are fighting to challenge said politician in the next election, the percentage of people choosing that specific Somebody Else drops sharply.

Put another way:

Pollster: "So do you think Bush should serve a second term, or would you rather have a new face in the White House?"

Voter: "Well, I'm getting tired of Bush. It turns out he doesn't agree with me 100% on every single political issue, so he should probably go. I'd like to see someone else elected."

Pollster: "Okay, say that in November 2004 the election will be between Bush and John Kerry. Who would you vote for?"

Voter: "John Kerry? That psycho? Holy crap! Bush all the way, dude!"

Thus far, Bush is handily beating all potential RAT candidates when he is placed head-to-head with them individually in political polls.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

This is a classic polling/reporting trick.

Exactly. Many of those would "rather" have Ronald Reagan, or George Washington, or me. Mostly me.

[Paleo Conservative]

But when you pair the same elected official against the actual human beings that are fighting to challenge said politician in the next election, the percentage of people choosing that specific Somebody Else drops sharply.

That's quite an assumption. I thought Mondale and Dukakis were robots.

[Jorge]

Thus far, Bush is handily beating all potential RAT candidates when he is placed head-to-head with them individually in political polls.

Exactly. And as bad as some people claim things are under Bush, I believe they would have to get a lot worse for a Democrat to beat him in 2004.

In today's world, how many people are going to trust the Dems with national security?
And without national security, everything else goes down the crapper.