Unnamed Democrat Edges Bush In '04, Quinnipiac Poll Most Americans Are Not Satisfied With Life Today

Quinnipiac ^ | 3/6/03

[areafiftyone]

By a 48 -- 44 percent margin, American voters say they would vote for the as yet unnamed Democratic party candidate for President over Republican incumbent George W. Bush, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. 

Hampered by Americans' dissatisfaction with life in the U.S. and concerns about war and the economy, President Bush has a 53 -- 39 percent approval rating, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

Only 9 percent of American voters are "very satisfied" with the way things are going in the nation today, with 35 percent "somewhat satisfied;" 28 percent "somewhat dissatisfied," and 26 percent "very dissatisfied."

In an open-ended question allowing for any answer, 31 percent of American voters list war with Iraq as the most important problem facing the U.S. today, followed by 27 percent who list the economy/unemployment and 14 percent who list terrorism/security.

"This month, we find that an unnamed Democrat would edge out President Bush. The political winds are hard to read this early in the game, but we do know that war and a bad economy are not good for anyone -- especially sitting presidents," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Voters who list the economy/unemployment as the most important problem support the Democratic candidate over Bush 61 -- 32 percent.

American voters support 57 -- 35 percent U.S. military action against Iraq to force President Saddam Hussein from power, with no mention of weapons of mass destruction.

By an almost identical 56 - 38 percent margin, voters say the U.S. should wait for United Nations support, rather than moving alone against Iraq,

"Yes, Americans want to take out Saddam.  No, they don't want to do it alone.  They'd rather take some extra time and round up some help," Carroll said.

If New York Sen. Hillary Clinton seeks the nomination for President next year, she gets the support of 37 percent of Democrats nationwide, followed by:

• Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt with 13 percent;
• Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman with 12 percent;
• Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry with 8 percent;
• North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and Florida Sen. Bob Graham with 4 percent each;
• Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich with 3 percent each;
• Rev. Al Sharpton with 2 percent.

Without Clinton, Lieberman gets 21 percent, followed by

• 17 percent for Gephardt;
• 12 percent for Kerry;
• 8 percent for Edwards;
• 7 percent for Moseley-Braun;
• 6 percent for Graham;
• 5 percent for Sharpton;
• 4 percent for Dean;
• 2 percent for Kucinich.

From February 26 - March 3, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,232 American voters, with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percent.  The survey includes 470 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 4.5 percent.

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and nationwide as a public service and for research.

 

1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President?
							Most important problem
	Tot	Rep	Dem	Ind	Men	Wom	Econ	Terror	War
Approve	53	89	25	49	57	49	43	80	48
Disapprove	39	5	69	41	36	42	49	16	43
DK/NA	8	6	6	10	7	9	8	4	9
2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?
							Most important problem
	Tot	Rep	Dem	Ind	Men	Wom	Econ	Terror	War
Approve	42	54	34	39	43	40	38	62	43
Disapprove	46	34	53	50	49	44	53	28	43
DK/NA	12	12	13	11	8	16	9	10	14
4.  Now I'm going to name nine Democrats who might run for president in 2004. After I read all nine names, tell me which one you would most like to see the Democrats nominate for president in 2004 Here are the choices...Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt, North Carolina Senator John Edwards, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, the Reverend Al Sharpton, Florida Senator Bob Graham, former Illinois Senator Carol Moseley-Braun or Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich
		Dems
Lieberman		21
Kerry		12
Gephardt		17
Edwards		8
Dean		4
Sharpton		5
Graham		6
Moseley-Braun		7
Kucinich		2
DK/NA		18
5. Suppose New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton decides to run for president in 2004.  Who would you most like to see the Democrats nominate for president in 2004?  Hillary Rodham Clinton, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt, North Carolina Senator John Edwards, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, the Reverend Al Sharpton, Florida Senator Bob Graham, former Illinois Senator Carol Moseley-Braun or Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich
		Dems
Clinton		37
Lieberman		12
Kerry		8
Gephardt		13
Edwards		4
Dean		3
Sharpton		2
Graham		4
Moseley-Braun		3
Kucinich		3
DK/NA		11
6. If George W. Bush runs for re-election in 2004, in general are you more likely to vote for Bush or for the Democratic Party's candidate for president?
							Most important problem
	Tot	Rep	Dem	Ind	Men	Wom	Econ	Terror	War
Bush	44	89	9	39	48	39	32	72	40
Democrat	48	6	87	46	44	51	61	23	52
OTHER(VOL)	2	1	1	5	3	2	2	1	2
DK/NA	6	4	3	10	5	7	5	5	7
7. In general, how satisfied are you with the way things are going in the nation today?  Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?
							Most important problem
	Tot	Rep	Dem	Ind	Men	Wom	Econ	Terror	War
Very satisfied	9	18	4	6	11	7	4	14	9
Smwht satisfied	35	52	20	35	37	33	25	55	37
Smwht dissat	28	23	34	28	27	30	35	23	27
Very dissat	26	6	42	29	23	29	35	8	24
DK/NA	1	2	-	2	1	2	2	-	2
8. What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?
		Tot	Rep	Dem	Ind	Men	Wom
Economy total		27	21	29	28	32	21
Economy general		22	17	23	24	26	18
Unemployment/jobs		4	4	5	4	5	3
Economy other		1	-	1	-	1	-
Education total		3	2	2	3	2	2
Education general		1	1	1	2	1	1
Funding education		1	1	1	1	1	-
Education other		1	-	-	-	-	1
Foreign affairs/Policy total		2	2	2	1	3	1
Foreign affairs/general		1	2	1	1	2	1
Priorities s/b at home		1	-	1	-	1	-
Terrorism/Security total		14	18	9	13	16	12
Terrorism general		11	13	8	11	13	9
Security/Safety		3	5	1	2	3	3
War/Iraq		31	28	36	30	23	39
Budget deficits		1	1	1	-	1	1
Taxes		1	1	-	1	2	-
Poverty/Homelessness		1	-	1	1	1	1
Healthcare/Costs/Insurance/HMO's		2	3	1	3	2	2
Medicare		1	-	1	1	-	1
Senior issues		1	-	1	-	1	-
Lack of ethics/Morality		1	3	-	1	1	1
Family breakdown/Family values		1	1	-	1	-	1
Politicians/Campaigns		4	2	5	5	4	4
Immigration		1	1	1	1	-	1
Other		6	8	3	6	6	6
DK/NA		2	2	1	2	2	2
9. Would you favoror oppose having United States forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power?
							Most important problem
	Tot	Rep	Dem	Ind	Men	Wom	Econ	Terror	War
Favor	57	84	36	53	63	50	51	81	50
Oppose	35	10	56	37	30	41	39	14	42
DK/NA	8	6	8	9	7	9	9	5	8
10. What do you think ismoreimportant -
A) For the UnitedStates to move quickly against Iraq, even if that means acting without the support of the United Nations Security Council
or
B) for the United States to keep trying to win support from the United Nations Security Council, even if that means moving more slowly against Iraq?
							Most important problem
	Tot	Rep	Dem	Ind	Men	Wom	Econ	Terror	War
A) Move quickly without support	38	63	23	32	44	34	36	54	33
B) Wait for supp/Move more slowly	56	34	69	61	51	60	61	43	63
DK/NA	6	3	8	7	5	7	3	3	4

[redbone]

Dream on...

[RJCogburn]

Hey, Laz, I didn't know you came 'round here no more. ;^)

I would certainly agree that at least the economy is worse than many on the right, Bushbots or not, say it is.

[Lazamataz]

Hey, Laz, I didn't know you came 'round here no more. ;^)

Sparingly. Other priorities, like getting a job.

[ez]

Quinnipiac University Poll regularly surveys residents in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania

Bush is doing quite well considering the states polled...

[meyer]

The economy is as bad as I have ever seen it.

First, its good to see you post! I hadn't seen a post from you in ages.

As for the economy - I am of the school that it isn't as bad as portrayed, but that may be a local thing. In these parts, unemployment is around 4%, houses are being built at record levels, and the area's new car sales have soundly beaten the figures from last year. People are real busy around here.

In contrast, I remember living in Cleveland, Ohio in the late '70's when local unemployment was around 14%, interest rates were very high and the big local employers, Ford, Republic (LTV) Steel, and the like weren't doing very well. I beleive that Chrysler got its bail-out in that era. I don't think we've stooped to that level - and I hope we don't, but if we don't get the Iraq issue behind us, we could.

I hope you're not comparing today's economy with that of the mid-late 90's - that was an overheated economy by any measurement. I would compare the late '90's to the roaring '20's, but on a lessor scale. To Bush's credit, he hasn't resorted to FDR-like remedies to the slowdown.

Keep in touch with FR - your posts are valued as far as I'm concerned.

[Lazamataz]

I hope you're not comparing today's economy with that of the mid-late 90's - that was an overheated economy by any measurement.

No, I am comparing working to not-working.

Keep in touch with FR - your posts are valued as far as I'm concerned.

I will, but sparingly.

And thank you for your support. It's touching during this difficult time.

[skinkinthegrass]

Dear Sirs,
Grovelling is not required...I use to live in the great state of Texas ('67-'69 TX Aggie-USAAF)...They (TSHL) had no one to defend them :(... I'm not peta-wacko...Am am. herp...Its' greener/cooler/more water in KY...more blue-tailed 5-lined skinks in KY...:)

[Jhoffa_]

I believe that a sizeable number will congeal behind anyone that opposes Dubya.

Doesn't matter if it's Hillary, Dean or Alfred E Newman on the ticket.

They want ABD, Anybody But Dubya.

[Dane]

As for the economy - I am of the school that it isn't as bad as portrayed, but that may be a local thing.

I agree, in Dec. 82 the national unemeployment rate was 10.8% and Reagan and the Republicans had suffered a 26 seat loss in the House the month before which is in sharp contrast of Bush 43 gaining seats in his first midterm election.

Reagan went on to crush Mondale in Nov. 84. There is a lot of time. In 92 the economy was in full recovery, but the press was hellbent for Clinton, add Perot's tilting at windmills, and Bush 41's lackluster campaign led to Klintoon's win with 43% of the vote.

When Perot first dropped out of the race in 92, Bush 41 pulled ahead of Clinton. If it wasn't for Perot, Clinton would have never have won, IMO. Also there was no mass Internet availiablity in 92 and the press had full reign to put out thier propaganda for Clinton.

[Roscoe]

Maybe the Rats should consider running an anonymous candidate.

[anniegetyourgun]

1. I don't consider this level of growth to be "utterly trashed", though it could be better. What we lived with under Jimmah Carter was "utterly trashed"....
2. I realize Americans will often sell their votes to Mammon. That's why I worry about another Clinton.
3. Lastly, I don't buy this particular poll - I'm not convinced Quinnipiac is worth much.

[Always Right]

Too bad the Democrats don't have anyone with the name 'unnamed'.

[lawdude]

Ya, I might vote for the "un-named" candidate too, considering that the 25-30 dems currently running aren't worth the armpit sweat of the president we have now.

What a bunch of losers~!

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

LOL I read that Sharpton was highest of all the dems in the polls.

[KC_Conspirator]

This poll is crap. His approval ratings don't jibs with this poll. They must have conducted this poll at the NY NEA meeting.

[Wavyhill]

Your analysis is partly true, but only partly. Presidents can and do have effect on the economy. By pressuring Congress to cut taxes, Presidents can stimulate investment; by raising them, they suppress investment. Kennedy and Reagan reduced taxes, and caused economic booms; Hoover and Roosevelt increased them, leading to a long depression. Clinton may seem like an exception at first, but only because he benefitted from the Reagan tax cuts. After Clinton's tax hike, the top tax level was still lower than it had been before Reagan cut taxes. Once the Bush tax cuts are sped up, the economy will renew its boom.

[meyer]

No, I am comparing working to not-working.

I understand. I hadn't realized that you were looking until after I put up my previous post. The microeconomic is what drives peoples' vote, not the macro. You're definately experiencing the downside of micro. Best of luck with the search and don't give up!

BTW, if I may be so bold, I recall your being in the computer industry, but I can't recall what area. Where's your expertise?

[meyer]

When Perot first dropped out of the race in 92, Bush 41 pulled ahead of Clinton. If it wasn't for Perot, Clinton would have never have won, IMO. Also there was no mass Internet availiablity in 92 and the press had full reign to put out thier propaganda for Clinton.

Sadly, I was one of the Perot people. I had been a Reagan democrat prior to that, had voted for GB-1 in term one, and was at something of a crossroads when that election occurred. I, like many Perot voters, was tired of the political games and wanted something new.

Hindsight is, of course, 20-20 - Perot split the vote and the 'toon won without anything close to a majority (a little fact that doesn't get in the way when democrats talk about the 2000 election). I always wonder how that vote would have went had Perot not entered the scene. I also wonder at times what would have happened if Perot would have won. Now THAT would be an interesting scenario. :^)

[Dane]

Sadly, I was one of the Perot people. I had been a Reagan democrat prior to that, had voted for GB-1 in term one, and was at something of a crossroads when that election occurred. I, like many Perot voters, was tired of the political games and wanted something new.

I will never forget that. When Perot first dropped out Bush 41 surged ahead and then Perot entered the race again and was a deciding factor.

I always wonder how that vote would have went had Perot not entered the scene. I also wonder at times what would have happened if Perot would have won. Now THAT would be an interesting scenario. :^)

I do too. If Bush 41 had won there probably would never had been the Newt revolution of 94, where pubs won the House for the first time in 40 years, and kept electoral control of both houses during the 90's and they would have kept that streak of electoral victories alive for the Congress elected in 2000 if Jumpin Jimmy hadn't decided to become Tom Daschle's toadie.

Perot made some amends by endorsing Bush 43 before the 2000 election.

All history is very intersting, but when I see this thread, I recall my dad, a big Reagan supporter, saying in 82 that Reagan couldn't make it in 84, and we lived in an area where the economy was just as bad as Cleveland's.

We got 19 months till election day and I think that Bush 43 is following the Reagan model(ala Karl Rove, i.e. ala Michael Deaver).

[epow]

I fully agree on the tax cut issue. No question that tax policy is critically important to the growth of the economy, either negatively or positively. But I don't think it is all-important to the exclusion of all other factors.

One of my intentions was to point out that the Democrats have often been extraordinarily fortunate to have followed GOP administrations which were turned out because Americans believed they had mismanaged the economy. Witness the uncanny good luck of high-tax proponent Clinton taking office just as the economy was entering the greatest boom of the century, no credit to him. Whether caused by a cycle or by fiscal policies, the onset of upturns and downturns, often resulting from tax policies, seem to lag behind their cause at a slow enough tempo to usually insure a Democratic president a successful economy during his tenure purely by chance. OTOH, a downturn, usually caused by some destructive Democratic policy, seems to always lag sufficiently to insure the downturn occurs at some point in a GOP administration, usually around election time. Call it lucky timing I suppose. The Carter and Reagan presidencies were both exceptions to the broad rule.

One of my reasons for assigning considerable importance to the cyclical nature of national economies is the Clinton administration's exceptional run of good fortune in the 1990s. There were no significant tax cuts during his tenure that I remember after his first year major tax increase, yet the economy continued to expand dramatically for another seven years afterward until the cycle caught up to it in his last year. Or did the "lag" between his tax hike and an inevitable result account for his good fortune? I'm not sure, but seven years seems like a longer than normal lag.

Let's see, huge tax hike enacted during a period of slow but increasing economic growth, followed 6-7 years later by downturn, right? Well, OK, maybe I'm giving too much importance to the business cycle phenomenon, but I still think it's an important factor.