Economy Downs Bush's Re-Election Support (Bush's Reelect Numbers At 50% Or Lower)

The Guardian ^ | Wednesday June 25, 2003 7:19 AM | WILL LESTER (AP)

[Russian Sage]

Economy Downs Bush's Re-Election Support

Wednesday June 25, 2003 7:19 AM

By WILL LESTER

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush basks in high approval ratings, but when potential voters are pressed about giving him a second term, the numbers drop, a reflection of worries about the struggling economy and a general wait-and-see attitude so far ahead of the election.

Bush's overall approval ratings have remained at 60 percent or higher in most polls since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But now that the electorate is turning to thinking about Bush's handling of the economy and wondering who the Democrats will nominate, the president's re-elect numbers are at 50 percent or lower in several polls.

In a recent CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, 50 percent said they would vote for Bush and 38 percent backed the unknown Democratic candidate, with the rest undecided. Those numbers aren't very different from those garnered by Bush's father in June 1991, when the commander in chief was praised for the U.S. success in the Persian Gulf War and the Democrats were scrambling for a candidate.

Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in the 1992 election.

``With job approval, you're asking how they feel right now,'' said Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup poll. Bush's job approval ratings won't accurately reflect his potential until March or April next year, Newport said.

The current poll also found that 37 percent of Democrats approve of Bush's job performance, but only a third of those Democrats who approve would vote to re-elect him. Among independents, the re-elect numbers weren't as high as the approval ratings.

``What this means is that Democrats and independents who lean Democratic still want to consider other choices,'' said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. ``Bush will still have to convince swing voters that he's the right person for the job once a Democratic candidate emerges.

``It also says the public wants an election campaign and wants to see what the Democratic candidate will say,'' Kohut said.

Bush's re-elect numbers are even lower in the Ipsos-Cook Political Report tracking poll, which showed a drop for the president from April to June, a time when the nation's focus shifted from the U.S.-led war against Iraq to the economy, Medicare and tax cuts.

In June, 42 percent of those polled said they would definitely vote to re-elect Bush, and 31 percent said they would definitely vote for someone else. Bush had a 19-point advantage over an unnamed opponent in the April survey by the Ipsos-Cook Political Report.

Thomas Riehle, president of Ipsos Public Affairs, said the reason was simple: It's the economy.

For Democrats, struggling with a field of nine candidates and facing a Bush fund-raising machine that has raked in millions, the numbers provide some hope - and a challenge. Veteran pollster Warren Mitofsky said who the Democrats pick will influence the support for Bush's re-election.

``The real question for the Democrats is will they choose a candidate who's as good as people are looking for?'' Mitofsky said.

Pollsters also point to an inherent problem in asking people whether they favor the president or a hypothetical opponent. ``People can pick their favorite candidate, or they could pick someone who's not even in the field,'' said Doug Schwartz, director of the Quinnipiac University poll. ``People can pick their own fantasy candidate.''

[Reagan Man]

If you want to know, try looking through the three websites mentioned in the article. Go to CNN, USA Today, and/or the Gallup websites. They usually list the criteria used.

[Russian Sage]

I agree, Bayh seems unusually level-headed for a RAT.

Then how can he be nominated?

[mewzilla]

Goo idea, but they usually don't give out the kind of info I want to see in order to jusge the validity of the poll. I went to The Guardian's web site and they had bupkis on the methodology.

[mewzilla]

Goo=Good (sigh...)

[Reagan Man]

I know for a fact that Gallup use to list the criteria, or methodology employed in their polling. Unless thats changed recently, it should still be there.

[Dan from Michigan]

It comes down to state by state. I expect 2004 to be very close.

[jmaroneps37]

From now until election Monday, we will see these rat psyops polls designed to demoralize us. Don't read this shiite.

[mewzilla]

I just went to Gallup's web site, couldn't find the info for this particular poll.

[Reagan Man]

Check this link out.

[Salvation]

And we are supposed to believe 'The Guardian"?

[My2Cents]

I agree. Evan Bayh looks tough. He's been good at appearing reasonable, something the vast majority of Democrats aren't. But whenever I see him on a news show, he's so "moderate" in tone he appears to be a "Stepford wife."

[mewzilla]

I saw that. Here's what I like to know when I look at a poll: when it was taken, registered or likely voters, how many people polled, how the people to be polled were selected, what was the exact wording of the questions asked, the margin of error. Without that info I'm not going to bother with the poll.

[CyberAnt]

"numbers are better against live democrat"

Yes - you are so right - Rush was talking about this story today and said it's just typical spin from the left - they just keep trying to prove Bush is vulnerable in the election.

And ... as Rush pointed out - as soon as you put a live democrat against Bush - Bush's numbers go way up! Of course, that not what the spin from the left will tell you.

[LS]

When you put any of the "nine dwarfs," especially the French-looking John F. Kerry or Howard ("I'm a nut") Dean on a ticket, watch the numbers shift DRASTICALLY against the Dems.

[Reagan Man]

Just trying to be helpful, bucko. It would appear Gallup is holding their info/data cards close these days.

Here's my last effort. Link and scroll down. It includes the poll in question.

And next time, be a little more grateful.

[bulldawg]

These polls about the election 16 months from now are complete nonsense. Pollsters take them to get their name in the paper, no other reason. They know it is unscientific - and it should be considered unethical as well. The fact is no accurate polling is possible until after both conventions when both parties have a candidate - President Bush and whoever the loser will be. Until then the public as a whole is not paying attention.

[MainstreamConservative]

Bayh is very articulate and good at appearing reasonable. Plus, his record as governor shows that he's no tax and spend liberal. That's what scares me. If he beats Hillary! he will more than likely beat who ever we nominate. His experience in Washington will help him solidify his national security crendentials, and he already has executive experience. Even more important, he's wildly popular in a heavily republican state, Indiana, so he knows how to win in hostile (to a democrat) territory.

[MainstreamConservative]

I'd love to see Kerrey get the nomination. Can you say "elitist snob?" If Dean gets the nomination, the democrats can say good night. The strongest democrats currently running are actually the dullest; Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt. Lieberman can appeal to swing voters because, on the whole, is record in Washington is farily moderate, and he has been a champion of restrictions against music compainies that print obscene records, an issue many swing voters care about. Gephardt can appeal to blue collar workers and even social conservatives in the democratic party who would otherwise vote for Bush, largely because of his immage as a blue collar worker who's "down to earth." Plus, both (particularly Lieberman) pass the basic national security sniff test (basically did they support the Iraq conflict and an agressive pursuit of the war on terror).

[justshutupandtakeit]

He is the only RAT who seems to be an American.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Good question but don't bother us while we run up our paranoid fantasies. Anything can happen.