Zogby: Bush would lose to every Pres. since Carter, but beats Kerry by 1%

[DeepModem Mom]

I post this not to start a debate on Kerry as a candidate, or his campaign, but to express my bewilderment as to who we can best put forward as a candidate in '08. Part of this finding has nothing to do with Kerry, of course, and everything to do with the Right's ability to "Swiftboat" almost anyone.

Bush 44%, Clinton, 46
Bush 34, GHW Bush, 41
Bush 20, Reagan 59
Bush 42, Carter 50
Bush 48, Kerry 47


http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1020

[flpoljunkie]

1. This is truly sad that Kerry would still lose to Bush. Astonishing!

[Mass]

5. Clinton's result is not that great though (Kerry % is still higher).

Amazing how Carter does well though. May be people will start to recognize he is better than others.

[bmcatt]

12. Jimmy Carter proves that ex-presidents can be good

Talk about "growing further" after leaving the job.

Hey, he was just a one-term president... Maybe we could get President Carter to run in 2008.

[flpoljunkie]

19. Carter's numbers well deserved. Will cling to your observation re Kerry.

[flaminbats]

48. remember the 2.9% margin of error..

this means Clinton and Kerry have the same level of support, and both are tied with Bush. I agree that it is essential for Democrats to understand why Carter now leads Bush by eight points.

I think narrowing the difference of support between Carter and Democrats like Clinton & Kerry can make our party competitive again. Sure Carter had a bad year in 1980, but imagine how much more popular he could have been if he had waited four years to run for President! He would now have more support than Reagan in all of these polls.

[karynnj]

41. I would question how or if they normalized the sample

If they asked who people voted for then used weights from the official results - any Bush voters who self report as Kerry will not be counted as changing.

[okieinpain]

54. NO SHIT.. excuse the french, but that is just freakin amazing that

kerry would still come out behind bush. that just goes to show how ignorant the american public is. they take anything that is shown on tv as the gospel truth.

[Mass]

2. This has mainly to do with the fact that they were president

and Kerry is not.

[Totally Committed]

18. I agree this could be a factor. n/t

TC

[Merlot]

3. After we put diebold away, any candidate will do just fine, I'm sure.

[Clark2008]

4. I don't know about that.

I like Kerry, personally, but he was just too detached to win over any red states - and we have to do that, Diebold or not.

Now, whether it's that the Reich-wing media has taken over, or Diebold or whatever, I still think red-staters - even the moderate ones - couldn't really find anything to "cozy" up to with Kerry. They felt he didn't and couldn't represent them (and I'm speaking of the swing voters, not the die-hard Republicans).

[Totally Committed]

6. I would support Wes Clark to the hilt...

His honest, courageous, and compassionate. He has truly Democratic ideals and beliefs.

And, most importantly, I believe he can win against the other side.

TC

[emulatorloo]

10. As we all will, if he is nominated -- however he is gonna get "Roved" too

so we will need to be damn prepared.

[Totally Committed]

15. I think any Dem will get "Roved"...

but, I just feel confident that Wes will prevail.

He is just an extraordinary person. He has a spine, a mind, and a heart -- all in working order!

TC

[emulatorloo]

7. Rove Machine never got to take on Clinton, Reagan and Carter directly

The Rove Machine is damn effective.

[Mass]

14. Even with that, Clinton % is still only 46 %..

Amazing how many people cant choose between him and Bush?

How is that possible?

[emulatorloo]

16. Arkansas Project was a success I guess!

People forgot how good things were, now just remember the slime spread by the Mighty Right Wing Wurlitzer.

[lyonn]

28. The Rove machine works because the Dems allow it

Why did the Kerry people meekly answer the viet nam issue. Kerry showed his stuff by going to VN then coming back and stating that the war was a mistake, yet, that was barely explained. Many of us at the time were excited that someone in his position would plead for the troops. Ya gotta hit people on the head, rove knows this and the Dems appear to not really get it. Maybe too civilized or ceberal to understand the repubs. Kerry killed his chances when he said he would'nt do anything different knowing what he knows now about going to war in Iraq. Geez. Bottom line, Dems need to speak out for we the people. The hell with doing the politically correct thing.

Barbara Boxer just e-mailed me asking us to sign petition to the pres. to allow the Guard units from LA, AL, MS to come home to help. Absolutely needs to be done.

[blm]

8. Only when voting machines are exposed, then, and only then will Dems

be able to take office.

[davidinalameda]

9. the sad thing is that Poppy would beat him

:rofl:

[emulatorloo]

11. That scares me -- because what will Baby Bush do to us to express his rage

His rivalrly w Poppy seems to drive so much of his thinking/agenda.

[DeepModem Mom]

13. I noted that, too. Pardon, but Shrub went to war and put away Saddam...

IMO to show Poppy whose d*** was bigger. And he's still losing to him by seven points!

[TayTay]

17. We are still an evenly divided nation

48% - 47% is about as evenly divided as we can get. Nothing has changed. We, as Dems, still have to make the case for change and that we, as Dems, can do a better job than the Rethugs.

Nothing has changed.

[mrcheerful]

22. yeah divided we stand should be a wake up call

As long as the republicans pandor to the religious and the special interest groups america will remain divided. These religious fanantics are just as dangerous to america as any terrorist groups out there. You know them, they crawl around in frount of womens health clinics and planned parent hood clinics. They claim they don't approve of the ones that blow up these clinics or kill the doctors that provide health care to women that can't afford health care, yet behind closed doors they cheer them on. The right wing is dangerous to a free america, they think they are being attacked because liberals and democrats refuse to bow down to them and their religious dogma. Look at the fear tactics being used even as we sit here, democrats are weak towards our enemies yet I have yet to see a democratic president use a tragdy to start a war with an innocent country. Notice the sheepicans think they are safer today then ever before, but if anything this mess in NO should be a warning call that this country is far from safe. If a hurricane can cause this much confusion and indecision with a weeks warning, just think what another terrorist attack will be like. We are seeing what GW means by a safer america, only those that can afford to not live in the USA are safe, the rest of us will have to fend for ourselves. As long as the sheepicans, or as the media calls them the Reagan democrats, fear the thought of change we are doomed to face more defeats to the republicans.

[Toots]

20. It is obvious that this is a poll from a right leaning area

Clinton left office with a 67% approval rating. Reagan left with a 62% approval rating yet they have Reagan beating Bush* by three to one and Clinton barely edging him out. It is a bogus poll.

[Brightmore]

23. According to Zogby

The poll was taken from a randon sample nationwide.

[Mass]

24. of likely voters (whatever that means for a ballot that is impossible)?

The poll by itself is meaningless.

However, I have a different take on this poll.

We have 2 groups of people:

1/ Carter, Reagan, and Bush I : all represent a old situation, that many people do not remember, or not clearly. They do not represent current politics, let alone current democrats. Their clear advantage against Bush shows that Bush is really in trouble with the people.

2/ Clinton and Kerry, however, represent the party leadership. The fact that they are tied with Bush is trouble for the democrats, as it shows that people dont see the democrats as clearly different than the Republicans.

FWIW, this is my take on the poll.

[Time for change]

27. This poll makes little sense to me

Clinton left office with a 60+% approval rating, and Bush's is down to 41%, yet Clinton barely beats him? I why does Reagon beat him by so much -- Reagon's approval rating was lower than Clinton's when he left office.

Somebody must be missing something here.

[lyonn]

29. Could it be

that Zogby and all the others have a list of the "best" people to call? The latest polls on this admin. response to Katrina don't make sense. I fear even the polls are rigged. duh

[Time for change]

34. I'm very confused by this

I don't believe that Zogby is pro-Bush. He repeatedly predicted a Kerry victory -- very unusual for a pollster to make a prediction like that so long before an election.

Something just doesn't add up here, IMO, but I don't know what to make of it.

[tritsofme]

38. This is pathetic

Now Zogby rigs his polls for the Bush administration too?

I thought only Rasmussen and Gallup did that.

If he helped rig polls, you'd think Rove would have given him better numbers last November..

[Time for change]

68. It is very difficult for me to believe that Zogby would rig polls

But I think that there is something about these polls that we don't understand. I believe that there is some explanation that we are missing. It is VERY difficult for me to believe that Bush would beat Kerry in a Presidential election now.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that in times of crisis a President's numbers are always inflated. As soon as the crisis is over, maybe we'll see Bush's numbers plummet even further.

[Yupster]

65. Reagan kills Bush because

Republicans love Reagan as god so they'd rather have Reagan than Bush, and

Democrats hate Bush like Satan, so they'd rather have Reagan than Bush.

When Republicans and Democrats would both rather have Reagan than Bush you get quite a landslide.

[Brightmore]

21. I'm amazed at the tie between Clinton & Bush Jr.

[AlGore-08.com]

33. Not really that amazing. Perot got almost 20% of the vote in 1992

And about 8% in 1996, when he wasn't even running.

[liberalpragmatist]

25. This probably is because the others won

People can remember other presidencies and know that they were better.

The most interesting number for me is the Bush 20%, Reagan 59% - that shows that most Republicans know this guy is an empty suit but are so blinded by partisanship that they can't concieve ANY Democrat being better than Bush. But show them aReagan and they'll be more than happy to take him.

[sandnsea]

26. 59% For Reagan, there's the problem

People still don't get what a disaster Reagan was. So many young people were raised on Reaganism, economics, foreign policy, social policy. We've got to change people's views of Reagan in order to change their views of Republicans.

And Carter's numbers, those will not make the Bushies happy. Look for an anti-Carter campaign soon.

[lyonn]

30. I'm a former Reaganite and

by the time he left office was a Dem. I felt lied to, his policies were phony, we had the worst economic situation going on in this country with interest rates sky high, bkcy's over the top, the guy was showing his dimentia, and much more. My husband was not affected since he was a suburban atty. that simply made a decent living but so many around us were suffering.

[tritsofme]

61. 59% for Reagan is explained very easily

When Bush the Lesser and Reagan are the only two choices, most Democrats and Republicans choose Reagan.

[FreedomAngel82]

31. Go figure!

Well that's because they've never been under Kerry's leadership.

[AlGore-08.com]

32. Gore beat Smirk despite being smeared much, much, much worse

Gore started out his campaign 20 points behind Smirk, was subjected to the most hostile press in modern history, was outspent 2 to 1, and had almost no support from the party (because the assumption was he'd lose in a landslide, so factions inside the party were busy trying to his projected loss as "proof" that they should be running the party).

Despite all this, he went on to beat Smirk.

And he's not just a candidate who can beat the smear machine, he's got an unbeatable resume full of examples of visionary leadership (like giving us the Internets). He won't just be a Democratic President. He'll be one of our great Presidents.

[TheFarseer]

36. That's a very strange race to look back on

If you ever see any old Saturday Night Lives or anything in that vein, it's funny how some of them makes jokes indicating that Al Gore is a shoe-in and some make jokes indicating bush is a shoe-in. I wish I had paid more attention so I would remember these details.

[AlGore-08.com]

50. The details are this

The House voted to impeach Clinton
The Senate voted against impeaching Clinton
One month later Gore started his campaign, 20 points behind "any Republican".
Right before the 2000 convention, Gore was still 10 points behind Bush.
By late October, Bush and Gore were in a statistical dead heat, although a lot of polls gave Bush a tiny lead, just above the margin of error. (It was movement in the state polls that made the difference for Gore. At the beginning of the race, Florida was a safe state for Bush. By the end of October, Gore was 4 points ahead of him.)
Gore was outspent by Bush almost 2 to 1, because Gore had accepted campaign spending limits and refused PAC money, while Bush did the opposite. (The disparity was actually greater than that, since Conservative groups like the NRA spent millions to defeat Gore.)

The main hurdle for Gore was the press. They had willingly aided the far right for eight years with nonstop, bogus Clinton scandals, ending in the attempted impeachment. They fawned over all of Gore's opponents: Bradley, McCain (who was expected to win the GOP primary) and Bush. Their coverage was totally bizarre: they ignored major factual errors by Bush (like the fact that his proposed budget was a couple trillion dollars off) and smeared Gore as a pathological liar, "proving" the charge by labeling their own misquotes or true statements by Gore as "lies".

One of the better examples of that is the "Love Story" flap: Gore was ridiculed for almost the entire campaign for having the crazy idea that he and Tipper were the models for the main characters in "Love Story". The source of this flap was that several years before running, Gore had been on a long flight with two Time magazine reporters, and they chatted for hours about stuff like movies. For some reason they got on "Love Story" and Gore mentioned that he had read in an article in the Nashville Tennessean that Eric Segal had modeled the main characters after himself and Tipper. This insignificant, passing remark by Gore was printed as a insignificant, passing remark in a very long story in Time magazine.

Nobody questioned it at the time because it was a true statement. There was such an article in the Tennessean. However, they had misquoted Segal: Segal had said he used Gore and Tommy Lee Jones as models for the main male character in "Love Story". (Segal wrote the book while at Harvard; he lived in the same dorm as Gore and Jones.) This information was all easily verified, especially after the Time reporters and Segal came forward in 2000 to complain that Gore did not lie. But all that happened was that their complaints were either ignored or lied about - - when Segal complained that Gore had really been a model, almost all of the media reported that Segal said he never used Gore as a model.

There hasn't been enough time for real, historical research into why the press acted this way (like there has been for why the McCarthy Era happened), but there were a few journalists at the time who said that they were intentionally going after Gore because he did not trash Clinton - - and because it was just a lot fun to destroy Gore.

But as I said before, the really remarkable thing is that with all these seemingly insurmountable problems, especially the hostile press, Gore still won.

[Imagevision]

35. yeah well, Conyers had overwhelming info Ohio was tampered with

566,000 signed petititions and Bush doesn't even send/acknolwedge Conyers efforts... that's why this little fuck has to go!!! now he's responsible for possibly 10,000 americans dying on our own soil without a terrorist attack -- Bush is too dangerous to leave in play!!


http://downingstreetmemo.com/

[LTRS]

37. Kerry was a phony, fake, horrible candidate

Yes, Bush IS the worst. president. ever. But Kerry -- yuck, too. Sorry, but that is the truth as I see it.

[LittleClarkie]

39. Well, no. That would qualify as your opinion

But we can't all declare our opinions the truth, can we.

So you're saying you think it didn't matter who we elected in 2004. Kerry would have been bad too?

And if you did campaign for him, did you go around with that "ick, yuck, I don't even know why I'm telling you to vote for him" attitude?

Gee, I wonder why he didn't win...(assuming of course)

[LTRS]

63. Apparently the public agrees

So yes, it appears to be the truth rather than an opinion. He didn't win because he was a horrible candidate who could not decide where he stood on the war. At this point, it would be helpful if we, as the dem base, faced that fact so as not to make the same mistake again.

Did I mention that as I campaigned for him? No, of course not. But it was embarassing to hear the question asked over and over again as I went door to door.

[second edition]

72. No, the public doesn't agree- your view is narrow minded

and you refuse to listen to reason.Your lack of knowledge about John Kerry explains why you can say the things you do. I campaigned door to door too, I never once heard the remarks you claim you heard. I received mostly positive comments- and people trying to hand me donation money. You apparently bought into the repubs attack points and didn't know enough about Kerry to actually defend him. It's a shame, but your help possibly hurt his chances.

[wiley]

55. I voted for Kerry and sent lots of money to Kerry

but I specifically warned anyone who would listen that it would be a big mistake to nominate him. But he would have won if not for the disenfranchisement of millions of voters. Actually, either Dean or Clark would have won if they were not ganged up on by their own party.

[LTRS]

64. Correct

We nominated Kerry simply because he was a decorated veteran and had big money behind him. That ain't good enough, folks.

[LittleClarkie]

40. One of these things is not like the others...

One of these things just isn't the same.

Presidents vs one non-president.

Five men who's performance as president is known, vs an unknown commodity.

I reckon folks will always go for the known over the unknown.

I wonder if Zogby could do the "Nixon vs Dubya" thing.

Interesting also that Daddy would beat out Sonny.

[Teaser]

42. People don't want to admit

that they were wrong.

That explains it nicely.

[CdnObserver]

43. That's convenient

Still trying to cover election fraud, it looks like.

What happened to Bush at 36% BEFORE Katrina?

[LittleClarkie]

44. People are more concerned about the victims than being pissed

at Bush. Give them some time for it to soak in.

Also, when our heating bills go up this winter, look for his numbers to plummet. We are essential selfish. If it doesn't affect us, many could give a shit.

[robbedvoter]

45. I voted "other" in the Bush vs kerry choice. In the Zogby poll, not

on Election day - where I wasted my vote for Mr. "Crying in my tea cup"
I suspect the poll result reflects my sentiment, ad kerry DID WIN last November but is reviled now for letting us down.

[Mass]

46. How do you explain Clinton in this case?

[robbedvoter]

53. Clinton beats the Bushes every time - no explanation necessary

[Gloria]

47. Where's Bush vs Gore????????

Apparently, the glow of Bushco hasn't rubbed off on Bill Clinton...so, you can stop riding on the boat, now, Bill...

[Tatiana]

Wes Clark.

He's the only one I can see who has national security and disaster management credentials that are almost smear-proof.

He's part of our party's future.

[robbedvoter]

58. yeah, but Zogby hates him, so he was not included, never is

[meppie-meppie not]

60. Zogby's limitation doesn't have to be anyone else's!

[necso]

49. Ignoring my distrust

of polls generally, I suspect that there is a certain hesitation on people's part to essentially admit that they screwed up on a choice made relatively recently -- and that is hurting them now, as opposed to being just a hypothetical.

But, let's be frank, part of this may be that people were more easily made to dislike our candidate, than would (or could) have been the case for other candidates. (Bill Clinton is (still seen as) a charmer, Billy Carter a good, decent human being -- and Reagan has been elevated to status of a god, although in actual practice he was something else entirely.)

And if you consider the general ineptness of the campaign (which will long influence -- if not forever set -- how Kerry is viewed by many people), we didn't (and "don't") do badly. Of course, we need to run better campaigns, campaigns that have at the top people who understand the electorate. And, of course, we also need all the right (specific) skills involved in the campaigns -- and to extend and improve our (practical) use of modern tools and technologies.

[CityDem]

51. Kerry sucked

He had a golden opportunity to win in 2004 and lost. Bush was beatable and Kerry played it way too conservative after the convention. He was a lousy candidate.

[fedupinBushcountry]

52. Did anyone here contribute to this poll?

I doubt it. Why in the hell do you pay attention to these polls, they mean nothing, and are quite stupid under the circumstances. Geez, cool it with the polls. Polls don't tell me how to vote, I tell myself how to vote. :argh:

[wiley]

56. Who decides whether your vote counts?

[agincourt]

57. Polls like these explain why,

20% of the population thinks the sun rotates around the earth, and 85% can't figure out what radiation is.

[meppie-meppie not]

59. given those numbers I think America would lean towards a Wes Clark

[Clarkie1]

62. Kerry is a good man, but was a poor choice for a candidate.

This is even more confirmation of that...he wasn't able to lose the career politician, "finger to the wind" stereotype, and never will.

[second edition]

70. I disagree- Kerry was a good candidate -the media sabotaged him. n/t

[Ell09]

66. Doesn't pass the smell test

There's simply NO WAY Bush gets within 6-7 percent of Clinton nationwide, much less a virtual tie. Just looking at the percentages it's seems very apparent that a disproportionate amount of right leaning voters were sampled. None of it washes with a president that has a 40% approval rating. Reagan vs Dubya? Does it even matter? I guess you go with the guy who is a little less incompetent than the other guy?

[kick_them_hard]

67. I took this Poll

The question was who would you want vote for President if the elections were held today, then they gave bush43 then all the other past Presidents, then Kerry. So I think alot of people voted for other dems and other people voted for other republicans. So that to me means that alot of other Republicans aren't very happy with that asswipe either. I voted for Clinton because he was the best president and I didnt vote for Kerry because I wouldnt have known how he would be as president. Hope that makes sense to you all. If it was bush vs kerry, I would have voted for Kerry in heartbeat.

[MintOreoCookie]

69. Don't forget that it is much easier to forget the things that past

presidents did. Remember, Carter was terribly unpopular at one time. People forget that. Kerry's candidacy was less than 1 year ago. This does not surprise me.

I would love to see Russell Feingold run for president.

[second edition]

71. The numbers between Kerry and Bush have gotten closer and

closer. This is actually good news for Kerry. I think in another month or two Kerry will over take Bush. People don't want to admit they made a mistake. Bush's terrible presidency will take a little time to sink in for some people. If Kerry keeps up the good works he has been doing and his name remains prominent and referenced I think he has another shot at it. I would absolutely love to see him run again!!! I know a lot of other people who feel that way too. Some on DU don't recognize what it actually takes to be Presidential. Bush is a prime example of non-presidential material. We don't want to make the mistake and assume we need a Dem like Bush to win.