CNN's poll shows that Kerry and Edwards lead Bush

[NHPolitico]

Kerry leads Bush in new poll
Bush's approval numbers dip


Sen. John Kerry leads President Bush in a new poll.

(CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner among Democrats vying for their party's presidential nomination, leads President Bush in a head-to-head matchup, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and retired Gen. Wesley Clark also emerge as formidable opponents, according to hypothetical matchups in the poll, which found a decline in Bush's approval numbers.

The poll, based on interviews with 1,001 adult Americans, including 562 likely voters, was conducted in the days after the New Hampshire primary.

The poll underscores both Kerry's momentum after his wins in New Hampshire and Iowa, and increased favorability among Democrats in general as they dominate political news with their primaries and steady criticism of Bush.

When the 562 likely voters were asked for their choice from a Bush v. Kerry race, 53 percent of those picked Kerry, and 46 percent favored Bush.

When that same group was asked to pick between Edwards and Bush, the numbers were 49 percent for Edwards and 48 percent for Bush. With a Bush/Clark face-off, Bush was favored by 50 percent of those surveyed and Clark, 47 percent.

Howard Dean, the onetime front-runner in the Democratic field, had a poorer showing against Bush, 45 percent to 52 percent for the incumbent.

The question of choice for president among likely voters had a sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The margin or error was different for other questions, as some questions were posed to likely voters, others to just Democrats and others to all adults surveyed.

Kerry was the overwhelming choice of registered Democrats for the presidential nomination. Support for Kerry as the Democratic nominee stood at 49 percent, compared to 14 percent for Dean and 13 percent for Edwards. The other Democratic candidates were in the single digits.

The poll showed Bush's job approval rating at 49 percent among all the adults surveyed, the first time since he became president that his job approval has dipped below 50 percent. A month ago his rating was at 60 percent, as he enjoyed a spike in approval after the capture of Saddam Hussein.

A majority of those polled now say they disapprove of Bush's handing of the economy, foreign affairs, the situation in Iraq and health care. The poll also showed the nation evenly divided -- 49 percent to 49 percent -- on the question of whether it was worth going to war in Iraq, marking the first time approval of the war has dropped below 50 percent.

However, a majority of those polled -- 54 percent -- said they do not believe Bush deliberately misled the country on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, while 43 percent said they believe there was deception.
Despite the apparent rising fortunes of Democrats, the poll showed Bush enjoyed advantages over his rivals in several areas.

For example Bush was seen as a stronger leader than Kerry -- 53 percent to 39 percent --and, despite Kerry's military service in Vietnam, more patriotic than the senator from Massachusetts, 49 percent to 34 percent.

And,on the question of Iraq, more Americans trusted Bush than Kerry, 50 percent to 44 percent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

When that same group was asked to pick between Edwards and Bush, the numbers were 49 percent for Edwards and 48 percent for Bush.

It seems that Edwards has good chances too!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

A majority of those polled now say they disapprove of Bush's handing of the economy, foreign affairs, the situation in Iraq and health care.

Sounds that Democrats are strong on domestic issues and Bush can't celebrate with foreign affairs.  

¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
However, a majority of those polled -- 54 percent -- said they do not believe Bush deliberately misled the country on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, while 43 percent said they believe there was deception.

43 percent sounds very high! Bush is nevertheless the President of the United States!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

But.

On the question of Iraq, more Americans trusted Bush than Kerry, 50 percent to 44 percent.

If Bush doesn't turn around his job approval ratings, Kerry will win.  Hell, if Jake Delhomme can pull a half-dozen Hail Mary's out of his ass like he did Sunday night, Kerry can beat Bush.

[NHPolitico]

It's not true that Bush hasn't been heard from lately. There was a little thing called the State of the Union address 2 weeks ago, and Bush got zero bounce out of that. That had the potential for a lot more impact nationally than Bush would have gotten by campaigning.

Gustaf--The convention of the incumbent party does usually provide a bounce, yes. Maybe not nearly as much as the convention of the party out of power since the challenger is not as well known beforehand and thus gets a boost in name ID as well, but the incumbents have historically gotten a decent boost from their conventions too.

I think Bush gets a boost from NYC if they promote people like Arnold and Rudy.  Bush has to get some Democrat votes to win.  He has to have some Bush Democrats and he needs moderate faces to do that. He can't just get Republicans and Independents.

[NHPolitico]

Remember these polls on Bush losing mean nothing. Polls said in 1984 that Mondale was ahead of Reagan. Reagan won almost all 50 states.

Mondale never lead Reagan in the calendar year of 1984 in Gallup polls.

Not only that, but if Bush does beat Kerry, it would mark the first time since 1948 that an incumbent president came from behind to win reelection after having trailed in ANY Gallup poll at any point over the course of the election year.

Not only Reagan in 1984, but also Clinton in 1996, Nixon in 1972, Johnson in 1964, and Eisenhower in 1956 all led their eventual November opponent in every single Gallup poll for the entire year of the election.

That's not necessarily all that relevant, but it's still something to ponder.

You are wrong. You might even be wrong in more than one of those cases, but you are certainly wrong regarding 1996.

Gallup (1,039 -- REGISTERED VOTERS;  ± 3 PCT PTS)
96 Jan 12-15  (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 48-49-3
96 Jan 5-7  (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 46-49-5

[NHPolitico]

Remember these polls on Bush losing mean nothing. Polls said in 1984 that Mondale was ahead of Reagan. Reagan won almost all 50 states.

Mondale never lead Reagan in the calendar year of 1984 in Gallup polls.

Not only that, but if Bush does beat Kerry, it would mark the first time since 1948 that an incumbent president came from behind to win reelection after having trailed in ANY Gallup poll at any point over the course of the election year.

Not only Reagan in 1984, but also Clinton in 1996, Nixon in 1972, Johnson in 1964, and Eisenhower in 1956 all led their eventual November opponent in every single Gallup poll for the entire year of the election.

That's not necessarily all that relevant, but it's still something to ponder.

You are wrong. You might even be wrong in more than one of those cases, but you are certainly wrong regarding 1996.

Gallup (1,039 -- REGISTERED VOTERS;  ± 3 PCT PTS)
96 Jan 12-15  (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 48-49-3
96 Jan 5-7  (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 46-49-5

Well, he used the data from a Gallup-maintained page. You can check his link, it shows Clinto ahead consistently. So you should back up your data.
It's possible that the Gallup graph shows a January average.

1936 Roosevelt continuously in the lead (but margin seriously underestimated)
1940 dito
1944 dito without the sentence in brackets
1948 Dewey overtakes Truman in June, leads right to the end (ie, wrong result predicted)
1952 Eisenhower consistently ahead
1956 dito
1960 lead swinging back and fro several times, final prediction a two point lead for Kennedy
1964 Gallup predicted an even worse shopwing for Goldwater (at one point they had him trailing by 54 points)
1968 Humphrey overtook Nixon for a while in May and June
1972 very accurate throughout the year
1976 Carter ahead from the beginning, 33% up in July, then comes down heavily. The very final figure shows Ford ahead (ie, wrong result predicted)
1980 Carter leads til june (at the beginning of the year by 29 points), Reagan overtakes and has a 16 point lead in August, the fall sees Carter narrowly overhead again, Reagan overtaking him at the last poll (and even then his margin is underestimated)
1984 Reagan leads throughout (at one point in august, the lead is down to one point. Soon after, however, the predicted results takes on the proportions of the final tally)
1988 Dukakis ahead from april to august
1992 Bush ahead into may, Perot in may and june, Bush again in late June. From early july to the end, Clinton leads. He looks headed for a landslide in August, but in October its very close.
1996 Clinton consistently ahead. Except for a few bumps in both directions, even the margin is quite consistently accurate.
2000 the lead changes about as often as in 1960, but there's a point in October when Bush leads by 13 points, and even at the end he's two points ahead

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/polls/cnn.usa.gallup/

[NHPolitico]

Remember these polls on Bush losing mean nothing. Polls said in 1984 that Mondale was ahead of Reagan. Reagan won almost all 50 states.

Mondale never lead Reagan in the calendar year of 1984 in Gallup polls.

Not only that, but if Bush does beat Kerry, it would mark the first time since 1948 that an incumbent president came from behind to win reelection after having trailed in ANY Gallup poll at any point over the course of the election year.

Not only Reagan in 1984, but also Clinton in 1996, Nixon in 1972, Johnson in 1964, and Eisenhower in 1956 all led their eventual November opponent in every single Gallup poll for the entire year of the election.

That's not necessarily all that relevant, but it's still something to ponder.

You are wrong. You might even be wrong in more than one of those cases, but you are certainly wrong regarding 1996.

Gallup (1,039 -- REGISTERED VOTERS;  ± 3 PCT PTS)
96 Jan 12-15  (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 48-49-3
96 Jan 5-7  (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 46-49-5

Well, he used the data from a Gallup-maintained page. You can check his link, it shows Clinto ahead consistently. So you should back up your data.
It's possible that the Gallup graph shows a January average.

1936 Roosevelt continuously in the lead (but margin seriously underestimated)
1940 dito
1944 dito without the sentence in brackets
1948 Dewey overtakes Truman in June, leads right to the end (ie, wrong result predicted)
1952 Eisenhower consistently ahead
1956 dito
1960 lead swinging back and fro several times, final prediction a two point lead for Kennedy
1964 Gallup predicted an even worse shopwing for Goldwater (at one point they had him trailing by 54 points)
1968 Humphrey overtook Nixon for a while in May and June
1972 very accurate throughout the year
1976 Carter ahead from the beginning, 33% up in July, then comes down heavily. The very final figure shows Ford ahead (ie, wrong result predicted)
1980 Carter leads til june (at the beginning of the year by 29 points), Reagan overtakes and has a 16 point lead in August, the fall sees Carter narrowly overhead again, Reagan overtaking him at the last poll (and even then his margin is underestimated)
1984 Reagan leads throughout (at one point in august, the lead is down to one point. Soon after, however, the predicted results takes on the proportions of the final tally)
1988 Dukakis ahead from april to august
1992 Bush ahead into may, Perot in may and june, Bush again in late June. From early july to the end, Clinton leads. He looks headed for a landslide in August, but in October its very close.
1996 Clinton consistently ahead. Except for a few bumps in both directions, even the margin is quite consistently accurate.
2000 the lead changes about as often as in 1960, but there's a point in October when Bush leads by 13 points, and even at the end he's two points ahead

It's semantics, I guess. The Gallup poll I cited was a two-man, not a three-man poll. Still, it does point to weakness on Clinton's part the first month of his re-election year.