Talk Elections

I wasn't sure about where to put this, so I decided to make a new thread for it! :)

Two recent polls show Bush approval rating dropping. ABC News and the Washington Post shows Bush overall job approval go down to 58-39, in favour of approve. That's still way too good to give the Dems a chance.

A Zogby poll was also released, and showed 50% negative and 49% positive on his job policies.

When asked to choose between a generic candidate and Bush, respondents chose the Democrat, 45-41.

When asked on whether Bush deserves reelection, the result was 48-41 in the negative favour (i.e. 48% wanted a new president).  

Is Zogby unreliable, or might Bush not have the lock on this election that we thought we had?

I've learned not to trust polls too much -- way too much time remaining to start thinking about approval ratings in regards to elections.

Ah, I misread the information in haste. Of course, both polls refer to overall job approval, I just mixed that up with policies on jobs when it came to the Zogby poll.

The ABC-poll shows Bush edging a generic Democrat 48-46 and when asked on who is best suited to handle the nation's problems, he leads 45-44.

58% thinks the economy is a bigger problem than terrorism, and 50% would prefer the Dems in congress to handle the economy, 43% would prefer Bush.

Zogby uses a weird method where 100% of "fair" is considered disapproval.  Zogby also faired very poorly in the 2002 midterms.  Gallup pegged it perfectly in 2002. Just look at the Gallup job approval numbers. Re-elections are about firing the incumbent. If he's got good job approval numbers, he won't be fired.

I agree that Gallup is the most reliable poll.

They messed up big time in Sweden though. In fact, so big that I will never trust them again.

Ok, well then I stand corrected, and I'll say that they are the most accurate poll in the U.S.

They are also the oldest, having been around since 1936.

They did that classic telephone mistake with FDR, right? It's the same company in Sweden and the US, so I'm still suspicious of them... ;)

They may be the most accurate poll, but that Frank Gallup guy on CNN or whatever his name is, he creeps me out.

Frank Newport?

()

He's kind of a squirrelly guy.

That's true and you have to remember that the state of the Union is tonight, so that number is bound to go up.

I'm now a little pessimistic. Few months ago I was sure that Bush is going to lose.  However, now economy and situation in Iraq seem good for him. Democrats must be very successful in their  campaign. I hope that they will.  

Yeah, don't bet the farm on that. I just don't get a sense that that will be the case at all. I don't know why exactly, but I think people basicly are set with Bush. It's helpful to remind people of what he's done, but you can do that with ads, too.  Bush has a base of about 50% support and it goes up about 10 points and back down.  It varies based on what is on the news that day.  Bush is hoping for good news the week of Election Day.

I think it is still to early to predict who people will vote for, even when there hasn't been a democratic nominee selected yet. I'll wait till after the convention in Boston before I get worried.

I'll say it again: poll don't matter until after both conventions.  the Dem could be up by 5-10% before the GOP convention and then Bush may pull ahead again.  Gore got a 10% bounce from his covention.

You shouldn't be worried regardless of what happens in Boston or before then.  

Why's that?

Gallup operate in Finland also. It is most  respected one. I worked there couple of months once. Salary wasn't very good indeed. But I was just student...so that I can handle it.

Maybe your're right. I shouldn't be worried. I am just a bit jittery that our state may go to to the Dems, I can't help it was NH that allowed Bush to have enough electoral votes to contest florida and  Bush nearly lost the state back in '00.

Gallups Iowan, so of course its the best :p

Iowans are proud of being Iowans?

Sorry to break this to you, but they suck. Period. :)

New York is the best state.

No, Minnesota is. :)

You aren't even from Minnesota.

I know, hence the smiley, but I felt I had to speak up for my avatar... :)

Y:)u Use t:):) many smilies.

Well that didn't work.

I :) don't :) get :) what :) you :) mean :)

I guess I'm just a smiling and happy person... see: :)

Let's try again:

Y :) u use t :) :) many smilies.

Still got it!

Out of pride..I will say Illinois is the best state. Followed by New York..and then maybe....Hawaii...and then Alaska for it's beauty.

Nobody lives in Alaska.  I went there in august...outside of Juneau and Anchorage the population is negligible.

Oh yeah? I was there in July....and I won't argue the low population...but the views are amazing...

Blue glaciers.  Cool stuff.

What places did you go to?  I went to Archorage, Seward, Sitka, and Juneau.

You're all wrong. NH is better. We have low taxes and great ski country.

Skiing!  There's something to be proud of.

None of you can top Maryland. We have crabs.

Clever.

The Granite State. We have great granite!

Yall are all wrong!
The best state is of couse, MISSISSIPPI!
Um, yeah. . . Mississippi . . .
It says in our state song: "Go Mississippi!"
We can't be at the bottom forever; there's nowhere to go but up. :)

Wow!  Bush's approvqal will surely go up after this great state of the union speech tonight.


As for best states, look west.  SD, WY, MT--gorgeous states in beauty, with little government interference, low taxes and yes small populations, which is great.  Who wants to be crowded like NY or Cali?

Keep in mind, while Bush's approval ratinf of 58% according to the latest polls at www.nationaljournal.com aren't stellar, Bush is polling better then any other candidate did the January of their election year since Eisenhower in 1956, and you can go check the election results on this site to see how that one went..

I don't know ... I really don't rely on polls ... especially this early in the game.  Bush's father was widely considered unbeatable in '92 and that didn't pan out so well.

To be fair though about the '56 comparison the Democrats really didn't even try that year.  They ran Stevenson who had lost 4 years earlier to Eisenhower.  It was almost as if they had to come up with someone to run and Stevenson agreed to be the sacrificial lamb.

I went to (in no particular order) Fairbanks, Fort Yukon, Denali National Park, Anchorage, Seward, Sitka,  and Ketchitkan.

We were SUPPOSE to go to Skagway and Juneau too (I really wanted to see Juneau the capital) but believe it or not...and I SWEAR I'm telling the truth...our cruise ship hit an iceberg. It hit it BEFORE we boarded, so we stayed in port a few days so they can patch up the leak, and we had to miss a few ports of call. For the inconvience, the cruise line offered us a HALF OFF cruise back to Alaska. So I'm headed there once AGAIN...this summer...

Oh we're back on the road to Alaska....we're back on the road way up north...

Bing Crosby and Bob Hope...for those of you who didn't get why I sung that song...............oh nevermind.....

Bush 41 was on an obvious downtrend line in November the year before the election. Bush hasn't shown the same. His numbers have stabilized and I expect them to stay that way. They'll bounce up and down in a 10 point range all the way through Election Day, but not dip below 50.  And, that's his national poll numbers. We all know it is state numbers that matter.

Here's the early read...

Speech Watchers React Positively to Bush's Message
But lower ratings than last year


by David W. Moore
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- An instant-reaction poll of State of the Union speech watchers last night, the plurality of whom were Republicans, found President George W. Bush receiving high marks for his address, although his ratings are lower than last year. The speech appears to have persuaded some viewers to view the president more positively on several issues, compared to what they felt in a pre-speech survey, especially on healthcare and Social Security. But the speech appears to have had little effect on viewers' voting intentions next November. And Bush's overall policy rating, about the same as last year, is much lower than what he received after his first two State of the Union speeches and lower than what President Bill Clinton received in his first-term speeches.

The major findings of the CNN/USA Today/Gallup instant-reaction poll are as follows:

1. Overall, 76% of speech watchers say their reaction to the speech is positive, with 45% saying "very" positive.
-- Last year, 84% said positive, with 50% very positive.
-- Two years ago, 94% were positive, with 74% very positive.

2. Seventy percent of speech watchers say Bush's proposed policies in general will move the country in the right direction, while 26% say the wrong direction.
-- Last year, the percentage saying the right direction was about the same (71%), but only 20% said the wrong direction.
-- In Bush's two previous speeches, one before and the other after 9/11, speech watchers were considerably more positive -- 91% saying the right direction in 2002, and 84% in 2001.
-- In the two Clinton speeches when this sentiment was measured (1994 and 1995), 83% and 84%, respectively, of speech watchers said the president's policies would move the country in the right direction.


3. In the pre-speech interview, 60% of people who intended to watch the speech said Bush's policies would move the country in the right direction, compared with 70% who said that after the speech. That 10-point increase is lower than the 19-point increase measured last year, when speech watchers' pre-speech sentiments were more negative than this year.

4. When asked to evaluate whether Bush's policies in five specific areas would move the country in the right or wrong direction, speech watchers responded generally positively:
-- On the economy -- 66% say right direction, 31% wrong direction, a slight improvement over the 62% to 35% margin measured before the speech.
-- On healthcare -- the largest change: a 63% to 35% positive ratio after the speech, compared with a 48% to 41% ratio before the speech.
-- On Social Security -- the second-largest change, from 47% to 38% (right vs. wrong direction) before the speech, to 59% to 35% afterward.
-- On taxes -- a modest improvement: 65% to 32% after the speech, compared with 58% to 32% beforehand.
-- Finally, on terrorism -- very little change, because the vast majority of speech watchers already had a positive view, with 76% saying right direction and 19% saying wrong direction before the speech, compared with 78% to 19% afterward.

5. Most speech watchers, 62%, say their confidence in Bush's economic leadership was not affected by the speech, but 29% say they now have more confidence and 9% less confidence. These figures are virtually identical to those obtained in last year's poll.

6. The poll also found that 71% of speech watchers say they are either "very" confident (29%) or "somewhat" confident (42%) that the United States will be able to achieve the goals Bush has for Iraq. Another 27% are not confident.

7. Finally, 61% of speech watchers say that in November, they are likely to vote for Bush, while 32% expect to vote for the Democratic Party's nominee -- virtually unchanged from the pre-speech figures of 59% to 33%.

Republicans Outnumbered Democrats Among Speech Watchers

Typically, presidential speech watchers disproportionately identify with the party of the president. Last night, the imbalance in favor of the president's party was higher than last year's, with 46% or respondents identifying as Republicans, 28% as independents, and 26% as Democrats -- a 20-point difference between Republicans and Democrats. Last year, the comparable figures showed 40% of speech watchers identifying as Republicans, 31% as independents, and 28% as Democrats -- a 12-point difference between parties. This year's figures are closer to the percentages found in 2002, when 50% of speech watchers were Republican and 25% each were independents and Democrats.

Among those who watched Clinton's speeches, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by margins that ranged from 7 to 15 percentage points. When the senior Bush gave his fourth State of the Union address in election year 1992, Republicans outnumbered Democrats in the post-speech poll by just six percentage points, 37% to 31%.


Survey Methods


Results are based on telephone interviews with 381 speech watchers, aged 18 and older, conducted Jan. 20, 2004. For results based on the total sample of speech watchers, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points.

Survey respondents were first interviewed as part of random national adult samples by Gallup on Jan. 18-19, 2004, at which time they indicated they planned to watch the president's 2004 State of the Union address and were willing to be re-interviewed by Gallup after the speech. Respondents' pre- and post-speech answers are shown for those questions that were asked on both surveys.

The sample consists of 46% of respondents who identify themselves as Republicans, 26% who identify themselves as Democrats, and 28% who identify themselves as independents.


Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.

It doesn't seem like enough of an effect to help Bush much, considering how long there's left.

Yeah, that was my prediction.  All these things do his reassure his supporters. It doesn't really have a long-term effect on his support elsewhere. He can make it more powerful by bringing up these points often throughout the year.

The right will vote for Bush, the left for the Democrat.

The only question is, how does the middle go? What are Bush's approval ratings among moderates, and after the Dem convention, uncommitteds?

That, as has been pointed out, depends on the state of the economy and the progress in Iraq/war on terror during Fall 2004.