« Bilingual ballots are bad | Main | Can I ask a question? »

Bush still leads Kerry

The headline on this New York Times piece blares: "Poll Gives Bush His Worst Marks Yet," and it's all about the president's precipitous slide to 31% approval and perhaps beyond.

If you have patience enough to persevere down to the 29th and 30th paragraphs, however, you'll find something interesting:

The political situation has not helped some of the more prominent members of the Democratic Party. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was Mr. Bush's opponent in 2004, had a lower approval rating than Mr. Bush: 26 percent, down from 40 percent in a poll conducted right after the election.

And just 28 percent said they had a favorable view of Al Gore, one of Mr. Bush's more vocal critics.

This is funny because it seems that at least once a week for the past five years, I've read some lefty blogger or another proclaim that the country has finally "woken up" and realized the error of its ways. If the election of 2000 (or 2004) were held today, they said, there is no doubt that Bush would be soundly defeated.

Looks like that was all wishful thinking on their part.


Your interpretations sound a little like Fox News (and that's not a compliment). You seem to forget some basic facts. Like that in the last poll for the November election (senate-congress) approximately 52% said would vote democratic versus 38% republican. There is no question that if an election were held today Bush would lose by a landslide. Nobody likes Kerry (including myself) anymore. Americans dont like losers. But Kerry will not be the democratic nominee in 2008. The democratic nominee will be (incoming) President Hillary Clinton.

> Nobody likes Kerry (including myself) anymore.

You got to admit, I was way out ahead of you on this one. ;-)

Yes, I admit, BUT I have been way ahead of you on Bush (and as you can see Bush has been disastrous for the country, while Kerry was simply never elected). Cheers.

How does Bush poll opposite Howard Dean?

That's really grasping for straws, Barry. I wonder what you would have said if the president with 31% approval ratings was named "Bill Clinton."

31% sucks, no two ways about it, unless you're a baseball player or an investor.
Just imagine if the economy starts to head south...

i admit i was kinda pro-Bush until i heard for the fifteenth time how low those approval-ratings were and now i'm thinking "shit, i guess i was wrong".

If anything i think this opens the door to some celebrity-independent to enter the Prezzy 2008 race since everyone just seems to hate all the Dems and

Wait, did i just say i thought a third-party had a chance?

Uh... Jill? Hello? Earth to Jill? If you'll look at the post below, Barry said he actually LIKED Clinton. Get a clue, Shrill... er, Jill. Just because you're a knee-jerk partisan doesn't mean everyone else is.

Jill is correct. Barry made a huge error in that post. He said that "Bush still leads". This is clearly wrong and you dont have to be a partisan democrat to see that. The last poll shows that 52% of the country would vote democratic and 38% republican for congress today. Assume now that many republicans consider Bush incompetent now (for a good reason), and you will realize that it is hard to believe that he would win ANY election these days. He would probably not get elected even if he run for mayor of a small town like Crawford, Texas.

The poll also shows that Bush is STILL more popular than John Kerry and Algore.


Hey Panama,
I did not call you names. You are the one who supports Bush, not me. Cheers.

PR, I appreciate the support, but Blue is a good guy, even if a bit misled. ;-) I think namecalling was a bit unnecessary.

Hey Blue, I've modified the title of the post just for you. *Now* are you happy? ;-)

Thanks. I feel much better with the new title :)

A few thoughts. Right now, if you polled me, I would say I am not pleased with Bush. I think he has screwed up on a number of fronts, many of which were trying to be the 'compassionate conservative' that he promised.

The latest, with the illegal guest worker program proposal, is killing him with conservatives.

But would I vote for him again vis-a-vis Gore or Kerry?

Without missing a beat.

That's what you folks are missing.

As to Gore and Kerry's poor ratings, I believe that it's partly the result of Dems feeling that they had winnable elections and their nominees let them down with inadequate performances.

Exactly, Mal! Count me among the 69% (damn!) who do not approve of Bush's performance. But people need to realize that that doesn't necessarily translate into "Damn, I shoulda voted for Kerry!"

You guys are something. Are you telling me that you would still vote for the worst president in history with what you know now? I dont like Kerry, but he would certainly have been far better than Bush. He is at least rational. As for Gore, he has an outstanding record, as being for 8 years the VP in one of the best periods of our country. Let me remind you again of Bush's accomplishments as a president. In any other profession, anyone with such a record would be fired. The only reason he still has the job is that there is no mechanism to fire presidents for incompetency.

> Are you telling me that you would still vote for the worst president in history with what you know now?

No. I would never vote for Warren Harding.

Ok, let me try that way then: Would still vote for the 2nd worst president in history with what you know now?

It is way too early to rate George W. Bush among the worst. Way too much that isn't yet known.

Wow Barry, what a lame blog...

Who cares about Kerry or Gore?

>The poll also shows that Bush is STILL more popular than John Kerry and Algore.

Yes, but for how long?

BW, I wonder if you could even name all of our presidents in order (without Googling), much less attempt to rate them.

Could you tell me their parties?

What issues they faced?

Who were their opponents?

Your's is a silly statement made all too often by the left which reflects their total lack of understanding as to how a president's worth is evaluated.

Let me tell you rule 1: you cannot rate a president who is still serving!

Please try to get a grip on the hyperbole.

........even though Rush, Hannity et al rate Clinton--today and back then--as one of the worst.

I bet YOU dont know the answers to your questions. Regarding rule 1, it is completely wrong. When something is so obvious (i.e. Bush being among the very worst presidents in history), you can call it anytime. The damage this president has done to the country in so many areas is unprecedent. Of course, you have every right to keep supporting him. Thats your problem not mine.

Let's see...from the get-go: Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Monroe, Cartwright, Feinberg, Van Buren, Lincoln, Harrison, McCartney--
well, working backwards, then: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, Ike, Truman, FDR, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson, Taft, Roosevelt, McKinley...and then I'm stuck.

> Mal,
I bet YOU dont know the answers to your questions.

Trust me, he does. So does fred, if he'd really be trying.

> ........even though Rush, Hannity et al rate Clinton--today and back then--as one of the worst.

For God's sake, why this constant obsession with Limbaugh and Hannity on this site? I don't listen to them, I don't give a rat's ass what they think about *anything*, so I can't really understand why commenters are always bringing them up as if they were contributors to this site.

Yeah...I'm the only with talent tied behind God's back, or something like that.

Barry, sounds like brewski time for you. I'll be at Maxwell's; is that place still open?

> Barry, sounds like brewski time for you. I'll be at Maxwell's; is that place still open?

I don't know. Ever since I moved to Weehawken, I don't get to that side of town much. I was actually getting ready to head for Oddfellow's, on the south end, if you want to catch me there (closer to my office.) Plus I'm in good with the bartender there. ;-)

I thought you were chained to Hoboken for life.
Last time I was at Maxwell's was '95; Steve Forbert was playing in the back, alone, to a room of about 7 people. Decent show but kind of sad for someone once on the cusp of stardom.

Not quite. I work in Hoboken. I drink in Hoboken (all the bartenders know me.) I eat and shop and walk my dog in Hoboken. But we can't afford to live there. We moved to Weehawken a year ago, and got a 3-story Victorian house for what would have got us a one-bedroom condo in Hoboken... maybe.

Post a comment