Kerry's Favorable Rating

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

Kerry has a 36% aproval rating amongst likely voters, according to Washington Post poll.

Ae the Dems still happy that Kerry is their man?

edited to change Washington Pot to Post.

[Tiger Al 0]

Dubya didn't even make the list!!!

[tiger88 934]

Dubya didn't even make the list!!!

Thats weaker than puppy piss al. If it works for you, though.....

[Tiger Al 0]

Dubya didn't even make the list!!!           

Thats weaker than puppy piss al. If it works for you, though.....

Did he make the list or not??? A simple "No sir he did not" will suffice.

[TitanTiger 20,481]

Dubya didn't even make the list!!!           

Thats weaker than puppy piss al. If it works for you, though.....

Did he make the list or not??? A simple "No sir he did not" will suffice.

Actually, he did make the list. The numbers from last week's ABCNews/Washington Post poll referenced in the Drudge story:

Favorability ratings

George W. Bush 51%

John Kerry 36%

[TitanTiger 20,481]

One other interesting set of numbers in that poll:

(Asked of Bush supporters) Is your vote more for George W. Bush or more against Kerry?

For Bush 84%

Against Kerry 11%

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentS...4250&newsearch=

(Asked of Kerry supporters) Is your vote more for Kerry or more against George W. Bush?

For Kerry 41%

Against Bush 55%

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentS...4250&newsearch=

[jaydubb121 22]

So I guess this is where I say: Yes sir he did make the list. Does that suffice?

[Tiger Al 0]

So I guess this is where I say: Yes sir he did make the list. Does that suffice?

Yes sir, that does suffice. Wonder why Drudge left that out???

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

Probably because Bush's number had already been widly reported by the mainstream media, while Kerry's embarassing number was never reported on.

[Tiger Al 0]

Probably because Bush's number had already been widly reported by the mainstream media, while Kerry's embarassing number was never reported on.

Yeah, the Washington Post is rather obscure.

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

Probably because Bush's number had already been widly reported by the mainstream media, while Kerry's embarassing number was never reported on.

Yeah, the Washington Post is rather obscure.

It took them a week to print these parts of theirpolling data, and I would be very surprised to see any of the major networks report on these.

[Tiger Al 0]

What has me perplexed is why Bush isn't working with a 20%+ lead in the polls. His policies have been great for all Americans...hell, the whole world. He's ridding the world of "evildoers." He's built two beacons of freedom for all to see. The mere thought of him looking any country's way makes them drop their nukes in an instant. He has done a stellar job. So, why can't everybody see it? What's missing? Who's fault is it?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

why can't everybody see it? What's missing? Who's fault is it?

You know who it is, Al. C'mon.....pull out that democrat voter card, look in the mirror and admit it!!

[Tiger Al 0]

why can't everybody see it? What's missing? Who's fault is it?

You know who it is, Al. C'mon.....pull out that democrat voter card, look in the mirror and admit it!!

I'm serious. Why isn't Kerry so far behind that he's continuing on to November only as a formality? If Bush has so plainly done such a wonderful job why isn't Kerry 20 points or more behind? Sure, there'll be kool-aid drinkers who'd never vote republican, but if he's been so right for all Americans, why is he polling so poorly?

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

Since when does an average lead of 9% in the polls equate to polling poorly?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

why can't everybody see it? What's missing? Who's fault is it?

You know who it is, Al. C'mon.....pull out that democrat voter card, look in the mirror and admit it!!

I'm serious. Why isn't Kerry so far behind that he's continuing on to November only as a formality? If Bush has so plainly done such a wonderful job why isn't Kerry 20 points or more behind? Sure, there'll be kool-aid drinkers who'd never vote republican, but if he's been so right for all Americans, why is he polling so poorly?

Because, even if he actually stood for something, he is so danged unlikable. I'd say 60% of his problem can be attributed to the fact that he has all the charm and charisma of a nest of hornets.

[Tiger Al 0]

Since when does an average lead of 9% in the polls equate to polling poorly?

Since he's been doing all of these great feats for the last 3 1/2 yrs. Why is it only 9%? It should've been at least 9% BEFORE the convention.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Since when does an average lead of 9% in the polls equate to polling poorly?

Since he's been doing all of these great feats for the last 3 1/2 yrs. Why is it only 9%? It should've been at least 9% BEFORE the convention.

Okay Al. Listen well. Bush, you know, he isnt......perfect. And you know Al, the Dems are still incredibly upset about the 2000 election and how it ended. Add the anti-War at anytime crowd, the anti-Business crowd, the anti- Tax Cut at anytime crowd and there you have it.

BTW, also add the millions spent to smear the man into the ground thus far and it all looks logical now.

[TitanTiger 20,481]

I think the sides have been more hardened for a long time. The election was so close the last time. On top of that, you've had four years worth of bald-faced lying about how the election was won in Florida. Not to mention some of the things David mentioned above. Frankly, unless everything went perfectly, I don't see how anyone would be running 20 point leads in the polls. People have opinions and I think that little has changed in them in the last 4 years. Big deal.

I guess the question could be turned back on you though...if he's so horrible, such a dunce, such a fascist, an election stealer, such an economy wrecker and a war-monger...why isn't Kerry kicking his butt in the polls?

[DKW 86 7,419]

After looking at these results, does anyone think that the election may already be over?

In last week's WASHINGTONPOSTWABCNEWS Poll, John F. Kerry was viewed favorably by 36 percent of registered voters, down 18 points over the past six months.

But just how low Kerry's standing has fallen cannot be appreciated fully without comparing his standing with that of other household names in GALLUP polls over the years, the POST's Dana Milbank reported on Tuesday.

Kerry finds himself in a dead heat with Martha Stewart and Joseph McCarthy, and behind Herbert Hoover -- although he narrowly beats O.J. Simpson.

Michael Jordan: 83 (2000)

Tony Blair: 76 (2003)

Pope John Paul II: 73 (2003)

Democratic Party: 54 (2004)

John Ashcroft: 49 (2003)

Michael Dukakis: 47 (1988)

Prince Charles: 45 (2003)

Herbert Hoover: 43 (1944)

Jesse Jackson: 38 (2003)

Vladimir Putin: 38 (2003) :huh:

John Kerry: 36 (2004) Martha Stewart: 36 (2004) Joseph McCarthy: 35 (1954)

[Tiger Al 0]

Since when does an average lead of 9% in the polls equate to polling poorly?

Since he's been doing all of these great feats for the last 3 1/2 yrs. Why is it only 9%? It should've been at least 9% BEFORE the convention.

Okay Al. Listen well. Bush, you know, he isnt......perfect. And you know Al, the Dems are still incredibly upset about the 2000 election and how it ended. Add the anti-War at anytime crowd, the anti-Business crowd, the anti- Tax Cut at anytime crowd and there you have it.

BTW, also add the millions spent to smear the man into the ground thus far and it all looks logical now.

And you know Al, the Dems are still incredibly upset about the 2000 election and how it ended.

That could be easily forgotten by many if not most if his policies are as great as you say.

Add the anti-War at anytime crowd

You're exagerrating. Very few opposed Afghanistan. Iraq...well, if we knew WHY exactly we were there more might've come on board.

the anti-Business crowd

There's not a significant number of the "anti-business crowd" to keep his numbers down if his policies are good.

the anti- Tax Cut at anytime crowd

He has never, to my knowledge, explained to the American people why taking a surplus of $100b and turning it into a deficit of $400b+ is an idea that we should embrace. We're confused. For decades we were told by republicans that spending money we don't have is reckless and irresponsible. He didn't explain when it became good policy or why. But, again, if his policies are so good, why isn't it readily apparent, even to liberals?

BTW, also add the millions spent to smear the man into the ground thus far and it all looks logical now.

David, this has cut both ways. If the smears aren't true shouldn't it be so obvious to everyone? Besides, who really CARES if Bush was AWOL and continues to lie about it today? That was a long time ago and it is obvious that he's a great man as a result.

  I think the sides have been more hardened for a long time. The election was so close the last time.

Yes, but in 200 both were unknown quantities as far as president goes. Gore was somewhat of an incumbant and should've done better. Bush has had almost 4 yrs. to show the country how great his policies are. He wasn't hindered by a Democratic Congress, so pretty much what he wanted to get done got done.

On top of that, you've had four years worth of bald-faced lying about how the election was won in Florida.

Even if everything that has ever been said concerning the Florida election was, indeed, a bald-faced lie it doesn't matter. If the man has done a worthy job then few would care about Florida. If Bush is making my life better then I'm for him whether he's an "R" or a "D" or an "I".

People have opinions and I think that little has changed in them in the last 4 years. Big deal.

I think that if you looked at this objectively you'd see why it should be a big deal. He's had 4 yrs. and you guys defend every move he makes because it is great for America. Why doesn't America see it the same way? If he's doing so good for America, Kerry should've been knocked in the dirt 4 mos. ago. This race should've been as lopsided as Kerry's Dem primary.

I guess the question could be turned back on you though...if he's so horrible, such a dunce, such a fascist, an election stealer, such an economy wrecker and a war-monger...why isn't Kerry kicking his ass in the polls?

Because they've managed to convince many that, for all his shortcomings, he holds a monopoly on fighting terrorism. They've scared people into believing that you CANNOT under any circumstances change presidents during a war. There's a woman that works next door and after she saw my Kerry sticker told me that she had always been a Democrat. She couldn't stand Bush. She's voting for Kerry. Two days ago we're talking and she says she's not sure if she'll vote for him though because Bush was doing a good job fighting terror. I asked for examples and she didn't really know any, he just seems to be doing good. That's why Kerry isn't kicking his ass and he needs to step up if he wants to. If he does, then he will.

What I'm saying is this: None of these excuses you guys keep coming up with would be necessary if he had done a good job for all Americans. It would be so obvious to most EVERYONE that Bush needed to be re-elected. That's not the case and I don't think it has to do with the excuses you guys are pushing.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Since when does an average lead of 9% in the polls equate to polling poorly?

Since he's been doing all of these great feats for the last 3 1/2 yrs. Why is it only 9%? It should've been at least 9% BEFORE the convention.

Since Kerry has been doing so many wonderful things for the last TWENTY years, why isn't he up higher in the polls?? Why isn't Kerry working on that 20 year record of good things for this country, all the improvements in our lives and the lives of the world's citizens which he spearheaded in his TWENTY YEAR CAREER AS A PUBLIC SERVANT??? He should have a double digit lead by now, right?

:roll:

[Tiger Al 0]

Since when does an average lead of 9% in the polls equate to polling poorly?

Since he's been doing all of these great feats for the last 3 1/2 yrs. Why is it only 9%? It should've been at least 9% BEFORE the convention.

Since Kerry has been doing so many wonderful things for the last TWENTY years, why isn't he up higher in the polls?? Why isn't Kerry working on that 20 year record of good things for this country, all the improvements in our lives and the lives of the world's citizens which he spearheaded in his TWENTY YEAR CAREER AS A PUBLIC SERVANT??? He should have a double digit lead by now, right?

:roll:

He's from a relatively small Northeastern state and a Senator has neither the clout nor the national exposure of a sitting president, unless his name is "Kennedy". And, if Kerry is so worthless, how does that support or enhance your argument about why Bush is not running much farther ahead than he is? Actually, if Kerry IS so unappealling then that's even more reason for Bush to be knocking him in the dirt. It isn't happening. That's another excuse, Jenny.

[rexbo 104]

Where is Howard Dean on this list?

[CarolinaTiger 0]

i think bush isn't ahead enough to suit people like TA because people like TA are too closeminded to consider voting for him regardless of what he's done or not done while in office.

for some people, like TA evidently, it's ABB, as the poll showed.

people, like TA evidently, say to themselves,

His policies have been great for all Americans...hell, the whole world. He's ridding the world of "evildoers." He's built two beacons of freedom for all to see. The mere thought of him looking any country's way makes them drop their nukes in an instant. He has done a stellar job.

, yet they're still so blinded by partisan hatred that they would never consider voting for him because there's an "R" next to his name.

hopefully, there will be enough reasonable and openminded people out there to overcome the closeminded ABBers like TA and his ilk.

<<let me just add here that i really hate using the word, "ilk". i used it here solely because i don't like it >>

oh yeah... *grin*

ct