|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics |
|
November 23, 2004Kerry Should Have Won?This article in the New York Times is likely to warm Carla's heart. The gist is that, according to the NYT poll (yes, I know, can't be trusted) Americans have doubts about Bush's agenda and continue to be unhappy with his handling of Iraq and the economy. Yet people are still optimistic about the next four years under Bush. What is interesting in light of the stories I posted last night is the part about moral values: The poll also found pervasive concern about what Americans view as the corrosive effect Hollywood and popular culture have on the nation's values and moral standards. Seventy percent said they were very or somewhat concerned that television, movies and popular music were lowering moral standards in this country. So at the same time that people say they don't like what is on TV or in the movies, the studios continue to pour out sex and violence because this is what sells. Is there some cognitive dissonance here? The poll was also interesting in what it said about polarization in the country: While this sentiment was voiced by supporters of Mr. Bush and of Mr. Kerry, it appears that the concern about a decline in values is becoming another point of polarization in American politics. Mr. Bush's supporters were more likely to cite it than were Mr. Kerry's voters, and it was an issue that had particular resonance in the South and among weekly churchgoers, rural voters and women. The poll found that 55 percent of Mr. Kerry's supporters said that Mr. Bush's supporters did not share their views and morals; 54 percent of Mr. Bush's voters said the same thing of those who voted for Mr. Kerry. In addition, 70 percent of Mr. Kerry's supporters said they were more worried about candidates who "are too close to religion and religious leaders" than about political leaders who "don't pay enough attention" to religion, after a campaign in which Mr. Bush repeatedly spoke of God and his faith. By contrast, 52 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters said they were more worried about public officials who "don't pay enough attention to religion and religious leaders." I suspect a lot of this divergence is more about perception than reality. People assume that those supporting the other candidate don't share their values. Even though this is probably not true, I find it disturbing that people hold such sterotypical views about their fellow countrymen. The poll suggests that people are not particularly supportive of tax cuts and social security privatization, are against amending the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage and are largely in favor of the graduated income tax. Here is the key: "Across the board, the poll suggested that the outcome of the election reflected a determination by Americans that they trusted Mr. Bush more to protect them against future terrorist attacks - and that they liked him more than Mr. Kerry - rather than any kind of broad affirmation of his policies. As such, the result was reminiscent of the state of play Ronald Reagan found in 1980, when he defeated President Jimmy Carter." So it seems that people simply did not trust Kerry on foreign policy. And that is always going to be a problem for the Democrats as long as foreign policy is an important issue. It appears that the campaign actually helped the Democrats in the long run even though they lost the election: Finally, in one bit of presumably good news for a party that is looking for it, Americans now have a better opinion of the Democratic Party than of the Republican Party: 54 percent said they had a favorable view of Democrats, compared with 39 percent with an unfavorable view. By contrast, 49 percent have a favorable view of Republicans, compared with 46 percent holding an unfavorable one. It's not that unusual that Bush is more popular than his policies. This has been true of a number of presidents, including FDR, who were able to connect personally with the electorate even though their policies weren't that popular. Comments
Once again if it were upto NYT polls and polsters John Kerry would be sitting in the Whitehouse right now. As has been said many times before, the only poll that really counts is the one taken on Nov. 2nd Posted by: Cengel at November 23, 2004 02:57 PMWell, if that's the only poll that counts, someone should have told that to both campaigns. They sure did each spend enough on internal polling. :)
Frankly, I think that voters would have been equally ambivalent about a Kerry agenda, or about the feasibility of such. I think you would have ended up with pretty similar approval ratings (which makes sense, given the closeness of the election). The poll also indicated, though, that the public approved of Bush overall, and that they were hopeful (and that was clearly reported, as well). I think that's probably pretty accurate as well. I doubt th Bush administration ignores polls. Nor should they, in my opinion. There are some issues on which public opinion shouldn't sway elected officials, and everyone might debate what those issues are, but in my own view, social security and how to address its problems -- and deficit issues overall -- isn't one of them. Posted by: kate at November 24, 2004 10:03 AMKate, I hope you understand that the title was meant to be facetious. I was being a little sarcastic. The title of the article was "Voters Show Concern over Bush Agenda." In some ways, my point was that this shows how weak a candidate Kerry was. (I know he won a lot of votes, but he still lost.) Posted by: MWS at November 24, 2004 10:10 AMLOL I don't know whether to be embarrassed or flattered that ya'll have posted something with me in mind twice in the same day. Posted by: carla at November 24, 2004 10:39 AMOh, yeah, I understood that. I was responding more to Cengel's comment that if it were up to "NYT polls and polsters" kerry would have won. I knew that you didn't mean to suggest that -- but I was just pointing out as a response to Cengel that neither the New York Times' coverage of the poll nor the poll itself seemed problematic, at least to me. Posted by: kate at November 24, 2004 12:59 PMOh, and for the record, clearly if it was up to the NY Times editorial pages, Kerry would have won. :) But it doesn't make sense to me to say that polls don't matter, or that somehow this one in particular was an attempt on the part of the Times to claim that Kerry should have won (which is how I interpreted Cengel's words). Posted by: kate at November 24, 2004 01:20 PMCarla, It just shows what an impact you have had on us. it's sort of like Barry Bonds affecting how the other team plays the Giants. I think you should be flattered. Marc Posted by: MWS at November 24, 2004 02:15 PMThanks Marc. :) Posted by: carla at November 24, 2004 05:43 PMIn four years, we might be glad that Bush won four more years in the White House. If Iraq turns into the turd I think it will, not even Karl Rove will be able to make it appear shiny. Posted by: Don T. Know at November 24, 2004 08:41 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|