Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (51206)	7/17/2004 3:43:09 AM
From: RMF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

stockman_scott, I see you putting up a lot of stuff criticizing the way things are being handled in Iraq, but I haven't found any posts where you recommend how you think things should be done differently. If you were president, WHAT would YOU do??? I know it's screwed up and I don't think we should have gotten in there in the first place, but I don't continually criticize how things are being done there because I really don't know of a surefire way to do things better. Apparently you do, so let myself and the powers that be in on your sure-fire remedies...please..

To: stockman_scott who wrote (51206)	7/17/2004 8:58:48 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Now That You Mention It, I Guess It Wasn't Such a Good Idea Bush today reiterated that the war with Iraq was the right call and said he'd happily do the same thing again. The American public, on the other hand, has its doubts. In the Gallup poll I reported on yesterday, the public, by 54 percent to 45 percent says that sending troops to Iraq was a mistake. And, by 50-47, the public believes it wasn't worth going to war with Iraq. The new Washington Post poll tells the same story: 53 percent now think the war with Iraq wasn't worth fighting, compared to 45 percent who believe it was. That's the Post poll's most negative finding on this question. These findings are big, big trouble for the Bush-Cheney campaign. They indicate that the transfer of power to the new Iraqi government isn't fooling anyone. Voters believe--rightly--that the situation in Iraq isn't getting much better, that we're still militarily and financially responsible for keeping the situation under control and that our initial involvement in Iraq was based on allegations and intelligence that have turned out to be mostly wrong. No wonder Bush's approval rating on Iraq isn't going anywhere. In the Post poll, it has slightly declined over the last three weeks to 43 percent approval/55 percent disapproval (40/57 among independents). And, over the same period, Kerry has moved into a tie with Bush (47-47) over who could do a better job handling the Iraq situation, up from a 5 point deficit three weeks ago. (Note, though, in a bit of good news for Bush, his approval rating on handling the campaign against terrorism improved 5 points to 55/43 and he re-opened a 9 point advantage over Kerry on who would do the best job handling the anti-terrorism campaign.) On the economy, the poll shows no gain for Bush--in fact, a small slide--in his economic approval rating. He's down a couple of points in the last three weeks to 43/51 and the poll--in contrast to some recent Gallup data--shows only 35 percent saying the nation's economy is getting better, about the same number as were optimistic in their mid-April poll. And only a about a quarter (26 percent) say their family financial situation is better than it was a year ago. In addition, Kerry has widened his lead over Bush on handling the economy to 8 points from a 5 point advantage three weeks ago. The poll also shows some significant gains for Kerry on key personal characteristics. Since late April, Bush has remained rock steady at 42 percent yes/57 percent no on understanding "the problems of people like you". Kerry in contrast has gone from 52 yes/43 no to 55/38. On being "a strong leader", Bush has declined several points to 59 yes/40 no, while Kerry has move up from 52/38 to 55/35. That actually gives Kerry a higher net rating (+20) than Bush (+19). Similarly, on "can be trusted in a crisis", Bush has declined a bit to 57/41, while Kerry has climbed significantly to 53/34 from 46/42. Again, this gives Kerry a higher net rating (+19) than Bush (+16). And just to add insult to injury for the Bush campaign, Kerry is now deemed "likeable" by more of the public (72 percent) than Bush (68 percent). One final note on the horse race: the Post, for whatever reason, only provides a three way matchup in this poll, rather than both the two way and three way, as they had previously. In that three way matchup among RVs, Kerry and Bush are dead-even (46-46). I'd be tempted to ascribe Kerry's lack of advantage at least partially to the inclusion of Nader, but when compared to the Gallup poll (discussed yesterday), that turns out to explain absolutely nothing. In the Gallup poll, the RV horse race with Nader included actually gives Kerry an slightly larger advantage (8 points) than the straight Kerry-Bush matchup. And the survey dates for Gallup and the Post are exactly the same (July 8-11). So we have RVs, Kerry-Bush-Nader, July 8-11 in one poll (Gallup) giving Kerry an 8 point lead and RVs, Kerry-Bush-Nader, July 8-11 in another poll (Post) giving Kerry no lead at all. Go figure. Posted at 06:26 PM \| link \| Comments (12) Ruy Teixeira is a Senior Fellow at The Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com