ABC News poll

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
ABC News poll
80
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 2:56pm




I keep hearing that polls are showing Kerry the winner, but in this poll at least, more people feel it was a tie or that Bush was the winner than that Kerry won.

Personally I thought Kerry was the better debater, but when people go back and think about his responses they'll find that he's not said anything different, just polished up the act a bit. He still wants to put the UN in charge of our national security, he still claims both that Saddam was a threat yet insists that Bush misled the American people on that very issue, he still has no plans for Iraq that differ from the president's, aside from his boasting that he will get other countries to share the burden, even though they have repeatedly said they won't no matter who is president, he still claims to be better at building alliances even as he disrepsects the very allies who supported us and disrespects our vital ally Prime Minister Allawi. He claims nuclear proliferation is our biggest threat but he wants to dismantle one of OUR nuclear programs, a "bunker buster" bomb that could be crucial to deterring nuclear strikes for the folks who actually LIVE in bunkers (aka terrorists), so I guess he's still back with those who felt a nuclear freeze was the best way to end the Cold War. After all these years he still doens't understand the doctrine of peace through strength.

Bush as usual did not express himself very well, but his positions are better for the country IMO.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-15-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 5:47pm
To be fair, it probably would have been better to state that you were relying on confidence interval measures to shore up your opinion in your original post.

Avatar for independentgrrrl
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 5:59pm
<>

Who decides if a war is legal? The UN which is run by thugs? What if there is a dissenting vote and NO wars are considered legal? Either way, sKerry wants to give away US sovereignty. Thanks but no thanks! My family LEGALLY emigrated here to escape from a dictator. I fully enjoy my freedoms and will support President Bush. It's people like sKerry that have allowed communists to continue to proliferate (Viet Nam being one of the communist nations that benefited from sKerry's politicking).

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 5:59pm
It could have been a tie, but definitely not the win for Bush you orginally stated . . .
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 6:25pm


No, the 17% are people who thought it was a tie-thus a total of 53% either thought Bush won or thought it was a tie.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 6:29pm
Undecided does not mean they thought it was a tie. Using your approach, 62% thought Bush lost or it was a tie.


Edited 10/1/2004 6:30 pm ET ET by rayeellen
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 6:37pm


No, I didn't see Saddam bombing NY, but he was a threat to our security, as Kerry flat out stated he was last night. We do not need permission from other countries to act against threats to our security.



The anti-American sentiment in the world did not just magically appear during George Bush's presidency. In any case, sometimes some of the world loves us, sometimes they hate us. Sometimes some of us agree with their reasoning, sometimes most of us don't. That's the whole point-I don't believe we ought to allow other countries with varying and fluctuating degrees of liking or hating us to be deciding on the legality of what our own troops do in combat, even handing out the death penalty as they see fit.



Like I said, I heard all of those arguments back in the eighties. Reagan was roundly ridiculed (as well as disliked by much of the world) for his peace through strength stance. Turns out he was right and his critics were wrong. Once again, there's a difference between rogue nations having nukes and a country who fights for liberty around the world having them. I don't lump the US in with Iran and North Korea-the world depends on a superpower which is a free nation and not run by a repressive dictator to keep these maniacs in line. I don't think the idea of "ok, let us set a good example, we'll give up our nukes if you give up yours" works with dictators whose only means of staying in power is through whatever military might they can muster.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 6:41pm


I think you're talking to me, and I'm not claiming it was a win for Bush, I'm saying that a larger number of people combined felt it was either a tie or a win for Bush than felt that Kerry won. My only point is, that's not the same as saying a majority believe Kerry won. It's relevant because obviously there will be no movement in voting amongst those who think it was a tie.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 6:42pm


Well, the poll says that 17% thought the debate was a tie, not that they were undecided (about who won the debate). So my point is that a majority of people did not think Kerry won. A majority did not think Bush won either. But given that Kerry already has that 45% of the vote, I think he needed to do a bit better than that to advance his chances. The 17% who think the debate was a tie will not be changing their votes. And I can't imagine that anyone who was already supporting Kerry would think that he LOST. See what I mean?


Edited 10/1/2004 6:48 pm ET ET by liveanew

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 6:43pm
I'm sorry, I misread your original post . . .
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 6:50pm


No problem, though I checked the poll again a few times, thought maybe senility was setting in, LOL.

Pages