Poll: Voters Staunchly Back Bush, Kerry

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

WASHINGTON (AP) - An overwhelming majority of voters say they never changed their minds about whether they would support President Bush or Democratic candidate John Kerry, a poll found.

Only 16 percent of those who voted for Bush said there was a time when they thought they would vote for Kerry, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey. And 15 percent of Kerry voters said there was a time when they thought they would vote for Bush.

The Annenberg findings lend support to the decision by the campaigns to spend more time on base voters than going after the other candidate's voters, said Adam Clymer, director of the Annenberg survey.
 
The poll of 8,664 adults who had already been interviewed once before Election Day showed little evidence of the opposing sides coming together after the election. More than eight in 10 Kerry voters did not agree with the statement: "Even though I voted for John Kerry, George Bush will probably be a good president in his second term."


Just one more paragraph about the poll's timing and margin of error: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050108/ap_on_el_pr/unwavering_voters

[bluestateguy]

1. This is why I think Baby Bush's approval ratings will never go above 55%

and I think that's the ceing for him, just as 70% was a ceiling for Bill Clinton: if Clinton personally cured cancer 30% of the American people would still hate him. On the other hand, many Americans literally believe George W. Bush was chosen by God to be president. That's powerful stuff, and that tends to shut down any rational discourse or efforts to change their minds. Hence, I also think it will be unlikely that his approval ratings will go below 40%.

After the 2000 election I think a lot of nominal Gore voters were willing to give Bush a chance, especially after 9/11. But a lot of baggage has accumulated now, and I just don't see many non-Bush voters warming back up to him. Second term presidencies are usually much rockier than the first term.

[ixion]

2. and why the DLC should not abandon it's base for a move to the right

this flies directly in the face of that logic.

[Guaranteed]

4. Yes, it does.

Bush voters will NOT come over to our side.

[tngledwebb]

6. Beg to differ. The truth is...

so many Bush voters switched to Kerry in 2004 that Dems won by a huge and historically significant majority, as the world will know, once the fraud is uncovered.

[Guaranteed]

9. Read the original post again.

The country is extremely polarized.

[tngledwebb]

12. Polls from or by MSM etc are not neccessarily credible,

as the exit poll catastrophe revealed. Yes, there are two big parties, and too many Republicans are on the far right to be sure, but I will stick by my post. The majority of Americans are, in reality, slightly to the left of center, neither Nazis or Commies, or whatever extreme polarity you choose.

[underpants]

19. I disagree with the original post-it is the other way around

Those who have turned on Bush aren't going back. Not that they won't vote Republican in other races (actual Republicans mind you) but they won't support Bush or his front men. From personal interaction in a BLUE state (Va.) I met tons of people who never were involved in a political movement though they were well informed they felt they had to do SOMETHING so they signed up, this included lots of people who normally do or you would think would support Republicans. Seriously from three nights at the State Fair alone I talked to many middle of the road type people who were appalled at what they were seeing.

I said it during the campaign and I will say it again-W has his number (really it is about 47%) and all he can do is hold them close and hope not to lose a one. Supposedly they got everyone out they could last time (BIG supposedly there) or at least that is what the story is. I think a lot of people (alone in the voting booth) decided based on fear.

[sherilocks]

7. Not all the chimp voters are fundamentalists

In fact, some are even rational human beings who made an irrational decision. When they get sick of Iraq, social security idiocy, and other lame duck reacionary policies, they will come over to our side.

Provided, that is, we have something in the alternative to offer.

[Guaranteed]

8. The way I put it is that they won't come over to our side willingly.

When the Democrats take back the leadership role in Washington, the voters will come back.

[sherilocks]

11. I think we're both saying the same thing?

When the voters come back, assuming Democrats take some real positions on important issues, it will be by choice and done willingly, as opposed to kicking and screaming or the lesser of two evils.

[Guaranteed]

15. No, I'm thinking the opposite.

We have to take the leadership role back, and some will follow (that 10-15% "on the fence" vote) by their virtue of being followers.

I just don't see that as making a conscious choice- I see it more as an unwilling kind of thing.

[Wright Patman]

10. In Texas

the Democratic Party is finished. It would need to start over under a new name. There ARE enough fundamentalist preachers here to have convinced a critical mass of the public that voting for a Democrat is tantamount to condemning onself to eternal hellfire.

Some of the policies advocated by the Democratic Party do have a constituency, but not under the name of that party. In marketing terms, its "brand appeal" is over. And it's not coming back.

There is a bit of a cult of personality around Bush that accounts for a few percentage points, but the Democrats were losing ground here even before he came on the scene. The only time the Republicans have lost in the last 20 years is when the GOP nominated an Aggie natural gas magnate (as a matter of fact, methane usually came out of his mouth whenever he spoke) named Claytie Williams. He's the one who made the infamous "lie back and enjoy it" remark about sexual assault.

The myth is that Ann Richards "won" the 1990 gubernatorial election. The truth is that it was Claytie's to lose and he lost it big-time. Had his handlers just been able to keep him in a padded room somewhere and have spokesmen issue statements every now and then, Ann Richards would never have advanced beyond state treasurer.

[sherilocks]

13. Texas, from whose loins sprang the mighty chimp

is, at least for now, not on my list of states that will have an epiphany on their election of the chimp. But you never know, if things continue to go badly in this country, I mean major bad, even Texas could come around.

[cascadiance]

14. What the DLC hasn't understood...

.. is that Bush voters aren't going to be swayed to voting Democrats because Democrats move towards supporting Bush's positions. That by itself isn't going to win votes when they *already have* Bush supporting those positions.

What is needed is a clear delineation of issues that the Dems disagree with Republicans on, why those issues make sense for most Americans to agree with the Dems position on them, and to make that a big part of the campaign why to vote *for* the Democrats in an area where the Republicans won't help the voter on these issues that they may feel strongly about. The Dems have done a poor job of this. They keep trying to play the "me too" approach publicly, while taking corruption money from corporations that bless some of these "me too" issue stands, without articulating a message that resonates with American citizens at large.

That's a losers strategy, especially if you hope to sell yourself as the party that's not corrupted, which exposes you as just about the same hypocrites that you claim the Republicans are supposed to be. Hypocrisy I think is one issue that most Americans hate about politics today, but they feel that noone is dealing with appropriately, and as a result many are ready to give up in being a part of the political process if neither party tries to do a better job of not being corrupted into being hypocrites.

[Guaranteed]

16. In my mind, it's just a

dick-measuring contest. When Democrats act weak, they lose voters. No "conviction," which is why so many didn't vote for Kerry.

[yorkiemommie1]

20. great points

i totally agree!

[eridani]

3. DNC spent more time on its base?

Coulda fooled me.

[Guaranteed]

5. True. Didn't really seem that way.

It could have been worse, though.

[hollowdweller]

17. Now that there's no independent journalisim we pick our team and the issue

s are secondary

[Misunderestimator]

18. It's those 2 out of 10 Kerry voters who worry me...

the ones who agreed with this statement: "Even though I voted for John Kerry, George Bush will probably be a good president in his second term." :wtf:

[Pirate Smile]

21. Right. I'd be curious to know more about them and the 15 percent or so

who considered voting for Kerry but instead voted for Bush. Why?

I'm not saying don't primarily focus on the base but I do wonder what the deal is with these people.

[MasonJar]

22. I worked hard for Kerry in Louisville and went to Cincy several

times. I had no real knowledge of what was going on in Ohio, but even though Kerry lost Kentucky by a sizeable majority, many repugs in this city were voting for Kerry. I personally never met any Dems who were voting for Bush (and I stood on a lot of street corners with my signs and walked a lot of neighborhoods.) We need to take Ky. back of course; on the state level we have always been Democratic until recently. Any former (pre Bunning and McConnell) Republican Senators from Ky. were always moderate and independent.