English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

25 answers

Some of the voters were hard-core republicans, and that is why he still has 25% support. Many Bush-voters I spoke with basically said that the reason they voted for Bush was that we are at war and you shouldn't change horses in mid-stream. (Now that I think of it, three different people used exactly that analogy--did someone campaign with it?) That, combined with the Swift Boat distortions that showed how it is possible to trash a war veteran with two purple hearts to prop up a national guardsman who basically dodged the draft rich-boy style. Even without the personal attacks in the campaign, Kerry didn't really distinguish himself to anyone except the Democrats, and Karl Rove is bright enough to know that the Republicans are going to vote republican, so it is the half of America that is undecided (probably because they don't care about politics) that a candidate has to sway.

The democrats failed to put out a campaign that would convince people to vote for them, or convince them to vote against Bush. The republicans suceeded in their campaign on the vote against Kerry front, and the changing horses in the middle of a war argument was enough to get the undecided vote.

Also note that Bush's popularity dipped into the low 30's the year before the 2004 election (when no undecideds were watching politics), but he still managed to win with good campaigning.

2006-12-29 02:30:50 · answer #1 · answered by wayfaroutthere 7 · 1 2

A portion of that 51%, including me, realized that Pres Bush was better than Sen Kerry. In all honesty, he has made some major mistakes, but I still say Sen Kerry would have been a horrible mistake. If the Dems had the common sense to nominate Sen Lieberman, then I would have voted for a Dem. Basically, for a lot of us, the vote was against Sen Kerry, not for Pres Bush.

2006-12-29 02:32:28 · answer #2 · answered by robling_dwrdesign 5 · 1 0

The 49% knew what he was- an incapable, ignorant, born again, idiotic joke that has no business being anywhere near the federal government. As for the 51%, well, who are they? For the most part they are mid-western, or southern people and, let's face it, a litttle slower. Reality takes awhile to seep in. These people need shepherding and are simple minded, not seeing through the lies and just plain stupidity of this adminstration. Not until Republican leadership stands up have these sheep started to turn. As the numbers swing even further, let's hope that people begin to realize that fear and deceit should not be used by a government on it's own citizens, read something before you vote again, and turn off Fox news.

2006-12-29 02:34:58 · answer #3 · answered by SUPERMANMIKE 3 · 1 2

a factor of that 50 one%, which consists of me, found out that Pres Bush replaced into greater effective acceptable than Sen Kerry. In all honesty, he has made some substantial errors, yet I besides the certainty that say Sen Kerry could have been a detrimental mistake. If the Dems had the coolest judgment to nominate Sen Lieberman, then i might have voted for a Dem. truly, for truly some us, the vote replaced into against Sen Kerry, no longer for Pres Bush.

2016-10-28 15:30:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

There has never been a popular war time president.
Truman left office with something like a 17% approval rating, Lincoln was in the toilet also.

When our sons and daughters are dying, the cause becomes clouded and understanding doesn't matter as much.

2006-12-29 02:26:07 · answer #5 · answered by ggraves1724 7 · 3 0

Polls aren't accurate and can easily be skewed, and then there extrapolated over the entire US population. Anything that's been extrapolated I wouldn't put faith in.

So your going to trust a place that calls maybe at the most 5,000 people, then extrapolates that % number out over the entire population? It's just another liberal biased lie that's all these popular polls are.

2006-12-29 03:06:57 · answer #6 · answered by Mikira 5 · 1 0

Because the alternative in 04 arrived on the campaign trail "fresh from a wind-surfing trip to loserville." If the dems had run almost anyone else they could have won. The Clinton's didn't want the democrat to win b/c then Hillary would not have been able to run in '08, so they maneuvered behind the scenes to ensure that an unelectable candidate ran. As lousy and liberal as Kerry was he still almost won.

2006-12-29 02:44:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Because there are many reasons why a president might have low approval ratings. Many conservatives are not enamored with his high spending big government ideas or his lack of action or leadership on the illegal immigrant issue.

He was still correct on the War on Terror. As compared the the flip-flopping twit Kerry.

2006-12-29 02:37:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Thats the same reason why many feel, and ask how he won the election to begin with....The 25 percent is Corporate interest, or groups left over still trying to get something while he is in office.

2006-12-29 02:23:00 · answer #9 · answered by AD 3 · 1 1

The Democratic candidate was weak then and Bush is doing a lousy job now.

2006-12-29 02:36:25 · answer #10 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers