Poll: Bush would lose an election if held this year

[Drake Tungsten]

My response is, "so what?" Seriously, what the hell is the point of this poll?

CNN) -- A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election were held this year, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.

In the latest poll, 55 percent of the respondents said that they would vote for the Democratic candidate if Bush were again running for the presidency this year.

Thirty-nine percent of those interviewed said they would vote for Bush in the hypothetical election.

The latest poll results, released Tuesday, were based on interviews with 1,008 adults conducted by telephone October 21-23.

In the poll, 42 percent of those interviewed approved of the way the president is handling his job and 55 percent disapproved. In the previous poll, released October 17, 39 percent approved of Bush's job performance -- the lowest number of his presidency -- and 58 percent disapproved.

However, all the numbers are within the poll's sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, so it's possible that the public's opinion has not changed at all.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html

Why is this poll retarded?

1. Bush can't run for re-election again

2. The next presidential election isn't for three years

3. Polls pitting a specific candidate from one party against a non-specific candidate from the other party are worthless, anyway

Seriously, why did anyone invest the time and effort needed to bring us this completely worthless poll result? It boggles the mind. The only people stupider than the ones who did this survey are the people who thought it actually qualified as a news story...

[Stuie]

I blame Bush.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's another way to gauge approval rating. After all, Bush could be very unpopular, but may still win over a hypothetical Dem (even though when the name is usually announced those numbers fall).

[rah]

Yes a totally meaningless poll. But if someone wants to cough up the money for the poll hoping it will embarass Bush, that's their right. Bush is still president.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm more interested in the fact that CNN not only paid for the poll and ran the story, but also made the pointless "Bush would lose an election if held this year" angle the lede. You're right that people are perfectly free to pay for stupid polls meant to embarass Bush, but one would hope that a major media outlet wouldn't be the one paying for and trumpeting said polls.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's another way to gauge approval rating. After all, Bush could be very unpopular, but may still win over a hypothetical Dem (even though when the name is usually announced those numbers fall).

Which is why this is completely meaningless.

[Sprayber]

Someone tell me how the Dems lost the election again if most people would vote against him? Not much as changed since then except perhaps the response to Katrina mess.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'm more interested in the fact that CNN not only paid for the poll and ran the story, but also made the pointless "Bush would lose an election if held this year" angle the lede. You're right that people are perfectly free to pay for stupid polls meant to embarass Bush, but one would hope that a major media outlet wouldn't be the one paying for and trumpeting said polls.

Slow news. Need to have a controversy. When there is no news, make something up.

[OzzyKP]

Its just a demonstration of how fickle and dumb the electorate is that they would elect a guy one year and then realize less than a year later "oh, you mean Iraq isn't going so well? Hmm, if only I had known about that last November..."

[Drake Tungsten]

Slow news. Need to have a controversy.

Come on dude, what about Plamegate? That's some thrilling, controversial stu...f...

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Slow news. Need to have a controversy.

Come on dude, what about Plamegate? That's some thrilling, controversial stu...f...

People are used to that. It's been going on forever and a lot of people don't have time to care. The news needs something to tide them over until they can get something juicy again. Plamgate is stale and I would bet most people just don't care.

[Drake Tungsten]

I guess I didn't lay the sarcasm on thick enough.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I guess I didn't lay the sarcasm on thick enough.

That or i just woke up.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Its just a demonstration of how fickle and dumb the electorate is that they would elect a guy one year and then realize less than a year later "oh, you mean Iraq isn't going so well? Hmm, if only I had known about that last November..."

Failed Social Security scheme. Terry Schiavo. Harriet Meiers. Michael Brown.


Yeah, it MUST be about Iraq. It MUST.

[OzzyKP]

I just got lazy and picked one.

Thanks though for pointing out the many other failures of this Administration, you're such a pal.