PDA

View Full Version : Poll shows Americans prefer Clinton over Bush


Ugly Duck
05-13-2006, 01:01 AM
Too bad they didn't include "Which one is smarter?" as a question:

Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush

Friday, May 12, 2006; Posted: 10:41 p.m. EDT (02:41 GMT)

(CNN) -- In a new poll comparing President Bush's job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.

The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush).

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.

Clinton was impeached in 1998 over testimony he gave in a deposition about an extramarital sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinksy. He was later aquitted by the Senate.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/index.html

Taco John
05-13-2006, 01:12 AM
(this space reserved for pithy comment #1)

Taco John
05-13-2006, 01:13 AM
(this space reserved for indignant chastisement)

Taco John
05-13-2006, 01:15 AM
(this space reserved for bewildering gratitude that Bush is in office)

Taco John
05-13-2006, 01:15 AM
(this space reserved for a shot at Taco John)

Loki
05-13-2006, 01:16 AM
Too bad they didn't include "Which one is smarter?" as a question:

why? everyone already knows that bush is the answer to that question...
:p














jk dood. relax.

DaneMcCloud
05-13-2006, 01:18 AM
Do people that voted for Bush in 2004 feel any buyer's remorse?

Ugly Duck
05-13-2006, 01:19 AM
why? everyone already knows that bush is the answer to that question...
:p














jk dood. relax.I would never admit that I got a surge of adreneline until I saw your "jk."

Loki
05-13-2006, 01:21 AM
I would never admit that I got a surge of adreneline until I saw your "jk."
heh heh... gotcha!

Taco John
05-13-2006, 01:29 AM
Do people that voted for Bush in 2004 feel any buyer's remorse?


Why would they, considering Kerry was the alternative.

I sure don't feel bad about not voting for Kerry, much as I dislike Bush.

DaneMcCloud
05-13-2006, 02:52 AM
Why would they, considering Kerry was the alternative.

I sure don't feel bad about not voting for Kerry, much as I dislike Bush.

I thought you were an independent? Besides that, are you telling me that NO ONE thinks the alternative might have been better? Considering his 32% approval rating and the fact is was such a close election?

patteeu
05-13-2006, 09:45 AM
Do people that voted for Bush in 2004 feel any buyer's remorse?

I can't speak for all of us, but my answer is "not at all." I'm more confident than ever that a John Kerry presidency would have already buckled and insured defeat in Iraq. OTOH, if John Kerry was in the White House, there wouldn't be any democrats in Congress complaining about so-called "domestic spying" or rendition (both of which, I have no doubt, would still be going on).

Adept Havelock
05-13-2006, 11:52 AM
. OTOH, if John Kerry was in the White House, there would be many republicans in Congress complaining about so-called "domestic spying" or rendition (both of which, I have no doubt, would still be going on).

Fixed your post for you. :p

patteeu
05-13-2006, 02:35 PM
Fixed your post for you. :p

I think that's probably true, at least with respect to the domestic surveillance part. As for rendition, I didn't hear a lot of democrats OR Republicans complaining about it during the Clinton administration.

Logical
05-13-2006, 02:41 PM
Do people that voted for Bush in 2004 feel any buyer's remorse?

Definitely and I detested Kerry

Logical
05-13-2006, 02:43 PM
I thought you were an independent? Besides that, are you telling me that NO ONE thinks the alternative might have been better? Considering his 32% approval rating and the fact is was such a close election?My remorse does not extend to voting for Kerry. I wish I had cast a symbolic vote for the libertarian candidate.

Boyceofsummer
05-13-2006, 03:12 PM
John Kerry was smeared like no other political candidate. You ****ers took the bait, hook, line and sinker. This is the most disgusting political point in America’s history. CORPORATE WELFARE NOW AND FOREVER!

Frankie
05-14-2006, 02:01 PM
John Kerry was smeared like no other political candidate. You ****ers took the bait, hook, line and sinker. This is the most disgusting political point in America’s history. CORPORATE WELFARE NOW AND FOREVER!
Here's a man who has figured it out. :clap: :thumb:

Ugly Duck
05-15-2006, 05:49 PM
I sure don't feel bad about not voting for Kerry, much as I dislike Bush.Should I extrapolate from your reply that you actually think Kerry would have been worse than Bush has been? Worse than George W. Bush?

Donger
05-15-2006, 05:52 PM
Do I regret voting for Bush the second time? No, not really, considering the realistic alternative.

I wouldn't vote for him again if that were an option, however.

penchief
05-15-2006, 06:12 PM
I can't speak for all of us, but my answer is "not at all." I'm more confident than ever that a John Kerry presidency would have already buckled and insured defeat in Iraq. OTOH, if John Kerry was in the White House, there wouldn't be any democrats in Congress complaining about so-called "domestic spying" or rendition (both of which, I have no doubt, would still be going on).

Why? Because you know how Kerry would react in situations if he were president? That's speculation based on bias, IMO. Every democrat in my memory has been painted the same way. Democrats are not all the same. People are not all the same.

If you are keen enough to prejudge someone's future performance based on your politics or how you view their ability or charachter, how is it that you supported Bush for president? Certainly, Kerry couldn't have fuched things up as much as our current president has because Bush's past clearly told us he was a fuchup (even moreso than Kerry). Yet you still supported him.

When it comes to Bushco & Cheneyburton we should have known exactly what we were getting. Some did. Some saw it coming for miles. I know you are smart. I can only assume that you see through the transparency of this administration. I can't understand why you continue to defend them.

They are damaging our country. They are destroying what it stand for. They have tainted our reputation throughout the world. They are stealing our children's future. And they have not missed a single opportunity to manipulate the truth in order to advance an agenda that fundamentally contradicts the virtues this country was founded on and that they continue to extol, hypocritically.

patteeu
05-15-2006, 07:34 PM
Why? Because you know how Kerry would react in situations if he were president? That's speculation based on bias, IMO. Every democrat in my memory has been painted the same way. Democrats are not all the same. People are not all the same.

If you are keen enough to prejudge someone's future performance based on your politics or how you view their ability or charachter, how is it that you supported Bush for president? Certainly, Kerry couldn't have fuched things up as much as our current president has because Bush's past clearly told us he was a fuchup (even moreso than Kerry). Yet you still supported him.

When it comes to Bushco & Cheneyburton we should have known exactly what we were getting. Some did. Some saw it coming for miles. I know you are smart. I can only assume that you see through the transparency of this administration. I can't understand why you continue to defend them.

They are damaging our country. They are destroying what it stand for. They have tainted our reputation throughout the world. They are stealing our children's future. And they have not missed a single opportunity to manipulate the truth in order to advance an agenda that fundamentally contradicts the virtues this country was founded on and that they continue to extol, hypocritically.


You follow the news don't you, penchief? Sen. John Kerry has been calling for withdrawal from Iraq for quite a while now. Why should I think he'd have taken a different course as President John Kerry?

And IMO, it is Congressional democrats who are damaging our country not the President.

Lurch
05-15-2006, 10:10 PM
Hindsight, hypotheticals mean "jack squat" in real life. Nothing. Nada. Nichts. So, what is the real point of this? I'll answer for you: nothing.

penchief
05-15-2006, 10:23 PM
You follow the news don't you, penchief? Sen. John Kerry has been calling for withdrawal from Iraq for quite a while now. Why should I think he'd have taken a different course as President John Kerry?

And IMO, it is Congressional democrats who are damaging our country not the President.

What are you going to say when George Bush withdraws from Iraq? I see a scenario in which we claim victory, withdraw most of our troops, and Iraq deteriorates into sectarian violence.

Why would you blame the only people in the either elected branch that wield absolutely no power instead of the policy-makers whom have taken a lot of liberty with the truth and the rule of law? The only blame democrats bear is their unwillingness to stand up for what they really felt because they were too worried about the appearance of opposing a wartime president at a time of extreme nationalism.

However, let's not lose sight of the fact that this administration is single-handedly responsible for our vulnerable situation when evaluating the current state of world events.

IMO, for you to blame our current situation on democrats is embarrassing and a discredit to you.

Pitt Gorilla
05-15-2006, 10:33 PM
A good friend of mine is a RRWNJ and 2 time Bush voter (of course). This guy hated Clinton. Recently, he noted that he thinks Clinton was a better president than W. I was blown away.

stevieray
05-15-2006, 11:11 PM
The only blame democrats bear is their unwillingness to stand up for what they really felt because they were too worried about the appearance of opposing a wartime president at a time of extreme nationalism.

However, let's not lose sight of the fact that this administration is single-handedly responsible for our vulnerable situation when evaluating the current state of world events.



ROFL

patteeu
05-16-2006, 06:08 AM
What are you going to say when George Bush withdraws from Iraq? I see a scenario in which we claim victory, withdraw most of our troops, and Iraq deteriorates into sectarian violence.

I don't think we will be out of Iraq while George Bush is in office. But when he draws down our forces in Iraq, I will judge the action based on whether or not the Iraqi government can maintain itself. If it sinks, then I'll consider Bush's move just as contemptable as that which John Kerry and John Murtha advise.

Why would you blame the only people in the either elected branch that wield absolutely no power instead of the policy-makers whom have taken a lot of liberty with the truth and the rule of law? The only blame democrats bear is their unwillingness to stand up for what they really felt because they were too worried about the appearance of opposing a wartime president at a time of extreme nationalism.

However, let's not lose sight of the fact that this administration is single-handedly responsible for our vulnerable situation when evaluating the current state of world events.

IMO, for you to blame our current situation on democrats is embarrassing and a discredit to you.

I blame the democrats because they are the ones who have sought to undermine our Iraq efforts (not to mention many of our other GWoT efforts) from almost the beginning (with a few notable exceptions). The difference between us is that I think we should be doing what we're doing more aggressively and you think we shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

I blame the democrats for pointing the finger of blame at America by insisting that the government "failed" when it didn't connect the dots and prevent 9/11. I blame the democrats for playing up issues like Abu Ghraib for political purposes and speculatively blaming them on their political enemies instead of focusing on the real bad guys in the conflict, our adversaries. I blame the democrats for using an expansive definition of torture so that they could accuse the administration of participating in it in the most demagogic terms. I blame the democrats for exposing national security secrets and condemning the US at every turn while practically ignoring our enemies. I blame the democrats for emphasizing bad news from Iraq, declaring defeat, and pushing for surrender/withdrawal.

There have also been a few Republicans who have done some of the above, to be sure, but for the most part, I blame the democrats.

Radar Chief
05-16-2006, 06:46 AM
(this space reserved for pithy comment #1)(this space reserved for indignant chastisement)
(this space reserved for bewildering gratitude that Bush is in office)
(this space reserved for a shot at Taco John)

:spock: Internet masturbation? :shrug: ROFL
Or just pad’n your post count? :hmmm:

Radar Chief
05-16-2006, 06:49 AM
Why would they, considering Kerry was the alternative.

I sure don't feel bad about not voting for Kerry, much as I dislike Bush.

Exactly. Given the same choices today, I’d vote the same way.
I have no brand loyalty here, give me someone worth not vote’n against and they’ve got my vote.
It’s that simple.

mlyonsd
05-16-2006, 07:49 AM
The only blame democrats bear is their unwillingness to stand up for what they really felt because they were too worried about the appearance of opposing a wartime president at a time of extreme nationalism.



ROFL Oh, well, since you put it that way and make such a strong case and everything.

penchief
05-17-2006, 08:13 PM
I blame the democrats because they are the ones who have sought to undermine our Iraq efforts (not to mention many of our other GWoT efforts) from almost the beginning (with a few notable exceptions). The difference between us is that I think we should be doing what we're doing more aggressively and you think we shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

How can you say that? We could have avoided this monstrosity of a fuch up if democrats had not rolled over for Cheneyburton's personal agenda. If they had genuinely opposed this administration's tragically flawed policies then this country would not be facing such dire consequences for the future.

It's funny that almost all democrats and progressives are disgusted with the democratic party because they've behaved like a bunch of sheep since 9/11 . Yet, you blame them for this administration's strategic and philosophical fuch-ups instead of holding those responsible for their ideologically-motivated blunders.

I blame the democrats for pointing the finger of blame at America by insisting that the government "failed" when it didn't connect the dots and prevent 9/11.

Uh....democrats failed to connect the dots? Wasn't it "Clinton's ghost" who attacked us? You know....the guy that the neocons yuched it up about? According to them Clinton was a fool for suggesting that bin Laden & al Qaeda was the biggest threat to America.

Besides, George Bush IS NOT AMERICA! No matter how much the cons want to con you into believing so. Pointing the finger at George Bush is not the same thing as pointing the finger at America. Especially when George Bush is probably destroying America.

I blame the democrats for playing up issues like Abu Ghraib for political purposes and speculatively blaming them on their political enemies instead of focusing on the real bad guys in the conflict, our adversaries. I blame the democrats for using an expansive definition of torture so that they could accuse the administration of participating in it in the most demagogic terms. I blame the democrats for exposing national security secrets and condemning the US at every turn while practically ignoring our enemies. I blame the democrats for emphasizing bad news from Iraq, declaring defeat, and pushing for surrender/withdrawal.

Yet you give this administration a free ride? Nice, at least you're objective.

There have also been a few Republicans who have done some of the above, to be sure, but for the most part, I blame the democrats.

You mean....like, moderate republicans?


Patteau, I like your style and I find you highly intelligent. Taking that into account I cannot fathom your relentless, yet, unobjective approach to evaluating the damage this administration is inflicting on our country and it's legacy.

Simply put, this White House's conduct represents the most unAmerican American administration I can remember but you find it appropriate to defend their every move.

JMO.

Ugly Duck
05-17-2006, 09:34 PM
Patteau, I like your style and I find you highly intelligent. Taking that into account I cannot fathom your relentless, yet, unobjective approach to evaluating the damage this administration is inflicting on our country and it's legacy.Hey... thats what I wuz thinking! Patteau is obviously not a dufus.... yet he persistantly defends the friggin Bushron adminstration - it just don't make sense!