Politics  
07/18/2004  06:00:51 EST  Jon C. Hancock/AP Photo  
Poll: Public Support Slips for Iraq War



WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans now say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq, according to a new poll.
The CBS-New York Times poll, released Friday, found that just over half, 51 percent, said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq, while 45 percent said going to war was the right decision. Last month, people were evenly split on that question.

Sentiment on that question has slipped steadily since December, when the decision to go to war was supported by more than 2-to-1.

The presidential race remains close in the CBS-Times poll.

Democratic Sen. John Kerry held a slight lead, 49 percent to 45 percent, over President Bush in a two-way matchup. In a three-way race including independent Ralph Nader, Kerry had 45 percent, Bush 42 percent and Nader 5 percent.

Kerry's popularity has increased since his announcement in early July that he had chosen Sen. John Edwards as his running mate.

In June, 29 percent viewed Kerry favorably and 35 percent viewed him unfavorably; about one-fourth, 26 percent, were unsure. In the new poll, 36 percent saw Kerry favorably, 33 percent saw him unfavorably and 20 percent were unsure.

Edwards has been a popular choice for Kerry, though his presence on the ticket has not significantly altered the race. People viewed Edwards favorably by a 3-1 margin, while they were more likely to view Vice President Dick Cheney unfavorably.

Voters are interested in the campaign, with almost half, 47 percent, saying they are paying a lot of attention. That's twice the level of close attention at this time in the 2000 campaign.

The poll of 955 adults, including 823 registered voters, was taken June 11-15. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample, 4 percentage points for voters.



Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

-- Modified on 7/18/2004 6:09:23 AM

I think most people on this board would agree that this is a good thing - we need maximum participation for democracy to work best. After the way things have gone with Bush as president, I think more people are beginning to understand how much is at stake.

Edwards will continue to help Kerry as he moves around the country campaigning, and Cheney will continue to hurt Bush's chances.  Edwards has the look of a winner, much as Clinton did, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him as the presidential candidate in 2008, after eight years as Vice President.

The great thing that Edwards does for Kerry is to make him seem more likeable, more by "association" than by any inherent likeability of Kerry's.  Before the addition of Edwards, the election was primarily a referendum on Bush - voters really did not warm up to Kerry, and any support for him was mostly an anti-Bush vote.  But now, Edwards gives voters someone positive to warm up to.  Immensely helpful for Kerry.

The public now understands that going to war with Iraq when we did was a mistake, and Bush will pay for that.  

I wonder if the slow steady gains swinging towards a belief regarding Iraq will again swing back the other way. Any statisticians or pollsters know if the slow grind towards "no" is a sign that those gains are less likely to evaporate. Or perhaps the obvious which is we Americans are a fickle bunch.

Aside from the obvious partisanship that is evident regarding my posts, it is shaping up to be a very interesting horse race. At the same time that the Conservative side is mystified by the slow change of heart regarding the Iraq issue, we Liberals are equally confused that the gains against Bush's polling numbers aren't more significant. I don't think many of us "maneaters" can actually say defnitively that we would know how this election will play out. But then again, I am just a knee jerk liberal so what do I know?

That last statement was for Bribite and RTLW. It's the perfect set-up....

The polls, specifically when it comes to Iraq War, are an indication that Americans are inherently, and fundamentally intelligent, decent, and honorable folks.  We have been manipulated by propaganda to believe the unbelievable.  Now, the reality is in our face, we capture it, and respond.  

$300 Billion to remove Saddam, and still counting, while our Homeland Security budget is only $29 Billion!  All the while, we are in bed with Hosni Mobarak of Egypt, and the Saudi Family, these true beacons of democracy and freedom in the Middle East!!!

Bad day for the current crop of Republicans … good day for  American patriots, and those who love this land.

It seems pretty simple. Bad news out of Iraq forces poll numbers down on the "was it worth it" type of questions. A steady stream of good news may drive polls up in Bush's favor. There are still over three months left for things to get better or worse.

Looking at a wide range of different polls seems to show that the race is still split down the middle.

RLTW

-- Modified on 7/18/2004 7:37:19 PM

The fact of the matter is, most of the arguments on this board, are around the edges of the real issues.  There are 3 real OPEN issues that will determine this election, and the fact is, while we all have our opinions about how these issues will play, the fact is, they have yet to play out.  HOW these 3 issues play out will determine this election:

1) Iraq.  Still too early to call, but in the next 3 months, will Iraq either be well on it's way to becoming a nascent, increasingly stable democracy, or will it still be a chaotic mess with active insurrections, and car bombings and U.S. casualties still happenning on an at least weekly basis.

2) The Economy.  Are we in a growing recovery? or, as now appears likely, a recovery that stalled in June, and never did grow back a significant portion of the high-value jobs that were lost in the first 2.5 years of the Bush Presidency.

3) Terrorist attack on U.S. Soil.   This is of course, the wild card.  We might see one or more successful attacks in the U.S. with major casualties.  We might see a major attack get thwarted, or we simply might not see anything major happen.  The skeptic in me expects that the Bush Administration will claim to have thwarted a major attack in the week or two leading up to the election.

In any case, some perspective is called for currently, because what actually happens over the next 14 weeks on these issues will genuinely drive the results of this election, much more than the positioning and partisan claims that are currently ongoing.

Probably the only thing I've left out that could genuinely matter is Dick Cheney having a phony or real heart attack in the next couple of months that force his replacement on the Republican ticket & I actually don't know whether that will help or hurt Bush.

flipped a coin and called out a name to match heads.
    What recent polls seem to indicate is that voters and people in general are not only thinking ahead, but they are also thinking about recent past events and actions.  This could be good news or bad news for either candidate, with the wild card being how people weigh the retrospective information versus information that is yet to be known.

John Kerry.


RLTW

Might be a good time for some Gin, no?

Let me know when and I'll raise a shot of Tequila in your general direction.

RLTW

Since I am a political moderate, sometimes I will agree with a given position that you take.
    I am giving up on the gin, suddenly discovered milk.  Been born again!!  Actually not.

Sounds like you've been listening to John Lee Hooker.

RLTW

Nobody like the Hook.  Saw him a couple of times.