CNN Poll: Was Bush better president than Obama?

[Ben]

October 8th, 2010
12:54 PM ET

CNN Poll: Was Bush better president than Obama?

By:
CNN Political Unit
(CNN) - Americans are divided over whether President Barack Obama or his predecessor has performed better in the White House, according to a new national poll.
And a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday also indicates in the battle for Congress, Republicans hold large advantages over the Democrats among independents, men and blue-collar whites. The poll also indicates that Republicans are much more enthusiastic than Democrats to vote.

By 47 to 45 percent, Americans say Obama is a better president than George W. Bush. But that two point margin is down from a 23 point advantage one year ago.
"Democrats may want to think twice about bringing up former President George W. Bush's name while campaigning this year," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
"But that doesn't mean that Americans regret their decision to put Obama in the White House in 2008. By a 50 to 42 percent margin, the public says that Obama has done a better job than Sen. John McCain would have done if he had won. And by a 10-point margin, Americans also say that Joe Biden has done a better job than Sarah Palin would have done as vice president," adds Holland.
According to the poll, 45 percent of the public approves of the job Obama's doing as president, up three points from late last month, with 52 percent disapproving. Fifty-nine percent of independents disapprove of how the Obama's handling his duties, with 37 percent giving him a thumbs up.
In the fight for control of Congress, 52 percent of likely voters say they would vote for the generic Republican candidate in their district if the election were held today, with 45 percent saying they would back the Democrat. The Republican's seven point margin is down from a nine point advantage late last month.
According to the poll, independents say they would vote for the Republican candidate over the Democrat by a two to one margin.
"Blue-collar whites are also a particular problem for Democrats. Among white voters who describe their family as "white collar," the two parties are essentially tied. But more than seven out of ten whites who describe themselves as "blue collar" are planning to vote Republican in November," adds Holland.
The poll indicates that opinions on the economy may have a lot to do with that. Only 17 percent say the economy is starting to recover, and nearly four in ten say that the country is still in a downturn and conditions are getting worse.
The survey also suggests a strong gender gap.
"Democrats appear to be making steady gains among women and now get a majority of their vote, but the gender gap persists and more than six in ten men say they plan to vote Republican this year," says Holland.
According to the poll, another gap also exists: The enthusiasm gap. Most Republicans say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting this year. But only a third of Democrats feel the same way.
"That's the principle reason why the "generic ballot" question is tied among all registered voters while the likely voter numbers show an advantage for the Republicans," adds Holland. "There are plenty of people who support the Democratic candidate, but many of them are probably not going to actually cast a ballot. In fact, if you look at "unlikely voters" - people who are registered to vote but unlikely to cast a ballot - the Democrats have a six-point edge on the generic ballot question."
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll was conducted October 5-7, with 1,008 adult Americans, including 938 registered voters and 504 likely voters, questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus percentage points, with a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points for likely voter.

[Ben]

I'd rather Obama than Bush.
But I'm not a fan of either party. To me they are two factions of the same party.
I mean, right-wings Dems and moderate Republicans have the same belief system, as it were.
And whether or not you like, say, Ron Paul, well, he's principled. Which I like. I like him for that. You can disagree with him. That's fine. But he's principled.
Most politicians don't care about issues and have no core principles. Am I wrong about that?
Again, Ron Paul is principled whether or not you agree or disagree with him. At least we know where he stands. Can't say the same for most politicians.

[hippifried]

Most politicians don't care about issues and have no core principles. Am I wrong about that?

Yeah, I think you are.

Don't confuse pragmatism with lack of principle. Consistant ideology should be part of the discussion, but a large part of politics is the art of bending & blending ideologies to find something that actually works & can gain agreement to try. Government is run by a political process, & rigid ideologues are ineffective.

Being liberal, I have all the respect in the world for Ron Paul, irrespective of our disagreements. But what has he ever accomplished? Really! That's a legit question. He talks a high-falutin' game, but refuses to play the game at hand. Can't win that way.

There's a genuine schism of ideologies & mindset in general between the parties. That said though, the differences in approach to problems aren't all that much. Nobody (except for maybe the fuzzy headed Confederate sympathizers & even more fuzzy radical commies) wants a total upheaval in the private free-market economic system. But the policies of the last 3 or almost 4 decades have been just that. We've fallen back into an elitist feudal capitalism, & let the wide open democratic free market capitalism that has served us well in the past go by the wayside. Doesn't work. This isn't a kingdom. Getting back to what does work is going to take time & tough resolve. The monopolies don't give up their power easily.

[freetobe18]

First of all, yeah yeah new poster I know nothing blah blah blah we're all here for the trannies and who cares about politics anyway amirite?

But what has he ever accomplished? Really! That's a legit question.

Indeed, a very legit question! One that was asked over and over again during Obama's presidential campaign. And again when he was awarded the Nobel prize.

Sooooo... based on that precedent... accomplishment apparently doesn't mean anything

Personally, I can't think of a single politician these days that isn't corrupt in some way or vastly under-qualified to hold the position they have. I've always been a big fan of the following quote:

"Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed often and for the same reason." ~Mark Twain

[Ben]

Yeah, I think you are.

Don't confuse pragmatism with lack of principle. Consistant ideology should be part of the discussion, but a large part of politics is the art of bending & blending ideologies to find something that actually works & can gain agreement to try. Government is run by a political process, & rigid ideologues are ineffective.

Being liberal, I have all the respect in the world for Ron Paul, irrespective of our disagreements. But what has he ever accomplished? Really! That's a legit question. He talks a high-falutin' game, but refuses to play the game at hand. Can't win that way.

There's a genuine schism of ideologies & mindset in general between the parties. That said though, the differences in approach to problems aren't all that much. Nobody (except for maybe the fuzzy headed Confederate sympathizers & even more fuzzy radical commies) wants a total upheaval in the private free-market economic system. But the policies of the last 3 or almost 4 decades have been just that. We've fallen back into an elitist feudal capitalism, & let the wide open democratic free market capitalism that has served us well in the past go by the wayside. Doesn't work. This isn't a kingdom. Getting back to what does work is going to take time & tough resolve. The monopolies don't give up their power easily.

You're right: "The monopolies don't give up their power easily."
Power systems are gonna defend themselves.
Ron Paul is pretty isolated. I mean, he doesn't go along with the war machine. He doesn't go along with corporatism. He doesn't go along with the senseless war on drugs. (We actually should have a war on drugs. A war on drugs means: focusing on education and prevention and treatment. What we have with the so-called war on drugs is a war on people.) He has spoken about the "immorality" of the war in Afghanistan. Most politicians say mistake. Ron Paul has actually spoken about the criminality and immorality of the war in Afghanistan. So he's going to be ostracized. Again, people do respect Ron Paul for his principled positions. (Most Americans voted for Obama because he said he'd tackle corrupt corporate power. Well, he's part and parcel of the corrupt financial sector. That's his base, as it were.) Obama represents the financial sector. And Bush/Cheney represented big oil. So, who serves the people?, who serves their interests -- ha!ha!

[SugaSweet]

When a nation is in decline,no one in office is particularly popular.
Most US citizens,regardless of age,race,gender are beginning to realize that all is liberty and justice (for those who can afford it) talk is BS.You have been played if you think one party is going to do more for you than the other.The only way you have not been played is if you are a lobbyist,politician,corporate whore,or useless bureaucrat.
By the year 2050,China and India will hold a lot of the cards in the global power game.

[trish]

You've been played if you think one party can solve all your problems. You've been played if you think either party is free from the influence of corporate lobbyists, banks and interest groups. But you're being played if you think one interest group is as good as another or one party is as good as another. Each of us has interests and groups that speak for those interests. You may be a laborer, an educator, a stockbroker, a state employee, a parent of a disabled child, a construction worker without a job, or a playboy with inherited wealth. Some interests are more deserving of government attention than others. The parties are largely divided over what those interests are. So if you have an opinion, vote on Tuesday.

[LaCosa]

By the year 2050,China and India will hold a lot of the cards in the global power game.

So will Brazil which just elected it's first female President and now joins the ranks of Chile and Argentina with a female President.

Brazil currently has one of the most (according to Time Magazine the most) influential leaders on the planet: President Lula. I own an biography of him written in English. His rise is amazing. He came from the rural Northeast of Brazil - which is comparable to Haiti or a number of parts of Africa and Asia -and eventually rose to become the President of his nation. It's an Abraham Lincoln like rise - that will never again be seen in the United States.

Brazil has also discovered off-shore oil that will potentially launch it as a major oil exporter. And unlike China and India... Brazil is still very rich in natural resources that both those nations will depend on to sustain their growth.

I predict Brazil being better positioned than India but trailing behind China. The illiteracy and poverty rate in India is much worse than Brazil also. India gets a lot of hype in U.S. press because of certain close political and military relations they have with us. We are a bit pissed at Brazil for keep tariffs up and electing more left-wing candidates like Lula that have not kept allowing the U.S. to practice neo-colonialism within its boarders. The U.S. did support the military dictatorship of Brazil.

However, the violence in Brazil really stands in its way. India does not have the violence of a Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro. Hell... India does not have the violence of a Detroit or Baltimore. But in Brazil it is on a whole nother level. Their gangs war like paramilitaries or terrorist organizations.