Bill v. George

[Gonzalo el Silenciado]

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

[SethFWF]

Damn link doesn't work... What's it about?

[Gonzalo el Silenciado]

Fixed.

Wish we could just use regular markup tags.

[BenMech]

Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush

(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). (Watch whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era -- 1:57)

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.

:np: Hawkwind - Levitation

[kerrick]

Interesting. I've heard this comparison before, but not with all the percentages and stuff. I'm not sure exactly how fair it is to compare the two, being that Clinton's rule happened during all the technological advancements such as the dot com craze, etc, which tremedously boosted our economy. Not to mention we didn't have any terrorists blowing up the World Trade Center either. Whether those things would have/have not happened if Bush and Clinton had traded places is debatable of course, but I have a feeling they would. What I'm trying to say is that Clinton's presidency was during one of America's strongest times, and Bush's at America's weakest. The question is, how much the presidents had to do with that.
-Kerrick

[BenMech]

errr, think again Kerrick.

WTC bombing in 1993. Oh how quickly we forget

[kerrick]

Yeah, but that killed 6 people, as opposed to the 3000 that died on September 11th. While yes, it was a terrorist attack, it was no where near the magnitude of Sept. 11th. You're right though, and I should have been more clear in my previous post. I meant no large scale attacks on U.S. soil.

[Gonzalo el Silenciado]

This has been brought up hundreds of times elsewhere, but it's worth pointing out.

After 9-11, Bush had the entire world's compassion. Yaser frickin Arafat was a part of the blood-donation crazy that went on the week following the attacks. EVERYbody had Bush's back. Yet he somehow managed to piss lots of other nations off between 9-11 and the Iraq buildup.

[Shark Black]

It's unfair to do this kind of polling right now. Imagine if this poll was taken in the middle of Somalia, Oklahoma City, The Monica Lewinsky Scandal, Columbine, The Cole Bombing, Rwanda, Waco or the 1993 bombing of the trade center.

Fact is that the economy right now is every bit as strong as was during the Clinton years, and probably more sound, but the media will not go out of their way to report it, because Bush bashing has become such a sport. Domestic crime and terrorism is much lower now than during the Clinton years. Not that Bush is all that, but he is no worse or better than Clinton in my mind. Just different. They both have their strong points, they both have their faults.

I mean the fact that they say Clinton rated better on taxes shows that the results are more emotionally based than based on reason. Every Man, Woman and Bug pays less taxes now than they did under Clinton. #hahatyou#

Lets wait 10 years and let the negative hype that surrounds every sitting president pass and then take the poll. Clinton will probably still win because he is the only Democratic poster boy in the past 40 years (I mean the horrible Carter years will never rate) and he will always get high marks from Democrats. Plus, it's true, lets face it, Bush has had to face much more dramatic issues than Clinton such as 911 & New Orleans.

Clinton never made a decison that wasn't poll based. Maybe Bosnia comes close. Bush seems to make decisions based on his own judgement rather than licking his finger and and checking which way the political wind is blowing, and thats never going to win poll numbers. Bush has managed to piss off just about everyone at one time or another because of that.

Plus Clinton wins in the charisma battle every time. It's all so nucular! #ohgoon#

[kerrick]

Yeah, that's ^ what I meant to say... ahem. Good post Mr. Black. You speak words of wisdom.

[Fox]

i agree with brett black.

[SethFWF]

I don't think I can disagree all that much with Brett
either. Frankly, these kind of polls don't mean much
to me anyway. The popularity polls carry a little
more weight only because they do so many and
from everywhere, this is just one poll of just over
1000 people.

Even after time passes, Bush will still be unpopular
simply because of making so many country splitting
decisions...much of that is due to the hard times he's
had to deal with and damned if he does, damned if he
doesn't situations. Some of the reasons will rest in
his stubborness and arrogance, many that even like
and voted for him have problems with him in these
areas.

Everyone loves Clinton cuz he fucked around on that
hag of a wife of his... #ohgoon# Of course the main
reason he wasn't impeached was everyone came to
their senses and knew they'd do the same...LOL!

Seth

[kerrick]

Ha ha, can you imagine being married to Hillary? I'd probably either a) go insane, b) kill myself, or c) go insane then kill myself.

[Virtual Scott]

I think one could argue Bush makes decisions based upon what the cabal of Neo-Con politics decides... Cheney and Rumsfeld (you could probably add a few other influential individuals there, formerly Wolfowitz, even a little Abraham, etc) maybe "low key" shadow lurkers, but their 30+ years of undermining democractic pracitices is hardly an unfelt presence... Bush may be a strong appearing, charismatic, believeable dunderhead figurehead, but he's certainly not running the ship from the top down.

That said, polls themselves need to be taken with a grain of salt to some degree. Compare the Fox (the fair and balanced network, they said so themselves) polls to other polls, especially on Bush popularity. I'm not going to make predictions or assume WHO has their "poll criteria" on the pulse of most Americans (if thats possible), but when even Fox finally published the diminishing returns of Bush's decreasing poll numbers, something is up.

But yeah, It's always interesting to see where poll numbers originate and their source data, even one can even ascertain that.

I will say that maybe Clinton (Bill, that is) should consider another run in 2008, heh heh - REALLY piss of the right wing demogogues and fascist christian coalition regimes. I would think Falwell, Robertson, et al, would go into collective cardia arrest. Now about that Ralph Reed (tarred and feathered in the Abramoff scandal, Mr. Self-Rightous... hopefully THAT one will break open wider soon)....