Reply #90: Bush's ratings weren't sufficiently in the tank

[karynnj]

Pundits made very stupid comments about the importance of being above 50% in the approval ratings. Bush's rating for the fall were all very close to 50% - occasionally measuring slightly over 50%. They then mentioned that Bush1, Carter and Ford were below 50% - in reality they were below 40% (Bush and Carter were below 30%). There was no data for the range Bush 2 was in. There is no justification for the truism that being below 50 % will lead to a loss. Consider that some who disapprove may be on the far right - not likely to be won by Democrats.

It is always dangerous to speculate about the result in a region where there is no data. (Approval ratings are typically collected only on the President, but consider the opposite. How many here would have said they didn't approve of Kerry - but they intended to vote for him. I know (from some Republican neighbors) there were people who didn't approve of Bush who voted for him.

If Kerry was weak on National Security, why did his polls go up enormously after the first debate - the first time many non-Democrats saw him unfiltered by the press. Also, remember that he won the primary debates as well. As to the phrase, "War on terror", the questions were asked in that form and it was common terminology. Kerry did redefine what he meant.