Global poll shows a Kerry landslide

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Global poll shows a Kerry landslide
Thomas Crampton/IHT Wednesday, September 8, 2004
International Herald Tribune PARIS

Poll finds him preferred around world

If the world could cast a vote in the United States presidential election, John Kerry would beat George W. Bush by a landslide, according to a poll released on Wednesday that is described as the largest sample of global opinion on the race.
.
"It is absolutely clear that John Kerry would win handily if the people of the world could vote," said Steve Kull, director of The Program on International Policy Attitudes of the University of Maryland, a co-sponsor of the survey. "It is rather striking that just one in five people surveyed around the world support the re-election of President Bush."
.
The poll of 34,330 people older than 15 from all regions of the world found that the majority or plurality of people from 32 countries prefer Kerry to Bush.
.
Asia was the region showing the most mixed results, although Kerry still did better than Bush. Kerry won clear majorities in China, Indonesia and Japan, but slipped past Bush by only a slight margin in Thailand and India.
.
The most negative attitude toward the U.S. came from France, Germany and Mexico, where roughly 80 percent of those surveyed thought that the foreign policies of President Bush had made them feel worse about the United States.
.
In addition to presidential preferences, the poll also inquired about people's views on U.S. foreign policy.
.
"We found an unusually low level of support for U.S. foreign policy," Kull said. "This runs in line with trends from recent attitude surveys by the Pew Research Center and may have implications when the U.S. wants to move forward on issues with its closest allies."
.
The polling in a total of 35 countries was conducted by The Program on International Policy Attitudes and the polling company GlobeScan Incorporated during a period ranging from several days to several weeks, starting in mid-May and running through early September.
.
Most traditional U.S. allies came out strongly favoring Kerry, while only those polled in Nigeria, Poland and the Philippines preferred Bush.
.
"Even where the president does beat John Kerry, there is no enthusiasm apparent from the numbers," Kull said. "Those countries that support him for re-election also tend not to like his foreign policy."
.
The only country where Bush received support from more than half of those polled was the Philippines, where 57 percent supported his election, compared with 32 percent who supported Kerry. About one third of those polled in Nigeria and Poland gave their support to Bush, while support for Kerry ran at a margin of about five percentage points lower.
.
Norway and Germany tied - at 74 percent - as the countries where those polled most strongly support Kerry. Canadians preferred Kerry by a ratio of 61 percent to 16 percent for Bush.
.
The sample size, running from 500 to 1,800 people per country polled through a variety of means including face-to-face interviews, telephone or Internet was a fair measure of public sentiment, Kull said. Even when adjusted by weight of population in each country, results remained nearly identical, Kull said.
.
"Our average sample size per country of about 1,000 people is nearly double the number used by Gallup International for their annual Voice-of-the-People Poll," Kull said. "With numbers this robust it would be difficult to conclude anything but a broad feeling of dissatisfaction with Bush and his foreign policy."
.
Another pattern that became apparent in studying the data was that those people with higher education and more income were more strongly in favor of Kerry, Kull said.
.
"Those at the top of world society are more negative towards Bush than those at the bottom," Kull said. "The most likely common link is that those who have the most access to information tend be more negative towards Bush than those with less access to information." Overall, only 20 percent of those surveyed supported Bush for a second term, while just under half support Kerry and one third did not express a preference.
.
"Keep in mind that most people probably know very little about John Kerry," Kull said. "In that way, you can really count the one third who do not support either candidate as holding back their support from Bush." Of the one third responding to the poll who expressed no preference between the candidates, roughly half said that it would make no difference who was elected.
.
Polling among some traditional U.S. allies found strongly negative attitudes toward Bush.
.
In Germany, France, Norway, Italy and the Netherlands, the portion polled as supporting Bush amounted to 14 percent or lower, while more than half in each country supported Kerry.
.
In Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair has been the foreign leader most closely allied to U.S. policy in Iraq, those polled preferred Kerry by a margin of 30 percentage points. Of the 1,001 Britons polled by telephone across the country, 47 percent preferred Kerry, while 16 percent preferred Bush.
.
Among the 12 countries that took part in the war in Iraq as what Bush has termed the "coalition of the willing," only in the Philippines did the majority of those polled prefer Bush. More than half of those polled in seven "coalition of the willing" countries said that U.S. foreign policy was worse under Bush.
.
The only country in Europe that supported Bush was Poland, where he was preferred by 31 percent, compared with 26 percent for Kerry. But 41 percent of those polled in Poland said that the foreign policy led by Bush had made them feel worse about the United States.
.
In the Czech Republic, a new ally and member of the Iraq coalition, 42 percent supported Kerry while 18 percent supported Bush.
.
All 11 Latin American countries polled supported Kerry. While Kerry received support from a bit more than 50 percent of those polled in two countries in the region - Brazil and the Dominican Republic - the spread was wider in other countries. In Venezuela, for example, Kerry received support from 48 percent of those polled while Bush received 22 percent.
.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,291 • Replies: 23

No top replies

The Latin American countries part might prove significant, since there will be a lot of Latino votes here. I read something about significantly more than last election, but forget the numbers.

0 Replies

We should get to vote. It affects us as well.

About Latino vote, one distinction has to be made.
While Americans of Mexican, Central American and Puerto Rican descent usually vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats, Americans of Cuban descent are more Republican prone.

They become relevant is a State is contested. Like Florida.

0 Replies

If you want to live under the laws pf the US, and you can get enough of your fellow countrymen to agree, then maybe we could incorporate your country and then you could get a say.

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

We should get to vote. It affects us as well.

Maybe we Americans should be able to vote in the Iraqi election.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

fbaezer wrote:
We should get to vote. It affects us as well.

Maybe we Americans should be able to vote in the Iraqi election.

The next Iraqi election will be about as fair and democratic as the last Iraqi election...the one that almost unanimously elected Saddam Hussein as its president.

This charade being played out with deadly results in Iraq would be a laugh...except for the human costs.

And the $200 billions being wasted!

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

We should get to vote. It affects us as well.

About Latino vote, one distinction has to be made.
While Americans of Mexican, Central American and Puerto Rican descent usually vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats, Americans of Cuban descent are more Republican prone.

They become relevant is a State is contested. Like Florida.

If I'm not mistaken, the Republicans might have a hard time getting the Cuban vote this time. Apparently there is a new rule about how often a Cuban-American can visit family in Cuba that they are not too happy about. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
fbaezer wrote:
We should get to vote. It affects us as well.

Maybe we Americans should be able to vote in the Iraqi election.

The next Iraqi election will be about as fair and democratic as the last Iraqi election...the one that almost unanimously elected Saddam Hussein as its president.

This charade being played out with deadly results in Iraq would be a laugh...except for the human costs.

And the $200 billions being wasted!

(a) What is there about the forthcoming election specifically that is as unfair as an absolute dictatorship in which you vote for who you're told to or something awful happens to you? What is there about it that will prevent an Iraqi from voting for whomever he chooses?
(b) Please estimate for me the expense of a bioweapon attack on San Francisco that kills half a million people.

0 Replies

Hello world.

http://www.floggle.com/clement/images/funny/baby_middle_finger.jpeg

0 Replies

Brandon 9000 asked:

Quote:

What is there about the forthcoming election specifically that is as unfair as an absolute dictatorship in which you vote for who you're told to or something awful happens to you?

Watch the election (if it is ever held) and you'll see the answer to your question in what happens.

If, however, the United States is actually interested in a free election...why not hold it now?

Do we really want anther rabid Islamic nation in the Middle East?

Why?

Is the dictatorship of fundamentalist Islam...one more likely to be a friend to the likes of Ussama Bin Laden...less a concern for you than a secular dictator like Saddam Hussein who hated Bin Laden?

Why?

COMMENT: We'd better collectively hope "the majority" does not hold sway in Iraq...or we will have something even worse than the old Iraq to deal contend with.

Quote:

What is there about it that will prevent an Iraqi from voting for whomever he chooses?

Right now, mostly the military might of the United States!

Tell me, Brandon, how comfortable would you be with fully armed, willing to use those arms, Chinese mainland troops all over this country during our next election?

Quote:

Please estimate for me the expense of a bioweapon attack on San Francisco that kills half a million people.

Beats the piss out of me, Brandon.

But you might consider the fact that it is almost certain that organizations likely Al Qieda are more numerous now...and that they are more easily able to recruit people willing to undertake such missions...

...as a result of the incredible incompetence of this administration.

Why do you ask?

0 Replies

I believe that the UN set January for the election so they can be properly prepared to monitor it effectively.

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

I am not posting to political threads anymore, but want to say hello to Frank........

0 Replies

It all seems such a waste unless you were to include cannibalism as part of war. The question is whether war would escalate because it is not only in good taste, but because it tastes good.

On the other hand isn't that why there are buddhists and hindus and jains. They tried it and went to the other extreme.

Fight Arjuna. Fight for a table at that vegetarian restaurant.

Why can't the the electoral college include all nations?

0 Replies

Don't confuse the US for the UN.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
What is there about the forthcoming election specifically that is as unfair as an absolute dictatorship in which you vote for who you're told to or something awful happens to you?

Watch the election (if it is ever held) and you'll see the answer to your question in what happens.

Are you unable to answer this question?

Frank Apisa wrote:

If, however, the United States is actually interested in a free election...why not hold it now?

I do not know the fine details of the Iraqi election planning, but I do know this. Unless you have order you can't have democracy. It would seem more reasonable to me to try to get things in order, get basic civil institutions functioning with Iraqis, and then hold an election than to hold one instantly and run. I believe that the honorable thing to do is to try to get their democracy running reasonably well, not to do it is rapidly as possible so that we can get out immediately.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Do we really want anther rabid Islamic nation in the Middle East? Why?

No.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Is the dictatorship of fundamentalist Islam...one more likely to be a friend to the likes of Ussama Bin Laden...less a concern for you than a secular dictator like Saddam Hussein who hated Bin Laden? Why?

Any dictatorship with ties to terrorists that attempts to develop WMD is a danger to the west.

Frank Apisa wrote:

COMMENT: We'd better collectively hope "the majority" does not hold sway in Iraq...or we will have something even worse than the old Iraq to deal contend with.

Not much is worse for the world than a dictator building and developing WMD. Although there are some Iraqi governments we would prefer over others, it's none of our business who they vote in, unless the new governemnt seems to be building WMD and likely to use them or give them to terrorists.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
What is there about it that will prevent an Iraqi from voting for whomever he chooses?

Right now, mostly the military might of the United States!

Tell me, Brandon, how comfortable would you be with fully armed, willing to use those arms, Chinese mainland troops all over this country during our next election?

It's a secret ballot. They can vote for whom they choose. We invaded because we had to for our own safety, we removed a terrible dictator, and now we are setting up elections. Our actions are ethical and correct.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon900 wrote:
Please estimate for me the expense of a bioweapon attack on San Francisco that kills half a million people.

Beats the piss out of me, Brandon.

But you might consider the fact that it is almost certain that organizations likely Al Qieda are more numerous now...and that they are more easily able to recruit people willing to undertake such missions...

...as a result of the incredible incompetence of this administration.

Why do you ask?

Because it might make the $200 billion expense you referred to seem miniscule by comparison. We invaded Iraq to prevent such an event from occurring a few years down the road.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I am not posting to political threads anymore, but want to say hello to Frank........

Hey, BP.

Sorry you are not posting to political threads. You usually acquit yourself quite well. They do get messy, though, don't they!

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
What is there about the forthcoming election specifically that is as unfair as an absolute dictatorship in which you vote for who you're told to or something awful happens to you?

Watch the election (if it is ever held) and you'll see the answer to your question in what happens.

Are you unable to answer this question?

No. I am unwilling to do so...mostly because I see a bias that would prevent you from understanding.

In any case, I did suggest a way you could get your information.

Just wait and take a look at how the election (!!!) goes.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
If, however, the United States is actually interested in a free election...why not hold it now?

I do not know the fine details of the Iraqi election planning, but I do know this. Unless you have order you can't have democracy. It would seem more reasonable to me to try to get things in order, get basic civil institutions functioning with Iraqis, and then hold an election than to hold one instantly and run. I believe that the honorable thing to do is to try to get their democracy running reasonably well, not to do it is rapidly as possible so that we can get out immediately.

Well, Brandon, you seem to think that "democracy" is something that can be imposed. But if it is imposed...it is not democracy.

In any case, if you are asking for "order"...there is not nearly as much "order" right now than there was under Saddam Hussein.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Do we really want anther rabid Islamic nation in the Middle East? Why?

No.

Well, my bet is that is exactly what you...and unfortunately, the rest of us...are going to get. We'll see!

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Is the dictatorship of fundamentalist Islam...one more likely to be a friend to the likes of Ussama Bin Laden...less a concern for you than a secular dictator like Saddam Hussein who hated Bin Laden? Why?

Any dictatorship with ties to terrorists that attempts to develop WMD is a danger to the west.

1) You really didn't answer the question.

2) I doubt they are anywhere near as equivalent as you suggested in your non-answer.

3) I'm sure you included the comments "ties to terrorists" -- and "attempts to develop WMD" as a joke...intending to inject a bit of humor into this discussion. I thank you for that consideration.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
COMMENT: We'd better collectively hope "the majority" does not hold sway in Iraq...or we will have something even worse than the old Iraq to deal contend with.

Not much is worse for the world than a dictator building and developing WMD. Although there are some Iraqi governments we would prefer over others, it's none of our business who they vote in, unless the new governemnt seems to be building WMD and likely to use them or give them to terrorists.

1) See responses above.

2) How very easy it is to say some of the things you say. Nothing requires a poster to make sense here in A2K...and respectfully as possible, Brandon, you are not making sense.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
What is there about it that will prevent an Iraqi from voting for whomever he chooses?

Right now, mostly the military might of the United States!

Tell me, Brandon, how comfortable would you be with fully armed, willing to use those arms, Chinese mainland troops all over this country during our next election?

It's a secret ballot. They can vote for whom they choose. We invaded because we had to for our own safety, we removed a terrible dictator, and now we are setting up elections. Our actions are ethical and correct.

We did not invade because we "had to"...we invaded because George Dumbya Bush and his handlers are out of control and have no respect for precedents set up in this Republic over its 200+ years of being.

Our actions are most assuredly, Brandon, neither ethical nor correct.

But you certainly are entitled to rationalize if you choose.

But since you see no problems with the way things are...why didn't you respond to the little scenario I offered. "Tell me, Brandon, how comfortable would you be with fully armed, willing to use those arms, Chinese mainland troops all over this country during our next election?"

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Brandon900 wrote:
Please estimate for me the expense of a bioweapon attack on San Francisco that kills half a million people.

Beats the piss out of me, Brandon.

But you might consider the fact that it is almost certain that organizations likely Al Qieda are more numerous now...and that they are more easily able to recruit people willing to undertake such missions...

...as a result of the incredible incompetence of this administration.

Why do you ask?

Because it might make the $200 billion expense you referred to seem miniscule by comparison. We invaded Iraq to prevent such an event from occurring a few years down the road.

Oh really. So you think making the world a LESS safe place...and helping terrorist organizations to increace recruitments...and alienating allies all over the world....

...will somehow help "prevent such an event from occurring?"

Is any of the stuff you are smoking for sale?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I am not posting to political threads anymore, but want to say hello to Frank........

Hi, Bear, good to see ya...and glad to be back.

Sorry you are not posting to political threads. I think Craven decided that same thing. You both do a good job of offering your opinions...and if I could, I'd probably talk you into coming back into the fray.

They do tend to get messy, though, don't they!

0 Replies

Oops, double posting to the Bear.

Thought the first had gotten lost.

0 Replies

Global poll shows a Kerry landslide

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know