America doesn't know the platforms

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Poll: Americans Uninformed on Bush, Kerry
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - If matching presidential candidates to their positions on basic issues were like a "Jeopardy!" category, most Americans wouldn't earn a single dollar.

More than half of those polled by the National Annenberg Election Survey didn't know President Bush alone favors allowing private investments of some Social Security money. Nearly as many didn't know that only Democratic candidate John Kerry proposes getting rid of tax breaks for the overseas profits of U.S. companies.

Importing drugs from Canada? That's a Kerry issue, but nearly half either didn't know or thought Bush also supported changing federal law to allow for drug imports from Canada.

Making abortions more difficult to obtain? Nearly one-third of those surveyed didn't know Bush alone supports more restrictions on abortion.

Eliminating the tax on estates? Two-thirds didn't know that's a Bush proposal.

After two years of presidential campaigning and hundreds of millions of dollars in political ads, many voters remained clueless about those and other policies, according to the survey. Annenberg analyst Kate Kenski blamed the candidates for not stressing their points of view and the news media for focusing on character assessments and the race itself.

"It's disappointing that people don't know where the candidates stand, given how much money's been spent on the campaigns," said Kenski, a senior research analyst. "In the absence of good information, voters guess and often guess incorrectly."

The poll of 1,189 adults was taken from Sept. 21-26 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.


___


On the Net:


National Annenberg Election Survey: http://www.naes04.org

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[billvon 3,073]

>"It's disappointing that people don't know where the candidates stand,
>given how much money's been spent on the campaigns,"

But not suprising, considering both candidates have concentrated on ads that list (often deceptively) how much the other guy sucks.

[ahegeman 0]

Frightening, but Bill hit the nail on the head. Can't blame the campaigns, though. They know what works, and most voters don't respond to the issues the way they respond to the mudslinging.

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[DrewEckhardt 0]

1. They don't want us to know their positions:

http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=CNIP9043
http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=S0421103

2. Many of us have one or more show stoppper issues (abortion rights, gun control, etc.) Once you know where the candidates stand on the issues you care most about the rest is only useful in debate and trivial pursuit.

[kelpdiver 2]

A lot of those are fantasy platform items, not terribly important, or not something the President can do much about. Congress is in charge, he can only attempt to lead them. And as we saw in Bush's first term, he didn't lead on a lot of such items.

Privitization of SS? Did nothing, just like Clinton did nothing. If the winner of this one does nothing too, we're screwed in 30 years. Time is running out.

Abortion? The GOP keeps the plank for the right wingers, but wouldn't dare make a substantive change.

And the really sad part is that despite the claimed differences, the two parties have acted very similarly for a long time on the bigger picture stuff.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

A lot of those are fantasy platform items, not terribly important, or not something the President can do much about. Congress is in charge, he can only attempt to lead them. And as we saw in Bush's first term, he didn't lead on a lot of such items.

A motivated president can do _a lot_ to push his agenda by refusing to sign bills until his pet riders are attached, executive branch nominations that pass laws (in the form of regulations) delegated to those offices by Congress, deciding the justice department prosecution priorities, signing executive orders, etc.

In practice this doesn't happen often; presumably because doing so pisses off more voters than breaking your campaign promises. The effects can be unpleasant when it does.

Quote

And the really sad part is that despite the claimed differences, the two parties have acted very similarly for a long time on the bigger picture stuff.

You get two "parties" both catering to the middle ground when you game out a winner-take-all system like ours. Each throws a few bones to groups outside that to try and gain the plurality required to hold office.

[billvon 3,073]

>or not something the President can do much about.

The president appoints much of the administration; he effectively controls one-third of government, and that includes heads of the state department, department of defense, justice, HUD, EPA, FDA etc. Think appointing the head of the FDA to a position overseeing Medicare and Medicaid won't do much for health insurance and social security issues?

[PhillyKev 0]

He also uses the threat of veto. Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill in his entire time in office. He hasn't had to. It's a republican controlled congress and he is the head of the republican party. When he doesn't like something in a bill, he tells them that and they either take it out or vote against it knowing that he will veto it anyway. It's an artificial portrayal of solidarity in the republican party. In actuality, it's Bush bullying his party into doing things his way or no way.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>or not something the President can do much about.

The president appoints much of the administration; he effectively controls one-third of government, and that includes heads of the state department, department of defense, justice, HUD, EPA, FDA etc. Think appointing the head of the FDA to a position overseeing Medicare and Medicaid won't do much for health insurance and social security issues?

On the policy changes stated by the cited article, that power of appointment is irrelevent. Perhaps the restriction on Canadian drugs could be altered by executive decree, but certainly SS won't be altered to private accounts without the full permission of Congress (and AARP). Nor should it, given the deep hitting implications on the federal budget for the next 15 years.

The President had the ability to propose legislation and lead his party. He has the ear of the entire nation if he chooses to use it, to encourage voters to encourage their Members to get moving. But he can't make it happen alone.

His platform represents the most palatable elements of his party to the voting population. Issues that aren't helpful (D- guns, R- abortion) tend to shunted aside.