Why did 50% of Americans vote for Bush whereas nearly 85% of Europeans voted for Kerry in polls taken?
367817
First thing is first.  A poll does not determine whom the president will be.  Never has and never will.  IF it did, we would still have Clinton in office.  Or Gore, or even Kerry.\n\nPoint is that ANY poll can be fixed to get the result you want based on the questions you ask and the KNOWN makeup of the polling places.\n\nIf I am going to want a poll to show a more democrat's stance, then I would write a poll biased to democrats and poll an area that is loaded with them, such as Chicago, ILL, or San Fransisco, CA.\n\nIf I want something to show more of a republican stance, I would write a poll biased on conservitives and poll known area's that are conservitive, such as Dallas TX, or Tampa Bay, FL.\n\nWhen they where polling for the president in 2001 and in 2004, Bush was to lost by 15% or more, yet he won by 5% in 2001 and 15% in 2005.\n\nI tend to ignore polls because of this and do not tend to like it when they use a poll as news.  It is not news, nor is it a proper way to show people's thought patterns.\n\nA great president will not lead by poll's, but lead by what he feels is right.\nA self centered president (and mostly failed presidents) Lead only by polls and do not do what is right for the people even tho most people do not even know what they want.
800066
The rest of the world wonders why only 40 - 55% turned out to the polls. And who is the other half?
498624
That's right! But you forgot to tell them to go screw a goat while they're at it. \n\nAnd more of us voted for Bush than voted for Kerry. There's a lot more Bush supporters than people realize, but they get tired of being shouted down by the whacked out liberals who don't like him.
553770
People voted for Bush the second time around because he ran a very successful and effective propaganda campaign. People believed he did a good job leading the country after 9/11 and they wanted to keep that going. Then he showed his true colors during the second term because he knew he didn't have to win another election. Now his ratings are dropping lower and lower. \n\nThe first time people voted for Bush because he presented himself as a centrist not the far right fanatic that he is. Most Americans are centrists and not far right or far left. Keep in mind that Bush did not win the popular vote. He won the electoral vote only the first time around. If it wasn't for 9/11 happening, I don't think he would have won the second time.
1075070
Typically, two types of people vote for Bush, the ignorant and the people who enjoy the stutus quo. As in the rich getting richer, innocent dying in Iraq, student loan increases, etc.\n\nEven they cant name one good thing or at least one goal that he accomplished.
424686
i've been to america, met some nice people.\n\nbut looking at the country from a distance, it seems to me that lots of americans have an extreme arrogant view on the world. like they own this world, like they do good to this world.\n\nthey bring democracy to countries with bombs, they always brag about their big financial aids to the world, when the truth is that they contribute almost the lowest percentage of their national income to aid. european countries donate about 0.7 to 0.8 % , the usa only 0.25% of their national income. just bcs they have a lot of people, it sounds much money, but the european union in total donated lots and lots more.\n\nand abt bush..let me not even answer u on that. he's the devil in cowboyclothes.
1021314
In the last polls, 80% of the population was eligible to vote but only 74% of that 80% was registered to vote. In other words, out of a 100 people 80 were eligible to vote but 59.2 were registered to vote.\n80% of 100 = 80\n74% of 80 = 59.2
541183
American votes are not decided by policies. The best salesman sells his ware. Do not dream that Americans have any understanding of its country's foreign policy, federal policy, economical factors, geographical factors etc.. They vote for the President who smiles, walks, talks and cheats them well on television. So anyone in US today will vote for the best TV showman smartly marketed by campaign managers.
34509
Actually, I think Americans are pretty smart for re-electing Bush.\n\nJust as the Brits re-elected Tony Blair.\n\nJust as the Australians re-elected John Howard.\n\n*MOST* people who vote DO look at the issues and they understand what is going on in the world today. The voters understand that in times like these, we need leaders who will stand up for what they believe in EVEN IF IT SEEMS LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD IS AGAINST THEM.\n\nIt is called having convictions and standing up for yourself. Thank God we have men like Bush, Blair and Howard for standing up for freedom because there are obviously a lot of people out there who would not.
918661
How about this!! The recent mid-term elections were covered quite differently both across the country and around the world. Some European papers down played the election as ho-hum; while other played it as a near overthrowing of the United States. This should give you something to work with.
287193
There are a lot of people that support Bush.  They're about 33% of the American population.\n\n55% of American population can't find Iraq on a map.\n\n11% of Americans 18-24 cant find NEW YORK CITY on a map.\n\n60% of Americans don't know who their state's Senators are.\n\n....you get the idea.
139369
The majority didn't elect bush twice.  In 2000, Gore won the popular vote.  I think it is hard for us to follow someone who is so careless in his direction for America.  And when you ask us why we can't say something intelligent, we are asking the same question about bush.  And it's so disappointing that we have to say that.
855222
You are awesome. Much of America never subscribed to Bush in the first place...unfortunately in our country the majority vote doesn't always win.\n\nGo dems. I wish I could say that Clinton was as straight a shooter as they come, but obviously that would be a lie due to the proof...still, he didn't have to lie to attack countries.\n\nps: I've been to Aussie land twice. I have to say, you guys have the best beer on the planet!
793458
1.  Because most americans really ARE either a Dem or a Rep.\n\n2.  most countries end up falling into a two party system.  It's certainly better than a one party system, and with too many parties, they end up having to form coalitions to create a majority.  So- basically a two party system kinda' works.  Ya' can't give people too many choices.
366257
It is due to the system of participation.  The one in the states is called first-past-the-post or a plural majority, meaning if voted for Republican (AHHHH!), but a democrat got in (YAAAH!) my vote would be excluded and ignored.  However, in Europe proportional representation allows for every vote to be counted, and that gives rise to a multi-party system. So, sad to say the only way there's is going to be a third party system, would be to get off your arses and demand change.  Don't tell me, you'll do it right after American idol!! Joking, we Brits have the same crappy system.
47482
it is probably good more people voted in 2004, and they did. this caused bush to win easier.
478129
George Bush of course, duly and legally elected by the largest of majority of voters ever, in spite of the steady criticism  of the arabs and their friends in this country, canada and europe.  We know the critics will not defend our country or its borders, and would never volunteer for the military service.