The Rest of the World Wants Kerry

Pentagram writes "A poll by GlobeScan Inc and the University of Maryland of 34,330 people from 35 countries found almost all of them gave a strong backing to Kerry; less than one in five backed Bush. Only people from the Phillipines, Poland and Nigeria clearly backed Bush, whereas Norway gave Kerry the strongest backing with 74% to Bush's 7%. The UK, the US's most vocal ally during the Bush-led Iraq invasion, overwhelmingly preferred Kerry at 47% to 16%."

Comments

Re:Error a president can make ?

[Spleenl3oy]

According to Article II Section 4 of the US Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Interestingly enough, other nations say otherwise

[quantax]

Ironically, I read this article yesterday stating how it is in India's best interest to keep Bush... http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5922_1020531,00 15002200000158.htm

weaker

[TheSHAD0W]

The same poll also showed the rest of the world also wanted a weaker United States. I think that was what they had in mind when they were selecting Kerry as well.

Why is this IMO stupid article being posted on Slashdot anyway?

Re:And ... ??

[pzarecta]

It is a common misconception, fueled by the media, that the Spanish vote was swayed by the Madrid bombings. Fact of the matter is, a lot of Spaniards came to hate Aznar for several reasons, only one of them being that he practically licked Bush's ass. And it should also be noted that Zapatero had always intended to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq, as it had been part of his campaign platform for a long time. None of this had anything to do with the bombings.

The takeaway from the Madrid bombings is not how it swayed Spanish politics, rather how smart and media-savvy the terrorists are for making themselves appear to the rest of the world as having swayed the elections, and in the process embarrasing Bush.

None of the above.

[I am Jack's username]

Including the "neither" (undecided and other) percentage, and comparing it to the 2000 election:

Country: Kerry, Bush, neither

Kerry
Germany: 74%, 10%, 16%
Norway: 74%, 7%, 19%
France: 64%, 5%, 31%
Canada: 61%, 16%, 23%
Italy: 58%, 14%, 28%
Brazil: 57%, 14%, 29%
Indonesia: 57%, 34%, 9%
China: 52%, 12%, 36%

Kerry, no mandate
UK: 47%, 16%, 37%
Japan: 43%, 32%, 25%

Too close to call, no mandate
India: 34%, 33%, 33%

Bush
Philippines: 32%, 57%, 11%

Neither, no mandate
Spain: 45%, 7%, 48%
Mexico: 38%, 18%, 44%
Nigeria: 33%, 27%, 40%
Thailand: 30%, 33%, 37%
Poland: 26%, 31%, 43%

2000: Gore, Bush, other, none of the candidates

None of the candidates
USA: 22.0%**, 21.8%**, 1.7%, 54.5%*

* Eligible voters
** Gore, Bush, and other's percentage support of eligible (I hope)

My comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line.

No platform

[antizeus]

Apparently neither you nor the people who gave you positive moderation have been to Kerry's website where Kerry (or his staff) outlines his positions on a number of issues, very few of which appear to have anything to do with Vietnam. I suppose doing a little research is too much trouble though.

Well

[autopr0n]

Remember that Anzar also tried to blame the bombing on ETA, when clearly it was AQ. It was an obvious, and crass lie about something horrible in order to score political points.

That definetly would have cost him my vote. Not that I would have voted for him anyway.

The other issue is that voter turnout was huge. People who normaly wouldn't give a fuck about politics suddenly said "WTF have we got ourselves into!?"