You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Kerry had a 6% lead over Bush in March 2004 [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
hill08 Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 09:09 PM
Original message
Kerry had a 6% lead over Bush in March 2004
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Wed Feb-13-08 09:23 PM by hill08
Kerry had a 6% lead over Bush in March 2004 ( ) and got the nomination and lost miserably. People say that since Obama has a lead over McCain at the current moment, he must be the nominee. But he is in the same situation as Kerry: not much is known about him, expect that he is a good speech-maker and it is much easier to distort his image to a farther extent than it is in Hillary's case. Hillary on the other hand has been in the public view for many years and there is not much new negative information that can emerge that can make her look worse, even with all the anti-Hillary press.

When people say "are you suggesting we choose the nominee who performs worse in the polls", "there is no incumbent running right now" are intellectually dishonest. Hillary has been villified for 15 years and she still holds her own. If you want to believe that Obama can hold his when he is carefully scrutinized, this is just a "belief" not supported by years of evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Kerry had a 6% lead over Bush in March 2004 hill08  Feb-13-08 09:09 PM   #0 
  - There is NO COMPARISON between 2004 and now. People woke up  babylonsister   Feb-13-08 09:14 PM   #1 
  - Some people seem to think Hillary is running against Kerry! n/t  ProSense   Feb-13-08 09:15 PM   #2 
  - Where Do You Live  abluelady   Feb-13-08 09:17 PM   #4 
  - I live in TX, and yes, there are still some supporters out there, but they  babylonsister   Feb-13-08 09:20 PM   #8 
     - I'm An Old Lady  abluelady   Feb-13-08 09:28 PM   #32 
     - OK, but think about this. How many republicans are actually aware  babylonsister   Feb-13-08 09:33 PM   #40 
        - I Have To Share A Story With You  abluelady   Feb-13-08 09:37 PM   #46 
        - This AM on Cspans WA journal, 2 texas Repub voters called in.....  DB1   Feb-13-08 09:47 PM   #65 
           - Thanks for sharing that, it's encouraging! nt  babylonsister   Feb-13-08 09:50 PM   #67 
     - that's not been my experience  griffi94   Feb-13-08 09:42 PM   #55 
        - In Austin? I'm surprised. I'm in Houston, and there are far less than there  babylonsister   Feb-13-08 09:45 PM   #63 
           - what part of houston are you in  griffi94   Feb-13-08 10:06 PM   #77 
  - We thought the same thing in 04  Freida5   Feb-13-08 09:17 PM   #5 
  - The difference is DEAN building party infrastructure McAuliffe let stay in collapse  blm   Feb-13-08 09:58 PM   #72 
  - If you believe that people woke up  hill08   Feb-13-08 09:20 PM   #6 
  - Obama is less of a risk than HC. And McCain is really not that  babylonsister   Feb-13-08 09:23 PM   #19 
  - Sure they have.  AX10   Feb-13-08 09:21 PM   #10 
  - Oh dear. Do you really think Bush is that unpopular?  jlake   Feb-13-08 09:23 PM   #18 
  - I don't think it, every poll I've seen in the past year+ shows how  babylonsister   Feb-13-08 09:24 PM   #24 
     - He's up at 35% nationally, and the way that those people are distributed still  jlake   Feb-13-08 09:26 PM   #26 
     - 35%, wow, impressive. nt  babylonsister   Feb-13-08 09:30 PM   #36 
     - It's alot of people.  jlake   Feb-13-08 09:32 PM   #39 
        - 2 out of 3 don't; THAT'S a lot of people. nt  babylonsister   Feb-13-08 09:37 PM   #47 
           - Yes, and I am glad that 2/3 or people have woken up - but  jlake   Feb-13-08 09:40 PM   #50 
     - yep  griffi94   Feb-13-08 09:45 PM   #60 
     - I just don't understand...  stillcool47   Feb-13-08 09:30 PM   #37 
        - No, Rove is so yesterday. It's the genius of Obama and his campaign,  babylonsister   Feb-13-08 09:35 PM   #42 
           - It is an amazing time...  stillcool47   Feb-13-08 10:01 PM   #75 
  - But They Give McCain a Pass on All of That Because the MSM Says He's a "Maverick"  AndyTiedye   Feb-13-08 09:27 PM   #28 
  - McCain is all the rethugs have. He was the 'best' of a horrid bunch  babylonsister   Feb-13-08 09:40 PM   #51 
  - Yet, nothing substinative happens to Bush & Co.  sjdnb   Feb-13-08 09:39 PM   #49 
     - For a change, I'm with you. I fault the Congress for so much, but  babylonsister   Feb-13-08 09:44 PM   #57 
  - Wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin  thecatburgler   Feb-13-08 09:17 PM   #3 
  - Can you honestly say that  hill08   Feb-13-08 09:21 PM   #11 
  - People knew about his anti-war activism, POW work, and BCCI investigations  thecatburgler   Feb-13-08 09:24 PM   #23 
  - You are either...  YvonneCa   Feb-13-08 09:40 PM   #52 
  - If you think that the Repubs won't be 100 times worse  Frances   Feb-13-08 09:23 PM   #22 
  - Well I guess we just shouldn't run a candidate then.  thecatburgler   Feb-13-08 09:26 PM   #27 
     - It sounds as though you have the attitude  Frances   Feb-14-08 10:07 AM   #81 
  - Thank you...  YvonneCa   Feb-13-08 09:39 PM   #48 
  - here's that clip of Kerry on Cheers....  Magic Rat   Feb-13-08 09:59 PM   #74 
  - And Dukakis was over 10 points ahead of the first Bush  Frances   Feb-13-08 09:20 PM   #7 
  - Kerry won the election in 2004 - would probably have been larger then 6%-  KaryninMiami   Feb-13-08 09:21 PM   #9 
  - all these articles  hill08   Feb-13-08 09:23 PM   #15 
     - Why do they mean nothing? n/t  YvonneCa   Feb-13-08 09:42 PM   #54 
     - because winning a poll  griffi94   Feb-13-08 09:49 PM   #66 
     - Clinton's DNC machine made sure 2004 was lost for ANY Dem. Kerry won and RNC stole it  blm   Feb-13-08 09:45 PM   #62 
  - So Hillary will lose by 10 points and Obama has a 50/50 shot?  Tweed   Feb-13-08 09:21 PM   #12 
  - If Clinton gets the nomination, it will be 2004 all over again but worse.  GarbagemanLB   Feb-13-08 09:22 PM   #13 
  - That's the whole point! She ISN'T holding her own!  Bicoastal   Feb-13-08 09:22 PM   #14 
  - Obama is a flavor of the month  hill08   Feb-13-08 09:29 PM   #34 
     - I didn't know...  YvonneCa   Feb-13-08 09:44 PM   #59 
  - well, at least he wasn't...ahem...losing  NormaR   Feb-13-08 09:23 PM   #16 
  - She's not been vetted, there's plenty more out there.  heraldsqure   Feb-13-08 09:23 PM   #17 
  - and how about Obama, you want to talk about vetting  theaxe7   Feb-13-08 09:25 PM   #25 
     - Not even close. Unless you want to offer some support that I'm not aware of...  heraldsqure   Feb-13-08 09:27 PM   #30 
        - dude, by November...  theaxe7   Feb-13-08 09:30 PM   #35 
           - yer right  griffi94   Feb-13-08 09:53 PM   #69 
  - remember we all thought the war would be a big issue in 2004  theaxe7   Feb-13-08 09:23 PM   #20 
  - I think you're wrong. It will be a defining issue between McCain and  babylonsister   Feb-13-08 09:36 PM   #44 
  - Of course polls can change...  NMMatt   Feb-13-08 09:23 PM   #21 
  - By the way...  NMMatt   Feb-13-08 09:27 PM   #29 
  - Heh, Kerry probably had a 6% lead over Bush when the election was stolen.  1620rock   Feb-13-08 09:28 PM   #31 
  - All true  OzarkDem   Feb-13-08 09:28 PM   #33 
  - But wouldn't you prefer...  NMMatt   Feb-13-08 09:33 PM   #41 
     - No, because the unknown candidate will quickly become known  OzarkDem   Feb-13-08 09:35 PM   #43 
     - Which is Obama  NMMatt   Feb-13-08 09:44 PM   #58 
     - no  griffi94   Feb-13-08 10:01 PM   #76 
  - I agree that national polls between Obama vs McCain mean shit right now  NJSecularist   Feb-13-08 09:31 PM   #38 
  - Obama won't run out of money, and is not running against an incumbent  stahbrett   Feb-13-08 09:37 PM   #45 
  - Obama's campaign isn't ran by B-0fer-b Shrum either  NJSecularist   Feb-13-08 09:41 PM   #53 
     - The difference is a DNC that has rebuilt party infrastructure in states long collapsed  blm   Feb-13-08 09:55 PM   #71 
        - Plus a candidate who created his own infrastructure from scratch in many states (eom)  stahbrett   Feb-13-08 10:11 PM   #79 
           - heh...with a few wise men who put their existing networks at his disposal.  blm   Feb-13-08 10:24 PM   #80 
  - Kerry won. DNCs weakened infrastructure allowed RNC to steal it for Bush.  blm   Feb-13-08 09:42 PM   #56 
  - Have a heart...  YvonneCa   Feb-13-08 09:45 PM   #61 
     - Smooches back at you, kiddo. ;)  blm   Feb-13-08 09:54 PM   #70 
  - this is`t 2004  madrchsod   Feb-13-08 09:46 PM   #64 
  - Exactly  NMMatt   Feb-13-08 09:50 PM   #68 
  - But Kerry won..  Webster Green   Feb-13-08 09:59 PM   #73 
  - McCain isn't near the candidate Bush was  BrentTaylor   Feb-13-08 10:08 PM   #78 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC