Poll: Kerry Would Top Bush Today

[ohtransplant]

If last year’s presidential election were being held today, the results might well be different than the results of a year ago. 41% of registered voters say that if the 2004 election were being held today, they would cast their ballot for Democratic candidate John Kerry, while 36% say they would vote for President George W. Bush. 13% say they would vote for someone else, and 6% wouldn’t vote at all.


IF 2004 ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY…
(Registered Voters)

John Kerry
41%
George W. Bush
36%
Someone else
13%
Not vote
6%

In this poll, 12% of registered voters said they didn’t vote in 2004. Among those who did vote, 45% said they voted for Kerry last year, and 46% said they voted for President Bush. 2% reported voting for Nader, and 7% won’t say for whom they voted.

If the election were held this year, both candidates would retain more than eight in ten of the voters who supported them last year, according to this poll. But President Bush would lose about 3% of those who said they voted for him last year to his Democratic opponent. And although none of those who supported Kerry last year would now vote for Bush, 13% say they would support another candidate. But among voters who either didn’t vote in 2004 or voted for another candidate, or refused to say for whom they voted, Kerry leads Bush by 34% to 11%.


more

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/04/opinion/polls/main1011154.shtml


Food for thought. Interesting...

[Gato Moteado]

1. i think the polls on election day showed kerry winning also.....

.....kerry could poll at 85% and bush at 10% but as long as dieboldt runs the voting machines and the republican party of filth runs dieboldt, polls don't really matter.

[NYCGirl]

2. No, a 75% difference would certainly rule out Diebold tampering. NT

[ohtransplant]

6. Diebold is pulling their machines from North Carolina

instead of revealing their source code. Hmmm.. wonder what's in there?

edit to provide link to DU thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=403225&mesg_id=403225

[elperromagico]

12. How exactly did a Democrat win in Virginia?

Why didn't the Republicans rig it?

Diebold isn't everywhere. It shouldn't be anywhere, but it isn't everywhere.

[skipos]

21. And don't forget about Arnolds CA proposals that we thumped too.

And NJ.
We can win elections.

[azmouse]

3. If Bush and his minnions hadn't stolen the election

last year that is what the real results would have looked like.

[Tom Joad]

4. Pathetic how close they are... even though the country is

ready to flush Bush down the toilet.

Maybe if kerry gave up this longgggggg phased withdraw line and started calling for an end to the madness...

but it is not his nature to question the imperialistic premises of US foreign policy, just wants it better managed.

[ohtransplant]

7. What popped out at me is

the movement among moderates. this is where (fair) elections are won and lost.

I think Kerry's plan for a phased withdrawal- aka his Georgetown speech - was a real catalyst in bringing this debate to the front burner where it belongs. That's the real value he brings. Much debate remains.

[arewenotdemo]

10. Well, YEAH. You DO want us to SUCCEED in Iraqnam,

don't you, Tom Joad??????

[sandnsea]

16. Yeah, who cares about the alternative

[sandnsea]

15. Kucincih doesn't want to withdraw until next October!!!

That's his fucking target date. Next friggin' OCTOBER. Kerry had wanted to begin withdrawing troops THIS PAST SUMMER.

Dumbasses. This country is just brimming with dumbasses who prefer bandwagons over facts.

:banghead:

:grr:

[second edition]

5. I'm happy to see that people are waking up, it sad to know that

it's been to long in coming. Kerry should be President.

[candice]

8. Kerry would have to win by 80 percent to defeat the rigged voting...

and Ken Blackwell's central tabulator in his office would have to be off-limit to Karl Rove.

[ashling]

9. The same - only different

If last year’s presidential election were being held today, the results might well be different than the results of a year ago. 41% of registered voters say that if the 2004 election were being held today, they would cast their ballot for Democratic candidate John Kerry, while 36% say they would vote for President George W. Bush. 13% say they would vote for someone else, and 6% wouldn’t vote at all.

Hell, the results were different a year ago than they were a year ago.
:mad:

[elperromagico]

11. Fat lot of good it does now.

Still, it's good to see.

[ohtransplant]

14. I think it's more of an indicator for '06

than anything else right now.

It looks like the Dems will have a real opportunity to win some Congressional seats, state, and local level elections. As I understand it, that's one of the things Kerry has been working for since the '04 election.

[robbedvoter]

13. Duh...he topped him in 2004, until Rove's personal numbers came in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3987237.stm

Early exit polls quoted by media seemed to give Mr Kerry the edge, but colleagues said Mr Rove indicated right away that they did not tally with his information.

He used his own data to put Ohio and Florida in the Bush column - bringing cheers from the president and his family when he went into the Roosevelt Room and told them

[karynnj]

17. This story is from Nov 5 - with the polling obviously before that

since then Bush has fallen further. Key in the results is Kerry to Bush voters are non-existent, while there are Busk to Kerry. Of the 13% of Kerry voters who weht to other or not vote, I would wager if they really did redo the election (so it's unconstitutional), these voters might hold there nose (like the first time) and vote Kerry.

[0007]

18. Like reading a three day old newspaper that was wrapped

in fish gone bad.

What's the point?

[Clarkie1]

19. 41%....still more evidence how weak a candidate Kerry was.

He's certainly a great senator, though. He just lacks the charisma, personality, and background to appeal to a diverse range of folks on the national level.

[AmericanDream]

20. Exactly... 5 pt lead when Dubya is at rock bottom is hardly comforting. nt

[elperromagico]

22. Clinton beat Bush 41 with similar percentages in '92.

[zulchzulu]

23. Wow! So Kerry would win AGAIN...

He won in 2004...now that the election could be re-run, he'd win again....

[Darranar]

24. 13% "other"? n/t

[Dances with Cats]

25. What does it matter?

n/t...

[LittleClarkie]

26. Erase Kerry. What you are left with is an exodus away from Republicans

You are left with people waking up.

[last_texas_dem]

27. I agree

If a less than 50% approval rating is considered unsafe for an incumbent up for re-election, Shrub's 36% re-elect is pretty pathetic. It's a shame he's not up next year, and we're instead stuck with the putz for three more years.

[ohtransplant]

28. Thanks for putting it so clearly.

That's what I was trying to say in post 14 but I guess it didn't come through.

Seems Kerry can't even win a poll without being criticized for it.