Dead Heat between Bush and John Kerry if election held today despite low

[radio4progressives]

approval ratings and despite that 60% would prefer someone "completely different" from George W. Bush according to Time Poll.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Time_poll_60_want_next_president_1203.html

(snip)

ELECTION: Looking forward to the 2008 election, three-in-five (60%) surveyed by TIME say they would like the next President to be “completely different” from George W. Bush (36% would like someone similar). If the presidential election were being held today between Bush and John Kerry, it would be a dead heat again (47% Bush, 48% Kerry). Red state residents are split on whether they will be more likely to vote for a Republican (42%) or Democratic (42%) candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in their districts next year. Blue states are more in favor of the Democratic candidate (55% Democratic vs. 30% Republican).

(snip)

[Lefty48197]

1. Unbelievable

We should nominate the same person the Republicans nominate and see who gets the most votes.

[radio4progressives]

3. LOL.. that would be a very intersting experiement.. too bad we can't

afford the excerise at this juncture of utmost crises in our country.

On the other hand, it seems we keep nominating people that are in fact closly linked in terms of POLICIES.

when looked at it from that angle, maybe that's precisely the problem. difference is in name only.

[JAbuchan08]

5. Hilarious,

:rofl:

[Doctor_J]

94. The Big Media would still whore like crazy for the

Repub, and trash the Dem.

[Conservativesux]

2. Right, and pigs fly too. Bush would lose, unless Diebold cheated again!

There would have to be another 9/11 to push * 's numbers up again.

[radio4progressives]

7. well one 9/11 worked - don't think they won't do it again...

that's another problem we have in this conversation regarding the "war on terror".

[skipos]

4. I believe it might be accurate

The SBVT did such incredible, permanent damage to Kerry's campaign, and we waited way to long to respond. It wouldn't surprise me that so many people, even after witnessing Bush totally suck at his job, still avoid voting for Kerry.

[Mass]

13. Given that 40 % said that they want somebody LIKE Bush whoever is

candidate, it only shows there are a lot of people really screwed up in this country.

For the rest, any serious pollster knows what can be made with polls like that.

[wisteria]

74. Naw, your give to much credit to those jerks. Kerry can over come

that bullsh*t. It already have been discredited.

[skipos]

80. I am not giving credit to SBVT

I guess I am being more pessimistic about people's ability to research the facts and think clearly before they vote. Finding out that one of my gay friends voted for Bush because was a truly eye opening experience for me. His explanation: "I am going to inherit my dad's money someday, so I need to vote on that." His dad makes around $40,000 a year by the way.

:banghead:

[JAbuchan08]

6. In other words: Bush may be a total incompetent,

but that's not enough of a reason to risk change.

[radio4progressives]

12. uhh. bush was shown to be a total incompetent early in first term

what's going to make a difference now that
Bush will be pulling troops out of Iraq? and only launching massive air bombs killing hundreds of thousands more Iraqi's that won't be reported here in this country?

by the time the '08 elections roll around Bush is going to be allowed to have completely rehabilitate his reputation as an honest and well meaning incompetant - unless the Dems launch impeachment proceedings now.

That's the only way people are going to be able to stay with the corrupt and incompetance story.

But the Dems don't appear to be going down the impeachment proceedings path, are they?

edited syntax error

[JAbuchan08]

25. That's exactly how I feel. The only positive that can come out of the

last 5 years of horror is if Bush's character is never rehabilitate.

[stray cat]

8. I liked Kerry

However, the repub attack machine did irreparable damage to his reputation in the eyes of many Americans. The repubs did a great job of presenting a negative image of him to the American people.

[rodeodance]

9. gawd, i wish today was election day 2008.

ELECTION: Looking forward to the 2008 election, three-in-five (60%) surveyed by TIME say they would like the next President to be “completely different” from George W. Bush

[rodeodance]

11. i really do not know if this momentum can continue. sorry.

[Tiggeroshii]

78. If it were today, the momentum had already been here

through the libby indictments, etc,the dem would easily paint a corrupt picture on president bush. that would turn man more voters tot he dem, IMHO...

[Daylin Byak]

92. Well then,

I guess Jeb Bush dosen't have too much of a chance come 2008.

[Mass]

10. Hillarious - 40 % wants another GWBush?

May be they should test their masochistic feelings?

[rodeodance]

14. (36% would like someone similar). --scary stuff (but that is his 'base')--

that sticks by him.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. That settles it

I'll never believe a poll again. That has nothing to do with reality. I personally know at least fifty people who would vote Dem this time around. I can't believe I'm that unique.

[skipos]

16. 27% of Illinois voted for Alan Keyes. I know it is hard to believe

and maybe this poll isn't accurate, but there are many, many ignorant people out there. \

Personally, I don't know many Republicans who say they wish they voted for Kerry. I know they exist, but it probably isn't as large of a group as it should be.

[Mass]

18. You may be right or not concerning Kerry, but this poll is BS.

Any serious pollster knows that there is little meaning polling on an election that WILL not happen. These types of polls are notoriously meaningless.

But if it keeps you happy, good week-end.

[skipos]

20. It doesn't keep me happy

I am just trying to have a polite discussion.
:hi:

[Mass]

22. Me too, but it is difficult if I have to discuss on this type of poll.

BTW, if you believe in polls, all polls showed that the SBVT did very little damages to Kerry. People who were going to vote for him before still wanted to vote for him after, and those who did not want to vote for him before did not want to vote for him after.

[skipos]

27. My memory is that

the polls showed a serious drop for Kerry right after the SBVT came out, I believe it was around August. In particular there was a really bad one from Newsweek giving Bush a double digit advanatge. But that is my memory, it is known to be fuzzy.

[Mass]

33. It was right after the Republican convention I think

and in fact, when asked the actual question concerning the SVBT, people were saying that it did not alter their choice.

However, the " war on terra" and all the attacks by Bush and Co at the Convention did, particularly given the total incapacity of the Rapid Response Team put in place by the DNC of the time (given, Kerry has part of the responsibility).

But, and I remember because I was surprised at the time, they succeeded actually turning the SVBT story pretty well around once they decided to react (a little later than I had wished, I agree).

[radio4progressives]

36. Should we then disbelieve the extremely low approval ratings for Bush?

that has been in effect for several months now?

During the campaign i was certain the the polling was totally inaccurate and that it was impossible for Kerry to be so close or even at a lower approval rating than Bush - i just refused to believe that these were accurate polls methods and results.

At the time Zogby published an article sometime in the late spring, early summer suggesting that the election was "Kerry's to Lose", despite Zogby's own close polling data, it seemed to me the entire system (except for Zogby) was owned and controlled by the GOP.

The exit polling on the day of the elections made me think otherwise, especially Zogby's which i tended to trust more. But then the fraud happened and it was clear that it didn't matter what polls were telling us, because they flipped the election results to bring victory for Bush.

But then that suggests, that polls do play an important roll if only they weren't so badly skewed in the way that the questions are framed, or indeed the questions that are asked.

And then came the period where poll after poll showing Bush's approval numbers began a free fall, tumbling down and down .

If those results didn't work to challenge my assumptions, it certainly muddied my thinking about polling and the reported results.

But it's not just *my* assumptions, everyone here has reveled in Bush's free fall polling numbers. I don't trust Time. I don't trust who they are and their reporting for obvious reasons. So I probably shouldn't trust their polling data either. Even if and when they show low approval ratings for Bush - it could be that they feel compelled to agree with other polling companies, to maintain "credibility".

Could be that this is a completely bogus polling result, or sampling. And wasn't there a different poll result on the same/similar question just recently published?

[Mass]

41. This is a question that has a meaning and an importance for people NOW

That is a question they care ABOUT. It relates to real consideration.

The result of an election that WILL NEVER HAPPEN is not, and every serious pollster will tell you so.

[skipos]

46. I like looking at polls and think they can give a good

indication of things, but accurate they are not. I can see why no one would trust polls ever.

However, if you average most of the major polls (Zogby, CNN, CBS, Newsweek, etc) right before the election, they averaged out to predict a win by Bush by 1.5%.

Look halfway down this page.
http://realclearpolitics.com/polls.html

[Mass]

48. If you like looking at polls, read Ruy Texeira's blog -

The other thing is that polls are often relatively reliable when it comes to things that are in a near future because people have thought about it, and very unreliable for things that are totally hypothetical or not going to happen ever.

[skipos]

51. Link? nt

[Mass]

58. Here

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/

[ktlyon]

31. true some people would not want to admit they were wrong so

they would vote the same

[blm]

19. Polls like this are never meant for honest use. Remember the bogus polls

after 9-11 that kept asking

AREN'T YOU GLAD GORE ISN'T IN OFFICE NOW?

WHO DO YOU TRUST MORE ON TERROR ISSUE - GORE OR BUSH?

IS CLINTON RESPONSIBLE FOR 9-11?

The new polls are set up to drive the new storyline - that Democrats can't get it together even though Bush's numbers are down. It's the new media mantra now while Bush is in trouble they can't control.


Polls are bullshit until there's an actual vote.

More GOPs are always used in these polls, too.

[Mass]

21. Anyway, the questions themselves are bogus " totally different" vs

" not totally different" . What does that mean? If somebody has eyese of the same color as Bush, is he totally different or not?

As for the rest, my only answer to the question " if the election was held today" is "I would be very surprised".

[ruggerson]

17. Kerry is damaged goods

The rightwing smear campaign did the trick and Kerry was not enough of a fighter to capture the imagination of the swing voter.

It is very difficult to recover one's footing once smeared as a weak, flip flopping elitist.

Our next nominee has to know how to fight.

[wisteria]

66. Nope, I don't by it. Consider McCain and the Bush smears.

Is he damaged goods?

[Clarkie1]

23. Kerry is a great senator; this is more evidence he was a poor nominee.

Edit: There is no reason it needs to be that tough to win, folks. Or this close.

Kerry was the wrong choice. Senators are the wrong choice. One-term governors of small states with no international experience when we have a national security image problem are the wrong choice.

The stand-by-your man woman favored by the MSM is the WRONG CHOICE.

Wake up, Democrats!

[blm]

24. Kerry was a great quarterback with a weakass frontline - the DNC sucked

when it matched up against the RNC.

The left media got its ass kicked on a daily basis by the powerful RW machine.

Face it - it wasn't the candidate - it's GOP control of media and voting machines, and a DNC that was powerless in the face of both.

If you can name the one Democrat who outmaneuvered the RW media and the machines in 2004, please do, because even Clinton couldn't break through the mediaspin against him and for Bush on the terror issue even with a huge book and publicity tour.

[ruggerson]

28. I'm sorry, but in national politics, when you're getting "swiftboated"

You don't wait a month to respond, while the commercials are running every day, hammering home your destruction.

You respond, angrily and hard. Right away.

And you then "swiftboat" right back. Using surrogate groups, if need be.

Kerry wasn't ready for prime time hardball politics. The problem may have been compounded by the DNC, but it wasn't the DNC that lost the election. It was the candidate.

[blm]

34. Bush's LINE attacked Kerry, Bush didn't, where was Kerry's frontline?

Bush had a frontline protecting him at every step and never ONCE had to defend himself.

The LEFT LEANING and OBJECTIVE MEDIA were of NO CONSEQUENCE - not one of them broke through the everyday noise created by the RW machine.

Kerry WON all his man to man matchups with Bush.

And the defense Kerry did have on the swiftboats he had to generate on his own and the broadcast media ignored the serious articles and the Navy records while giving the swifties all the airtime they wanted.

The DNC was schooled on defend Clinton issues for the last 8 years and knew little about any other Democrats or post 9-11 issues.

And THEY were the ones that had the daily job countering the right on the news networks. Dem spokespeople and Dem pundits got their asses kicked out of their own lack of dynamics and intellect.

[Mass]

37. Too busy saying or saying that kerry brought it on himself ...

by talking about VietNam or other things like that Kerry was not connecting, right in the middle of the campaign.

Some were just not credible also. Going on TV and saying that Kerry is a good man was barely adequate.

His best surrogates on the subject were Cleland, Hutley, and Clark, may be because they were all credible.

I know some people of whom I still wonder if they wanted Kerry to win or not.

[wisteria]

67. Oh, lord, the same old wrong talking points- A month! No way! n/t

[Clarkie1]

35. Quarterbacks lead the rest of the team, not the other way around. n/t

[blm]

39. If your frontline avgs. 170lbs, it doesn't matter if you're Joe Montana.

And no one is naming that one Democrat with his own terrific frontline who beat the media last year.

[0007]

87. Absolutely, right on.....couldn't have said it better.

[ruggerson]

26. Hey, I know! Let's use another thread to bash Warner!

"One-term governors of small states with no international experience when we have a national security image problem are the wrong choice."

Since when is Virginia a small state?

[Clarkie1]

29. I think Warner's a great guy.

Who is bashing Warner? Certainly not me; he did great things in Virginia. Warner would be poor nominee for the reason I cited.

I hail from California, so forgive me if I regard Virginia as "small.";)

[skipos]

30. VA has 13 electoral votes. That ain't chicken scratch!

:)

[Clarkie1]

40. Yes, but it's barely a third of the 35 electoral votes we needed to win

last time around.

We need to do better, and we will do better...next time.

[skipos]

49. I am not saying VA is the end all be all but

Kerry's 252 evs plus 13 VA evs = 265. Only 5 to go.

I'd be doing cartwheels if we ever had a dem presidential candidate that could flip a huge state like TX, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon. In the meantime, we will have to try and flip smaller ones.

[ruggerson]

52. You're right, Arkansas would give us the necessary votes

to defeat any Republican.

Oh, wait. Arkansas is smaller than Virginia.

Never mind.

:9

[Clarkie1]

54. I never said anything remotely that silly.

I will say I think we need to stop looking for one-state wonders to solve our electoral dilemma. We need to be thinking nationally, not cherry-picking states.

That's one thing Kerry said that I agree with. I remember him saying during the primaries "you can't cherry pick the presidency." That statement stuck in my head as a very important insight.

[ruggerson]

55. Warner's strategy is even broader than that

He has said that we can't win by hoping to pick up all the "blue" states and then knock off one red one.

He wants to be competitive across the whole darn country.

I don't know why you assume that Warner or his supporters think that Virginia is the key to the presidency.

[Clarkie1]

59. I did not make that assumption.

Someone mentioned that Virgina had 13 electoral votes, and I felt in the context the implication was they felt that was a key to winning.

I am sure Warner and all the other potential candidates want to be competive across the whole country. When I say "we need to be thinking nationally" I mean we need to be thinking about the image Democrats have nationally.

Deserved or not, Democrats have a national-security image problem that enabled Bush to win in 2004, regardless of the Diebold shenanigans going on. That image problem was exacerbated by 9/11, when national security became the #1 issue.

National security only becomes an issue with presidential politics. It doesn't matter how wonderful the senator or effective the governor, if they have a "D" by their name they have a presidential politics image problem that handicaps them from day 1, particularly post-9/11.

By pointing that out I'm not bashing anyone, I'm simply asking that we understand it, because it is the key to winning the presidency in 08'.

[ruggerson]

63. Well I agree with that

which is why Hillary is doing what she's doing. The MSM has now been referring to her as a "Hawk". Have you noticed? A year ago, they were talking about how she was "tacking" to the right, now they're referring to her as an Armed Services Committee "Hawk."

She's certainly shrewd, isn't she?

But the democrats' image problem is more than national security. They are also seen as the "party of big government" and higher taxes. The party that is "softer on crime." The party that is "anti family values". The party that is "anti religion." The party that is "soft on illegals."

I don't think we can afford to focus on just ONE piece of the pie. We need a candidate who can ENTIRELY refocus the dynamic that has existed for the last six presidential cycles. One who understands language and can start to change the ingrained cliches listed above.

And, most of all, one who can define a simple, positive vision of our own, that can replace the current flawed lens through which the country currently views the Democrats.

[Clarkie1]

72. I agree completely with everything you just posted.

Particularly this...

"I don't think we can afford to focus on just ONE piece of the pie. We need a candidate who can ENTIRELY refocus the dynamic that has existed for the last six presidential cycles. One who understands language and can start to change the ingrained cliches listed above.

And, most of all, one who can define a simple, positive vision of our own, that can replace the current flawed lens through which the country currently views the Democrats."

I would add just one thought...

Neither a senator nor a governor with a "D" beside their name can "ENTIRELY refocus the dymanic" given "the current flawed lens though which the country currently views the Democrats."

Just my opinion...

[skipos]

83. You are really extrapolating on that one

I never said VA "was a key to winning." Give me a break. It is a step in the right direction, flipping a red state. I don't think there is anyone that thinks that any governor from any state with any kind of approval rating is going to waltz into the presidency without a great message and a great plan.

I like Warner, regardless of what state he is from. If you don't, that is your right, but please don't try to put words in my mouth.

[Mass]

38. Well, apparently it is OK to bask Kerry, so why not Warner?

Can we find another bogus poll just to do that?

:sarcasm:

[ruggerson]

42. The thread is about Kerry

and the fact that he doesn't poll ahead of Bush even after Bush's presidency has collapsed.

Somehow twisting this thread into yet another method to bash Warner, when the man hasn't even RUN yet, is really absurd.

If he runs, gets the nomination and loses, trust me, I'll be criticizing him plenty.

[Mass]

44. I may have missed the post, but I do not think anybody is bashing Warner.

As for the poll, I stand for what said previously.

As for Warner, I will start by looking at his positions on issues before I decide if I like him or not, not the fact that he is a Southern governor or that he has or not good hair.

[ruggerson]

47. his teeth are more prominent than his hair

i'm just sayin'

[wisteria]

69. LOL! n/t

[Clarkie1]

45. Yes, that would be absurd.

Is someone here doing that?

[Clarkie1]

43. Who is bashing Kerry?

Kerry is a great senator, but senators in general are poor choices for presidential politics.

[0007]

89. JFK wasn't a poor choice. I can think of a General that was to

busy playing golf and let the GOP crooks run things in the White House and was busy cutting deals for Myron Lansky.

Eisenhower wasn't certainly anything special. Other than he did bring the troops from Korea home and that was about it!

[Clarkie1]

90. JFK probably couldn't win in today's environment.

A senate record is a handicap, much more so than it was in 1960.

[wisteria]

68. Warner is an absolute DLCer with no Foreign policy experience. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

32. Thus speaks Walden O'Dell?

[politicasista]

50. The name Kerry seems to always ruffle some feathers around here

Interesting. :crazy:

[win_in_06]

53. Unfortunately Kerry won't get the opportunity to run against Bush.

At least not George Bush. Maybe Jeb.

[ProSense]

56. UK Mirror: How could 47% of Americans be so stupid?

Kerry won then, would win now.

[Mass]

57. from the Left Coaster' Steve Soto, somebody who knows how to analyze polls

and focus on what matters.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/

Time Magazine Poll: Red State Adults Willing To Vote Democratic Next Year

Raw Story posted a piece a little while ago from an advance look they got at a Time Magazine poll that will be out very soon. The survey indicates that after two months of strenuous White House/GOP effort to rebuild Bush’s image from Katrina, his approval rating actually went down a statistically-insignificant one point since early September (41% now, 42% then).

Again, this is a preliminary reading, but some of the other findings in the poll are noteworthy:

*Three-quarters (76%) of those who disapprove of the job Bush is doing say they are “unlikely to change their mind.”

*Looking forward to the 2008 election, three-in-five (60%) surveyed by TIME say they would like the next President to be “completely different” from George W. Bush (36% would like someone similar).

But here is the finding I noted above all else:

Red state residents are split on whether they will be more likely to vote for a Republican (42%) or Democratic (42%) candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in their districts next year. Blue states are more in favor of the Democratic candidate (55% Democratic vs. 30% Republican).

Again, this is a preliminary reading of a poll out later this weekend, and it is taken of all adults, not of likely voters. But you can’t escape that problem for the GOP in their own red state base if adults in those states are equally open to the idea of voting for a Democrat as they are for a Republican in 2006. It calls into question the GOP talking point that they will hold onto the Congress next year because of relatively few competitive seats.

[radio4progressives]

61. Interesting Article but wonder why they ignored the "dead heat" elephant

in the middle of the room, glaring in our faces now?

hmm... guess it was too hard to wrap their minds around, especially if it contradicts their conclusions.

[Mass]

62. Because it is totally non significative

This is a vanity poll, that has no importance whatsoever. The important right now is 06.

Note that rawstory did not consider that THE IMPORTANT ITEM in the poll. You are the one who focused on it.

For those who have not read the 2rawstory story, here was the title:

Time poll: 60% want next president to be 'completely different' from Bush (no Kerry, what, they dont think it is important? They may be sold to Kerry as well - not even a comment on how poorly Kerry does.)

[radio4progressives]

71. Why is one question more important than the other in the same poll.

just for the record i posted the link to the story - and just for the record i included the quote 60% "completely different from Bush".

I focused on that question, in the CONTEXT of these contradictions in the SAME poll. I don't see vanity here. I see contradictions. I want to know the MEANING of what *appears* to be a contradiction.

Don't You?

Or do you just want to be reactionary?

[Mass]

79. Read my previous polls. You will know why.

I know enough about polls to know which questions mean something and which do not.

And I dont bother about those that are meaningless (and that would have been meaningless to me even if Kerry had been ay 70 %).

[Arkana]

60. And Diebold votes Turd

So Turd wins.

[wisteria]

64. Yea, and these numbers were just from Rebublicans!

Time has moved very much to the right so if they claim a dead heat,you know Kerry would win by much more than what is stated.Actually, I've seem some polls where Kerry would be ahead by 5% or more.

[win_in_06]

65. Time's Person of the Year will help indicate just how far to the right

they have moved this year.

[wisteria]

70. You got that right, Bush!! n/t

[radio4progressives]

73. Why only 5% ? That's the QUESTION we should be asking, imo.

Why is there a near or a dead heat in the face of severe negative approval ratings?

Why isn't Kerry's favorability proportional to Bush's disapproval ratings in these same polls?

[wisteria]

77. That actually is a very good number in these polarized times

and given that Clinton didn't win his first election- and I believe his second with that much of a difference over his Republican opponents. Look back at previous elections, most have always been tight races except for Nixon/McGovern and Stevenson/Eisenhower(sp)both times.on the other hand Kennedy barely won over Nixon also.It has always been tough to get Democrats elected President.

[wisteria]

75. Actually, Kerry will do a lot better the second time around

IF he decides to run again. This time he wouldn't be running against an incumnent war time president with the people scared into believing that only Bush could keep them safe.

[radio4progressives]

86. He'll be running against McCain - another veteran - maybe Clark is the

answer.. dunno.

[liberalpragmatist]

76. It's because too many Republicans still insist that they voted right

My guess is that most Republicans would say they "still" agree with voting for Bush because any Democrat "would be worse." Whatever.

The fact that Kerry and Bush are in a dead-heat is pretty bad news for Bush. A poll of Clinton and Dole in '97 would probably have showed Dole losing even worse to Clinton.

[radio4progressives]

85. hmm. i though polls showing Clinton with exceptionally high numbers

guess i don't remember those polls that well, or didn't give it that much weight at the time.

[Auntie Bush]

81. I think this shows that we should put up someone else than Kerry. To

many Repub learned to dislike him because he was running against Bush They would never support him now...however they may be more likely to support a different candidate...like say General Wesley Clark...not that I'm bias!

[wisteria]

91. Of course not. No bias here. n/t

[Auntie Bush]

82. I think this shows that we should put up someone else than Kerry. To

many Repub learned to dislike him because he was running against Bush They would never support him now...however they may be more likely to support a different candidate...like say General Wesley Clark...not that I'm bias!

[0007]

84. Get outta here!

Who gives a rats fuck?

[LittleClarkie]

88. So which poll was it that had Bush losing with 36%

of the vote? Not Time, obviously.

[zann725]

93. Oh pleeeeeze! It was NOT a "Dead Heat" the 1st time...despite polls!

All on-line polls I took NATIONWIDE, and on-line MSM during the 4 months PRIOR to the Election came out essentially 70% Kerry, 30% Bush. It was NEVER even close. Even the MSNBC on-line poll I took on Election Night showed Kerry about 70% again!! (That poll was pulled from the site later that evening, AFTER Bush's ??Victory??)

I FIRMLY blieve it was NEVER a close race, but the American public needed to hear THAT...so that the "fixing" of the election was easier to 'pull off.' Creating the illusion of a 3 point gap (or less) was far easier to fudge. It would NOT be the first time this Admin's "press" fudged the facts to favor their agenda.

As far as I'm concerned, Shrub's polls have the last year+ ALWYAS been in the 30%. MSM finally admitting his ratings are now so lo, implies to me they are NOW quite lower. In the "negatives" perhaps? No joke...so much 'negative energy' might just one day produce 'negative' numbers!

[Doctor_J]

95. This goes to show that the Media are still completely GOP

The Repukes have been completely in charge for the entire disaster over the last five years, and yet Matthews and his ilk are able to saddle us with some of the blame.

[area51]

96. WTF?

rawstory said:

"If the presidential election were being held today between Bush and John Kerry, it would be a dead heat again (47% Bush, 48% Kerry)."

Even after Bush has cratered this economy into the 2nd Great Depression, created a 2nd Vietnam-style war, trashed the Constitution, made secrecy, spying & torture the norm, and "it's a dead heat"?

Apparently I have stepped into an alternate universe. :wtf:

[radio4progressives]

103. I think we do live in alternative universe.. this ain't america

this is some sort of Orwellian Bizarro world created by an unholy alliance of neo fascists and fundemendalists - first they took over the media and then the election machines, then congress, the military, the justice department and then finally the courts -
the rest was a foregone conclusion.

[agincourt]

97. All jokes aside,

The democratic party should do heavy nationwide polling on WHY those 47% would still take Bush over Kerry. The answers may be 100% stupid or they may give insight into why Kerry didn't win overwhelmingly. Either way we should know why the rejected a semi-decent guy like Kerry for a piece of slit-eyed texas ratshit like Bush.

[radio4progressives]

98. I'm thinking that the Time Poll is actually a Pro-GOP Biased poll.

It would be interesting to compare a Zogby poll to the Time Poll. (?)

[agincourt]

99. Either way,

They should catagorize the reasons people voted against Kerry across the USA. It may be cognitive dissounance bullshit, or it maybe otherwise mentally capable people being fooled. We should catagorize specific reasons in different catagories. Break down what happened here, unpleasent as it may be.

[karynnj]

100. With those national numbers, it would be an easy Kerry win

[Einstein99]

101. I think many people are overlooking a key point.

Half of American voters (if not more) do not vote on the basis of policies or issues; they vote for the "personality" they like best. They treat voting for President of the United States the same way they voted for president of the senior class (if they got that far in school). During the last campaign, Daryl Waltrip, the race car driver turned car salesman, when interviewed on NPR, said that he did not care about issues. He just shook George Bush's hand, and he knew he was the man for the job. Yeah, he really said that! The problem is, he is not unique. That's the way many Americans vote. It bugs me when pundits say that Bush won because of this reason, or Kerry lost because of that reason; there were lots of reasons--some more weighty in some states, others more weighty elsewhere. We should not dismiss the fact, though, that far too many Americans voted for Bush just because they did not like Kerry. If the election were held again today, I'm not sure how much that situation would change. People have written Kerry off, and he's toast.

[wisteria]

102. I disagree, first where do you get your numbers? Second, many

factors play into a voter's choice. To suggest that a major reason Kerry lost was due to personality is just absolutely wrong. The reason many vote for Bush was on security issues and the war on terror.Some would even suggest that Kerry actually won and if he would have gotten 60,000 more votes in Ohio, he would be President.personally, anyone who actually saw and heard Kerry did not come away with the impression you seem to provide. Its all in the PR and that can be addressed. Toast? No, the facts that lead to Kerry's loss are not fatal and some can even be turned around now and used to our advantage.

[Einstein99]

104. I guess we're just on different wavelengths

I could rebut several of your points, but you would just come back with rebuttals to my rebuttals, and we'd be right back where we started. Bottom line: I guess you think Kerry has a chance for a comeback, and I don't.
:pals:

[skipos]

105. Yes, millions of people vote for stupid reasons like "likeability" nt

[second edition]

106. John Kerry is likable! I think it was that some people voted for the guy

the guy whom they considered more like them. I will now add, I hope those that voted for the "just like me" guy have learned a lesson and will vote more wisely next time.

[yellowcanine]

107. These kinds of polls are worse than worthless. Who is going to say

they should have voted for the other guy? Hardly anybody. It is just human nature to not want to admit that you completely fucked up your vote.