Kerry is back in the lead

[Xzion]

3 Polls on CNN showed Kerry with a 2 point lead over Bush,a one point lead, and a tie... comming back in the middle of the RNC, after being down before the RNC. Looks like racist Zell Miller and Dick Cheney are a burden for GW.

[Krurk]

I'm going to make a couple of guesses

#1) Those polls take several days to conduct, so they likely do not take the RNC into consideration (since it is still in progress)

#2) As a follow-up to #1, Bush has not yet addressed the convention. Ofcourse, you could argue this is a good or bad thing for his poll numbers.

#3) The sampling errors on polls tend to be from 3-5%, so in reality the polls are considered even.

#4) General polls overall are meaningless. The only ones that really matter are polls in Ohio, Florida, or polls specifically designed on a state by state basis to measure electoral votes.

#5) Finally, most polls poll only those who have voted in the past. Considering the impact of this election, it is quite possible that large numbers of voters who have not voted in the 2000 election will turnout. As to who these people support, no one knows.

#6) Two months to go. A lot can change, like the job numbers can remain as abysmal as they have, GDP growth may continue at it's 'barely maintaining pace with inflation' 3%, and ofcourse something could always blow up.

btw, we conducted a poll in my class yesterday. Out of 70 citizens largely incapable of putting their pants on, almost all support John Kerry, therefor he will win Florida in a land-slide. Have a good day.

[Arborealus]

#5) Finally, most polls poll only those who have voted in the past. Considering the impact of this election, it is quite possible that large numbers of voters who have not voted in the 2000 election will turnout. As to who these people support, no one knows.

Errrmmm pollsters would not have access to that info...any poll worth a crap will always draw it's sample randomly...actually its pseudo random but it works...

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

btw, we conducted a poll in my class yesterday. Out of 70 citizens largely incapable of putting their pants on, almost all support John Kerry, therefor he will win Florida in a land-slide. Have a good day.

Those same citizens supported Gore. The question is not who they support, but are they competent enough to actually be able to punch a hole next to the correct name. I think we know the answer to that question already.

[Winnow]

I think it's shaping up to be something more like this:

[Voronwë]

I think it's shaping up to be something more like this:

interesting that you invoke Reagan. Reagan was down by 7-10 points at this point to the encumbant Carter in 1980.

but the polls released on CNN do not take into account anything from last night - i'm fairly sure they said that on the air anyways.

[Winnow]

interesting that you invoke Reagan. Reagan was down by 7-10 points at this point to the encumbant Carter in 1980.

but the polls released on CNN do not take into account anything from last night - i'm fairly sure they said that on the air anyways.

Well in 1980 at least Carter won a few more states:

[Winnow]

I don't expect much, if any, of a convention bounce for Bush.

Bush advisers saw the convention culminating in the president's speech as an effort to cast him as a strong leader, to further discredit Kerry and to reach out to independents and swing voters. They also sought to tamp down expectations of a convention "bounce" heading into Labor Day.

"The incumbent party which has its convention second generally gets two-thirds of the bounce of the challenger party which holds its convention first. And since their bounce was zero, two-thirds of zero is zero," Bush chief political strategist Karl Rove said.

Since Kerry sucked so much, even a one point bounce would be better.

[Kwonryu DragonFist]

Kerry's gonna be teh man!

[archeiron]

This race is close at the moment; narrower than the margin of error in any polls. We still have a long way to go until election day and God knows the politicians have in store for us between now and then.

[kyoukan]

I don't expect much, if any, of a convention bounce for Bush.

you said right after the DNC that you did expect it. why do you lie so much?

[Dregor Thule]

I don't expect much, if any, of a convention bounce for Bush.

you said right after the DNC that you did expect it. why do you lie so much?

Why bother reading his posts? Turn on the TV to CNN, wait for a pro-Republican soundbyte (I know, this may take awhile, EVIL LIBERAL JEWISH MONEYGRABBING MEDIA MACHINE!!!!1!) and you already know what he would have posted.

[Chidoro]

I personally follow the electoral balance. 47% here, 51% there, means nothing really. Kerry will win certain states and pull out others so long as the debates can still decide. He just needs to weather this onslaught of non-issue personal attacks. The reps are dirty and irrelavant. Flip-flop my ass, the world isn't black and white. Sure, the simpletons can say he changed his decision based off of new information but why is that flip-flopping exactly? Newsflash, it's not, it's just another "cuss word" tagline the reps have been able to wash the majority of simpletons with(think how they did it with the word liberal). They can say the issues are as simple as 1+1 even if they're not. And god forbid they actually try to. I point to the one time that Bush actually presented a more realistic outcome of this terror confrontation, he had to backtrack right quick.

So Cheney can say that Kerry flips, but it's only because there are too many numbnuts that don't see Cheney doing said flips in his Iraq money piles. Also a newsflash, the whole non-competing situation of 10 billion dollars for a Cheney company doesn't mean that the contract is limited to 10 billion dollars (as if that isn't enough to throw him in jail for conflicting interests). No, once the initial contract is signed for a certain figure, additional amounts can be added on top completely outside and dodging the said initial number.

Seriously, if you're not overly christian, a military contractor of a hardware piece that is, surely, outdated for modern combat(sure, let's put forth the Paladin program ), or don't make a shitton of money, Bush isn't helping you.

[Dregor Thule]

Seriously, if you're not overly christian, a military contractor of a hardware piece that is, surely, outdated for modern combat(sure, let's put forth the Paladin program ), or don't make a shitton of money, Bush isn't helping you.

You forgot "or a drooling moron".

[Markulas]

Woot Go Minnesota!!!

[Winnow]

I don't expect much, if any, of a convention bounce for Bush.

you said right after the DNC that you did expect it. why do you lie so much?

I need to learn how to flip flop just in case Kerry is elected and chaos reigns.

I also said I expected Kerry to get a bounce and was surprised he didn't. I hope I'm wrong again!

[Canelek]

Unless the Democrat party can play hardball for the next 2 months, they will have no chance. Maybe not a Mondale type thing, but somewhat close to it. Polls in September really do not mean much.

If the Republican party was on its heels at this point in the race, sure, I would think differently, but that is not the case.

I am no political analyst by any means (that must be one fucking boring job), I am just giving my lay opinion regarding play-polls.

[Chidoro]

and again, the term flip-flop can be as obvious as saying, "trends change and I'm man enough to re-evaluate"

You wouldn't do too well in the business world Win. Hate to say it, but if that's your truthful angle, you just wouldn't

[Winnow]

Bounce or not, the playing field favors Bush all the way up to the election from here on out.

It's more likely for security issues to happen before the election than not. Most likely there will be all sorts of alerts the days leading up to and the day of the election which will help put voters into a security driven state of mind right before entering the booth.

I've sent word to the Bush camp that having military personel in full biological/chemical gear standing outside the voting booths might be a nice last minute touch.

Vote Bush!

[Dregor Thule]

I figure that the RNC will use the new 8 second delay rule to clean up Bush's attempts at English. Who's with me??!

[Chidoro]

It's fun watching Pataki shiver and shake giving his speech knowing full well it's the last time he's going to be relevant in politics.

So many lies in such a short speech. I think he broke a record.

[Sirton]

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm

http://www.davidwissing.com/gen2004polls.php

I think this shows how the polls are swinging.

Notice the most pro Kerry polls recently have been zogby and arg.

Zogby shows a 9 point swing in Bush's favor while ARG shows a 4 point swing. All the most recent polls show a swing towards Bush that I noticed.

Rasmussen have been neck and neck for months with Kerry a slight lead..........Now it shows Bush pulling ahead 4 point and that is before his speech.

[Sirton]

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases ... 62,00.html
Shows Bush now has a double digits lead. Also in there last poll on 8/26 they were tied.

One other thing...This poll was conducted upto Thursday, so It didnt include any bouce from Bush's speech.

[Sirton]

Zogby has Bush up by 11 in Ohio??? boggles. wow.

[Pherr the Dorf]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Kerry 264 Bush 222

[Winnow]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Kerry 264 Bush 222

Thankfully that's not reliable but I can see that PA flipped to Kerry (+21/-21) and Florida went back to neutral (-27) for the change.

I have connections in PA so I'm not worried about PA but Florida may need some work. Kerry is probably saying Bush caused the hurricanes or something.

Masteen, give us your in the trenches 411 on the Florida vote situation!

[Sirton]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
good sight...has ton of polls and you can look at some history of were most of the current polls have been at...so one crazy poll wont have someone winning a state...Like how Bush was only 3 points down in California recently.

http://www.geocities.com/wubwub/bushkerrystate2004.html Again another sight that shows the trend in polls too.

As you can see almost all recent polls but that one have Bush up in Florida.

Same with NV, and MO and no recent polls except a couple ties in CO, but we know were it will go from last election....There arent really any states with mass changes really from 2000.

[Winnow]

Here's a nice summary of what's going on currently:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel ... poll_x.htm

[Pherr the Dorf]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Kerry 264 Bush 222

Thankfully that's not reliable but I can see that PA flipped to Kerry (+21/-21) and Florida went back to neutral (-27) for the change.

I have connections in PA so I'm not worried about PA but Florida may need some work. Kerry is probably saying Bush caused the hurricanes or something.

Masteen, give us your in the trenches 411 on the Florida vote situation!

Funny every polital analyst on both sides I have heard says PA is going to Kerry, and that the Bush strat is to make him waste time there, not to win it thus diverting energy from Ohio and Fla, 2 states Bush desperately needs

[Xzion]

Bush will win ohio, Kerry gets PA and FLA, new mex, nevada, and the rest of the midwest swing states (unless he does something drastic to counter Ivan if it comes threw)

[Mak]

As I read about yet another terror attack in Jakarta just a few hours ago, and I recall what happened in Russia last week, I can't help but think that more and more Americans will begin to realize that GWB was more right than wrong when he talked about terrorism being a worldwide problem.

I think they will also begin to think that perhaps his response was the correct one as well. This would seem to help him in the polls.

[Zaelath]

As I read about yet another terror attack in Jakarta just a few hours ago, and I recall what happened in Russia last week, I can't help but think that more and more Americans will begin to realize that GWB was more right than wrong when he talked about terrorism being a worldwide problem.

I think they will also begin to think that perhaps his response was the correct one as well. This would seem to help him in the polls.

Yeah, because violence doesn't breed more violence. There would be more terrorism if Bush wasn't throwing his weight around in the middle east.

Oh wait.. fuck I'm a moron, terrorism is on the rise.. silly me: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/

NEW YORK - As speakers at the GOP convention trumpet Bush administration successes in the war on terrorism, an NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, shows that attacks are on the rise worldwide — dramatically.

I also sell elephant repellant (outside Africa and India), $50 a can, $1 million prize if you get attacked by an elephant outside a zoo/game reserve.

[miir]

Yeah, thats some pretty fucked up logic.

Bush claims that he is winning the 'war on terror' but all statistics indicate the opposite.

[Lynks]

I also sell elephant repellant (outside Africa and India), $50 a can, $1 million prize if you get attacked by an elephant outside a zoo/game reserve.

I'll take 2 please.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Yeah, thats some pretty fucked up logic.

Bush claims that he is winning the 'war on terror' but all statistics indicate the opposite.

Another example of short-sightedness.

[Kelshara]

As I read about yet another terror attack in Jakarta just a few hours ago, and I recall what happened in Russia last week, I can't help but think that more and more Americans will begin to realize that GWB was more right than wrong when he talked about terrorism being a worldwide problem.

I think they will also begin to think that perhaps his response was the correct one as well. This would seem to help him in the polls.

How would that help him in the polls? If anything, it should lower him if people had the slightest bit of intelligense. No single country will win the war on terror (which btw most likely can't be won). So what does he do? He alienates large parts of the world instead of cooperating with them to have as much success a possible. Real smart!

[miir]

Yeah, thats some pretty fucked up logic.

Bush claims that he is winning the 'war on terror' but all statistics indicate the opposite.

Another example of short-sightedness.

Then explain to me how the US and the world is safer since you guys invaded Iraq.

[Sylvus]

You're being short-sighted miir.

The Bush strategy is to piss the rest of the world off for 2-6 years until there are innumerable (my word, not his) terrorists making attacks all over the world. After 15 or 20 years of that, they will probably have gorged themselves on the terrorism buffet and will become sick of all the killing. They will declare an end to the attacks and an amendment will be added that forbids dissent and questioning of political leaders. In 2027 the world will be a tremendously safe place, all thanks to the current administration. And you pussy liberals wanted a more sensitive war on terror, ha! You just can't see the forest for the trees...

[Sueven]

Coming from Pennsylvania, I would be pretty shocked if it went to Bush. The two bookend cities will vote heavily liberal, as will the Lehigh Valley (the third most populous area in the state). Harrisburg and State College will provide some Kerry votes as well. Bush will win heavily in the redneck parts of the state (the North and some parts of the center), but the population in those areas isn't thick enough to offset Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Our last gubernatorial election was a pretty solid blueprint.

Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh in the West, Philadelphia in the East, and Alabama in the middle.

[Mak]

What does Bush have to do with terrorism in Russia and Indonesia?

The only thing I was pointing out was that Bush has stated that terrorism continues to rise in frequency and ferocity throughout the world, and that's why all nations should be more pro-active in fighting it. Regardless of whether or not you feel Bush did the right thing in invading Iraq, you can't say he is/was wrong.

And I think it's quite a stretch to point to the war in Iraq as the root cause of all the world's terrorism- maybe wishful thinking on the part of the left, but not a fair assessment.

[Sylvus]

Regardless of whether or not you feel Bush did the right thing in invading Iraq, you can't say he is/was wrong.

And I think it's quite a stretch to point to the war in Iraq as the root cause of all the world's terrorism- maybe wishful thinking on the part of the left, but not a fair assessment.

So you can say he was right but we can't say he was wrong? Or neither of us can say either way whether he was right or wrong? Because I disagree, and am saying that Bush was wrong. If his goal was a "War on Terror" as he declared on Sept. 13th, 2001 (or whenever), I do not think he did the right thing going into Iraq.

No one is saying that Iraq is the cause of all the world's terrorism, we're saying that it is encouraging the spread of terrorism. When a fire breaks out and you throw gasoline on it you may not be responsible for starting it, but you sure as shit didn't help put it out.

/edit: I may have read that first part incorrectly. I thought you were trying to imply that we couldn't say he was wrong in attacking Iraq. You may have meant that he wasn't wrong in saying people need to be more pro-active, in which case I agree with that statement but disagree with his implementation of the pro-active plan.

[Kelshara]

The war in Iraq led to a hunge influx of recruitment of terrorists. More terrorists = more terrorist acts. Responsible for all over the world? No, but it definitely did not help, quite the contrary.

The only thing I was pointing out was that Bush has stated that terrorism continues to rise in frequency and ferocity throughout the world, and that's why all nations should be more pro-active in fighting it. Regardless of whether or not you feel Bush did the right thing in invading Iraq, you can't say he is/was wrong.

Yes I can. And I will in fact. Yes terrorism is on a rise and it is partly (not entirely) due to Iraq (oh and as for what Iraq has to do with terrorists in Russia: The rebel Chechnyan terrorist who has masterminded the Russian attacks have proven links to al Qaeda.. no Midnyte that is not the Chechnyan leadership having links, but a person they have taken a public stand against). And re-read what I said earlier about alienating a large part of the world. That is not how to fight a common threat.

[Mak]

Sylvus- you're edit was correct- obviously you can think he's wrong about a lot of things, but his statements about terrorism's growth are what I was primarily referring to. If Bush is perceived as being right about that, an undecided voter in a swing state may come to think he's right in other areas as well.

Kelshara- I can't disagree with your statement that more terrorists = more terrorist acts- that makes perfect sense. But it also makes sense to me that the thrust of those acts would logically be against the nation that caused it, the US. I think a great many people won't accept a connection between what happened in Chechnya/Indonesia and the war in Iraq. If you're a terrorist pissed off at the US, it simply doesn't make any sense to blow up an Australian embassy in a place most Americans can't find on a map.

That's why I say it might have a positive influence for him in the polls. People can connect violence against the US and US forces in Iraq with our war there, but that doesn't necessarily explain terrorism elsewhere, and ergo, Bush must be right when he says it's a global threat. Again, if people perceive he's right about that (and thinking as an undecided voter seeing all these acts of terror all over) what else might he be right in?

I mean hell, the Russians were against the US invasion and yet they are still victims. I'm betting more and more people will start to think like Midnyte- fuck the Muslims- and who's the man they'll think of next? Bush.

Every act of terror around the world will only strengthen Bush's stance, in my opinion. That's essentially what I was saying earlier.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Bush pulled ahead by what could be a big margin in Missouri and Ohio. When it comes down to it, people will be scared away from voting for Kerry's "more sensitive" war. People are wanting pro-active thinking against terrorists...and not sitting around hoping they don't strike where they live.

Until Israel is gone, there will never, ever be an end to terrorists who hate the U.S. Who gives a rats ass about them adding more because of Iraq when there is already an unending supply of them because of Israel? I would prefer we keep them on the defensive rather than have them sitting around plotting away at their leisure.

[Sylvus]

I would prefer we keep them on the defensive rather than have them sitting around plotting away at their leisure.

I agree with wanting to keep terrorism on the defensive, but think that us being tied up in Iraq is not keeping terrorists on the defensive at all, and is actually having quite the opposite effect.

A "more sensitive, more intelligent war" is still a war; it doesn't mean we're going to lay our guns down. Rather, it means we'll use diplomacy when we can instead of alienating the rest of the world and not go on snipe hunts for WMDs or personal vendettas or whatever and actually focus on eliminating terrorists.

[Kelshara]

But it also makes sense to me that the thrust of those acts would logically be against the nation that caused it, the US. I think a great many people won't accept a connection between what happened in Chechnya/Indonesia and the war in Iraq. If you're a terrorist pissed off at the US, it simply doesn't make any sense to blow up an Australian embassy in a place most Americans can't find on a map.

Well this is my take on it.. I am sure it can be argued against though:
1. Australia supported the war on Iraq and was early named as a possible target for terrorist threats by al Qaeda. An embassy in a country like Indonesia would be an easy target if a cell is not extremely well organized.
2. Influx of more terrorists to al Qaeda means they can target more countries. The Chechnyan rebel is an ally and needed some people willing to die while killing civilians. The average Chechnyan wont do that, so he gets help from his allies in al Qaeda and get some fairly "fresh" terrorists. Something crude like the school in Russia doesn't need a whole lot of planning or training compared to major hits on the US, so they can let more "green" terrorists do it. It fits in with al Qaeda's wishes to fight for a free Chechnya even though Chechnians do not support them.

[miir]

If you take the 'real' meaning of sensitive, the Kerry comment is very much on point.

Sensitive = responsive = aware = perceptive = insightful

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

and actually focus on eliminating terrorists.

And if a war in Iraq was to bring out a lot of terrorists like into open warfare, you would support that war? There have been an awful lot of non-Iraqis involved in that conflict. Does it give you mixed feelings that this war is attracting them like bees to honey?

[Thess]

Oh so that's what we were doing by not securing the borders - using the Iraqi's and our soldiers as bait.

[Sylvus]

and actually focus on eliminating terrorists.

And if a war in Iraq was to bring out a lot of terrorists like into open warfare, you would support that war? There have been an awful lot of non-Iraqis involved in that conflict. Does it give you mixed feelings that this war is attracting them like bees to honey?

I suppose you could consider that a pretty thin silver lining out of the whole mess. I still think the net result in Iraq - when you subtract the dead terrorists that we lucked out and killed in iraq from the number that are visiting their local terrorist recruiter's office to sign up - will end up being more terrorists and a bunch of dead civillians and American troops.