Kerry's starting to piss me off...

[Goliath]

I just saw a blurb on CNN about how Dubya is ahead in polls in a lot of the battleground states (most of the leads where in the 6-8% range, although Arizona had Bush 16% ahead of Kerry).

For whatever reason, the DNC hasn't helped Kerry, but the RNC has helped Bush.

And what is most of the campaign focus on from both sides!? The Vietnam fucking war!

I'm getting seriously sick of hearing about Kerry's medals and Bush's alleged lack of service 35 years ago. If Kerry doesn't shift the focus of this campaign from the past to the present, I'm seriously afraid that he's going to lose.

:(

[Blake]

Don't worry too much, Goliath. Read this analysis of a reputable poll (Zogby (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04-an0907.html)) published just two days ago (source, Salon.com's War Room):

"If all the states -- even those within the margin of error -- were to go to the current leading candidates, and the other 34 states were to go as they did in the 2000 election, Mr. Bush would get 231 electoral votes and Mr. Kerry would get 307."

That's a significant margin, but one that hardly reflects the closeness of the race. The results in eight of the 12 states Zogby designates as currently leaning toward John Kerry are within the margin of error, and in Florida, Missouri and Nevada, Kerry leads by less than 1 percent. The poll's good news for Bush is that his position is more solid than Kerry's -- in only one state, Arkansas, is his lead within the margin of error, and in the key state of Ohio, he leads by a formidable 10.9 percent.

While the Electoral College outlook is hardly conclusive, Zogby's poll recognizes what the hype over the national polls following the Republican Convention obscured: The 2004 presidential campaign, like the 2000 campaign, will be won or lost state by state.
Yes, Bush is on an upswing, currently edging Kerry nationally, because he did benefit slightly from his convention. How much? More analysis:

Over at Donkey Rising, Ruy Teixeira says today's new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll is vindication for those who were more prepared to buy a Labor Day vacation package to Florida than they were Friday's [Time and Newsweek] headline poll numbers.

Teixeira notes that today's is the first poll that truly measures Bush's bounce -- a modest two-point one, among registered and likely voters alike -- and that the minor gain actually doesn't look so rosy for Bush when put into historical perspective.

"Bush's 2-point bounce from his convention (which, remember, is defined as the change in a candidate's level of support, not in margin) is the worst ever received by an incumbent president, regardless of party, and the worst ever received by a Republican candidate, whether incumbent or not. In 2000, Bush received an 8-point bounce. And even his hapless father received a 5-point bounce in 1992."

The new survey does reflect some favorable results for the Bush campaign: For example, the typically gloomy-faced Vice President Cheney is now viewed "slightly more positively" than before the convention, rising four points to 48 percent of voters who think of him "favorably." But the Gallup poll also shows that the Democratic gathering in Boston was more effective in persuading Americans:

"Forty-one percent of Americans say what they saw or read of the Republican convention makes them more likely to support Bush, while 38% say less likely. Americans were slightly more enthusiastic about the Democratic convention, as 44% said it made them more likely to vote for Kerry, and 30% said less likely. That 41% figure for the Republican convention is actually the lowest Gallup has measured dating back to the 1984 Democratic convention."

Apparently, Americans didn't much care for the dark musings of Sen. Zell Miller, or the rest of the GOP attacks leveled at Kerry from the GOP stage in Manhattan.

"Half the public thought the Republicans 'spent too much time criticizing the Democrats' at their convention, while 39% thought the Republicans 'achieved the right balance between criticizing the Democrats and saying positive things about themselves.'

"Similarly, 52% of Americans say the Republican Party has attacked John Kerry unfairly, compared with 48% who said this before the Republican convention."

The last time a GOP get-together was rated more negatively in tone than this one? Late August of 1992, according to Gallup, when 56 percent of surveyed voters were turned off by Republican rancor -- and the first incumbent President Bush was on his way to losing to Bill Clinton.
Feel better? I hope so.

I've been firmly convinced since about February that Kerry would win. I know what the polls look like now, and yes, the market is betting against Kerry (http://128.255.244.60/quotes/78.html); but the economy is still so poor that it's on the verge of being declared in recession again, deaths in Iraq are accelerating as our military loses effective control of more and more of the country, nobody's making more money, Bush's $300 "tax cuts" have been spent, millions more people lack insurance. Moreover, Bush has done so little to satisfy his conservative base that he's facing murmurings of revolt: a West Virginia Republican elector has become the first to declare he won't cast his ballot for Bush if chosen.

Plus, Kerry has a record of pulling from behind to win close races at their finish. He doesn't have very hard to pull, and he has 54 days to do it; plenty of time. Re-elections historically are landslides either for or against the incumbent. Anyone think the outcome will be Bush by a landslide? ... Q.E.D.

[Godless Dave]

Remember, Bush's campaign brought up Kerry's service first. Kerry couldn't just sit back and take it without responding.


Kerry gave two speeches focusing on Iraq and fighting terrorism recently. You're seeing what the corporate media wants you to see.

[Roland98]

Feel better? I hope so.

Not really. Bush ahead in Ohio by 10%?

/me is queasy

[Blake]

Well, Bush won Ohio by 4% in 2000. It's been a disadvantage to him that it's been competitive enough that he's had to spend a lot of time and resources there.

And don't forget ... it doesn't count what people will do *now*. It counts what they do in November. :) There's more campaigning time left than is allotted for entire electoral campaigns in more sensible countries.

[Goliath]

Well, Roland, at least you're living in (and will be moving to) a battleground state where your vote will count for a lot more than mine will in SD. I did some checking and it turns out that SD has only voted for a non-Repugnican 6 times. (http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/votes/index.html). The votes are: Grover Cleveland in 1892, William J. Bryan in 1896, FDR in 1932 and 1936, LBJ in 1964, and Jimmy Carter in 1976. Basically, this state hasn't put up its electoral college votes to a Democrat for about as long as I've been alive, and I don't see why it will happen now.

Oh well, I'll vote for Kerry anyways, even though my vote will mean basically nothing.

Oh and Blake, yes, I do feel a bit better. Thank you. :)

[seebs]

I live in Minnesota, where we were one of two states to vote for Mondale instead of Reagan. I don't think it'll matter what we do.

That said... I normally vote Republican, and I think I will this year, except for Bush, who bothers me too much.

Kerry strikes me as muddling and incompetent. I could live with that.

[Goliath]

I dunno about Kerry being muddling and incompetent...a bit too fixated on the past, perhaps.

But I'll take "muddling and incompetent" over "hell-bent on tearing down the Wall of Separation" any day.

[Ymir's blood]

Oh well, I'll vote for Kerry anyways, even though my vote will mean basically nothing.
Same here. My vote never matters, NC goes Republican for prez every year. :eww:

[viscousmemories]

I still haven't registered yet, but I will. I'm going to cast the first vote of my life for whomever I'm told to vote for. Of course I'm sure Kerry will win Texas by a landslide, but I might as well give a little push of my own to it.

:innocent:

[Farren]

For any Democrats getting despondent with polls in the US. Someone just posted me a link to an interview with Zogby and some very interesting points were made:

- The recent Newsweek poll showing GW with a strong lead recorded 39% of respondents Repub 31% Dem. Zogby says something is seriously wrong here because "reflex" Dems apparently constitute 39% of the population and ditto Reps about 38%. IOW, they were showing a strong lead for Bush with a lopsided respondent list, albiet statistically with a low margian of error if prior political affiliation was ignored.

- Another recent poll showed a 5 point higher lead for Bush in Missouri than Zogby reported, one day after a Zogby tracking poll produced an entirely different result. Zogby claim their polls have correctly aticipated voter opinion in Missouri for the last few elections.

- They made the point that Zogby ensures that around 33% of their polling is done at unconventional times (conventional phone polling is done outside of conventional working hours) because the shift in the US economy means more people are working in the evening and would not be represented in a conventional poll. The implicit comment was that several prominent polls don't take cogniscence of this.

Interesting stuff. I've never been this interested - nay concerned - about the outcome of a US election.

[Ronin]

For lack of any alternative whatsoever, as usual...I'll vote for the liberal Christian.

Until the human race finally grows up.

[Blake]

You know, CommonDreams is a lovely site. Here's one piece, originally from the San Francisco Chronicle, that seems to me the perfectly bottled rant on this topic: Who The Hell Is "Undecided"? And Why do so Many Election Polls leave you Angry and Stupefied and Drunk? (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0910-14.htm)

Then there's one just about Ohio: this Ohioan is clearly more optimistic than either Roland or me--Why Kerry Will Win (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0910-05.htm).

Glad you're feeling better, G. :)