NationStates Jolt Archive

New York: For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2.


http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html

Third thread on this topic?

I don't think the Demos had anything to gain. They are already organised.

The time poll won't mean anything to me till a couple weeks. If the numbers remain then I will go "wow"

It's going to go down to the wire and as I said Ohio will point the way.

If Bush looses Ohio, he will be toast. They have been hard hit by job exports so he has to "suck up" to them good.

52 to 41....wow, thats good.

ohio has less electoral votes than california, Florida, and Pennsylvania. All three of those show a less than 10 point margin for either candidate........

True but it will show the attitude of the people. It is a conservative area.

If they aren't happy, odds are other states are the same.

Go Bush!!

I will also add that keep in mind, they have been hard hit by job exports.

If they go his way then the shrubs message is working.

If they don't.....

I don't think the Demos had anything to gain. They are already organised.

The time poll won't mean anything to me till a couple weeks. If the numbers remain then I will go "wow"

It's going to go down to the wire and as I said Ohio will point the way.

If Bush looses Ohio, he will be toast. They have been hard hit by job exports so he has to "suck up" to them good.

Agreed. Dems could probably have given themselves a better chance by nominating Kucinich.

I do support Bush but..
I don't really trust those TIME polls anyway LOOK - - - -

Methodology: The TIME Poll was conducted August 31 – September 2 by telephone among a random sample of 1,316 adults, including 1,128 reported registered voters and 926 likely voters. The margin of error for registered voters is +/- 3% points, and +/- 4% points for likely voters. Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs conducted the poll, and more complete results are attached.

For a study like that to be accurate, you need to have 5% of the population (I know because I do Behavioral Science Research). 1,316 adults is not 5% of the population!!!

41 to 52. Wow, that's bad

I do support Bush but..
I don't really trust those TIME polls anyway LOOK - - - -

Methodology: The TIME Poll was conducted August 31 – September 2 by telephone among a random sample of 1,316 adults, including 1,128 reported registered voters and 926 likely voters. The margin of error for registered voters is +/- 3% points, and +/- 4% points for likely voters. Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs conducted the poll, and more complete results are attached.

For a study like that to be accurate, you need to have 5% of the population (I know because I do Behavioral Science Research). 1,316 adults is not 5% of the population!!!

It may not be perfectly representative, but that's why they have the margin of error. The sample size is pretty much the same as what I've seen from other polls of this type.

I don't wish to burst any ones' bubble.. but Michael Dukakis got a 16 point bounce coming out of the DNC convention in 1988. They call it a "bounce" for a reason. It usually or at least rarely holds.

Of course this pole could be completely representative - but I can have my own poll and question 1,316 adult Republicans whether they would vote for Bush or Kerry.
The marigin of error is 3-4 %, that still leaves Bush in the lead.
The results can also be skewed by the places where these people live.

I do support Bush but..
I don't really trust those TIME polls anyway LOOK - - - -

Methodology: The TIME Poll was conducted August 31 – September 2 by telephone among a random sample of 1,316 adults, including 1,128 reported registered voters and 926 likely voters. The margin of error for registered voters is +/- 3% points, and +/- 4% points for likely voters. Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs conducted the poll, and more complete results are attached.

For a study like that to be accurate, you need to have 5% of the population (I know because I do Behavioral Science Research). 1,316 adults is not 5% of the population!!!they measured the error correctly. If 52% of 926 out of many likely voters choose a particular candidate, the traditionally reported two standard error is +/-3.28%. For 1128 registered voters, 52% +/-2.98%

Of course this pole could be completely representative - but I can have my own poll and question 1,316 adult Republicans whether they would vote for Bush or Kerry.
The marigin of error is 3-4 %, that still leaves Bush in the lead.
The results can also be skewed by the places where these people live.
No political polls this early in the race are big, and most of the time they are accurate (only at the end do you get massive polls). There's outliers sometimes - but they're outliers. Its a safer bet to assume a poll true (by a respected company that gives its methodolgy) than wildly off the mark.

Bush=Bounce
Kerry=No Bounce, Antipathy

Kerry Fled

you ever notice how most people on these forums dislike Bush was extreme intensity? If it was Kerry leading Bush 52% to 41% they would be all over it and almost exploding with pride. But since Bush is the one ahead they question the accuracy of the poll and ramble on about Ohio.......

you ever notice how most people on these forums dislike Bush was extreme intensity? If it was Kerry leading Bush 52% to 41% they would be all over it and almost exploding with pride. But since Bush is the one ahead they question the accuracy of the poll and ramble on about Ohio.......
Exactly, but try getting them to admit it. Had kerry gotton a bounce, they would have been fighting to be the first to post some lame-ass post about it.

hey friend of Bill....check it out.....we are both "deadly"

It just disgusts us how people can't see that Bush has been and will still be an awful president. Unless you are rich.

you ever notice how most people on these forums dislike Bush was extreme intensity? If it was Kerry leading Bush 52% to 41% they would be all over it and almost exploding with pride. But since Bush is the one ahead they question the accuracy of the poll and ramble on about Ohio.......
Its that way about everything. A lacklustre job report in July and its endless posts showing it as "proof" as to how the economy is going back into recession and its Bush's fault it, now that the figures have been revised up and 144,000 in August, no more. :rolleyes:

check it out. classic tactic. trying to divert the debate to somthing else. stay on topic liberals! we are talking poll bounces here.

hey friend of Bill....check it out.....we are both "deadly"
"Strike Hard, Strike Fast!"

As seen here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6943549&postcount=4

I'd like to remind everyone that Kerry didn't get a post-convention bounce because Democrats were already pretty much united for Kerry by the time the convention began.

There was no need to rally the Democrats ... they were already rallied.

The Bush bounce will end after the debates, which is where the majority of the undecideds will decide. Stop believing that the convention elects the President, it's the vote that does that.

More people vote based on candidate debates than they do on staged, carefully written podium speeches at conventions.

I will continue to post this exact same thing in every "Bush Bounce" thread that I find.

http://pollingreport.com/images/SEPTgenl.GIF
From the polling report. Looks like the Time poll is an outlier. Happens to the best of them.

As seen here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6943549&postcount=4

I'd like to remind everyone that Kerry didn't get a post-convention bounce because Democrats were already pretty much united for Kerry by the time the convention began.

There was no need to rally the Democrats ... they were already rallied.

The Bush bounce will end after the debates, which is where the majority of the undecideds will decide. Stop believing that the convention elects the President, it's the vote that does that.

More people vote based on candidate debates than they do on staged, carefully written podium speeches at conventions.

I will continue to post this exact same thing in every "Bush Bounce" thread that I find.Hey, great, post away. And since Kerry already conceded that Bush will win the debates, I guess the election is over. Bush Wins.

Hey, great, post away. And since Kerry already conceded that Bush will win the debates, I guess the election is over. Bush Wins.

Actually, what Kerry conceded was that Bush is a retarded monkey with the brain capacity of belly-button lint.

Actually, what Kerry conceded was that Bush is a retarded monkey with the brain capacity of belly-button lint.
I concede the same of you.

Hey, great, post away. And since Kerry already conceded that Bush will win the debates, I guess the election is over. Bush Wins.
If Kerry already conceded that Bush will win the debates, then why is Bush trying to dodge one of them? (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0903gop-notebook03.html)
GOP strategist Scott Reed was quoted by the Reuter news agency this week as saying the Bush camp's position is that "two debates are sufficient and will not dominate the entire fall schedule."

Hmmm?

I concede the same of you.

Yeah, but that's a charge I will never deny.

If Kerry already conceded that Bush will win the debates, then why is Bush trying to dodge one of them? (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0903gop-notebook03.html)

Hmmm?
Perhaps it is because the desperate demicratic challenger has asked for weekly debates, and the president has more important things to do. Kerry and his campaign are grasping at straws.

Perhaps it is because the desperate demicratic challenger has asked for weekly debates, and the president has more important things to do. Kerry and his campaign are grasping at straws.Oh no--Bush is talking about dodging one of the three major debates for this election. The weekly challenge was a meaningless one--there was no way Bush would answer that challenge and Kerry knew it--but this is one of the debates set up by the bipartisan commission. Even Republican Alan Simpson, who helped set up the debates and is now working for the Bush campaign says it's not a good idea to dodge the debate. Former Wyoming GOP Sen. Alan Simpson, who was on the commission when it proposed the three debates but who now is helping the Bush-Cheney campaign, said the idea that the Bush camp may want only two debates is "very disturbing."So what's the story? Why is Bush scared to debate three times if Kerry has already conceded the field to him?

Oh no--Bush is talking about dodging one of the three major debates for this election. The weekly challenge was a meaningless one--there was no way Bush would answer that challenge and Kerry knew it--but this is one of the debates set up by the bipartisan commission. Even Republican Alan Simpson, who helped set up the debates and is now working for the Bush campaign says it's not a good idea to dodge the debate. So what's the story? Why is Bush scared to debate three times if Kerry has already conceded the field to him?
Oh, you know for a fact it is beacuse he is scared. How about he just wants to spare some embarassment for Kerry? Thanks for quoting my great-uncle, though. That was cool. Props to Alan.

Oh, you know for a fact it is beacuse he is scared. How about he just wants to spare some embarassment for Kerry? Thanks for quoting my great-uncle, though. That was cool. Props to Alan.Yeah--I'm sure that he's looking to spare Kerry's feelings. Give me a break.

Yeah--I'm sure that he's looking to spare Kerry's feelings. Give me a break.
Well, the man lies about his awards, he lies about where he was on Christmas, he lies about his ownership of SUVs, he lies about his patriotism being attacked, Maybe president Bush wants to spare him the oppurtunity to embarass himself with more lies and flip-flops.

Well, the man lies about his awards, he lies about where he was on Christmas, he lies about his ownership of SUVs, he lies about his patriotism being attacked, Maybe president Bush wants to spare him the oppurtunity to embarass himself with more lies and flip-flops.Meanwhile Bush lies about the nature of the relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq, lies about the threat Iraq poses to the US, lies about how much the Medicare Prescription bill is going to cost, lies about who's getting the most benefit from his tax cut proposals, and lies about his environmental proposals. Seems to me like Bush has more to be embarassed about in terms of lying.

Meanwhile Bush lies about the nature of the relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq, lies about the threat Iraq poses to the US, lies about how much the Medicare Prescription bill is going to cost, lies about who's getting the most benefit from his tax cut proposals, and lies about his environmental proposals. Seems to me like Bush has more to be embarassed about in terms of lying.
Since he hasn't lied about any of the above, I wouldn't think so.

Since he hasn't lied about any of the above, I wouldn't think so.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone in such a deep state of denial, FoB. You might want to go get that checked out.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone in such a deep state of denial, FoB. You might want to go get that checked out.
Take a look in the mirror. Behind that handsome face lies the confused mind of an unrepentant idealouge with no sense of reality. Once you leave the friendly confines of school, you will see that the real world is not some fantasy land where we conservatives eat babies. you will see that the recipeints of your leftist programs are worse off thatn ever, and have no ambition to help themselves. You and all your have creatd a welfare state that will crumble.

Take a look in the mirror. Behind that handsome face lies the confused mind of an unrepentant idealouge with no sense of reality. Once you leave the friendly confines of school, you will see that the real world is not some fantasy land where we conservatives eat babies. you will see that the recipeints of your leftist programs are worse off thatn ever, and have no ambition to help themselves. You and all your have creatd a welfare state that will crumble.Dude, you know exactly jack shit about me. I was in the real world before I went to school, and worked my way through school. Even now, while I have a fellowship, I also have a job where I bust my ass 5 days a week. I've seen firsthand the way that social programs help the weakest in our communities, because I've been a part of that economic class in the past, and I have no problem with conservatives--it's radical assholes I have issues with. So get off your fucking high horse with me--you don't know me, and you don't know my life, and don't deign to act as if you do.

Dude, you know exactly jack shit about me. I was in the real world before I went to school, and worked my way through school. Even now, while I have a fellowship, I also have a job where I bust my ass 5 days a week. I've seen firsthand the way that social programs help the weakest in our communities, because I've been a part of that economic class in the past, and I have no problem with conservatives--it's radical assholes I have issues with. So get off your fucking high horse with me--you don't know me, and you don't know my life, and don't deign to act as if you do.
Do you always get this upset when someone replies to your bullshit with logic? Youmust have a hard day when you walk of the campus.

What logic, FoB? Your posts are logic-free zones.

What logic, FoB? Your posts are logic-free zones.
*rallies behind Incertonia*

w00t!

GO INCERTONIA GO!

Put him in his place!

Okay, if Iraq and Al Qaeda had had any substantive, collaborative partnership, don't you think the Bush administration would be holding it up for all to see? They continue to insist that Iraq and 9/11 are linked, without even producing a discredited document that would have caused them to believe they were. They were fooled by bad intelligence? Where's the original intelligence that fooled them? This smells strongly of lie to me, and it is continuing.

Meanwhile, Kerry's oponents, the SBVT, are being disproven daily. Everyday a new piece of information comes out, and each day that organization looks less and less truthful. There is not one shred of credible proof that Kerry fled anywhere. And I mean proof. ALL contemporaneous documentation supports John Kerry, and many of the SBVT publicly stated radically different opinions about Mr Kerry before this Presidential campaign. Only a small fraction of the SBVT had actually worked anywhere near Kerry. Now some are coming forward to say their words were changed without their knowledge or permission, or their names were used without their knowledge or permission.

Now, I am honest enough to admit that there is no real proof that Bush went AWOL. Then again, there are documents that actually support Kerry's records. Where are the documents that prove Bush fulfilled his commitments? Any impartial review would find more reason for concern hidden in Bush's records. If you deny this, then you are not really thinking rationally.

This is all beside the point.

All of this is to distract us from the real point. The real point is, has our President done an acceptible job the last 4 years? If you believe so, please show a list of his acheivments. Please don't say "no child left behind" Whether you agree with the methods, the funding or the execution of the initiative, please show me where any results have been shown? To quote George W, "Is our children learning?"
Has he presided over a net increase in jobs? Not only that, but the number of jobs that need to be added to keep up with new workers joining the workforce is 150,000 a month.
Are more or fewer people in poverty?
Do more of fewer people have health insurance?
Has the stock market lost or gained since he reached office?
Has crime gone up or down since he reached office?
Has our country come together more, or has it become even more split?
Do we trust our government (both parties) more, or less?
Are we less or more revered in the world? Are our most powerful allies more or less willing to negotiate with us when it comes to intelligence sharing, trade, and other international affairs?
Is there more or less terrorism in the world today than 4 years ago?
Do the people who killed the Russian children hate the Russians for their freedoms?
Why have we publicly exposed a CIA agent and an active mole within Al Qaeda? How did a spy infiltrate the Pentagon at this, the most critical of times?
Why has Hallibuton been repeatedly caught overcharging the government (shouldn't you Republicans be seething at such a waste of our government funds?) while only ever receiving a slap on the wrist?

You and all your have creatd a welfare state that will crumble.

All your base are belong to us!!

I don't wish to burst any ones' bubble.. but Michael Dukakis got a 16 point bounce coming out of the DNC convention in 1988. They call it a "bounce" for a reason. It usually or at least rarely holds.
I guess Kerry didnt have to worry about his bounce sticking, since he really didnt get much of one anyway....

Okay, if Iraq and Al Qaeda had had any substantive, collaborative partnership, don't you think the Bush administration would be holding it up for all to see? They continue to insist that Iraq and 9/11 are linked, without even producing a discredited document that would have caused them to believe they were. They were fooled by bad intelligence? Where's the original intelligence that fooled them? This smells strongly of lie to me, and it is continuing.

Meanwhile, Kerry's oponents, the SBVT, are being disproven daily. Everyday a new piece of information comes out, and each day that organization looks less and less truthful. There is not one shred of credible proof that Kerry fled anywhere. And I mean proof. ALL contemporaneous documentation supports John Kerry, and many of the SBVT publicly stated radically different opinions about Mr Kerry before this Presidential campaign. Only a small fraction of the SBVT had actually worked anywhere near Kerry. Now some are coming forward to say their words were changed without their knowledge or permission, or their names were used without their knowledge or permission.

Now, I am honest enough to admit that there is no real proof that Bush went AWOL. Then again, there are documents that actually support Kerry's records. Where are the documents that prove Bush fulfilled his commitments? Any impartial review would find more reason for concern hidden in Bush's records. If you deny this, then you are not really thinking rationally.

This is all beside the point.

All of this is to distract us from the real point. The real point is, has our President done an acceptible job the last 4 years? If you believe so, please show a list of his acheivments. Please don't say "no child left behind" Whether you agree with the methods, the funding or the execution of the initiative, please show me where any results have been shown? To quote George W, "Is our children learning?"
Has he presided over a net increase in jobs? Not only that, but the number of jobs that need to be added to keep up with new workers joining the workforce is 150,000 a month.
Are more or fewer people in poverty?
Do more of fewer people have health insurance?
Has the stock market lost or gained since he reached office?
Has crime gone up or down since he reached office?
Has our country come together more, or has it become even more split?
Do we trust our government (both parties) more, or less?
Are we less or more revered in the world? Are our most powerful allies more or less willing to negotiate with us when it comes to intelligence sharing, trade, and other international affairs?
Is there more or less terrorism in the world today than 4 years ago?
Do the people who killed the Russian children hate the Russians for their freedoms?
Why have we publicly exposed a CIA agent and an active mole within Al Qaeda? How did a spy infiltrate the Pentagon at this, the most critical of times?
Why has Hallibuton been repeatedly caught overcharging the government (shouldn't you Republicans be seething at such a waste of our government funds?) while only ever receiving a slap on the wrist?
You have asked a lot of questions that Bush supporters will have a very difficult time answering truthfully.

I guess Kerry didnt have to worry about his bounce sticking, since he really didnt get much of one anyway....
The only real bounce that will be noticeable is when Bush gets bounced out of the White House in November.

The latest Newsweek poll is confirming Time's results.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5616183/

Rasmussen shows it at only 4%, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm
but people view Bush more favorably than Kerry according to them as well...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush-Kerry%20Favorables.htm

Well, the man lies about his awards, he lies about where he was on Christmas, he lies about his ownership of SUVs, he lies about his patriotism being attacked, Maybe president Bush wants to spare him the oppurtunity to embarass himself with more lies and flip-flops.
First his testimony so you can't say you never read it.
Link- http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1121957/posts

He didn't intend to help a enemy, but reveal what happened.
He never said he was a criminal, he said the people they investigated did these things. That is a major difference.
Great quote-

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam,in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term "winter soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776, when he spoke of the "sunshine patriots," and "summertime soldiers" who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel, because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.



emotional stuff:


Each day, to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam, someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."


Its sad that republicans and conservatives refuse to read the transcript that he said and learn that Kery was fighting for the Vets and not against.

I'll edit and ad link to medals are'nt lies but I forgot where it is.

That is emotional stuff. If only Kerry would come out and talk about that stuff, and tell the American people what he said, without taking it out of context.

That is emotional stuff. If only Kerry would come out and talk about that stuff, and tell the American people what he said, without taking it out of context.
Kind of difficult when the press is largely taking the SBVOB (Swift Boat Veterans for Outrageous Bullshit) at their words and aren't doing any real investigating.

Kerry's going to win this thing, simply because Bush has nothing other than "Kerry's a bigger scumbag than I am" to run on, and when people place them side by side, they may think "Kerry is indeed a scumbag, but he's certainly not as big a scumbag as the current guy." In many years, that wouldn't be enough, and if Bush had any kind of record of success, it wouldn't be enough this year, but Bush has been such an incompetent executive that this year, it will be enough.

I think the debates will seal the deal. I think when they see Kerry debate Bush (if Bush ever agrees to them, which he still hasn't) Kerry will wipe the floor with Bush. I've heard pundits compare Kerry's debate style with that of William F. Buckley.. I've personally never seen him debate, but when you being put in that class, you must be good!

Yeah--you've got to wonder why the Bush campaign hasn't gotten that out of the way yet, unless they're afraid to show up. I would be, if I had Bush's record and the knowledge that as the incumbent, you can't play the low expectations game anymore.

The conspiracy theorist in me is wondering if the Time pollsters got a call from Karl Rove asking them to push the leaners in the post-convention poll to make it look like Bush got a bigger bounce than he really did, so he can run as a frontrunner and act as though the challenger isn't worth debating. If that's the plan, it's going to backfire big time, because it gives the Kerry camp yet another stick with which to hammer Bush.

Yeah--you've got to wonder why the Bush campaign hasn't gotten that out of the way yet, unless they're afraid to show up. I would be, if I had Bush's record and the knowledge that as the incumbent, you can't play the low expectations game anymore.

Also, they're probably afraid of a repeat of his reaction to the two planes ploughing into the WTC and then the next one into the Pentagon. Everyone who isn't a hardline Republican in support of Bush knows he is dumb and only knows what to say or do when one of his advisors tells him.

Kerry is going to make a mop out of Bush.

The conspiracy theorist in me is wondering if the Time pollsters got a call from Karl Rove asking them to push the leaners in the post-convention poll to make it look like Bush got a bigger bounce than he really did, so he can run as a frontrunner and act as though the challenger isn't worth debating. If that's the plan, it's going to backfire big time, because it gives the Kerry camp yet another stick with which to hammer Bush.

I wouldn't put it past them. It seems like the kind of immature bullshit they'd do. You know, anything to stay in power after their "president" has been so horribly discreditted. And, then so he can say debating Kerry is beneath him, even though we all know that it's beneath Senator Kerry to debate this ignorant waste of human flesh, especially since it's an insult to Kerry's intelligence.

Speaking of Bush's "My Pet Goat" moment, look here (http://www.looptvandfilm.com/client/bush/bush.html) for his reaction to the protestors who managed to get into his acceptance speech. It's a 33 second clip in Quicktime format, and it's beautiful.

Speaking of the convention, isn't it amazing that somehow the Democrats--who are supposed to be the security wimps--managed to have their convention not be disrupted by protestors inside the arena during the major speeches, and yet the Republicans--who are supposed to be the pros at this--were interrupted during both the President's and VP's speeches. We're supposed to trust these guys with national security and they can't even keep protestors out of their own convention? (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0904-02.htm)

I'm resurrecting this thread because there's a new tracking poll out today from Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm) that seems to say that Bush's bounce (which they had registered as about 4 points) is already gone.
Monday September 06, 2004--The Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows President George W. Bush with 48% of the vote and Senator John Kerry with 47%. The Tracking Poll is updated daily by noon Eastern.
Wonder what CNN/Gallup will show tomorrow? My guess is that Bush will have a lead, but not in the 11 point range that Time and Newsweek had.

Speaking of Bush's "My Pet Goat" moment, look here (http://www.looptvandfilm.com/client/bush/bush.html) for his reaction to the protestors who managed to get into his acceptance speech. It's a 33 second clip in Quicktime format, and it's beautiful.

Speaking of the convention, isn't it amazing that somehow the Democrats--who are supposed to be the security wimps--managed to have their convention not be disrupted by protestors inside the arena during the major speeches, and yet the Republicans--who are supposed to be the pros at this--were interrupted during both the President's and VP's speeches. We're supposed to trust these guys with national security and they can't even keep protestors out of their own convention? (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0904-02.htm)
Well, the Dems had the protestors locked in a steel cage far from the Fleet Center (I thought the Dems had problems with people being locked up?) while the Republicans had no problem with letting them run through the streets, as is their right.

So you could also say the Dems are the party that believes in suppressing dissent while the Republicans are truly the party of free speech.

I think the debates will seal the deal. I think when they see Kerry debate Bush (if Bush ever agrees to them, which he still hasn't) Kerry will wipe the floor with Bush. I've heard pundits compare Kerry's debate style with that of William F. Buckley.. I've personally never seen him debate, but when you being put in that class, you must be good!
Memories of 2000 cross my mind. If I recall correctly, the same things were said about Al Gore's chances during those debates, and we know how those went, don't we?

I wonder if we will get to hear Kerry's sighs...maybe he too will try to be the Alpha male and crowd into Bush's face during the debates...and I definitely want to see how the make-up looks on Kerry.

Well, the Dems had the protestors locked in a steel cage far from the Fleet Center (I thought the Dems had problems with people being locked up?) while the Republicans had no problem with letting them run through the streets, as is their right.

So you could also say the Dems are the party that believes in suppressing dissent while the Republicans are truly the party of free speech.
Hey, you'll find no one more pissed about that than I was, but don't forget, there were "free speech zones" at the Republican convention as well, and there were over a thousand people arrested for expressing themselves. I just found it interesting that for all the Republican talk about being strong on defense and national security, they couldn't keep protesters out of their convention.

Personally, I'd have loved to have seen protestors and demonstrators at both venues. I'm a lover of free speech first and foremost.

Hey, you'll find no one more pissed about that than I was, but don't forget, there were "free speech zones" at the Republican convention as well, and there were over a thousand people arrested for expressing themselves. I just found it interesting that for all the Republican talk about being strong on defense and national security, they couldn't keep protesters out of their convention.

Personally, I'd have loved to have seen protestors and demonstrators at both venues. I'm a lover of free speech first and foremost.
Sure you are.

It just disgusts us how people can't see that Bush has been and will still be an awful president. Unless you are rich.
Wow, you've really bought into the party line...

Sure you are.Believe what you will--doesn't sweat me. I'm a free-speech advocate and always have been.

Believe what you will--doesn't sweat me. I'm a free-speech advocate and always have been.
As long as it agrees with your view. But hey, it's ok. You ARE, after all, free to try to silence those you don't agree with.

You know Kerry really is in a deep hole at this point. The last time a Republican lost ground between now and election day was 1968. That means that Kerry has to campaign better than Mcgovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton ( both times) and Gore to win this election. No candidate has ever been defeated after being this far ahead at this point. Ever. Or rather, as long as polls have been conducted. I am speaking as an observer who knows history here. Not as a partison. Kerry is in trouble and it will be very difficult for him to pull back to victory.

I never thought I would end up saying that either. I did not expect Bush to get any bounce. The people who convinced me that he wouldnt are the same ones who are saying now that it won't last. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I expect Bush to maintain his lead in light of historical poll data.

New poll numbers are out. I told you they would change. Bush got a 2 point bounce from the convention. He leads Kerry by likely voters by only 7 points. This thing is still too close to call. I seen the new CNN/Time/Gallup poll on TV, takes them a few hours to post them online, as soon as they do, I'll post a link :)

New poll numbers are out. I told you they would change. Bush got a 2 point bounce from the convention. He leads Kerry by likely voters by only 7 points. This thing is still too close to call. I seen the new CNN/Time/Gallup poll on TV, takes them a few hours to post them online, as soon as they do, I'll post a link :)

You are aware that a bounce is not how much Bush goes up. It is how much the gap between them increases. Meaning that how much Kerry goes down also counts toward the bounce. A 7 point lead is consistant with a larger bounce than 2 points.

You are aware that a bounce is not how much Bush goes up. It is how much the gap between them increases. Meaning that how much Kerry goes down also counts toward the bounce. A 7 point lead is consistant with a larger bounce than 2 points.

CNN/Time/Gallup all report he got a 2 point bounce from the convention.

will that be posted on pollingreport.com today?

will that be posted on pollingreport.com today?

I'll keep watching for it. It was announced on "Inside Politics" on CNN little more the 1/2 an hour ago.. as soon as the link comes online, I'll post it. If you don't see it by tomorrow you can always look up the transcript on CNN for today's "Inside Politics"

As long as it agrees with your view. But hey, it's ok. You ARE, after all, free to try to silence those you don't agree with.
Weak. Since I, too, thought the free speech zone thing at Boston was a horrible idea and a limit to free speech, I feel that I have to call this weak shit when I see it.

What this does, essentially, is provide a spotlight on your mentallity, your process. By projecting this belief, this absolute adherance to what you believe to be the 'othersides' view, we get an insight into your own decision making. That it is inconcievable that someone who is from 'the other side' might disagree with one of the decisions the greater orginization makes, it means that you yourself are incapable of breaking party line. Your team, right or wrong. If this is the case, as it clearly is, your arguments are of no value, you are a mere lapdog.

I'll keep watching for it. It was announced on "Inside Politics" on CNN little more the 1/2 an hour ago.. as soon as the link comes online, I'll post it. If you don't see it by tomorrow you can always look up the transcript on CNN for today's "Inside Politics"
From Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=12922&pg=2). Bush gets a two point bounce among "likely voters" and no bounce from registered voters. So much for that double digit lead and the cruise back to the White House.

will that be posted on pollingreport.com today?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm

So if you look at the numbers before and after the convention, it's only a 2 point bounce in favour of Bush. Although like I said, Bush leads Kerry by 7 points over-all.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm

So if you look at the numbers before and after the convention, it's only a 2 point bounce in favour of Bush. Although like I said, Bush leads Kerry by 7 points over-all.I'll use this post to correct myself below--it's a two point bounce whether you look at Gallup's likely voter model or registered voter model. The registered voter model has a closer race overall, though--49-48.

Two things to point out about this poll, since it resembles the earlier Time and Newsweek polls I had problems with. First off, they're pushing leaners, and it's a bit soon for that, especially so close after the convention. Second, the headlines are touting the "likely voter" model which varies from polling company to polling company and is really just extrapolation (read guesswork). I just wanted to point that out because I don't want people to think that I'm only wary of polls that look good for Kerry.

If Ohio has lost all these jobs because of Bush, why is he popular there?

you ever notice how most people on these forums dislike Bush was extreme intensity?
That's because this is a worldwide forum. Disliking Bush is representative of the whole world.

Bill Trolls

Your beloved Johnnie's only platform is "I'm not Bush". :p
And all this stuff (http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html)....

Cool. I must be real important. Nobody's quoted me before.
Aw, sheesh. I don't love Bush, I just like Dubya Better than Johnnie, who unlike Bush seems to change his mind along with opinion polls.
With all of you ultra liberal types, conservatisim, even the most moderate forms, are criminal. Ugh. you can't even be centre-right on these forums without getting ripped to shreds.


leastaways, johnnie's better than that nutbar Nader.
What, are you tissue? You stated a limited view on Kerry's platform, I linked you to his actual platform and you're already crying wolf? You want a shred, look up Zeppistan's post to have you're talking point flip-flop demolished.

What, are you tissue? You stated a limited view on Kerry's platform, I linked you to his actual platform and you're already crying wolf? You want a shred, look up Zeppistan's post to have you're talking point flip-flop demolished.

As you requested my dear..

Bush Flip-Flops! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=316855)

Bah. Silly whining lefties. After 4 YEARS you guys STILL haven't stopped whining about Florida

For the last time, DEAR OLD "CONSUMER AWARENESS" RALPHIE NADER COST YOU FLORIDA!
Huh? That's all you got out of that? Man, RIF.

Meh. You are a real treat to argue with. Cool name BTW.

NAPOLEON FLED

http://www.freewayblogger.com/images/911_tn.jpg

http://www.freewayblogger.com/images/911_tn.jpg
Harsh.

Flipping by Fox I heard the mermers of the October suprise.....

Harsh.

Flipping by Fox I heard the mermers of the October suprise.....

With all the time America has had to get Osama, the coincidence of catching him right before the election should be hard to swallow for all except for the most naive and deluded.

Wow, you've really bought into the party line...
And you have been choking on it? :eek:

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/bush-speech.gif

And you have been choking on it? :eek:


He doesn't choke on it. He's been swallowing republican nonsense for so long, he's lost his GOP..er...gag reflex.

http://www.freewayblogger.com/images/485_tn2.jpg

How very sad for your country. I beleive that Bush's whole campaign has been about making him look like a stupid little kid who you just can't stay angry at, people sympathise with idiots. Stupid people that is...

From Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=12922&pg=2). Bush gets a two point bounce among "likely voters" and no bounce from registered voters. So much for that double digit lead and the cruise back to the White House.
Actually when you look at the registered voters at Gallup, Bush is actually down 1% from Apr. 16-18, when he had 50%, and down 8% from Jan. 9-11, when he had 57%.

2004 (Sep 3-5) 48 49

2004 (Apr 16-18) 46 50

2004 (Jan 9-11) 40 57

If anything, it shows a tightening between the two amongst the registered voters.

So there is still wiggle room!! :D

With all the time America has had to get Osama, the coincidence of catching him right before the election should be hard to swallow for all except for the most naive and deluded.

and they are already voting for bush.

oooh, burn!

and they are already voting for bush.

oooh, burn!

:D

http://www.freewayblogger.com/images/485_tn2.jpg
Ummm they should update the signs? Or you should get a more recent pic? :eek:

Yeah--that is a bit dated. The first pic I posted is from the same site-- http://freewayblogger.com --and is a bit more recent I believe. Go check them out.

http://cartoons.diberardo.com/eds04/big/johnkerry.jpg

http://a799.g.akamai.net/3/799/388/45912787baefdf/www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial/tmate040831.gif

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0401/39b5f9e180ce5981cae0.jpeg

Umm.. MunkeBrain they both make refrences to Bush, not too glowing also. "Bring it on" "aircraft carrier" At least if Kerry flip flops he will be right half of the time.

How very sad for your country. I beleive that Bush's whole campaign has been about making him look like a stupid little kid who you just can't stay angry at, people sympathise with idiots. Stupid people that is...

I think a lot of it is also that a lot of people in the U.S., are, sadly just plain ignorant. It's kind of depressing because I'm an American and not everyone here is like that, but it seems that a lot of people are. I think a lot of it's the media (which hyped up the Iraq invasion like the Super Bowl) and just that some people refuse to grow out of their childhoods playing GI Joes and love Bush's simplistic 'good vs. evil' rhetoric. I just hope Kerry can come back and win this election in November. I question if the US (or the world) can take another four years of this.

The problem is that most people don't truly care about having objective opinions, they care far more about feeling that they are right... And, even if an individual's opinions could be truly objective (see, avoiding all forms of PR and making a decision comparing each candidate side by side without any of the nonsense surrounding everything), the simple truths are that in order to be a successfull politician of white house caliber, you have to constantly be taking a spin to everything.

Aren't the main points of PR and the media to sensationalize everything to make it more interesting? The problem also comes that making an informed and intelligent decision takes a lot of research into the facts, and most people, even if they care, don't have the time...

All the while everyone talks about a low voter turnout... Isn't it safe to assume that the higher the voter turnout, the more people who don't particularly care one way or the other are going to decide who wins the elections?

Also, why don't people notice that there are two primarily republican platforms running for president? I think it will be truly interesting to see how this turns out, because it looks to me that the Bush party is having a hard time getting to the right of Kerry (because he's a moderate republican).

But, what do you do about all of this? Every solution has consequences of comparable damage. You can't exactly banish the sensational media. You can't require people to prove that they care about the election because that sort of power makes massive election fraud an option. You can't get a single third party into the mix because they would likely take a large portion of one of the other party's influence, leaving one superparty.

An interesting case could be made for a vote ranking system, where everyone ranks their choices and candidates are eliminated until one has the popular vote, but such a thing would never occur unless there was an independant president who was against getting reelected, and even then, he'd probably never get such a major party weakening measure through congress.

I just want to hear somebody's opinion who isn't going to spit slogans and rhetoric at me.

Yeah--that is a bit dated. The first pic I posted is from the same site-- http://freewayblogger.com --and is a bit more recent I believe. Go check them out.
Great site. My favourite is:

War President?

My Pet Goat

For some reason, I like the one that says "We're all wearing the blue dress now" although I think it's a bit esoteric and doesn't get a point across very well. I have no idea why I like it.

George W Bush to all those outside the US seems like a dumb, almost comic, puppet controlled by his "advisors".