NationStates Jolt Archive

Several polls now show GW Bush leading Kerry by double digits.
They include polls done by MSNBC, Newsweek and other organizations.
In one poll, bush is as much as 20 points ahead.

Several polls now show GW Bush leading Kerry by double digits.
They include polls done by MSNBC, Newsweek and other organizations.
In one poll, bush is as much as 20 points ahead.

Don't break out the Champaign yet. This election has just gotten started. I expect Bush's numbers to go down again soon. The real post-convention Bounce probably wont be out till sometime next week. BTW, do you have the poll where he is up by 20 points? I would love to see that.

If these numbers are true, and I'm not saying they are, then it would spell trouble for John F. Kerry.

I however, will wait till the polls come out next week to see how much of a bounce he got from his Convention.

20 points ahead? Heh. What does it say about people who see a bit of glitz and glam, a couple of simplistic idealistic style speeches on tv for a few days that changes their minds completely? Be nice if people actually thought about who to vote for and more importantly WHAT to vote for...living in the US for quite some time I've found that policies, facts and statistics really aren't much use to the US media sadly. It's all 'personality' and fluff perception and a lot of unresearched lies.

people generally get the politicians they deserve, america probably deserves four more years of bush.... take that any way you want.

Who cares?

The only numbers that matter are the ones the day after the election.

the democrats are the party of virtually all the minority groups and many white women in the US and of boring pussy white men. they need to reconsider the stategy of always running the "bpwm" for office, i doubt they are either the best qualified or most electable group in the party.

I suspect most of the corporate press organisations are aligned with the Republicans and will do anything to help out their buddies. If Bush wins by basically spindoctoring lies to the US public and they buy it, you get who you elect!

I suspect most of the corporate press organisations are aligned with the Republicans and will do anything to help out their buddies. If Bush wins by basically spindoctoring lies to the US public and they buy it, you get who you elect!

I love it when people only include one group of people. Jeruselem, don't you think the Dems want it badly enough as well to regain the White House that they'll do the exact samething?

I suspect most of the corporate press organisations are aligned with the Republicans and will do anything to help out their buddies. If Bush wins by basically spindoctoring lies to the US public and they buy it, you get who you elect!


I guess that is why the bulk of mainstream media actively works to make Republicans look bad.

I am guessing by your use of "they" and "you" that you are not American. If you are European, I hope you are thrilled with your leaders and the double digit unemployement and stagnant economic growth that you have. And you guys dont even have to spend money on the military.

Maybe Bush should be crowned the Fuhrer of the Halliburton Reich now and save Jeb the hassle of rigging votes.

Across the pond in Europe we love unemployment and stagnant economies!!Go us woohoo. :D

I guess that is why the bulk of mainstream media actively works to make Republicans look bad.

I am guessing by your use of "they" and "you" that you are not American. If you are European, I hope you are thrilled with your leaders and the double digit unemployement and stagnant economic growth that you have. And you guys dont even have to spend money on the military.

Sorry, wrong! Australian - the US ally under a conservative government which Bush can count on to help out in any war it wants to start using the ANZUS treaty.

Pity about the US budget deficit and astrononical trade deficit.

I guess that is why the bulk of mainstream media actively works to make Republicans look bad.

I am guessing by your use of "they" and "you" that you are not American. If you are European, I hope you are thrilled with your leaders and the double digit unemployement and stagnant economic growth that you have. And you guys dont even have to spend money on the military. Most European countries can balance their books though. ;)

I am guessing by your use of "they" and "you" that you are not American. If you are European, I hope you are thrilled with your leaders and the double digit unemployement and stagnant economic growth that you have. And you guys dont even have to spend money on the military.

Dude, what the fuck. That's low, you bastard. That's why people hate us, idiot. So stop and think before you post.

The funny thing is, we have more unemployed than European countries; it just looks like they have more because they have 1/6 of our population. And stagnant economic growth? The US isn't even in the lead anymore. Our economy is fucked. China had the most rapidly improving economic state in the world.

And not spending money on the military is a good thing, not a bad thing. Unless you want WWIII. Which, BTW, will be everybody against us. So you should consider it a blessing that European countries are not arming, because it would be as a result of our actions, and the weapons would be for use against us.

i dun understand why wld the americans elect such a moron like bush? cant they see that he will be start WWIII in his second term by attackin another country on his hit list?

cant they see that he's a fool who has no plans of his own and is manipulated by his shit of a VP, and his neo conservative cabinet.

cant they understand that a moron like bush who failed in ALL his business ventures wouldnt be the best man for the economy...

cant they see that a person so indebted to the oil corporations will obviously be at the bidding of them?

cant the morons in America see that Bush is a real big moron?

i doubt so, if Bush is reelected for a 2nd term.

I love it when people only include one group of people. Jeruselem, don't you think the Dems want it badly enough as well to regain the White House that they'll do the exact samething?

They definitely do, but no one spins and lies like Bush's administration. Witness the 'Swift Boat Vets' attack on character, ( since proven to have little in the way of real facts, funding by republican donours, and employing republican party officials ) just like Bush had a job done on Mcain apparently having a 'black baby' spread around the south to win him the nomination the first time. Let's not let policy and facts get in the way eh? ;-)

"funny thing is, we have more unemployed than European countries; it just looks like they have more because they have 1/6 of our population."



That would mean we have more employed than European countries, too. So how does that prove your point?

Sorry, wrong! Australian - the US ally under a conservative government which Bush can count on to help out in any war it wants to start using the ANZUS treaty.

Pity about the US budget deficit and astrononical trade deficit.

I was correct that you werent American by your use of "they" and "you". As to being European, I did precede it with an "if"

And I am sure we(US) can count on Australia. Its Europe(parts thereof) that I question because our interests have diverged since the end of the cold war.

I guess that is why the bulk of mainstream media actively works to make Republicans look bad.


Yup, that Bill O'Rielly, registered Republican, he's a real Democratic supporter! ;-)

Mainstream media actively support one thing. Profit based off ratings.

Watching the Republican National Convention scared the shit out of me. Seeing all those people practically worshipping that idiot un-democratic bastard while he was standing at the podium. It wouldn't have surprised me if he had suddenly gone, "SIEG HEIL." And, scarily enough, I think the audience would have, too.

Americans are stupid and ignorant, that's why we elected Bush. Oh wait, actually, we elected Gore, except Bush cheated. So you can't totally blame us. But this election, if he wins, you can blame us all you want. Because that man will destroy everything. And it will be our fault.

I was correct that you werent American by your use of "they" and "you". As to being European, I did precede it with an "if"

And I am sure we(US) can count on Australia. Its Europe(parts thereof) that I question because our interests have diverged since the end of the cold war.

Oh yes, thanks for the "US Deputy Sheriff" badge. Asia really does not respect us now ...

I'm canadian :D . See we deserved a good leader so we get him. Paulie aint perfect but who is?? Well at least we didnt get Stephen Harper. Who would vote for someone that scares his own party??

Anyways Im strongly against the republicans." John Kerry will defend this nation with spitballs"- Senator Zell. " I miss on how in the old days you can challenge someone to a duel" - Senator Zell. I think I make my point. And Im also scared of the republicans because Im Jewish and I swear there gonna start another crusade.

Its Europe(parts thereof) that I question because our interests have diverged since the end of the cold war. Maybe because half of Europe isn't controlled by the Soviet Union anymore. ;)

Dude, what the fuck. That's low, you bastard. That's why people hate us, idiot. So stop and think before you post.

The funny thing is, we have more unemployed than European countries; it just looks like they have more because they have 1/6 of our population. And stagnant economic growth? The US isn't even in the lead anymore. Our economy is fucked. China had the most rapidly improving economic state in the world.

And not spending money on the military is a good thing, not a bad thing. Unless you want WWIII. Which, BTW, will be everybody against us. So you should consider it a blessing that European countries are not arming, because it would be as a result of our actions, and the weapons would be for use against us.


Your post(with the exception of the military part) does not even make sense(not that I agree with your assesment of military budgets). Unemployement is expressed per capita. Population differances do not change this figure.

I suppose I could go on to discuss internals(wage differentials, work hours etc) with an individual such as yourself, but what is the point when you are so brain dead that you bring up differances in populations with regard to unemployment numbers.

Seeing Bush up there i half expected to see a Nazi Flag or a Soviet flag fall from the back round. All those god dam cacusion people walking in perfect step. (yes i am cacusion)
Bush: "Spread my message of tyranny, Yes my minions go forth,Yes i am milking the horrible presidency of ronald reagon, who bosted military spending cut taxes and put us in debt."

I swear if i see any Republicans near me i have half a mind to march down to the GOP headquarters and started a protest. ILLINOIS BELONGS TO THE DEMOCRATS GO BARACK OBAMA GO JOHN KERRY

I was correct that you werent American by your use of "they" and "you". As to being European, I did precede it with an "if"

And I am sure we(US) can count on Australia. Its Europe(parts thereof) that I question because our interests have diverged since the end of the cold war.

ANZUS is a defence pact, so not all US wars come under it. We've had a bit of debate about it here recently actually.

And yes, I pity the European nations that chose peace over war. How dare they. The problem with democracies is they all ultimately have a bit more choice in what they do. ;-)

Oh yeah, when I'm in the US, I always get asked ' what part of Europe am I from' like nowhere else exists. I love it. :-)

That would mean we have more employed than European countries, too. So how does that prove your point?

Just saying, the sheer number of our unemployed is greater. Obviously we would have more employed as well, because we have more people, more space, and undoubtedly more jobs than the European countries. But that number of unemployed is still far too high, and you can't say that Europeans are doing worse than us. You can't measure the "badness" of unemployment, any number of unemployed is bad. So don't make that link.

"Yup, that Bill O'Rielly, registered Republican, he's a real Democratic supporter! ;-)"


Uh oh, now you did it! O'Rielly's going to be mad at you now. He swears he is an Independent. :0)

Maybe because half of Europe isn't controlled by the Soviet Union anymore. ;)


exactly

ANZUS is a defence pact, so not all US wars come under it. We've had a bit of debate about it here recently actually.

And yes, I pity the European nations that chose peace over war. How dare they. The problem with democracies is they all ultimately have a bit more choice in what they do. ;-)

Oh yeah, when I'm in the US, I always get asked ' what part of Europe am I from' like nowhere else exists. I love it. :-)

You would if you got trashed like Europe did during WWII. America has not experienced total war like Europe or Asia yet.

Ok, this actually proves appoint. No one here is attacking Kerry but all the Kerry supporters are bashing Bush. We know you don't like Bush.

Now given Kerry's proven indecisevness on most issues, give me ONE reason that I should vote for John F. Kerry. Oh and leave out the part that he is not Bush. That is a lousy way to vote and I feel sorry for the people that are voting because of that.

Your post(with the exception of the military part) does not even make sense(not that I agree with your assesment of military budgets). Unemployement is expressed per capita. Population differances do not change this figure.

I suppose I could go on to discuss internals(wage differentials, work hours etc) with an individual such as yourself, but what is the point when you are so brain dead that you bring up differances in populations with regard to unemployment numbers.

Thanks, master of the obvious. Maybe if you read one of my more recent posts, you'll get what I was talking about, instead of just making stupid assumptions.

Just saying, the sheer number of our unemployed is greater. Obviously we would have more employed as well, because we have more people, more space, and undoubtedly more jobs than the European countries. But that number of unemployed is still far too high, and you can't say that Europeans are doing worse than us. You can't measure the "badness" of unemployment, any number of unemployed is bad. So don't make that link.

Now, go kill yourself.

"Yup, that Bill O'Rielly, registered Republican, he's a real Democratic supporter! ;-)"


Uh oh, now you did it! O'Rielly's going to be mad at you now. He swears he is an Independent. :0)

I know. Wonderful isn't it. Gee, wouldn't that make him a liar if he was actually a registered republican? Oh no! Not Bill!

With luck he'll just tell me to 'shut the hell up' or something. ;)

Just saying, the sheer number of our unemployed is greater. Obviously we would have more employed as well, because we have more people, more space, and undoubtedly more jobs than the European countries. But that number of unemployed is still far too high, and you can't say that Europeans are doing worse than us. You can't measure the "badness" of unemployment, any number of unemployed is bad. So don't make that link.


What you fail to see is that in a meritocracy, unemployement is a temporary thing. The same person unemployed today will have a job tomorrow. There will always be a percentage of the population that has either wuit/been fired from one job and moving on to the next.

There was a time when economists put this figure(the natural rate of unemployment) at 5%(and change) in the 1990s they revised this down to somewhere in the 4% and change. Unfortunately, such low unemployement led to incredible wage increases andwould have led to high inflation if the FED hadnt stepped in and if the Tech bubble hadnt burst.

exactly What did you expect?

The US and Western Europe had a common interest in containing Soviet influence. With the end of the Cold War, interests have changed. European nations need to do what's in their best interests and sometimes that conflicts with those of the US.

Now given Kerry's proven indecisevness on most issues, give me ONE reason that I should vote for John F. Kerry.

Can you give me some examples of his indecisiveness? It was undoubtedly a mature adult reforming his opinion because what he thought at first became wrong to him. There's nothing wrong with it.

There was a time when economists put this figure(the natural rate of unemployment) at 5%(and change) in the 1990s they revised this down to somewhere in the 4% and change. Unfortunately, such low unemployement led to incredible wage increases andwould have led to high inflation if the FED hadnt stepped in and if the Tech bubble hadnt burst.

I don't see how this has anything to do with the actual point that is being argued.

Ok, this actually proves appoint. No one here is attacking Kerry but all the Kerry supporters are bashing Bush. We know you don't like Bush.

Now given Kerry's proven indecisevness on most issues, give me ONE reason that I should vote for John F. Kerry. Oh and leave out the part that he is not Bush. That is a lousy way to vote and I feel sorry for the people that are voting because of that.

There is no 'proven indecisevness'...only a voting record taken out of context. Say it enough times though and it sticks.

1.Because ( and not that I like him either actually ) restore a sense of calm and respect to world affairs and foreign relations.

2. He'll stop dipping into the social security fund ( or whatever you call it ) to fund large deficits.

3. He won't go to war on flimsy and sometimes false intelligence. Rational judgement without profit motive sometimes matters.

What did you expect?

The US and Western Europe had a common interest in containing Soviet influence. With the end of Cold War, interests have changed. European nations need to do what's in their best interests and sometimes that conflicts with those of the US.


I expect no differant, countries must act in what they perceive to be their own self interests.

No condemnation there, simply stating what I believe to be true.

and Anidros

You are really a monkey boy arent you. You made a reply and I answered it(in a somewhat beligerant fashion) and then you critisize me because I didnt include a post you made later?

I am guessing logic is not one of your stronger points. But there I go with the guessing again.

The thought of Bush getting in for a second term (whether legitimately this time or otherwise) scares me... and I live in England! Americans should be shitting themselves about it!
Did anyone see the newsnight report at the Republikkkon National Convention? they were interviewing some Republikkkon woman, and she said that in the current situation with problems at home and abroad, and the threat from terrorism, the USA needs consistency of government. She was practically advocating that Bush should be President for Life until the war on terror is over.

If anyone wants a copy of the BBC exposé (14minute MPEG) on the 2000 coup d'état, I'll upload it to my webspace and give the link sometime.

Dubya wasn't elected. After he was elected people liked him but now it's dropped from about 90% to about 46%. I think 46% is still too much considering how much of an idiot this man is. The problem is, no one knows this guy is an idiot. No one will believe liberals because liberals are labeled as "radical" and everyone thinks we're idealistic idiots. It's a shame that thoughts of simple things like improving our education system is considered radical. Media isn't helping, either. Media justifies all of Bush and Darth Cheney's actions and deliberately avoid saying anything bad about him.
But one big reason is that nowadays the democrats aren't acting like democrats, but more like demopubs. They're being cowards. Why can't they just say waht bush is doing wrong. They're stupid.
ARGHershresnhr
i'm pissed.

I don't see how this has anything to do with the actual point that is being argued.


clearly you do not see.

If anyone wants a copy of the BBC exposé (14minute MPEG) on the 2000 coup d'état, I'll upload it to my webspace and give the link sometime.

I would definitely like to see it, if it wouldn't be too much trouble.

nowadays the democrats aren't acting like democrats, but more like demopubs.

Yep. It's sad... My party is a bunch of sissies.

I would definitely like to see it, if it wouldn't be too much trouble.

we were talking about unemployment rates. some people want 100% employment. I was pointing out some of the consequenses of such an incredible idea. I was also trying to point out that there is a certain "natural" rate of unemployement and the economic problems that happen when we approach that rate.

But this is all silly, it started with an individual who is so clueless as to not understand the differance between unemployment rates and the absolute number of unemployed.

I actually wasn't talking to you when I made that statement, but oh well.

I actually wasn't talking to you when I made that statement, but oh well.

you are correct, it was my mistake.

clearly you do not see.

It's simple! US has higher growth and lower unemployment than Europe, thus the US must have the better system. Lets forget that Europe is busy building the EU and incorporating states, and spending huge amounts bringing poorer countries up the the general EU standard shall we?

Of course, Australia, which is rather socialist compared to the US, has been going along nicely for about a decade now. No tech bubble, no recession for quite some time. Gee, our system must be best eh? ;)

give me ONE reason that I should vote for John F. Kerry. Oh and leave out the part that he is not Bush. That is a lousy way to vote and I feel sorry for the people that are voting because of that.

1) Kerry has real economic policies, not just simplistic rhetoric.
2) Kerry has proposed a responsible foreign policy. Unlike Bush, he isn't a puppet for international oil companies and won't kill thousands of people in unnessecary wars.

Can you give me some examples of his indecisiveness? It was undoubtedly a mature adult reforming his opinion because what he thought at first became wrong to him. There's nothing wrong with it.

Quote: "Don't vote for the war if your going to vote againsts funding it!"
End Result:
Voted for the war then voted against funding it.

Believed that it was Justified and even said that "WMD should not be in the hands of this man" Obviously he, himself believed that Hussein had WMD. on an interesting side note, he is now for what we did in Iraq. Not bad considering he wanted to pull our troops out within weeks of taking office. Now he's in for the long haul. I wish he would make up his mind.

Quote: "I believe that life begins at conception"
End Result:
Voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban

If he believes that life begins at conception, shouldn't he follow through on his beliefs? He says he's a roman Catholic but from everything I'm reading, he is going against church doctrine. Some Catholic he is.

He has flip flopped on many issues. These are just 2 of them.

It's simple! US has higher growth and lower unemployment than Europe, thus the US must have the better system. Lets forget that Europe is busy building the EU and incorporating states, and spending huge amounts bringing poorer countries up the the general EU standard shall we?

Of course, Australia, which is rather socialist compared to the US, has been going along nicely for about a decade now. No tech bubble, no recession for quite some time. Gee, our system must be best eh? ;)

Australia is pretty good. China and India and Ireland are better. But lets talk about fully developed countries where growth is harder to come by.

The EUs problems have been going on for over 10 years. Germany and France are in systematic fiscal decline. Poland is booming, the UK is doing pretty well. I dont know much about Spain or Italy.

Yet people berate President Bush for an economy that is substantially better than MOST other developed countries.

You tell me, why are people from Europe, Australia etc saying horrible things about Bush's handling of the economy when the economy here is better than most other places?

I can understand an unemployed guy from Ohio saying bad things, but what perverse form of logic allows a European or Australian(US growth rate is higher) to start saying things about Bush and the US economy?

a) why should you care

b) we are doing a pretty good job unless all someone is looking for is an excuse to say bad things about President Bush.

1) Kerry has real economic policies, not just simplistic rhetoric.

How? By increasing taxes as well as federal spending thats how. Someone ran numbers and found that he'll INCREASE the federal Budget more than what Bush did.

2) Kerry has proposed a responsible foreign policy. Unlike Bush, he isn't a puppet for international oil companies and won't kill thousands of people in unnessecary wars.

And exactly how many did we kill in Afghanistan compared to how many the terrorists killed? How many did the terrorists kill in Iraq compared to us? As for international oil companies, would you be saying the samething if a Democrat was in there? Besides, this is not an Oil War. I really wish people would realize this.

This election has decided my party affilation, and that is Democrats, i have been Reading Bill Clintons book and it is very good, i also am reading the Lies of President Bush. I cant wait till i am 18 and i can work for the Democratic National Party.Come Democrats we need to step up to GOP bullshit. And find a party which steals votes from Republicans and try to put them on the ballot in Florida and Ohio and Pennyslvania.

Quote: "Don't vote for the war if your going to vote againsts funding it!"
End Result:
Voted for the war then voted against funding it.

Nope, taken out of context. He voted against a particular way the war was to be funded, which he disagreed with.


Believed that it was Justified and even said that "WMD should not be in the hands of this man" Obviously he, himself believed that Hussein had WMD. on an interesting side note, he is now for what we did in Iraq. Not bad considering he wanted to pull our troops out within weeks of taking office. Now he's in for the long haul. I wish he would make up his mind.

I see, so people aren't allowed to change with a developing situation? I actually thought that's what a real leader did, rather than stick to something stubbornly? People, even republicans can change their minds. I seem to recall Bush did that a lot.


Quote: "I believe that life begins at conception"
End Result:
Voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban

If he believes that life begins at conception, shouldn't he follow through on his beliefs? He says he's a roman Catholic but from everything I'm reading, he is going against church doctrine. Some Catholic he is.

He has flip flopped on many issues. These are just 2 of them.

Nope, you're taking a highly emotive issue, calling it ' partial birth' which is something the pro-life side came up with, and entering a highly philosophical area. Does life mean sentience? Do you ever step on ants? they're alive too. Now, snuffing out sentient life is something else altogether. Plus, religion and politics in most of the western world are happily kept seperate. Religion is a personal thing, and you should vote on what you think is best for the country, not just yourself.

There you go mate. :)

Nope, taken out of context. He voted against a particular way the war was to be funded, which he disagreed with.


Sorry but how is taking a voting record out of context? He voted against funding our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is how it comes done. A voting record is public knowedge. This is how he voted and this is why he is getting smacked.


I see, so people aren't allowed to change with a developing situation? I actually thought that's what a real leader did, rather than stick to something stubbornly? People, even republicans can change their minds. I seem to recall Bush did that a lot.

I don't think I've ever stated it. Problem is, it is what he said and it is on the record. Thus he can be attacked on it. Yea Bush has changed his position but his positions was changed due to circumstances beyond his control.


Nope, you're taking a highly emotive issue, calling it ' partial birth' which is something the pro-life side came up with, and entering a highly philosophical area. Does life mean sentience? Do you ever step on ants? they're alive too. Now, snuffing out sentient life is something else altogether. Plus, religion and politics in most of the western world are happily kept seperate. Religion is a personal thing, and you should vote on what you think is best for the country, not just yourself.

And that is exactly what the AMA call it. Partial Birth because the baby is partially born before it is killed. The AMA approved of this ban btw and they ARE NOT conservative to say the least. The AMA says that this abortion procedure is not necessary and is infact harmful to the mother and thus it should be banned. As for life meaning sentience. Yes it does. Stepping on ants? Occassinaly I'll admit it but I hardly step on them because I do respect life no matter if its an ant, moth, butterfly, bee or a human. As for religion, to be honest, this goes beyond religion. Yea being against abortion could be religious but there are also pro-life athiests out there. I'm stating what the AMA consider this and they are against doing this procedure. That is why they applauded Congress when it passed.

There you go mate. :)

Are you Australian?

Nope, you're taking a highly emotive issue, calling it ' partial birth' which is something the pro-life side came up with, and entering a highly philosophical area. Does life mean sentience? Do you ever step on ants? they're alive too. Now, snuffing out sentient life is something else altogether. Plus, religion and politics in most of the western world are happily kept seperate. Religion is a personal thing, and you should vote on what you think is best for the country, not just yourself.

There you go mate. :)


Im pro choice.

But have you ever read any description of partial birth abortion? It is sick. A fully formed babies skull is crushed while it is halfway inside its mother. Halfway inside makes it an abortion instead or murder. The doctor(both my parents are doctors) then proceed to dismember the bay and vacuum it out.

In this day and age, with all the forms of protection and even over the counter day after drugs, do we really need to kill babies in the 9th month?

if its that late anyway, cant we just give the baby up for adoption?

I completely understand a women who is pregnant for a few months deciding it isnt in hers or the babies best interests if she has it, but what about 2 days before delivery? The baby is fully formed. The adoption situation is such that every baby finds a home.

In this day and age, with all the forms of protection and even over the counter day after drugs, do we really need to kill babies in the 9th month?

sometimes. its not like people get late-term abortions on a whim. they do it because of the very real life-threatening dangers to the woman that sometimes occur due to pregnancy complications.

How many did the terrorists kill in Iraq compared to us? Err....what terrorists? You mean the terrorists that entered Iraq AFTER the US invaded and destabilized the country?

At least 11500 civilians (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) have been reported killed by US military intervention in Iraq.

As for international oil companies, would you be saying the samething if a Democrat was in there? Besides, this is not an Oil War. I really wish people would realize this. Kerry isn't personally linked to the oil industry like Bush is.

Not an oil war? Please, Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia. Of course Iraq's economic importance was a major factor in this conflict. Oil has always been top of Bush's foreign policy agenda. While Saddam was in power, the US had no access to Iraqi oil and was basically being blackmailed by its Saudi Arabian suppliers.

Sorry but how is taking a voting record out of context? He voted against funding our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is how it comes done. A voting record is public knowedge. This is how he voted and this is why he is getting smacked.

You might be a little unfamiliar with how legislation is passed in the US. You see, when a bill comes up for voting, it can have many many things put on it thanks to lobby groups and vested interests. This means, a bill for one thing can end up being for many other things. Kerry's record has been taken out of context by partisan people this way. Not saying he's a saint. But no one is. I like whole facts. Not out of context ones. ( Sadly, the media always disagrees. )


I don't think I've ever stated it. Problem is, it is what he said and it is on the record. Thus he can be attacked on it. Yea Bush has changed his position but his positions was changed due to circumstances beyond his control.

I see. So..Iraq has always been 'under control' and circumstances never changed there at all. I'd say during a war is the most important time to evaluate things and possibly have to change course. ( That would cover your appraisal of Bush in the 'war on terror' no? ) So we all win that one. Still no 'Flip Flop' from Kerry there though. Only doing what he's paid for.


And that is exactly what the AMA call it. Partial Birth because the baby is partially born before it is killed. The AMA approved of this ban btw and they ARE NOT conservative to say the least. The AMA says that this abortion procedure is not necessary and is infact harmful to the mother and thus it should be banned. As for life meaning sentience. Yes it does. Stepping on ants? Occassinaly I'll admit it but I hardly step on them because I do respect life no matter if its an ant, moth, butterfly, bee or a human. As for religion, to be honest, this goes beyond religion. Yea being against abortion could be religious but there are also pro-life athiests out there. I'm stating what the AMA consider this and they are against doing this procedure. That is why they applauded Congress when it passed.


Um, nope. Here's what the AMA call it, based off their website:
"1) The term 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term. The AMA will use the term "intact dilatation and extraction"(or intact D&X)"

It's an emotive term come up with by people with an agenda. It's best to get information on the whole debate from sources other than the pro lifers or the pro abortionists. Go to the people who have to deal with it.

I'm not pro life or pro choice. I am pro " keep it a private affair if you come upon this trajic circumstance. It's none of my business.' In the US you're not really allowed to do that though.

[QUOTE=Corneliu]
Are you Australian?

Australian American thankyaw sir!

Err....what terrorists? You mean the terrorists that entered Iraq AFTER the US invaded and destabilized the country?

At least 11500 civilians (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) have been reported killed by US military intervention in Iraq.

If you believe these numbers Drabikstan then you honestly have not followed the news to much. More people have actually been killed by terrorists than by the United States. I take it from this site, which is a peaceUK site I might add, that it does not approve of the Iraq war.

As for international oil companies, would you be saying the samething if a Democrat was in there? Besides, this is not an Oil War. I really wish people would realize this.

Kerry isn't personally linked to the oil industry like Bush is.

How? Oh you mean Haliburton? Give me a break. My point remains that this is not a War for Oil as these peaceniks claim. I suggest you look into what Hussein has done to his people. You might have a better understanding as to why we went into Iraq.

Not an oil war? Please, Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia. Of course Iraq's economic importance was a major factor in this conflict. Oil has always been top of Bush's foreign policy agenda. While Saddam was in power, the US had no access to Iraqi oil and was basically being blackmailed by its Saudi Arabian suppliers.

True they have the second largest oil reserves in the world. If they have this then why did they invade Kuwait in August of 1990? If they have so much oil then why did they not do what was necessary to get the maximum output? Hussein did not care that is why! He invaded Kuwait because Kuwait demanded that Hussein repay them for the money they sent to him to fight off the Iranians in 1980-1988 which ended in a stalemate. If oil was on the top of his foreign policy, then why is he funding alternate fuel sources? Why is he trying to get more gas production in our country? As for being blackmailed, do you have proof of that? I doubt it highly since it is another conspiracy theory that goes with the thousands of conspiracy theories that are out there.

You might be a little unfamiliar with how legislation is passed in the US. You see, when a bill comes up for voting, it can have many many things put on it thanks to lobby groups and vested interests. This means, a bill for one thing can end up being for many other things. Kerry's record has been taken out of context by partisan people this way. Not saying he's a saint. But no one is. I like whole facts. Not out of context ones. ( Sadly, the media always disagrees. )

Thanks for telling me something that I learned way back in the 1st grade. However, Kerry DID VOTE AGAINST funding our troops in Iraq AND in Afghanistan. No amount of spin will negate that fact.

I see. So..Iraq has always been 'under control' and circumstances never changed there at all. I'd say during a war is the most important time to evaluate things and possibly have to change course. ( That would cover your appraisal of Bush in the 'war on terror' no? ) So we all win that one. Still no 'Flip Flop' from Kerry there though. Only doing what he's paid for.

For the most part, Iraq has been under control. Yea we've had an Iraq inserectin lead by Muqtada Al Sadr but now he is asking his army to surrender their weapons and he left that mosque. However, I think some of his followers will fight to the death. Now all we have to do is find Zarqawi who has been in Iraq since the start of this whole affair and maybe we can put a stop to this. Iraq has been part on the war on terror because of Hussein's affilation with terror groups in the region. Also, he terrorized his own people to no end.


Australian American thankyaw sir!

Welcome to America.

I suggest you look into what Hussein has done to his people. You might have a better understanding as to why we went into Iraq.

We didn't go into Iraq because Saddam was a dictator.

Thanks for telling me something that I learned way back in the 1st grade. However, Kerry DID VOTE AGAINST funding our troops in Iraq AND in Afghanistan. No amount of spin will negate that fact.

Dude! What school did you go to???

He didn't vote against giving them funding. He voted against that particular way that they were to be given funding. Get it straight.

Im pro choice.

But have you ever read any description of partial birth abortion? It is sick. A fully formed babies skull is crushed while it is halfway inside its mother. Halfway inside makes it an abortion instead or murder. The doctor(both my parents are doctors) then proceed to dismember the bay and vacuum it out.


And that's the Pro Life argument. I'm sure if you read the way cattle are dealt with to get to your dinner table you'd become vegetarian?

Some things in life are nasty. This abortion procedure is ONLY used in unavoidable situations, like health risk to the mother, baby having no lungs/brain etc etc, or gross deformities beyond help. It happens and people have to deal with it how they can when it happens. it should be an intensely private, personal and sensitive affair.

There would be less need for abortions anyway, were there more emphasis on contraception, which has actually had a good impact on rates in Europe/UK!

We didn't go into Iraq because Saddam was a dictator.

Oh then I guess all the mass graves, the torture chambers, the rape rooms weren't enough uh? Granted that it wasn't the main reason why we went in but humanitarian reasons was one of the reasons why WE DID go in.

People we have gotten off topic here. This thread is about Bush's Double Digit lead.

I for one am waiting for polls to come out next week because that'll pretty much tell us just how much of a bounce GWB got from his convention. The polls that came out during his convention, though are probably accurate, will not give us an accurate post convention Bounce.

Will he get his bounce? I think he will but I'm still wondering why Kerry never got his.

And that's the Pro Life argument. I'm sure if you read the way cattle are dealt with to get to your dinner table you'd become vegetarian?

Some things in life are nasty. This abortion procedure is ONLY used in unavoidable situations, like health risk to the mother, baby having no lungs/brain etc etc, or gross deformities beyond help. It happens and people have to deal with it how they can when it happens. it should be an intensely private, personal and sensitive affair.

There would be less need for abortions anyway, were there more emphasis on contraception, which has actually had a good impact on rates in Europe/UK!

If that was the case I would have no problem with it.

But it is not the case. It is the justification for people to perform abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

When a woman's health is at risk she should always have the final say. Unfortunately the "mental health" has been used as an exploit to allow abortion at any time under any circumstance.

People we have gotten off topic here. This thread is about Bush's Double Digit lead.

I for one am waiting for polls to come out next week because that'll pretty much tell us just how much of a bounce GWB got from his convention. The polls that came out during his convention, though are probably accurate, will not give us an accurate post convention Bounce.

Will he get his bounce? I think he will but I'm still wondering why Kerry never got his.

you are correct. I am dying to see the polls on tuesday. GW has already jumped 9 points in the trading.

I guess there was a bounce to be had after all.

Thanks for telling me something that I learned way back in the 1st grade. However, Kerry DID VOTE AGAINST funding our troops in Iraq AND in Afghanistan. No amount of spin will negate that fact.

Actually, back to that thing you learned in grade school, law can come to the floor for a vote several times. In the case of the troop funding it came to the floor twice. Both times, the same amount of money to the troops, however, the first vote was on a bill that funded that money with recinding the tax breaks bush gave to the top 1% of the population. Kerry voted FOR this funding. Bush and Republicans voted AGAINST it. The second bill is unfunded ( meaning adding to the deficit and overal debt ) and that's the one he voted against.

And so, now put in context, we find Bush voted AGAINST the troops, just like Kerry apparently did! Shock Horror! ;) ( Or should I say shock and awe. ;) )


For the most part, Iraq has been under control. Yea we've had an Iraq inserectin lead by Muqtada Al Sadr but now he is asking his army to surrender their weapons and he left that mosque. However, I think some of his followers will fight to the death. Now all we have to do is find Zarqawi who has been in Iraq since the start of this whole affair and maybe we can put a stop to this. Iraq has been part on the war on terror because of Hussein's affilation with terror groups in the region. Also, he terrorized his own people to no end.

Wow, so you'll be invading North Korea on these newly thought up reasons of why Iraq was invaded? Bush chose WMD's as the reason, which turned out to be bad judgment again. And for the record, there were no real links to terror groups. Saudi Arabia however, has plenty. Plus plenty of them were actually involved in 911 directly. Pity they own about 10% of the US economy so you can't do too much about them!

Oh, and thanks for admitting I proved you wrong on the abortion issue. I looooove facts. ;)


Welcome to America.

Thankyou sir. I enjoy the traffic!

you are correct. I am dying to see the polls on tuesday. GW has already jumped 9 points in the trading.

I guess there was a bounce to be had after all.

Probably was Isanyonehome! However, how much of one is yet to be determined. If he did get a bounce and it is bigger than what Kerry got, I think that could spell trouble for Kerry. However, polls are somewhat meaningless till October and the one that truely matters, most of the time (:D) is on election day.

If Bush's bounce is bigger than Kerry, then I gotta ask myself why is this? WHy did Bush get his Bounce and not John Kerry? Those are questions that people have to ask. The Kerry Campaign should be bracing themselves.

his alternative fuel souce is hydrogen. hydrogren is most cheaply cracked through fossil fuels. Yes what sadaam did to his country sucked, but it was terms to invade iraq. The I heard alot of WMDs and Terrorist-links when we were getting ready for war. But wait a minute, those claims were flimsy at best. Everyone should read Richard A. Clarkes book Against All Enemies. Richard Clarke knows what he is talking about and writes that bush jr demanded them to push links for reasons to invade iraq. Clarke is very credible as well because he had advised presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743260244/qid=1094011443/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-6173901-1059949?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

you are correct. I am dying to see the polls on tuesday. GW has already jumped 9 points in the trading.

I guess there was a bounce to be had after all.

I only want to know the stats the day after. ;)

for the record, I think Bush will win though.

Probably was Isanyonehome! However, how much of one is yet to be determined. If he did get a bounce and it is bigger than what Kerry got, I think that could spell trouble for Kerry. However, polls are somewhat meaningless till October and the one that truely matters, most of the time (:D) is on election day.

If Bush's bounce is bigger than Kerry, then I gotta ask myself why is this? WHy did Bush get his Bounce and not John Kerry? Those are questions that people have to ask. The Kerry Campaign should be bracing themselves.

answer is pretty simple, the dnc put forward nothing other than Kerry served honourably in Vietnam. The RNC actually put forward some issues.

Even Kerry's midnight address pissed me off. all he said was that he served. How about policy issues? I think at this point I have more respect for Howard Dean. I didnt agree with his positions, but at least he had positions.

If you believe these numbers Drabikstan then you honestly have not followed the news to much. More people have actually been killed by terrorists than by the United States. I take it from this site, which is a peaceUK site I might add, that it does not approve of the Iraq war. Which terrorist group has killed more than 11000 Iraqi civilians since the US invasion? Please tell me one.

Do you mean follow Fox News? No, I don't watch that garbage.




How? Oh you mean Haliburton? Give me a break. *cough* Arbusto Energy *cough*

I haven't even started on the Cheney-Halliburton issue yet.

You might have a better understanding as to why we went into Iraq. Back in the 1980s when Saddam was gassing thousands of Kurdish civilians, the US did nothing. The Reagan-Bush administration failed to condenm the atrocities and instead blamed Iran. The following year, the US increased economic aid to Iraq. Now tell me, why wasn't the US leading a war to 'liberate' the Iraqi people back then when Saddam was at his worst?

Besides, Bush invaded to disarm Iraq's alleged WMD, remember? These bullshit excuses about 'liberating' the Iraqi people were only used after no WMD were found.

If they have so much oil then why did they not do what was necessary to get the maximum output? Hussein did not care that is why! Ever heard of UN sanctions? Iraq was unable to export at capacity due to UN economic sanctions, which ended up destroying Iraq's economy. Wasn't that hard to work out, was it?

He invaded Kuwait because Kuwait demanded that Hussein repay them for the money they sent to him to fight off the Iranians in 1980-1988 which ended in a stalemate. I'm aware of this also, fancy that?

If oil was on the top of his foreign policy, then why is he funding alternate fuel sources? Why is he trying to get more gas production in our country? Simply cosmetic attempts to pretend his government actually cares about the environment.

As for being blackmailed, do you have proof of that? I doubt it highly since it is another conspiracy theory that goes with the thousands of conspiracy theories that are out there. Okay Einstein, why do you think the Bush administration has done nothing to punish Saudi Arabia for its support of islamic terrorism? Remember that 9/11 report that censored the final pages on Saudi Arabia? Are you aware that the US imports the majority of its oil from Saudi Arabia? Now, I wonder if you're aware of the OAPEC oil embargo of the 1970s? That was enough to cripple the US economy badly. Enough infact that Jimmy Carter announced that the US would be prepared to use force to maintain a cheap flow of oil from the Persian Gulf if nessecary. You see, the US has an unhealthy reliance on Saudi oil and the Saudis basically have the US (and most of Europe) by the balls in the regard. Now, the Bush administration understands that this reliance is unhealthy and therefore, opening up the Iraqi market is nessecary to maintain a flow of oil if and when Saudi Arabia eventually falls into anarchy. Pity that Saddam prevented the flow of oil to Western markets. However, a quick war was enough to do away with that naughty man.

Kerry has announced that he will reduce US dependence on Middle Eastern oil, which is a very bold and smart idea.

answer is pretty simple, the dnc put forward nothing other than Kerry served honourably in Vietnam. The RNC actually put forward some issues.

Even Kerry's midnight address pissed me off. all he said was that he served. How about policy issues? I think at this point I have more respect for Howard Dean. I didnt agree with his positions, but at least he had positions.

I missed Kerry's midnight Address because I was on C-Span watching the convention. LOL!! Also, I went to bed shortly after the speech because I had a 9 AM Class. I'm not surprised though. Kerry may have good ideas but he needs to concentrate on those and not his Vietnam record.

The Republican Convention did put forth issues and there really was no Kerry Bashing. Really the only bashing done on Kerry was on his voting recording and that is thanks to Miller (D-GA) and Cheney. As for respect, I would've prefered Lieberman over Kerry. Lieberman would've blown Bush right out of the water personally speaking. Even I was thinking of voting for Lieberman and I'm a Republican.

I missed Kerry's midnight Address because I was on C-Span watching the convention. LOL!! Also, I went to bed shortly after the speech because I had a 9 AM Class. I'm not surprised though. Kerry may have good ideas but he needs to concentrate on those and not his Vietnam record.

The Republican Convention did put forth issues and there really was no Kerry Bashing. Really the only bashing done on Kerry was on his voting recording and that is thanks to Miller (D-GA) and Cheney. As for respect, I would've prefered Lieberman over Kerry. Lieberman would've blown Bush right out of the water personally speaking. Even I was thinking of voting for Lieberman and I'm a Republican.


Lieberman is great. Unfortunately the Dems have shifted so far left that decent/moderate democrats cannot win primaries. If Lieberman was running, I might have voted for him if only because I like the checks and balances when 1 party is in the execitive body and the other is in charge of the legislative body.

Lieberman is great. Unfortunately the Dems have shifted so far left that decent/moderate democrats cannot win primaries. If Lieberman was running, I might have voted for him if only because I like the checks and balances when 1 party is in the execitive body and the other is in charge of the legislative body.

Agreed!

Kerry has proposed a responsible foreign policy. Unlike Bush, he isn't a puppet for international oil companies and won't kill thousands of people in unnessecary wars.


Instead, of course, America should bow to the UN who really only want us around so that we can pay for everything, as usual. Get the UN out of the US & get the US out of the UN! It's only become an engine for World Socialism with an eye on the American pocketbook.

Solve the budget problems by rescinding ALL American foreign aid, and let the world know what it's really like when America takes it's ball and goes home. And don't even start with the "it wouldn't make any difference" BS.
Make the Germans and other europeans happy by pulling our military out completely. (along with the billions of dollars that go into their economies) We have new friends in Poland and the Balkans who are far more deserving.
Here 90 & 60 years later, I'm one American who wishes we'd have just let you devour each other and be done with it. A whole generation wasted for nothing.
British & French foreigh policies in the era between the wars created the powderkeg of the middle east, yet we get our asses torn off for having to clean up your messes, Again! Wilson warned you then, and now we know he was right.
Does anyone remember that it was Britain's WWI era support of Zionism that eventually caused Israel to be created in Palistine? There were honest discussions of placing a Jewish homeland elsewhere, but Britain had to ensure that the area between it's european possessions and asian colonies were clear of foreign interference, hence the whole political hotspot between the eastern mediterranean and the Gulf of Arabia to this day. Remember how maps were laid down according to British and French colonial ambitions without respect for racial and religious divides which caused it to be an area of such contention? That Kuwait actually was a province of Iraq before British actions in that country? The whole of British, French and German actions regarding the division of the war spoils from the Ottoman Empire are the direct cause of many of our problems there today.

Remember the names Allenby, T.E. Lawrence, Mark Sykes and Lloyd George?
Sykes-Picot Agreement? Feisal & Hussein? Ibn Saud? Ring any bells?
Sorry, but not all americans are stupid, some remember our history quite well, thank you.

Someone's gotta have a pair, sorry it wasn't you european metrosexuals. (Again)

your wasting your breathe Jumbania, half the people here dont understand basic economics(freshman economics 101) let alone history. They have no idea how Persia was bisected and by whom. They dont even understand the word "facist" and how insane it is to apply such a term to the US.

your wasting your breathe Jumbania, half the people here dont understand basic economics(freshman economics 101) let alone history. They have no idea how Persia was bisected and by whom. They dont even understand the word "facist" and how insane it is to apply such a term to the US.

You are correct Isanyonehome. Persia was divided after WWI because the Ottoman Turks lost WWI! Thus they lost most if not all of their possessions to the Brits and French.

You are correct Isanyonehome. Persia was divided after WWI because the Ottoman Turks lost WWI! Thus they lost most if not all of their possessions to the Brits and French.


ahhh, the empire where the sun never sets.

I like the UK(mostly) thank god(whom I dont believe in) that they havent gone the way of France and Germany.

I'm still waiting for your reply Corneliu. :(

Instead, of course, America should bow to the UN who really only want us around so that we can pay for everything, as usual. Why does a responsible foreign policy that doesn't encourage terrorism have to do with the UN?

Get the fuck out of here with your irrelevant rants.

I'm still waiting for your reply Corneliu. :(

*yawns* What? Oh sorry I won't be responding to anymore offtopic posts. This thread is about Bush's Double Digit lead. I would be happy to debate this another time in an appropriate thread. Since this isn't the thread for it, I won't be responding to it.

*goes back to studying for a Calculus Quiz he has on Tuesday*

*yawns* What? Oh sorry I won't be responding to anymore offtopic posts. This thread is about Bush's Double Digit lead. I would be happy to debate this another time in an appropriate thread. Since this isn't the thread for it, I won't be responding to it.

*goes back to studying for a Calculus Quiz he has on Tuesday* I understand if you're busy and all but that is really weak. Bush's foreign policy is relevant to the debate and you know it. You started the topic when you attempted to defend Bush's foreign policy and I simply replied to your claims. How exactly is the history of Persia more relevant to the topic of the US election than the Bush administration's foreign policy blunders? You found time to reply to that.

I know. Wonderful isn't it. Gee, wouldn't that make him a liar if he was actually a registered republican? Oh no! Not Bill!

With luck he'll just tell me to 'shut the hell up' or something. ;)
That's the same as Jabba the Moore, who swears he's an Independent...well, wouldn't you know, he is a registered Dim (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0628041moore1.html). But wait...is he registered to vote in 2 states while whining about the Florida 2000 results??? Yup!! Bad form, Jabba.

Oh, by the way, threatening to sue people for pointing out the glaring LIES (I won't dignify them by calling them "errors" or "inaccuracies,") in "Fahren-lies 911"?? Really bad form.

I understand if you're busy and all but that is really weak. Bush's foreign policy is relevant to the debate and you know it. You started the topic when you attempted to defend Bush's foreign policy and I simply replied to your claims. How exactly is the history of Persia more relevant to the topic of the US election than the Bush administration's foreign policy blunders? You found time to reply to that.

I Mean it Drabikstan. I'm no longer responding to ANY off topic Posts. This is about Bush's Double Digit lead, something that I am a tad suspect of, and that is all.

Probably was Isanyonehome! However, how much of one is yet to be determined. If he did get a bounce and it is bigger than what Kerry got, I think that could spell trouble for Kerry. However, polls are somewhat meaningless till October and the one that truely matters, most of the time (:D) is on election day.

If Bush's bounce is bigger than Kerry, then I gotta ask myself why is this? WHy did Bush get his Bounce and not John Kerry? Those are questions that people have to ask. The Kerry Campaign should be bracing themselves.
You do realize, that for GWB's bounce to be bigger than Jean Francois Kerry's, it only has to be a 5% bounce, according to some of the post-Dem convention polls? According to other polls, as long as it is above 0%, he would already get a bigger bounce.

You do realize, that for GWB's bounce to be bigger than Jean Francois Kerry's, it only has to be a 5% bounce, according to some of the post-Dem convention polls? According to other polls, as long as it is above 0%, he would already get a bigger bounce.

LOL!! I know.

Dude, what the fuck. That's low, you bastard. That's why people hate us, idiot. So stop and think before you post.

The funny thing is, we have more unemployed than European countries; it just looks like they have more because they have 1/6 of our population. And stagnant economic growth? The US isn't even in the lead anymore. Our economy is fucked. China had the most rapidly improving economic state in the world.

And not spending money on the military is a good thing, not a bad thing. Unless you want WWIII. Which, BTW, will be everybody against us. So you should consider it a blessing that European countries are not arming, because it would be as a result of our actions, and the weapons would be for use against us.
Do you have a clue what you are talking about? Sounds to me your one of those antiamerican protestors that attacked the police in New York cuase they were arresting a guy to question him about why he had a vial of anthrax in his pocket.

those antiamerican protestors that attacked the police in New York cuase they were arresting a guy to question him about why he had a vial of anthrax in his pocket.

what the hell are you on about?

You do realize, that for GWB's bounce to be bigger than Jean Francois Kerry's, it only has to be a 5% bounce, according to some of the post-Dem convention polls? According to other polls, as long as it is above 0%, he would already get a bigger bounce.
Well, according to the first truly post-convention poll (http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=12922), Bush's bounce was 2 points. That's right--2 points. Read it and weep. Rasmussen gives Bush a four point bounce. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm)

Now I have to say that the Gallup poll has one of the same problems that the Time and Newsweek polls has--it's pushing leaners, and that's a bad move this far out. With a couple of weeks to go, maybe, but not with two months to go. Leave the undecideds alone.

There's also a difference between Gallup's likely voters model and the registered voters model. It should be noted that the likely voter model varies from pollster to pollster, whereas the registered voter model stays the same. In Gallup's case, the bump was the same--2 points--but the race is tighter among registered voters--a virtual tie instead of a 7 point lead for Bush.