« Kerry Holds Slight Lead in New PRC Poll | Main | Kerry 48%, Bush 45% in Ohio »

Kerry 47%, Bush 43% in New Zogby Poll

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry is favored over President George W. Bush (47%-43%) among likely voters when Ralph Nader, Libertarian, Constitution and Green Party presidential candidates are factored into the 2004 presidential race, according to a new Zogby America poll.

The presidential ticket of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and North Carolina Senator John Edwards gained two points since the Democratic National convention over President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney and now leads by seven points (50%-43%).

Comments

Step by step, inch by inch, Kerry moves ever so slightly more ahead of Bush. I believe that there won't be a huge rush to either candidate, but that gains will be incremental. That's fine with me as long as they are gains by Kerry. Bush may get a slight but hopefully temporary bounce from his convention but if Kerry still leads after the GOP Convention, I think Teresa can start measuring the Oval Office for drapes.

Oh, surely the measurements of the Oval Office are publicly known by now.

No...it's classified. First she will need to get carpets cleaned of all of the oil stains.

I wonder what kind of stains Georgie had to clean up after Clinton? :>)..............

At least it wasn't innocent blood stains, more morally degenerate to a much higher magnitude than washable stains on blue dresses. Like Pilate, George's stains are on his hands.

So far it only seems that the Gallup Polls are the only ones showing Bush ahead. Even the Fox polls show 5-7 point leads for Kerry.

So why is it only 47-43 when just mentioning Kerry and Bush, but when you add the VPs, the lead jumps to 50-43?

It seems to me we should be looking at the second set of numbers since in November we will vote for the ticket, not just the president.

Either way, Bush is polling in the low forties which is really bad for him, but great for the rest of us.

I was watching CNN Sunday morning and some right wing spokesman was saying that Bush is showing better than 50% in the Gallup poll and whenever a President has had a 50% showing,in theGallup Poll, at this piont in time of the campain, has won.

If you look at the 5 post-convention national polls posted at electoral-vote.com, Gallup is the only poll giving Bush the edge and they give Nader a ridiculous 5%. No one in their right mind believes Nader will get anything near 5%. Ergo Gallup = outlier.

Question... Isnt it a trait of Kerry to build his base step by step? I am not a Kery expert but from my tit-bit of research on his previous campaigns, its seems as though he usually starts his race from way back and literally works his way to an unstopable winning position a few yards from the finish line.

Any by the way, I have not heard anyone speak on the demeanor of either of the four candidates. Well, I have been paying attention and I cant remember ever seeing Kerry looking stressed or worried or lost or distant. In similar manner, Edwards seems to have allowed someone to paint a smile on his face. Its ever present.

In stark contrast, Bush seems to be distant and disconnected, as though he has no idea what his next word is going to be. Well, Cheney, he constantly appears constipated and I mean no insults by any of the above remarks. These are genuine takes on facial expressions of each candidate that I have measured over the past four months.

I wont talk about Bush' smile and smirk... they speak for themselves.

I will admit that I have seen pensive Kerry and Edwards moments and I am clear in saying pensive and not distant as the two are worlds apart when registered on a face.

Even if the DEMS were to lose the elections, which they wont, you cant see it being registered in their general demeanor. I think its this constant casual demeanor of Kerry that has some supporters worried. They are hoping to see him being expressive and upbeat and full of gesticulations but you will never see that in Kerry. He is a cool headed leader who is calculated about his decisions. In this regard, it may take him a bit longer than the average joe to come up with a sound decision but it wont mean that he is not thinking inbetween time. This is prob. the reason why his campaigns take forever to gather momentum and in the process cause heart attacks, colon cancers and high blood pressure among supporters. I wonder how his inside personnel handle his demeanor.

He strikes me as the kinda person who sleeps well at night and will even oversleep on occassions. People with his demeanor can be quite frustrating because when the ship is sinking, he is usually there writing his notes on how to save a sinking ship... and of course at some point, he passes out the notes, just before everything is lost and saves the thing. Not many people can hang with a person who has the Kerry demeanor.

He is definately not the kinda person that the average American expects in such a high profile position. Americans tend to look for people who are stalwart in nature, resolute, a good command of public influence and control, the ability to speak in an articulate manner, even if its pure baloney and laced with lies, tall in stature... etc.. etc.. unfortunately Kerry does not fit these molds very snuggly but he is there or there abouts.

The Kerry personality needs to work itself into people's psychy before they can commit to him and like him. He needs to be around people for some time before they will accept him. This is the reason why it has taken so long for people to literally open arms of acceptance to him. Its the same reason why people are saying there are not so sure about this Kerry guy.

This is the reason why his front porch sessions were a really perfect tool. Its a pity that he cant do more of them but meeting people at this level is ideally suited to the Kerry demeanor. I will bet that the front porch sessions have done wonders for Kerry and this will be reflected in the results in November.

Unfortunately, polls dont measure demeanor. Hearts do and hence this might be the reason the Gallop poll is constantly having problems with the stats. Their polls might be a lil too scientific to tap into the hearts of people. Even when you ask people about Kerry's likeability, you will see that most people just cant put their fingers on their thoughts about Kerry and the reason is that the heart has not yet connected with the mind to work out the Kerry demeanor. As soon as this happens, you will find that most people will learn to like Kerry and the polls will reflect this. However this wont happen until very close to the actual elections day.

The fact that the demeanor plays a part in people acceptance is one reason why bounce is not important after the two conventions. This is one reason too why I wont expect Bush to gather a whole lot of bounce after his convention and whatever bounce he gathers, should be gone in about two weeks.

The reality remains that people want a change in the whitehouse but Kerry has to endear himself to them. He has to meet them and allow their hearts to meet with their minds and form that acceptance bond.

I remember months ago, people were asking him to smile and act happy and be excited and thrilled and such. I even remember him saying that he is really excited but his face just doesnt realise. Thing is, if supporters ever succeed in getting Kerry to change his demeanor, this will be the day that they get the fish to attempt to live outside the water.. and he will die. I therefore hope that he never changes his demeanor and simply sell himself to his electorate, as the man that he really is, cool, calculated, planned and measured.

Change nothing Sir.. you are doing just fine.

Cheers

Another Bingo Bel, I somehow knew when I started reading your post from the top that it must be you. I agree 100% Bush looks worried, his demanor is forced and not natural al all. I wish your post could be in the editoral page of tomorrow morning's New York Times.

Kerry's acceptance speech at the convention really surprised me. He seemed intense and full of energy. If that's his demeanor in October, I'd say the election's over.

Bush has his serious schoolboy style of reading speeches off of teleprompters, and his grinning, wisecracking, lean on the podium-style for the political troops. I think he's very worried underneath it all.

when you guys are done breaking your collective arms patting yourselves on the back you might realize that Kerry hasn't been elected yet and you still have to play the game(the election). You can crow all you want about this poll and that poll, but Bush has been ahead in the futures market almost the entire way save for the first two days of the DNC convention. I'd say that Bush is in pretty good position right now. We haven't even done the RNC convention yet. Anything is possible in this race.

To Allan,

By the way your first name is spelled incorrectly. You are right that election is far from over, but politically speaking it is better to be in Kerry's position than Bush's. Anything can happen, including smears by Karl Rove as the Republicans get more desperate. Allan, if you don't like us Democrats patting ourselves on our backs then go back to your no-nothing right-wing web sites with people of your own ilk.

The political smearing is in full-force and it is so obvious and ugly that it doesn't seem to have hurt Kerry much. I wonder if in the end it will just hurt Bush. Kerry-Edwards seem so positive and clean in comparison, and I don't think the Republicans would even bother with the "pessimist" tag at this point! I don't think there is much more they can hurl at Kerry than they are doing right now. If he is still doing this well in spite of the smears, that is a very good sign.

Come on, Allan, I bet you are not really very confident about the outlook. You expected a Reagan bounce, didn't you? You expected better economic data and certainly better consumer confidence, didn't you? You expected an orange alert bounce, didn't you? It all never happened.

Granted, I didn't get the decisive convention bounce I was hoping for, either. But this doesn't bode well for the Bush convention, as well. And 9/11? It's going to be extremely difficult for Bush not to appear exploiting it for partisan reasons – just look what happened when they tried that 9/11 ad in january.

Look, it's now five months that the majority of the polls is having Kerry ahead. Ahead of a sitting President who supposedly won two wars, handed out billions and billions of tax cut candy, presided over the single most emotional event since Pearl Harbour, giving him a unique possibility to rise above partisan politics. George W. enjoyed a year of 80 percent approval ratings – and here we are, two and a half months before the election, and he is in the mid-40ies.

Okay, you have Gallup and the futures market to turn to. But the market won't turn to Kerry unless he's leading double digits. It's like the weather forecast: the savest bet for tomorrow is the weather of today.

All the same, Allan, I bet you don't really sleep that well, do you?

Ooohhhhh leave Allan alone. The man is campaigning for his man no matter what. This is what I LOVE about the republican approach. They know how to hang onto straws. I agree that straws hardly ever save a life but from time to time one will be just strong enough to carry a guy to shore and you never know which one will take you there, so you catch at all that are passing. Thats the policy of the GOP. I hate that they lie and spin and smear and distort and confuse and such like.. but what do you expect from a drowning man?

I respect any drowning man who catches at the proverbial straw and I respect the GOP for their efforts. Please realise that all it takes is for Kerry to make one major mis-step and these straws will instantly become swift boats to shore, major life savers.

So dont discount Allan, convert him. Everyone needs a better life, greater opportunity, a brighter day, better sleep at night and Allan fits the mold no matter where he is in life. So please help Allan and do not run him away.

Allan is the typical republican who puts on an excellent face even when all hell is breaking lose but that does not mean that he is settled on the inside. To read Allans statements exactly as they are written is to assume that all is well with his soul but that might very well be a major false assumption.

You wont know how desparately Allan is look for a way to jump the Bush ship unless you talk to him and hear his side of the issues and then allow him to tell you how he feels about situations as they are now in his home town, family and his thoughts on issues in this world.

So please welcome Allan back to this place.

Allan, your next post is eagerly awaited. Your position is respected here.... I think....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129172,00.html

Please cut and paste the above link. Its what I have been advocating for some time now and it makes such pleasant reading. The DEMS need to allow the candidates to take the high road, outlining their plans for the re-newed America, while the rank and file blast away, fearlessly at the ignorance of the Republicans.

You can bet that Kerry and Bush willl be a bit more "sensitive" now when they think to talk about Kerry's time in the military. I somehow dont think that the Bush rhetoric about Kerry and Iraq and his service will subside significantly however but they will find new ways to still create a good spin. Keep watching.

Cheers

5th grade teacher asks the children what their fathers do for a living. Typical answers -- fireman, policeman, salesman, doctor, lawyer.

Little Johnnie says:
"My father's an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes in front of other men. Sometimes, if the offer's really good, he'll go out to the alley with some guy and have sex with him for money."

The shaken teacher takes Johnnie out in the hall, "Is that really true about your father?"

"No," said Johnnie, "He works for the Bush campaign, but I was too
embarrassed to say that in front of the other kids."

Thanks for all the comments. I really do like liberals with a sense of humor and I love having a rational discussion with you guys. As i've said on this blog before, I'm more libertarian than Republican. I'm not impressed with the growth in federal spending or the war in Iraq, but unforetunately all John Kerry wants to do is raise taxes on the rich(code word for evryone to watch their wallet) and keep the same strategy on Iraq. Just last week he said that he would have still voted for the war even knowing that there have been no WMD found. That must drive you guys on here crazy to hear your man say that. Win or lose, I am in control of my own destiny and so is everyone else. The only person you can rely on is yourself. If John Kerry is elected President I won't like it, but it really doesn't change anything for me. If you guys worried more how to make yourself better and not be so reliant on government, it is my opinion that you would be hugely better off.

Reliant on government? When debtors come calling for interest payment on the trillions of bucks Bush spent in the last four years who do you think the government is going to rely on? You don't like the way things are, but you're only response is to project failure into the future based on your boy's discredited ideology. Yeah, you do have more in common with the Republicans. As long as you got yours the rest of the country and future generations can go fuck themselves...with a broomstick...in Iraq.

Kerry is just going to roll back GW's Tax cut on those who make over $200,000.00 a year. So, if you make $199,999.99 a year not to worry. And if you do you can afford it. Those of us who got our little 500.00 or 600.00 dollars are spending more on increased state and city fees.
God help you if you sending a kid to college! Rob Peter to Pay Paul that's the bush tax cut.Impress his billionare buddies like his good friend Kenny Boy.

Also, Kerry voted for THE AUTHORITY for the President to make the decision on the War not for the reason he did it. This Administration has nothing to run on so they take things out of context and run like hell with them and hope they stick.

Reliant on government? I work for a private company, make a very nice living, haven't been unemployed for a very long time, etc, etc. I can't think of how I'm reliant on government. C'mon, Allan - one of the rules of arguing with us liberals is that we require justification of some kind for statements. We're mostly a bunch of engineers and other professionals here, so how do you think we're dependant on government?

Dear Bel,

I've been saying that since early summer - Kerry needs to stay clean while WE do the dirty work blasting away.

I think it goes back to risk. So many more regular people have higher risk these days. In certain business and futures thats what people want, but when it comes to feeding their kids, taking them to the doctor or getting them an educated, safe life people want stability. Bush's way you have much more living on the edge and he's that way because thats how he lived, except unlike him, we don't have super-rich friends and familiy to bail us out so we go down and don't come up again.

With a Kerry admin, I think there will be much more mitigation of risk on the part of the average person. When a regular person feels secure in the basics, THEN they take risks with other things because they know they can start again. THAT's the best approach to the economy, managing risk via the power of government, so that people feel secure enough to take risks on their own.

Lawrence, I'm talking about the Democratic constituency. For as long as I can remember the Democrats in my humble opinion have pushed for programs to get as many people as possible dependent on government and before you come back with "yeah but what about all the corporate welfare", I'm with you guys on that issue too. I wish we would eliminate subsidies across the board. You can't tell me with a straight face that the "war on poverty" has been a success. More people than ever before are dependent on government. It's funny though, we're debating and arguing about these issues and meanwhile the value of the dollar keeps going down and down thereby robbing everyone blind of their purchasing power. The Fed says there's "low or no inflation". If you believe that than I got some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you. We need to get back to a gold standard or commodities backed currency so the gov. can't just print money whenever they feel like it.

Reliance on government? Isn't that what Cheney's done with sweetheart deals from the government? Isn't that what Neil Bush did at Silverado savings when taxpayers like you and me bailed him out? Isn't that what rich Republicans do when they buy special tax loopholes from Republican legislators? I could go on and on and on, but I wouldn't want to confuse you with facts. The only government help Republicans don't like is when it comes to some poor schlock who has worked hard, played by the rules, and then loses his home because of medical bills. Republicans RELY special protection from the government and are very eager to build in corporate tax loopholes into every tax bill, and leave the little guy holding the bag. Basically, that's what they're all about: reliance on government to give themspecial protection - none for the rest of the country.

"...If you guys worried more how to make yourself better and not be so reliant on government..."

"...have pushed for programs to get as many people as possible dependant on government..."

OK, so it's not us personally as you seem to say in your earlier post, but some other people. The problem with this assertion is that 1) you are attributing motives (to whom?) with no evidence, and 2) you seem to think that a lot of americans are "dependant on government", when the actual number of pitiful welfare cases, not to mention the percentage of the federal budget that is spent on them, is vanishingly small.

I glad that you notice that "corporate welfare" is a problem. On my side, I will agree that it is not a good thing for people to be "reliant on government", and I'm sure I speak for others on this blog when I say that that is not one of our goals. I know that Rush Limbaugh likes to accuse democratic politicians of wanting to get as many people as possible on the welfare rolls, but if you rely on him and his ilk for information on what democrats want, you might as well listen to Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky to get your information on what republicans want.

The democratic party has since FDR stated that if it is possible and practical for government to help ordinary americans out of a jam or improve their lives, that would not be a bad thing. No rational person wants to pay more taxes or rely on the government to solve all problems. Government is just another tool, like a hammer, and like any other tool, you can use it to hurt somebody or you can use it to build things. Hammers are not good for every job, and neither is government.

Y'see Lawrence, there's the catch 22 the republicans love to play you. If you're doing well enough to fend off the "reliant of government" bullcrap then you're a hypocrite for reaping the benefits of capitalism that emperor C+ augustus has bestowed on you while you at the same time argue for redistribution of wealth to the no good lazy poor. It's too bad that our rugged libertarian individualist can only see into the future failure of a democratic administration but can't see into the not so distant past when unemployment, poverty, government debt and the number of americans dying on foreign soil were all lower than they are today. Oh I forgot, Dick Cheney said the goverment had nothing to do with private sector success.

Allan, so nice to have you back on board. The problem with reality is that its makes thing real and alive. Unfortunately, government is a part of that reality and even if we try to bury our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist, it comes and drags our head outta that sand and present a bunch of harsh realities in the form of taxes and the likes.

If this is true, then we certainly need to try in some way to influence the measures by which government can drag our heads outta the sand and that why people pay attention to government. It real.

It needs to be said that there is no significant difference between the way the democrats influence people to depend on the government and the way the corporate depends on government. You have to remember that the corporate world can afford high paid lobbyist. Who does the average joe on the block has to represent his case in the face of government?

In many respects, the republicans do the exact things that the DEMS do when it comes to doling out free money and creating dependancies. The way the DEMS do it is not as glamourous cause there are no big dinners, no gala functions as those who lobby will throw. So to the rich and those better off, along with those who consider themselves soo independant that they dont need hand outs and those who look down their noses at the poor, cannot quite comprehend what the democrats do to help the poor.

The interesting reality is that if life ran the way the repubicans portray it, there would be such huge slums across Amercia, the rich would have them crawling to their doors begging, they poor would be lined up in the streets like vermin.

Unfortunately, the poor will be always with us and there is nothing that anyone can do to measure the success of any poverty eradication program. Personally, I think the program has the wrong name, but to call it by its true name will create lots of pointless debate and will simply block the tit bits of help that the poor are getting now.

Its the reponsibility of government to do something to help the disadvantage and not cast them away to wait until their turn to enter heaven as some republicans seem to be implying. Some are even portraying poverty as the net results of sin. What a nasty and reprehensible way to think.

Sooooooooo.. I do think that the DEMS need to tinker with their public assistance programs and seek to manage them properly but I dont think that they should be dissolved as many in the GOP seem to be advocating.

and... why does Allan suddenly switch to talking about being liberal? What makes believing in some of the policies of the democrats a liberal thing? This word keeps baffling me, when spoken by a republican.

Cheers
Belnando

Ed, I appreciate your point about Kerry voting for the authority to go to war not being the same as saying he would have gone to war! It has largely gotten lost in the back and forth.

At the time of the war authorization vote, it was unclear to an unbiased observer whether Iraq had WMDs or not. The vote for a war authorization is easily justified by the need to supply the President and the international community with leverage to get inspectors in on the ground in large numbers to find out. Which is what happened. When they found nothing, the President of course could have decided that war was unnecessary or inadvisable and either called it off or postponed it, pending the results of continuing inspections.

It's unclear to me from Bush's question and Kerry's response last week whether Kerry was defending his war authorization vote, or, rather, saying he would have gone to war given the set of facts that existed on the eve of the war. Perhaps someone here can enlighten me on this?

> We need to get back to a gold standard or
> commodities backed currency so the gov.
> can't just print money whenever they feel like it.

Reactionary tendencies ahoy!

BT, this was Kerry's response when ask by Chris Mathews If he was one of the anti-war canadates.

KERRY: I am. Yes. In the sense that I don‘t believe the president took to us war as he should have, yes. Absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris. Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was and we should have done it right.

BT, Cut and paste this site www.thousandreasons.org/opinion/080104.html

It's too long for me to put here but they explain Kerry's whole vote and it even gives his Whole statement from the Senate floor before he voted on the resolution. After reading this you can clearly see that this administration is twisting the truth as usual.

Ed............

Its funny but I think John Kerry has added a lot of language and words to his explanations on this Iraq thing and its leading lots of people into the doldrums of confusion. Maybe he needs to write out his responses on this subject and read them next time he is asked... but even then, he might read on for about an hour and we might still find ourselves drifting into that same world of confusion.

But I share your view Ed, that these guys are creating bad friendships with the truth on this one too. I remained amazed at how the republicans play. I am sure they are chocolate coating their lies about Kerry and Iraq.... these poor people.

Allan Bartlett-


"For as long as I can remember the Democrats in my humble opinion have pushed for programs to get as many people as possible dependent on government"

Including Clinton's welfare reform? Just this last weekend, I had a very interesting conversation with a social worker about the reform's positive impact. Given that a bureaucracy's role is to remove all aspects of human judgement, I think it's extremely difficult to implement a social welfare safety net that's a "hand up instead of a handout". But I'm glad somebody tried.

You mention the disappointing results of the New Deal and the Great Society. Well. What's your alternative?

Inequity is the inevitable result of capitalism (per the power law of resource distribution). Democracy requires a more fair distribution. Our forefathers understood this when they gamed the systems to create the middle class.

Society, one way or another, is going to pay. When inequity becomes too great, social unrest ensues. Me, personally, I'd rather live in a civil society where all the kids are healthy and educated vs an uncivil society composed of gated communities. I dunno. Maybe it's just an esthetics thing.


Cheers, Zappini

Nope.. its not an esthetics thing. Its real. where ever and when ever you create a two class system, you are inviting extreme civil unrest, insecurity, lack of trust, hatred etc... etc.., eventually you get civil war and the very people who create the breeding ground for this level of chaos then pick up their tents and move to another country. Leaving the less fortunate to kill themselves and the police.

Gimme a managed version of the democrats approach anyday. Cant have no civil unrest in my life right now.

Cheers

No problem wih last nights debate, basically Kerry asks the same question...why was there tunnel vision on the part of this administration, in regards to Iraq, when the real target should have been Osama bin laden. The terrorist cell behind the leveling of our Twin Towers? Kerry says the wrong war at the wrong time, and anyone with a bit of American pride knows he is right. he didnt say Saddam should not go down, if you look back, General Shwartzkoph said to 41, do it now or we wil have to do it later, as a true American, today you hear nothing from this man.