« Wall Street Journal Article Asks All the Right Questions | Main | New State Polls »

A Few More Thoughts on the New CBS News/New York Times Poll

As Chris Bowers of MyDD points out in his insightful new essay, "Rapid Poll Movement is a General Election Myth", the new CBS/NYT poll is actually a lot worse for Bush than the CBS News poll released a week earlier, even though both polls gave Bush a 50-42 lead among RVs. That's because, since the current poll is substantially more Republican than the earlier poll (which actually had a slight Democratic edge), Bush should actually have performed better than the earlier poll on the horse race and on indicators like job approval and right/direction wrong track in this poll, instead of about the same. That also means that if we adjust the current poll to correct the apparent surplus of Republicans, Bush's performance on these indicators should actually decline below the measurements of the earlier poll.

Since CBS News thoughtfully provides the overall result and the result broken down by party ID for each and every question in their survey, it is possible to estimate what Bush's ratings would have looked like if there weren't so many Republicans in the sample. Here are some examples, based on reweighting the current poll to the 2000 exit poll distribution of partisanship:

Overall job approval: 49 percent approval/44 percent disapproval
Economic job approval: 42/52
Iraq job approval: 45/51
Campaign against terrorism job approval: 57/37
Right direction/wrong track: 40/53

In every case, these ratings are worse than they were a week ago, making the idea that the race is tightening up more plausible.

Of course, Kerry needs not just a tight race, but to pull ahead. Given Bush's continued vulnerabilities, which these data highlight, Kerry's got the opening to do so. I'll address this issue in future posts.


I think Bush up 1-2 points appears right now, although I do believe Kerry continues to lead in battleground states.

Speaking of MyDD. That chart showing the scatter in Rasmussen polling was an eye openner. What it says is for all intents and purposes, besides fanning the flames on both sides, these polls are worthless. The undecided who will decide the election will remain undecided till the last minute. But based on historical precedent there is no mistaking that Bush is in a vulnerable position. Just a 5% increase in voter turnout will make all these polls look like old lottery tickets.

A tight race should do it for Kerry, though, if undecideds break against Bush the way they traditionally break against the incumbent.

Of course, it's better not to have to depend on things like that, especially with Diebold in the picture. However, Kerry has come on really strong in the last week. The mainstream media continue to talk gloom and doom because they're only interested in preening. But Kerry has really been hammering Bush, AND the numbers have come up from what was probably a genuine 4-point lead after the convention to about even. One problem the mainstream media have is that Kerry does a lot of campaigning through the local press in battleground states, going around the mainstream media. So they talk like he's losing. But the spate of polls Wednesday and Thursday showing a tie put the brakes on a lot of gloom and doom talk; the Gallup and CBS/NYT results were not presented exclusively in terms of gloom and doom for Kerry, but accompanied by stories like "Polls all over the place".

Lowell, Gabby, Warp and the usual suspects,

Bush is ahead in practically all of the battleground states he carried last time and a lot of the Gore states. This could be a landslide of historic proportions.

You guys do a pretty good job of finding bright spots and alternative spins where you can, but really, this isn't looking good for Kerry.

Deny that his campaign is in disarray, too many cooks spoiling the broth, and major Dem politicos are starting to go public with their doubts. Deny that he has yet to formulate a clear, concise, position on Iraq, which his campaign said would be topic one from here on out. And what's with all these leaks about how furious Kerry is behind the scenes, when the "campaign" screws up?

Kerry will make a hell of a president if he can't even manage his own campaign. What a weasel!

4 More Years


Drown in the sea of red. At this point, all that you Kerry supporters have is the hope that these polls will all flip by election day. Sure, you can pick off this poll and that poll as unbalanced samples, but can you pick off ALL of the 90% or so polls on that page that are up for Bush (and all the daily Rasmussen polls that show Bush holding his lead in OH, FL, and PA)? No way.

As a proud supporter of our President, a President who has liberated tens of millions from the boot of tyranny, all I can say is may the hopes and dreams of you Kerryites be crushed on Nov. 2 (by a metaphorical boot, of course - heaven forbid any of you ever come to know what life is like under a dictator like Saddam).

And BJ Clinton have you thought about starting a blog? I like your style.

I support kerry unlike "BJ Clinton" but I do think the picture is gloomier for Kerry that the people at this website admit. First of all, as with Dean, when the press pile on (an issue Dean denies, necessary to stay in the game at all) it can destroy a candidacy.
I still see Dukakis redux, where the Village Voice cover story at the time of the 1988 Convention, when Dukakis was up by 8 points in the polls, classically asked "WILL HE BLOW IT", which of course he did. In this election, Kerry's campaign has MYSTERIOUSLY been too busy 'reporting for duty' to answer the easily answerable flipflop template. He never has reversed his positions (which I oppose) on NAFTA or the Patriot Act, and he tried to leverage his vote to insist on fiscal integrity in the vote famous for his malapropism "I voted for it before I voted against it". The press, while maintaining the image of independence by correcting Republicans on noncrucial points, meticulously has avoided calling Bush AND Cheney on the flipflop inaccuracy, as has the dutiful Kerry campaign. I am reminded of the 2000 election where, down to the astroturf roots, the chorus of protestation covered for W Bush for not knowing who the heads of state of India and Pakistan are.
The SwiftBoatVeteransForSlime, with polls showing a majority of Americans at least think Kerry is 'hiding something' may be irrelevant as an issue per se, but is at least a case of a missed Kerry opportunity. The obvious dishonesty of O'Neill (claiming in the Dick Cavett debate, obviously falsely, that Kerry had cast EVERY one of two million Americans who had served in Vietnam as a war criminal) is amplified by public revelation that at least on person getting their "testimony" back in the form of an affadavit to sign, found every reference to enemy fire excised. Another one wanted to recant and then clammed up (I wonder why?). Then there's my favorite, the medic who -- lack of their name on any document aside -- purports to remember precisely the details of a minor injury on an unknown minor officer among the myriads of cases he treated over 30 years ago. HERE'S THE KICKER THO: Bush Pere AND Dole, following a 'lithe like a tiger' formula, both suggested a 'where there's smoke there's fire line' regarding the SUBSTANCE of the SwiftBoatVeteransForSlime smear, obviously reflecting a coordinated strategy to promote the smear while keeping the candidates themselves above the fray (vintage Bushism). Legalism aside, this dishonorable tactic should be in the face of EVERY swing state voter who watches TV, along with Dick Cheney clips that are GOLD GOLD (to quote "Seinfeld").
On Iraq, Kerry needs to give a lengthy major address at a central location, like Georgetown U, well publicized in advance, with the national press invited to a lengthy press conference following the speech. He needs to explain step by step his narrative of the war, what happened and why, and at least at certain points what we should have done, and weave all his votes and major statements together into a single tapestry to act as a 'script' for the rest of the campaign. He can make clear that over and above his specific proposals at the convention, it is impossible and unreasonable to expect a "blueprint" on such a volatile international situation. But at some point he might at least allude to the planned major bloody post US election offensive, and marshal some military experts for some alternative scenario. In general he ONLY needs a coherent narrative of his position, with every question of what he has said or done explained in DETAIL, then he can, when asked about Iraq, always say "As I said in my Georgetown address ... " After a while, the press will start replaying clips of the speech, and he will have shored up his seemingly unstable position on that key issue.
He also needs to avoid referring to "the President" instead always saying "the CURRENT president".
In general, unless you have a Democrat fighting to win, and following a strategy much more focused than those the Democratic pundits proposed in the Sept 19 NY Times, defeat would be inevitable. It is said that Kerry is a good closer but, to quote the famous WWI era French Diplomat, "we shall see".

The theory that Kerry is a good closer is an oft-reported myth, as debunked in the latest National Review. How can a guy who barely defeats a Republican governer in the most Democratic state in the country be termed a 'good closer'? That's like being a Christian who barely wins a debate with an athiest as judged by an audience of born-again believers.

We have a sitting president who can't get above 50% in any poll without the polling group using a sample drawn from a military base next to a defense plant, all surrounded by white retirees.

The Dow is lower than it was when Bush took office, lower than it was when he concluded his big finish to the RNC, and it is headed even lower.

Oil will not abate in spite of the Saudis' best efforts.

Rove has pulled out every dirty trick, and yet, the election remains tied.

Bush is in trouble, but the pukes can't see it because they lie to themselves as a matter of course.

Wow, so now we have Bush responsible for the Dot-com crash as well. Get an ambulance for this guy immediately... we've got a full-blown case of BDS (Bush-Derangement Syndrome) on our hands!

Lowell writes: "One problem the mainstream media have is that Kerry does a lot of campaigning through the local press in battleground states, going around the mainstream media."

So Kerry wins them over in the local markets and then loses them again when they tune in to cable news shows.

Not to get ahead of you Ruy, but the new Zogby poll is mirroring your adjusted assessments of the CBS/NYTimes, on almost all points.

The deterioration on Bush's approval, Wrong/Right track, Iraq and Someone Else are validated. Kerry gains 1% and back into the margin of error!

You're right, the opportunity is there for Kerry, and we need a 'rising to the occasion' repeat performance, like he did in Boston.

But, what do we need to do? We need to shun the anxiety and start chanting 'Mo'!', as in momentum!

No Bush troll will ever know enough to understand the impact of the Dow dropping under Bush, but I offer the information for those who are knowledgeable enough to understand its implications to the election.

Freeper, that's not you, which is why you are confused. Who said anything dot coms? Or don't you know which market that is, freeper?

Wow, I can't believe that you Libs are trashing See-BS and the NY Times, establishments generally hostile to GWB, as beeing biased in favor of the president - while ignoring the overwhelming majority of polls in battleground polls which suggests Dems are looking at electoral disaster.

Good grief, Kerry may not be able to hold on to NJ, PA & WIS, much less OH.

To be sure, it's come to this for you Libs: That more of our troops will die in Iraq that the American public will recoil in horror, and turn our Gov't over to a weak-at-the-knees, anti-military wobbler. It's very difficult for an incumbent to lose unless the majority of the country want's to fire him, including people in his own party. Just offering up a Brahmin from Boston isn't going to cut it.

The guy can't even manage his own campaign;
Why would the country want to turn over the most powerful military in history to a waffler without a core.

Hey, BJ. You know your guy Dumbya is doing well when THREE MEMBERS OF HIS OWN PARTY -- senators, no less, lambaste his handling of the Iraq war. Read and enjoy:

Three GOP Senators Urge Refocusing of Iraq Policy

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 20, 2004; Page A16

Republican senators lobbed criticisms of President Bush's Iraq war policies during yesterday's news talk shows, arguing that the U.S. military needs more troops on the ground and should move without haste to turn the tide against a deadly and persistent insurgency.

Following a recent spate of attacks that have killed scores of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens, some senators said yesterday that U.S. policy has been misdirected and needs to be refocused. As the presidential election nears, the Republicans blasted what they called a sometimes stubborn administration and called on military leaders to launch attacks on insurgent strongholds sooner rather than later.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on "Fox News Sunday" that he never would have allowed sanctuaries for anti-coalition fighters in cities such as Fallujah, where officials believe the insurgency has been strengthening.

"Allowing those sanctuaries has contributed significantly to the difficulties that we're facing, which are very, very significant," McCain said. "We made serious mistakes right after the initial successes by not having enough troops there on the ground, by allowing the looting, by not securing the borders. There was a number of things that we did. Most of it can be traced back to not having sufficient numbers of troops there."

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), said he believes the situation in Iraq is going to get worse before it gets better, adding that he believes the administration has done a "poor job of implementing and adjusting at times." Speaking on CNN's "Late Edition," he called for more troops in Iraq.

"The administration has been stubborn about troops," Graham said, referring to repeated administration contentions that the U.S. military does not need to be expanded to handle the global war on terror. "We do not need to paint a rosy scenario for the American people. We need to let the American people know this is just like World War II; we're in it for the duration."

On CBS's "Face the Nation," Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) announced that he is going to make nearly two dozen policy suggestions to the State Department and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to improve the situation in Iraq. In particular, he suggested starting training camps for security forces in the region surrounding Iraq and offering economic development initiatives throughout the region.

"The fact is, we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq," Hagel said. "And I think we're going to have to look at some recalibration of policy."

2004 The Washington Post Company

You sound just like the volk you gave Hitler a pass when he (supposedly) liberated the peoples of the Sudetenland, Poland, and the Low countries from the "boot of tyranny". The GOP picks your pocket everyday with tax cuts for the rich and you stay up at night writing goofy posts like this? GET A GIRLFRIEND and wise up will ya? This is just a guess but I bet you have never served your country in combat or anywhere else? Three things 1) Get a girl friend 2) Wise up 3) Talk with someone who has seen combat up close, and stop mouthing goofy platitudes to a FAILED Backwoods politician.

> Deny that he has yet to formulate a clear, concise,
> position on Iraq, which his campaign said would be
> topic one from here on out.

Wonder where all these redneck trolls come from? Must be the WSJ reference to Ruy's website...
BTW, the dumbest comment of all was that about "a landslide of historic proportions". Surely "BJ Clinton" must know both candidates have locked up about 45% of the electorate; partisans who thoroughly despise the other candidate and everything that he stands for.


Sep 20
Ruy T's new analysis mirrors the Zogster's numbers -- as someone already pointed out and that's encouraging, given Zog's track record.
Goes great with my morning coffee.
Thanks Ruy.
I've gotta believe assistant Capon in Chief Rove knows this. Heaven knows what he'll pull next.

Didn't take our little skunk at the garden party, our "BJ Clinton," to pipe up. He sounds like a kid in a dorm somewhere. His friends, mom and dad, too, all think he's cute and clever. He'd better not get Bush back or he'll need his draft deferments to keep some drill sgt from eating him alive. They love getting hold of his kind. HOO-yah!!

Check out
for Sep 20. He has predicted vs actual poll results for 2000. Only 2 of 15 called it correctly!!! Most were way off.
Good thing these guys aren't brain surgeons or Vegas handicappers. They'd be out of business.

You know things don't look good when the freepers begin to pop up. But let's not give in to the deterioration of substance, style and civilty.

Where were all you Bush supporters in May, June and July when your hero didn't exactly diffuse an aura of success? There's an old saying about a fat lady. Remember 2000: Bush up (and I mean REALLY up!) May 'til August, Gore up in September, Bush again in October and Gore finished first.

That's all I'm saying. But it's worth keeping in mind, Republican and Democrat. There's still some debates coming. "Fuzzy math..."

I want to believe your analysis, but how do you account for the unreported partisanship? That's 20% there, and maybe it contains more democrats than republicans.

If "Shrub's" fans think we are in for another 1984, they are heading for a rude awakening. As we saw in 1988, lies, attack ads and negative campaigning can get you far enough if you are shooting for a first term -- but in the end, the incumbent President will have to explain to voters how Iraq, the federal deficit, millions of jobs lost etc. make Americans better off than they were in 2000. Karl Rove can fool dumb conservative white males anytime, but I think independent voters won't buy the incumbent President's excuses any more than they did in 1980.


We all know what the Bushies are thinking. If they're saying we live in a dream world, simply spin it, and you get their actual state of mind, which, in this case, is that THEY'RE living in a dream world.

If you guys think Bush has this election in the bag, maybe you should stop reading the Time Magazine polls. Bush's approval rating is still weak, the majority of those polled thought we're heading in the wrong direction, and his economic approval rating is still lagging.

As far as "saving people from tyranny", I suppose you're referring to the Iraqis. Well, Saddam is gone. But what do we have now? A nation that is on the edge of civil war, where Iraqis are dying every day. Thanks to Bush, Iraq is now the breeding ground for terrorists.

The good news: schools are opening! Oh joy of joys! It doesn't matter that entire areas are being surrendered to insurgents! Schools are opening up!

Something rather interesting happened to me yesterday....the phone rang and the caller ID came up as Gallup Poll....so I answered the phone after the second ring and the caller on the other end hung up on me. So I have to assume that it was indeed a gallup poll, whether or not it was for a national election poll, I have no idea.....it just struck me as odd that they hung up on me like that. Now if I were a conspiracy theorist, I would read something a little more sinister into it - like they decided to dismiss me in their polling since they realized that they had dialed a San Francisco phone# - they figured I'd be very Pro-Kerry.....i doubt that's the case, but it really made me wonder. I was actually quite psyched to have been called, but disapointed when they hung-up on me!


Bush 46
Kerry 43

radiohead94 touches on another problem for pollsters calling landlines: Most of these "predictive dialing systems" -- computer driven -- can detect the presence of an ans machine or caller ID. When they do, they then move on to the next random number. Sometimes, however, the phone will ring once before the system moves on. That leaves the person hearing the ring wondering who was that masked man?

Clearing up the details on the poll numbers are valuable for us Dems. But today's NY Times has a scary story about Kerry pulling advertising in many of the states that a few weeks ago showed close polling numbers--TN, NC, VI, Louisiana, etc. Barely spending in MO, etc. He and the campaign risk 'winning' most of the Gore blue states, but at the high cost of ceding quickly a few 2000 Bush states that the Dems. might have won. It's not too late at all to turn this, but the battle has to be taken to the Reps, rather than just playing defense. T.J.

well if they disqualify people who have caller ID or answering machines, then no wonder their data is so questionable! I mean really, how many people have caller ID.....a hell of a lot! The only people I know that don't have caller ID or answering machines are my midwestern baptist republican grandparents who still have a rotary phone and until about 10 or 15 years ago had a 'party' line which meant they shared a phone line with half a dozen of their neighbors! So if they really do screen-out caller ID, then their polling is even more problematic that I thought....


All of those criticisms from McCain, Graham, and Hagel are perfectly valid. Bush supporters don't think he is infallible and we acknowledge, as he does, that mistakes were made. Is that all you got!

Please don't tell me you guys think you're going to win this election by Monday-morning quarterbacking. You can second guess everything but your guy still offers nothing as an alternative. Kerry STILL isn't ready to proclaim his position on Irag!

Of course, we are also not surprised that the criticism came from McCain (obvious bad feelings over 2000 primaries) Lindsey Graham (South Carolina McCain campaign chair) and Hagel (McCain best buddy and supporter). That these three don't really like Bush, but will campaign for him, shows this is a fight in the family. I bet the WaPo sought them out!

Kerry will get the focus now. He'll get three debates to to try to make his case. My advice is that he try to present an affirmative vision of his own, instead simply opposing anything Bush is for.

Time to put up or shut up!

4 More Years!

Speech at New York University

Kerry's is poised for the end game...

Yesterday I posted Kerry/Edwards have solid winning positions on the KEY ISSUES except for Iraq/war on terror. What Kerry has been saying linking the Iraq war cost of $200B to domestic woes is good but still not enough in the eyes of undecideds and potential swing Republican voters.

Well today Kerry delivered on EVERYTHING we've been asking him to say on Iraq/war on terror with Straight Talk and and set the stage for the debates. With a great performance I think he'll attract most independents and enough swing Republicans in the 10 key battleground states to win !

BJ Clinton,
if Bush is going to win by a landslide, what are you still doing here on this Blog. Go, celebrate the victory.

I'll go Natasha one better: Why doesn't BJ Clinton quit fantasizing about Bill Clinton's genitals and join the armed forces to support this war effort he believes in so much?

It's an all-volunteer force, BJ, so no excuses about "they didn't call my number." All you have to do is make a phone call. Believe me, they'll do the rest.

Uncle Sam needs you, BJ -- now! Don't wait until after Nov. 2. You can always vote for Bush absentee from Parris Island.

The Net Net:

Whatever Bush, the talking heads, and the US media say for the rest of the way to Nov 2 to try and rebutt Kerry's superb speech today on Iraq/war on terror ( the linchpin for winning the election ) won't really matter because Bush has ZERO Credibility with about 1/2 of America and definitely just about every foreign nation ( too bad they can't vote )

Those that are already fooled by Bush will stay fooled and those that are not ( like most of us here ) will be voting for Kerry.

Remember all Kerry needs to do is attract more undecideds and enough swing Republicans in about 10 key battleground states to win. Kerry took a major step today with a fine speech that clearly outlined his position on Iraq and the war on terror and has taken both the high ground and the middle position going into the debates.

But I will admit if more undecided voters in the key battleground states excuse this miserable failure who has proven that he is dishonest and untrustworthy, by voting for him, than this country will truly get what it deserves.

Jim J,

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I got a bottle of champagne, picked up Natasha (that nasty little minx) and we've been "celebrating" like rabbits. I'll say this much for Dem women, they know all tricks.

Hey, who said anything about Bill Clinton's genitals? Not me and as far as I know, no one who wasn't giving an affadavit! Jim, if your passions run in that direction, don't tell me about it and don't transfer your fantasies to me! Live and let live and don't let anyone make you feel bad about yourself...you ARE special.

4 More Years

Last week was a smooth turning point for Kerry. If he continues in the mode that he is using today, this week will be a very good one.

I still think Kerry is on the way to a victory even if its only by one point. I have been saying all along that he needs to link Iraq with domestic issues and showing up Bush' incompetence, lies, dishonesty etc..

I think this approach is enough to get the electorate to rethink their support for a misfit and give Kerry their vote.

From last week, he began the move in this direction and has stepped it up today.. and it will result in an excellent week.


Excellent post as usual. JK/JE need to attract not only undecideds they need to attract unlikelies as in UNLIKELY to vote. I think "vote Kerry or be drafted" is the winner here. You or someone you love will be cannon fodder for Bush's war without end. How else to get these people off the sofa?

"How can a guy who barely defeats a Republican governer in the most Democratic state in the country be termed a 'good closer'?"

What you are conveniently ignoring is that Weld was a socially liberal Republican who won the Governorship of Massachusetts by an enormous landslide (over 2 to 1, as I recollect), greater than the best showing of Mike Dukakis.

Anyone who followed this race knew that Kerry was going to have to figure out how to stop what looked like a juggernaut.

"BJ Clinton" said, "All of those criticisms from McCain, Graham, and Hagel are perfectly valid. Bush supporters don't think he is infallible and we acknowledge, as he does, that mistakes were made. Is that all you got!"

So then, BJ, you acknowledge that the Iraq war was, to use your words, a "mistake." Very good! I'm proud of you! In a post a day or two ago, you admitted that Bush is a liar and that he's only using the war to beat up on Democrats. You're making excellent progress! Maybe next you can admit that voting for Bush would be a TERRIBLE mistake! That would show that your "reeducation" process is complete!

Jed, I saw an article today that young voters 18 - 25 yrs are registering to vote like never before. Gee wonder why ;)

This of course meets your fine observation of attracting unlikelies which favors Kerry and especially this demographic because it favors Kerry by something like 2:1.

Kerry is looking good for the home stretch !

I want to acknowledge and address the comments of two posters:
By radiohead94:

Something rather interesting happened to me yesterday....the phone rang and the caller ID came up as Gallup Poll....so I answered the phone after the second ring and the caller on the other end hung up on me. So I have to assume that it was indeed a gallup poll, whether or not it was for a national election poll, I have no idea.....it just struck me as odd that they hung up on me like that. Now if I were a conspiracy theorist, I would read something a little more sinister into it - like they decided to dismiss me in their polling since they realized that they had dialed a San Francisco phone# - they figured I'd be very Pro-Kerry.....i doubt that's the case, but it really made me wonder. I was actually quite psyched to have been called, but disapointed when they hung-up on me!

Posted by radiohead94 at September 20, 2004 12:03 PM

By Big Dog:

radiohead94 touches on another problem for pollsters calling landlines: Most of these "predictive dialing systems" -- computer driven -- can detect the presence of an ans machine or caller ID. When they do, they then move on to the next random number. Sometimes, however, the phone will ring once before the system moves on. That leaves the person hearing the ring wondering who was that masked man?

Posted by BigDog at September 20, 2004 12:09 PM


Both sound observations and point to the chronic flaw of land line polls.

I have been bitching about this aspect of the polls for months now, and don't want to miss the opportunity this time.

How *#$#ing retarded does one have to be to believe that a poll which has 42% military families is representative of those who will vote in November? Or believe that over 50% will be over 50 years old?

Gallup is seeking a Bush lead, THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

This cannot be written off to methodology. They want the results they are getting. Gallup has had Bush over 50% for two months. Remember the poll that found Kerry LOST points at the convention? THEM.

When your opponent is a lying, no good scumbag who sends his goons in suits to do his dirty work, you attack them, beat them down, hog tie them, and send them back COD to him. There are polls and media which are pushing Bush big time, and we must scream it here and everywhere.

That is how we impact the dialogue, and this is a key issue for the campaign now: the rampant attack on sound methodology by Gallup and others in an attempt to skew the election.

And that wild-eyed, ultra-liberal state of Mass has a conservative Republican governor now, in case our fellow citizens supporting Bush had forgotten.

BJ and Ryan, you guys are a hoot. Bottom line is you've got a bad product, guys. I picture you two as a couple of door-to-door vacuum cleaner salespeople. The vacuum cleaners you're selling have holes in the tube, the suction doesn't work, two of the wheels are missing, and, besides, the motor is busted. But I have to hand it to you two--you're out there, pounding the pavement, selling those defective vacuum cleaners to anyone who'll buy them, offering up one creative distraction after another to avoid talking about the ugly fact that, when you come right down to it, the vacuum cleaners just don't work. The hardest part for you is that you know the vacuum cleaners don't work--but they're all you've got.

I concur with standa's observations about Kerry's inspiring Iraq speech today. If Kerry continues working at this level, then at least the monumental issues posed by this election will have been squarely presented to the people. Better late than never, I suppose. Unfortunately, the latest development today in "Rathergate" will likely swamp the coverage of this crucial speech. It's also a shame it wasn't delivered in a swing state.

I was transfixed by Kerry's speech this morning. He did a great job. He's taking it to the Bushbaby, and he'll have him begging for mercy before the month is out. I have a gut feeling the tide is definitely turning (about time too).

I remain optimistic about the Nov. election. The fundamental dynamics of the race are unchanged. Redmeat republicans will vote for Bush, but moderate Republicans are split, and they're going to stay home. Democrats are angry and energized - they'll vote in overwhelming force. Barring any unforseen happenings Bush is going home to Texas with his tail between his legs.

bt: Your 4:21 p.m. post above gets my nomination for Post of the Week! Funny AND right on. LOL!

Dont worry too much about BJ. He has already decided that his vote will go to Kerry. I am not sure about this ryan kid tho. BJ uses this site to bolster his confidence in Kerry, its his way of convincing himself even futher that he cant afford to vote for bush.. he gets his Kerry booster shots here.

One thing I will tell you, whenever Bush is in trouble, these GOPers rush over here to start campaigning. If bush was doing well at this time, you would not hear a squeak from any of them... but bush is sinking.. so they come here looking for fencers. Desparate is the word.

BJ... I hope you are still beating the streets campaigning for Kerry. Lets rid this house of Bush.


I understand where you got the name, you really are stupid aren't you?

Typical Dem tactic. I say Bush made mistakes, what President hasn't, we can admit his mistakes and you immediately claim I said the "war was a mistake". Someone posts under my name(which could happen to you btw), I point it out in THE NEXT POST but you still prefer to wallow in your ignorance.

This is why you guys will lose. Your arguments do not have the ring of truth. You always have to fudge the facts, just a little, just enough to make it break your way. Always overreaching, like Dan Rather and CBS, and then it backfires on your poor, stupid, doofus-self(uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh).

You don't want the truth---you can't handle the truth!

Your posts are a waste of time and space. Logic has no place in your discussions. I guess I should ask "how does it make you FEEL!"

Frigging doofus!

4 More Years!

BJ -- Calm down, son. Maybe take a valium, do some deep-breathing exercises, go for a nice jog, or perhaps open a window and scream out, at the top of your lungs, "WHY AM I SUPPORTING SUCH A TERRIBLE LOSER OF A CANDIDATE! AAAAAARGGHHHHHHH!"

I can see that we've hit a sore spot with you. Good. You wingnuts need to have your heads examined, and perhaps apply for a brain transplant. Your candidate, Chimpy is a LYING, CHEATING, INCOMPETENT, WAR-MONGERING JERKOFF. I know it's hard to face, and that you're in denial. But the sooner you accept it, the sooner you'll be able to move on to the next stage, which involves clear-thinking, progressive thinking, and happier living.

Look, I enjoy the (unintentional) comedic aspects of your posts here, but I have to say that, generally speaking, your logic is almost -- but not quite -- as bad as your puerile "poetry" (it would be hard to rate that low, truth be told). Might I humbly suggest that you find a more . . . *appropriate* place to post your *thoughts*? A place where the readers will be . . .kinder and, in their condescension, might actually say some nice things about them?

My up-to-date thoughts on why Kerry is going to win.

George W. Bush, the "Excuse President' is a miserable FAILURE, has NOT earned our TRUST, and should be FIRED on Nov 2.

FACT: In Election 2000 Americans were 'smart enough' to vote +583,000 for Gore/Leiberman. It came down to Florida...we know the story.

FACT: Bush claimed to be a compassionate conservative in Election 2000 but in practice has been the complete opposite proving that is he DISHONEST and UNTRUSTWORTHY.

FACT: Over the past 4 years Bushco has violated TRUST to the American electorate by distorting the truth with deceptive wizardry. Bush has been misleading the public, distorting fact, and contriving false realities on virtually every major issue to try and disguise ABYSMAL performance on the economy, jobs, healthcare, education, the environment, Iraq, the war on terror.

FACT: the US mainstream media ( with some exceptions ) has been complicit by failing to ask the hard questions and challenge Bush.

In his speech at NYU Kerry personally took on the task with straight and factual talk that nailed Bush on his FAILURE to tell the truth to the American people and STRATEGIC FAILURES in Iraq along with Bush's FAILURE in the war on terror.

bringing in allies for Iraq war - Bush STRATEGIC FAILURE
training Iraqi troops - Bush STRATEGIC FAILURE
increasing the pace of reconstruction - Bush STRATEGIC FAILURE
laying the groundwork for elections - Bush STRATEGIC FAILURE

Speech at New York University

Some points....

1. Kerry/Edwards have solid winning positions on all the KEY ISSUES including Iraq and war on terror. Now they just have to sell them to the undecideds.

2. Those that are already fooled by Bush will stay fooled and those that are not will be voting for Kerry. Bush is only slightly ahead..

3. Kerry has taken both the high ground and the middle position going into the debates.

4. All Kerry needs to do is attract more undecideds, enough swing Republicans, and more "unlikelies to vote" in about 10 key battleground states to win ! By "unlikelies to vote" I mean people like 18 - 25 yr demographic who are registering to vote like never before that favor Kerry 2:1 ( gee wonder why ) and people that feel more compelled to vote this election because they know what's at stake ( e.g. their livelihood )

The Net Net: Kerry is looking good for the home stretch !

Whoo hoo
I'm a proud gay man.
Whoo hoo
I'm a proud gay man.

Whoo hoo
I am Dan Rather
Whoo hoo
I am Dan Rather

Beam me up!
I'm a Democrat
Beam me up!
I'm a Democrat

I've hated Republicans ever since I heard "AT 17" by Janis Ian. I've hated Republicans ever since I found out there's no Santa Claus! I've hated Republicans ever since AAAAARRGGHHHHH!!!!!

I am doofus, hear me roar! Bush will feel my rash, I mean my wrath!


Didn't think you'd get caught, huh?

Stupid doofus, don't you know Dan Rather is smarter than you and he got caught?

Silly doofus, tricks are for kids!

4 More Years!

Oh BJ... you will soon blow a fuse.. your blood pressure is on the UP... go campaign for Kerry so that you can feel better.

Kerry has done a wonderful favor for the Bush campaign on the issue of Iraq. Over the past year, and running up to last week on the Imus show, he has systematically destroyed any credibility he has had on the issue by taking every possible contradictory position he can. Therefore, anything he blathers about Iraq will go in one ear and out the other in the heads of the swing voters.

And even assuming this wasn't the case, his criticisms themselves contain no hint of a coherent plan to 'fix' a situation that he claims is broken. He's simply bloviating out his posterior.

Where's the PLAN, Kerry? By simply bitching and giving the voters nothing concrete, the advantage automatically goes to the commander-in-chief.


You are now fighting a lost cause... its time to change the subject. Bush no longer has any credibility on Iraq. He has just LOST that debate also.

Find another subject... please.

In the mean time, please start campaigning for Kerry.. It will make you proud to be an American..

Are we looking forward to the debates?

hey BJ and co: What say you to the Robert Novak story below that says that right after the election, Mr. Iraq-Is-Critical-to-Our-Nation's-Safety Bush is gonna bail on his failed venture to "bring freedom" to Iraq?


What a shame that this comment opportunity Ruy has given us has been penetrated by semi-literate conservative adolescents. The language used here is becoming deplorable for its intimidating coloration. But I guess that's to be expected when unmannered people take advantage of the blogasphere.

If this nation is unlucky enough to have four more years of Bush, don't look for an uptick in civility with these kind of people around. Four more years of enduring the strutting of these crypto-fascists will leave many of us in fear of the survival of our democracy.

Make it emphatic, vote straight Democratic!

Didn't think you'd get caught, huh?

"Stupid doofus, don't you know Dan Rather is smarter than you and he got caught?

"Silly doofus, tricks are for kids!"

BJ: Nice try. Look, I don't blame you for trying to disavow ownership of that drivel. If I had written it (which I didn't), I wouldn't want to own up to it, either. But remember who your president is? Advocate of the "Ownership Society"? Take ownership, man (or it it boy). And while you're at it, tell your paymaster Massah Rove that you and your fellow trolls are wasting your time here: us Dems are too smart, too motivated, too determined, to be derailed by wannabe saboteurs the likes of you this time around. Your man Chimpy's going down, and I think you know it. So why not spend your energy thinking about how your party has gone so wrong, casting its lot with a crew of three-time losers this this crowd?


Please stop writing when you're stoned. Your spelling is affected and your reasoning (never very good to begin with) is devastated.

Also, please don't make the same mistake CBS and Dan Rather made. You got busted. Just admit what you did and say you're sorry. Remember, it's never the crime...it's always the coverup!

No one on this site will judge you about ethics, they're all Democrats!

4 More Years!