« Gallup Strikes Again! | Main | Wall Street Journal Article Asks All the Right Questions »

CBS News/New York Times Poll Has It Close to Even!

Well, that is if you weight their data to conform to the 4 point Democratic party ID lead which we have good reason to believe is the underlying distribution in the voting electorate. As many have already heard, the new CBS News/New York Times poll, conducted September 12-16, gives Bush an 8 point lead (50-42) among RVs--but also gives the Republicans a 4 point edge on party ID. Reweight their data to conform to an underlying Democratic 4 point edge (using the 39D/35R/26I distribution from the 2000 exit poll) and you get a nearly even race, 47 Bush/46 Kerry.

Nearly even. That goes along with the the 46-46 tie in the Pew Research Center poll (which gave the Democrats a 4 point edge on party ID without weighting) and the 48-48 tie in the Gallup poll (once weighted to reflect an underlying Democratic 4 point edge). Not to mention the two other recent national polls (Harris, Democracy Corps) that show the race within one point.

Perhaps all this is just a coincidence, but the pattern seems striking. Once you adjust for the apparent overrepresentation of Republican identifiers in some samples, the polls all seem to be saying the same thing: the race is a tie or very close to it.

Note: this entry has been revised from the original to correct the CBS reweighted horse race from 46-46 (original) to 47-46 (corrected).


Apparently this is going to continue through the race.

What can be done?

Complain to the polling organizations? S eems unlikely to help.

Complain to the media that sponsor the polls? Seems unlikely too.

Any ideas?

Can we request a John Ashcroft prayer circle prayer on Monday during the bible study at Justice? Please John, talk to Jesus for us, have him intercede and keep these polls fair!

Kerry rising
By Joe Conason
Sept. 17, 2004


Rumors of John Kerry's demise have been greatly exaggerated -- too often by doomsaying Dems themselves. A host of new polls suggest it's the president who should be trembling.

To listen to certain Democrats these days is to learn that the presidential election is all but over, apparently because John Kerry slipped behind George W. Bush in a few national polls last week. These sad doomsayers whine constantly that Kerry "isn't tough enough," when what they are really talking about are their own mental weaknesses. Much of the anger and determination displayed by liberals over the past year seems suddenly to have deflated into fear and resignation.

At such moments, a once-important Democratic functionary inevitably pipes up to get his or her name in the newspaper by attacking the party's candidate or campaign. Even if this person happens to be a thoroughly discredited figure like Tony Coelho, a washout as Al Gore's campaign manager, his remarks get ink because "it's a story" when Democrats criticize each other. What would really be a story is a Republican behaving with the same lack of discipline endemic among Democrats just now.

The liberal tendency to assume the fetal position upon hearing any bad news not only creates a damaging psychological environment for those who indulge it, but also repels undecided and independent voters who are seeking strong, confident leadership. Nobody wants to join a team that obsesses more about losing than winning.

And there is no reason to give up, regardless of any flaws in the Kerry-Edwards campaign or the Bush-Cheney convention "bounce." That bounce has fallen flat, returning the presidential race to a virtual dead heat, according to several new polls.

Could we 'sic Zell Miller on them somehow? Speaking of Zell, its finally dawned on me, whom he reminds me of....an angry version of Admiral Stockdale.

I wonder if Carl Rove goes to the Prayer and Bible study? Such a fine example of a good Christian man.................

I also note that the percentage of those voting in the 2000 election for Gore was 28%, and for Bush 36%, which seems even more unrepresentative. Even with this sample, D's still lead R's 41% to 39% in congressional districts.

BTW, how exactly does one adjust the numbers in cases like this. I gave it a try, and came out with Bush 48.5% and Kerry 46%. I realize that you aren't here to teach us basic math, but if you have a couple of useful links, they would be appreciated.

A simple question: I believe many of these polls are oversampling Republicans, and I don't believe it represents a fundamental change in voter ID. So what could be causing this oversampling?

Has the GOP sent out flyers to Republicans urging them to answer phone polls?

Is it the cell phone thing? I personally find this dubious.

Is it the "conservatives are still pumped from the convention and likely to answer polls" hypothesis?

Ideas, please?

This pattern (Republican sample bias) since the republican convention is, to say the least, disturbing. It can have the (un)intended effect of depressing democratic turnout and interest in the election (60% in the NYT poll just released reported that they expect GWB to win). Conspiracy theory: could some polling corporations actully want such an impact?

How could the national race be even with polls showing Bush slightly ahead in PA, WI, IA, tied in MN and closing substantially in NJ and NY? The state polling shows Bush 5-7 points ahead of his 2000 performance against Gore, meaning he is probably 5-7 points ahead nationally. This seems consistent with what both campaigns are telling reporters.

Sorry kids, weighted or not, it doesn't look good. Time to go register voters...get a stack of voter registration forms from your local Dem party and hand them out or leave them in friendly places. Time's running out, and the momentum has shifted. Let's admit it, eh?

Nothing has changed. Kerry doesn't mind being the underdog in the polls right now, it probably is safer this way. Now is Kerry really behind, i.e. if the election were held today would Kerry lose? NO! Provided there is a normal to above avg turnout Kerry can't lose. Bush's shot is to discourage voting, polls that make it look useless to vote have to help keep people home. Also, the debates will be crucial, my money is on a Bush meltdown...sweating, stammering, maybe even swearing. Kerry is a former prosecutor, Bush doesn't do well facing criticism. Kerry needs to do big things and I expect he will.

Cheez Whiz raises an interesting point.

Leaving aside the bias inherent at this stage in using Likely Voter information, at what point would/should we expect the distribution for party identification to be more normalized within the registered voter pools of some of these polls? I'm assuming that one could anticipate that more and more polls, without weighting for previously accepted party ID %'s, should begin to show a more reflective party ID distribution as we move further and further away from the GOP convention.

My instinct tells me that this distribution issue within the registered voter pool will more-or-less correct itself as time goes on. The contrary view (that the country has all-of-a-sudden shifted in a huge way to the GOP) seems much too hard to believe. (What a nightmare that would be!)

I can't recall whether I read it here or at some other website sometime within the past week, but it seems that serious scholars believe that party ID really only shifts over the long-term and that it certainly isn't reasonable to believe that such a shift in voter identification actually occurs in the short-term. Therefore, the results of polls like Gallup's and CBS' must be taken with a huge grain of salt considering the skewed registered voter pool. Unfortunately, the national media and the talking heads on Cable TV never give you much beyond the headlines in discussing such polls and there's very little perspective ever given to the average viewer.

Turnout, tournout, tournout . . .

With a 50.8% turnout in 2000, Gore lost by 537 votes in FL. It was an election without an erection. Everybody bought Bush's spin managers' pronouncement that he was a "Compassionate Republican" and that "It didn't matter who was going to win - they are essentially the same guys". Well, it took the non-Right folks the better part of 4 years, but they finally woke up to the fact that the WH Resident is the worst disaster ever to hit the West Wing. There is an anti-Bush undercurrent the likes of which even God has never seen. No matter what the polls show, the turnout will be between 55 and 70%, with at least 60%, maybe 80% going against Bush. Even at the 55% turnout with 60% of those against him, Bush is toast. If 85% of the Undecideds (as is normal) also fall to the non-incumbent, where is Bush going to get the votes to cancel all that out?
Breslin's cell phone point may not be a LOT of votes, but it WILL be some, regardless of all the Right's beliefs that young people don't vote. Do THEY have a shock coming. EVERY one of my young (under 25) sons' friends cannot wait to get in there and get Bush out - and none of them is very political even, and THIS is a heavily GOP area.
And DO consider Michael Moore's point that the methodology of the polls in how they choose "likely voters" misses those who pollsters THINK won't vote. Moore is very correct in saying, "but THIS election is different." So many people who don't vote often are fed up with the lying and favoritism. ("It's NOT the economy, stupid! It's HIM!") They are foaming at the mouth to get Bush out. They WILL turnout. And turn Dub out. THIS great majority isn't very silent - unless you listen to the press and pollsters; on the streets it's a near revolution, the motivation is so high.
The best thing that can happen for Kerry is if the methodology slant keeps up till Nov 2nd. Why? Bush's folks will think they don't need to pull an October Surprise, which is the only way Kerry loses.
Turnout, tournout, tounout: when the turnout is high, the GOP loses - ALWAYS.

To Charlie T:

I believe that the party ID shift commentary was made by John Zogby on his polling company's site, that they don't shift quickly at all. And why would anyone think that it could shift wuickly? Thinking that Democrats would have been swayed by the GOP lovefest down the street from ground Zero? Gag me with a spoon.

The amound of Talmudic analysis you Democrats are conducting in order to explain away Bush's clear lead is amazing. The reason that so many unweighted polls are showing higher numbers of Republicans is because as Bush's support grows more people identify themselves as Republicans. Correcting for Party ID, seeing that this makes Kerry even, and then claiming that this proves Kerry is even is bogus logic - you are assuming the conclusion, a basic fallacy.

Steve In Illinois,

I completely agree with your sentiments.

I just saw mention of Zogby's comments over at The Daily Kos. There's a good piece there on how the voter models being used by Gallup and others are out of date and aren't picking up the entire voter population correctly. Anyway, I read this long-term trend thing about voter ID distribution somewhere a few days ago...it may have quoted/referenced Zogby as part of that post.

So I assume that Bush really got 56% of the popular vote in 2000 to Gore's 44%, which the CBS poll indicates after taking out nonvoters and small party supporters. It's the discrepancy with the 2000 vote that tells me more than party ID. Of course these people may be lying to the pollsters. But if they're lying about who they voted for in 2000, why can we assume they're answering other questions truthfully?

And while they were watching the horse race....

I got to see the Dems strategy(or strategery, as you like) of attacking Bush as the root of all evil.

Matthews, Maher, Kitty Kelly, Dan Rather, Olberman, etc. Dismiss, disdain, ridicule, accuse....

This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no fooling around! You will remember this election for the rest of your friggin lives! Wake up people!

Kerry would be a disaster. One long apology of an administration. "I feel your pain" over and over and over and over....

For God sakes! Step away from the edge and check your 20 (location). Kerry has no core beliefs, no plan and not even a straight answer. You can not afford, your children can not afford, a Kerry "War On Terror".

But you can live with...

4 More Years!

such knowledge, such insight...i really appreciate the encouraging comments ...u guys are the best...i can go to bed in peace knowing that an poll can be distorted to make us feel better..keep the posts coming

Elrod, what are talking about with the Gore vs. Bush comparison? I can't find any questions in the CBS poll that asked this:


hey keef,
let's call gallup and complain...maybe they will have kerry up in the next one

Oh my god! Read David Brooks column in the NY Times (9-18-04). Thats right, the NEW YORK TIMES!

Histerical, and so true...

4 More Years!

Merzbow -

The Bush/Gore question is posted at the NY Times under poll results. Here's a URL for the entire poll:

The Bush/Gore question is on page 32 of 35.

There is something going on that's fishy but I'm either too much or too little of a conspiracy theorist to figure it out.

Forget all the national polls...just concentrate on the state polls..if you look at the latest polls out of ARG, Research2000 and even the GOP Pollsters, Strategic Vision, Bush is not ahead by 8.

I HATE to say it because it is so often the last refuge of losers and this race is still tied by any reasoned analysis of the split n the polls



If 115 million or more turnout, Kerry, even as things stand now is going to win with some comfort margin....

Less than that...it is going to be real tight.

As Josh Marshall put it, though, "I would rather be having these arguments on the other side of the 50 yard line" and I certainly do not want to be having them next month at this time!

I hope Kerry's new hard hitting tactics works and that he develops his IraQ attack a bit more

What do people think of Bill Schneider's analysis on CNN yesterday - that the "dead heat" polls are asking people who they will vote for AFTER a series of questions about issues, while the Gallup poll is asking for the vote at the BEGINNING of the poll -- Schneider concluded that people say they will vote for Bush as a knee-jerk reaction, but say they will vote for Kerry after thinking about the issues. Is there any truth to this analysis?

The electoralvote.com site has an extended discussion of some of the factors involved in polling methodology these days. I thought it was a nice primer.

In it, they asserted that Gallup normalized to 40% GOP, 36% Dem turnout. Can anyone else confirm that that's true? I'm guessing that they had a misread there, but if true, that would help to explain the oddities of the Gallup polls.

For states with clear, big leads, the polls now are going to get it. Bush won't win Massachusetts. Kerry won't win Texas. In the close states, methodology matters. Figure it's going to be close in each, and, as noted before, work on turnout, turnout, turnout.

make that site I mentioned www.electoral-vote.com. Sorry.


Very interesting. I've not looked closely enough at methodology, but I'd be interested to hear if that aspect of it plays in.

BJ Clinton, catchy name, must have taken a mental giant such as yourself weeks to think that up. You are definitely delusional in you thinking. NY is closing? I live here and talk politics all of the time. I also hear people talking in restaraunts, public places etc. Bush couldn't take NY with a gun. The people here know a scam when they see it and GW has been a scam his whole life. Compared to GW his daddy is a liberal! I agree with the post regarding turnout. The Christian radical right (which never is) comprises a large chunk of Bushies block. They turn out to vote at almost 90% If the voter turnout hits 60-65% nationally it is goodbye George. Most Americans (65%) are progressive thinkers and if turnout is high, they will vote Mr Radical Right out of office. On a side note 79% of Americans AGREE with the ban on assault weapons. GWB allowed the ban to expire for his corporate buddies. Does that seem like a leader in touch with his populace or touching his base? Blind devotion to a party and/or leader is treasonous, history is full of examples illustrating the folly of "lemming" mentality. Wake up!

BJ Clinton
(Yep, thet thar name's a thigh-whumper fer sure!).
Do some realty checks. Figure out how the Bushies are picking your pocket daily and laughing at you while they do it. Then you can come back to a discussion among relatively rational persons -- be they Repubs or Dems.

On "Kerry has no core beliefs":

Can you justify this, or are you just repeating talking points? Kerry's position has been very consistent on Iraq, no matter how often your party lies about that fact. It may use more than three words, but for people with an ounce of intellect, that's not a problem.

We can't afford Bush for four more years on the War on Terror. Funny that not a single terrorism expert and very few of our generals think we're winning?

It is all well and good to tell those of us who visit this site to ignore the polls. And, it makes sense to us--I certainly cannot believe that W has a 13 point lead. BUT, what about the "undecideds", the people who are only going to hear that W is winning and decide to vote for the winner? A professor of mine suggests a test for voting. Crazy, but I'm starting to like the idea.

"Oh my god! Read David Brooks column in the NY Times (9-18-04). Thats right, the NEW YORK TIMES!"

Wow, BJ! What a news flash! The same publication that's been host to . . . Nixon speechwriter, neocon apologist and right-wing hack William Safire for at least 20 years! Brooks is a GOP shill masquerading as a "moderate," "neutral," "open-minded" pundit. He formerly was a hack writer for Rev. Moon's right-wing, neo-con-friendly Weekly Standard.

Your postings here are an absolute waste of space and time.

Pass this around, for god sakes and write letters to the editor. The cons win because they do not let anything that pisses them off go by without a response! This is abhorrent and sloppy poll work! And is now discouraging front page news to us Dems.
Give them hell!!!!

From NYT/CBS poll:

Did you vote in the 2000 presidential election, did something prevent you from voting, or did you choose not to vote? IF VOTED, ASK: Did you vote for Al Gore, George W. Bush, Pat Buchanan, or Ralph Nader?

Gore Bush Buchanan Nader vote
9/12-16/04 28 36 1 1 32

Combine this with the 36% Rep vs. 32% Dem ID and you have a heavily weighted poll! Regardless of the theory of more people identifying themselves as Rep. because they like Bush. Bush supporters were over sampled. That is not to say Kerry is not behind. Work your asses off, write letters to the editor, volunteer, give money. Rebs win because they are organized, get organized!!!!

sorry that posted funny:

Voted for Gore 28%
Voted for Bush 36%
Voted for Buchanan 1%
Voted for Nader 1 %
Didnt vote 32%

Ignore the trolls.

The oversampling of Republicans is distressing because it appears to be widespread and done without apology. I'm referring not only to self-identified party affiliation, but to answers given to questions of the form "Who did you vote for in 2000"? I complained about this to Time when they showed Bush with an 11-point lead in a poll that also showed he had won the 2000 election by 12 points.

These polls are laughable. Unfortunately, they are fodder for the trolls and the foot soldiers of the Bush campaign. FWIW, Josh Marshall has noticed this discussion. Maybe we can work on Krugman putting in his $.02?

The mainstream US media is painting a false picture and perception of Bush. Kerry/Edwards are winning at the local and grassroots level in the battleground states.

Reality Check....the only poll that counts is the one on Nov 2.

FACT: In Election 2000 ( with less people accessing the Web to crosscheck information and there were no political blogs ) Americans were 'smart enough' to vote +583,000 for Gore/Leiberman. It came down to Florida...we know the story.

FACT: In Election 2000 Bush DUPED the electorate as a compassionite conservative and did not have a ABYSMAL performance record on the economy, jobs, healthcare, education, the environment, Iraq to be measured against.

FACT: Bush has been misleading the public, distorting fact, and contriving false realities on virtually every major issue because he simply needs to in order to win. And, the US mainstream media ( with some exceptions ) is bending over backwards to help.

The Net Net: More Americans should be smarter in Election 2004 and see that Kerry/Edwards have a much better plan for America and Americans

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

I don't think we ought to engage these GOPers in a debate about whether or not tv media is biased. There are numerous accounts of the conservative control in television today. If a person wants to say there is a liberal bias, I don't see the use debating it really.

We went to war based on claims the world press knew at the time to be false. We started dropping bombs on the Iraqis with 100+ international inspectors in the midst of their months long (and fruitless) search to substantiate Bush claims. Bodies aren't shown. There is little or no coverage of the 100s of censored media in Iraq or the US's gov't run media apparatus there.

Allawi is in town today or will be soon. On US controlled national tv, you'll see him called Prime Minister, they will treat him as if he were elected, they won't mention he's a former Saddam strong man, a CIA thug, that he's kicked out Al Jezeera from Baghdad, that he's started up death squads, that he's related to Chalabi, that he hadn't lived in Iraq for 30+ years until we put him in charge...

How the media treats Allawi is illusrative. They don't call him a thug, a dictator, a tyrant, they don't mention how overtly he's being allowed to intimidate his own people. This man is a Saddam, he's a Suharto, a Shah, he's a Pinochet, a Noriega etc Remember Saddam's human rights weren't discussed by our media until it became in our interest to do so, to justify a war against a nation that hadn't/couldnt threaten us. Same can be said about the Saudis, the our ally in Uzbeckistan, or our new "friend" Momar Kahdafi.

What is great, is the internet. Information is leaking through the gov't/tv censorship. The gov't will not be allowed to manipulate the people like this much longer.

Folks, I've been tracking Rasmussen's poll. I know I don't have the raw data, but I do have some experience with regression analysis. Based on just 16 data points (not statistically significant yet) I have Bush ahead 45.5 to 44.5 using linear least-squares analysis. Maybe not the best regression model to use, by hey, it Saturday. More importantly, if you look at the part of the curve (y=a + bx) that represents the slope of the curve (b), b = 0.06 for Bush while b = 0.075 for Kerry. The meaning . . . over the last days, Kerry's support is growing faster than Bush's. Never mind a 1-day or 3-day snapshot like most polls. The statistics say that, barring any unforseen circumstances, this race is a dead heat until the very end.

All of us, who look at these blogs, consists of about 5% of the population. Most people just read the head lines and go on about their lives.


And the more pressure we put on the editors then there is a chance they will write articals qeustioning their polls.



Read the column, give 4 minutes to a sense of humor. You could use it.

Kerry is starting to look tired and unfocused. Have you noticed how he falters lately while speaking to increasingly apathetic crowds? I saw one shot where a woman was talking on a cell phone in the front row.

You guys can rationalize poll results all day. Looks to me like its closing time. Kerry's problem is his need for bad news drives his campaign. Since he presents himself as the alternative to Bush, he only profits if the country suffers. Not a good position.

The polls tell one thing for sure. Kerry has to win the debates.

I don't think he will.

4 More Years!

BJ Clinton’s post is a good example of the con’s main strategy right now, from the generals to the foot solders. It is an interesting strategy, and it makes sense. I have always thought that politics are like sports in many ways. Here we the other team trying to head trip us out, “you silly libs, laugh some, I mean your candidate sucks and is going to lose at least have some fun!”

Well, you can see it for what it is, just part of the game, and this game is a full contact sport, so take it them! And we will settle up on the bragging scores when the deal is done.


Can somebody here show me how the difference between Gallups 10/26/2000 poll of a 13 point gap for Bush and the final poll showing Bush +2 LV and -1 RV is anything other than ALGORE's hard work reeling in the race at the end?

Lets see, Dems made advances in the House and Senate, but not the Presidency. You guys want to tell me you're not that good? Some missampling by pollsters.

Theres an old line..."never murder someone trying to commit suicide."

Stragne ed,

Fair enough. But don't work to hard, because Kerry is gonna break your hearts.

Get active, support your candidate, and argue his issues (if you can figure them out).

4 More Years!

How does one go about making an anti-Bush commercial? Although some of the ones I've seen have been ok, most pull punches they really can't afford to. I understand that Kerry himself can't be making many of attack ads, but why aren't there more damning ads about Bush???

We need a "lied us into war" he "planned the war in before 911" a "lied about DWI" a "wrong on jobs/budget and surpluss video" a wrong about " Iraqi resistance, international support," a "tied to the Saudis ad," a "druggie ad." A "funerals attended versus fund raisers attended ad"

We don't have much time left, these ads take a weekend or at most a week to edit, I don't understand why we aren't seeing them.

Bush is the most vulnerable President ever. He is corrupt. Someone has to take the gloves off. The 527s supposedly reaised 60 mil for Kerry? For pennies on the dollar, given a digital mixing board, a library of Bush clips, these ads could be out the door and running non-stop.

I'm afraid we're seeing the Democrats play too soft once again. Count on the fact that Rove has many more smears waiting. The dems need to jump on the offensive, bombarding airwaves with ads that don't just paint Bush as bad, but destroy his image. Bush is all image, and it's held together by spit and bubblegum. We've waited long enough, time to remove the gloves.

So we have a republican bias in some of the polls. Or, there is an incipient republican revolution happening at the grass roots. Can we know which is true, since different methodologies are producing such dramtically different results. Either the race is tied (with one set of assumptions - that party ID is the same or similar as 2000) - or Kerry is in for a whupping (with another set of assumptions).

Seems to me we need some other source of evidence to say what might be the more likely truth of the current election.


I am a nails and barbed wire for breakfast sort myself but I have to say that I think Kerry has set about the right tone....

He has to be careful here for I think along the lines of that Going Nengative guy Steven Anso...(can never spell the rest) that negative campaigns demobilze the electorate

They especially demobilize weak identifying demos ie independents likely to vote our way

This I fear is the second punch of the B/C Campaign...to bait Kerry down to their level because that will depress turnout and turnout is key here.

If it will make you feel better watch "Fortunate Son" ad at the DNC site


go to www.whitehousewest.com and watch Will Ferrel's pitch for ACT


Go to America Coming Together and give em 20 bucks

Speaking of 527's, the DNC had teams of young people in DNC t-shirts solicitinig contributions on the streets of San Francisco

Turnout is crucial and youth turnout will be the November surprise

more- go to take back the media, and watch their flash movies. Several could and should be lifted used for the airwaves, check out:

Bush is not a Nazi


Idiotque(with Radiohead granting use of its material)

Blood and Treasure

John Mcc-
Jesus, I'm rolling here, that Will Farrel commerical is hillarious. Thanks for the post.

Here is the site again, www.whitehousewest.com

Why is it that Republicans who troll and post to liberal blogs and forums can't spell? Their grammar is also atrocious. Maybe I would consider some their commentary interesting or worth reading if it were not so damaged and pained. I think obviously the public school system has failed them...

Kerry is AHEAD in polls

Those lying bunch of unfair an unbalance A-holes at FOX news and at the Gallup polls.

READ THIS - this is the reason for the huge discrepancy folks.

A new Gallup survey released on Friday showed the Democratic presidential nominee leading Bush 50-43 percent among independents, even though the Republican incumbent held a 13-percentage-point lead among voters overall.

A Monitor/TIPP survey, one of several that showed the national presidential race returning to a dead heat, suggested a 10-point Kerry lead among independents.

The Gallup and Monitor polls both had 4 percent margins of error.

A New York Times/CBS poll released on Saturday found that among likely voters, Bush led Kerry 51 percent to 42 percent. The poll, however, did not break out the views of independents.

Independents could prove vital in the Nov. 2 election, which many expect to be as close as the 2000 race that ended in a legal battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"They're split, and whoever can attract most of them will win," said American Research Group President Dick Bennett, who has watched independent loyalties shift several times this year.

Independents, who make up about 29 percent of the national electorate according to some polls, appear more interested than usual in the current campaign, leading some analysts to expect a high turnout that could favor Kerry.

Kerry is AHEAD in polls

Those lying bunch of unfair an unbalance A-holes at FOX news and at the Gallup polls.


"The polls tell one thing for sure. Kerry has to win the debates.

I don't think he will.

4 More Years!

Posted by BJ Clinton

You don't think? Well, that's pritty safe. I bet Kerry comes out of the debates with at least a 20 point lead. Bush dosen't know how to communicate without a script and there will be no neo-cons there pulling bunny-pants strings.

Regardless of whatever the disputed polls show, nobody is arguing that Rasmussen is biased, because he does correct to the 2000 party ID numbers. And lately Rasmussen has been showing a marked shift to Bush:


Almost every day over the past week, Bush's number goes up, Kerry's goes down. It's now 49.4 to 44.8. Kerry is cratering, people. A man of no convictions, a false war hero who met with the enemy in Paris while still a commisioned naval officer. A moral relativist who cannot be trusted to stand firm against our enemies. People are recognizing this.

Merzebow, sweetheart, I think you misunderstood the rasmussen numbers really badly. It just has one large pro-Bush sample in it, and 2 fairly even samples. When that one sample rolls off, it'll be back to even, ok honey?

Now it's time for a change, and a nap.

Although I think Kerry still has a great shot at this, we can not underestimate Dubya's debating skills. The man knows how to stick to his 'down home' message, even if it is distorted and has proved to be illogical to many Dems. This plays to middle America and Kerry could come off as the know-it-all professor type. Remember, the debates won't be about the issues per se, they will be about image in the postmodern age. Remember JFK in 1960.

Would it surprise anyone to learn that the Republicans directly EMPLOY people to post here and on other key Dem sites in order to sow doubt? Do you think for a minute they wouldn't *gladly* pay interns to post away in hopes of creating dissention among well informed Dems? You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the likelihood of it -- for Republicans it's just business as usual and good bang for the buck.

"A man of no convictions, a false war hero who met with the enemy in Paris while still a commisioned naval officer. A moral relativist who cannot be trusted to stand firm against our enemies."

Why do Bushies play this game? You want to stack the biography of George W. Bush - drunk and cocaine user, draft dodger, failed businessman, rescued numerous times by his family's wealth and connection, his own wealth generated by Texas taxpayers (the Ballpark at Arlington), reckless moral absolutist with no total disregard for history and common sense. Shall I go on?

Good things happening in Oct. The debates, Michael Moore's movie comes out in video and is going to broadcast on nation wide TV the night before the election, and a new book "Crossing the Rubecon" this should keep Der Rovenhofn busy.

Boy that link to new CBS poll results looks as bad as Dan Rather's documents, did they come from the same device?

911 is going to play the night prior to the election on network tv???? I hadn't heard this, but I think it's great if it happens. I think it would be even more effective to play a couple times in the week prior...

And let's get something straight, 9/11 will make great ratings. If whomever owns the rights decides to back out of showing it, we ought to be ready to flood the network executives with information regarding shareholder derivative lawsuits. Executives have a duty to their shareholders to make a profit, we need to be ready to give them some back bone if this goes down. You can count on the GOP inundating the network that airs 9/11 with complaints, if we don't make it abundantly clear that we mean business, they may end up kowtowing to the GOP noise machine(to borrow Brock's apt description.)

So any additional info would be appreciated.

I also should have mentioned the major advertisers...they are another target of GOP complaint drives. Just like a network, provided the advertiser is a public company, their CEO is obligated to pursue profit. Ineviably the GOP threatens boycotts, this is shrewd on their part because it gives the execs something to counter the ratings=profits=duty to shareholder argument. They can argue, sure ratings=profits, but a potential boycott makes it a better business judgment not to get involved. The way to counter these claims is show how few republican "boycotts" have ever amounted to anything. Show me where the Southern Baptist Convention hurt Disney's bottom line? Or how about the damage to french fries(oops I mean freedom fries??) I remember hearing stories about French wine not selling as well, somehow I doubt that though...if you're discerning enough to drink French wine, I'm doubting you would let the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'reilly influence your wine selection.

>> It just has one large pro-Bush sample in it, and 2 fairly even samples.

Dude, you are a fool. The Rasmussen poll is a 3-day rolling average, 1000 voters every night. If Kerry's support was goind UP, then why do his numbers from 10th Sep to 18 Sep trend like this:

46.2 46.1 45.2 46.4 46.5 44.7 45.2 44.8

While Bush's trend like this:

47.8 47.5 48.3 47.2 47.1 47.3 49.3 49.2 49.4

This indicates that the most recent numbers are worse and worse for Kerry, and better and better for Bush. There is no one large 'pro-Bush sample'. Every day produces another pro-Bush sample, friend.

The bums have lost, Mr. Lebowski. Go back to your Vanagons and smoke some more of whatever you've got left from the 60's, then try again.


I don't believe that "Fraud-9/11", running on the night before the election, is the panacea that Dems expect it will be. I do not know too many fair minded Americans, sans the Loopy types who believe GWB is the anti-christ, who think that we invaded Afghanistan to protect a Unocal oil pipeline - I deal that was completed 5 years before we went into that country.

To be sure, there are parts of F911 that are moving, and, as best as I can tell, are not blantant forgeries, a la CBS's fake documents. The problem is that the noise from too many National Inquirer, space alien-type vignettes obscure the most sincere and respectable parts of his story. If this movie had an impact beyond the most visceral of Bush Haters, the President would be much worse off than he is now IMO - Especially given the widespread distribution of the movie and the concurrent frontal assault by the mainstream media pushing F911 related themes.

As a native of the Ft. Greene section of Brokklyn, NY, right across the river from Ground Zero, and whose family and friends lived the 9/11 horror as it unfolded and in the years since, I find it insulting that an avowed partisan would perpetrate a fraud that we somehow risked American lives to go into Afghanistan becuase of an obscure pipeline deal from a decade ago. Brooklyn, NY, will vote for Kerry 80-20, but that is not the point.

The point is, if this movie hasn't resonated with swing, fair minded voters by now, it it unlikely to resonate the night before the election - In fact, it may backfire on Moore insofar as undecided Americans associate major parts of the movie with a last minute, CBS-type hoax.

All the poll show is that the race is close, which we already knew.

The race will be determined by voter turnout, especially in the toss-up states. As a devout Bush-hater and Kerry supporter, I may be seeing the world through rose tinted glasses, however, everything I know about politics and campaigns suggest to me that Kerry is still looking good. Bush will hit hard in the next month or two, the dems will have to counter with even more negative. I'm convinced the Democratic party is not rolling over this time and WILL have plenty of mud to sling. That will make the debates all important. Kerry ought to do really well in the debates, if he doesn't it will be difficult to win, although still possible.

Some of my mistakes in the past:
Never expected a Mondale to get creamed the way he did, although I didnt figure he would win

Never thought Clinton could beat don corleon Bush in 1992.

Didn't think Gore would beat Bush, I expected Bush would win, although not the way he did.

I expect Kerry to win this. If he doesn't America is in for bad bad times. I see money fleeing the US, leading to a weaker dollar, runaway inflation, a remortgage industry that won't be able to handle it, international alliances working to thwart us in our new Vietnam of Iraq, a likely military draft, probably an invasion and occupation of Iran...

Kerry is what this nation/world needs. A return to peace and prosperity. The world wants America to be peaceful and profitable, why can't that be enough???

CAUTIONARY NOTE: Reweight October 2002 polls by the same November 2000 party ID factors, and we still control the Senate. (Probably the House as well!)



This poll is another reason why I'm having problems with Pew, ARG, Harris, et al showing a dead heat. In many ways, OH is a microcosm of the country: A party ID balanced electorate where neither candidate or party is overly dominant.

This is a very large sample concentrated in a classic swing state. Of course, there is no way for me to know whether this is an outlier poll for how things currently stand in OH, but the large sample size is more preferable to other polls with smaller sample sizes.

there is always a bunch of one horse town news papers that will show what ever the suscribers want to hear.

TvNewsLIES.org Editor’s Offer to George Bush & PNAC:
I’ll Pay for Your Vacation in Iraq or Afghanistan!


Why don't you do some research on your own before claiming Moore's claims of Afghanistan are unfounded? Moore barely touched on the nature of the war in Afghanistan. What he did say was well supported by fact. It is interesting that you ignore the evidence pointing to a planned invasion of Afghanistan pre dating 9/11, and don't care to delve into the pipeline machinations that continue to this day. There is a mountain of source material with which validate Moore, let me just point you to one site, as many others have done far more work than I have on this.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org for source material. The have over a 1000 different documented events all hyperlinked, and color coated. Or you could simply search their 9/11 timelife with the term pipeline, then or invasion Afghanistan.

Well Smooth, if you look at the article, you'll notice this poll makes the same error as the Gallup polls. Namely, it uses LVs over a month before the election.

Also notice that the polling company used (Mason-Dixon) showed a similar slouch toward Bush in May, even though the Rasmussen and Zogby polls from early May show a tie or a Kerry lead in early May.

You can't assume thatn just cause it's a local paper that it used good polling companies that know the local populace.

The pollster even admits (at the end of the article) that its turnout model might be flawed.

> Would it surprise anyone to learn that the
> Republicans directly EMPLOY people to post here
> and on other key Dem sites in order to sow
> doubt?

Yeah, but you'd think they would hire someone who could spell.

"but the large sample size is more preferable to other polls with smaller sample sizes."

I'd guess that over 1,000, and probably well less than that, methodology trumps sample size every time.

Look, the difference between the Gallup lead of 13 points, and the basic tie of other polls can ONLY be based on methodology -- it's essentially an impossibility that such a gap could be accounted for in any other way.

Having a sample size of 1,500 instead of 1,000, if you don't conduct the poll reasonably, means next to nothing.

Nice try Guys,

But let there be no doubt: The Cleveland Plain Dealer, like the NY Times, is a stauchly Lib paper which caters to the overwhelmingly Dem constituency of Cleveland - Indeed, GWB will be lucky if he gets 10% of the Cleveland vote.

It is true that the Cleveland PD, like many news organs, use polling organizations, in this case Mason-Dixon. But this doesn't mean that the Plain Dealer, with their liberal tilt, doesn't sanitize the results and understand the demographics behind polls numbers published in their name.

This is a good board, with many active, passionate participants; But there is evidence that the country is trending towards a higher Rep turnout if the party IDs in these polls are to be believed.

Do not underestimate voter passion in this election; If Kerry cannot fire his people up better, the party IDs in these polls will not be that far off - Especially if the CBS farud is left out there to fire up conservatives more so than normal.

Just to follow up on my point about the 13 point Gallup lead vs. the effective tie of all other polls.

From a scientific point of view, there is essentially NO way to account for such a gap by differences arising purely out of random selection factors (I haven't looked up the odds, but with samples of 1,000, the MOE is about 3 percent, which puts 13 percent several standard deviations away).

The only conclusion one can draw is that one, or both, of the methodologies is deeply flawed. It's pretty obvious that the Gallup poll is giving highly counterintuitive results, namely the totally ungrounded overrepresentation of Republicans.

The poll should just be thrown out on its ear, together with the idiots who still stand by it.

I don't think they would have to pay people to come in here. Their are people that revel in being a foil.

That's not to say that it would be out of character for the GOP...look at the paid faux-riots during the 2000 recount, the phone bank DoS attacks, purging of voter rolls, abuse of authority(see katherine harris running Bush's Florida recount campaign out of her state office, or Jeb claiming hands off only to be caught making more than daily phonecalls to Dubya's team, or the USSC granting a stay on the FLSC ordered recount, which requires irreparable harm although votes are clearing not harmful or irreparable, or use of the FBI to intimidate activists prior to the NY GOP convention....just off the top of my head.)

And oh, yeah, these are the same jokesters that lied us into an oil war, halfway around the world, against a country that did nothing to provoke us, had international inspectors working in it, possessed a military we had thrashed a decade earlier, and did so against the wishes of about half the US population and 80 percent of the world's, lacking UNSC authorization and drawing UN Gen Assembly condemnation. Clearly Bush is guided by morality.

"The Cleveland Plain Dealer, like the NY Times, is a stauchly Lib paper"

The problem is with the polling METHODOLOGY, not with the politics of the sponsors!

Can a liberal paper sponsor a poll which, as it happens, overrepresents Republicans?

I think the answer is Yes, no?

The bottom line is that you liberals simply refuse to believe that more people are now identifying themselves as Republicans because of Bush's popularity. The question the polls ask to determine party ID has NOTHING to do with how the person is actually registered or of what party he considered himself to be the last election. It is how a persons CONSIDERS himself to be, now. As many pollsters have said, an increase or decrease in popularity for a specific candidate can affect claimed party ID, so by weighting for party ID you are assuming the conclusion. Christ, this is freshman college logic here (but of course most liberals were probably too stoned in college to remember that course even if they took it.)

I'm beginning to think the reason liberals are so depressed this time around is because they know the only way they can win is to hope for American casualties, economic bad news, etc. Even scarier is that a not insignificant percentage want to see America in decline just on principal alone. Such self-destructive mental sickness.

And before I catch hell from the unemployed English majors who are reading this thread on their Dad's borrowed laptop, I meant principle, not principal.

Bushites are kidding themselves that all is well in their camp and that the busher has it all sewn up. hmm... they are invading this site with a tank full of confidence.. lol... well, I know better. I know that these folks are sweating cause they know that bush aint in the lead as they would like to believe.

They know that Kerry is noted as a closer, they also know that without a script that bush talks babble and crap, they know that bush never had a platform on which to mount his campaign.. never had a soap box even, they know that he hates the truth, they know that he misled the people of america and the world.. and they are hoping that Kerry will never be able to make traction on these issues...

They know that bush is in trouble and are having itchy arm pits. They are here to inject doubt in the camp and use it as a means by which to ramp up their own drafty feelings.. but it wont work here..

In my mind, there are welcome here.. once they can bring a sane or at least a reasonable issue to the table for debate. Unfortunately this is not usually the case... plenty noise, lots of ranting and raving... lets hope that they will bring something to discuss and debate.

How are you doing BJ?


BUSH DISMISSES National Intelligence Estimate

We do not need more headlines like this

NBC was citing

a) CBS poll
b) Nader on ballot on CO and FL
c) the HURRICANES which have kept Kerry out of Florida

Now tHAT is manufacutred news

Bush is not popular! he is one of the most hated presidents of all time. Not only here in the USA but all over the world. Maybe the Jesus Freeks but not all of them think he is all what he lies and tells them either.

Merzbow: Bush is "popular"? Basically a 45-52% approval rating is "popular" Come on. He led every poll the day before the 200 election but one ... by anywhere from 3 to 10 points ... and lost. There's NO WAY the turnout this year will be 40-35 Republican. It never happens in Presidential years, and with a split country half of which hates this jackass with good reason, it's not happening this time either.

Anyone who makes less than 200,000.00 dollars a year and votes for Bush is a fool. They are just shootin themselves in the foot. Read WHATS THE MATTER WITH KANSAS.


i think we are going to lose big time. there is no doubt..thi sis the end..we democrats always manage to screw up things..if we couldnt win this year, when are we going to win...hasta la vista. comrades...we are toast

The amazing articulation of facts these Bush supporters bring to the debate is just too much...I give up. Their arguments are so compelling I wonder why they need bother to make them, their man is going to win right? We should all just stop what we're doing and attend a Hannitization of America event, listen to Rush Limbaugh and exclusively rely on Fox News.

This anti-American election is a effront to Our Leader, he is picked by Jesus and doing God's work. With the help of his Apostle of Justice, Brother John Ashcroft, and the Apostle of Petroleum, Brother Richard Cheney, Evil will be defeated.

The satanist John Kerry would have led a communist Viet Cong insurgency, but, for now, with our legal assualt weapons we will beat back the forces of liberalism and a reduced military budget. Let it be known, Pinkos, Sodomists, Illegals and Terrorists shall tremble in fear. Thank the Lord for GW Bush. God Bless.

Merzbow does not understand the Rasmussen poll. It uses a 3 day rolling average, and Bush had a big day (10 + lead) 3 days ago, which bumbped his 1 -2 point lead up to 4+. Assuming tomorrow's poll is like today and yesterday, the horserace will be within 2 points as the + 10 day rolls off. Another silly comment he made has been related to party ID. Gallup is normalizing their data to a + 4 (or +5) point GOP lead, regardless of what the respondants answer. Finally, when polls like Gallup and CBS publish who the respondants voted for in 2000, they get a 6 - 8 point lead for Bush. Funny, I don't remember the results that way - but then again, I do not watch Fox news.

I see some systemic problems with the press that should worry both the left and right regarding press coverage. The press isn't biased to the left or right, they are biased toward sensationalism. I believe it was Wiliam Crystal (I think that's the conservative commentator's name who said this). And as much as I hate to say it, I agree with him. I am less concerned with the polls than I am with the press's need to create a sensationalistic narrative around them. For conservatives, and liberals a like, the issue isn't whether or not you think one poll or another is correct, but that this is shoddy reporting.

This time around that shoddy reporting is in conservatives' favor b/c the dominant narrative is that Kerry is in trouble despite mixed polls. If we are all honest (and I include liberals and conservatives alike), the best that can be said is that polling data is mixed with some showing a tie and others a lean toward Bush (that would be an honest, rather than sensationalistic or partisan observation). In fact, from what I understand, both Kerry and Bush internal polling are saying what Pew and NY Time poll (when you look behind the numbers) are saying- that the race is Bush's to lose, and Kerry's to win b/c Bush has a slight lead based on a volatile electorate that is swinging wildly, but its not what Gallups numbers on the surface are showing. If anyone is a news junkie like me, you can figure this out by reading a lot of different reports and reading between the lines of all of them. And when I say a lot, I mean a lot- literally, I read everything from the New York times to the Washington Times to get contrasting ideas of what is going on and get some of the underlying facts. I go on line to just look up the subject. It's hard to do, but doable. But is this really something that we should expect 'normal' Americans whether they are on the left or right to do?

For the conservatives among the crowd, the problem is this, when the press does a shoddy job, it can hurt not just liberals, but the time will come as it often does that it will hurt you as well. When you call up to NPR to bitch that they are not covering the narrative in Iraq fairly does it occur to you that this is the same press that is covering the election w/ less than accurate reporting? Friday morning NPR (yes, the liberal bastion of NPR) gave barely a one liner to the Pew, Chrstian Science Monitor, Zogby, Survey USA, Ramussen (need I go on) polls which are in disagreement w/ the Gallup, NY Times, USA Today etc polls. The line was something along the lines of "in full fariness we should point out that some polls are showing a tie." They returned to the narrative quickly aftewards that Kerry is sagging. You may consider this liberal whining, but its the same kind of whining that we liberals hear from conservatives about the press. It's an issue that bother both sides.

My basic point, and one that is really at the heart for me, is is this the system we want? I had a conservative professor in college who used to say the pendulum always swing. Right now Bush is in office, and he is having a good run, as Clinton did in the 90s. However, things change. You will one day be on the losing end of some debate. Is this the system you want? This is a question that is much the same as was framed during the FCC ownership debates where conservatives and liberals realized they had something in common regarding non concentration of media power.

I don't expect anyone here to do anything about this (sorry, more than being left of center, I am now a confirmed cynic about our system of governance), but I did want to throw my voice to the wind in the hopes that someone will consider that there are greater things than left or right.

Good, thoughful post. One can only suspect that so many Bush supporters are willfully ignorant.

Good, thoughful post. One can only suspect that so many Bush supporters are willfully ignorant.

Hear the Word! Woe is he who doubts the Poll! The Lord sayeth, George W. Bush shall lead our Holy nation in a sacred Crusade. It is His will that our W is in the lead, for Jesus bestows his grace on the will of the majority and embraces the tracking poll. Know this, Democrats, Liberals and other unholy sinners, we Republicans are the choosen. We are the elect. George Bush is our leader and never errs, for his policy is that of the Lord our God. Our Leader spoke with the Almighty Father, and the Lord said to George, You are to lead my flock in a War like no other. WMDs do exist God and Saddam must be defeated because he caused 9/11. Do not listen to the lies of the blasphemer Democrats, the WMDs were sent to Syria, Brother Limbaugh himself has declared that to be the case. Jesus has told our Savior President Bush that deficit spending and tax cuts for the wealthy shall give us worldly rewards the likes of which we cannot imagine. Have faith for the Promised Land is HERE. Vote for GW Bush, Amen.

>> Merzbow does not understand the Rasmussen poll. It uses a 3 day rolling average, and Bush had a big day (10 + lead) 3 days ago, which bumbped his 1 -2 point lead up to 4+.

For all you PhDs in logic out there, let me end this with a quote from Rasmussen himself from his blog, Sept. 17:

"The headlines read that Gallup show Bush up by double digits. However, at this point in the process, it's healthier to look at the Gallup Registered Voter numbers. That shows Bush up by eight points. Still a bit more favorable to the President than others, but in-line with our poll and other recent results. We show essentially the same level of support for the President and slightly more support for Senator Kerry."

Bush is up at least in the mid-single digits, deal with it.

Gallup, surveyed 40 percent GOP registered voters to 33 percent Dems, 7 percent more Dems than GOP. The poll found Bush leading by 6. I wouldn't be too sure of any lead for Bush.

edit above 7 percent more GOP than Dems.

Where is the democratic party in all this? I dont see or hear much from the party in direct support of the Kerry campaign.

Of course, I do see some folks on TV and hear some on radio but they are usually so apologetic and weak.

What is the common thread that runs through the party and gels with the Kerry campaign? Where do the strategies meet? What underlying campaign is the party running that congeals with the candidate's position on issues?

When Kerry wins this race in Nov, it will be important to realise that this will be a Kerry victory, sponsored, supported and realised by the people. It wont be a victory for the democratic party, as some might want to think. I hope the party, as an organisation will recognise that its celebrations will be shallow and empty.

This party is way too loosely organised. No cohesion whatsoever. Who is in charge here?


Excellent post. The media is usually a reflection of those it serves. Right now in this country, we have a lazy, apathetic, intellectual hollow electorate. And the media is the same way. They're not biased left or right...they're just lazy and stupid. The most complex issues are reduced to headlines or 10 second soundbites. Those that can't be simplified are just ignored.

Now is the media this way BECAUSE we are...or is the media MAKING us this way? I dunno.

Thanks Ruy!

After I saw that CBS/NYTimes number, I took a breath and said '...be patient, Ruy's on it.'

Also, if I've got to put it in Comment posts every freakin' time I come here (almost daily), I will!

The Dem turnout will be there! Put it at least 5-7% points (conservative) over the 2000 Election figure.

Why? Minority voters. After the election, they'll have the highest percentage of new registrants, and they consistently don't figure in national polling.

Example you ask? Barack Obama's Primary victory. Polls had him with a 12 point lead in the upper 35-38% percent on election eve. He won with 52% percent.


Your thought were outstanding - but they apply to only 2/3 of the media. The other 1/3, Fox, Talk Radio, Washington Times, ... always lean hard right. For instance, Fox news beat up on Clinton but never does on Bush. The rest of the media follows your pattern, beating up on whomever will deliver the sensational headlines. So it is fine for the Republicans, because they will always have that 1/3 support regardless of the crappy, sensationilist reporting comming from the other 2/3.

On a serious note-
Nationally, due to the large amounts of money it costs to run national campaigns, the Dems have had to court business. Big biz and big money won't give unless you support their agenda...usually free trade, lower taxes on corps, investor class, and deregulation; all essentially GOP ideas. Clinton and the DLC believe compromising on those issues allows the funding to run successful campaigns. Because we give away FCC licenses to a select group of for profit companies, then don't require them to provide much free air time for candidates, there ends up being a money issue. Combine that with deregulation of the media and you have a prescription that gives corporations control of our gov't.

In bad times, like in the Vietnam war or during the depression, the population revolts against those in power and enacts progressive reforms. Because of our long prosperity in the world we have a very entrenched power elite that control national level politics of both Dems and GOP.

John Kerry is a conservative, don't mistake that. He is pro free trade, war on drugs, war in iraq, big military budgets. Kerry is different regarding the environment, he appears to put a priority on it. Kerry isn't likely to enact or expand social welfare programs, but unlike Bush, he isn't likely to cut or reform much of that spending. Lastly, Kerrry isn't nearly as tied in with the Saudi Royalty, the Petroleum industry or the to the extent Bush is with military contractors. Where Bush is probably going to invade Iran, I doubt Kerry will.

You can be cynical and not vote I suppose, but that gets another 4 years of corruption, incompetence and mendacity from the Dubya. Kerry is largely conservative, but barring much worse trouble for the US, the status quo will remain much the same.

There are traditional progressive Democrats, look at Dean, Kucinich, Feingold, Boxer, McDermott, Obama, just to name a few. With NAFTA and free trade standard op now, Unions(the typical answer to check corporate power-see Europe) have very little power and less to donate to keep Dems in power. Minus this most important base, Dems have to court big biz.

Kerry very likely will win in November, but Dems still need to revamp, big time. Some suggestions:

1. Long-term goals of eliminating network media power, where the real stranglehold on progressivism remains.

2. Long term goals embracing publically funded campaigns with equal time for all major candidates.

3. Long term goal of making voting easier. We have technology to do secure business on the internet, votes are tabulated on computers, access from any cell phone, tv, computer for every person of voting age.

4. Implement an organization like the conservatives' Federalist Society to provide clerkships and judiciary appointments to people of liberal persuasion.(this sounds devious, but the GOP has gained control of the judiciary by doing this, we need to answer, playing the same game)

The Debates....

The pressure is definitely on Kerry/Edwards to articulate the how/what/why they have a much better plan for America and Americans.

But a different type of pressure ( I think more difficult ) is on Bush/Cheney to defend their record and also convince undecided Americans why they should be re-elected.

In a poll by the Pew Research Center, 29 percent of those surveyed said the debates would matter in deciding how they would vote. Some 68 percent said their minds were already made up. Those undecided voters could make a huge difference.

The candidates' differences are also more clearly pronounced this year than usual on major issues that divide the country: Iraq, job losses, rising health care costs and the mushrooming federal deficit.

The debates could be particularly crucial in 10 or so closely contested states that both parties identify as battlegrounds

A couple of FACTS:

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: 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, war on terror.

The Big Question...

Will America be DUPED again by Bush/Cheney selling more Americans mainly on perception or will more Americans believe Kerry/Edwards really do have a much better plan for America and Americans?


Kerry will take Bush to the woodshed and Edwards will verbally deconstruct Cheney.

Kerry/Edwards will win 12 - 14 of the 16 battleground states and will win the election on Nov 2.

KERRY REPORT CARD: IRAQ 101 (an Incomplete)

In a recent Salon article, a panel was asked for their advice on what Kerry should do to attack Bush's weakspot - Iraq.

The best was from John Judis in my view. He offered four points.

I hate to say Ruy told them so.

I hate it even more when I look at the progress Kerry's made and how far he has to go for I totally agree with Judis - failure probably means the election...

John B. Judis, senior editor of the New Republic; visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

1.IFirst, he has to counter the impression -- particularly among white, working-class voters -- that Republicans are tougher and better prepared to protect America from foreign attack. He's been pretty good on doing this.

2. Secondly, he has to convince voters that he will deal with them straightforwardly and honestly on foreign policy -- and conversely that Bush has not.

2. Thirdly, Kerry has to convince voters that while he won't "turn tail" or "cut and run" in Iraq, he will extricate the U.S. from its position as the principal occupying force (along with the docile Brits) in Iraq. He has to convince voters that he is in better position than Bush is to bring in other countries and to get Americans out.
[A Bush Gentleman's D on this one]

4. Fourth, Kerry has to emphasize that he will not commit American troops to a "war of choice." [Another Bush D]

Kerry has been at best mediocre at making this case. Except in touting his Vietnam experience, Kerry has been either overly vague or overly defensive in laying out his foreign policy. He can't continue to do so, and hope to win in November.


Drudge is headlining Burkett talked with Cleland. Yahoo through AP titles the Burkett story right as Karl Rove would have it.. "Ex-Guardsman: I Contacted Kerry Campaign" Thats, of course, how Drudge goes with the story.

Implicit in these stories is that because Burkett appears to be the supplier of the memo, he may have forged the docs and sent them to the Kerry campaign who then gave them to CBS. Now, there are many holes in this:

1)the docs COULD have been typed on an IBM model used by the military at that time, meaning they may not be forgeries.

2)Although the Secretary has said she doesn't think she typed them, they do appear to accurately reflect sentiment at the time.

3)CBS nor Burkett confirm he was the source

4)If Burkett was the source, so what, how does that link Kerry campaign in anyway?

5)According to an LA Times Article, the memos were "discredited" by none other than Harry W. MacDougald, Atlanta Republican lawyer that drafted Clinton's disbarment complaint. How a conservative lawyer came to be a typography expert only seeing them splashed on the screen could have made the analysis he did, leaves one pondering whether this isn't a Rove trick. MacDougland won't comment, not even to deny connections to the Bush campaign. Take note that the WH was given copies of the docs BEFORE the story went to air, so they were potentially available for Rove to disperse. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-buckhead18sep18,1,1674359.story?coll=la-home-headlines

6)The memos in question don't have much value in discrediting Bush even if they are legitimate. If you were going to forge documents, doesn't it figure that the content of the forgery would have value to take the risk in the first place?

It is inconceivable that the NYT, which is obviously looking for any silver lining in the poll for Kerry, would not make your points about party affiliation if they had any merit.


See above for webaddress/link. For those interested, Chris Bowers at mydd.com has a very interesting piece on the long-term stability of party ID distribution amongst voters as an election variable. Like Ruy has been doing here, Chris makes a compelling case that (in his own words) “polls which weight by Party ID are the most accurate indicators of the state of the campaign.” The readers’ posts after this piece are quite informative and thoughtful as well.

One interesting tidbit in a reader post (containing the link to the referenced article) is that, according to Dick Morris earlier this year, 85% of undecided voters break to the challenger in an election. I usually don’t take anything Mr. Disloyalty and Mr. Sleaze, Dick Morris, says seriously, but if his statistics are correct (I’m not at all sure of his sources), Bush better be polling at or extremely close to 50% by election day. Otherwise, he'll be re-defeated. BTW, I thought the general rule was that 2/3rds of the undecided would break for the challenger on election day. That’s the “rule of thumb” that I’ve seen referenced here and at some other websites. Obviously, for this particular election, I hope Dick Morris’ assertion vis-à-vis the eventual split of the undecided vote is closer to the mark.

Two follow ups based on some of the things I have read as responses:

a) The idea that the NY Times is any less sensationalistic than any other newspaper just because it is liberal leaning strikes me as false. They are left leaning- but they are still, first, and foremost, a business trying to sell papers. There is an old saying in local news media biz that goes if it bleeds, it leads (translated: sensationalism sells). I agree NY Times is probably looking for some left leaning position, as I would, because I am left of center, but the truth is that they are not as focused on that as you would think. Just do a real read of most of the papers both left and right on a daily basis, and it becomes glaring just how little they actually do "hard" news anymore v. horserace analysis.

I was struck recently by a conversation between of all people Jon Stewart (Daily Show) and Ted Koepple (Nightline) precisely on the failings of modern journalism. Stewart asked pointedly how can modern journalism allow the crazy news cycle to happen the way it presently happens - in this case the wholely disproven claims of the Swift Boat guys (and for you conservatives- no matter whatyou think of a guy give Kerry his props- its like McCain- I don't agree with the man a lot but I give him his props for being in a prison camp for 5 years - that takes a lot more than talk- that takes a level of inner strength that is lost on most of the American electorate.) Koepple explanation of why the story should have been reported struck me as fascinating to say the least. He stated that the mere fact that someone brought up the allegation made it newsworthy. Whereas the veracity of the claim may take longer than the news cycle will allow. This is a paraphrase.

What struck me was that allows for either side to wholy manipulate the media because the media is now about precision rather than accuracy. For you scientist in the bunch, you will know that this a no-no of any attempt to be empirical. Jon Stewart, b/c time was up, did not get a chance to fully reply back other than to make a rather good analogy that points out an inherit flaw in the system that leads to a dangerous result in any society that wants anything near a democratic (little "d") process, that over the years I believe will become more and more problematic with informations increasing fractionalization and unweldiness (shear volumn of information).

Let me be clear- they are basically saying their business cycle does not allow for fact, and the more ellusive, truth finding to be the leading factor in decision making about what is newsworthy. Right now, and this is what I want the conservatives to understand, this favors the Republicans- but what it favors more- and this should scare the libertarians in the bunch (and both Dems and Reps)- this allows for a big brother effect- at least in the long wrong b/c facts/truth/accuracy does not matter. The leftist here will probably say that it never mattered but I don't think history bares that out. The history of our society has been a growing level of slowly won openness. Western society for all its faults I believe has on the large scale been moving that way. I will offer an analogy of what's the problem with the present approach to news. Let's say someone said that the earth is flat- all the reporters obligation according to Koeple is in this case is to report that it was reported today that someone said the world is flat. B/c the church in the middle century did not allow accurate reporting, it took centuries for us to realize the truth. If business cycles are causig the same effect this is scary. The polsl again to me are ultimately meaningless, but the truth from whatever side it is coming from- is not.

b) This society is not nor will it ever become a leftist society. When you say Kerry is not a leftist well thats not a suprise b/c most of the population is neither far left or far right. What is ironic is that we are fighting over very small margins here when we are talking policies. I have a conservative Italian friend who is one of the few remaining conservatives who is a pragmatist who laughs at the national party, and those conservatives who choose to believe them, that somehow Kerry is such a radical departure from Bush on the middle east or any other issues.

The truth is- and I have said this before- i think either KErry or Bush ,we are hurting in the middle east because Islam is not Communism- its something far more powerful- its a religion. I was struck by the pilgrimage that some of the Iraqi people (about 100,000) were making to one of their holy cities. I was struck by how they were willing to cut themselves for their faith. I was struck by the energy of the crowd - the sense of total dedication. Democracy in Iraq will face the same issue as Communism faced in Afghanistan- Religion.

What has all of this got to do with discussions of left or right? In someways, nothing- but in a more important way everything. These discussions from the left or right always strike me as hopelessly America-centric.

c) THe left v. right media misses the pt- the truth is that facts are left or right. If we cant have a media that can bring us accurate facts no matter what their views we are kind of screwed b/c this isnt earlier pts in our history where decisions could be made slower.

The biggest canard of this election being foisted on us by the GOP and their lapdogs in the Corporate Media is that Bush is a strong leader on the war on terrorism, putting the proper policies and resources in place to keep this country safe from another attack on our shores.

I share with you “The DAILY MIS-LEAD” (put out by Misleader.org) that a friend sent me on Thursday. Based upon the facts detailed in this piece alone, George W. Bush should be run out of the White House on a rail.




In the months after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush promised America he would make the hunt for al Qaeda the number one objective of his
administration. "[We] do everything we can to chase [al Qaeda] down and bring them to justice," Bush said. "That's a key priority, obviously, for me and my administration."[1] But according to a new report, the President has dangerously underfunded and understaffed the intelligence unit charged with tracking down al Qaeda's leader.

The New York Times reports "Three years after the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency has fewer experienced case officers assigned to its headquarters unit dealing with Osama bin Laden
than it did at the time of the attacks." The bin Laden unit is "stretched so thin that it relies on inexperienced officers rotated in and out every 60 to 90 days, and they leave before they know enough to be able to perform any meaningful work."[2]

The revelation comes months after the Associated Press reported the Bush Treasury Department "has assigned five times as many agents to investigate
Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden's" financial infrastructure.[3] It also comes after USA Today reported that the President shifted "resources from the bin Laden hunt to the war in Iraq" in 2002.

Specifically, Bush moved special forces tracking al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and into Iraq war preparations. He also left the CIA "stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan."[4] That has allowed these terrorists to regroup: according to the senior intelligence officials in July of this year, bin Laden and other top al Qaeda leaders are now directing a plot "to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States" and are overseeing the plan "from their remote hideouts somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."[5]


1. "President Calls for Ticket to Independence in Welfare Reform,"
WhiteHouse.gov, 5/10/02,
2. "C.I.A. Unit on bin Laden Is Understaffed, a Senior Official Tells
Lawmakers," New York Times, 9/15/04,
3. "More Agents Track Castro Than Bin Laden," Common Dreams News Center,
4/29/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1212858&l=55683.
4. "Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions," USA Today, 3/28/04,
5. "Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against U.S.," CNN.com, 7/08/04,


Couple the Misleader piece with these two other very damning facts:

1) Instead of using our own trustworthy and motivated troops to kill/capture Bin Laden and others in the original Afghanistan campaign, Bush’s administration followed the wrong strategy in the fighting within the caves of Tora Bora. Bush, Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks outsourced the effort to find/fight Bin Laden through bribes to the “Northern Alliance” fighters, who Bin Laden simply bribed again to obtain his and Al Qaeda’s top leadership's freedom to slip out the back door to Pakistan. Our best opportunity to get the criminals responsible for the 09/11 atrocity was fumbled away. John Kerry was one of the first major politicians to harshly criticize Bush’s “outsourcing” strategy at the time that it was being deployed. I’m convinced that if Kerry were the President then, Bin Laden would never have been given the opportunity to slip away.

2) Bush has done next to nothing about port and nuclear & chemical plant security on the home-front. Outside of addressing our airport security problems, the lack of spending on homeland security measures to address glaring vulnerabilities completely baffles anyone possessing common sense. Bush would rather give big tax cuts to millionaires or blow $120 billion (to date) on an unnecessary war in Iraq (predicated on a tissue of lies) than spend the appropriate and needed money on our homeland defense.

As Kerry’s campaign has been saying, it's about priorities. Bush has shown me that he doesn't have the right ones in terms of protecting us here. As STANDA has been reminding us all in the reader’s comments at this website, Bush is a failure. There’s no way of getting around it – he makes terrible strategic decisions and then his administration can’t even carry them out with a modicum of competence. (The lack of the administration’s planning for postwar Iraq is borderline criminal. Even a loyal Republican like Dick Lugar blasted Bush again yesterday about this.)

Finally, as someone who works in lower Manhattan and watched what happened on 09/11/2001 from an office building six blocks away from the World Trade Center, I am angry that my government has done such a poor job in bringing the criminals responsible to justice. As someone who attended four memorial services of either people I knew or relatives of friends who died in the two towers, I’m absolutely outraged that Bush took his eye of the ball. A regrouping of Al Qaeda has resulted. Bush has been chasing the NeoCon utopian dream of a “free and democratic” Iraq, wasting our country’s resources in terms of blood and treasure. Meanwhile, our collective security needs here at home have been largely ignored.

Please America – stop buying into the lie that Bush has done a good job defending this country against its real enemies. Wake up to the reality of what Bush has done and hasn't done over the last 3.5 years. Look at his policy and strategy choices objectively. Once you do, you'll return him to Texas on Nov. 2.

Re- Indies

When I hear them talking about why the Bush campaign is still a bit nervous about the numbers on the ground I believe it is b/c they must believe they can not win without the indies on the ground breaking for Bush (everyone expects this realistically to be a huge turn out year probably on the scale of 92 and maybe higher- I mean the voter drive is crazy right now- I cant even go to the store without some one asking me am I registered). If indies are starting to break for Kerry this is not good for Bush in the final stretch b/c it may (key word is may) suggest Kerry is starting to resonate witha percentage of voters who are tuning in. My guess is the Clinton people will have Kerry do a lot more pop cult stuff b/c this is where y ou will maybe find these voters. The truth is most close elections are decided in the last 2 or 3 weeks as undecideds finally start to make their decision, and that is what makes this volatile b/c they maybe breaking for Kerry. I don't see Bush for example doing 3 debates precisely because of this dynamic- the more exposure he has in the last stretch the worse it is for him. His central argument right now is that you can't trust Kerry to be commander and chief (hence the poll numbers on that subject and why they keep not so subtly saying it like a mantra) (in other words go with the devil you know - which is a very clean and smart argument for him to make with a country at war)- whereas, the more you see Kerry on stage holding in any way shape or form his own against Bush- the more the indies may see Kerry as a viable alt to the incumbent b/c clearly if they are still this volitile this late inthe game- they are just looking for an excuse to get rid of the incumbent (this is really politics 101). It's what Bush did in 2002 to make the closing work for him. It's what Reagan did in 1980. It is what Kerry has to do at the debates in 2004. If he does this it will give him an edge among the volatile middle. ANother important stat from all of this is the number of people who said they would be influenced by the debates- it was a huge 29 percent I think (I am not sure- but I remember it being high). This means for our guy that the support for Bush among a portion of those polling for him now is not solid. It is also a danger for Kerry though b./c they can become solid. It just really really and I mean really depends. Anyone on the left or right predicting anything right now is engaging in wishful thinking.

In the CBS poll, still 39 percent said Saddam caused 9/11.


Lots of Republicans are voting Democrat. Independents are going for Kerry 2 to 1.
Dems and the Liberal base are fired up.
Bush has pissed off everyone, including the military.

Why is Edwards campaigning in South Carolina?
Kerry in Colorado?

Has anyone seen the crowds, they are huge and Kerry Edwards are campaigning in "red areas". have you seen the crowds, 10k, 20k, 30k, everywhere they go, even Edwards on his own!!!

They are campaigning for the largest popular vote win in history!!!!

Hold on to your seat belts folk, cause Dorathy says we are in for one hell of a ride.

Kerry in a LANDSLIDE!!!!

"It is inconceivable that the NYT, which is obviously looking for any silver lining in the poll for Kerry, would not make your points about party affiliation if they had any merit."

Is any paper that commissions a poll going to highlighy in their description of the results that the poll was deeply flawed?

When pigs fly, and not a moment before.

Troll Alert!

It is over. Kerry will lose and then his party will begin the hard work of soul-searching and regrouping, second guessing and finger pointing , bargaining and compromising, and all the crap you guys go through every time you lose. To be fair, I think some on your side and this site will admit that this is already starting.

Ah, I love the smell of fresh panic!

How do you come up with a new strategy, a new brand name, a new coalition?

Back to basics, I say!

Get back to that lovable image as a bleeding heart, save the whales, its my body-my choice, give peace a chance, it takes a village, I have a dream, I'm here I'm queer get used to it, eat the rich, amerika!, hell no we won't go, mend it don't end it, no controlling legal authority, its the economy stupid, don't ask don't tell, it depends what is...is, you know, all the stuff that gave you guys that great Democratic tradition!

Leave the hard work of governance to the Republicans. You guys need to concentrate on large, public marches, followed by a concert and some "hooking up".

When we need to loosen things up and take our eye off the ball, we'll call you.

I want my affairs handled by a leader WHO SAYS WHAT HE MEANS, AND MEANS WHAT HE SAYS. Given our choices, I'm voting for Bush and so are your neighbors.

Get used to it.

4 More Years

we are going to lose! how come nobody sees that! let us not kid ourselves. we are losers. has anybody seen teh msnbc poll of battleground states? we are toast

I think that some of us who are supporting Kerry ought to face reality. As of now, Bush is, unfortunately, ahead. We can't keep whining that the polls are wrong and when they showed us consistently ahead a few weeks ago they were right. Time will tell if they are right but we must understand a few things. If Bush is elected the public will be supporting a few things : 1). Fiscal irresponsibility. 2). Taking away women's reproductive freedom 3. Discrimination 4).Tax cuts for those making over 200,000. 5). Going to war based on a lie.
The point is that the public has a clear choice and, obviously as of this moment a majority of the public is obviously stupid. That's why logic and facts don't control government policy, ideology does. If the american public thinks it feels safer under Bush that is a conclusion they will have to reckon with. I say these things so that no one who votes for Bush is unclear about what they are voting for.


Thanks for the link. This reports Mason-Dixon polls in 6 of the states Bush won in 2000 that are considered battlegrounds. Running down the list, it shows an 11 point lead for Bush in Arizona, which is larger than I expected, but Arizona is not one of the states I was thinking a likely win. It shows West Virginia closer than I expected, only 1% up for Bush. Nevada has a narrow (5%) Bush lead. The three troublesome ones are a lead of 7% apiece in Missouri and Ohio and of 9% for Bush in New Hampshire. That last is so different from anything else we've seen that it makes me wonder.

So...looking at state level details, we see the sample was 39% Republican, 31% Democrat, 30% indep.

In Ohio, it was 40 R, 36 D, 24 I.

In Nevada it was 45 R, 43 D, 12 I.

Arizona, 45 R, 41 D, 15 I.

In Missouri, Dems actually outnumbered Reps, 38-36 with 26 I.

And in WV, it was heavy, heavy D, 62-31-8.

Do we know what registration has been like in New Hampshire, Nevada and Ohio? If the samples here were heavy on Republicans, then that, as has been common for many polls, may mean that the actual numbers should be closer for Kerry. Those three, Florida (they couldn't poll because of hurricanes...), and Colorado are my big 5 for the Democrats at this point.

The doomsday hand-wringing and the immature jeering of those trolls notwithstanding, I think we're going to see bigger numbers for Kerry than they're expecting.

It's actually true (as someone above mentioned) that undecideds break for challengers. Plus new voters are getting registered at record numbers.

The reason these pools are unreliable isn;t just because they're picking more Republican identifiers (with no justification) but also because they assume that nobody who didn't vote last time is gonna vote this time. I know for a fact that that's not true.

On a lighter note, I think the funniest comparison I heard to the race was yesterday, when somebody compared Bush's strategy to a Chris Rock sketch, to wit:

Republicans want credit for stuff that Democrats just do ordinarily, like: "I stood up to the terrorists and for education." What do you want, a cookie? Your's SUPPOSED to do that!

How much is Herr Rove paying you trolls to come onto Dem blogs and sow dispair? Pathetic.

You Dems are such losers! You crack me up.

Hey, now that Bush is so far ahead in the polls that victory is a lock, maybe it's time I share a few things with you:

- We KNOW that Bush is a liar and a shifty operator; that's one of the reasons we love him so much!

- Yeah, he lied to get us into war in Iraq, and it's an absolute fiasco. But -- have you EVER seen such a great issue to pound the Dems with?! Disaster/Shimaster! Just fool the rubes into thinking that Iraq is linked to al Quaeda, and -- presto! Majority support for this pointless war. Oh, and also LOTS and LOTS of contracts for Halliburton and the oil and gas industry. Bring it on!

- I am working for Karl Rove and the RNC! It's part of the Republican strategy to go into "friendly territory" and try to demoralize you morons. Heh-heh-heh!

So: read it and weep, you losers!

4 More Years!

Well, I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! That last post was not mine but I had to laugh. Yeah, thats why I'm supporting Bush, so Haliburton can profit. Delusional!

Hey, I just saw little Tommy Daschle debate Thune on Meet the Press. He used the Kerry defense on support for the troops. Wouldn't it be great to see Bill Parcels (coach of the Dallas Cowboys) tell a room full of reporters, "Hey, I'm the only guy here who's played pro ball, how dare you question my decisions!" When will Kerry and Daschle and Cleland learn that just because you are a veteran, you are not innoculated from critical examination of your record.

Daschle is going down with Kerry, despite his craven attempts to have it both ways (or maybe because of exactly that).

You guys have not only nominated a loser, your congressional and Senate candidates are now going to pay the price as well. Many are unable to work out "scheduling conflicts" in order to be seen on the same stage as Kerry. Obstructionist Daschle himself is running ads implying he's been bipartisan in his approach. He even shows his little hug with Bush. What a laugh.

Should've stuck with Dean. At least he believed in something. But noooooo! You guys wanted someone who was "electable" and now you will have neither principle nor power.

How sweet it is!

4 More Years!

I suppose the deeply paranoid might question whether the right-wing corporate media is polling in a way, which will make an election stolen electronically less suspicious.

Tooooooooooo Funny BJ; Keep up the great work. I also just saw Daschele & Thune on MTP. Call me a cynic, but I don't believe his hug of President Bush was genuine, since he's been an obstructionist to Prez every step of the way. Me thinks the good citizens of South Dakota will see through the ruse.

I see the regulars here are looking at every which way to spin the national polls in their favor, whining about party IDs & the like. Here's some more state polling numbers that will cheer them up:

In Ohio, a Mason-Dixon poll of 1500 voters conducted for the Plain-Dealer reports that President Bush leads John Kerry 50%-42%. Ohio
voters overwhelmingly trust the President on the issues of Iraq and terrorism.

In Missouri, a Research 2000 poll has the President leading John Kerry by 7 points, 49%-42%.

In Pennsylvania, a Strategic Vision poll has President Bush leading Kerry 49%-45%. Kerry has a net unfavorable rating - 38%-46%, his worst
showing in this poll of Pennsylvania voters.

In Iowa, a new Strategic Vision poll has President Bush leading by 2 points. In the state which salvaged his political career, John Kerry has
a net negative rating.


Mason-Dixon and Knight-Ridder have released five new polls of red states - Arizona, Missouri, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Ohio.

I already described the Ohio data above.

In Arizona, President Bush trounces Kerry 50%-39%. In Missouri, President Bush leads 48%-41%. In West Virginia, President Bush leads by a point 45%-44%. Finally, in a huge surprise, the President leads in New Hampshire 49%-40%. In these states, the President holds a solid
advantage on personal as well as issue questions.

Why are these polls important? Because this pretty much confirms that very few of the red states are competitive. The only one that seems to be a toss-up is West Virginia, and John Kerry is culturally out-of-step with this state’s voters.


A new Mason-Dixon poll has President Bush up 53%-37% in Tennessee.

Now if nature cooperates, we shall soon get a sense of how Floridians feel about the election

"It is inconceivable that the NYT, which is obviously looking for any silver lining in the poll for Kerry, would not make your points about party affiliation if they had any merit."

This would be the same NY Times of the Whitewater hoax? The same one that allows Judith Miller access to its front page to publish lies fed to her by Ahmad Chalabi?

But this question avoids the problems of the poll by simply presuming "If the Times says it, it couldn't possibly be biased against Kerry". This is the presumption of liberal bias that the Times used for years to get away with the Whitewater nonsense.

Of course, we only need to look at the polling done in 2000 to see how bad the major media has become at this task.


www.electoral-vote.com now has Bush with a huge lead. Why? Because Mason-Dixon has submitted a number of polls, all of which show Bush with huge leads in states that previously were tight. It now claims Bush is ahead by 9 points in New Hampshire, which has been polling 3-5+ for Kerry all year.

This is growing maddening.

This analysis is not mine but from the John Kerry Forum:

OK, I posted this on another board, so some of this information may be repetitive. Oh well.

First, I found the breakdown by party affiliation for the past three election cycles.

Democrats 34%
Republicans 34%
Independents (i.e. Ross Perot) 33%

Democrats 39%
Republicans 34%
Independents 27%

Democrats 39%
Republicans 35%
Independents 26%

And here's Gallup's raw data from their latest poll:

Likely Voter Sample Party IDs – Poll of September 13-15
(Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%)

Total Sample: 767
GOP: 305 (40%)
Dem: 253 (33%)
Ind: 208 (27%)
Unknown: 1 (0%)

Registered Voter Sample Party IDs – Same Poll
(Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%)

Total Sample: 1022
GOP: 381 (37%)
Dem: 336 (33%)
Ind: 298 (29%)
Unknown: 7 (1%)

(The LeftCoaster got the percentages slightly off for the registered voters part; I've corrected that. )

Now, among the 767 likely voters, the 40% Republicans they interviewed, compared with the 35% Republicans that actually voted (giving them the benefit of the doubt; 35% is the highest of the last 3 election cycles for Republicans), results in a z-score of 2.903, which gives a P-value of 0.0019. In other words, there's only a 0.19% chance that this within reason compared to the actual results. So basically there's a 99.81% chance they oversampled Republicans.

Now, statisticians usually test things with a 5% significance level, so anything above 95% is usually considered too far off to be a good representative sample. And in my book (and most others' too) when it gets above 99.5%, we consider it to basically be 100%.

By the same token, the Gallup poll severly undersampled Democrats.

Now among the 1,022 registered voters, having only 33% of them being Democrats leads to a z-score of 3.93, which leads to a P-value of 0%, meaning there's a 100% chance they undersampled Democrats!

I'd go ahead and normalize the numbers accordingly, but Gallup's poll didn't provide even a breakdown of what percent of each party voted for each candidate. (See any SurveyUSA poll's raw data for this information.) It's not as simple as just subtracting off the extra percent from Bush and adding it on to Kerry.

Now, Gallup admits to having used this 40% Republican, 33% Democrat sampling methodology for this entire election season. Unfortunately, as I showed at the beginning of this post, this is a rather flawed model to use. It significantly oversamples Republicans, and severely undersamples Democrats. And there's not really any signs in the news about this shift having taken place across the country. If anything, you hear stories about Republicans who voted for Bush in 2000 who will vote for Kerry in 2004.

I just saw on cnn.com that Allawi says the Saddam trial will likely start in October.

Imagine that.


Sunday, Sep. 19, 2004
Bush's Iraq: A Powerful Fantasy
Flying to Minnesota on Air Force One last week, White House press secretary Scott McClellan held a "gaggle"—that is, a mini-press conference—with reporters in the back of the plane. The first questions were about Hurricane Ivan and the Dan Rather flap, the compelling news periphera of the moment. Then I asked McClellan about the intelligence community's dire assessment, sent to the President in a July National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), that we seem to be losing the war in Iraq.

"The role of the CIA is to look at different scenarios," McClellan said. But all three CIA scenarios were awful, I pointed out. The best case was "tenuous stability," a continuation of the sapping insurgency we're seeing now.

McClellan began to read from talking points. The "pessimists and naysayers" had been wrong, he said, about the Iraqi people's ability to establish a transitional government, a national council and a transitional law. The "Iraqi people" had little to do with establishing any of those, but McClellan plowed on. A reporter asked if McClellan was saying that the CIA was filled with "pessimists and naysayers," but McClellan wouldn't bite.

Two thoughts occurred to me as the taffy pull continued. For one thing, the President's obvious skepticism about this National Intelligence Estimate stands in stark contrast to his wanton embrace of the NIE he received in October 2002, which said that Saddam probably possessed weapons of mass destruction. That report was produced after Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld pressured the CIA to come up with stronger evidence for invading Iraq. The current assessment is more credible. It comes from a cautious, chastened CIA.

It was probably George Tenet's last act as CIA director. And it was written well before the current spatter of dreadful developments, including the U.S. military's acknowledgement that there are areas of Iraq, "no go" zones controlled by the insurgents, where we have decided not to fight. My second thought was pretty wicked: Scott McClellan is beginning to sound like Baghdad Bob, the infamous spokesman for Saddam who announced hallucinatory Iraqi victories as the American troops closed in on Baghdad.

As he rolled across Minnesota last Thursday, Bush told his crowds pretty much the same things he's been saying for months. Saddam was a threat. The world is a safer place now that he's in jail. We must attack the terrorists before they attack us. Freedom has the "transformational power" to make the world a better place. We're not conquerors; we're agents of freedom. As for the current situation, "There's a lot of violence in Iraq, I understand that," he said in Rochester, "but Iraq now has a strong Prime Minister, National Council, and elections are scheduled in January."

Except for the elections—which seem highly unlikely at this point—all of Bush's statements have the virtue of being either true, truish or unprovable. His argument is tight, concise and, so far, impregnable. It is also a clever distortion of reality. If the National Intelligence Estimate is accurate, we are facing a far more dangerous world than existed before the war. Many intelligence and military experts now believe that al-Qaeda has rebuilt its leadership structure and metastasized; that the U.S. military is overburdened and its leaders are likely to tell the next President that they lack the resources necessary to regain control in Iraq; that the U.S. government has lost the credibility to lead the world into action against future threats from, say, Iran or North Korea; that Iraq itself seems in danger of splitting into three chaotic regions, which—in the NIE's worst-case scenario—may lead to civil war.

And so there is only one significant question left in this presidential election year: Can John Kerry hold George Bush accountable for this mess? My guess is, probably not. The Republicans, with a strong assist from Kerry, have successfully painted the Democrat as a flip-flopping incompetent when it comes to national security. It will be hard for Kerry to change that impression. In fact, he has only one chance remaining, in the presidential debates.

And that won't be easy: I've never seen George Bush lose a debate. He is a brilliant minimalist. Kerry by contrast is all oratorical flab—although he did begin to show some signs of life last week in a solid speech to the National Guard convention, in which he blasted Bush's "fantasy of spin" about Iraq. It is a powerful fantasy, though. And it is easy to predict Bush's response to any Kerry criticism about Iraq: "My opponent is too pessimistic," the President will say. "See, what he doesn't understand is that the President of the United States has to stand firm. We can't show weakness. And we won't on my watch." Unless Kerry can come off with a succinct, and lethal, response to those vaporous but compelling platitudes, he will lose this election.

Despite the attempts of some Republican bloggers to do their level best to discourage and demoralize our side by posting and highlighting the results of certain recently released polls by Mason-Dixon and Gallup, the fact remains that this is still a close and competitive race and that Kerry is behind by only between 2 and 4 points. Rasmussen's daily tracking poll shows it as 47.8% for Bush, 46.1% for Kerry today. Reports of Kerry's demise are greatly exaggerated. If I'm Bush, I'm very concerned about having such a small lead at this point in the race, considering that the bulk of the undecideds will most likely break for the challenger given widely accepted historical trends.

The fact remains that Bush has been a terrible President, repeatedly making incorrect strategic decisions on a whole host of issues and being plainly incompetent in carrying out his misguided policies. This will catch up to Bush if Kerry can turn the tables and put the public's focus where it belongs: on the failed record of the current administration.

That's a good post by Tony earlier today about the party ID distribution for voters in the various Mason-Dixon state polls. I've already seen a post in the comments by a New Hampshire reader over at mydd.com in which he questions the demographic / geographic breakdown of where Mason-Dixon found its polled respondents in New Hampshire. It sounds like Mason-Dixon might have some methodology issues of its own. (It'll be interesting to see how Mason-Dixon's polling breakdown in each state matches up with the actual turnout in 2000.)

For the latest, very encouraging news for PA and FL, Jerome Armstrong has a piece posted at 9:11AM this morning showing the latest per Rasmussen's tracking survey for Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and North Carolina. FL and PA are extremely close and Ohio still certainly remains very much in range. Here's the link/website



I submit you CANNOT look at historical party ID demographics, no matter how much your colleagues on this site use it to hold out hope for Kerry. The fact is, this year is unlike any other year, this election unlike any other election; And the party IDs the polls are reflecting may suggest a structural change going on in our electorate in response to demogogues like Michael Moore, the blatant bias of mainstream media entities (See(C) BS), et al.

I've seen upwards of 15 national and battleground state polls taken the past 2 weeks showing Prez with a double-digit lead - And, after each case, a well meaning Lib has an explanation that suggests Kerry is really closer than these polls are suggesting. It is possible that the polls are correct.


I feel your pain, but are you trying to tell us, without tongue planted firmly in cheek, that the NY Times is NOT biased against our current President??

Sorry Rick ..

You missed the point

The party ID's are so out of whack as to make the results unreliable.

That's the point.

Now, if you have evidence of a sea change in party ID, I am certain you will produce it for it will be most welcome

If you do not, I am certain you won't

Kudos go to Craig Crawford, a contributor to MSNBC. When asked by Chris Matthews on MSNBC's "Hardball - The Horse Race" earlier today, he pointed out that the huge leads in some of the polls (like Gallup's) are based upon very questionable breakdowns for projecting the party ID composition of the 2004 electorate. He pointed out that GOP'ers are being overrepresented in Gallup's samples, while minorities and other Democratic groups are being undercounted.

It's the first time that I've seen someone on cable TV state this about Gallup, etc. All other TV commentary has been of the surface variety, playing up the simple horse race numbers and accepting them at face value. What has been getting pointed out here by Ruy and at mydd.com about methodology and party ID composition is finally starting to break into the general media a little bit. That's progress.

Further albeit indirect proof that the Gallup and CBS demographics are screwy comes from Dr Sam Wang of Princeton. http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/pollcalc.html

Dr. Wang's meta-analysis of state polling incorporates what he calls a Swing Index, an

"across-the-board percentage shift in opinion that would be needed to make the win probability 50%. This answers the following question: Given current polls, what fraction of voters would have to change their minds in order to make the electoral college a toss-up (>=270EV probability equal to 50%)?

This takes advantage of the bias analysis, my favorite feature in this analysis. Bias occurs if (a) polling organizations give skewed results or if (b) one side is turns its voters out better or worse than predicted by the polling criteria. The Swing Index is now less than 2 points. This is extremely close and is consistent with most national polls, with the notable exceptionof Gallup...."

Swing Index (to create a toss-up): 1.9% increased turnout for Kerry (or 0.95% of voters flip from Bush


It's true that the shift in party ID *might* be correct. But it also might not be. I think we won't know till there's a much more systematic survey of registered voters. And most important, we'll find out on Nov. 2 how the voter distribution applies on election day.


Just amplifying a bit...I don't mind at all if the papers report the range of survey results (including, say, Pew's tie, Harris' tie, etc., along with Gallup), along with RV and LV numbers both and some discussion of why there are differing numbers. It's the cherry-picking of pro-GOP numbers by what I've seen from the media and by some from the GOP who have come to visit here that I find troublesome.

Sound advice from DONNA BRAZILLE

To my mind with Carville, Begala, Whouey, Greenberg, Charles Cook, Ruy Teixeira, one of the sharpest mnds in politics today...

"In the final weeks of this campaign, Mr. Kerry should take a page from the playbook of Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist. Mr. Rove often advises his clients to attack their opponents on the very issue they perceive as their own greatest strength.

In President Bush's case, that issue is his prosecution of the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq. Every day until Election Day, Mr. Kerry should remind voters that the Bush administration is making America less secure. As Mr. Kerry began pointing out last week, the president's handling of the two wars - and they are distinct - has been an unmitigated disaster."

Does any organization poll college campuses? With the draft all but certain to return if the "war President" is not re-defeated, one would think students would be aware of this and vote accordingly. That's multiple millions of votes. Anyone know which was the wind is blowing on this front?

Re Jed's question about the interest of college kids:
I've seen some figures in one of the major papers -- WaPo or NYT -- that we have nearly record numbers of kids 19-22 registered to vote this year. Coupled with that is anecdotal evidence the the buzz on college campuses is that there WILL be a draft in a 2nd Bush administration. If that doesn't scare a few of them into voting, I don't know what will. And surely they've heard that the job mkt for college grads is bleak.
As for other potentially swing groups, Zogby found that rural voters still favor Bush over Kerry, but at a significantly smaller percentage than in 2000.
These little slivers of the electorate just could do it for Kerry.
OTOH, one headline today suggests that the Bushies are setting us up for an October surprise in the form of a confrontation over nukes. I suspect they may be manufacturing that "crisis" as we scribble. The Iranians apparently really are working on them if they don't already have them.
So, Rove, Cheny, Bush and the other draft-dodging capons in the WH may skunk us out yet.

Oh Man, I'm getting a headache reading all the spin about party IDs et al. The fact is, Kerry is behind or flailing in the following BLUE states according to ALL recent polls:

GWB within 6-7 points in MI, CA & NY

If Kerry, doesn't win at least 2 of these states, he's done IMO. Meanwhile, GWB is comfortably ahead in the red states.

The fat lady may not be cranked up yet, but she's waiting in the wings, right behind the curtains.

Hey, losers:

I'm a nut
I'm a nut
I'm a flaming, silly nut!

I'm a WINGnut
I'm a WINGnut
I'm a silly, silly WINGnut

I'm a gaylord
I'm a gaylord
I'm a silly, silly gaylord

Bush is dumb
Bush is stupid
Bush is dumb
Bush is stupid

Whoo-hoo, I'm an idiot!
Whoo-hoo, I'm a moron!
Whoo-hoo, I'm an idiot!
Whoo-hoo, I'm a dolt!

Bush is from Mars
So am I
Bush is from Mars
So am I

Beam me up!
That's what I say!
Beam me up!
That's what I say!

4 More Years!

Re: the Knight Rider/MSNBC Poll and Ohio - They have Bush up by seven. I would like to remind everyone that at this time in 2000 most of the polls had Bush over Gore by around 4. By early Oct. the polls had Bush over Gore by 11-13. Stupid Gore gave up on Ohio at that point and did not spend another penny in the State or campaign in the State. Gore ended up losing by just 3 points. Look at the track record for the polls in 2000. I'm not an expert but I'll but they were wrong more than they were right. The worst thing to do is to get discouraged. Keep Ohio in 2000 in mind. With a little work in October Gore would have carried Ohio and we would not be posting like this right now.


Good point, but if the resources diverted to OH takes away from PA, WIS, NJ & IA, and Kerry loses any combination or all of those states, what good would it do??

Kerry will soon be pinned down in GORE "Blue" states he has to have, or risk being trampled in this election - it's not a pretty picture for John-John these days.

Bush is even or up slightly in Rasmussen's daily state numbers in all states. CO came out for Bush, NH for Kerry (but we've known that for months). Also, the new Zogby is out, 46/43 for Bush with Nader, 47/44 without.

Go Bush 2004!

I believe Rasmussen called the 2000 election almost as close as did Zogby.
Anybody have the data on that?

Here are his 7-day rolling averages for his Sep 19 report:

Presidential tracking:
Bush 48-47

Bush - Kerry -
FL 48-47
MI 46-48
OH 48 –45
CO 46 –45
IL 39- 50
MN 46-47
IA 47-46
OR 49-46
WI 47-45
MO 50-46
NJ 47-49
16 battleground states: 46.4 – 47.5 (+1.1K)

Sure doesn’t look like a blowout for our Capon in Chief.
Also, an incumbent's share of the popular vote is roughly equal his avg approval rating just before the election. Our Capon in Chief has been running in the high 40s, low 50s with Zogby's in the high 40s. Our CinC must have at least 50% to prevail -- or so we're told by the folks who keep track of this black art of polling.

Smooth Jazz-

I'd had the sense from a couple of fairly civil conversations that you were interested in reasonable discussion.

Your comments above about the state polls are just dopey and suggest that my faith was mistaken.

You indicate that Kerry is behind or flailing in a bunch of states, according to all polls. Per race2004.net, this is clearly not so.

In Illinois, he's up by 11% in the 9/16 poll. In the Research 2000 9/9 poll, he's up by 15%. Hardly flailing or behind, unless you're using a very broad definition. You might notice that the latest South Carolina poll shows Bush up by only 6%, so perhaps you should include in your statement that Bush is flailing in some of his states, too.

The last poll shown at the Racenet site or at RealClear Politics has Kerry up by 9.7% on Sept. 3. Hardly flailing.

As for Minnesota, Market Research Groups on Sept. 13 showed Kerry up by 9%. Again, hardly flailing.

You indicate that all polls are showing New York, California, and Michigan within 6 or 7 points. But the latest Marist poll (9/14) shows Kerry up by 11 points in NY. The ARG poll of CA on 9/13 shows Kerry up by 11. Your point on Michigan is, remarkably enough, correct. But then again, Michigan is a battleground, so being within 6 or 7 is hardly unexpected. And the latest poll there that I can find was by a GOP group, but nonetheless shows Kerry up by 7%.

I've replied to you on a couple other points on this thread but received no reply.

Your post to which I've just replied is so absurdly over the top that you've lost all credibility with me. I suspect that doesn't matter to you, but that's your loss, not mine.

The posts regarding the polling of Gore in 2000 are correct. Donna Braizille, Gore's campaign manager, has mentioned it several times. Their strategic mistake was overspending early on couple with not fighting until it was too late in states like Ohio. The lesson is not to do what we did the last time- that is to conceed too early just because things have gotten tough. Kerry, at least on this level, is playing on a level field. The on the ground dynamics say that we are on par financially and in terms of the get out the vote efforts in battleground and competitive states. Americans- including we Democrats lack of history, is amazing to me. Even, I am guilty of not understanding fully how some of the things we are seeing are wholy predictable. Are we in a tough spot? Yes, and, anyone who thinks going up against a likeable incumbent would be a cake walk is fooling themselves or smoking some of that pot that NORML keeps trying to legalize. Is this over- no- it's just in the final stretch- you can give up the race now, or dig in for the the last quarter of the race knowing that you are behind as any disciplined player would do. Every indication frankly is that this is precisely what Kerry is doing, and if the hype is true, this is where he excells because he gets rid of the b.s. and goes for the jugular. As I mentioned in an earlier post, any Republican (or Democrat) deluding him or herself into not reading the comments behind the numbers is making a serious mistake. Your guy, like our guy, is still vulnerable. The truth is that the Dems don't need to convince all right leaning people to our side. All we need in a volatile environment like this- and this is key- is to swing the lukewarm supporters. If you don't believe that the support is lukewarm. Look at commentaries by the polls that you re using (from Gallup to any number of other polls they indicate that these numbers suggest a volatile electorate right now and are par for the course- the only serious way to deal w/ conflicting polls is to realize that people are going back and forth between the candidates (I swear only partisans couldnt see that)0). Also, as a practical matter, think about this on the gut level- up until before the Republican convention (we are talking 3 weeks ago) this race was neck and neck. What has really changed other than the Republican convention and effective negative campaigning? The answer, which both sides has to admit- is not much. My guess, and its a guess based on the gut, is that this support is lukewarm for both candidates right now. Neither side (of course I keep hoping that the Republicans will start getting cocky like some of the right wingers who come on here are, but I cant see them doing this) can afford to assume that they are "safe."


All states? Obviously not since you show Kerry up in NH. It's pretty much impossible to figure out what you're saying.


Thanks for the info.

Latest Zogby mildly encouraging info:


Recall he called the 2000 election closer than anyone of his competitors.

Latest Zogby mildly encouraging info:


Recall he called the 2000 election closer than anyone of his competitors.

A number of posts here refer to Gallup and the party ID of respondants - without a clear understanding of what Gallup is actually doing. They are normalizing their data to show a GOP advantage, regardless of what the respondants actually indicate. One of the polls that showed a deadlock last week (unsure if Pew or Harris) was not doing this.

Until recently I thought Americans would be smarter in Election 2004 and see that Kerry/Edwards have a much better plan for America and Americans based on these simple FACTS and that 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 ( with less people accessing the Web to crosscheck information and no political blogs ) 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. Over the past 4 years Bushco has violated TRUST to the American electorate by distorting the truth with deceptive wizardry.

FACT: 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, war on terror. And, the US mainstream media ( with some exceptions ) is bending over backwards to help.

Now I'm not so sure and here's why....

The election is close but Kerry/Edwards are behind in electoral votes and have to win 7 of the 10 key battleground states including 2 of big 3 ( PA, FL, OH )

In a poll by the Pew Research Center, 29 percent of those surveyed said the debates would matter in deciding how they would vote. Those undecided voters could make a huge difference. The candidates' differences are more clearly pronounced this year than usual on major issues that divide the country: Iraq, job losses, rising health care costs and the mushrooming federal deficit.

Kerry/Edwards have solid winning positions on the KEY ISSUES except for Iraq and 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.

Kerry must nail Bush on Iraq to get these votes ! In order to win the lions share of undecideds and attract swing Republican voters in these battleground states Kerry needs to make a bold move.

Here it late Sept and the Republicans are still playing their FEARMONGERING card like Dennis Hastert’s comments that Al Qaeda wants John Kerry to be elected. While I applaud John Edwards quick and solid retort Bushco is still going to continue to play these political games all the way to Nov 2 because they can get away with it.

The only way Kerry/Edwards can wipe off that smirk off of Bush's face and turn it into a worried look is by going for the jugular on Bush/Cheney's disasterous Iraq war where they "link-in" terror so they can promote their fearmongering meme. Kerry needs to be more forceful in clearly spelling out why Bush has FAILED in Iraq by clearly articulating these points

1. Break the false link between Iraq and terror which will go a long way to calling the kettle black on Bush/Cheney's fearmongering card.

2. The mainstream US media has been painting a false picture and perception of Bush. Kerry must call out the US media on their lame reporting on Iraq that is covering for Bush's stupidity and arrogance.

3. Kerry must clearly state how he will not allow Iraq to turn into a "super rogue state" like the next Lebanon and articulate his exit strategy for Iraq.

Elections could be next major casualty as slaughter spills over

The NET NET: Going for the jugular will ensure that America will NOT get DUPED again and guarantee a win on Nov 2.

PS: I predict that when the media and the public wise up on Iraq at some point (if Bush wins a 2nd term ) we'll be hearing how Kerry failed as a candidate to bring this to the nation's attention during the campaign. That is, the media will continue to blame the Democrats and let the Republicans escape responsibility for what have clearly been Republican mistakes.

LD, you are right. It really is quite striking how close Ohio turned out in 2000 given that Gore abandoned it so early. And by adandoning Ohio early the Dems spent very little on GOTV efforts. This year is going to be way different, I have to believe. The numbers from 2000 show that it won't take much to flip Ohio.

Bush 2,351,209 49.97%
Gore 2,186,190 46.46%

New Zogby
Bush Continues To Hold Slim Lead Over Kerry (46%-43%); President Widens the Gap In the War on Terrorism (75%-19%)- While Kerry Leads On Other Top Issues, New Zogby America Poll Reveals

With just 44 days to go before voters cast their ballots, President George W. Bush continues to hold a slim lead over Senator John Kerry (46%-43%), according to a new Zogby America poll. The telephone poll of 1066 likely voters was conducted from Friday through Sunday (September 17-19, 2004). Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.1%.

Presidential Candidates %
Sept 17-Sept19

Republican - George W. Bush

Democrat - John Kerry

Independent - Ralph Nader

Libertarian - Michael Badnarik

Constitution - Michael Peroutka

Green - David Cobb



Unfortunately, the race wont be won here.. so why stray from the regular debate and analyses to worry about the GOPers who are here?

Its quite obvious that Kerry and crew has their own plan and it certainly does not gel with those of the supporters on this site. So what can you do? NOTHING but quit the chat and go campaign. I see that the GOPers are here doing an excellent job setting the mongoose amoung the chickens and lots of the them have already begun to scatter.

These guys have brought their campaigning here and its working with the fence sitters and the chicken hearted supporters. Quite frankly, I think that more work needs to be done by every supporter here... This elections is not about election Kerry, its about removing incompetence and failure from the White House.

Technically then, you dont need party supporters on your side, you simply need anyone who knows that this country is in a mess because of Bush.. You just need anyone who knows that Bush messed up Iraq and turned a peaceful nation into a terrorist breeding camp. YOu just need anyone who needs a better life.

These are the people who will vote to remove Bush. So quit the chat and go out and get out the vote.


As found at mydd.com, below are the results of some of Rasmussen's state-by-state polling this weekend (Kerry's %'s shown first, followed by Bush's):

St K/E B/C
CO 45% 46%
CA 55% 39%
NH 51% 45%
NY 49% 44%
SC 44% 50%
WA 50% 45%

Colorado remains really tight. I believe Bush beat Gore there by 9% or so in 2000, but this is the 4th or 5th poll in a row showing only a 1 or 2 point advantage for Bush. I guess Kerry is probably going to look at putting serious resources there.

It's good to see the New Hampshire result after hearing on Meet The Press about the Mason-Dixon poll released earlier today. Aside from that M-D poll, Kerry has lead in NH throughout the past 3-4 months. It's good to see him back in charge.

I'm scratching my head a bit about the NY and SC results. I live in NY State. Bush is persona-non-grata here. Gore carried NY by 25% (60% to 35%) in 2000. Bush won't get within 18-20% of Kerry in NY when all is said and done. This result is a bit of a head scratcher - I'm guessing that this still relates somehow to the NY convention / 9-11 anniversary. Actually, the more likely reason is that Rasmussen just got a bad batch of poll respondents.

Kerry being down by only 6 points in SC is a little strange, but perhaps people down there are finally waking up to a bad local economy. In being the exact reverse of the NY numbers, the SC result is probably more a function of an overly pro-Kerry sample.

Bel is right! Come on, fellow Dems ... its time to buck up and win this thing for Kerry.

While I enjoy the many thoughtful insights on this site (not including the not so skillfully concealed GOP trollers whose posts are really quite silly and just a waste of otherwise good cyberspace), it almost seems that some of us are despondent over the fact that Kerry isn't ahead of Bush by 20 points at this stage. Sorry, but that just isn't going to happen. We all know (or should know) that America is a 45-45-10 nation. About 45 percent of the electorate are hard core GOPers and would vote for a fencepost (which, by the way, would be an improvement over the current president) if it was a registered Republican while 45% of voters are going to be casting their ballots for the Democratic candidate no matter what (assuming they all come out and vote). That means this Kerry campaign is about two things:

1. Mobilizing the Dem base and ensuring all of these folks come out to vote on November 2nd;

2. Fighting for and winning over the nmajority of the 10 percent of the electorate who are independents.

The reality is that race is currently damn close. Forget Gallup and other joke polls with methodologies skewed to overrepresent Republicans; Zogby and Rasmussen are showing this race is statistically tied as of today. Rasmussen also has Kerry swinging back up in Florida and Pennsylvania and as of today is now tied with Bush in those two critical battleground states.

The polls are going say all sorts of different things over the next few weeks, and Kerry and Bush will go up and down, but polls will not determine who is victorious on November 2nd. Kerry will win this thing IF we Democrats keep the faith and go out, work hard, mobilize our base and win over the majority of independents. The underlying discontent that independent voters continue to show with the direction that Bush has taken this nation on ought to give us great hope the independent votes are for the taking if we are up to the task of taking them.

Its time to stop spending so much time freeting about the what the latest poll said and start spending more time fighting to win this thing.


Ever watch "The Road to the White House" on cpan?
They show footage of campaign appearances, without commentary, pretty fairly drawing from both sides.

Tonight, for example, it was Laura Bush in Iowa and John Edwards (the Breck Girl) in Ohio.

People(Republicans and the curious) greeted Laura like she was a rock star. Pure adulation lighting up their faces, everyone straining to hear every word, clap at every opportunity, and hoping to get close enough to reach out and touch.

Edwards lost his crowd after five minutes. Total apathy, perfunctory applause, cheering at the predictable punch lines and then finishing with a variation of his patented (as in same old) Two Americas now become "making One America" speech.And speaking of Edwards, I think he sees this as networking to run in 2008. He's already seen the handwriting on the wall, but don't worry, he's an empty suit.

Polls give you a snap shot of the electorate, and are open to interpretation. The real evidence is clear when you see how ordinary people respond to the candidates.

Bush's supporters absolutely love him. Can't get enough of him. Nodding their heads like a bobble doll while he's speaking.

Kerry's crowds, we'll lets just say "they ain't feeling him". I swear to god, I saw a woman talking on a cell phone in the FRONT ROW of a Kerry speech. Probably disruptive too, because the crowd looked sedated as Kerry droned on and on and on. I bet they don't remember one idea, one quote, one moment of inspiration.

Forget the polls, they're lagging events on the ground. The real story is unfolding in the crowds. Looks like Kerry is headed to that same pergatory in which Gore resides. I guess after he loses in a landslide, he'll go back to being the Senator that no one likes, except now everyone blames.

Kinda sad, don't you think.

4 More Years!

The polling debate is fine but it proves very little and no matter how we analyse it and from which angle we take the analysis, it still wont change a thing.

The Kerry campaign needs people to bombard the press, campaign on GOP sites, beat the streets, donate money and time, spread the Kerry message and debunk the bush campaign.

Again, I know the GOPers on here would like us to believe that Bush is way ahead and they are sitting back with a cold beer and waiting for the results. They are not and I know that they are sweating it out.. and the beer in thier hands is HOT from anxiety and stress. Lets keep them sweating by laying the pressure on the Bush campaign... there isnt much time... the race is nearing the end.

None of us seem to know what Kerry will do in the next month.. so until that time, we must WORK for him. We must do everything possible to deflate the bush ballon and shrink whatever lead he has or thinks he has.

For those who are passionate about polls and just cant stay away from them.. by all means do the debate.. but lets hope you find the time to get something done to bolster this kerry campaign. We cannot and will not afford another 4 year bush fisaco.

The time is here... its time to strike.

I agree. Bush is not only not ahead, but his so-called bounce has faded out. Bush is even with Kerry, and that's not a great place for an incumbant to be in this close to the election, particularily given the strong negatives Bush has with the majority of independent voters.

Make no mistake, for all their fake bravado, the GOPers are sweating. Down deep they realize what a lousy product they have to market ...