« Gallup Poll Gives Bush Only a 2 Point Bounce | Main | New ICR Poll Has Kerry Over Bush by a Point »

Kerry Widens Lead in Battleground States!

Now that's a headline you're not likely to see in the mainstream media, consumed as they are with the storyline du jour about Bush's Big Mo' from the convention.

But that's what the internals of the latest Gallup poll tell us. Prior to the Republican convention, Kerry had a one point lead among RVs (47-46) in the battleground states. After the Republican convention, now that battleground voters have had a chance to take a closer look at what Bush and his party really stand for, Kerry leads by 5 in these same states (50-45)! Note that Kerry gained three points among battleground voters, while Bush actually got a negative one point bounce.

And wait--there's more! The Gallup poll's internals also show that Kerry continues to lead among independents (49-46) and that both parties' partisans are equally polarized for their respective candidates (90-7). Note that these findings directly contradict the results of the recent Newsweek poll, which showed Bush doing much better among Republican partisans than Kerry was doing among Democratic partisans. Note also that, given the equal polarization of partisans and Kerry's lead among independents, the only possible reason Bush has any lead at all among Gallup's RVs must be because their sample has a GOP advantage on party ID (my guess is 5 points) that is inconsistent with almost all other polling data from this campaign season (see my recent post on the Newsweek poll for more discussion of this issue).

Indeed, if equal polarization of partisans continues and Kerry carries a 3 point lead on independents into the election, he'll win fairly easily, since the Democratic proportion of voters in presidential elections is always higher, not lower, than the Republican proportion. In 2000, after all, Bush carried independents by 2 points and received stronger support from his partisans than Gore did from his--but still lost the popular vote by half a point.

Now that's another storyline you're unlikely to see in the mainstream media.

Comments

Doesn't gallop correct for party id when it calculates poll results? This seems like a standard pollster tool.

Ruy,

Why are polls, especially Time and Newsweek, but also Gallup allowed to get away with the Republican tilt in their polls? Don't they want accuracy or are they partisan and just want to sell the horserace??

I'm also getting prepared for a tilt that I noticed in 2000. This is when numerous polls all of a sudden switch to "likly voters," in the last 2 or 3 weeks and then state, "Look at the dramatic shift away from the Dems to the Reps., when it is just a switch from registered poll to likly poll.

We need to stop this game, how do we do it?

Can someone please tell me what RV's and LV's are?

The Registered voter polls look very close for Kerry, but the Likely voter polls show Kerry getting squished.
I think he is only losing by 3 or 4 points in reality. That could easily be erased.

can that first comment be deleted?

RV = Registered Voters.
LV = Likely Voters.

Obviously LV's are a subset of RV's, but every pollster has a different method for figuring out who is "likely" to vote.

Suzanne: Registered Voters and Likely Voters.

All it will take is the galvanization of one traditionally low-voting demographic, say the youth vote (18-24) or the single woman vote, and this race blows wide open, is not a squeaker, but rather a big win for Kerry.

I think we can do that.

Why does Kerry consistently do worse among likely voters than among registered voters in every poll?

The answer to MarshallRob's question is that unfortunately lower income voters, who tend to
vote Democratic if they do vote, tend not to vote
as heavily. Also, this year, polls show Kerry with a
hefty lead among young voters, but turnout of young
voters is notoriously weak.

The answer to MarshallRob's question is that unfortunately lower income voters, who tend to
vote Democratic if they do vote, tend not to vote
as heavily. Also, this year, polls show Kerry with a
hefty lead among young voters, but turnout of young
voters is notoriously weak.

The Zogby Poll is interesting seeing that it comes at the height of the "Bush Bounce". Let's keep our fingers crossed but if this trend continues, Kerry will soon be up by the 2-4 points he was in most polls before the Republican Convention. I must confess that I was depressed for a few days but am feeling better now about the outcome. Maybe the harsh tone of the Republican Convention is filtering through the pro GOP Media and is not setting well with swing voters.

Today's Rasmussen daily tracking poll has Bush and Kerry tied at 47%, right where they were before the GOP convention.

Now its Kerry and Bush, mano a mano. Bush has no convention to surround him with adoring fanatics and greedy synchophants like Zell Miller to whip the primates into a frenzy. Only himself and John Kerry, both of them out stumping or facing each other in debates. They even have a degree of parity with the funds available for ads and the ground war.

Locally, we opened 3 campaign offices along the Lake Michigan shoreline today, all with great attendance and local media coverage. I've got my bumper stickers, yard signs, a speaking engagement lined up and I'm ready to go door to door for K/E.

What a rush! I truly love the smell of napalm in the morning.

John Edwards released the following statement today in response to comments made by Dick Cheney in Iowa that America is more likely to be attacked if John Kerry and John Edwards are elected in November:

“Dick Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line today, showing once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it's an American issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that.

“John Kerry and I will keep America safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it.”

I cannot wait for the debates ...

Kerry going to take Bushie boy to the woodshed and Edwards is going to verbally deconstruct Cheney hopefully causing him to pop a gasket.

Predication: Kerry/Edwards will be up +3 to 4 in two weeks.

Thanks for the great reading on the Gallup data and the battleground states, Ruy.

I believe the race is tied nationwide, give or take a point, and that we're in good shape in battleground states. Your notes are great comfort, and make me feel my conclusions are sound.

Rasmussen has proved today that his notes yesterday trying to placate the hoards of angry Republicans were wrong. It wasn't a renegade poll this weekend. It was the trend breaking back after people got a dose of Zell Miller, Darth Cheney, and Dumbya.

Alan & others,
I too was depressed for the past few days but I must say that the recent decisions and tone of KE02 has changed my mood (plus the insight of the always brilliant Ruy). A previous JFK once said that "there are 20 or 30 million Americans with the resources necessary for respesentation in Washington. That the interests of the vast majority, the 110 or 120 million belong to the president of the United States." I love America and the Democratic party. And this JFK too.

Cheney's comment today shows that he knows the situation is shaky. From this point out it looks like things will deteriorate for the Bushies and they will do anything and say anything to rouse people's fear. They are going to risk everything, just as they did in foreign policy. This will be truly frightening. I am praying that americans wake up from this trance.

warp resident yes Bush/Cheney are desperate which is why I provided the vignette above.

I'm confident the majprity of the American electorate will NOT be DUPED again by more Bush/Cheney misleading of the public, distorting fact, and contriving false realities.

4 years of LACK of TRUST with ABYSMAL PERFORMANCE is plenty enough.

Again I predict Kerry/Edwards will be up +3 to 4 in two weeks and will definitely win on Nov 2

Do polls correct for the increasing number of people who screen their calls, or otherwise filter out any solicitation-type calls?

I screen mine, see, and if I've ever been called by a pollster I didn't answer and they didn't leave a message. (Except last week, when that push-poll was going on. Thanks to the blogs, I realized who those "surveyors" were, and didn't call back.)

I think there are a lot of people who screen calls, who've given up landlines in favor of cells as their only phone, and who otherwise aren't available for polling. Seems to me that would skew things by at least a point or two.

Personally, I think these erattic polls, nasty ads and such are really an asset for Kerry and Kerry supporters.

They serve the distinct purpose of getting the high rolling members of the party involved in pushing Kerry's program forward. Just last week, they all came out and told Kerry, in no uncertain terms, to do something about the tenor of the campaign.

They also got Clinton more involved, even tho he was minutes away from surgery.

They got a more powerful batch of helpers from the outside, to the inside.

They got Kerry to sharpen, not his message, but his approach to his message. Maybe he will sharpen his message next.

They are getting rank and file supporters upset and now they are beating the campaign trail even more, ensuring a victory.

They are obviously getting some independents off the fence and now Kerry is ahead on undecided voters.

All of this attacking is working as an asset for the team. Its providing valuable fuel for the Kerry crew to douse Bush and burn him at the electoral stake..

Its heartening to see posts on this site where members are relating the efforts that they are personally making to ensure that Kerry wins this race.

Now that the analysis is being done, its being realised that the swift boat adverts were not radically effective. The two week period has passed since the Kerry response and I have not seen any source that reported a bush lead based on those ads. As I have always stated, that LA TIMES poll was simply junk.

The analyses are also proving that the bounce from the RNC was not something to write home about and I suspected such when I realised that Bush and Cheney are still campaigning in the frantic mode. Look at the things that Cheney is saying. He speaks like a desparate person, trying to scare the populace into voting for Bush.

Bush is patting himself on the back about lack lustre job numbers. He is running away from having three debates, taking comfort in deficit projections which are slightly lower than anticipated.

I remain confident that the Kerry team will use these assets to good effect and create a new situation in the US where the new president can get to work repairing all the broken fences at home and abroad. Broken fences created by Bush and Cheny.

Say what you will, I think W has locked up the OBGYN vote.

On MarshallRob's question, Why does Kerry do worse among LVs?
Because past performance is the best predictor of future events. As I understand it, Gallup asks people whether they've voted in all of the recent elections, then filters down to what they assume the turnout will be. If they assume turnout will be 52%, but 60% of the pool says they're certain to vote, they'll get rid of the 8% of the total sample least likely to vote, and report the 52% figure. If they guess wrong about turnout, the likely voters result is correspondingly skewed.
If everybody voted, the Democrats would always win national elections.

As always, Ruy's analysis today is very insightful and helps to put things in perspective. Without this website and few others, one would truly be in the dark about what is really behind the numbers and wouldn't know the unreported biases inherent in some of these polls.

What pisses me off is having to put up with some of the shills in the corporate media who repeat the same flawed polling figures and never take you intelligently through the numbers like is done at this website.

I watched part of Hardball earlier. Mathews was hinting at Kerry's political obituary tonight, presumably because of the results of the weekend (Time and Newsweek) polls. It was one of these "what's wrong with the Kerry campaign" conversations. Part of his whole stupid discussion ended up revolving around the "loner" wind surfing activity in which Kerry engaged while taking time off during the GOP convention. ("Why doesn't he play a team sport, like pick-up basketball?") The conversation ultimately boiled down to how people really like Bush personally because "he speaks plainly, is a man of the people, knows how to communicate simply, you know where he stands, etc." Enough! It's the same old lying talking point crap.

What finally frustrated me was when old GOP warhorse Jack Kemp responded to a question by stating that "Kerry has already accused Dick Cheney of getting five deferments." Hello! That's not an accusation. It's a well known fact. Of course, I didn't see anyone else on the panel correct old Jack about his misleading use of the word "accused."

It was good to see that what's passing for serious political discourse in the news media these days is Kerry's "predilection" for "loner and elitist" sports and how that's going to cost him votes. This is all happening as we are in the midst of passing the 1,000 death toll mark for U.S. soldiers in Iraq and the nation's domestic condition is suffering because of Bush's policies.

As others have discussed at this website and at others, we do need better spokespeople. (I join the others who have written here asking why Ruy isn't being used by the Democrats in making their talking points when it comes to these polls.) All you frequently get on cable news and on the various talk shows is the mindless, repetitive drivel dealing with only surface numbers.

In short I agree with the essence of most comments, and do appreciate that all have come to a very similiar basic view independently of each other.

Also, I fully concur with the poll analysis at the webblog given my limited review. The spin, manipulation and "smear and fear" tactics will continue at an ever increasing pace. I suspect that the attempt of Bush & Co. in August to manipulate via the Swift Bate Boat Vets, the Red Meat Zell Miller & fellow travelers convention, and the Time/Newsweek polls have had a negative effect on Bush and the general public is much more aware of this nonsense than is now apparent. Remember Ashcroft, Paul O'Neill, Ridge's terror warnings and alarms,the 9/11 Commissions, and on, on, on, on, etc. The broad/general public, I believe, has had enough and want these fools gone.

On the practical level two items, in large measure these two are basic can do stuff. The so-called main stream and balanced reporting press need be challanged at every turn by all available means, letter, calls, e-mails, etc. Second, maximum efforts to educate and register all possible friendly and potential voters, encourage absentee voters where appropriate, and work with local groups to register new voters, canvass, distribute materials, and so on. The wheel does not need be reinvented, more need be in use and in focused motion.

Charlie T. ,

You raised an issue about Chris Matthews and his still hanging on the bad polls of last week and ranting as if they are relevant or accurate.

I used to think these guys knew what was going on, but they don't. They take what they are given and repeat it ad nauseam. News people don't dig stories up any more. You have to practically hog tie them, hand them a fully developed story, and explain it to them. You can bet your ass that some Dems put the story together for the Globe, and laid it out.

Chris Matthews will be on top this change in direction when it is painfully obvious to all, and not before.

Same with Judy Woodruff, Wolf, et al. These people do not know what is going on in politics as well as WE do. Bet on it. They live inside a bubble, and they read prompters.

The good news is they are parrots, and once they learn it, they'll repeat it like IT is the new gospel.

**********************************

Talking points

*Bush National Guard records missing

*Bush leap from over 500 others to get into Guard

*Bush drug use in Guard and at Camp David

************************************

Why?

Because it's payback time.

While these polls are encouraging, I still find it harrowing (like many here) that Kerry hasn't closed the deal. Thinking rationally about this it seems to me that the debates will be crucial. Only twice in the last 6 elections has an incumbent lost and in both cases the debates were critical in tipping the electorate to the challengers (Reagan in 1980 and Clinton in 1992). Up till then the people are still mulling over the incumbent's record and coming to terms with reality. This time the answer to Reagan's question "Are you better off than you were four years ago" will be obvious. The next question will be whether people will accept bush's cop out that it wasn't his fault and that things are better than they seem. The undecided will have to chose between the Bush/Cheney plate of warmed up promises or the Kerry/Edwards case for a new direction. The dems will have to make this choice crystal clear. Goreing the candidates with talk of their regular guy personality or aloofness isn't going to flush this year. The pundits are going to get an object lesson in civics.

What's amazing is that despite the laziness, timidity and mendacity of 98% of our mainstream media, KE04 continues to demonstrate such strength. This gives me hope.

I just saw “Bush’s Brain,” an good investigative documentary which traces the career of Karl Rove all the way back to his first dirty tricks, such as bugging his *own* office a week before a very close 1986 Texas congressional election he was then working for, then proceeding the next day to stage a news conference pinning this dirty trick on his opponent – who lost enough ground in the next seven days to lose that election. The film drove home to me the point made so often here: Rove is capable of absolutely ANYTHING, no matter how audacious or underhanded.

Don’t think for one moment that Rove shot his wad on the Swift Boat frauds. There will be more dirty tricks, and not just a garden variety manipulation of terror alert levels. We should be preparing NOW for the next big Rove lie campaign.

The story of Rove and the bug he planted in his own office, then "found it" is a Texas classic. He's as dirty and no good as any political operative has ever been. He's tight with Ken Lay and John Ashcroft both.

He has dual citizenship - Germany, too.

I suspect his "real" name is Goering or Goebbels.

***************************

Well, guys and gals, it's hitting the fan today for Boy George. The triple play is going down.

1. National Guard Records missing
2. National Guard service not done
3. Illegal drug use over 3 decades

=============================

Now that the smear boat liars have spent 5 weeks attacking Kerry from every possible angle, it has given the public an appetite to delve into Bush's history in a way it did not four years ago.

All the issues that got blown past in 2000 will now be front and center.

*Did Bush leap 500 others to get into the Guard?

*Did his daddy pull strings to do so?

*Did he do it to avoid going to Vietnam?

*Why did he quit flying after two years?

*Why did he flunk his physical?

*Why didn't he show up in Alabama?

*Why didn't he show up for Guard duty in Boston?

*Did he use cocaine at Camp David in the 1980s?

*Did he get arrested for cocaine in 1971 or 1972?

Time to answer, PRESIDENT COKEHEAD.

> I must confess that I was depressed for a few days but am feeling better now about the outcome.

Me too... I almost feel strong enough to start checking what the idiots at NATIONAL REVIEW and
THE WEEKLY STANDARD are writing again.


> Now its Kerry and Bush, mano a mano. Bush has no convention to surround him with adoring fanatics
> and greedy synchophants like Zell Miller to whip the primates into a frenzy. Only himself and
> John Kerry, both of them out stumping or facing each other in debates. They even have a degree
> of parity with the funds available for ads and the ground war.

Well, yes -- but Kerry arguably has the same problem. He needs to give forceful, clear and concise answers about where he stands in the TV debates. He has gotten a lot of help from the likes of his Vietnam "band of brothers," Edwards, Max Cleland, the Vilsacks etc.. But in the end, he needs to sell himself to the American people.

If this election is on "Shrub's" track record in 2000-04, Kerry should win. On the other hand, if the GOP manages to divert voter attention to emotional and/or abstract issues such as "character", "determination", "middle American values" and "leadership in difficult times", it isn't clear Kerry will fare much better than Dukakis did. Fortunately, Kerry does have some strengths in this department. When running against Bill Weld in the 1996 elections, I hear he dealt with the dreaded "Willie Horton question" much better than the Duke ever did ("governor, I know a few things about killing people...").


> All of this attacking is working as an asset for the team.
> Its providing valuable fuel for the Kerry crew to douse Bush and burn him at the electoral stake..

Let's hope so. It certainly is very uncommon for an incumbent President to sound this negative only a few months before the election... At this stage, Reagan (in '84) and Clinton (in '96) were basically ignoring their hapless challengers. Both were busy trotting out numbers and proposals showing how good their first four years had been. The GOP convention was much more negative in this respect.
---
What "Shrub" & co. are doing now *did* work in 1988 and 2000, but the GOP candidate really did not have to defend his own track record as President in either election... I hope and believe Willie Horton ads and warm but diffuse appeals to "conservative conservatism" only work as long as the playing field is level; i.e. the incumbent is not bogged down by 1 million+ lost jobs and fiascos in Iraq and elsewhere.

MARCU$

The Swift Boat Liars attacks on Kerry now can be seen to be the acts of desperate, shaken men. Only if you are truly desperate do you roll the dice on an attack on the military record of your opponent when you yourself are a deserter.

Zogby says that Bush is gaining with "investor class". Inasmuch as there have been no capital gains for anybody during the Bush years, this is surprising. Can't Kerry get Bob Rubin, Roger Altman, Warren Buffett to campaign for him and reassure these people?

Sorry, I don't think that pay back fantasies about Bush's own military record will work. The public has already absorbed them: Bush was a rich boy who has been spared from everything in the 70s and 80s. Everybody knows that. But he has bettered himself. He found God. And he has proven to be a tough war leader..

Not my words, don't worry. But that is how even the right wing sees it. Jim Robinson, founder of freerepublic, regarded Bush as a useless never-do-well – in 1999. Nowadays he and his mob have forgiven Bush everything they have (and haven't yet) heard from his past.

I'm all for aggressive rebuttal. I hope history will judge the so called "quality" media for the spineless scumbags they are picking up this Willie Horton ad (Washingtonpost yesterday). But we can't put out our own Horton ads. We have to respond, FAST, and tie it to Bush. But ads about Bush's guard (non-)duty, about coccaine, about his driving record, about this abortion story simply WILL NOT work. On the contrary, they will backfire.

One of the New York protesters carried a sign: "Where is John Hinckley when you need him?" You'd think that one sorry dude's crazy sign within houndreds of thousands of legitimate slogans against Bush would not gain publicity. But it did. Thank goodness it didn't get out of the (declared) conservative media.

That's what we're up to. We have four years of material to draw from, 2000-2004. Bush has failed big, and we have to point that out. But forget what's been before. It won't work. Otherwise it would already have, four years ago.

My question is, based on the convention bounce: did going negative really work for Bush?

so do these results mean that, while running a lackluster national campaign, KE04 is fighting smart in the battleground states?

Negative ads against Bush's past won't backfire. They will bring to the surface what everyone does indeed already know and make that knowledge undeniable. The point will become the present lying by this administration across the board, not simply about Bush's past.

Take Cheney's current scurrilous talking point against Kerry. It's incredible that anyone in the Republican campaign let him say this, really. Cheney is the guy who said the administration absolutely knew that Iraq had WMD *and* nukes. Ooops. Wrong. Cheney is the guy who kept saying al Qaeda and Hussein had ties/connections/relationships/whatever. Uh oh. Wrong again. Now, Cheney wants the country to buy a third load of codswollop. Perhaps he's tacitly accepting the third strike and you're out rule.

Kerry's tone & message has improved, but he CANNOT forget what's coming for October. . . . as stated already, these people will do and say anything !!!!!!
How can they call themselves Christian???
Not in my Bible.

***********************************
Aunt Deb said:

"Negative ads against Bush's past won't backfire. They will bring to the surface what everyone does indeed already know and make that knowledge undeniable. The point will become the present lying by this administration across the board, not simply about Bush's past."
=====================

That's it.

I don't know how anyone can look at the smear boat liars' impact on Kerry's positive and negative numbers without seeing it must be countered by making BUSH the issue.

Bless you, Ray! You have saved my sanity and that of a bunch of other people, I bet.

I think one of the best indicators as to how much trouble Bush is in is the way he's campaigning. As noted above, he and the Republicans are swinging wildly, throwing around extreme accusations that few independents (who tend to se Kerry as a basically good if slightly aloof man) take seriously. As an Independent acquaintance of mine recently put it: "Bush can raise all thre doubts he wants to about Kerry, but as the incumbent he can't run very far from his record."

Bush may be tied or even slightly ahead now, but so was Carter 24 years ago. And now, as then, most people don't really think the incumbent deserves to be re-elected. Scaring the public into re-electing you has never really worked if they didn't already like you. Didn't work for Hoover in '32, didn't work for Carter in '80, didn't work for Bush in '92, and it won't work for W this time. It might not be a Kerry blowout, but Bush has no record to sell, and fear of the other guy can only get you so far.

thecreature, you echo what I've thought for months. It's delusional for incumbent presidents to think they can win by running negative campaigns against their opponents. They can keep the polls close that way (if such things make them happy), but come Election Day, the public will vote up or down, much as intended from the start. There were FAR more doubts about Reagan the day before election in 1980 -- he was another Goldwater, the guy who'd garnered only 38% in 1964 -- but the voters didn't want Carter, and, in the end, they voted NO they only way they could.

This is not to suggest negative campaigning can't succeed anywhere. Some obviously believe it turned the election of '88 (though many of us would point to the booming economy and Reagan's successful dealing with Gorbachev, and suggest Bush was always more likely to win that bout). And in state or local races, the tactic has had many successes (Gray Davis, the recent example, won unpopularly because his opponent Simon was beyond the California pale). But presidential races are in a class by themselves -- they get unique focus from American voters, and are not subject to alot of the vagaries seen in lesser races.

The bottom line is, as thecreature suggests, if Bush were in good shape, he'd be running like Reagan or Clinton did in their re-election bids: essentially ignoring the opponent, letting people know how well things were going. That the entire Bush campaign is based on how BAD Kerry is tells you they have nothing to sell. It shouldn't surprise us on November 2nd when the voters then opt not to buy.

First of all, thanks in abundance to Ruy. We sure needed his surgical skill at picking apart these polls. Second, why isn't Kerry hammering home to looming possibility of the draft if Shrub is "reelected?" He'd get every 18-year-old's vote and get every 18-year-old to the polls (male & female)--a pretty large group I'd guess. Does anyone know if Kerry speaks to this on the stump? I just haven't heard.

Regarding the newsweek poll - what gives with the 18-29yo segment???? leading-up to the poll, wasn't there a huge - 20 or 30 point spread amongst this group.....i find it incredulous that bush could have closed this gap. i have no statistical data to back up my assertion here, but i would guess that among the 18-29yo group, a much smaller portion even watched the convention coverage as compared to the general public. there is definitely something awry with this poll.....the sample has got to be scewed majorly....no way bush got a 15pt bounce from this group.

Isn't Bush famous for winning debates? Even though Kerry is famous for taking off at the end of a campaign and winning, shouldn't we be a bit worried that Bush will beat him in a debate? His "fuzzy math" bull worked last time...

Keep the focus on Bush's manifest record of failure and he loses this election. Simple as that !

I cannot wait for the debates ...

Kerry going to take Bushie boy to the woodshed and Edwards is going to verbally deconstruct Cheney.

Your analysis is sound, assumming Democratic voter turnout is sufficiently high.

Karl Rove is operating under the "Base election" throey. Meaning, turning out your base will bear greater rewards than convincing a few undecideds in the middle.

This was true, sadly, in 2002. In that election, Democrats generally stayed home. Especially in Blue States. (North Dakota and Louisiana being significant exceptions).

The GOP mobilized tehir base, and got them to the polls.

This year, however, Bush himself is on the ballot and the spectre of 2000 will drive Democrats to the polls in waves.

This raises the ironic possibility that Bush will win the popular vote, but lose the election because the GOP base is concentrated in states that probably wouldn't have voted for Kerry anyway.

Wouldn't that be poetic justice?

More kool-aid for the delusional?

You (liberals) will wake up November 3rd, and be amazed and crushed. Yet you won't know anybody that voted for Bush.

Guest I. You might not have noticed but the bush clan is floundering. You and I know that they intend to win these elections at any cost, even if it means scaring your pants off. I am sure this is not the kinda prez. you really want in the white house.

Beyond making you scared, what else can they do to get your vote? Maybe they can carry on scratching around on Kerry's Vietnam experience or maybe they can talk alot about bush's missing moments in the military.

Or maybe the GOP can talk about better medicare and explain away the price hike approved by Bush the next day.

You know just as well as the world, that Bush does not have a crumb on which to run an election campaign and hence he has to resort to every cheap trick in the book.

Being a liberal is not as bad a position as you might think. It really speaks to a progressive people, who are willing to examine both sides of the issues while sticking to the truth. I'll bet you cant say the same for conservatives.

In any event, I expect that you too will go out and vote for Kerry so that you too can enjoy a better America, where the VP wont be scaring and dividing the country, but uniting it.

Vote for Kerry so that you can have a president who will rebuild the respect and credibility of this excellent country across the world, without selling out to any other country or special interests.

Vote for Kerry so that this time around, you can have someone who can truly bring back credibility to the white house. So that you can have someone who you know will change position on issues from time to time.... but in each instance, be telling the truth.

I am sure you are tired of the lies and smears and fabrications and distortions which the GOP has been sponsoring for the past 4 years.

Go campaign for Kerry.

Guest and other Bush shills are running scared. While they don't understand most of what we're saying, they can still tell that the bogus leads they have been touting are not there. Now the panic is setting in again.

Isn't it funny to watch them stumble into a Dem site, with their world class ignorance, poor writing skills, and inability to form complete thoughts?

They're the same guys who wet the bed until they're 13, then slap a NO FEAR sticker on everything.

Maria:

Yes, Bush is a capable debater. So is Cheney. Especially Cheney.

I don't believe a poll that questions only 1000 people is ever accurate. Try a million people. The polls are being manipulated to allow Bush to again steal the election and assure that nobody will question the results. I can't wait 'till ex- prosecutor Kerry hammers Bush in a debate.

On the subject of the Mainstream media and it's attitude to these fraudulent polls and what is fact/fiction.

R.E.M "Ignoreland" (1992) ;
"..T.v. tells a million lies, the paper’s terrified to report. Anything that isn’t handed on a presidential spoon, I’m just profoundly frustrated by all this..."

Search out that song and play it loud from now until Nov 2.

RE: Debates. Last time around Gore was doing his very up in your face "I'm gona fight for you!!" routine.. all very passionate etc and Gov. Chimp did this "hey, you know.." (god, he likes to say y'know a lot!) "..y'know.. I'm an ordinary guy like you folks.. blah blah.." (an ordinary guy with several million $ in the bank and the power of life or deathrow in one pen stroke that is - so not that ordinary really?) I recall some commentator later saying that the reason Gore was seen to have lost ground in those debates was that there wasn't a lot to be 'fighting' for back then, twas rosy days indeed. 4 years later and there is; A lot to fight for. What tone willJFK adopt for thse debates? a "fighter"? we shall see. OT: Sad but misty eyed was I looking through Bill C's book... those images, all those welcoming crowds in foreign lands... that world those people, they aren't lost to JFK..

Here in NJ, I can't vote come Nov 2 as I'm from the UK but the wife will and for our man!
Great site Ruy. Regards. ic.

I hate to be the non-optimist on this blog, but today's Washington Post Style section finally has it right. The problem is Bob Schrum, a 7 time Presidential loser. He cannot win the big one, but he keeps trying at the expense of our country. Why must the Dems stick with a Washington Insider who is getting rich while the Dem candidates lose. Until Kerry and the DNC clean house and bring in some new, young blood, they will not get a penny from me. I'll continue to support Move-on and ACT. Bush is not winning; we are giving him the election by sticking with the old, out-of-date in-crowd.

I know what these mainstream characters are trying to do. They are attempting to create a Bush steamroll effect by making it appear that he has the whole thing locked up. Goofy Chris Matthews the other night, for instance, referred to Dick Cheney as seeking to "drive a stake through the heart" on anti-terrorist policy, giving the impression that Kerry was ready to be taken down for good with one more well directed lance shot.

I hope the prospectively intimidated are checking out information points such as this one and getting the message. The spin is that it is over and that only a few diehard goofs are resisting this grand groundswell to Bush. Yes, he deserves four years on the basis of his swell record of lying us into war, plunging the Middle East into chaos, deteriorating our relations with trusted allies, creating a massive deficit, polluting the environment, presiding over a period of health care ripoffs, and generating a climate of hate that is poisoning America. Bush is the worst excuse for a so-called president that this nation has ever seen.

Bill Hare

I've been kinda depressed, because the pundits keep talking "significant lead"....It's now Sept. 13...please tell me again that there's no big lead!

Arlene Kelly