Double Digit Blues

Remove all ads!

Things are definitely not looking good for the Kerry campaign. Following the Republican National Convention last week, Bush now is showing a double-digit lead in public opinion polls over Kerry (52-41). Other polls released show the lead to be as little as 5 points, but one thing is very clear: In a race that was basically dead even though the past few months, Bush has opened up a sizeable lead.

Even more disturbing for Kerry supporters was that Kerry received almost no bounce at all following the Democratic National Convention in July. The prevailing wisdom at the time was that because 84% of Americans had already made up their minds as to who they were voting for (according to the polls taken at that time) that there simply were too few undecided voters left for the polls to swing dramatically one way or the other. However, based on the latest numbers it appears that assessment was either false or pretty much every previously undecided voter decided to vote for Bush.

The election has really polorized the country into Bush and Kerry camps, and I do intend for this to be a serious topic, however, I would like to reiterate a quote I heard regarding the undecided voters. It was spoken by Jason Alexander on Real Time with Bill Mahr which is televised on HBO. With Bush and Kerry being so far apart on most issues, he was very confused how anyone could still be undecided and asked, "Who the f*** are these people?" Which I thought was very funny, and very telling.

 

Relax - it's not as bad as you're making it seem, though I do understand where you're coming from.

First off, Kerry did receive a bounce from the Democratic convention. More scientific polling conducted throughout the entire post-convention week showed a 4-6 point bounce. Small bounce of only a few points, but still a bounce - and relative to how divided the country is right now, a significant one. It only seemed like there was no bounce because every right-wing pundit from hell to breakfast was piping about the "expected 15 point post-convention bounce for Kerry" so that it would look like bad news when the real, non-impossible bounce finally came in. This shouldn't be a surprise from a party who predicted a 437 billion dollar defecit so they could deliberaltely spin a 422 billion dollar defecit as "good news, better than expected!" rather than acknowledge that it's the largest budget defecit we've ever had.

Second - the 52-41 bounce Bush got has been widely poo-pooed as deeply flawed polling. His actual bounce is closer to one or two points. Bush is ahead right now by a point or two over Kerry, which is understandable. Every other poll except for Newsweek taken at the time had widely different results.

The fact is that as of the day after the convention, internal polling of both campaigns had Bush up by about 4 points over Kerry. That lead has already started to slip. The Bush campaign simply took the highest poll and parroted it out to media outlets, knowing very well that it would take a few days and more polling to even out the average.

3 good reasons to be optimistic: First, every projection of the electoral college I've seen has Kerry winning pretty handily. As we learned in the last election, that's what counts. Second, no incumbant President in history with approval numbers any less than 55% this close to an election has ever won reelection. Bush has been about 45% for the last 2 months, and he's at 47% today. Unless Bush defies history here, things still look pretty grim for him. Third, undecided voters, as a rule, generally break for the challenger by a 3/1 margin. If they were happy with the incumbant, they wouldn't be undecided, would they?

 

Well, as you can see from the most recent pollings, Kerry remains in the lead, although during and the weekend after the RNC, Bush was in the lead. The 10 percent lead in Time(or Newsweek?) was incorrect. Look for yourself.

Here is the site where I got the info:
Electoral Votes


Edit: Yes, Death Rabbit, the electoral college does look sunny for Kerry.

 

Agreed, Death Rabbit. What matters is the electoral college, not the popular vote (in 2000 or 2004), and Kerry still has a clear lead there. Bush may have high poll numbers, but a lot of that is because of his strong base support (about 162 electoral votes' worth), and it doesn't matter if he wins those by 51% or 99%.

It looks like the hurricane season may push Florida to Kerry -- the hurricane neatly sliced through the most pro-Bush counties, which should knock out at least 5% of those votes. That's 27 votes for Kerry right there, courtesy of an Act of God. Literally!

Also, I wouldn't put much stock in the Nader vote. He'll get even less than Buchanan did in 2000. This time around, we can safely add at least half of what pollers claim they'll give Nader to the Kerry column.

Colorado can be ignored, too -- if it stays tied and it passes the new amendment to award votes proportionately, then it'll only be a single vote's difference between Bush and Kerry.

So cheer up, Aldeth -- my guy is still slated to lose! (I'd say that "your guy is slated to win", but I still haven't figured out the drive behind the Kerry campaign, except to make Bush lose.)

 

They're undecided because they can't decide on which one is the lesser of two evils.

Ah ha!! So you finally admitted it - God is on Kerry's side! And you're still voting for Bush?!? You evil sinner.

 

I really don't understand why so many people say they have no idea what Kerry's message and plans are. He does have a website and makes daily stump speeches after all. I'd think those who were truly interested could just...look it up? Oh well - I'll do my best...hope this helps.

The drive behind the Kerry campaign, in a nutshell, is to fix the mess in Iraq, bring the deficit back down to managable levels before it screws the world economy, innovate and domestically produce renewable sources of energy and by extension lessening our dependence on Saudi oil, reform our healthcare system, create more jobs by closing tax loopholes that incentivise corporations to outsource jobs, and - most importantly - reestablish relationships with our international allies so that the burden of the war against Islamofascist terrorism is not resting completely on our shoulders and on our credit card, figuratively speaking of course. That's the short version, and just brushes over the main points, but that's the red meat.

And it's not just about getting rid of Bush. This administration would be so much less nausiating if Bush were the ONLY jackass involved. No, Dick "terrorists will attack us again if you vote for Kerry" Cheney, Donald "Old Europe Doesn't Count" Rumsfeld, Paul "I have no idea how many soldiers have been killed in Iraq" Wolfowitz, John "let the Eagle soar" Ashcroft, Rod "teachers are terrorists" Paige and Condi "it was a historical document only" Rice need to be getting pink slips as well. Actually, I can't really knock on Condi or Colin too much. They both at least have enough decency and good sense to leave after this term whether Bush wins or not. But I digress...

 

To be honest (and being on the other side of the world), I cannot understand why anyone, much less a majority of those polled, would vote for Bush (sorry, Grey - I mean no offence). As I see it, from my less-informed view, the key US domestic and international issues heading into this election are:

1. the US economy and gross deficit heading up a certain creek without a certain instrument;

2. homeland security and the "war on terror"; and

3. creating something worthwhile and stable out of the ongoing debacle that is the invasion of Iraq.

Maybe I'm uninformed, but the Bush administration hardly has a good track record on any of these issues. If Bush's camp is ahead, the only reason I can think of is because they have managed to portray Kerry as hesitant (read: weak), by attacking his military service record and the reason he left Vietnam. The man is an unknown quantity - which leaves him wide open to a public savaging and questions of his effectiveness. If the Democrats were as vicious as the Republicans have been recently and put the various leading figures of the current administration through the wringer, with Kerry resorting to the same firebrand populism and appeals to fear that Bush, Cheney & Co. have, they would probably have more of a shot.

I'm not saying that's ethical, and I certainly don't believe in teaching a population to live in fear to sustain power, but it works. I would be worried if that was all they did, just resorted to the same tactics that are being used against them, but offering a vision of the future that does not include living under daily terrorist threat updates is preferable to an administration blindly fighting a war that it has no idea how to win, with no plan for the peace to follow it. I've been a lifelong Liberal voter here in Australia, and it's only now, after all the lies and BS and manipulation, that I've decided I can't trust them to run this country the way I believe it should be run.

There's an old saying about not changing horses in the middle of a stream. The issues I outlined above are fairly similar to the ones being canvassed for the Australian election in October, and as far as I can see, there's no reason to jump off if that horse is leading you and your country up **** Creek.

 

@NonSequitur - actually the U.S. populace thinks Bush is the better choice on at least one, and arguably two of the points you listed. The only one in which Kerry has been reported ahead is the economy, and with that improving, that could even swing Bush's way.

Now, to everyone else saying the electoral college looks sunny for Kerry, I don't understand what you're saying. If you only take the states where one canidate is leading by at least 5%, it's Bush in the lead 214-211. Then, I took out a paper and added up the likely Bush states and the likely Kerry states (i.e. I added up everything from Strongly Bush to Barely Bush in one column, and everything from Strongly Kerry to Barely Kerry in another column). The result was this:

Bush: 254
Kerry: 243
Tied: 41

This means that neither one has a majority of 270 needed to secure a victory, and it is the undecided, tied states that will determine the election. Actually, the only relevant tied state is Florida. With 27 electoral votes, it is enough to put either canidate up the 270 needed to win. The other 14 electoral votes from the tied states will make no difference as to who wins. So my question is: How is Bush in trouble in the electoral college? I would say looking at things, he is actaully ahead by a little bit. They both are a little short of the 270 needed to win, and just like in 2000, whoever gets Florida WILL have enough electoral votes to win.

[ September 09, 2004, 16:02: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]