BUSH POLL NUMBERS RISE
Find a Conversation
BUSH POLL NUMBERS RISE
| Fri, 10-15-2004 - 8:33am |
Whatever voters say about who "won" the debate, Bush poll numbers continue to rise. Although Kerry can stand up straight and state in sonorous tones "I have a plan", he hasn't presented any realistic plans. (Maintaining that eliminating tax cuts for 1% of the population will pay for every gradle to grave social program known to man isn't a realistic plan.) Oratorical skills can't replace lack of core values. . .the polls of likely voters show who really won the debates.

After the debates: A tie, a 47% approval rating (down) and right track/wrong track below 50%
Yeah, good position for an incumbant :)
Yep! Bush's poll numbers are on the rise again & Kerry's are sinking.
This observation is good news too:
KEEP AN EYE ON WHAT STATES THEY CAMPAIGN IN
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200410142333.asp
This bit from tomorrow morning’s Washington Post has some grumbling among Kerry Spot readers:
Obviously, "internal polls" for each campaign always seem to contain good news for that particular campaign. I am curious which Bush campaign staffer confirmed to the Post that Bush is losing Florida. Notice none are quoted. Also note that Bush is leading Iowa (7 electoral votes from a Blue state) and if Kerry says Bush is even in Wisconsin, one can conclude he must be running strongly (there's another ten votes Kerry has to make up).
Look, you're going to get a lot of poll numbers thrown at you in the next few weeks. Relax. Deep breath. There is one factor that a campaign cannot hide, and that is where they have the candidate campaigning.
You can always raise more money, you can always run more ads, but in the end you only have one candidate for president and one candidate for vice president, and they can only attend rallies in so many states in each day.
The 2000 results were close to dead even - so Bush wants to pick up blue states while Kerry needs to pick up at least seven electoral votes in additional red states.
Note in this article: “In a break from his normal routine, Edwards traveled by bus through Iowa today, before a flight to Des Moines where he will meet Kerry for a joint rally tonight.”
Iowa - a blue state that they‘re committing both candidates to on the same day? Now, look at the recent schedule for the candidates, as I‘ve been able to piece together from news reports and the candidates‘ web sites. (I am not certain that this list is complete.)
Kerry's recent schedule:
Oct. 14 - Nevada (AARP convention), Iowa
Oct. 13 - Arizona, for debate
Oct. 13 - New Mexico
Oct. 12 - New Mexico
Oct. 11 - New Mexico
Oct. 10 - Florida, Ohio
Oct. 9 - Missouri, Florida
Oct. 8 - St. Louis, Missouri for debate
Oct. 6 - Colorado
Oct. 5 - Iowa
Edwards:
Scheduled to go to Minnesota Tuesday
Oct. 14 - Oregon, Iowa
Oct. 13 - Oregon
Oct. 12 - Colorado
Oct. 11 - Iowa
Oct. 10 - Wisconsin
Oct. 7 - New Jersey
Oct. 6 - Florida,
Oct. 5 - Ohio for debate
Bush
Heading to New Jersey Monday
Oct. 14 - Nevada
Oct. 13 - Arizona, for debate
Oct. 12 - Ohio, Colorado
Oct. 11 - New Mexico, Colorado
Oct. 10 - Minnesota
Oct. 9 - Iowa, Missouri post-debate breakfast
Oct. 8 - St. Louis, Missouri for debate
Oct. 7 - Wisconsin
Oct. 6 - Pennsylvania, Michigan
Oct. 4 - Iowa
Cheney
Oct. 14 - Pennsylvania, Florida
Oct. 13 - Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania
Oct. 12 - Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio
Oct. 11 - New Jersey
Oct. 10 - no events
Oct. 7 - Florida
Oct. 6 - Florida
Oct. 5 - Ohio for debate
If the Kerry camp is so wildly confident that they’re keeping all of the important Gore states, why are they having Kerry and Edwards spend so much time in Blue States?
That's an inordinate amount of time to spend in states that are supposed to already be in the Democratic column. Note also that two of the non-debate-site red states on that list are New Hampshire and Nevada, and neither one alone is enough to put Kerry over the top.
Would a Bush supporter prefer the President to be up more? Certainly. But look at the amount of time he and Cheney are spending in New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New Jersey - all blue states where he's on the offense. Right now the Bushies are defending five states, really - Ohio, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Colorado. And obviously, neither New Hampshire or Nevada alone would put Kerry over 271, assuming he holds all the Gore states.
Right now, Kerry and Edwards are putting enormous time - a resource where he can't just raise more - into defending blue states. This could change. But for now, Kerry’s playing defense, while Bush plays offense.
Also, Kerry Spot readers in the New York area ought to pick up the New York Sun tomorrow and check the op-ed page. One of your favorite writers is analyzing why Bush’s chances are better than the polls might have you believe.
Renee ~~~
>>
What on earth are you talking about? The Republicans have done all they can to stall the mailing of absentee ballots and now they want to extend the time limit for receiving them. They've basically built in a two week period after the election in which dubious absentee ballots can be accepted, and if the Dem's contest them, we'll be branded as unpatriotic and charged with supressing the voting rights of our soldiers overseas. The Reps have set the stage for a post-election battle. It's really sad. I miss the days where you knew who won on election day. Now I just feel like it's a merry-go-round with democracy as the brass ring.
Also, nobody in NY reads the SUN. I don't know how it stays in business.
But thank you for inadvertantly leading me to this on http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/politics/campaign/15cheney.html
: It's too soon to make huge conclusions from this - but Bush is up in the Zogby poll. It may be, as I wrote after the debate, that Bush's newfound charm outweighs Kerry's forensic superiority. But the Kerry mo has been stopped, I'd say. And the Mary Cheney thing is a brilliant maneuver by the Republicans. Rove knows that most people do find mentioning someone's daughter's lesbianism to be distasteful and gratuitous. So he can work it to great effect, exploiting homophobia while claiming to be defending gays. Again: masterful jujitsu. I tip my hat to the guy. Poisonous, but effective.
And also, this:
"Oh, now I get it. James Taranto is suddenly aghast and upset at gay-baiting! Better late than never, I suppose. In fact, I'm deeply heartened by so many Republicans suddenly concerned about the smearing of homosexuals for political purposes. The reason for Taranto's assertion? He says that Kerry was pandering to the anti-gay parts of the Democratic base, by letting the last few souls on earth know, in an entirely positive way, that the vice-president's daughter is openly gay. And the way Kerry "gay-baited" was to say that homosexuality is not a choice, that he supports equal rights for gay couples, and that Mary Cheney helps prove that being gay isn't a choice. That'll rile 'em up in the trenches, won't it? Seriously, I've called out anti-gay statements by Democrats in the past; and have a long record of sniffing out homophobia and the use of it, wherever it's coming from. Certainly my record is, shall we say, more substantial than Taranto's in this regard. And I fail to see how Kerry's remark could be understood in any conceivable way as gay-baiting. It never occurred to me when I heard it. It does not occur to me now. You know what is based in gay-baiting? Implicitly, clearly, shamelessly: the Bush-Cheney campaign. The GOP has a nutty candidate in Illinois who called Mary Cheney a "selfish hedonist" - but Dick Cheney wasn't an "angry dad," then. Lynne Cheney didn't call that "tawdry." So Bush runs the most anti-gay national campaign ever and it's his opponent who gets tarred as a homophobe! Brilliant, even by Rove's standards. And when it comes to gay-baiting, there are few as practised as Rove. The sheer nerve of these hypocrites never ceases to amaze."
Hey, good poison Rove. Glad to know you still know how to drive a wedge issue right up our a$$ while making yourself look good.
Edited 10/16/2004 2:17 am ET ET by metrochick