Bush Up By 8!!
 

This really surprises me. I thought we Kerry making Bush look like a dummy
in the 3 debates it would be enough to swing the noncommittal to his side.
It appears he has lost all of the increase from his first 2 debates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Pre...chart3way.html

I think his often repeated comment about Cheney's daughter being a lesbian
is backfiring on him. I am a conservative who believe homosexuality is not
a choice, a homosexual is born that way. I also believe God does not make a
mistake so it must be ok with him. What I do believe is tacky is for any
candidate to emphasize their opponents family during a campaign. If he had
red hair or was left handed and it was mentioned in each of his opponents
campaign speeches it would sound tacky, but if they were in a wheelchair,
mentally ill, or was born with a sexual preference of 2-3% of the population
it is even tackier.
If Cheney's daughter wants to use her fathers campaign to push her agenda
that is her choice.

It appears that many people think Kerry has crossed the line.



"George Orwell" wrote in message
...
Bush Up By 8!!

The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll has Bush up 52% to 44% among likely
voters. That's an 8 point lead!

Interviews with 1,013 adult Americans, including 788 likely voters and 942
registered voters, conducted by telephone on October 14-16, 2004
Although Americans think John Kerry did the best job in the debates, that
has not translated into an increase in his popularity, which in turn means
that he appears to have lost a little ground to Bush. Among registered
voters, a 48%-48% tie is now a 49%-46% edge for Bush -- not much of a
difference and, with the sampling error, not a significant change. The
Gallup likely voter model, which identified those respondents who are most
likely to cast a ballot, is magnifying those shifts, with a 49%-48%
advantage for Kerry turning into a 52%-44% lead for Bush. What's going on?

For one thing, the charge that Kerry is too liberal, which Bush emphasized
mostly in the third and last debate on Wednesday night, seems to be
sticking. Nearly half say Kerry's political views are too liberal. (Four
in
ten say Bush is too conservative.) But didn't Kerry win the debate? Yes,
as
with the first two debates, the public thinks Kerry did the better job on
Wednesday night. But as Al Gore learned in 2000, winning a debate on
points
does not necessarily translate into votes or make a candidate more
popular.
As in 2000, Bush's favorable ratings -- Americans view of him as a person
-- went up after a debate that he lost. Kerry's favorable rating has
remained flat. Republicans seem more enthusiastic about the election, and
thus more likely to vote, as reflected in the Gallup likely voter model.

Bush may have energized his base in the final debate at the expense of not
appealing to a wider audience -- but he managed to do so in a way that
made
him more popular than Kerry.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:37:24 +0000, Jon Smithe wrote:

This really surprises me. I thought we Kerry making Bush look like a
dummy in the 3 debates it would be enough to swing the noncommittal to his
side. It appears he has lost all of the increase from his first 2 debates.

I wouldn't weight the Gallup poll to seriously. Gallup polls are designed
to be sensitive to movement, and admittedly, can exaggerate a party's
turnout.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/45/news-bearman.php

This is an extremely close race. It will probably be decided by Ohio or,
once again, Florida, or, perhaps again, the Supreme Court.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:38:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


HEre's an interesting data point: one of my relatives, someone who has
voted Republican since Dwight Eisenhower, is sitting out this election. He
cannot stomach George W. Bush.

I hope whatever ails him is spreading to other Republicans.

It has. I know of several Republicans that will not vote for Bush this
time. I also agree that the Democrats are fired up. At least Bush the
"uniter" has united one group, the Democrats.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:37:24 +0000, Jon Smithe wrote:

This really surprises me. I thought we Kerry making Bush look like a
dummy in the 3 debates it would be enough to swing the noncommittal to
his
side. It appears he has lost all of the increase from his first 2
debates.

I wouldn't weight the Gallup poll to seriously. Gallup polls are designed
to be sensitive to movement, and admittedly, can exaggerate a party's
turnout.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/45/news-bearman.php

This is an extremely close race. It will probably be decided by Ohio or,
once again, Florida, or, perhaps again, the Supreme Court.



Gallup was "called out" a couple of weeks ago for packing its caller
lists with significantly more Republicans than Democrats.

Most of the polls are very close, and probably will remain that way. I
don't think the polls in this election are really reflecting the
significant changes in the voter base the last few years, or the big
push for voter registration that has been taking place.

More than in recent years, voter turnout is going to play a major role.
I'm no prognosticator, but my impression is that the Democrats are more
fired up than the Republicans. If that remains the case, and if the
Republicans don't get away with too much election day cheating, we may
well have a new President-election in about two weeks.

HEre's an interesting data point: one of my relatives, someone who has
voted Republican since Dwight Eisenhower, is sitting out this election.
He cannot stomach George W. Bush.

Something the Democrats have recently realized is that they may be losing
some of the Jewish vote that they had so readily relied upon in past
elections. In 2000, Bush carried only 19% of the Jewish vote in Florida..
I've seen recent polls where Bush is currently getting the support of
anywhere from 24 to 35% of the Jewish vote in Florida. Since 90% of Jews
are registered to vote (compared to 2/3's of the general population), they
make up roughly 5% of the Florida vote. That equates to nearly 300,000
votes (based on 2000 results). If Bush got 19% (56,645 votes) in 2000, and
increases that to 30% (90,000) this time, that means that he gains nearly
24,000 votes (and Kerry gets 24,000 fewer votes than Gore got). It'll take
a helluva lot of Harry's relatives staying home in order to make up for a
48,000 vote swing towards Bush.

Don't think it can happen? Just look at the comments from guys like Ed Koch
and Joe Lieberman regarding Bush's pro-Israel policies:

" We also should not forget that President Bush, in my opinion, has been the
greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House " --Ed Koch

"We are dealing with a president who's had a record of strong, consistent
support for Israel. You can't say otherwise,"-- Joseph Lieberman in Delray
Beach, Fla

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:38:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


HEre's an interesting data point: one of my relatives, someone who has
voted Republican since Dwight Eisenhower, is sitting out this election.
He
cannot stomach George W. Bush.

I hope whatever ails him is spreading to other Republicans.

It has. I know of several Republicans that will not vote for Bush this
time. I also agree that the Democrats are fired up. At least Bush the
"uniter" has united one group, the Democrats.

Do either of you guys live in a Battleground state? If not, then the
opinions of people you know in those states do not matter. There are three
people in my office (plus their spouses) who didn't vote for Bush in 2000.
All have stated that they will be supporting him this year.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:38:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


HEre's an interesting data point: one of my relatives, someone who
has
voted Republican since Dwight Eisenhower, is sitting out this
election.
He
cannot stomach George W. Bush.

I hope whatever ails him is spreading to other Republicans.

It has. I know of several Republicans that will not vote for Bush
this
time. I also agree that the Democrats are fired up. At least Bush
the
"uniter" has united one group, the Democrats.

Do either of you guys live in a Battleground state? If not, then the
opinions of people you know in those states do not matter. There are
three
people in my office (plus their spouses) who didn't vote for Bush in
2000.
All have stated that they will be supporting him this year.

The fact is that the support for Kerry is shallow, more "anti Bush" than
"pro Kerry" In past elections, the turn out is usually less when there is
not the energy "for" a candidate. On the other hand, Bush's support is
quite strong.

Which is probably why the dems are reving up the 'suppressed vote" lie and
mobilizing the trial lawyers.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:52:43 -0400, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:38:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


HEre's an interesting data point: one of my relatives, someone who
has
voted Republican since Dwight Eisenhower, is sitting out this
election.
He
cannot stomach George W. Bush.

I hope whatever ails him is spreading to other Republicans.

It has. I know of several Republicans that will not vote for Bush
this
time. I also agree that the Democrats are fired up. At least Bush
the
"uniter" has united one group, the Democrats.

Do either of you guys live in a Battleground state? If not, then the
opinions of people you know in those states do not matter. There are
three
people in my office (plus their spouses) who didn't vote for Bush in
2000.
All have stated that they will be supporting him this year.

The fact is that the support for Kerry is shallow, more "anti Bush" than
"pro Kerry" In past elections, the turn out is usually less when there is
not the energy "for" a candidate. On the other hand, Bush's support is
quite strong.

Which is probably why the dems are reving up the 'suppressed vote" lie and
mobilizing the trial lawyers.



Judging from the posts in this newsgroup that seems to focus on criticisms
of Bush rather than promote any substansive merit of Kerry and his "plans",
I guess I tend to agree with you.

"John S" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:52:43 -0400, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:38:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


HEre's an interesting data point: one of my relatives, someone
who
has
voted Republican since Dwight Eisenhower, is sitting out this
election.
He
cannot stomach George W. Bush.

I hope whatever ails him is spreading to other Republicans.

It has. I know of several Republicans that will not vote for
Bush
this
time. I also agree that the Democrats are fired up. At least
Bush
the
"uniter" has united one group, the Democrats.

Do either of you guys live in a Battleground state? If not, then
the
opinions of people you know in those states do not matter. There
are
three
people in my office (plus their spouses) who didn't vote for Bush
in
2000.
All have stated that they will be supporting him this year.

The fact is that the support for Kerry is shallow, more "anti Bush"
than
"pro Kerry" In past elections, the turn out is usually less when
there is
not the energy "for" a candidate. On the other hand, Bush's support
is
quite strong.

Which is probably why the dems are reving up the 'suppressed vote"
lie and
mobilizing the trial lawyers.



Judging from the posts in this newsgroup that seems to focus on
criticisms
of Bush rather than promote any substansive merit of Kerry and his
"plans",
I guess I tend to agree with you.

The dems have made the same mistake that the Repubs did in
1996.......there was a weakened incumbant, and they put up an even weaker
candidate.

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"John S" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:52:43 -0400, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:38:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


HEre's an interesting data point: one of my relatives, someone
who
has
voted Republican since Dwight Eisenhower, is sitting out this
election.
He
cannot stomach George W. Bush.

I hope whatever ails him is spreading to other Republicans.

It has. I know of several Republicans that will not vote for
Bush
this
time. I also agree that the Democrats are fired up. At least
Bush
the
"uniter" has united one group, the Democrats.

Do either of you guys live in a Battleground state? If not, then
the
opinions of people you know in those states do not matter. There
are
three
people in my office (plus their spouses) who didn't vote for Bush
in
2000.
All have stated that they will be supporting him this year.

The fact is that the support for Kerry is shallow, more "anti Bush"
than
"pro Kerry" In past elections, the turn out is usually less when
there is
not the energy "for" a candidate. On the other hand, Bush's support
is
quite strong.

Which is probably why the dems are reving up the 'suppressed vote"
lie and
mobilizing the trial lawyers.



Judging from the posts in this newsgroup that seems to focus on
criticisms
of Bush rather than promote any substansive merit of Kerry and his
"plans",
I guess I tend to agree with you.

The dems have made the same mistake that the Repubs did in
1996.......there was a weakened incumbant, and they put up an even weaker
candidate.


In 1992, Clinton garnered only 43% of the vote. It's pathetic that a
President can be elected with such a low percentage of the population
supporting him. There was plenty of anti-Bush sentiment that year, but I
doubt many of the Perot supporters would have cast their votes for Clinton
if Perot wasn't in the race. Most would have either stayed home, or voted
for Bush as the lesser of two evils (at least in their minds). This year,
there is no viable alternative to the incumbent...and Kerry hasn't done
anything to help his own chances. I still predict a Bush win by 4 to 6
percentage points.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:38:17 -0400, NOYB wrote:


In 1992, Clinton garnered only 43% of the vote. It's pathetic that a
President can be elected with such a low percentage of the population
supporting him. There was plenty of anti-Bush sentiment that year, but I
doubt many of the Perot supporters would have cast their votes for Clinton
if Perot wasn't in the race. Most would have either stayed home, or voted
for Bush as the lesser of two evils (at least in their minds). This year,
there is no viable alternative to the incumbent...and Kerry hasn't done
anything to help his own chances. I still predict a Bush win by 4 to 6
percentage points.

Well, I see even you think the race is getting closer. Your prediction is
down from a 5-7% landslide. ;-)

http://www.google.com/groups?q=lands...ink.net&rnum=2

Still, my guess is it's going to be considerable closer. Close enough
that we may not know the winner on Nov. 3.