ELECTION 2004 Zogby: Kerry will win Pollster points to 4 reasons he sees Democrat victory

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | May 10, 2004 | WorldNetDaily.com

[Jacob Kell]

Pollster John Zogby has predicted John Kerry will win the presidential election in November.

In a column yesterday, the researcher laid out four reasons he sees that point to the defeat of President Bush.

"I have made a career of taking bungee jumps in my election calls," Zogby writes. "Sometimes I haven't had a helmet and I have gotten a little scratched. But here is my jump for 2004: John Kerry will win the election."

Zogby first notes lackluster poll numbers for Bush. His most recent survey found Kerry leading, 47 to 44 percent in a two-man race. Also, he points out Kerry is leading by 17 points in the Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000, while Bush leads by only 10 points in the Red States that he won four years ago.

"Second, there are very few undecided voters for this early in a campaign," Zogby says. "Historically, the majority of undecideds break to the challenger against an incumbent. The reasons are not hard to understand: Voters have probably made a judgment about the better-known incumbent and are looking for an alternative."

The pollster's third reason stems from reading the numbers surrounding the top three issues on voters' minds.

Thirty percent of voters cite the economy as the No. 1 issue, while just 11 percent cite the war in Iraq. Kerry leads Bush 54 to 35 percent among those who name the economy. Among those citing the war in Iraq, Zogby points out, Kerry's lead is 57 to 36 percent.

"This, of course, is balanced by the 64 percent to 30 percent margin that the president holds over Kerry on fighting the war on terrorism," Zogby writes.

Zogby's fourth reason: Kerry's a good closer:

"Something happens to him in the closing weeks of campaigns (that obviously is not happening now!). We have clearly seen that pattern in his 1996 victory over Gov. Bill Weld for the Senate in Massachusetts and more recently in the 2004 Democratic primaries."

Concluded Zogby: " We are unlikely to see any big bumps for either candidate because opinion is so polarized and, I believe, frozen in place. There are still six months to go and anything can still happen. But as of today, this race is John Kerry's to lose."

[ladyinred]

Well Gore did win the popular vote.

Maybe, as giving Florida to Gore wrongly before the polls closed in Florida and the West coast suppressed the Bush vote, which was planned.

Popular vote is not how we elect a President however.

[Cold Heat]

Grow up...

I percieve that you have much of that to do.

Your tone, language and persistant personal insults when challeged indicate a personal problem.

Deal with it, or your time here will be limited.

Grow up indeed!

[FA14]

HUH...."persistent personal insults"....Prove it!...Or you should be banned...for lying...

I have talked with a rough tone to...TWO people...that in no way defines itself as "persistent"....again, be an adult...don't make up facts...

[FA14]

"Your tone, language and persistent personal insults when challenged indicate a personal problem"

Also note...you say "when challenged"....How so, I have not been challenged....you simply refer to facts you don't like...as someone being a troll (hmm...but this is not an insult...go figure..)...must be that child like reasoning going on there...

[TomEwall]

I think your tone has been a bit much. I'm only mentioning this because I like your posts and think there's a good chance you'll take my 2 cents in the right spirit. (I hope I'm not wrong!)

[Poincare]

Actually the unseasonable weather from central Texas through Montana suppressed a lot of votes. The GOP won those states anyway, but Bush would have had a couple million more if the weather had been good. Also a lot of conservatives stayed home because of the last minute DUI thingy.

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

He's wrong. The same thing was said in '00, about the undecideds breaking against Gore, who was the incumbant by default. Didn't happen that way. Plus, the economy is going to be a loser for Kerry by November and THAT (not this crap in Iraq, will be forgotten by then) will be the deciding issue for most people.

Bush's numbers should be higher, but I still think he hasn't gotten all of his base back after that amnesty debacle in January. That's where Bush lost 10% that he still hasn't made up (60% approval down to 50%). He has to get them back, and he's in good shape.

[rohry]

Are you Doug Sosnik?

I noticed that you were on C-Span on Friday...

[epow]

, but this statement really jumps out! If there are few undecideds there will be no "break to the challenger". Duh!

Exactly my first thought when I read that. First he says most undecideds break for the challenger in the final days, and then he says there are fewer than normal undecideds this time. How can that pair of factoids work out to an advantage for the challenger? It doesn't make sense, not to me at least.

[TomEwall]

What you're saying about the economy and Iraq has a good chance of happening, with some luck. If Iraq pretty much stays the same, people will stop paying attention for it. For example, the press hasn't been reporting anything about casualties or Fallujah or Sadr the last week or so. All the talk is about the prisoner abuse. By November people will be past sick of hearing about this. Usually presidential elections are decided by the economy.

However, I disagree with your comment about amnesty. The reason the president's numbers were up in January were because of the capture of Saddam. Once that novelty wore off, they went down. Very few people care about amnesty. It's way down the list after the economy, WOT, Iraq ...

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

1) up until this crap in Iraq, Bush DID hit 50% in a few polls...Gallup for sure, even NYT I think...got alot of play on this board at the time.

And, 2) this election has nothing in common with 1980, sorry.

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

However, I disagree with your comment about amnesty. The reason the president's numbers were up in January were because of the capture of Saddam. Once that novelty wore off, they went down. Very few people care about amnesty. It's way down the list after the economy, WOT, Iraq ...

Well, I hope I am right and you are wrong, simply because it will be easy to get his base back then swing these random undecideds who change their minds simply because good news is 2 weeks old. FWIW, I believe this because Bush lost a good 10% almost immediately for no good reason other than the amnesty issue had just made the news. I strongly believe they are linked though I couldn't have any proof.

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

What a stupid twit he is then. This is -awful- news for Kerry. Given the way the electoral college works, and given a near-tie in the overall popular vote, no candidate should want one more vote than is necessary in any given state that is already going his way. If Kerry's support is overly concentrated in a handful of states, as these numbers indicate, he's going to lose the electoral vote by a landslide. The fact that Bush is still maintaining a tie, with less support in his "lock" states, means he has -more- support than Kerry does in the battleground states.

Good catch, this would be a mathematical certainty I would think.

I would add that unlike Gore, Kerry will not be competitive, or at least have a winning chance anywhere in the South. And yes I don't think Florida is going Kerry at all, a highly popular Bush as gov, excellent job market compared to most places, 2002 election results all point Bush's way. If Kerry spends money in the South, and we know he will, its money completely wasted.

OTOH, Kerry may cut his losses here and focus on the MidWest battleground states but I doubt he will give up so easily on Florida.

[TomEwall]

Where Bush can pick up a lot is from the soft Kerry supporters. Every one of these he picks off translate to a swing of two votes. As the news of the economy starts to sink in, I think he can pick up a lot of these.

Bush's base is already strongly behind him, and always was. There are very few people that would not vote for him bacause of the amnesty thing. The thought of Kerry winning is too distasteful. Amnesty is not a very big issue.

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

I think Freeprs need to facethe fact that based on historical past elections, Bush is going to lose

Wow, and just what 'historical past elections' are you basing this leap in logic from? And how did this model fare in 2002?

Fact is, there are none.

[ClarenceThomasfan]

Kerry a good closer??

Didn't Edwards surge and almost beat Kerry in one of the Democratic primaries? I don't think he is a great closer - I think Howard Dean was a great embarrassment and people flocked to the next thing.

Zogby is so biased, he is letting his partisanship come above his professional judgment.

[MNJohnnie]

If Iraq continues to "go south" on us, a new scenario for a Republican victory in November would be thus: Bush declines running for reelection, the convention becomes open, McCain is nominated

Only problem with this daydream is McCain is a Democrat in everything but name. He is the worst exaample of RINO Senators we have. The GOP would be better off LOSING then electing McCain.

[Zechariah11]

For those who may be wondering ...Doug Sosnik was President Clinton's political director during the 1996 re-election campaign.

No, boxsmith is "not a liberal" but believes that GWB will lose in 2004, that the GOP will disappear as did the British Tories, that the NE liberals will run the country just fine, and that the Dems will do an effective job on defending the nation after they take over from Bush. He has just joined FreeRepublic.

[faithincowboys]

Everything Zogby says right now (when he can't be proved right or wrong) is totally suspect. The last 48 hours before an election is the only time when Zogby concerns himself with getting it right. The rest of the time he tries to influence opinion.

It also should be remembered that Zogby and his brother are Palestinians and pan Arabists. They desperately want a Rat like Kerry to be President. The Pan-Arabists majorly desire a Bush defeat.

[MNJohnnie]

i agree that Bush isnt Carter and Kerry isnt Reagan, so i dont expect Kerry to win 489 evs, but i think Kerry will win about 320 evs and 53%


BASED on what DATA????? This is pure wishful thinking on your part. EVEN if Kerry does win, it will be 49.5-49% style race with the nation's political debate so violently partisan that the new president will be completely unable to claim a "mandate" of any sort and Kerry will be another 4 year lame duck just like Bush was after Nov 2000. What the Democratic Leadership does seem to realize is it's violently partisan behavior is making it IMPOSSIBLE for any Democrat to govern EVEN if they do win back any measure of political power. But since they are complete power whores, all that matters to Democrats is that they win. The irreparable damage they are doing to the USA along the way seem to matter not in the least to these political demagogues. ALL the poll data supports either a Bush win or very, very narrow Kerry win. WHERE do you see ANY data to support your notion of a Kerry landslide other then your daydreams?