Poll: Bush 47% Kerry 45%

Rasmussen ^ | 2.13.04

[ambrose]

RasmussenReports.com February 13, 2004--President George W. Bush continues to hold a very narrow lead over Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry in the latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Election Survey. Bush is the pick for 47% of likely voters while Kerry is the choice of 45%.

Over the previous six days, the candidates have been one-point apart or tied. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

The Rasmussen Reports Presidential Election Survey is updated daily by noon Eastern.

The electorate that Bush and Kerry are trying to reach has a generally positive view of American society. Sixty percent (60%) of likely voters say that our nation is generally fair and decent.

[lasereye]

Sorry I missed that sentence. But a one third turnout is not necessarily low for a primary, Democrat or Republican is it?

You also have to remember, if Free Republic is any indication, that a bunch of Pubbies may not be very motivated either.

[Owen]

Senator Kerry,

Sir, you lent your campaign $6 million about 5 mos ago, financed with a loan you took out collateralized by your house. Your wife is not allowed to cover this because of the $2K annual limit by individuals.

Sir, are you informing donors that any money they might send in at this point in time will not go to defeat Bush, but rather, flow directly into your pocket as the campaign repays you? And more importantly, sir, how will you repay that loan to the banks and their shareholders who provided that money in good faith?

[Heyworth]

9/11 though, most now don't see to care.

I think the problem is that people think the war on terrorism is won, or at least the big part of it. We've invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. We've supposedly got agents all over the world and all the governments are theoretically cooperating with us. Every week we hear about some Al Qaeda guy or Baath guy we've arrested. There hasn't been another attack. What do we do now? People haven't forgotten 9-11. But the situation looks like mopping up and police operations, and that doesn't take a wartime president.

[section9]

A word of advice passed on to me from Common Tator: never take the sentiments expressed on this board by the ultramontaine crowd as an expression of Bush's true strength within the party. Bush is incredibly strong and 95 percent of the rank and file will run out and vote for him in November. CT says that in 2000, the number of bitchers, Brigadiers, and "Bush is a RINO" types on FR would have meant a third party vote of some ten million conservatives. Same thing this year; "by God, Bush supported ______(insert bullet issue here)......, he's lost my vote this year!"

This goes on until the AuH2O crowd wakes up and realizes that their guy lost his ass in 1964 because of this nonsense, then they'll go out and vote for Bush, too.

Except for the Blak Helikopterz Krowd, Thomas Fleming's Sturmabteilungen, the Paleocons, and the Gold Bugs, of course. There's no convincing them. As far as they are concerned, Bush is a Communist who wants to force every American family to allow one Mexican family to live in their guest bedroom. All twelve kids, too!

Of course, the Paleos couldn't win an election for towel boy at a whorehouse, so 'tis amusing to watch them lecture Republicans on how to win an election.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[raybbr]

On court appointees which live on long after a President is gone and abortion there's a big difference, to name just a couple of things. And why does foreign policy/defense not matter all of a sudden?

Okay, good points. However, we are being destroyed from within by elitists on both sides. Bush let Kennedy write the Education bill. Where's the conservative leadership in that?

With both houses of Congress and the White House you would think that we would be celbrating triumph after triumph. How do you explain the way Bush has caved and capitulated on almost every other issue.

[Common Tator]

Um...last time I looked, the working class was about 94.6% of the population

Was it your intention to prove you have no knowledge of Democratic party rhetoric?

Because that is what you just did. You need to take some lessons from Bill Clinton and John Edwards. Then you could come back and pretend you know something.

[Intolerant in NJ]

I would bet Rasmussen and others are using the 2000 turn out numbers to gauge 2004...if memory serves correctly, I think Rasmussen's problem in 2000 was that he stopped polling the weekend before the election or for some other reason missed the last minute and highly unusual swing of most of the undecideds back to Gore, who was in effect the "incumbent". The sneak attack thirty-year old DUI charges against Bush that Friday seems to have been what caused the stampede and threw Rasmussen's prediction of a comfortable win for Bush out the window - from what I've seen your analysis of what's driving the voters in the 'rat primaries seems right on target, and hatred is a difficult motivation to keep going - but who would have thought the 'rats could have kept the phoney National Guard/AWOL story on the front pages for so long - maybe Rasmussen et al should include in their projections of turnout some correction factor based on the balance of pro/anti candidate stories in the press which might tend to encourage or discourage voters going to the polls......

[nailspitter]

Rasmussen and Battleground and some others were way off in 2000, but IMHO it was because of the Florida call coming early. A leading Demo in FL said Bush would have picked up at least another 10,000 votes in the Panhandle if the call hadn't come early. Multiply that by the almost 3 1/2 hours left in CA, and you can see how Bush may have lost over a million votes nationwide due to the "hastiness" of the networks in calling Florida. Even Zogby, who likes to brag he was dead on accurate in 2000, was way off in CA. The day before the election he said Bush had caught Gore. So how ome Gore took CA by 12 percentage points? And how can Zogby be correct nationally but that far off in the biggest state? He's never explained that one.

[lasereye]

The ed bill was passed when Daschle and company were still controlling the Senate. I don't find much to like in it. However, it was either that bill or literally nothing. Bush chose that bill. Being strong on education was one of Bush's main themes in 2000. It was one of his ways of wooing the soccer moms. I think it was a straight political calculation. Even Reagan did some things that upset conservatives, like his tax increase in 1982 during a recession. He believed Tip O'Neill's promise to cut spending for $2 for each $1 tax increase, which was a lie. He also signed an illegal alien amnesty bill.

[Brimack34]

Kerry should be worried no wonder the press is so nervous. With all the coverage Kerry should be up by 15. Scarburrow was having a bash bush show on tonight. Tell him teh lefties do not watch TV.

[pawdoggie]

The real story here is that an incumbent, war time President, with a rising economy and success (yes, success) in a war on terror should be statistically even with someone who has nothing to offer except being "anti". This shows the abject failure of the "new tone" approach, and the exposes for all time the flaws in the RNC's "no campaign until after the convention" theory of political campaigning.

[JulieRNR21]

I thought I heard someone say that only 10% of the Dems voted in the primaries......sounds like a terrible turnout to me.....especially since we were told (by the liberal media) how angry & energized they are.

[section9]

The real story here is that an incumbent, war time President, with a rising economy and success (yes, success) in a war on terror should be statistically even with someone who has nothing to offer except being "anti". This shows the abject failure of the "new tone" approach, and the exposes for all time the flaws in the RNC's "no campaign until after the convention" theory of political campaigning.

I understand what you are saying, but that is not a real story at all, and here's why.

John Kerry is the "something new". Oh sure, he's been around forever, but this is his first serious run at the Presidency. Those Democrats who have chosen to vote in the primaries (a decided minority of Democrats, as Common Tator has pointed out...) have decided to vote for Kerry on "electability". 90% of Democrats voting in primaries have no freaking idea what he stands for! The rest of the Democratic voters (that is, the vast majority of them) haven't voted or don't care enough to vote in their own party's primary! They've painted their vision of what America should be on the tabula rasa that is John Kerry. Add to this phenomenon the fact that the media, who knows who he is, has been painting him as something just short of a Medal of Honor winner and I'm surprised that Kerry isn't fifteen points up on Bush right now.

As a matter of fact, the AWOL gambit was a huge blunder. All this has done is to firm up Bush's base behind him. The likes of Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore questioning Bush's military service pissed the lot of us off. Kerry was foolish enough not to stomp on it immediately, which should tell you something about his tactical sense. All this has done is to draw Bush even with Kerry again in the Gallup poll, when he was seven points behind last week.

Now Kerry has to try to move to the center, but he won't be able to do that and bring it off. Why? Bush is sitting on 200 million dollars that will be used between now and the Convention to paint Kerry as a two-faced phony who switches between liberalism and centrism depending on the audience.

We are not waiting until after the convention. Trust me on this.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[raloxk]

100% right

[Intolerant in NJ]

Multiply that by the almost 3 1/2 hours left in CA, and you can see how Bush may have lost over a million votes nationwide due to the "hastiness" of the networks in calling Florida...I'll buy that, especially since it would help muffle the whine that "Gore got more votes than Bush but still lost the election".....

[kevao]

Seems more people will vote for pure Socialism than for Socialism "light."

That's NOT the choice the RNC should be offering.

[SunkenCiv]

The Grand Rapids Press (Michigan) had curious coverage of the Wisconsin results (2/18/04, A5). According to the sidebar "Exit Polls", John Kerry "led among those who thought the economy was poor" while John Edwards "held a lead among those who said the economy and jobs were the top issues."

Huh?

"The most important issues were the economy and jobs, chosen by more than four in 10 in exit polls. Edwards had more than a 10-point lead among this group." This despite the fact that the ambulance chasing on which he's built his fortune has only benefited himself, and cost jobs for everyone else.

My friend and coworker told me he wouldn't go to Walmart "because I'm a Democrat", and told me this while we were waiting to checkout at Sam's Club (duh!). He also said he was for Kerry, and was against the war. I pointed out that "your man voted for the war resolution", and he said, "I don't wanna hear that." Heh heh...

In Wisconsin, sez this sidebar, the war in Iraq was considered the top issue by fewer than 2 in 10. The core "pull the straight party ticket lever at all costs" supporters of the so-called Democratic Party don't care about the issues, and only pretend to have some reason to vote against Bush. What that phony reason is varies of course, from person to person and week to week.

In 1992 I remember another coworker (different job) saying after the election that it was "Iran-Contra" -- an issue that wasn't brought up by Clinton et al because he was aware of it and involved in it during his governorship. And for that matter, George McGovern complained that during his 1972 campaign a couple of women refused to shake his hand because they said he'd hurt the poor if he were elected, yet he was one of the authors of the Food Stamps Act. ;')

Kerry will now have to engage in a hatchet job style campaign against Edwards, as he has been doing right along against all his opponents. Obviously, the 1980 race comes to mind, when the role was reversed -- GB sr made his infamous "voodoo economics" claim against Reagan, then wound up as Reagan's VP.

The reprehensibly partisan Tina Fey, on SNL's "Weekend Update", bashed Bush with one joke, then bashed him again while bashing Ralph Nader. Nader has announced his candidacy, not as a Green. Peculiar that he turned down the Greens? I think it was probably the other way around.

[Richard Kimball]

If they get the same refs they got in the Raiders game and the Indy game this year, they could go undefeated. Don't get me wrong, I like the Pats. They're a good, well-coached team. But their DB's could have used duct tape on the Indy receivers and not gotten called for interference. BTW, if they keep their core, you could be right. I don't think they're an all-time great team, but they're solid, and if you're going to beat them, bring your lunch, cause you're going to have to beat them all four quarters.

[SunkenCiv]

If Bush gets CA, it's all over.

Yeah, and he will have enough cash to run his campaign after the nominating convention for his opponents. He'll run everywhere, but spend his money to shore up any of the leaning states, especially the larger leaning states like California. Alas, I can't find quite what I'm looking for...

Forget the South
by Ryan Lizza
excerpts from 12/14/03
New York Times

Between 1988 and 2000, the Democratic margin of defeat plunged from more than 21 percentage points to less than 6 points in Arizona and just 3 points in Nevada. Combine Nader's votes with Gore's and these states have gone from GOP blowouts to tossups in just three election cycles. In Colorado, Gore did worse than Michael Dukakis did in 1988, but better once Nader's vote is included. Taking a longer view, New Mexico went consecutively for Nixon twice, Gerald Ford once, Reagan twice, and George H.W. Bush once -- but has gone Democratic since 1992. And population growth gives the Southwest four more electoral votes in 2004 than in 2000... Joe Trippi,Dean's campaign manager... likes to remind reporters that winning all the Gore states plus New Hampshire would put Dean in the White House. Because the Bush states gained seven electoral votes as a result of the 2000 Census, Trippi's math is a bit off -- in 2004, that combination only yields 264 electors, six shy of the magical 270 threshold.

GWB by at least ten per cent.

[SunkenCiv]

In every state except New Hampshire the Democratic primary turn out has been quite low. If the Democratic general Election turn out is much the same, Kerry will be toast. The media is making much about how mad the Demoratic primary voters are at Bush. But only a bit over a third of the Democrats are voting in most states. The remainder are not motivated enough to vote. That is not good for Democrats. That says a majority of Democrats are not motivated against bush enough to come out and vote.

I think you're making good points here. Also, the economy has been bad since Clinton was in office, if we want to call it bad. The deficit came about because the economy slowed, not because of the liberation of Iraq. The economy slowed because the Saudis wanted to balance their budget and so have been engineering an oil shortage to inflate the price.

The price of energy is in everything, but particularly obviously in the food supply. Diesel fuel or gasoline is needed to plow, plant, fertilize, harvest, glean, transport, process, package, ship, distribute, and pick up from the store.

I dunno about anyone else here, but of late I've noticed a slow fade of food prices. Milk is cheaper, pasteurized orange juice is cheaper, meat is cheaper. Could be that sales have been proliferating to juice slow sales? The retail price of gasoline haven't moved much out of a 20 cent range, and moves tend to be rapid upward and slow downward. We've not seen $1.80 a gallon in a very long time.

Also around here, the amount of vacant retail space has tightened up. Over the past few years there have been a number of makeovers on local retail strip malls and the like, which was a symptom of retail vacancy rates (lease rates slip when there's a lot of vacancies, making it easy to lose tenants). Business has been slowly picking up around here, although the job market dried up at least a couple of years ago.

Coverage of course has been things like the Electrolux plant closing. That won't happen until 2005 -- employees offered $12 thousand a head in concessions, which shows that they make a lot of cash, and don't wanna see the gravy train pull out. Electrolux makes those $thousands vacuum cleaners sold door to door, among other things.

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/