Posted on 08/15/2004 6:05:29 AM PDT by TomDoniphon68
HAVE WE reached a turning point in the Presidential election? Or have we just reached a turning point in how the press views the Presidential election?
Or is that the same thing?
On Tuesday, Charlie Cook, a highly respected nonpartisan political analyst, wrote in his column for the National Journal that things are looking bad for President Bush.
Cook’s chief point is that while Kerry holds just a slim lead in some polls, there are very few undecided voters out there and that Bush realistically can expect to get no more than 25 percent of them.
Which would mean a Kerry victory in November. Cook is not foolish enough to predict this, and of course, he includes the usual language about how things can change. But here are his concluding thoughts:
“. . . President Bush must have a change in the dynamics and the fundamentals of this race if he is to win a second term. The sluggishly recovering economy and renewed violence in Iraq don’t seem likely to positively affect this race, but something needs to happen. It is extremely unlikely that President Bush will get much more than one-fourth of the undecided vote, and if that is the case, he will need to be walking into Election Day with a clear lead of perhaps three percentage points.
“This election is certainly not over, but for me, it will be a matter of watching for events or circumstances that will fundamentally change the existing equation — one that for now favors a challenger over an incumbent.”
The following day, The Note, which is the highly influential online political newsletter of ABC News, reprinted those paragraphs from Cook and added its own conclusion: “. . . the reality is — as amazing as this seems — this is now John Kerry’s contest to lose.”
The Note then listed some reasons, which include:
“Forget the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs and Team Bush’s inability — so far — to enunciate a second-term jobs/growth agenda. . .
“Forget the fact that that we still can’t find a single American who voted for Al Gore in 2000 who is planning to vote for George Bush in 2004.
“Forget the fact that California, New York, Illinois and New Jersey. . . aren’t in play and never were.
“Forget the latest polling out of Ohio (and perhaps Florida).
“Forget the extraordinary anti-Bush energy that exists on the left and the ‘How-do-we-whip-our-folks-up?’ dilemma that exists on the right.
“Forget the various signs that the Democratic challenger is playing in battleground areas for the middle and the President seems geographically and issues-wise to be still shoring up the base.
“But remember the poisonous job approval, re-elect and wrong-track numbers that hang around the President’s neck to this day. . . ”
Both articles will be influential within the press not just because the authors are respected, but also because neither publication is known as being anti-Bush.
And for them both to reach the same conclusion — the “existing equation” now favors “a challenger over an incumbent” in Cook’s words and “this is now John Kerry’s contest to lose” in The Note’s — is a startling departure from the “political stalemate” view which many in the press have held so far.
As I said, last week may go down as the turning point in this Presidential campaign. Or it may be the turning point in how the press views this Presidential campaign.
Or is that the same thing?
In the dreamland that is the liberal mind it is.
My standard operating procedure in reading the liberal media is to imagine the words "Liberals Wish That:" before each headline.
Kerry has been proven beyond a doubt to have lied about being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve and it is his election to lose?? What are they talking about?
Oh, I think last week may well be seen as the turning point in this election.
But the fact that the Dems had to trot poor old Bob Kerrey out 80 days before the election to argue for Kerry's basic fitness to be President shows which way things are actually turning.
Most folks in the Kerry Kamp are there because they dislike Bush, not because they Love Lurch.
When America gets to Know Kerry/Edwards, they will vote W.
Bush 45 State Blowout in November!
Saying that the election is Kerry't to lose implies that he is the favotite and I don't think that is the case. It would be more accurate to say that the election is President Bush's to lose.
“Forget the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs and Team Bush’s inability — so far — to enunciate a second-term jobs/growth agenda. . .
“Forget the fact that that we still can’t find a single American who voted for Al Gore in 2000 who is planning to vote for George Bush in 2004.
“Forget the fact that California, New York, Illinois and New Jersey. . . aren’t in play and never were.
“Forget the latest polling out of Ohio (and perhaps Florida).
“Forget the extraordinary anti-Bush energy that exists on the left and the ‘How-do-we-whip-our-folks-up?’ dilemma that exists on the right.
“Forget the various signs that the Democratic challenger is playing in battleground areas for the middle and the President seems geographically and issues-wise to be still shoring up the base.
“But remember the poisonous job approval, re-elect and wrong-track numbers that hang around the President’s neck to this day. . . ”
Both articles will be influential within the press not just because the authors are respected, but also because neither publication is known as being anti-Bush.
Consider: ALL of the predictive models have Bush winning . . . easily. Some use the term "landslide." I think that is too strong, but Lichter, for one, has never been wrong, and Fair wrong on the electoral vote (but not the pop. vote) in 2000 and wrong on both in 1992. OTHER THAN THAT, his model has fit EVERY OTHER AMERICAN ELECTION in the 20th century.
*Bush's approval in Rasmussen, despite a steady Kerry lead of between 1-4% in the last two weeks, has never fallen below 50% and has often hovered at 52-53%.
Gallup and other polls that use ONLY "likely" voters all have Bush ahead by 2-4%.
*We have been hoodwinked by Zogby, who is using a self-selecting internet poll. This is pure garbage.
ARG apparently across the board has had Bush 2-3% below even OTHER polls that were negative to Bush.
Ras's "approval numbers" simply don't match his state results. Moreover, given that in high-density states like Illinois, New York, and California, Bush is expected to lose by a lot (and I'm beginning to doubt CA for a lot of reasons), the numbers don't work out for Bush to also be behind in states like Ohio and Florida in many of these polls. In other words, for Bush to be trailing by 1% nationally (as he was yesterday in Ras) he couldn't POSSIBLY be behind by 2-3% in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida. It just doesn't add up. Quite the contrary, he likely is UP in most of those states.
I actually have a different take on this proclamation. I believe Kerry is being set up to take the fall when he loses the election so Democrats won't have to face the reality that their party is bankrupt. Expect to see lots of finger pointing and hand wringing after the election, all of it targeted at John Kerry.
Your statement implies the media wouldn't move to protect the Democratic party in case of an electoral blowout. If Bush starts to pull steadily ahead after the convention watch the media start the blame Kerry campaign.
I fail to see how speculation of this type "does our side no good". I think you're a little paranoid there friend.
"Or it may be the turning point in how the press views this Presidential campaign."
There is absolutely no question of this. The press feels confident that jumping into the election with not just slanted reporting, but complete partisanship, is palatable to the voting public. The right is seething over it, and those with any sense on the left are shaking their heads and concerned. When the position the leftist media has taken falls into disfavor, ratings will go through the floor. The media has staked its future on political activism.
Someone should tell the Bush campaign most do not understand the 400 billion Medicare/Prescription /Drugs plan. That is the first problem. The second problem is that many on "fixed incomes" are being savage by increasing drug costs. Finally, alas, many affluent elderly believe that Medicare should and must pay for their medications, even though they can easily afford to pay themselves, because, "we have paid into the Government and deserve it."
Some wise person in the campaign must make efforts now. The problem in Florida, more likely than not, is old people. IMHO the problem with "greatest generation" is their sense of entitlement to the resources and effort of working people. No one approaches this directly, and perhaps no one can and survive politically; however, some oblique efforts need to be made.
Enough people don't care if Kerry lied and committed war crimes. Enough people didn't care if Clinton lied and committed rape. Look at the support Kobe Bryant gets on this same forum.
I think President Bush will prevail, not because he is a star, but because he is better for the country then Kerry and there may be enough Americans left who still car discern good from evil.
Remember September 11th. Do not surrender. Fight.
Your theory of a disconnect between polls and actual voting may be borne out in the Missouri vote on gay marriage.
I think it polled about 12 to 15 points lower than the actual vote.
The convention and the debates haven't happened yet. Both favor W.
IMO, if it's true, it is Kerry's to lose. The Republican Convention may help, but I doubt it. The Conventions have become such dog and pony shows, that I think they're losing their ability to move the electorate.
These people with that sense of entitlement, who will vote for the party that favors wealth redistribution, can probably not ever be persuaded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.