Betting on Bush (GOP Internals Predict 50-47% victory)

Washington Whispers-US News &World Report ^ | November 1, 2004 | Paul Bedard

[MNJohnnie]

Reagan had just as much a MSM that was against him (in many ways it could have even been worse. Considering there wasn't a FOX news, no Internet, etc). - Yet Reagan took it to Mondale all of 1984 -
Really? Huh I didn't know that Reagan had fraudulent memos used against him and a propaganda movie that would make goebbels proud pushed by MSM.(/sarcasm)

You are still a troll. Pretty patheitc one at that.


Yep, I would have to agree. Funny how he doesn't remember all the stories about how lousy Reagan did in the 1st 1984 debate. About all the pundits wonder if Reagan was going senile. Or how about going into the 1980 election when every one was saying "it's too close to call" and Carter conceded by 9pm! For a guy who postures as this great political thinker, this guy sure is a one note wonder.

[Friend of thunder]

50 percent to 47 percent.

I don’t mean to be negative but I would be willing to bet – the story is not specific – that that is within the margin of error.

[sissyjane]

Well too bad Bush didn't hire you Some people just like to whine. I for one won't listen.

[samantha]

No, that was that sissy dweeb Chris Leheinous.

[TheExploited]

I think you are right on point. The MSM was all down in dumps at the end of last week. Suddenly, it was as they all got their talking points this morning to get rid of the doom and gloom. I think they are focusing on getting a good turnout so they do not get killed in the Senate races.

They could lose the Louisiana race outright, the Dashole seat and maybe a wildcard like the Feingold seat as well as complete sweep of Burr, Issakson and Martinez to offset the Keyes loss. This would be a complete meltdown.

[camboianchristmas]

Don't forget to mention that many people who voted for Reagan lied about it to the pollsters because the media created a culture of shame around voting for him. In the end, Reagan blew his opponent(s) out of the water. I firmly believe that we will see something similar in this election. Bush will win regardless of the MSM and the libs.

[Truth Table]

has been reelected while polling under 50% one week before the election, Course, most incumbent parties lose seats in off election years. I do not think that this election or the one in 2002 will be able to follow any prior models. Too much has changed. The 2000 elections. Then 911. Also, because of the internet, bloggers, etc. the American people have been shown first hand that the MSM not only has bias for liberals, but is acutally in the tank for them. It's all going to be about trun-out. After this election the pollsters can recalibrate their models. If I had to take a WAG, I'd say that judging by the campaign postures, Bush and Cheney are doing better than Kerry-Edwards. What is clear is that none of the old assumptions are going to work in this election.

[WOSG]

I agree it could have been better.
I also know that the MSM has been tearing at Bush since day one, and for Bush to survive the onslaught this well says alot as well.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Tell me the name of one US President who has been reelected while polling under 50% one week before the election

Bill Clinton.

[MNJohnnie]

Source for this rather amazing bit of disinformation?
Tell me the name of one US President who has been reelected while polling under 50% one week before the election, and I will accept that you are right.

Look, I've been here for six and a half years, and, God willing, I will be here for the end of the Kerry administration.

But you cannot ignore the very alarming condition of the polls on D-minus-eight, and you certainly cannot call it disinf


Nope sorry. I didn't make the claim YOU did. IF you are going to make the claim, YOU back the claim up. Kind of curious why you choose the exact same debating tactic the hard core leftist at work does. He makes the most stupid nonsensical claims about Bush then demand I prove his accusation wrong! Guy NEVER defends anything just moves on to the next attack line. Kind of curious why people think this is an acceptable debate tactic?

But let's approach this from another way. Which poll am I suppose to beleive Rass, WP Battleground which has Bush JA over 50 or the See Bs that has it at 44%? The line about "JA under 50 is just more Urban mythology. Reagan and Clinton were OVER 50. Carter/Bush were in the low 40s So just how a job approval number in the HIGH 40s but UNDER 50 NO ONE is sure how it will shake out.

Maybe we should use the RCP method and AVERAGE it which comes too......

Bush JA Number of 50.1

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

[Let's Roll]

My first thought too. They can steal 5-7%.

[MNJohnnie]

Wow! How unfortunate for me that my post got pushed in between your discussion with sunkillmoon (sp?). I am still mulling over the intellectually monochromatic thing; it is a pretty decent zinger. I may borrow that one in the future if you don't mind. BTW, I won't be taking your post personally but I "feel your pain" and I "appreciate your feelings".

I'm sorry you took it personal. I was trying to get a general point and didn't mean for you to take it personal. Your post merely gave me an opportunity to make the observation. I actually agree with the need for more balance. Some see nothing but the bad news, some focus on nothing but the good news. The longer you hang out here, the more you begin to notice certain names over and over and over who post NOTHING but negatives and then you will see others who post NOTHING but "Bush is going to win by 400 electoral votes" type posts. Frankly both are equally Intellectually Monochromatic but at least ONE is honest enthusasism. Cannot quite figure out the point of rushing around a Website screaming "OH GOD we are all going to die" Sorry but I know quite clearly which one I want in the foxhole with me.


But as an earlier poster pointed out. This is all just Phy Ops. Mind games to fire up your base and depress the other guys. There is SO much going on. New Registration, Unlikely voters, 9-11, the Internet, widspread naked voter fraud, etc etc etc, I honestly don't think ANYONE really has any idea where this is all going to end up. The election is decided ON THE DAY by who shows up. All the rest of this is just empty gassing to pass the time from here to there. Plus I am cranky cause I turn 40 tomorrow.

[MNJohnnie]

Champion should set the tone early of who's in charge (Just as Reagan did to Mondale

HAAAA Man you sure were not around in '84. I remember how panic stricken all the Repbos were after the 1st debate in 1984. Just like this year they were all set for Mondale to get crushed like a toad and couldn't figure out what had gone wrong with Reagan.

[pie_eater]

"Yeah, except that Bush is still under 50% approval in every single swing state. That's really, really bad and in fact, no president has ever pulled off a successful re-election polling where he is at right now....so what, do we believe that this guy can walk on water. I'm sorry, I think, in fact, I know, he's going to lose"

Hey, don't forget that Clinton himself was polling at like 43% approval prior to his 1996 re-election. The 50% "magic number" is a myth.

[MNJohnnie]

saw for calls for a zot becasue someone posted his opinion that because bush is below 50% AR in each battleground state, he will lose.

Is that disrupting? Is that contention debatable?

Calling for a zot is what was silly.



Actually it was a completely reasonable response to a complete undocumented, unsubstantiated accusation thrown out there by a poster. When I called the individual on it he demanded I prove HIS accusation wrong. The guy wasn't interested in debate he wanted to throw out the most wild unsubstituted panic mongering accusation. Sorry, if he cannot back it up and refused to debate, he probably should be zotted.

[rjmeagle]

Good point!!! I am a newbie and I agree with everything you wrote. You are quite right in stating that this election has to be one of the most vicious in memory. It absolutely galls me and makes me extremely angry that the puking Dems are attacking our war-time President with such vitriol and lies. They are socialists and traitors!!! They are despicable and if any of them comes here as trolls, we should at least be able to kill the bastards electronically (ZOT)!!! Also, we have to listen to the Dim traitors negativism and defeatism, but I will be damned if I am going to listen to so-called Newbie Pubs feeding us this drivel.

God, that felt good!!! My chest has a little less weight on it :)

[MNJohnnie]

Yeah, except that Bush is still under 50% approval in every single swing state. That's really, really bad and in fact, no president has ever pulled off a successful re-election polling where he is at right now....so what, do we believe that this guy can walk on water. I'm sorry, I think, in fact, I know, he's going to lose"


See my post. I nuked this guy.

[MNJohnnie]

Seriously, you seem to make comments with no regard to actual facts. Ronald Reagan lead every poll (outside of 2 or 3) from March of 1984 until election day


Seriously you are absolutely clueless. I actually LIVED thru the 1984 campaign. I am what is know as an expert witness. What's your source for your rather odd claims?