There is something that I am amazed that nobody else has mentioned yet that I have seen.

Kerry did not see any "bounce" in numbers after the DNC.  Normally, after a week-long blitz on TV-Radio-Newspaper, each party will see at least a small bounce in their poll numbers.  But after the DNC, there was no bounce at all for Kerry.

During the week after, a lot of people speculated this was because the election was already so polarized, that most everybody had already made up their minds.  They also speculated that Bush would not get a bounce either.

But now that the RNC is over, we have actually seen a rather large bounce for Bush.  Today according to www.electoral-vote.com, Bush leads Kerry 275-274 electors. 

OK, maybe it indicates Bush will win in November, and then we can kiss our American republic goodbye!
:o

funny.. Bush's bounce is the smallest ever recorded.

http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=12922&pg=1

So Kerry saw a -1% bounce and Bush a +2% bounce.  Both are fairly insignificant since there's still two months to go.  Especially when most polls claim to have a one or two percent margin of error. 

I may be wrong, but I attribute the different "bounces" to the style of the 2 conventions.  The Dems were rather mild on Bush, while the Rebups demonized Kerry.  The negitivity I heard from them made me sick.  I think its time for Kerry to punch back - hard!

Bear in mind the conventions mean less and less every election cycle.  They have degenerated giant campaign ads and PR stunts.

Everybody pretty much knew what was going to happen at the Democratic convention and at the Republican convention.  I wasn't even surprised at Zell Miller's spaz attack.  I expected nothing less from him.

Similarly, the Presidential debates are not real debates.  They are glorified press conferences.  They let that Chuck Jim Lehrer write all the questions.  What kind of a debate is that?  The debate I want to see is 90 minutes of the candidates asking eachother questions.  The moderator would just be there to make sure the questions, answers, and rebuttals stayed within time limits, and to keep the candidates from interrupting each other.
Of course I wish it was this way, because Bush wouldn't make it past the first half hour without his brain melting down!

Bear in mind the conventions mean less and less every election cycle.  They have degenerated giant campaign ads and PR stunts.

Everybody pretty much knew what was going to happen at the Democratic convention and at the Republican convention.  I wasn't even surprised at Zell Miller's spaz attack.  I expected nothing less from him.

Similarly, the Presidential debates are not real debates.  They are glorified press conferences.  They let that Chuck Jim Lehrer write all the questions.  What kind of a debate is that?  The debate I want to see is 90 minutes of the candidates asking eachother questions.  The moderator would just be there to make sure the questions, answers, and rebuttals stayed within time limits, and to keep the candidates from interrupting each other.
Of course I wish it was this way, because Bush wouldn't make it past the first half hour without his brain melting down!


Foe sure!  Or give each 15 minutes to present his approach to a policy issue and another 10 to answer the other 1, then questions back and forth.

But now that the RNC is over, we have actually seen a rather large bounce for Bush.  Today according to www.electoral-vote.com, Bush leads Kerry 275-274 electors. 


http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep08.html

and less than a week later, it's gone

There is something that I am amazed that nobody else has mentioned yet that I have seen.

Kerry did not see any "bounce" in numbers after the DNC.  Normally, after a week-long blitz on TV-Radio-Newspaper, each party will see at least a small bounce in their poll numbers.  But after the DNC, there was no bounce at all for Kerry.

During the week after, a lot of people speculated this was because the election was already so polarized, that most everybody had already made up their minds.  They also speculated that Bush would not get a bounce either.

But now that the RNC is over, we have actually seen a rather large bounce for Bush.  Today according to www.electoral-vote.com, Bush leads Kerry 275-274 electors. 


Yes!  Bush has moved 7 points ahead of Kerry in the Gallup poll among likley voters.  Bush has also moved so far ahead in Ohio, that Marc Zogby, the conducter of the Zogby poll has now said that he no longer thinks of Ohio as a battleground state.  CNN's electoral count has Bush with 274 electoral votes, and my favorite state-by-state poll site (which I prefer not to reveal) has Bush at 284 electoral votes and Kerry at 250 electoral votes.  This is a bounce, I know, but my gut feeling tells me Bush will win.  Bush is also ahead in all but 2 national polls, and the ones he is behind shows him only 1 point behind.  Besides where can you go wrong with job approval numbers like these:

Approve: 52%  Newsweek  09/03/04
Approve: 55%  Time  09/02/04
Approve: 45%  American Research Group  09/01/04
Approve: 53%  Annenberg  08/29/04
Approve: 50%  ABC - Washington Post  08/29/04
Approve: 54%  Fox News  09/03/04

Yes!  Bush has moved 7 points ahead of Kerry in the Gallup poll among likley voters.  Bush has also moved so far ahead in Ohio, that Marc Zogby, the conducter of the Zogby poll has now said that he no longer thinks of Ohio as a battleground state.  CNN's electoral count has Bush with 274 electoral votes, and my favorite state-by-state poll site (which I prefer not to reveal) has Bush at 284 electoral votes and Kerry at 250 electoral votes.  This is a bounce, I know, but my gut feeling tells me Bush will win.  Bush is also ahead in all but 2 national polls, and the ones he is behind shows him only 1 point behind.  Besides where can you go wrong with job approval numbers like these:

Approve: 52%  Newsweek  09/03/04
Approve: 55%  Time  09/02/04
Approve: 45%  American Research Group  09/01/04
Approve: 53%  Annenberg  08/29/04
Approve: 50%  ABC - Washington Post  08/29/04
Approve: 54%  Fox News  09/03/04


It is still up for grabs.  Remember, they call Kerry "The Comeback Kid"

GWBush2004, man of a million polls.  I care nothing for polls,and I would suggest you ignore them too.  It doesn't matter what margin Bush "wins" by, just know that if he wins, put your head between your legs and kiss your country goodbye!
:o

http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep08.html

and less than a week later, it's gone


And less then a day later, Bush is back in the lead.

Sigh...you guys...

$10 says the lead fluctuates back and forth from now until November 2.  That doesn't tell you jack.  Stop bickering, it's annoying.

I'm going to vote for Nader just to piss all of you off.

Sigh...you guys...

$10 says the lead fluctuates back and forth from now until November 2.  That doesn't tell you jack.  Stop bickering, it's annoying.

I'm going to vote for Nader just to tick all of you off.

Depends on whether you llive in a swing state.
Ralph is right about darn near everything.  He wasn't exactly right about there not being a "dime's worth of difference" between the Democrat and Republican parties.  It would be very difficult to price the value of getting rid of the Bush Administration.  I share Nader's frustration with the two major parties being enslaved to corporate interests.  I also think it's a blow to Democracy to tell him he shouldn't run.
As big a Ralph supporter as I am in general, his candidacy still troubles me.  The stakes are just too high this time around.

As I say, I don't care about which candidate more Americans want to vote for, I care about right and wrong.  Unfortunately, it's quite possible for the majority to be wrong.

I'm going to vote for Nader just to tick all of you off.


Which state do you live in?  He hasn't made every state but I guess you could write him in if you're serious.  Nader's website says he is currently on 26 state ballots, and even he is dropped out of the race right now and quit he would stay on those 26 states.  He has the potential to be on as high as 44 states and the D.C.  When he formally accepted the Reform Parties endorsement that got him on 7 state ballots including Florida.  Also just a few days ago Nader posted this on his official website:

''Seven more states have stormed the ballot access barrier in the past ten days under the Ralph Nader banner. Elections offices in the District of Columbia, New York, Virginia, Oregon, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington, and Wyoming have accepted a combined total of 89,778 petition signatures to add Ralph Nader to their state ballots.''

What of those reports of GOP supporters lobbying for Nader to get on the ballot in many states. What dirty politics. It makes me sick. Another thing that gets me going is the fact that I live in TX and my vote, basically, doesn't count. No matter how many people in TX vote for Kerry in this election, Bush will still have more supporters here and all of our state's votes will go to him. That is one reason why I have such ambivalence toward the Electoral College. It was originally instituted because the fathers knew that the majority of their American population were too uneducated to have the final say in a presidential election. In this day in age, no matter how stupid the average American is, we all have at least gone to public school (whatever that's worth) and we should be able to decide via the popular vote who our president is going to be.

So in November I shall cast my vote for John F. Kerry, knowing full well that it won't mean $#!T. Only swing-state voters' decisions matter now.

What of those reports of GOP supporters lobbying for Nader to get on the ballot in many states. What dirty politics.

How is it dirty?  Ralph Nader welcomes the support, he on his website, www.votenader.org, says he is tired of the democrats' ''dirty tricks.''  He was on The O'Reilly Factor talking about this last night.  Instead of trying to EARN the votes and compete with Nader, the democrats are basically trying to prevent millions of Americans from voting for the candidate of their choice.  Now thats a pretty dictatorial thing being done by the democrats.  What kind of party/democracy tries to earn votes by preventing another candidate from getting votes?  In a sense, Nader is a spoiler, but so are the democrats and the republicans.  Every candidate and/or party tries to get votes from the other side and win the election, so in a sense anyone running for president is a spoiler.  Nader is the only anti-war candidate running, he has a core unlike John Kerry.

''If our only choices are between two big war candidates, then it is war we will have.'' -Ralph Nader.

How is it dirty?  Ralph Nader welcomes the support, he on his website, www.votenader.org, says he is tired of the democrats' ''dirty tricks.''  He was on The O'Reilly Factor talking about this last night.  Instead of trying to EARN the votes and compete with Nader, the democrats are basically trying to prevent millions of Americans from voting for the candidate of their choice.  Now thats a pretty dictatorial thing being done by the democrats.  What kind of party/democracy tries to earn votes by preventing another candidate from getting votes?  In a sense, Nader is a spoiler, but so are the democrats and the republicans.  Every candidate and/or party tries to get votes from the other side and win the election, so in a sense anyone running for president is a spoiler.  Nader is the only anti-war candidate running, he has a core unlike John Kerry.

''If our only choices are between two big war candidates, then it is war we will have.'' -Ralph Nader.


This would be fine if we had a true democracy and restructured our political process to give third party candidates a chance - ie a multi-party system, but we don't.  So, if Nader voters and Kerry voters have more in common issue wise than tyhey have with Bush, and they constitute the majority opinion, how does electing Bush, with whom both groups disagree strongly, reflect anything close to democracy?  Those republicans that are trying to aid Nader (who they hate) are doing so for disengenuous reasons, and your post is just as disengenuous.

And, as of today, it's getting closer...


What bounces up also falls down.

What of those reports of GOP supporters lobbying for Nader to get on the ballot in many states. What dirty politics. It makes me sick.

Speaking of Nader he spoke out today, and said Bush will win the election:

KERRY IS DOOMED TO DEFEAT, SAYS NADER
By Paul West
Sun National Staff
Originally published September 10, 2004
WASHINGTON - Independent candidate Ralph Nader predicted yesterday that Sen. John Kerry is headed for defeat in the presidential election - and that this time at least, his own candidacy wouldn't be a factor in the outcome.

The 70-year-old, anti-corporate activist described the campaign by Kerry, a one-time ally, as a blown opportunity against one of the most vulnerable incumbents in years.

Nader praised Kerry not long ago as "very presidential," but he was unsparing yesterday in his critique of the Democratic nominee. He warned that Kerry's weak performance would be "an anchor" that will drag down votes for other Democratic candidates and prevent their party from regaining control of Congress this fall.

Nader, the target of an aggressive effort by Democrats to block his access to the ballot, repeated some of the lines that President Bush has used to attack Kerry and echoed private criticism by some Democrats.

Kerry has surrounded himself with too many campaign advisers, "and they're not letting him think for himself," Nader said.

"You lose your identity after a while, and that is very easily perceived by people. Wavering, flip-flops - all that stuff - is very perceived."

The Democratic nominee has "been on the defensive when he should be on the offensive against Bush," Nader said. Kerry's message has lost its "clarity," and he's "not laying a glove" on the "most vulnerable Republican administration of modern times."

The Kerry campaign dismissed Nader's criticism by noting that Republicans had tried to aid his efforts to qualify for the ballot in several states.

"These charges are coming from a candidate whose campaign is being organized and financed by Bush Republicans," said Chad Clanton, a Kerry campaign spokesman.

On Iraq, Nader charged, Kerry has "tied himself in knots" with his votes both in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein and against a measure for additional funding for the war and reconstruction of Iraq.

Nader said Kerry was "too busy defending his situation in the Mekong Delta 35 years ago to go after Bush" over the casualty count in Iraq. He criticized Kerry for not doing more to counter last week's Republican convention in New York.

"Where were the Democrats?" he asked, faulting the Massachusetts senator for spending time windsurfing off Nantucket while under attack by Bush.

Though Nader has been abandoned by many of his former Democratic Party allies, his scathing assessment may prefigure the arguments that liberal Democrats will employ if Kerry loses.

Kerry, he said, committed a strategic blunder in abandoning the "old Democratic" strategy of making economic issues, such as lagging wage growth and corporate excesses, the focus of his campaign.

Nader has been the target of a drive by Democrats to keep his name off the ballot in as many states as possible. Many Democrats, and others, regard him as a spoiler who cost Al Gore the election in 2000 by siphoning away votes that caused states such as Florida to tip Bush's way.

That problem isn't likely to repeat itself this November, Nader argued, because his candidacy is unlikely to be a factor in the outcome. Nader pointed out that Bush's current lead over Kerry in the polls is "way beyond" his own sparse showing.

Recent national surveys, conducted since the Republican convention, have shown Bush leading Kerry by 7 percentage points, with Nader at just 1 percent among likely voters. Still, some states remain close, and even a 1 percent vote for Nader could affect the outcome.

Nader drew nearly 3 percent of the popular vote in 2000, when he was on the ballot in 43 states.

This year, at least six states, including Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania, have rejected his candidacy. But Democrats remain concerned about his presence on the ballot in some swing states that could decide the election.

Nader says he's on the ballot in about two dozen states and hopes to meet ballot requirements in about 40 in all. His status is the subject of court fights in several states, including Florida, and it could be early October before ballots are finalized in every state.

Even as Democrats have waged a campaign to limit Nader's influence in the election, Kerry has tried to reach out to his friend from the antiwar movement of the 1970s. The two held an hourlong private meeting at Kerry's campaign headquarters in May.

Later, Nader praised Kerry in interviews. But the meeting failed to achieve Kerry's goal of getting Nader to quit the race.

That's what the Dems get for being Republican-lite!

Remember, though, it doesn't matter who the Democratic candidate is, the full fury of the $400 million a year Republican noise machine will come down on him.  They would have destroyed Howard Dean or Joe Lieberman just the same. 

Unless liberals/progressives amass the same kind of power and discipline, the Dems are doomed.

Of course, the joke is on anyone who earns less than six figures a year.

That's what the Dems get for being Republican-lite!

Remember, though, it doesn't matter who the Democratic candidate is, the full fury of the $400 million a year Republican noise machine will come down on him.  They would have destroyed Howard Dean or Joe Lieberman just the same. 

Unless liberals/progressives amass the same kind of power and discipline, the Dems are doomed.

Of course, the joke is on anyone who earns less than six figures a year.


I find it very hard to believe republicans could even come close to trashing Joe Lieberman like we do with idiots like Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and Kucinich. 

By the way, Zogby which is what the democrats are citing now since Kerry is doing best in that poll has now revised its numbers up for Bush.  In a poll that traditionally gives Kerry one or two more points then other polls Bush now has a 4 point lead (47-42.)  That is up from the 2 point lead Bush had a few days ago, so now Zogby is giving Bush his biggest bounce mostly because before the RNC Kerry had a 7 point lead in that poll.  Time today released its poll and yet again it shows Bush up 11 points.  ABC-Washington Post has Bush up 9 points.  Bush leads in polls anywhere between 3-8 points in Ohio.  What amazes me the most is what the pollster for the Zogby poll has to say:

Pollster John Zogby: “The Kerry fizzle is striking.  He receives only 77% support from Democratic Party voters and has a 7-point lead in the blue states (47%-40%), as compared to Bush’s 13-point lead in the red states (51%-38%).  The fact that Bush is getting 15% of Democrats and 15% of liberals should be troublesome. Bush leads again among Catholics (48%-40%) whereas Kerry had a double-digit lead among them in August. The fact that 10% of African Americans say that they are ‘not sure’ is dangerous for Kerry.

“Kerry has got to re-focus his campaign to address economic anxiety and other issues that are obvious concerns for voters. Kerry leads among those who say that their top issues are jobs and the economy (50%-39%), education (48%-37%), the war in Iraq (50%-36%), and health care (50%-34%). But, among those who say that the ‘war on terrorism’ is their top concern, Bush leads by 41 points (66%-25%).

“Right now all the talk is on the ‘war on terrorism.’  Kerry has to change the talk.â€ÂÂ�

Which state do you live in?  He hasn't made every state but I guess you could write him in if you're serious.  Nader's website says he is currently on 26 state ballots, and even he is dropped out of the race right now and quit he would stay on those 26 states.  He has the potential to be on as high as 44 states and the D.C.  When he formally accepted the Reform Parties endorsement that got him on 7 state ballots including Florida.  Also just a few days ago Nader posted this on his official website:

''Seven more states have stormed the ballot access barrier in the past ten days under the Ralph Nader banner. Elections offices in the District of Columbia, New York, Virginia, Oregon, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington, and Wyoming have accepted a combined total of 89,778 petition signatures to add Ralph Nader to their state ballots.''



Yeah, you Repubs have a love/hate relationship with Ralphie.  You love to see him run and you hate what he stands for.  In our state primaries I voted the Repub ticket to vote against a carpet bagging business dork (it worked last time, when Fred Tuttle won the nomination).  Imagine me voting in the Repub primary ;)

Yeah, you Repubs have a love/hate relationship with Ralphie.  You love to see him run and you hate what he stands for.  In our state primaries I voted the Repub ticket to vote against a carpet bagging business dork (it worked last time, when Fred Tuttle won the nomination).  Imagine me voting in the Repub primary ;)

Why do you think GWBush2004 is so fond of polls that say Bush is ahead?  It's not about principles, it's about winning, and winning by any means necessary.  The age of the Republican party standing for REAL conservative values is OVER.  Now it's an endless campaign of sneering, gloating, and grabbing for power.