Kerry Tops Bush in Newsweek Poll

[Spence]

Kerry has a slight lead over Bush in the new Newsweek poll (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4049942/), 49-46%. Fifty-two percent of Americans polled do not want Bush re-elected. Pretty much the same number who did not want him [s]elected in the first place.

[RedskinsDave]

Wait until the campaigning starts. Those numbers will change real quickly.

[Spence]

That's what I'm counting on.

[jporterweb]

For this NEWSWEEK poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed 1,006 adults aged 18 and older Jan. 22 and Jan. 23 by telephone. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

1006 people hardly amounts to the majority of Americans

[Patrick]

Polls ???? What a bunch of crap. Polls can be manipulated to say what ever you want them to say. Don't trust polls.

[bjohns]

I'm Republican and I'm not happy with Bush. I hope the democrats put up a candidate I can at least think about voting for. Bush's handling of the budget is irresponsible. We're right back to overspending 100s of billions a year. Clinton was a disgace as a president but at least he managed finances responsibly. Democrats are tax and spend liberals?!? The evidence seems to point to the opposite (Bush, Reagan).

[Spence]

BJOHNS, that's a great point. It's weird, but I always felt much closer to the traditional Republican position about balancing the budget and paying for whatever you buy. I've always believed that long-term budget deficits, especially big ones [and these are breaking every record in the history of the world] are incredibly immoral. Fiscal conservatism was the one thing that attracted me to the Republican party, but now that's gone. Plenty of Republicans still care about it, but not the ones who run the party. All they care about is big tax cuts for the wealthy and helping companies relocated offshore so they can avoid paying taxes at all.

One of the most important lessons for Democrats to learn from Bill Clinton is balancing the budget. Clinton's determination to balance the budget made him, at times, very unpopular in the Democratic party--especially among the Left. It proved, however, to not only be a great thing for the country, but a popular one, as well. Since they control the entire federal government, the GOP cannot blame the Democrats for this mess. If the Democrats do not get our finances in order, no one will.

[skinsfan44]

Originally posted by Patrick
Polls ???? What a bunch of crap. Polls can be manipulated to say what ever you want them to say. Don't trust polls.

Look who did the poll.

Newsweek.

Enough said.

[Spence]

Originally posted by skinsfan44
Look who did the poll.

Newsweek.

Enough said. Well, I see your point. Newsweek is owned by The Washington Post and The Post has fallen all over itself to defend the Bush admin's many failings. Nevertheless, I trust the poll. It's possible they slanted it to make Bush look better, but I doubt it. They have professional pollsters to do this sort of thing. It's not like listening to Rush Limbaugh or anything like that.

[RedskinsDave]

Translation: If the poll favors dems, it is reliable and done by ethical pollsters. If it does not, it is a Fox news slant.

[Minnesota Mike]

Originally posted by jporterweb
For this NEWSWEEK poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed 1,006 adults aged 18 and older Jan. 22 and Jan. 23 by telephone. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

1006 people hardly amounts to the majority of Americans


Fair point. Plus, as Bush previously demostrated, getting into the White House has very little to with winning the votes of a majority of Americans.

[RedskinsDave]

True, and Clinton got less than 50% of the vote as well in 1996. The majority voted for someone else.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by bjohns
I'm Republican and I'm not happy with Bush. I hope the democrats put up a candidate I can at least think about voting for. Bush's handling of the budget is irresponsible. We're right back to overspending 100s of billions a year. Clinton was a disgace as a president but at least he managed finances responsibly. Democrats are tax and spend liberals?!? The evidence seems to point to the opposite (Bush, Reagan).

Well, I can see how Clinton may have been a disgrace as a husband, but how exactly as president? What about his policies did you find so disgraceful?

[Spence]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Translation: If the poll favors dems, it is reliable and done by ethical pollsters. If it does not, it is a Fox news slant. Don't be silly, Dave. I don't believe that. I've never said that or even implied it. I have some experience with pollsters and the good ones are very conscientious professionals. If Gallup comes out with a poll tomorrow that says Bush is favored for re-election by 60% of the public, I'd believe it. I'd believe it because it's Gallup and they know what they are doing.

And I don't dismiss Fox News polls either. I don't know which firm does their polling, but it is probably a very reputable one. They could certainly afford it.

[lakewinola]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
True, and Clinton got less than 50% of the vote as well in 1996. The majority voted for someone else.

Start comparing apples to apples not oranges and apples. Bill Clinton won the presidency with more vote than anyone else. No one single candidate had more votes. You remember that Gore had more than Bush.

[RedskinsDave]

I know, very typical of you libs to want to change the rules after the game.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jporterweb
For this NEWSWEEK poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed 1,006 adults aged 18 and older Jan. 22 and Jan. 23 by telephone. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

1006 people hardly amounts to the majority of Americans

If the 1006 people represent an unbiased sample (from a statistical standpoint, not from the standpoint of who they favor) that is a very robust sample, and the 3+ or - margin of error is basically an adjustment for sample size.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
I know, very typical of you libs to want to change the rules after the game.

You know, that is such a typical misrepresentation of "libs" problems with the last election. I will venture to say that NOBODY posting on this website ever said that Gore should have won because he got the majority of the popular vote. I think I speak for most, if not all, in saying that the disputed Florida electoral votes were the issue, the questions regarding uncounted or disallowed ballots, in the state governed by Bush's brother.

Don't make our arguements for us, or at least get them right if you do. We don't want the rules changed, just enforced. Silly things like "every person gets a vote".

[RedskinsDave]

Oh puhlease. Those votes were counted over and over. Who was it that wanted to disallow military votes that didn't have postage paid? Let's count the dimpled chads but ignore the uniformed ones. I wonder why that was.

[Seebs]

I've just discovered that J. Kerry is the cousin of a former french minister of ecology (Brice Lalonde). One more reason for french people to support Kerry :D

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Oh puhlease. Those votes were counted over and over. Who was it that wanted to disallow military votes that didn't have postage paid? Let's count the dimpled chads but ignore the uniformed ones. I wonder why that was.

I'd like to learn more about the dissalowance of military votes which did not have postage paid. Who wanted them disallowed, and more importanly, were they eventually counted?

[RedskinsDave]

link (http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4787-2001Jan30.htm)

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
link (http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4787-2001Jan30.htm)

This looks like an old link which I'll have to pay for. Do you have a reprint or anything handy?

[RedskinsDave]

Try this one. If it doesn't work, I'll post the article.

link #2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4787-2001Jan30&notFound=true)

[dukeuch]

Here's a little nugget I found form a CBS News Story from July, 2001, regarding the counting of oversees ballots:

"The paper documented a successful effort by Republicans to count the maximum number of overseas ballots in counties won by Bush, particularly those with a high concentration of military voters, while seeking to disqualify overseas ballots in counties won by Gore.

Counties carried by Gore accepted two in 10 ballots that had no evidence they were mailed on or before Election Day. Counties carried by Bush accepted six in 10 of such ballots. Bush counties were four times as likely as Gore counties to count ballots lacking witness signatures and addresses"

Hmmmm.

[RedskinsDave]

Read the article.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Read the article.

I read it. Lot's of stuff to ponder there, but in terms of you charge that Gore challenged the legitamacy of overseas votes form servicement, I am sure you are aware that Ginsberg, one of the Bush teams lawyers mentioned therein, circulated memos to Bush's lawyers in the field about how to try to get disallowed ballots form servicemen counted while keeping the civilian ballots with the same shortcomings uncounted, right? My last post sort of shows that they were succesful, would'nt you say?

[Spence]

The fact is that the Gore campaign agreed to count military ballots from overseas. That was a mistake, however, since there was a post-election "Thanksgiving stuff" of ballots for Bush/Cheney. I don't care if votes are cast by angels--if they come after the election they do not count.

Well, they should not count. Under the law they do not. But, as we know, actual law had little to do with how the Florida votes were decided.

[RedskinsDave]

They both tried stuff but Gore's camp was the one crying "count all the votes". Hey, if someone isn't capable of knocking a hole perforated hole through a piece of paper, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to vote. You want to talk about the handpicked counties too? Come on.

[Gump84]

I'm so tired of the damn "Well, Bush didn't have more of the popular vote" argument. If you want to bitch and complain as much as I hear, why don't you just change the damn electoral college. If you aren't willing to do that, accept the fact that this was a rare situation that was able to happen with the current set up, and as it has happened before, it happened again.

[Spence]

It's not about the Constitution, Gump. It's about the fraud.

[Gump84]

I am 100% sure than neither party was completely legitimate in it's dealings in Florida. If you think otherwise, you are very naive.

[Spence]

Originally posted by Gump84
I am 100% sure than neither party was completely legitimate in it's dealings in Florida. If you think otherwise, you are very naive. I think that's why the Gore campaign wanted a final count, one that would have included every disputed ballot. It's not a matter of naivete, it's a matter of counting ballots.

[RedskinsDave]

More bull. They handpicked counties they thought favored Gore and then when that wasn't panning out, they wanted to start counting "possible" votes known as dimpled chads. Disinfranchised!!

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Gump84
I'm so tired of the damn "Well, Bush didn't have more of the popular vote" argument. If you want to bitch and complain as much as I hear, why don't you just change the damn electoral college. If you aren't willing to do that, accept the fact that this was a rare situation that was able to happen with the current set up, and as it has happened before, it happened again.

You are not paying attention. Nobody here is supporting the Gore position with the argument that he won the majority of the popular vote.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Without reading most of the thread, I'll just comment on the poll real quick.

Didn't the polls tell us Dean was going to win Iowa, too?

[Spence]

Originally posted by JoeDaSchmoe
Without reading most of the thread, I'll just comment on the poll real quick.

Didn't the polls tell us Dean was going to win Iowa, too? The point was not to predict a winner in November, which any pollster will tell you is impossible to do at this date. The point of the poll is to demonstrate what a competitive race it is and that, contrary to media reports, Bush is hardly invulnerable. Indeed, he becomes more vulnerable with every passing day and every lost job. That's all. :)

[Spence]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
More bull. They handpicked counties they thought favored Gore and then when that wasn't panning out, they wanted to start counting "possible" votes known as dimpled chads. Disinfranchised!! Actually, the Gore campaign favored a recount in every county, not just pro-Gore counties.

[RedskinsDave]

Yeah AFTER their pet counties didn't gather as many votes. I believe it was Knight-Ridder who did a full count of Dade and concluded that Gore would've lost anyways. Of course, that only made a snippet on most news outlets.

[Spence]

The Washington Post and New York Times did a study that found Gore would have won and by more than a few votes. It was supposed to come out in mid-September 2001, but was put off by a meek press in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. It wasn't finally released until months later and was drowned out in the War on Terror.

[Spence]

But, to be honest, this is a low-burning flame for me. Of course I'll never forgive or forget the travesty of justice and rape of American democracy that happened in Florida and in the Supreme Court, but that's of secondary importance right now. Far more critical is the extermination of the Bush dynasty, beginning with trouncing the Idiot Prince in November. That's all I really care about now. This Florida thing is yesterday's news. Historians will tell the story properly, as most legal scholars have already begun to do. People such as myself will have to be satisfied with the vindication of history. In the meantime, all we can do is feast on the rancid political corpse of Mr Bush in the fall.

[Minnesota Mike]

Originally posted by Spence
In the meantime, all we can do is feast on the rancid political corpse of Mr Bush in the fall.

Or better yet discard it, before it explodes like that dead whale did.

[RedskinsDave]

"the travesty of justice and rape of American democracy"

Thanks Tom, no one loves hyperbole more than me.

[Spence]

As Kerry widens his lead over his fellow Dems, Bush’s approval ratings drop to an all-time low (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4120028)