NEWSWEEK POLL: Kerry 48%, Bush 45%; Edwards 46%, Bush 46% (1000 adults, polled Thursday & Friday)

Newsweak ^ | 2.21.04

[KQQL]

Kerry 48% - W 45%
Kerry/Edwards 49% - Bush/Cheney 45%
W Approval @ 48%
Newsweek Poll
MOE+/-3% (Adults 18 and Older) 02/19-20/04
52% for not to Re-Elect - 43% for Re-Election of W
-----------------------------

W 45% - kerry 45%
W 43% - Kerry 42% - Nadar 4%
W Approval @ 48%
Fox News Poll
MOE+/-3% (Reg Voters) 02/18-19/04
----------------------

kerry 48% - Bush 46%
W Approval @ 47%
ARG Poll
MOE+/-3.5% (Reg Voters) 02/17-19/04
----------------------

Kerry 55% - W 43%
W Approval @ 51%
USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup
MOE+/-3% (Likely Voters) 02/16-17/04
---------------------

W 47% - Kerry 47%
W Approval @ 48%
Pew Research Poll
MOE+/-3% (Reg Voters) 02/11-16/04
---------------------

Kerry 46% - W 45%
W Approval @ ??%
University of Connecticut Poll
MOE+/-2.9% (Reg voters) 02/12-16/04
----------------------

Kerry 48% - W 43%
W Approval @ 50%
CBS Poll
MOE+/- 3% (Reg Voters) 02/12-15/04
---------------------------

Kerry 52% - W 43%
W Approval @ 50%
ABC/WP Poll
MOE+/-3% (Reg Voters) 02/10-11/04
------------------

W 50% - Kerry 48%
W Approval @ 54%
CNN/TIME Poll
MOE+/-4.1% (Reg Voters) 02/05-06/04

[fqued]

polls are a quite valuable insight, once you adjust them for their inherent biases.

ANY poll that includes Friday or Saturday is automatically prejudiced toward the Left/Democrat [why, I don't know, but I have my ideas]

Second, any Newsweek poll is biased toward the left.

My conclusion? The Rasmussen poll that had Bush up by 6% is probably semi-accurate, and correcting this poll for its two biases would probably have Bush up about 10%

[Monty22]

They have the jobs issue.

[Timesink]

I just don't get it. pre-Howard Dean Kerry was a nobody, lucky to rank third or fourth in various caucuses. Now he's "electable" and "ahead of Bush." I don't see excitement or a groundswell of support for this man. If it exists, it exists in Liberal La La Land and nowhere else.

You're right, it doesn't exist, and here's why: These polls, at this stage in the game, are comparing apples to oranges. When they ask a person - registered voter, likely voter, merely an "adult", it doesn't matter - "Bush vs Kerry, you pick," what they're doing is asking the person to make a judgment on three years' worth of governance on Bush's side, while asking little more than "Do you think he's a nice guy or not?" on Kerry's side. So of course Kerry's going to get an extra bounce on that, because hardly anyone knows anything about him.

Come September or October, that will change.

Ambrose has been posting a number of threads on FR in the last few days from old Washington Post articles published in 1980 and 1984, showing how, at various points in those election cycles, the polls were predicting all sorts of things that ended up being 180 degrees from what the voters actually did on Election Day.

It's just too early. These polls mean bupkis.

[KQQL]

Election 2004

Kerry 51% Edwards 25% Edwards faces McCain's problem.

Bush 47% Kerry 45%

(updated Saturday)

Congress: Dem 42% GOP 40%
Bush Job Approval: 56%

National Political Tracking Data Updated Daily by Noon Eastern

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

[txrangerette]

"Graham could help with FL, but
he's awfully weird"

Bill Nelson?

What would that do?

[raloxk]

If Bush's job approval really is 56%, it would be a historical occurance if he didnt win. Reagan had a 58% approval rating in Oct 1984 and won 59%. IF Bush really does have a 56% approval rating, he'll win somewhere near 54-55%. If you believe it is 56%.

[txrangerette]

Ping to this thread...

[TexasCajun]

Take a picture, John F'ing Kerry!

It's downhill from here.

I think freepers have given the RNC plenty of material for some great ads. ...let's spend a bunch of money and get our message out now that we have a target.

[deport]

He's sure to get more than 2%, more likely 4-5%

---

What makes you think Nader will do so much better this time around then he did in 2000? He got about 2.7% nationwide and was on the ballot in 47 states with the Greens.... He'll be lucky as an independent to be on that many states with the effort it takes to get the signatures.... In CA he got 3.8% of the vote. His best state percentage wise was Alaska where he got 10.1%

[Luke21]

This is hillarious stuff. It's called p-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a. One of the ways psychological warfare is waged is by convincing your enemy you are much stronger than you actually are in reality. The leftist press has always done this. What's more, they firmly believe that they can bring about their desired results by reporting things this way. If nothing else, it keeps us in the desired spirit of gloom.

C'mon folks, do the people down at the mall even know who John Kerry or John Edwards are? Let alone what kind of nonsense is this that the Democrat talking points of the last week, meaning "jobs," now suddenly resonates to the exclusion of all other issues with the public. This is plain crap, people. And it will go down the liberal garbage hole soon enough. I remember when they had polls in March of 1984 saying Mondale or Hart would mop the floor with Reagan. Democrats have no issues, so whatever they come up with will be branded the golden key to the White House by the adoring Bolshevik media. What's new?

Now, about cutesy words and phrases: also in 1984; the Jesse Jackson campaign used this year's slogan,"jobs" as a mantra, just like Willy successfully used "change" as his in 1992. Only this year the vote ain't divided. When Jackson changed the issue of the day to "drugs," the press ran around screaming that was the wonderful new flavor fare. This was during the Reagan years. If the GOP talked in these terms, the press would accuse us of insulting the voters. Liberals think we're all idiots. That's why they go for simple first grade words and phrases.

Even funnier, the press watched their beloved Mikey Dukakis blown apart in the last debate of 1988 and still ran around for the last two weeks of the election claiming that the sentence/message, "I'm on your side" was going to alter the election and rout Bush. That was the same year they had made fun of everything but Dan Quayle's deodorant.

These press people are liars. They are lying. That's what they do. Don't get upset about their lies. Know your enemy, and don't forget the past. We are winning. Just remember the press is like your insane, senile, old uncle that would say the sky was orange if you said it was blue. They are not on our side and not about truth.

Anybody remember all their stories reporting Dole was down by thirty points to Clinton in 1996, when he was really behind by less than ten? Laugh at them. They are truly pitiful and insane.

[Valin]

Polls further indicate that if the 2012 election were held two weeks from last monday VALIN would be the overwhelming winner of the 2012 election.

[Meldrim]

I doubt if Maine is a shoe-in for Kerry: they know him as a phony and they don't like him.

[Tribune7]

Among registered voters, 48 percent say they would vote for or lean toward voting for Kerry, compared to 45 percent who say the would vote for or lean toward voting for Bush.

This poll can be discounted. That Newsweek is citing it is just one more unecessary bit of evidence that it can't be trusted.

[chiller]

Polled adults is virtually useless, especially the way NewsWeak is likely to do it.

[AmishDude]

I don't believe Nelson is that popular. The VP spot is important, but it doesn't cancel everything.

[AmishDude]

Why Nader will do better:

• Kerry will be in bad shape, pollwise, in October, Nader will be seen as a safe vote.
• The Deaniacs want a new Messiah.

There are other reasons, but these are the biggies and I can't think of the rest just now.

[AmishDude]

Polls further indicate that if the 2012 election were held two weeks from last monday VALIN would be the overwhelming winner of the 2012 election.

Maybe, but if the election were held in 2015 on a Saturday where only dead chickens are eligible to vote, AmishDude would be the winner. FReepmail me to send your contributions.

[txhurl]

I keep hearing that Massachusetts hates their own Kerry.

[Valin]

:-)
If it's good enough for the media..why not.
All I ask is the NY Time prove I'm wrong.