Why does Bush not have a bigger lead in the polls?

[wingsof liberty]

As we all know Bush is ahead in the polls, lets hope thats still the case on November 2nd. What I dont understand is why Bush is not further ahead, given all the controversy and negativity swirling around the skerry campaign. Granted hes got his hardcore base that would support him even if Kerry was somehow linked to the attacks of 9/11. But with issues like:

The See BS ANG document scandel, now at least indirectly linked to Joe Lockhart, Kerrys Senior Campaign Strategist; the Swiftie campaign, which clearly shows Kerry as a soldier who negotiated with the enemy in Vietnam, betrayed our troops with his anti-war speeches in front of Congess, and more recently blasted PM Allawi on his visit to thank the US for our help in Iraq; Kerrys refusal to take a stand on much of anything, in some cases less then 48 hours before flip-flopping; proposing "grand visions" to solve everything in Iraq, which in most cases turn out to be solutions Bush is engaged in anyway, and the biggest one for me is deliberatly avoiding his 20 year record in the Senate, which is what he should be basing at least part of his candidacy on

Bush is not perfect, hes made mistakes. But why dont more voters recognize what a disaster this country would be plunged into with skerry at the helm?? What else can we do to get the message out and make sure this does not happen in November?

[BunnySlippers]

I agree completely. As we can see many people are voting not for Kerry, but against Bush. I used to think Dean would have been an easy knockdown but I now think he would have been a formidable opponent. Outside of Kerry's flip flops it would difficult to imagine a less charismatic candidate.

[americanmother]

Maybe he is.it is hard to get truth anymore.

[stuartcr]

Probably because a lot of people don't want him re-elected.

[Phantom Lord]

Bush has spent hundreds of millions of dollars and he couldnt get the polls to move. The SwiftVets, on a starting budget of several hundred thousand dollars and now a bank roll of about 3 million have done far more than Bush and his campaign ever did.

If Bush wins, the SwiftVets will be owed 95% of the congratulations.

[roses of sharon]

The "mob" is fickle and weak. Overly feminized, and soft, history for most, begins when they wake up in the morning.

After all our culture, politics, politicans, and education has been run by the elites in NY and Hollywood for decades.

OBL knows this better than most of us. He predicted as much.

[DarthVader]

That is a myth. Many Rats are switching affiliation especially after 2000 election. The straw that broke the camel's back.

[RetiredArmy]

If 9-1-1 had not happened, and we were not at war, I believe Bush would indeed lose this election. The socialists would get the whine vote and give-me vote and win. Bush, even though he has grown government faster and larger than even Klinton, would still lose on the face of it. I think he would probably have lost big. I am 100% behind him on the war, but very unhappy with his spending on education and other matters. Very unhappy with this larger, more spending government business. I am tired of paying higher and higher taxes on everything. Tax cuts? Phooey! Even with his tax cut, my taxes have gone up every where else, in all areas, including property. Which I can thank the socialist government of WA state for.

[kevkrom]

After reading the poll methodology primer, and discounting those with unknown or questionable weighting techniques, I'd have to say it looks like Bush has a solid 6-8 point lead nationwide. (And considering how heavily Democrat the major cities are, this is a recipe for an Electoral College landslide.)

The news media reports the closer, but less reliable polls for several reasons: 1) the longer the race is perceived close, the more people pay attention to the coverage (higher ratings); 2) for the same reasons, more money will be spent on advertising in their publications; and 3) they are trying to make a "close race" a self-fulfilling prophecy -- if people think it is close, the fence-sitters may re-evaluate and some voters may get involved who otherwise would be a non-voter or a "protest" voter (possibly also as a cover for Democrat vote fraud, as well -- if Bush is up by 10 in the polls, how can they sell a vote count that mysteriously gives Kerry a slim victory?)

[JoeV1]

Wesley Clark might have fared worse than Kerry is, but he would have had to work at it.

+++Being a war hero qualifies as nothing toward being president. If it mattered at all then McArthur, Patton and Audie Murphy would have been drafted as candidates.

Lieberman would likely be well ahead of Bush.

+++Personally I like Lieberman and would not be to unhappy with him as president but being a Jew would make him unelectable to vast majorities in this country. Plus it would incite the crazies in the middle east even more and would most likely increase the probability of an attack on our interests.

Gephardt would be putting up a strong fight.

+++Maybe, but he hasn't done anything of note in his career although that could be a positive since it gives the enemy less to go after him about.

Dean would likely be doing well as he would have been consistent and strong on his message and wouldn't be flip flopping on the war every Rd sentence.

+++Please, Dean is a raving lunatic who all but foams at the mouth to go with his bulging eyes as he fulminates. I mean have you ever WATCHED this guy?

Edwards, with the infatuation the press has for him would likely be well ahead.

+++A trial lawyer who looks like a Barbie Doll? The man has a total of 5 years experience in gov't and zero foreign policy credentials. His answer to the terrorists would likely be to sue the bastards.

His being number 2 currently and his being almost invisible has given a distorted perception of how he would have done on his own.

+++Why do you think he IS inviable? Contrast that to Cheneys much more visible profile.

[sinkspur]

Bush has spent hundreds of millions of dollars and he couldnt get the polls to move. The SwiftVets, on a starting budget of several hundred thousand dollars and now a bank roll of about 3 million have done far more than Bush and his campaign ever did.

The SwiftVets moved the veterans vote. But the Republican Convention moved the polls dramatically, and they've not come down much since.

So, let's give credit where it's due, but the consistency of Bush's message and Rove's destroying Kerry's credibility are what are responsible for Bush's numbers now.

[angkor]

I agree on the influence of the SWIFTvets.

As for GWB, Rats and the world blame him for engaging in warfare against the Islamists. They want to be oblivious and comfortable. They have no concept of what the West is up against, and believe that this is an "optional" war. They want to pull the covers over their heads and for someone to make it all go away.

These are the people voting for Kerry - the candidate they can't stand - just as they hated Reagan for his confrontation with the Soviets.

Simply put: people are afraid of GWB.

[Tribune7]

Some old media type said that the old media's support was worth 17 points to Kerry. He didn't account for Buckhead but if CBS et al were doing an honest job Bush's lead would easily be in the mid teens.

[wrathof59]

Any national candidate polling over 50% is doing very well.

[Dad2Angels]

"Why does Bush not have a bigger lead in the polls?"

Because the masses are asses.

[HenryLeeII]

Why does Bush not have a bigger lead in the polls?

Because apparently about 45% of those who are polled are complete idiots and/or traitors.

[JoeV1]

Your prop taxes are not the responsibility of the Fed gov't, they are local. To blame Bush for the rise in your local taxes is both unfair and uninformed. Everyone who PAYS income taxes got a tax break and for the avg family of 4 earning about $50,000 this amounted to about $1500.00. Anytime I can keep more of my money I consider it a good thing.

Keep in mind that the people who are whining about the tax cut are among the 46% of working people in this nation who pay NO income tax.

[republicanbob1]

I couldnt agree with you more on Illegal Immigration. The reason bush is ahead in the polls I think is because people realize that he stands where he stands regardless of what the "popular" stance is. This what I liked about his interview on the Factor was is brutal honesty. People know where he stands unlike Kerry. Kerrys focus is on the doom and gloom of America. Bushs focus is on a brighter future.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Why does Bush not have a bigger lead in the polls?

Because the pennant races are much more interesting right now...

[Names Ash Housewares]

Because we need to do a better job. Dont blame other things, That is what liberals do, that is what the democrats will do when they lose. We need to reach everyone better. There is always room for improvement. WE can do it. Lets go for landslide!

[FatLoser]

The only poll that counts is on Nov. 2nd. Yes, I know that's obvious.

Reagan (probably the last Republican that I will ever see win in a landslide) distilled his message into a few points that resonated with the public.

Defeat the commies
Build the economy
Shrink government

President Bush has inherited a different world and doesn't have the eloquence that Reagan had.

I think the Prez. has neither been or at least pretended to be very conservative on a host of issues. Some of these issues are immigration, gun control, trade, discretionary spending, role of Fed Gov. in unconstitutional areas such as education and farm subsidies, etc.

I believe others are correct that the demographics have changed. We are reaping the harvest of the MTV generation whose idea of rebellion emanates from the waist down. Millions of illegal immigrants whose presence means cheap lettuce but is also a kick in the gonads to the public school and welfare systems where they live. Jeff Spicoli is the electorate.