[GraniteStateConservative]

Because voters are pessimistic about the economy and Iraq and they don't think Bush is up to giving them the education, health care, and so on they want from the government. A better opponent could beat Bush.

[chris1]

Failure to address the 900 lb gorilla in the room - Illegal Immigration. Although I will vote and volunteer to get GWB re-elected, I am furious and disgusted about the illegal invader problem, as are most people I talk to. If GWB came out for really tackling this problem, he would get easily another 5-10 points in the polls.

The illegal immigration invasion is seen by most as a huge lapse in judgement by this president.

[Phantom Lord]

A better opponent could beat Bush.

No doubt.

Of the serious contenders in the RAT primary, they could not have choosen a worse candidate.

Al Sharpton, Carol Mostly Fraud, and Denise Kookcinich were not serious contenders.

Wesley Clark might have fared worse than Kerry is, but he would have had to work at it. Lieberman would likely be well ahead of Bush. Gephardt would be putting up a strong fight. Dean would likely be doing well as he would have been consistent and strong on his message and wouldnt be flip flopping on the war every 3rd sentence. Edwards, with the infatuation the press has for him would likely be well ahead. His being number 2 currently and his being almost invisible has given a distorted perception of how he would have done on his own.

[kevinm13]

MSM will report bad news first. If Bush is leading it is bad news for them as they are so liberal and so very anti-Bush (notice that few in the MSM are actually pro Kerry). Too many people are not educated on what is going on in politics and rely on the MSM for their news and information, so they are getting filtered left-leaning news that will support their own agenda.

The only poll that really counts is the one on November 2nd where you actually cast a vote. All other polls are irrelevant.

[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.

[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.

[Richard Kimball]

A better opponent might beat Bush, but I'm not sure. Lieberman couldn't win the Rat base, although he might have kept Jews from trickling to Bush. He has practically no charisma, and his voice sounds like the guy that played the father on Alf. Gephardt has been running for President forever, and would be Bob Dole, without the wit, although he would have carried Missouri. Dean proved himself incapable of standing up to the rigors of even a primary season. There's a reason they're hiding Edwards, and it ain't to keep him from overshadowing Kerry. Edwards doesn't come across like David trying to slay Goliath, he comes across like Leonardo DiCapria trying to block Michael Strahan.

The only reason Kerry is topping 33% in the polls (the basic Rat base) is because he's being propped up by the Old Media. In one way, politics has gotten a lot like television. Nobody will ever dominate the airways like Johnny Carson did, because there are too many other options. Similarly, presidential candidates cannot have the broad appeal they once did, because the old concept of liberal/conservative is outmoded. Twenty years ago, you could tell where a politician stood by asking his/her position on abortion, gun control, and whether the department of education ought to be abolished or expanded. Today, there are a zillion single issues and single issue voters.

Most people on FR that don't like Bush don't like him because of his stance on illegal immigration and his expansion of the department of education and medicare. Many voters dissatisfied with Bush, though, want easier immigration, and greater expansion of the department of education and universal health care.

Could a better candidate beat Bush? Yeah, a 55 year old Ronald Reagan could. Bill Clinton might, but remember Clinton never got 50% of the vote.

Bush campaigned against Kerry, not the other candidates. I think he would have done as well, or better, against any of them.

[LibLieSlayer]

"A better opponent could beat Bush".

Yea, right... who? Hillary? Maybe edweirds?

The dims have the best that they could field. Bush is a magnificent President. Has he made mistakes? Yes. The only "Perfect" man that ever walked the earth was nailed to a cross.

LLS

[Wallace T.]

A better opponent than Bob Dole might have beaten Bill Clinton in 1996, especially since the Perot factor was greatly weakened that year vs. 1992, when Perot's influence likely threw the election to Clinton. John Kerry manages to make Dole, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis look friendly and populist. Either Lieberman or Gephardt would have been more credible opponents, although I suspect a Lieberman presidential run would have greatly boosted Ralph Nader's support.

The Democrats may be using this election as a warmup for 2008 and the probable run of Hillary Clinton. Barring a run by Jeb Bush, the 2008 primary season will probably prove divisive as the remnants of old-line conservatives, country club Republicans, neo-conservatives, and the Christian Right slug it out. She may count on one or another faction of the GOP to sit out the race or support a third party candidate like John Anderson in 1980, who attracted many "me too" Republicans. People like Dana Rohrbacher and Michael Savage have talked out loud about a nationalist "borders, language, culture" third party. How would they react to, say, a Rudolph Giuliani or a Chuck Hagel at the head of a 2008 GOP ticket?