Kerry, Edwards Lead Bush by Double Digits Among Likely Voters

Gallup News Service ^ | February 19, 2004 | David W. Moore

[MagnusMaximus1]

Sounds good to me, however, unrealistic in the short-run. ;-)

[Swordmaker]

Actually....no.. When doing a poll of this sort, a likely voter is a registered voter who is called and self-identifies his or herself as likely to vote.

They ask: "Did you vote in the last election?" "Do you intend to vote in the next General Election?" This is one of the ways they determine who is a "likely voter." A respondent just self-identifying as a "likely voter" is too easy to give false positives.

[chimera]

IMHO, in those more industrial "swing states" like yours, the swing voters will either give the issue of JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, the highest prority OR it will come down to the social issues of GOD, GAYS, GUNS and ABORTION, especially given the large number of gun owning, Catholic, union members in your state and certain others!

No question that the GGGA issues will be important with some segments of the population. Jobs and the economy will likely have a broader appeal. Bush and the Republicans need to find a way to blunt the Rat attacks on this front. In places like Kucinich country and a few others, the salient issue will be, as always, "free money from da gummint", and there isn't much we can do in terms of rational debate to reach people who hold that as their central value.

I was having a discussion the other day with some women from my parish about the abortion thing. There seems to be a continuing disconnect between practicing Catholics who claim to adhere to the teachings of the church, and their support of political leaders who push a pro-abortion agenda. Both of these ladies are smart and highly educated (one is a Ph.D. in theology from Loyola). We were talking about the political issue of abortion and I mentioned that the Rat candidates all support unlimited abortion on demand, while Republicans generally take a pro-life position. The one lady then stated something like, "Well, yes, but that really isn't too important for a President, because it's the Supreme Court that interprets the law in those cases." Then I pointed out, "Yes, and who gets to decide who sits on the Supreme Court?" She thought a minute, and then said, "Well, I think the Senate votes on nominees made by...", and then, with seemingly dawning astonishment, said, "...the President...". It was like, bingo, the light came on.

I really find it amazing that I have to teach supposedly educated people things that I can remember learning in high school government classes.

[Constitution Day]

Indexing to Edwards Watch...

[Tailback]

I thought that after the 2000 census that red states gained electoral votes while the blues lost? That would mean that if Bush just carried the same states as in 2000 his electoral margin of victory would be even larger. Florida won't be as close and a couple other states like Oregon or New Mexico that were close in 2000 might swing to Bush.