FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll: Kerry 44, Bush 43

PollingReport.com ^ | 4.8.04

[CroftonFreeper]

Re Elect BUsh http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15687&item=3906788311

[Dales]

See Congressman Billybob's post above. He has the jist of what is meant by "pushed" in this context down absolutely perfectly.

[Kuksool]

God help us all if Kerry can get elected in November. If someone with a liberal voting record as Kerry can win the White House, then a President Feinstein or even a Lady Barbara Boxer is foreseeable in the future.

[familyofman]

"The 57% number was artifically high. It should not be held against Bush ..."

Not my point at all. The trend, the trend over the last 3-4 months is not good. Spin it anyway you want, but don't try to tell me to ignore what is plainly there, ala the Wizard. Live in a dream world & ignore what is plain, I choose to look at things as they are.

[sinkspur]

I choose to look at things as they are.

No you don't. The 57 number for Bush was artificially high. The Bush administration has said this would be close election, and has been saying that for the last year.

The polls prove it.

[dalebert]

Who are they polling? The French?

[irish guard]

I am sure someone has this data.....it would be interesting to see where Ike stood in 56, Nixon in 72, Reagan in 84 ans Clinton in 96 on a month by month basis, just to see if we should be concerned or amused by the 43% number posted by GWB.

I am not much of a Polyanna and am nervous about 43%, yet it is so early, I'd love to know where the reelected ones sat in mid April....May, June, and July, before they each reached their respective conentions.

[familyofman]

"The polls prove it."

Then why are you in denial that W once had a 57%. Why is that number, derived at a particular point in time, any less valid than a number derived in the same manner by the same group today? Don't start parsing, just because you don't like the trend.

I think the trend & what it shows is valid. If you accept the current number - how can you dismiss the rest of the series? It's strickly a 'number(stat) thing'.

[sinkspur]

If you accept the current number - how can you dismiss the rest of the series?

Nobody was paying attention in December. More are paying attention now.

I don't see why you can't see that the numbers get more meaningful the closer to the election we get because more people are paying attention!

[familyofman]

"I don't see why you can't see that the numbers get more meaningful the closer to the election we get because more people are paying attention!"

Oh but I do. I just happen to think it's dishonest to pick & choose what numbers you feel are meaningful. Once the conventions are over & there have been a debate or 2, then the numbers become a lot more meaninful. But, early trnds should not be dismissed 'out of hand'. This is especially true if the trend is going against you - it should be a call to action, not rationalized away with empty bromides.

[sinkspur]

But, early trnds should not be dismissed 'out of hand'.

Yes, they should be dismissed. They are meaningless, and the polls today are more meaningless than polls in October. Don't you see that?

And, I'm getting dizzy going around this tree. So, I'm done.

[familyofman]

"So, I'm done."

Me too - check back in August.

[d_Brit]

You're right! Kerry's in trouble because this is the worst he could do against Bush and it's not good enough.

[d_Brit]

That's fine, but it's independents and the undecided in key battleground states that will determine the election.

[d_Brit]

Re:"To win we have to GOTV among whoever we can find that did not vote in 2000, be they 18 or 70."

And that's why MTV is CONSTANTLY running ads to get out the vote. They are clever enough not to name any names but the ads are clearly aimed at the pro Kerry minded young.

Someone smart @ MTV has realized the truth of the old saying, "If when you're 20 you're not a liberal you have no heart, if @ 30 you're not a conservative, you have no brain...