Why Kerry Will Win (Joseph Farah Warns History Is Repeating Itself All Over Again)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 04/21/04 | Joseph Farah

[goldstategop]

Why Kerry will win

Joseph Farah

I have bad news for Bush supporters gloating at the latest polls showing the president expanding his lead over John Kerry.

I hate to rain on your parade, but this race is far from over.

Bush partisans are giddy over the fact that Kerry's campaign seems to be sputtering – that he can't seem to capture much attention nor generate much excitement.

It's true that Kerry is a colorless, humorless, unlikable patrician.

Nevertheless, despite those characteristics, he's within the margin-of-error range in most polls. It's astounding, really. And that's why Bush is going to lose.

I want to take you back to 1992.

Bill Clinton was in John Kerry's position. He was running considerably further behind George H.W. Bush in the polls. Then came the Democratic convention.

The Democrats are very good at putting on these shows, and Hollywood pulled out all the stops for Clinton.

Much to my amazement at the time, Clinton got a huge bounce from the show – and he never looked back.

Again in 1996, Clinton was running behind Bob Dole in the polls leading up to the Democratic convention. History repeated itself. The Clinton-Gore ticket bounced right back into a second term.

You can look at 2000 and see the same trend, and, while it's true Al Gore didn't win the White House, he did win the popular vote.

Is Bush planning to lose the popular vote again and win re-election in the electoral college? Is he planning to make it that close?

This is my prediction. Mark it down. Remember where you heard it. The day after the Democratic convention, Kerry will be a front-runner.

It gives me no pleasure to make this prediction. While I believe Bush has been a failure as a president in many ways and cannot support him for re-election, I know Kerry will prove disastrous for the country.

Many people tell me I should support Bush for this reason alone.

I can't do that. I won't do that. I won't cast a vote for a candidate who doesn't really support the Constitution of the United States, even though he takes an oath to uphold it. I will not vote for a candidate for president who increased spending – not just defense spending, but all spending – so dramatically. I don't believe we'll ever get real political choices as Americans if we keep making the mistake of supporting the lesser of two evils.

Kerry is a dangerous man – and I think he's going to be the next president.

I even believe he will weather the Ralph Nader storm.

The reason? Bush is more hated now than he was in 2000. The Nader crowd is going to go for Kerry. The Bush opposition will unite to defeat him this time.

It's bad news for America. And I'm stunned at how the Bush team is stumbling and bumbling into defeat.

These guys act like they are political geniuses. They seem to forget that Al Gore actually won more votes than Bush did in 2000.

The overconfidence is staggering.

They don't see this coming.

It's probably too late to do anything about it if they did.

Sure, things can change between now and November. Things can happen. But things can happen that will help or hurt either candidate.

Because I don't have a dog in this hunt, I think I can see it a little more objectively, a little more clearly.

It's going to be Kerry in 2004.

But, please, don't blame the messenger.

[Punditstar]

John Kerry is no Bill Clinton. He is in that he has no core prinicpiles or decency, but he doesn't have Clinton's charisma.

[browsin]

It's pointless making predictions at this point,there are so many variables that cold tip the scales in such a tight race between now and November.The public is fickle,and most dont see things in terms of 'left','right','conservative','socialist'....they just see headlines.

[tkathy]

Clinton was and is a media superstar. The camera turns onto him and he lights up. Kerry has none of this.

[alnick]

I do think that terrorists are planning something nasty for us before Nov..

I do too. I'm surprised we haven't heard whining from democrats that people (including some in the administration) have been predicting that AQ may try to time an attack to affect the outcome of our election. The clear implication there is that AQ would prefer a Kerry presidency. Can't be a good endorsement for Ketchup Boy no matter how you spin it.

[Corin Stormhands]

The day after the Democratic convention, Kerry will be a front-runner.

You'd like that, wouldn't you Joe?

[DM1]

"and you totally left out Perot."
no kidding - Perot was a HUGE factor in Clintons rise and HW Bushs downfall. The only credible third party right now is Nader.

[Snake65]

NYT, 3/9/84:

The new Gallup poll, taken by telephone among 719 registered voters from March 2 to March 6, confirmed what political specialists generally believe to be a very volatile situation among the electorate five days before Tuesday's primaries and caucuses in nine states.

The poll found that in a trial heat for the Presidency, 52 percent said they favored the Colorado Senator to 43 percent for Mr. Reagan. When matched against Mr. Hart's two leading rivals in the poll, Mr. Reagan led former Vice President Walter F. Mondale, 50 percent to 45 percent, and Senator John Glenn of Ohio 52 percent to 41 percent.


WaPo, 7/23/84:


Conducted at the end of the Democratic National Convention last week, the Newsweek-Gallup Poll of 1,006 registered voters showed 48 percent supporting Mondale and his vice-presidential nominee, Rep. Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.), 46 percent favoring Reagan and Vice President Bush, and 6 percent undecided.

The 2 percent difference is insignificant, since the poll has a 4 percent margin of error.


WaPo, 7/27/84:

WHAT IS going on with the polls? For months we were told that Ronald Reagan was nine or 14 or 26 points ahead of Walter Mondale. Then, within hours of the close of the Democratic convention in
San Francisco, out came the Gallup organization with a poll showing Mr. Mondale two points ahead. Have 18 million Americans suddenly changed their minds? Or are the polls just wrong?

The Toronto Star, 5/19/88:

A CBS/New York Times poll released Monday said Dukakis leads Bush 49-39 per cent and would beat the vice-president in all regions of the country if the election were held now. A Lou Harris poll Sunday gave Dukakis a 50-43 per cent edge.

WaPo, 6/30/88

In the Gallup poll of 1,210 registered voters conducted last weekend, Dukakis held a 46-to-41 percent lead over Bush, compared with a 52-to-38 percent lead he held in a similar poll in mid-June. The poll found Dukakis losing ground among most key voter groups, particularly self-described Democrats and independents, a key swing group.

The ABC News-Money Magazine poll gave Dukakis a 3 point margin, essentially a dead heat under the margin of polling error. In the last Washington Post-ABC News poll at the end of the May, which used the same methodology as this one, Dukakis had an 11 point lead.

The ABC-Money poll of 1,013 adults was taken June 22-26 and showed Dukakis dropping from being the choice of 52 percent of the general public to 45 percent. Bush gained 1 point, rising to 42 percent; those with no choice increased 4 points.>


NYT, 7/26/88

In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll. This was among the findings of a national public opinion poll of 948 registered voters conducted late last week for Newsweek magazine by the Gallup Organization. The telephone interviews took place on July 21, which was the last night of the convention, and on the night after that.

Fifty-five percent of the 948 registered voters interviewed in the poll said they preferred to see Mr. Dukakis win the 1988 Presidential election, while 38 percent said they preferred to see Mr. Bush win. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

This represented a shift in Mr. Dukakis's lead from the 47 percent to 41 percent advantage he held in the last pre-convention Gallup Poll, taken by telephone July 8-10. In that poll, 1,001 registered voters were interviewed.

[11th Earl of Mar]

Farah is like Buchanan... who believes that if Bush, an imperfect conservative, loses it somehow makes Farah look smarter or more correct.

His predictions should be taken as seriously as Bush-hater Eleanor Clift's predictions on The McLaughlin Group.

If you ever see that show you will notice her "predictions" are only a product of her wishful thinking- they have nothing to do with reality.

[Preachin']

To say that he expects Kerry to bounce and have a lead after the convention doesn't exactly make Farah a political genius. Well... duh! Another issue that people forget is that the Summer Olympics immediately follow the Democrat Convention. Most of the public won't be looking for John Kerry sound bites.

Mark this down. President Bush will win by 50 electoral college points.

[American_Centurion]

Who will be the Ross Perot for GWB?

Ross garnered almost 19% of the popular vote in 1992, who will take that much out of the race this time?

If anything Ralph Nader will siphon votes from Kerry. Mr. Farah, get your glasses fixed and learn to read history. Clinton did not beat GHWB because of his extreme popularity, GHWB lost because of his lethargic campaign and Ross Perot!

[Katya]

Sorry Joe...Kerry is no Clinton, and the most important FACTOR is missing.....

Ross Perot.

I have no doubt this will be a tight race in the polling data....but presidential races are proportioned by the electoral college, not polling popularity.

Bush wins.....

[demkicker]

This is my prediction. Mark it down. Remember where you heard it. The day after the Democratic convention, Kerry will be a front-runner.

Does this guy think he's E.F. Hutton? He REALLY went out on a limb with that prediction... < /not>

I agree with you. Besides, the other Kerry shoe may have already dropped by then. Speaking of the Democratic Convention, check out this little diddy I got in an email yesterday. It's a hoot:

OFFICIAL 2004 Democratic National Committee Convention Program

6:00pm - Opening flag burning ceremony
6:30pm - Anti-war rally no. 1.
6:40pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
7:00pm - Tribute theme to France.
7:10pm - Collect offerings for al-Zawahri defense fund.
7:20pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
7:25pm - Tribute theme to Spain.
7:45pm - Anti-war rally no. 2. (Moderated by Michael Moore)
8:00pm - John Kerry presents one side of the issues
8:25pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:30pm - Terrorist appeasement workshop.
9:00pm - Gay marriage ceremony.

9:30pm - * Intermission *

10:00pm - Flag burning ceremony no. 2.
10:15pm - Re-enactment of Kerry's fake medal toss.
10:30pm - Cameo by Dean 'Yeeearrrrrrrg!'
10:40pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
10:50pm - Pledge of allegiance to the UN.
11:00pm - Double gay marriage ceremony.
11:15pm - Maximizing Welfare workshop.
11:20pm - John Kerry presents the other side of the issues
11:30pm - 'Free Saddam' pep rally.
11:59pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
12:00am - Nomination of Democrat candidate.

(Original author unknown)

[trickyricky]

Kerry is a colorless, humorless, unlikable patrician...

...I know Kerry will prove disastrous for the country...

Kerry is a dangerous man...

Because I don't have a dog in this hunt, I think I can see it a little more objectively, a little more clearly

You don't sound like you care very much about the country Joe.

[anoldafvet]

"Because I(Farah) don't have a dog in this hunt, I think I can see it a little more objectively, a little more clearly."

Farah is not a Conservative he is a Libertarian. In the last election he supported Harry Browne for president and would probably support Pat Buchanan if he ran again. I used to visit the site daily, but since he started carrying Robert Sheer and Ellen Ratner I haven't been there in quite a while. In my estimation, his predictions are about as accurate as the Debka files.

[Preachin']

That's really funny, and too close to the truth.

[LS]

I really don't think anyone is "overconfident." That's a straw man. Farah is flat wrong. Not only will Bush win, but he will win big. It isn't going to reach "landslide" levels, but I see him getting well over 300 EVs (and stand by my prediction of 330 EVs).

Farah WAY overestimates the ability of Kerry to campaign without screwing up---something he has shown himself to be utterly incapable of. Moreover, Kerry isn't Clinton, and Bush II isn't Bush I.

Moreover still, the economy in 2004 isn't the economy in 1992.

[Shane]

Farah is simply wrong on this issue. When it comes time to vote in November, the majority of Americans will ask themselves one question, "Who will better protect them and our country". The answer is clearly Bush and he will will by a substantial majority.

[varon]

bump

[AntiGuv]

Yeah, but the majority of swing voters that actually decide the election will ask themselves a different question: "Who do I want to have to look at on my TV screen for the next four years?" ... and the answer will still clearly be Bush.. ;^)

[Moby Grape]

Farah is 100% right about the convention bounce...Clinton was up by 18 points after the Dem convention of 92. The ONLY way Bush can assure defeating Kerry is that someone (some group...perhaps not the GOP) makes it 100% clear to the American people about who Kerry REALLY is...teh anti-war, anti-America, pro-socialist, lefty that he is...

The Bush team will NOT run ads showing Kerry calling men fighting in Nam as murderers....it will take someone else doing it to keep the American people from only seeing the pretend Kerry that the media and the dem convention will display.