Rasmussen: Bush up by 1% 46-45

rasmussenreports.com ^ | 1 May 2004 | Rasmussen

[Owen]

Bush on the upslope of the sine curve today.

[counterpunch]

I figure the poll really only reflects party preference at this point.

[Owen]

Maybe. I don't care about the value he measures, but the trend is definitely flat, and maybe that is defined only by broken glass vs Anybody But Bush sentiments. The middle isn't paying attention yet.

[lasereye]

I thought the Kerry campaign is "imploding". Reminds me of when people like Rush expected the Clinton campaign to collapse at any minute in 92.

[CzarNicky]

Oh he's up again call me in three days when he is down again.

[VisualizeSmallerGovernment]

Reminds me of when people like Rush expected the Clinton campaign to collapse at any minute in 92.

The Clinton campaign will collapse. Give it time. People are going to figure out this Clinton guy is phony as a $3 bill.

[kdf1]

Neither candidate is worthy of the privelege of President. But one with fake purple hearts is lower than one with none. One who is for for abortion is lower than one who tolerates it. On the homosexual agenda, Republicans are almost as disappointing as Democrats, but not quite. This country needs a grass roots movement. It needs to start with repentance for turning our back on God, His Son and the principles of the Creator. I do mean to preach.

[halley]

Rush was RIGHT, then as usual... right up to the moment that little b*st*rd Perot got back into it.

[arichtaxpayer]

In this age of Caller ID and cellphone, who is getting polled?

[Owen]

Until there is a 3rd party that cares about party building more than indulging the ego of the people who are anxious to be a candidate, it won't happen. Until there is a third party holding say 25% of state legislature seats, there is no point in them having candidates for higher office -- because those candidates will be unethically squandering their donors' money since they have no chance. There has to be a party infrastructure in place to run for high office and that won't happen until they party build.

Until then your choice is Bush or Kerry. Don't just choose. Pick Bush and then call the campaign to volunteer. Voting Is Not Enough.

[lasereye]

His expectation of a Clinton collapse continued well after Perot got back into it.

[MEG33]

The word was the deaths in Iraq,the Clarke book,the 911 commission were going to tank the President.The charismatic,heroic Kerry seems not to have benefited from all the negative news.

[The Great RJ]

This and Kerry has yet to get beyond answering questions about his character. I expect the spread to grow once Kerry enunciates his policies.

[lasereye]

Maybe not, but he's certainly not imploding. The Bush campaign has run tens of millions of $ in ads. Kerry's got a real shot to win.

[MEG33]

Kerry seems to just be parroting things concerning Iraq that are being done by this administration or in the works,busy covering his "no" vote to fund the troops.He will do the same as this admistration,he just speaks French,so can do it better.He isn't "arrogant" like Bush.....;)

He has his own manservant to bring to the White House,another bonus.

[MEG33]

I get dizzy between the ones who think Kerry is so weak,Hillary will step in and those who think the President is on the ropes.It's even right now and anything is possible unless we get out our vote.

[ambrose]

Things were beginning to look a bit dicey for Boy Clinton in the final days, and then the Cap Weinberger indictment turned the tide back into Slick's favor.

[cajungirl]

I can't remember this but if 9% are undecided, how do they usually break with an incumbent? Seems I thought the challenger had the advantage with late deciders but maybe it is the opposite. Anyone know?

[ambrose]

Undecideds usually break 2 to 1 for the challenger, but I have seen this "usual" rule fall by the wayside in recent election cycles.

[Owen]

>
In this age of Caller ID and cellphone, who is getting polled?
>

Good question. But . . . it's a question that is too obvious for the pollsters to miss.

Another good question is "If you exclude calling cellphones, what impact does that have on the results?"

Is it the affluent who have cellphones? Or is it poor college students who have only cellphones and nothing else? Or is it the poor in general who have cellphones and nothing else? I don't know.

I do know that an issue was raised recently by a pollster who said that they may target zip code, party affiliation, gender and age, but they can't target who chooses to hangup on them.