Skip to comments.
Rasmussen: Bush up by 1% 46-45
rasmussenreports.com ^
| 1 May 2004
| Rasmussen
Posted on 05/01/2004 10:32:18 AM PDT by Owen
Bush leads Kerry by 1% in the Rasmussen poll, whose methodology seems to have established a sine curve within its margin of error. This suggests no recent change in prospects for either candidate.
TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; elections; kewl; polls; rasmussen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
Bush on the upslope of the sine curve today.
1
posted on
05/01/2004 10:32:18 AM PDT
by
Owen
To: Owen
I figure the poll really only reflects party preference at this point.
2
posted on
05/01/2004 10:35:19 AM PDT
by
counterpunch
(<-CLICK HERE for my CARTOONS)
To: counterpunch
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.
3
posted on
05/01/2004 10:45:10 AM PDT
by
Owen
To: Owen
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.
4
posted on
05/01/2004 10:49:25 AM PDT
by
lasereye
To: Owen
Oh he's up again call me in three days when he is down again.
5
posted on
05/01/2004 10:56:22 AM PDT
by
CzarNicky
(The problem with bad ideas is that they seemed like good ideas at the time.)
To: lasereye
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.
To: Owen
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.
7
posted on
05/01/2004 10:57:44 AM PDT
by
kdf1
To: lasereye
Rush was RIGHT, then as usual... right up to the moment that little b*st*rd Perot got back into it.
8
posted on
05/01/2004 11:25:26 AM PDT
by
halley
To: Owen
In this age of Caller ID and cellphone, who is getting polled?
9
posted on
05/01/2004 11:28:22 AM PDT
by
arichtaxpayer
(We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.)
To: kdf1
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.
10
posted on
05/01/2004 11:28:41 AM PDT
by
Owen
To: halley
His expectation of a Clinton collapse continued well after Perot got back into it.
11
posted on
05/01/2004 11:30:07 AM PDT
by
lasereye
To: lasereye
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.
12
posted on
05/01/2004 11:38:25 AM PDT
by
MEG33
(John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
To: Owen
This and Kerry has yet to get beyond answering questions about his character. I expect the spread to grow once Kerry enunciates his policies.
To: MEG33
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.
14
posted on
05/01/2004 11:48:08 AM PDT
by
lasereye
To: The Great RJ
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.
15
posted on
05/01/2004 11:50:51 AM PDT
by
MEG33
(John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
To: lasereye
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.
16
posted on
05/01/2004 11:53:17 AM PDT
by
MEG33
(John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
To: lasereye
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.
17
posted on
05/01/2004 12:15:35 PM PDT
by
ambrose
(AP Headline: "Kerry Says His 'Family' Owns SUV, Not He")
To: ambrose
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?
18
posted on
05/01/2004 12:25:43 PM PDT
by
cajungirl
(<i>swing low, sweet limousine, comin' fer to Kerry me hoooommmee</i>)
To: cajungirl
Undecideds usually break 2 to 1 for the challenger, but I have seen this "usual" rule fall by the wayside in recent election cycles.
19
posted on
05/01/2004 12:27:42 PM PDT
by
ambrose
(AP Headline: "Kerry Says His 'Family' Owns SUV, Not He")
To: arichtaxpayer
>
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.
20
posted on
05/01/2004 12:37:29 PM PDT
by
Owen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson