Kerry's Election To Lose

CNS News ^ | 14 May 2004 | Paul M. Weyrich

[Lando Lincoln]

I'm interested in the thoughts of FReepers.

Lando

[LS]

I don't trust Zogs after 9/11. He has given me no reason to believe he has returned to his 1996 levels of accuracy, but even if he did, his opinions are tainted by his Arabist brother.

I keep thinking this election more resembles 1864, where Lincoln was actually depressed that he might not even get re-nominated. Certainly he didn't think he'd be re-elected because of the negative war news. Yet in the fall, there were great victories at Atlanta and Mobile, and he won in a landslide.

The news from Iraq really can't get any worse: prisoner abuse scandals, the debate over whether or not to "take" Fallujah, "heavy" casualties (by Iraq war standards), bombings. At some point, the scales will tip overwhelmingly in our favor. If you look at, say, 1943 in the midst of WW II, Kursk had not been decided; we were still "bogged down" in the S. Pacific and hadn't really re-taken many Japanese possessions; the Italian offensive was going poorly. Yet within a few months, virtually all of it was decided.

[dead]

Thus, Bush is really trying to carry those states that he carried in 2000 plus a few others while Kerry is trying to keep what Gore carried. If he can just add a state or two to the Gore total...Kerry wins.

He contradicts his own point. Bush just needs to hold those states he already won, and he’ll beat Kerry by more electoral votes than he beat Gore.

None of those states appear to be in great jeopardy. But there’s a few Gore states (Pennsylvania comes to mind) that are clearly tilting towards Bush.

[aegiscg47]

The South is a total write-off for Kerry, so it makes his electoral quest even more difficult. Also, there's still too many variables out there. If WMDs(and I'm talking about a major find that ordinary Joe Citizen can understand) are found, Osama is terminated, and the DOW reaches 11,000, then this thing is over. If none of these things happen, then it's going to be close.

[Hang'emAll]

It is actually Bush's campaign to loose.

The Republicans must get out all the facts about Kerry to all the people.

We here can list all the facts, but the bulk of the population only care about American Idol and the other mindless shows on TV.

Those people will make their decision based on their feelings and the limited info that they get from the liberal media.

That is why the true Kerry facts must be stated and debated so that the sheeple understand that we cannot afford a leader like this at this critical time of terrorists with the possibility of WMDs.

[KellyAdmirer]

Zogby is very selective in his analysis. He says the electorate is very evenly split - thus, Kerry has an edge. Huh? Also, the liberals like Zogby love to dwell on Ohio. How about key Gore states that are extremely weak for Kerry, such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon?

I understand why Weyrich is glad Zogby came along to scare some folks out of their complacency. However, as a practical matter, Zogby is talking out of his ideology more than the facts.

[chimera]

He insists that Ohio is this year's Florida, although the White House disputes that. They believe they have an excellent chance to carry Ohio. No Republican in modern times has won the Presidency without Ohio.

This part I agree with. I'm in the trenches here in what would normally be a moderate to conservative Republican area, and I've noticed "Kerry for President" bumper stickers popping up like the dandelions on my lawn recently. Not a good sign for the good guys, IMO. Kerry is clobbering Bush in OH on the outsourcing/trade/jobs issue, and the Bush team has yet to respond to it effectively, much less take the offensive. In fact, they seem to be doing the opposite, shooting themselves in the foot, sending dolts like John Snow and Gregory Mankiw out to run their lousy sewers about how "outsourcing is good for the economy", and how "unemployment is good for you, just shut up and take it". With "allies" like these, Bush has more than Kerry to worry about.

[cvq3842]

I think we need constant reminders (and the Bush campaign does too) about what a tough race this will be.

I too will be interested in what others here think of Zogby. He always had the reputation of being more accurate than the others, but lately I have heard some criticism aimed at him. Have things changed?

[RightWhale]

If Pres Bush doesn't hit a homerun really soon about the prisoner abuse issue, he is political toast. Pres Clinton left the country with a moral vacuum that reaches all the way down. Can anyone who claims to be moral be trusted?

[antaresequity]

Zogby is a Pollster with an Agenda...take it for what its worth [to me it means nothing]

[Dr Snide]

I think in the end Kerry will peak and be ahead in the polls around the time of the Democratic Convention and the week following but after that will begin to lose support and will probably be even with Bush before the Republican National Convention after which he will trail the rest of the way. Iraq proabably won't get much worse and there are all sorts of positives that could happen (WMD, OBL, etc). The economy is booming still and Bush is beging to be seen as strong if not stronger on that issue which leaves the War on Terror as the only issue for Kerry to run on and that just won't work for him.

In the end, barring any huge disasterm Bush by 5% and more electoral college votes than last time.

[Skywarner]

"He thinks veterans will be crucial in this election and right now Kerry has an edge with veterans because he has emphasized them so much and because there is some dissatisfaction with the way that Bush is handling the war."

I'm not sure I concur with this statement attributed to Zogby. Veterans en masse are supportive of President Bush and the entire WOT (including Iraq). There might be differences of opinion, but the military generally belives and trusts the President. Kerry is not well liked at all in military circles.

[Deb]

I was at a Zogby lunch where he did a state-to-state poll which completely refutes what he's saying here. I even have a copy of his report. Like others, I don't trust him since 9/11 and the reality of his brothers connections.

[paul51]

I think all these pollsters are full of hot air. Daily polls, weekly polls, monthly polls, etc. It's all a bunch of crap designed only to keep them employed. Their only challenge is to keep foolish people interested in what they are doing.

[VisualizeSmallerGovernment]

To summarize the article:

Something happened before, but that could change.

Something is happening now, but that could change.

Something will be happening in the future, but that could change.

The winner of the election will be the one who wins most of the states their party won before, plus some of the others they missed last time around.

Bush is clearly ahead in some states, while Kerry is clearly ahead in others. In other states, the vote is very close.

This is brilliant stuff. I can't believe I'm not subscribing to Zogby's premium service.

[kesg]

But it was pollster John Zogby who gave the most intriguing briefing. Zogby has to be taken seriously because he got it right when almost all the pollsters had it wrong in 2000. He also caught the slight tilt toward the Republicans on the eve of the 2002 elections.

I don't think this statement is correct. Everyone was calling the 2000 race extremely close. Zogby missed badly on his state by state polls. In 2002, even the CBS/NYT poll caught the late and decisive shift to the Republicans (along with many others, such as Gallup). If I remember correctly, in 2002 Zogby thought that the Democrats were going to do better in the House and Senate races than just about everyone else. In sum, he's overrated.

[Preachin']

Zogby said to remember Gov. Bill Weld, who was thought to be the favorite against Kerry but who lost a close election when Kerry came alive and beat him.

Did Zogby forget that election was in Massachusetts, the home of Ted kennedy?

[TomEwall]

"But it was pollster John Zogby who gave the most intriguing briefing. Zogby has to be taken seriously because he got it right when almost all the pollsters had it wrong in 2000. He also caught the slight tilt toward the Republicans on the eve of the 2002 elections."

This statement has been debunked a number of times here, I believe. In terms of the 10 polling companies using traditional methods on the 2000 election, Zobgy was 7th according to http://www.ncpp.org/poll_perform.htm. In other words, he did better than only 3, and his error regarding Nader was worse than all 3 of the ones he did better than. I'm not saying this to denigrate, he's a respected pollster, but to give him some special status which requires him to be "taken seriously" is unfounded.

"While most pollsters view this election as Bush's to lose, he believes this election is Kerry's to lose."

This statement to me seems rediculous. Feelings run strong both ways regarding Bush. He's either liked or disliked. Kerry is just about irrelevant. He's simply an alternative to Bush. Even those supporting him, because he's not Bush, don't care much for him. How can it be said of anyone with such little impact that the election is "his to lose".

I agree with his statement regarding Ohio, because I think it's very unlikely Kerry will carry Florida. Well, Ohio is unlikely too, but it's less unlikely I think. So whoever carries Ohio should win (although it looks possible for Bush to carry Pennsylvania to make up for Ohio, in which case Kerry would still have to win Florida).

However, this is assuming the election is as close as last time. Last time Bush had about a 3 or 4 point edge going into the last week-end. That edge got clipped by the DUI thing, and the press calling Florida early hurt him a little bit (maybe half a point, a point at the most probably). He appears to be ahead by the same amount now. (The last 8 national polls taken by traditional methods all show Bush ahead. Their average is 4%).

The biggest difference between this time and last time is that Bush is the incumbant. With the economy going well, he will be hard to beat IMO. I think there's a good chance he will hold the Red states and add the super close blue states (Oregon, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and New Mexico) as well as Pennsylvania.

[Sgt_Schultze]

I don't like to hear this statement repeatedly reported...

...Zogby suggested it might be possible for Bush to carry the popular vote but lose the election, the reverse of what happened in 2000 when Gore had more than a half million votes more than Bush...

Gore had more than a half million more of the tabulated votes. In states where the number of absentee ballots would not affect the total, those absentee votes remain uncounted. One cannot know the total of popular votes separating the two when "all the votes" are not counted.

[Ciexyz]

Pennsylvania will be a battleground for sure. I just hope that Bush's chances aren't hurt by the bitterness of the Specter-Toomey fight, which is still being played out on the PA Freeper message board.

As a PA Freeper, I hope that the Republicans in the state unite behind our party, instead of continuing to try to tear it apart. That would only work to the Democrats' advantage.