Posted on 05/14/2004 2:00:26 PM PDT by KQQL
That development appears to be helping Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. He wins the support of 51 percent of likely voters, compared to 46 percent for Bush. In February, Bush was ahead of Kerry by two percentage points.
If Independent Ralph Nader is among the choices, Kerry gets 49 percent, Bush 44 percent and Nader 6 percent.
Bush's overall job approval rating fell from 49 percent to 46 percent since the last CNN/Time poll on April 8, while his disapproval rating rose from 47 percent to 49 percent -- the first time that more people disapproved of Bush's job performance than approved.
The poll was conducted by telephone Wednesday and Thursday.
The margin of error for the total sample of 1,001 adult Americans is 3.1 percentage points
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Because the 46 Bush-41 Kerry poll from whatever-institute-nobody's-heard-of is the only positive poll! Get your head out of the sand and CAMPAIGN! The CBS poll and the CNN/Gallup poll were the most accurate in 2000--Freepers need to stop sitting on their butts, wake up, and realize that Bush won't win without their help! LET'S ROLL!
Do either of you think 46% is statistically different than 48% ?
I saw CNN announce the poll numbers right as they came in. The ones I saw were the Kerry 51/Bush 46.
I'm still shaking.
(though I noticed even with it being likely voters, the moe was almost 5%, which seems quite high)
Would you say that the media was the decisive factors in your informal "poll?"
"History is filled with polling leads, such as Michael Dukakis's 17-point edge over Bush the Elder, that melted in the heat of the campaign"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30060-2004Apr21.html
When Bush was leading, the WP went to great lengths to point out that early polls can be very misleading. Now that it appears that Kerry may have an edge, all of a sudden the liberal media is trying to convince everyone that the election is over and Kerry won.
There are almost SIX long months until election.
The Bush campaign needs to get more pro-active and Republicans need to work at grass roots level to turn out the votes, which will be crucial.
That was before the beheading.
I am tired of arguing with you about that chart, but I'll say it again...
that chart leaves out a Gallup poll which had Mondale ahead by 2% in July.
Gallup basically erased it from their own history books, but they couldn't erase it from the WashingtonPost.com archives...
Karl Rove is a real genius, ain't he?
I'm sick to my stomach.
In May, about this time, Reagan was at 50%, vs. Monday's 46% -- they were tied within the margin of error.
Then Mondale started to lose traction.
According to Matthew Dowd the following are true:
"Throughout 1983, former President Reagan was behind Walter Mondale by as many as nine points, and against possible opponent John Glenn, Reagan was behind by as much as 17 points in 1983. Even at the beginning of 1984, the polls showed the race between Reagan and Mondale was a statistical dead heat. Reagan won in a landslide carrying 49 states.
In 1987 and 1988, Vice President George Bush was behind in generic ballot polls by as many as 15 points, and against Michael Dukakis throughout 1988 Bush was behind by as many as 17 points. It was not until the Republican convention in late summer 1988 that Bush took a small solid lead. Bush went on to win by a fairly good margin in November.
In 1995 and early 1996, former Senator Robert Dole was often ahead of Clinton in ballot polling. The Wall Street Journal showed Dole with a two point lead in 1995. And Gallup had Dole with small leads in 1995 and January 1996 Dole had a three point lead over Clinton. "
Stop with the sky is falling garbage ....
The CNN poll was NOT repeat NOT of likely voters, they were of ADULTS, which in general favors the Democrats at least by several % points.
I hate to say this but relying on one poll like you do make you look damn foolish.
No, I don't - but I do like precision.
FWIW, I think all of this back-and-forth is just pissing in the wind. GWB is quite clearly following the trajectory of incumbents who've lost in the past and his campaign situation doesn't even remotely resemble those who've won - much less those who won landslides.
The only real question is whether this election will hold true to form with past elections, because GWB will only win if it does not. I don't know the answer to that myself and so I have no real opinion on the matter. 2002 did not hold true to past form so people can take some solace in that.
We'll see what happens. Maybe this will be one of those occasional exceptions to the historical rule.
When I saw CNN broadcast the Kerry 51/Bush 46 numbers, they noted likely voters, and on screen I noticed the MOE was about 4.8% or something. I made a mental note that it was closer to 5% than 4% (I hope I noticed correctly because it was a quick glance at the screen as my ear caught what they were saying).
Jimmuh Cahtuh took a big hit for high gas prices.
A lot of people have manure for brains. Voting for someone based on gas prices?
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.