Warm Bread: Bush's grim poll numbers.

Slate ^ | Tuesday, Aug. 3, 2004, at 3:48 PM PT | William Saletan

[COURAGE]

If you've read or watched news reports about polls taken since the Democratic convention, you've probably heard that John Kerry didn't get much of a "bounce." These reports miss the important data. Let's look at the numbers.

1. What's changed. Three major media polls have been taken since the convention: ABC News/Washington Post, CBS News/New York Times, and CNN/USA Today. Prior to the convention, Kerry's favorable rating was nine points higher than his unfavorable rating in the ABC poll. Since the convention, this margin has grown to 19 points. Bush's positive margin on the same question is just two points.

[cake_crumb]

"If Kerry's such a lock to win the presidency, why doesn't he resign from the Senate?"

Good question. Then again, he isn't working anyway. He doesn't seem the type to turn down unearned money.

[JesusIsLord]

He will be on life support after the debates.

Kerry is a skilled debater. "W" will have his hands full in the debates.

[Southack]

"Their political ammunition is rumor. Kerry's surrogates have plenty of time to dredge up any of a hundred minigates manufactured to destroy the president in the past three years. They have, and they will continue to do so."

Yes, you are correct. After all, they have nothing left to offer America (we've heard their roe v wade and enviro-nonsense for 30+ years) besides "exposing" the so-called "scandals" of their opponents.

Bereft of any new ideas of their own, they can only carp, criticize, belittle, downplay, rumor-monger, and scandalize.

The Democrats are *compelled* to go negative. They have to do it. They simply don't have a more viable strategy or option.

The problem that they keep running into, however, is that the public is increasingly sceptical. 30 years ago the type of Abu Ghraib coverage given by the NY Times and Washington Post and LA Times would have forced a sitting President to resign ala Nixon.

But today, the public has other sources of news...some of which are actually sceptical or even derogatory of such ginned up "scandals" (e.g. talk radio has pointed out that Abu Ghraib was not covered up, was already being investigated, and was just a rogue unit out of control of its own female supervisor Karpinski instead of being somehow "ordered" by the President himself to put panties on prisoners' heads).

Likewise, the Left has already tried the last minute "skeleton in Bush's closet" routine with the DUI arrest announcement on the eve of the 2000 election. That "scandal" will clearly not be viable again in 2004. Nor can the Left replay its nonsensical "Bush dragged Black men to death behind his pickup" TV ads again in 2004. No one would believe such nonsense now, as the voters *know* President Bush today unlike back in 2000. Such ads would provoke an enormous voter backlash against Democrats today.

So while the Dems' *must* go negative, their options to do so are fewer and less compelling and more frought with potential backlash danger today than back in 2000 when they still lost after using such tactics.

The Dems' had a nationally unknown opponent back in 2000. Rumors and ginned up "scandals" that moved voters back in 2000 against a political unknown simply won't work against a known candidate in 2004.

No, the Dems' offense is weak. Moreover, they are playing defense (as articles like this thread's message to the left-wing troops illustrates) about their poor convention, their poor photo-ops, their missteps, their poor voting records, their poor Senate attendance, their records as attorneys, their hidden tax returns, etc.

On top of all of that, this campaign is being waged on President Bush's ideological turf of God, guns, gays, tax cuts, prescription drugs, and war on terror.

Senator Kerry can't propose some new enviro proposal to shift the debate to his own ideological turf, for instance...simply because that would make him look even more liberal.

The Dems lost the 2004 election some time ago. What matters now is fleecing their fat cat donors of large sums this year so that they will feel burned and betrayed when the Dems actually have a chance to win in 2008 or 2012.

To that end, these sorts of pro-Dem articles as are in this thread as well as those pro-Dem polls that show a Dem lead or a tie will work *for* us Republicans. After all, we're going to win this year, and such nonsensical polls and articles help encourage the Dems' fatcats to burn themselves with wasted donations this year.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[cake_crumb]

"Kerry is a skilled debater. 'W' will have his hands full in the debates."

Kerry had better be prepared to reveal some of his top secret **PLAN** then, or prepare to be annihilated.

[CharacterCounts]

Kerry is a skilled debater. "W" will have his hands full in the debates.

If my memory serves me correctly, I recall a similar statement about Mondale in 1984.

[Freemyland]

Well, to be fair, the Kerry campaign going dark actually helps Kerry.

[Nonstatist]

although the 527s will still be helping him out

LOL! Now theres an understatement! The "Media Group" is airing 5 anti-Bush ads alone, not to mention Move-On, etc. Dont doubt it, Kerry is not going "dark", by any means.

[KJacob]

Kerry is a skilled debater. "W" will have his hands full in the debates

I have to disagree. Trying to explain the nuances will be difficult for Kerry. Of course he has accused Bush of misleading this country and of exaggerating the WOT. When Bush has a chance to publicly respond to these accusations, Kerry will suffer. I do not remember anyone claiming Kerry won the debates in the primaries. If I recall correctly no one shined in those debates.

you are right Jesus is Lord

[mc5cents]

You know, a long time ago a wise old guy named Sam Clemens summed it up pretty well when he said: "We all do no end of feeling and we mistake it for thinking. And out of it we get an aggregation which we consider a boon. It's name is public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God."

Now I suppose we can put you down as thinking it is the voice of God. Correct?

[Freemyland]

Or Gore in 2000.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

The only poll that matters is the one held on the first Tuesday in November.

The only poll that matters is the one held on the first Tuesday AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY in November. (Means the election is never on Nov 1)

[JoeV1]

Seems like I heard this in 2000. Gore was supposed to 'demolish' Bush. Kerry is more boring, ponderous and overbearing then Gore. All bush has to do is tell the truth. Kerry, on the other hand has to explain why he voted for the war and against the funding, against the funding of every major weapons system, for UNILATERAL disarmament in the early 1980's which would have had us destroy our nukes while leaving Russia with hers in the hopes that the Russkies would "see the light" and then disarm themselves. There are many more things Kerry must explain but you get the idea.

I still have not been able to get one liberal to show me in quotes a single lie uttered by this president over the war on Iraq. According to them he lies about everything but yet they can't show me even one.

[KJacob]

I still have not been able to get one liberal to show me in quotes a single lie uttered by this president over the war on Iraq.

I have been waiting for this as well. Yesterday a writer for the Village Voice was here discussing Bush. He was pressed but I do not believe he came up with a single lie either.

By the way, welcome to FR.

[TomasUSMC]

True. Lets remember that polls contact 1000 people, thats it. They then arrive at conclusions that the interpret and translate into what 200,000,000 people think. Thats one person represent 200 thousand people. Weird Science.

Poll are there to mold public opinion not reflect it.

[jerod]

Saletan is obviously one of those delusional democRATs, who thinks that if he writes enough stories saying Bush is going to loose, that it will all come true.

The fact is: The DemocRATS are shaking in their boots. They know that this is the worst convention since McGovern in 1972. And Nixon (who they drummed out of office later because they couldn't defeat him during the election), won every state except Kerry's. Isn't that ironic?

And that’s the funny part.
As much as Kerry and Jane Fonda, and all those other anti-war mouth-pieces like to wax nostalgic about the anti-war movement and it's achievements. The main reason for it's existence (to get Bobby Kennedy into the White-House, and after his death, to get Nixon out of the White House). Turned out to be a complete failure.

It didn't work. Just like the anti-Bush, anti Iraq War crowd (who by the way wouldn't exist if Clinton had attacked Iraq) is going to fail this time around. DemocRATS think people are sheep, but the same Silent Majority who elected Nixon are still out there. And guess what? They're going to strike again.

[EDINVA]

"Bush's job approval rating has been net negative in CBS surveys since April"

isn't that about when CBS gave 24/7 coverage to Abu Gharib? Followed by various beheadings? Fallujah?

No mention of the Gallup poll, I note.

[cake_crumb]

"So while the Dems' *must* go negative, their options to do so are fewer and less compelling and more frought with potential backlash danger today than back in 2000 when they still lost after using such tactics"

You're correct and that is a hopeful sign.

They've got a couple of brand, spanking new "civil rights" issues, but I'm not sure those are enough. They got a whole new minigate-type attack : the new terror threat is somehow a political stunt. That won't go far. Kerry is distancing himself, appearing presidential while his surrogate Howie Dean plays out his role as this weeks designated DNC attack dog.

I can't help but wonder what new minigate they're simmering in the DNC cauldren though. They can basically manufacture any lie, and most of us under 30 are conditioned by the that blindly believing what we're being told is questioning current wisdom.

For now though, you've given me some cautious hope.

"No, the Dems' offense is weak. Moreover, they are playing defense (as articles like this thread's message to the left-wing troops illustrates) about their poor convention, their poor photo-ops, their missteps, their poor voting records, their poor Senate attendance, their records as attorneys, their hidden tax returns, etc."

That reminds me...it took exactly 5 days for Kerry to use "turning the corner" in his standard stump speech. They don't need much of an offense as long as they can continue throwing out baseless accusations and plagiarizing our Republican leaders.

[JoeV1]

By the way, welcome to FR.

Thank you.

I have been on many liberal forums and when they are even asked to define what constitutes a lie, they will not answer and instead come back with the same old, same old such as 'Bush lied, people died" and on and on. I believe they do know the truth but have no other choice but to run with their lies because as is usual with them, they are always defeated when the truth comes out.

[Coop]

Well, to be fair, the Kerry campaign going dark actually helps Kerry.

Point taken. :-)

[cake_crumb]

"All bush has to do is tell the truth"

All he needs to do is keep hammering the details of Kerry's senate voting record.