LABOR DAY CNN-GALLUP POLL, BUSH 52% KERRY 45%

September 6, 2004 | MrChips

[MrChips]

Just announced on CNN.

[comebacknewt]

Page puts the best possible RAT spin on things by suggesting that a review of history suggests the race could go either way.

In actuality, no incumbant with a lead greater than four points at this stage has ever lost.

[SolomoninSouthDakota]

Interesting huge swing in college graduates voting choice.

[gswilder]

Sabato like Zogby said a few weeks ago that this was Kerry's to loose. Well, I guess Sabato is starting to backtrack a little. Looks like Kerry IS loosing it.

[gop_gene]

The DUmmies are actually celebrating this information. ONe poster says that this is the smallest post-convention bounce for an incumbant. Does anyone know if this is true?

It is--but conveniently overlooking the fact that their guy got NO bounce (in fact, in one poll he even got a "minus" bounce!)

[Barnacle]

...the Dems are scrambling to replace Kerry's team...

They may soon be scrambling to replace Qerry.

[Numbers Guy]

Similar 83-point advantages among their own party, Kerry up 3 points among registered independents, yet Bush up by 1 point overall = Gallup sampled 2% more registered Republicans than Democrats. That implies that Bush's 7-point lead among likely voters is actually smaller than that, more like 4 points. Good news, but not as good as it might seem at first blush.

[comebacknewt]

Don't be too hard on Sabato. He said W had to do something to change the dynamic of the race or he would lose. This is very difficult for incumbant presidents to pull off this close to election day.

Fortunately, W did just that. This turned out to be another case of the "experts" misunderestimating Bush yet again.

[comebacknewt]

You are misinterpreting the Gallup results. The internals posted are only for RV. With this group, W only has a two point lead.

Among likely voters (internals not available), Bush has the seven point lead. The breakdowns in that group will be much more favorable for him.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

September 6, 2004 -- **BREAKING** In Yesterday's Lies: Steve Pitkin and the Winter Soldiers, Scott Swett tells the story of a former VVAW member and participant in the Winter Soldier Investigation who states that John Kerry and others pressured him to give false testimony about American atrocities in Vietnam. After more than 33 years, Pitkin is the first Winter Soldier "witness" to file a legal affadavit regarding that event...

John F. Kerry
Timeline of a traitor.
Click Here

Kerry's disrespect in 1971 to USA Symbols Video

Windows Media .......... Real Player .......... Quick Time .......... AOL

Ramsey Clark to Join Panel for Saddam’s Defense
arabnews press release 25 August 2004
NOTE :
Ramsey Clark is pictured below with Kerry and
Vietnam phony vet Al Hubbard
Who was head of the
Vietnam Veterans Against the War movement.


Al Hubbard Sgt., 22 Troop Carrier Squadron Aug. ’65-June ’66
- Al Hubbard, proven fraud who never set foot in Viet Nam.
The only Vietnamese he ever met was
when he was collaborating with the North Vietnamese in Paris
on the American Communist Party's nickel.

John Kerry's explanation:
"He (Hubbard) simply exaggarated his particular position.
But nobody knew it at the time. And those things happen."

Free online version of
Kerry's "The New Soldier"
You can read it online right now.

Kerry hopes everyone
in the USA gets this book!

NEW:
“Without question,
we were held captive longer
because of the anti-war people,
the Kerrys, the Fondas and Haydens,
the names we knew over there -
they encouraged the enemy to hang on.”
Excerpt from “Stolen Honor” website
- Leo Thorsness
Former Vietnam POW
CLICK HERE

Jane Fonda tells the student audience at the Michigan State University in 1969:

"I would think that if you understood what communism was, you would hope,
you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communist."


Joe Moore, Can Tho Airfield 550th Signal Company

Copy and paste the links to everyone you know.

Steve Pitkin Affadavit, August 31, 2004

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=PitkinAff

John F. Kerry Timeline of a traitor

http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html

Kerry's disrespect in 1971
to USA Symbols Video

Windows Media
http://swift3.he.net/~swift3/medals.wmv

Real Player
http://swift3.he.net/~swift3/medals.rm

Quick Time
http://swift3.he.net/~swift3/medals.mov

AOL
http://swift3.he.net/~swift3/medals.mpg

Send this url for the online "The New Soldier" version

http://ejsmithweb.com/fr/newsoldier/

Send this url for the Stolen Honor website

http://www.stolenhonor.com/

[newzjunkey]

Nice but I'll feel more comfortable nearer the end of Sept or after the 1st debate when whatever convention bounce has settled.

Right now historically Bush is on course since at the Labor Day mark, if the party in power's been virtually tied (or tied) with your opponent they lose, otherwise the incumbent party's candidate is elected.

I'll be voting early and that can begin in 30 days here in California.

[GmbyMan]

All of this will turn around when people find out that John Kerry served in Vietnam!!

Wait.... Just one second here.... you mean Kerry served in Vietnam?!? I didn't know that!!!! How'd his campaign keep that a secret?!? I have to vote for the man now!!!!! :-)

[jonrick46]

Was busy putting Bush signs for the 30th District to get back to you. . . Yes the TNT is as biased as you can go. Throughout their coverage of the Republican Convention, they had detailed coverage of the protests. I think they have to go overboard to keep the liberal left reading newspapers. These readers would rather be surfing porn on the Internet than reading a "boring" paper.

[Numbers Guy]

You are misinterpreting the Gallup results. The internals posted are only for RV. With this group, W only has a two point lead. Among likely voters (internals not available), Bush has the seven point lead. The breakdowns in that group will be much more favorable for him.

The only way the internals would be "that much better" for Bush is if there's an even bigger split between the adjusted registered voter margin (which I would estimate at +2 for Kerry) and the adjusted likely voter margin (which you're arguing would still be about +7 for Bush) than usual. 9 points is a lot.

[Conservative til I die]

You're abusing the term "MOE" here. A MOE of sa, +/- 4 does not mean that you should treat a 50-42 poll result as tied (i.e., add 4 to Kerry, subtract 4 from Bush for a 46-46 tie). A result like that is the exception, not the rule when it comes to MOE. If a poll says 50-42, assume it is.

[Conservative til I die]

So according to Gallup, if you polled 48-47 before and 48-40 after, that means there has been no bounce, or if you polled 47-42 afterwards, you got a -1 bounce. Does that make sense to you?

Ay yi yi. It's like you didn't read the post. The bounce is the total swing in the lead. In the first result, Bush is ahead by 1. In the second, he is ahead by 8. 8-1=7. That would be a 7 point bounce (or in this odd case with no increase in support, it's a 7 point swing).

If Bush is up by 1 in the first, and now up by 5 in the third, then 5-1=4, which means he got a 4 point bounce or swing.

I think anyone who follows baseball pennant races and the games behind or ahead for each team understands how the "swing" works. To go back to the original point, if Bush picks up 1 and Kerry loses 1, that is not a 1 point bounce, it is a 2 point bounce, since now Kerry is 2 more points back. In baseball it's the same thing, only in baseball they use 1/2 games. So if you win a game, and your 2nd place team also wins, that is 1/2-1/2=0. But if you win and they lose, it is 1/2+1/2=1.

[Conservative til I die]

That is an odd situation, and one I would assume doesn't happen very often, where the candidate who mighte get a bounce gets no increase, but his opponent's completely bottoms out.

No, it's not a bounce, but it's jsut as good as one. It's a "swing" which might be a more correct term.

Which would you rather have, Bush going from 48-48 to 51-46 (a 5 point swing/bounce) or Bush going from 48-48 to 46-31 (by your definition, a negative two point bounce)????

[Conservative til I die]

I agree. Whether it's 7 or 11 points, or 8, 9, or 10, I don't care. That's a pretty substantial lead IMO and a big bounce from where Bush was slightly trailing or tied.

More importantly, it may push states where Bush should win but was tied, like OH and MO solidly into his ledger. And it may take battleground states that usually go Dem but where the Prez was doing surprisingly well, like PA, MI, WI, IA, and MN and push two or more of them into his side of the ledger. Kerry needed all four of those, plus either OH or MO to win, assuming everything else stayed the same as 2000, which is how it was shaping up to be, IMO.

[billhilly]

"What do you think going to happen when the witch's book comes out and says Bush used cocain at Camp David??? I think enough is enough!!! Bush should sue!"

You just continue keeping it a secret. No one else needs to know.

BTW, how did you know that?

[george wythe]

Thank you for providing Gallup's definition of a bounce:

The bounce, thus, is the difference in the candidate's vote percentage in the last nationwide poll conducted before the convention and the first nationwide poll conducted after his party's convention.

So from B50-K47 to B52-K45, it's only a 2-point bounce for Bush.

I found interesting that Kerry had a negative bounce:

The lowest bounce recorded is that seen for Kerry following this year's Democratic convention. Support for Kerry actually declined by one point among registered voters (and two points among likely voters) over the course of the convention -- a "negative bounce."

Kerry is not the first candidate to experience no boon from his convention. George McGovern saw no change in support for his candidacy spanning the Democratic convention in 1972. Other candidates -- Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and Bob Dole in 1996 -- each received very small bounces of no more than three points.

Kerry is in great company, all losers.

[JohnnyZ]

but I feel extremely safe in saying outright that Kitty Kelly will have absolutely no impact on this election.

Poll after poll shows the American people (ESPECIALLY undecided voters) really like W as a person. They're not going to be disposed to believe Kitty Kerry Kelley slander. Furthermore, they're going to be rooting for W when it comes time for the debates ....