Replies

Here is how I read the polls concerning Bush vs. X in 2004 or even Hillary or Gore.

People know (okay, most they poll are probably morons - and I want to see the weight of each poll. How many Dems, women, men, GOP, black, white, etc.) that Hillary and Gore are not running so don't mind saying they'd prefer them if they ran.

And with a generic question like "Would you vote for Bush in 2004, CONSIDER someone else, or vote Dem?" it's not accurate since "moderates" and some folks that think they are sophisticated will say "Consider".

But then you switch to the Bush vs. the individual Dem candidates, even Hillary and Gore, and he creams them. Any President with 51-53% of the poll vs. a named candidate at this time is strong numbers.

Ronald Reagan only had a 54% approval rating just before the election of 1984 and polled about 51-48 against Mondale. Of course we know he won in a landslide both in popular votes and electoral votes.

All this early Dem crap is just that...crap. It comes down to one word in 2004 - Security.

No GOP voter is going to trust a Dem and I doubt they stay home due to other things. Some Dems are going to switch over because of security. And the swing voters are polling heavily for security.

As to the economy...a job and healthcare are worthless if some terrorist kills you and I think Americans are really thinking that way.

Something else to consider is that the media is now in a tough spot. Not only has the Jayson Blair scandals tarnished them all, but now they are faced with an imminent election in California...which makes it tough for them to perpetrate their Iraqi quagmire nonsense.

And if they don't hammer at Bush every single day, then he goes up in the polls every single day.