Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

W. DRUBS ALL DEMS IN SURVEY
New York Post ^ | 9/18/03 | DEBORAH ORIN

Posted on 09/18/2003 12:23:38 AM PDT by kattracks

Edited on 05/26/2004 5:16:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 09/18/2003 12:23:38 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Eat-It-Democratic-Underground-crybabies BUMP! :)
2 posted on 09/18/2003 12:43:36 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("The Clintons have damaged our country. They have done it together, in unison." -- Peggy Noonan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Dems dismiss this poll as irrelevant. No name recognition, they say. Wait till voters get to know the candidates, they argue. hmmmmmmm....yep, that's probably it. I guess few voters have heard of Hillary!, too, huh? (Bush beats her by 10 points).
3 posted on 09/18/2003 12:53:11 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Miss Marple; PhiKapMom; ladyinred
ping
4 posted on 09/18/2003 1:24:28 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Yes, it's only a matter of time until Wesley the Weasel is a household word. LOL!
5 posted on 09/18/2003 1:52:44 AM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
hehe ;-)
6 posted on 09/18/2003 2:04:56 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
No surprises here - but they didn't ask about Gore. Zogby's poll had Bush and Gore in a "virtual tie"; I'd be interested to see what other polls said about this.
7 posted on 09/18/2003 2:34:47 AM PDT by Flashlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
No surprises here - but they didn't ask about Gore. Zogby's poll had Bush and Gore in a "virtual tie"; I'd be interested to see what other polls said about this.
8 posted on 09/18/2003 2:36:04 AM PDT by Flashlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flashlight
"...but they didn't ask about Gore..."

I saw another thread on this, Gore was about where Hillary! comes out. She did 1 point better than Gore.
9 posted on 09/18/2003 6:27:17 AM PDT by jocon307 (how much trouble is THIS post going to get me in?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Eat-It-Democratic-Underground-crybabies BUMP! :)

I';m probably one of the most optomistic people about Bush's chances and I think the race will end up being a squeaker.

10 posted on 09/18/2003 6:36:18 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
In 1991, during our family Christmas party I was running the video camera and the TV was on. Bill Clinton was on the tube for some reason and my brother said, "I can't wait to vote for the winner, Bill". I said something to the effect of, forget it, he won't win, after all we all know he is a liar and a fraud, etc. Well he won and we all suffered. Every time my kids review the family movies we see and hear my brother's prediction, true and tragic as it was.

Anything can happen this far out and it won't necessarily follow logic and reason. Voters, at least 35% anyway, vote and decide using their "feelings". Some only want to vote for the perceived winner, sort of why baseball fans in all parts of the country follow the Yankees, 'cause they are winners, if another team consistently won they would follow that team. Only about 35% of us look at the issues, at the man, consider ourselves responsible for our own destiny, and vote accordingly. The remaining 30% are undecided and independent, are often the suburban types, educated, and unfortunately now more unemployed than three years ago. They will vote their pocketbook, may want stuff from government like healthcare, jobs, etc. That is why Bush is semmingly liberal these days but the Democrats can always trump Bush on this. When Hillary enters the race, hold onto your wallets because she will drain us dry.
11 posted on 09/18/2003 6:45:36 AM PDT by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; Miss Marple; Molly Pitcher; kayak; mtngrl@vrwc; GretchenEE; rintense; Howlin; justshe; ..
This article talks about the 'huge gender gap,' but as I see it, the fact that Bush is AHEAD of Clinton among women is extremely significant.

She is the feminists' darling, and she would lose to this macho, stupid cowboy, even among women.

I LIKE that! Let's help those numbers improve during the campaign.......

12 posted on 09/18/2003 7:22:22 AM PDT by ohioWfan (Have you prayed for your President today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flashlight
Zogby? Not realistic.

Post 9/11, and with Gore's anti-American rhetoric to the Moveon crowd, he wouldn't stand a chance against a REAL President.

13 posted on 09/18/2003 7:24:35 AM PDT by ohioWfan (Have you prayed for your President today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
"I'm probably one of the most optomistic people about Bush's chances and I think the race will end up being a squeaker."

I think, barring something really unexpected, Bush will get 40 states. My assumptions:

1. Iraq is going better than the papers are letting on (based on reports from returning vets and vistors to Iraq).

2. The economy has turned around.

3. No major terrorist attacks in the US. (Based on the apparent success of the war on terror. We have and are continuing to disrupt terrorist operations.)

I really do not think those three conditions are unreasonable.
14 posted on 09/18/2003 7:42:27 AM PDT by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Gender gap? It is huge on the men's side - 19 points - but W even beats her among women!! Ahhhhh, that's music to my ears. Perhaps the American women are finally waking up. Please let it be so!
15 posted on 09/18/2003 7:45:37 AM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: No Truce With Kings
Although these numbers are good they are no reason for complacency. The election is still over 13 months away and that is an eternity in politics. W has weathered many democrat storms thus far so I think he's in pretty good shape. Nevertheless, we must assume it's going to be a squeaker and work accordingly.
16 posted on 09/18/2003 7:48:03 AM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Post 9/11, and with Gore's anti-American rhetoric, etc...

I think Gore knows that, at this point, he would lose, and that'a why he hasn't entered the race. However, if, for any reason, Bush's popularity tanks, Gore could win.

My guess is that once the Dem nonimee is decided, the anti-Bush, anti-USA talk will stop, and the nominee will start to sound like Joe Moderation - just a guess.

17 posted on 09/18/2003 8:59:15 AM PDT by Flashlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wphile; ohioWfan; DrDeb
Perhaps the American women are finally waking up. Please let it be so!

Here's my fear: Hillary runs and does most of her campaigning on college campuses. (She's already lost the soccer mom vote. They've wised up and are concerned for their families' safety.) ... Hillary's advance "person" checks out each campus to identify the most charismatic professors -- the ones that all of the co-eds love. Wine and dine those guys and each campaign stop turns into a lovefest. A large contingent of college-age voting females turned into brainwashed robots (craving acceptance) who are working to garner prof attention and reflect the "educated" and/or "intellectual" perspective would make for a closer race.

You combine that effort with the money the RATs are channeling into "leasing" air time for their liberal radio programming (as a way to get around campaign donor restrictions), if Hillary does run, it'll be a much dirtier and more expensive race, that's for sure!
18 posted on 09/18/2003 9:14:55 AM PDT by Fawnn (God's in His Heaven (always true). All's right with the world (prayers needed for the last part))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"But she'd still lose to Bush by 52 percent to 42 percent, with a giant gender gap. Bush would lead by 19 points among men, but by just 2 points among women."

The traditional formulation of the "gender gap" meant that women voters would not even approach 50% support for a candidate supported by men; but in this case, Dubya garners over 50%!! Hence the phrase, "but by just . . . " simply mischaracterizes what this poll is suggesting.

19 posted on 09/18/2003 9:19:19 AM PDT by Remole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Hah!! you beat me too it--I make the same point later. BTW, I'm afraid that OSU is going to be upset this Saturday.
20 posted on 09/18/2003 9:20:49 AM PDT by Remole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson