Bush still leading polls now with an even bigger margin

GOing into the presidental debates presdent Bush has a very solid lead on Senator Kerry among both registered voters and likely voters on iraq, the economy, and terrorism as well as in who voters had the most confidence in to lead the country.
www.cnn.com...

Once again the merican people just dont trust kerry.

I love that plus minus thing. If it's off that means it an even race. But no, we have given Bush a big lead, according to the headline.

Well interpid the thing is this Bush has 52% and Kerry has 44% with a four percent margin of error. so even if you give that 4% to kerry hes still down by 4%, which, in a presidential election, is a big lead.

Rriigghht....
cause everyone knows that poll are 100% accurate and never misleading and always agree with one another and are taken of an
acurate cross section of america....

OH, wait, never mind...


P.S. this was sarcasm.

Maybe but should a person vote because a poll tells them to? What's wrong with, oh say, voting for the person you want to, not the one you're told to. That's the difference as I see it. Btw, I see Kerry getting stronger. Like metal getting tempered by flame, it get's stronger. I thought that this election was the inept vs. the insane. I think Kerry's going to surprise. GOP beware.

I believe after Thursday, Bush may take an even bigger lead. Kerry doesn't have an agenda to go on. The things he'll do in Iraq is the same things that Bush is doing there now. Kerry's done lost this election and all he's going to Thursday is throw in the towel, so to say.

[edit on 28/9/04 by Intelearthling]

Intrepid I don't think anybody should vote based on a poll but they can be accurate indications of how people have already decided to vote. Also most reliable polls (CNN, gallup etc. ) show that Bush has been getting steadily stronger since the democratic convention (which as we all remember gave Kerry 0 bounce)
Personally I just keep track as a mental exercise as I have already cast my vote.

Here's why the polls using traditional "likely and registered voter" scenarios are more wrong this election than EVER BEFORE.

NYTimes.com

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A sweeping voter registration campaign in heavily Democratic areas has added tens of thousands of new voters to the rolls in the swing states of Ohio and Florida, a surge that has far exceeded the efforts of Republicans in both states, a review of registration data shows.

The analysis by The New York Times of county-by-county data shows that in Democratic areas of Ohio - primarily low-income and minority neighborhoods - new registrations since January have risen 250 percent over the same period in 2000. In comparison, new registrations have increased just 25 percent in Republican areas. A similar pattern is apparent in Florida: in the strongest Democratic areas, the pace of new registration is 60 percent higher than in 2000, while it has risen just 12 percent in the heaviest Republican areas.

If you don't think this little revelation that Democrats have increased voter registration as much as 250% in swing states like Ohio (with 6 days to go for getting more) has Republicans freaking out, then why is Ohio Now Rejecting Thousands of New Registrations Over Little Used Paper Weight Law?

When voter registration applications were maintained for years and used to verify signatures for petitions a requirement that the cards be on 80 lb. stock paper was adopted in Ohio, that law remains on the books. Since the applications are now scanned for preservation, there is no current need to continue that requirement. Today the only time that the heavy weight paper becomes an issue is when the new voter uses the application as a postcard. If heavy paper isn't used for postcards the machinery jams at the Post Office.

In the final days before the registration deadline Ken Blackwell, Ohio Secretary of State, has ordered the local election boards to send out new applications to applicants who have submitted registrations on the wrong paper. The ostensible reason for this order is to insure that the applications can make it through the postal system without being damaged. The Secretary didn't point to any examples of voters who were stupid enough to mail regular weight paper as a postcard, nor did he cite examples of complaints from the Postal Service that this has been a problem. Never mind also that the applications he wants thrown out have already been delivered to the election boards safely.

The local boards have been bombarded with applications and will be unable to comply with Blackwell's order before the deadline to register to vote for this November's election. In one county common sense has prevailed:

In Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) the board of elections officials are ignoring the edict because they have already had an avalanche of new registrations submitted on forms printed on the newsprint in The Plain Dealer.
"We don't have a micrometer at each desk to check the weight of the paper," said Michael Vu, director of the Cuyahoga County election Board.

www.daytondailynews.com...

As if there was ever any doubt, Ken Blackwell, the Ohio Secretary of State that has suddenly raised the stink over new registrations being on the wrong weight of paper is a Republican.

So why do we bring up polls at all then? It's only a ploy to tell the uniformed how to vote. The party that manipulates it the best usually wins. If you've already decided, why the poll? Hmm?

Well interpid mainly because everyone on this site has thier own predictions on who is gonna win and when i saw this I figured people might be interested.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Well interpid the thing is this Bush has 52% and Kerry has 44% with a four percent margin of error. so even if you give that 4% to kerry hes still down by 4%, which, in a presidential election, is a big lead.

Carter and Gore had similar leads before the first debate. The incumbent advantage erodes quickly in any head to head when the referendum is turned on the incumbent, and diehard undecideds almost always go with the challenger on election day.

That's just how it's always been. So hold your champagne for now.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Well interpid mainly because everyone on this site has thier own predictions on who is gonna win and when i saw this I figured people might be interested.

Prediction and poll are two different things. Bad move. It is a ploy for votes that you were doing. Admit it and I'll walk away.

Well Rant considering Gore shameful behavior in 2000 and Kerry's army of lawyers I wont be pulling out the champagne untill well after the final results come in. Even if Bush wins the dems will try to steal the election again and who knows this time they might even be successful.

Intrepid one thing I know for sure is that NOONE on this site is going to decide who to vote for based on polls. If the endless debates about the cndidates haven't changed anyone mind then a poll sure as hell won't. As for "getting votes" Thats not my job I don't work for any campaign.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Well Rant considering Gore shameful behavior in 2000 and Kerry's army of lawyers I wont be pulling out the champagne untill well after the final results come in. Even if Bush wins the dems will try to steal the election again and who knows this time they might even be successful.

You realize Bush both raised and outspent Gore by 4 to 1 on lawyers in 2000 don't you? Talk about armies of lawyers.

Bush went through $14 million in the Florida crisis, compared to Gore's $3.2 million. If Bush won why did he spend so much to stop recounts and lobby his Daddy's friends on the Supreme Court?

I really don't care, it's just a lame tired Republican talking point that Gore had "armies of lawyers" when Bush had legions upon legions of the best money could buy.

[edit on 28-9-2004 by RANT]

You do realise Rant that almost every one of the legal motions filed in local, state, or federal courts were filed by the dems don't you?
That the only thing the supreme court decided was that after three seperate reconts, (all of which Bush won) there was no grounds for a fouth recount?
In other words the votes in florida were counted 4 times (first time plus three different recounts) and Bush emerged as the winner all four times?
BTW I mentioned kerry's army of lawyers not gore's.
In reference to gore I mentioned "shameful behavior"

I'm quite sure Bush still has one or two or four lawyers for every one of Kerry's. I just happen to disagree that anything Gore did was "shameful" though.

There were and remain legitimate questions about the 2000 election process. Though the "result" is not in question, it would be shameful to ignore the problems. The subsequent reforms are an acknowledgement of those problems.

The results of a "win" via a half million fewer votes were counterintuitive to the Florida count which was close to begin with. Recounts were warranted. The fact we also had eligible minority voters claiming they were turned away warranted investigation. The fact recounts showed undervoting for both Gore and Bush due to faulty chads proved there were problems.

There's no question Gore's questioning of the vote was reasonable. Bush would have done the same thing in his shoes. Would Bush have been as honorable in his mia culpa and assertion that we all get behind the President once a ruling was made? That's up for debate. Gore was highly honorable, but again...I really don't care.

Rant I agree that there were problems with the process which the recounts highlighted and that Gore was within his right to ask for a recount in such a close race, my problem is with the excessive nature of the multiple recounts. To ask for a recount is resonable, to demand a 4th recount after the first three all reconfirmed the first count is IMHO excessive, whiney, and dishonorable. While there were irregualrities in the counting of the ballots ( On both sides) many of the so called irregualrities were patently ridiculous. For example the large number of votes for buchannan in WPB. I'm sorry but the old people can handle 5 bingo cards at once but they cant figure out a simple ballot?

Let's go with the accepted standards of American politics. That was Gore, we're talking about Kerry here. Why the transferance? Only party-lines. That's the way I see it.

If you mean in reference to the lawyers there have been numerous news reports of Kerry hiring lawyers to be in place to contest any results as early as two months ago. Obviously someone in the kerry camp tok notice of how close Gore came to stealing the election and decided that it is something they are willing to try.